Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87

Tell me how

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Hence the letter, chief. As said:

'If there is a Republican President in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term you can say Lindsey Graham said let the next President, whoever it might be, make that nomination and you can use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right.'

Which line in the letter says that he shouldn't be listened to?

Brian?

Eric Cartman wrote: »

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

Why so? I’m perfectly capable of being objective. The problem is you can’t see that because you don’t have the same capacity.

Gael23

How many people did she send to the death chamber during her career?

Gervais08

Gael23 wrote: »

How many people did she send to the death chamber during her careee?

If you mean how many lawful verdicts did she uphold as part of the SC? I’m not sure.

But RBG was opposed to the death penalty personally, however she took her job seriously to uphold the law.

schmoo2k

Gael23 wrote: »

How many people did she send to the death chamber during her careee?

FYI There are 9 members on the SC, no one person decides on any given verdict - its a majority vote (IOW you need 5 or more members to be in agreement) ...

Faugheen

schmoo2k wrote: »

FYI There are 9 members on the SC, no one person decides on any given verdict - its a majority vote (IOW you need 5 or more members to be in agreement) ...

How dare you speak sense!

Waiting for some of the men to describe RBG as ‘shrill’ ‘nasty’ etc.

Bass Reeves

The Democrats are as much to blame for the mess they find themselves in now with the Supreme court going Conservative for the next 10 years. The last nomination was held up as much by them as the Republican party. They were so cock sure Hilary would win that Obama and the Democratic party were unwilling to nominate any moderate tithe Supreme Court. If Obama had nominated a moderate the Senate at the time would have confirmed that person as they were sure Trump would not win. For the previous 10 years the SC was split 50/50 with a moderate justice siding on the tiebreaking votes.

They gambled they lost and unless 3-4 senators break ranks they will lose again now

schmoo2k

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The Democrats are as much to blame for the mess they find themselves in now with the Supreme court going Conservative for the next 10 years. The last nomination was held up as much by them as the Republican party. They were so cock sure Hilary would win that Obama and the Democratic party were unwilling to nominate any moderate tithe Supreme Court. If Obama had nominated a moderate the Senate at the time would have confirmed that person as they were sure Trump would not win. For the previous 10 years the SC was split 50/50 with a moderate justice siding on the tiebreaking votes.

They gambled they lost and unless 3-4 senators break ranks they will lose again now

I wouldn't be too surprised if a few do break ranks (depending on the nomination).
I am also expecting a moderate nomination from a swing state (like: Barbara Lagoa from FL).

schmoo2k

Mind you a candidate that will help Trumps re-election will be a very different person that helps the GOP agenda

osarusan

Bass Reeves wrote: »

The Democrats are as much to blame for the mess they find themselves in now with the Supreme court going Conservative for the next 10 years. The last nomination was held up as much by them as the Republican party. They were so cock sure Hilary would win that Obama and the Democratic party were unwilling to nominate any moderate tithe Supreme Court. If Obama had nominated a moderate the Senate at the time would have confirmed that person as they were sure Trump would not win.

Eh, you have time timeline very wrong. The Republicans did not react to a partisan (rather than moderate) Obama nominee.


Literally within a couple of hours of Scalia's death, McConnell released a statement saying that 'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president', which was a full month before Obama nominated Garland.

Tony EH

schmoo2k wrote: »

Mind you a candidate that will help Trumps re-election will be a very different person that helps the GOP agenda

On the surface, maybe, to fool those already fooled by Trump's baloney. Trump is all about the "GOP agenda".

Gas to think that there are still people out there that think he's some sort of maverick. :pac:

Brian?

osarusan wrote: »

Eh, you have time timeline very wrong. The Republicans did not react to a partisan (rather than moderate) Obama nominee.


Literally within a couple of hours of Scalia's death, McConnell released a statement saying that 'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president', which was a full month before Obama nominated Garland.

And Garland was a moderate who would normally have been acceptable to the GOP.

osarusan

As an aside, how long does the process normally take between the death/retirement of a judge and the confirmation of their successor?

