Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87

Ten of Swords

Jimmy Twotimes do not post in this thread again

titan18

Infini wrote: »

In all honesty though by basically turning around and saying well appoint a Judge of our choosing during an election cycle after blocking Garland because it was during an election cycle it's black and white hypocrisy of the absolute highest order and basically makes clear they're outright Kleptocracts who will do whatever suit's them at that moment.

It will backfire in the long term spectacularly as it's that short term whatabboutery which will push the Democracts to basically say all bets are off and if they were to gain a Majority of the Senate and Whitehouse there's nothing to stop them re-balancing the court in their favour by appointing 4 more Justices. As the old saying goes, if you engage in illegitimate tactics you only serve to legitimize them.

The only good thing that could come in the long term is that it might force some rethinking on their supreme court to have term limits and maybe some judicial independence but sadly this is just another example of the broken ideological and emotional driven carryon from the republican side who are losing long term and are resorting to gerrymandering and disinformation campaigns to forestall how increasingly irrelevant they are outside of major population centers.

They're both hypocritical though. Back with Garland, Democrats were saying he should be nominated and now they're going to block any nomination.

Now, since both are hypocrites, shouldn't they do what's always done.

Historically, every time there's a vacancy in an election year, there's been a nomination. Why should now be different?

El_Duderino 09

titan18 wrote: »

They're both hypocritical though. Back with Garland, Democrats were saying he should be nominated and now they're going to block any nomination.

Now, since both are hypocrites, shouldn't they do what's always done.

Historically, every time there's a vacancy in an election year, there's been a nomination. Why should now be different?

That held until last time this happened and the republican changed the rules. Obama didn't even get a vote on his nominee. So the precedent was reset last time by the republicans.

It's a terrible situation that they have become so partisan over there but if the game is dirty then you cant win it by trying to stay clean. If they allow the republican president to suuceefully fill this seat then they've created a rule that Democrats don't nominate a SCJ in the last year of a term but republicans do.

titan18

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

That held until last time this happened and the republican changed the rules. Obama didn't even get a vote on his nominee. So the precedent was reset last time by the republicans.

It's a terrible situation that they have become so partisan over there but if the game is dirty then you cant win it by trying to stay clean. If they allow the republican president to suuceefully fill this seat then they've created a rule that Democrats don't nominate a SCJ in the last year of a term but republicans do.

Wrong actually. Obama nominated Garland. Garland just wasn't confirmed.

That's happened multiple times in the past too.

Of the 29 vacancies in election years in the past, 29 nominations happened.

Of those 29, 10 of those vacancies were where the President and Senate were different parties. Only 2 of those were confirmed. So along with Garland, there were 7 other cases where President's nomination was not confirmed by an opposition Senate.

When President and Senate are same party, there were 19 vacancies, and all bar one were confirmed.

There has never been a case where a President did not nominate someone, and plenty of times where when it was different parties, nominations were not confirmed until the next President came in.

notobtuse

What the Democrats did to Kavanaugh was payback for Garland... So the slate is wiped clean, IMO.

Democrats, prior to Trump, were all for election year nominations to the Supreme Court.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett is nominated and confirmed... is my prediction.

weisses

titan18 wrote: »

Wrong actually. Obama nominated Garland. Garland just wasn't confirmed.

That's happened multiple times in the past too.

Because the senate refused to hold the hearings

How many no action results where there where the nominee didn't end up on the SC because of stalling tactics by either party ?

weisses

notobtuse wrote: »

Democrats, prior to Trump, were all for election year nominations to the Supreme Court.

Was there ever an issue before the republicans refused to hold the required hearings re Garland?

And don't forget the dirty tricks the republicans used to get Gorsuch in

notobtuse

weisses wrote: »

Was there ever an issue before the republicans refused to hold the required hearings re Garland?

And don't forget the dirty tricks the republicans used to get Gorsuch in

Are you asking me if anyone was ever "Borked" before?

titan18

weisses wrote: »

Because the senate refused to hold the hearings

How many no action results where there where the nominee didn't end up on the SC because of stalling tactics by either party ?

You can see plenty of no actions here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Nominations_in_the_last_year_of_a_presidency

Mr. Karate

notobtuse wrote: »

What the Democrats did to Kavanaugh was payback for Garland... So the slate is wiped clean, IMO.

Democrats, prior to Trump, were all for election year nominations to the Supreme Court.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett is nominated and confirmed... is my prediction.

Holy ****. What an evil piece of garbage you have to be to justify that behavior. Garland wasn't confirmed while Kavanaugh's life was made a living hell with phony allegations.

Brian?

notobtuse wrote: »

What the Democrats did to Kavanaugh was payback for Garland... So the slate is wiped clean, IMO.

Democrats, prior to Trump, were all for election year nominations to the Supreme Court.

“There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.” - Ruth Bader Ginsburg

7th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Amy Coney Barrett is nominated and confirmed... is my prediction.

I disagree about the clean slate idea. Garland not being confirmed was wrong. Some of the kerfuffle around Kavanagh's confirmation were wrong.

Trump should nominate someone and the Senate should vote. The dog and pony shows need to stop.