From my vague memory of the ones I remember, they seemed to drag on for quite some time, but maybe my memory is not that accurate.

Just looked up a few: Sotomayor was nominated on May 26, 2009 and confirmed on August 6, 2009. So roughly 2 months and 2 weeks.

For Elena Kagan, the nomination was May 10, 2010 and the confirmaiton was on August 5, 2010. Just under 3 months.

for Neil Gorsuch it was January 31, 2017 and April 7, 2017, so 2 months and 1 week.

For Brett Kavanaugh it was July 9 2018 and October 6 2016 - just under 3 months.



The election itself is scheduled for Nov 3 2020, so they will struggle to get it all done by then. If Trump is reelected, could there be a recess confirmation between the election and inauguration, numbers permitting. Or does a recess confirmation have to be nominated in recess also?

If Biden gets elected, would the Republicans press ahead with a recess confirmation, if they had the numbers? Is it even possible? That would the kind of all sh!tstorms.

Quin_Dub

osarusan wrote: »

As an aside, how long does the process normally take between the death/retirement of a judge and the confirmation of their successor?

From my vague memory of the ones I remember, they seemed to drag on for quite some time, but maybe my memory is not that accurate.

Just looked up a few: Sotomayor was nominated on May 26, 2009 and confirmed on August 6, 2009. So roughly 2 months and 2 weeks.

For Elena Kagan, the nomination was May 10, 2010 and the confirmaiton was on August 5, 2010. Just under 3 months.

for Neil Gorsuch it was January 31, 2017 and April 7, 2017, so 2 months and 1 week.

For Brett Kavanaugh it was July 9 2018 and October 6 2016 - just under 3 months.



The election itself is scheduled for Nov 3 2020, so they will struggle to get it all done by then. If Trump is reelected, could there be a recess confirmation between the election and inauguration, numbers permitting. Or does a recess confirmation have to be nominated in recess also?

If Biden gets elected, would the Republicans press ahead with a recess confirmation, if they had the numbers? Is it even possible? That would the kind of all sh!tstorms.

Those are the most recent timelines , but some previous nominees have been confirmed in a matter of a few weeks.

There's absolutely nothing stopping them holding the vote after the election but before inauguration , win or lose.

It is absolutely conceivable that they might hold a vote in November having lost both the WH and Senate in the election. That won't stop them though.

Bottom line - If they have the votes and it appears that they do so far , they will put it to a vote.

If they really wanted to , they could push this through really really quickly and have the vote done and dusted before the Election and I suspect that they will.

There's a very real chance that the Election ends up being contested potentially leading to the Supreme court being called to give an opinion (as they did in 2000) so Trump and the GOP will absolutely want a potential 6-3 advantage in-situ before something like that might happen

8-10

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!

And did the Senate do their job after those comments were made?

Nope. They did the opposite.

ranto_boy

8-10 wrote: »

And did the Senate do their job after those comments were made?

Nope. They did the opposite.

Cool, so we're all agreed they should do the right thing now then.

namloc1980

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Those are the most recent timelines , but some previous nominees have been confirmed in a matter of a few weeks.

There's absolutely nothing stopping them holding the vote after the election but before inauguration , win or lose.

It is absolutely conceivable that they might hold a vote in November having lost both the WH and Senate in the election. That won't stop them though.

Bottom line - If they have the votes and it appears that they do so far , they will put it to a vote.

If they really wanted to , they could push this through really really quickly and have the vote done and dusted before the Election and I suspect that they will.

There's a very real chance that the Election ends up being contested potentially leading to the Supreme court being called to give an opinion (as they did in 2000) so Trump and the GOP will absolutely want a potential 6-3 advantage in-situ before something like that might happen

Gorsuch in particular has turned out to be a disappointment for the right wing conservatives as he appears to be applying his decisions in accordance with the law and not his ideological leanings e.g. he wrote the majority opinion upholding LGBTQ rights in a landmark decision earlier this year.

Sand

namloc1980 wrote: »

Gorsuch in particular has turned out to be a disappointment for the right wing conservatives as he appears to be applying his decisions in accordance with the law and not his ideological leanings e.g. he wrote the majority opinion upholding LGBTQ rights in a landmark decision earlier this year.

Yup - liberals have nothing to fear from Republican justices. They are just as liberal as any Democrat pick would be. There will be a big song and dance about this to try energize people to come out and vote, but the stakes couldn't be lower.

schmoo2k

Sand wrote: »

Yup - liberals have nothing to fear from Republican justices. They are just as liberal as any Democrat pick would be. There will be a big song and dance about this to try energize people to come out and vote, but the stakes couldn't be lower.

In general I agree (even Brett appears to be moderate on his initial rulings) - which is why I think Trump will go for a "re-election" friendly nomination, rather than a GOP extremist...

Danzy

osarusan wrote: »

Eh, you have time timeline very wrong. The Republicans did not react to a partisan (rather than moderate) Obama nominee.


Literally within a couple of hours of Scalia's death, McConnell released a statement saying that 'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president', which was a full month before Obama nominated Garland.

Changing the voting process for Supreme Court Judges on the Senate certainly backfired on the Democrats, as they were told it would.

Each party will fill a bench space if they can or as fast they can.


They would be fools not to.

upandcumming

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

I see the world.

Wow so deep.

Irish Praetorian

Danzy wrote: »

Changing the voting process for Supreme Court Judges on the Senate certainly backfired on the Democrats, as they were told it would.

Each party will fill a bench space if they can or as fast they can.


They would be fools not to.

Except that the process was changed (removing the need for a 60 senator cloture vote) by the Republicans in 2017, not by the Democrats.

schmoo2k

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Except that the process was changed (removing the need for a 60 senator cloture vote) by the Republicans in 2017, not by the Democrats.

Does that make it easier or harder for them to nominate and vote in a new judge?

josip

schmoo2k wrote: »

Does that make it easier or harder for them to nominate and vote in a new judge?

Easier to do it unilaterally.
It would be very unusual for either party to have more than 60 senators, so it always would have required a bipartisan approach in the past.
So although each side would have chosen someone from their "own side", the picks would have been moderates.

schmoo2k

josip wrote: »

Easier to do it unilaterally.
It would be very unusual for either party to have more than 60 senators, so it always would have required a bipartisan approach in the past.
So although each side would have chosen someone from their "own side", the picks would have been moderates.

I think that was the rule prior to the change in 2017? From the offical supreme court web site:

The President nominates someone for a vacancy on the Court and the Senate votes to confirm the nominee, which requires a simple majority. In this way, both the Executive and Legislative Branches of the federal government have a voice in the composition of the Supreme Court.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

Irish Praetorian

schmoo2k wrote: »

Does that make it easier or harder for them to nominate and vote in a new judge?

The correct answer might be to say it depends but the truncated version means its easier for whichever party controls to senate to get their pick. Previously, one would expect an SC pick to have some cross bench appeal to avoid a filibuster, now one just needs to be able to muster up 50 to 51 seats and away you go.

Outlaw Pete

This is utterly disgraceful from the leftists:


https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1309142629007974412


They can't have been raised too well to have this kind of attitude.

Timberrrrrrrr

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This is utterly disgraceful from the leftists:


https://twitter.com/bennyjohnson/status/1309142629007974412


They can't have been raised too well to have this kind of attitude.

He's just reaping what he has sown for the last four years.

He's "paying respects" yet endorsed a t-shirt that said "fill that seat" days after her death. Save the faux outrage Pete you're fooling nobody.

Danzy

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He's just reaping what he has sown for the last four years.

He's "paying respects" yet endorsed a t-shirt that said "fill that seat" days after her death. Save the faux outrage Pete you're fooling nobody.

He won't mind, he'll probably tweet it out so as many cam see it as possible.

His campaign manager will ask him to.

Timberrrrrrrr

Danzy wrote: »

He won't mind, he'll probably tweet it out so as many cam see it as possible.

His campaign manager will ask him to.

Hopefully his skin may get a little thicker soon, I can see that chant catching on, hopefully he heard it a whole lot more in the coming weeks/months.