Tony EH

astrofool wrote: »

What will be interesting, IF Trump loses, how quickly the GOP will abandon him, I'd give him a week past January, and then they'll try and scrub him from history. (Ivanka might go the Palin/TeaParty route to keep the money flowing).

Trump won't last a weekend if he loses. The Republicans were calling him a joke in 2015, before he emerged as the front runner for the candidacy and then he became their "ticket".

If or when he loses, he'll no longer be of any use to them and they'll have to start looking around for another front man to con voters with false promises.

namloc1980

Faugheen wrote: »

Lindsey Graham is going back on what he said in 2016 and 2018.

https://twitter.com/lindseygrahamsc/status/1307382090703474690?s=21

What a bunch of hypocritical snakes the GOP are.

Graham is a deplorable hypocrite.

notobtuse

Brian? wrote: »

I disagree about the clean slate idea. Garland not being confirmed was wrong. Some of the kerfuffle around Kavanagh's confirmation were wrong.

Trump should nominate someone and the Senate should vote. The dog and pony shows need to stop.

Stalling tactics is nothing new in nominations by both parties. And that's your opinion on Kavanaugh, and I respect that. But what was done to Kavanaugh was no kerfuffle. Democrats tried to destroy his reputation, his livelihood, his good name, and his family, all based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. It was a crime what Democrats did to him in my opinion.

Eric Cartman

Brian? wrote: »

I disagree about the clean slate idea. Garland not being confirmed was wrong. Some of the kerfuffle around Kavanagh's confirmation were wrong.

Trump should nominate someone and the Senate should vote. The dog and pony shows need to stop.

id say you felt sick even typing that quarter assed effort at a balanced post.

titan18

namloc1980 wrote: »

Graham is a deplorable hypocrite.

Yes, he is.

Will you say the same about Ginsburg and Obama now?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/politics/flashback-in-2016-ginsburg-senate-election-year-vacancy.amp

https://m.imgur.com/hGOVUPg

suicide_circus

LOL. Politics is the olympics for hypocrites.

Eric Cartman

suicide_circus wrote: »

LOL. Politics is the olympics for hypocrites.

nah politics is just like the tour de France, you do ads telling kids to stay off drugs , you get a dodgy blood transfusion on the back of a bus off a quack , you call out your opponent for doing drugs and act shocked when they're found out to and then you keep doing more yourself.

US politics is about who gets to the Oval Office
the tour de France is about who gets over the finish line

both require such a warped path to get there that its impossible to do it completely honestly and fairly , everyones accepted that everyones cheating so kind of ignores it.

Mr. Karate

namloc1980 wrote: »

Graham is a deplorable hypocrite.

So is Schumer. A year and a half left in a Bush administration he held up a Supreme Court seat.

Quin_Dub

Mr. Karate wrote: »

So is Schumer. A year and a half left in a Bush administration he held up a Supreme Court seat.

No he didn't - Bush didn't have any nominations to make in that time frame so Schumer held up nothing.

He did say that he would obstruct and delay any nomination that came his way if he felt the choice was overly "ideological" but he was never tested on that statement as no vacancy came up

Mr. Karate

Quin_Dub wrote: »

No he didn't - Bush didn't have any nominations to make in that time frame so Schumer held up nothing.

He did say that he would obstruct and delay any nomination that came his way if he felt the choice was overly "ideological" but he was never tested on that statement as no vacancy came up

So Schumer still only has himself to blame for the politicization of the process.

Outlaw Pete

Spot on from Mitch. Pulls no punches.


https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1308128710487400448

weisses

titan18 wrote: »

You can see plenty of no actions here.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appointment_and_confirmation_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States#Nominations_in_the_last_year_of_a_presidency

Yes .. and did these nominees became sc judges ?

weisses

notobtuse wrote: »

Are you asking me if anyone was ever "Borked" before?

It was a Simple question really ... so no that was not what I asked

Outlaw Pete

Great montage here of democrats demanding a vacancy on the Supreme Court not be left vacant and the Senate do their job!


https://twitter.com/GOPChairwoman/status/1307852041553879040

Outlaw Pete

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Great montage here of democrats demanding a vacancy on the Supreme Court not be left vacant and the Senate do their job!


https://twitter.com/GOPChairwoman/status/1307852041553879040

and what was the Republican view at that time

Outlaw Pete

Doesn't matter what it was, as even if went against what some of the Republicans are saying now, it wouldn't justify the democrats being hypocritical now, as two wrongs don't make a right all that.

In any case, Lindsey sums up why some Republicans might have a different view now to the one they may have had back then in the following letter:

Tell me how

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Great montage here of democrats demanding a vacancy on the Supreme Court not be left vacant and the Senate do their job!


https://twitter.com/GOPChairwoman/status/1307852041553879040

The Democrats were dealing with an opening, 9 months before the election.

This is 6 weeks.

Also

https://twitter.com/nyccookies/status/1307197743610429441

y0ssar1an22

What are the rules for appointing supreme court judges? Are those rules being broken, being proposed to be broken?
It's so hard to get anywhere with american politics it's so divided, maybe just stick to the rules.

Outlaw Pete

Tell me how wrote: »

Also

Hence the letter, chief. As said:

Lindsey sums up why some Republicans might have a different view now to the one they may have had back then in the following letter