Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

My level of surprise is somewhere on the approximation of 'zero'.

Not that I think for one moment the Democrats would be any more honorable in this situation. SCOTUS appointments have been political for a a couple of decades now. The days of Clinton getting someone in at 96-3 (Ginsburg) or Bush Senior getting someone in at 90-9 (Souter) are long gone.

It's disgusting in either case and a sad indictment on the Republic. How did we get so entrenched? Has it really all just been underpinned by foreign influence? The American Experiment might fail soon if we keep up like this.

Sean.3516

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

Let's see how much the GOP respect these wishes.

No disrespect to her but why should we care what she wanted?

It’s the President’s job to nominate someone.

It’s the Senate’s job to advise and consent.

Trump should get someone in there ASAP. The amount of pussyfooting around about how “oh it’s an election year, the right thing to do would be to leave it vacant.”

Republicans got the Senate. Republicans got the Presidency. They have a duty to their supporters and to the country to ensure the Court is properly staffed with Justices who respect the Constitution.

dark crystal

https://twitter.com/SenMcSallyAZ/status/1307123253845032960

This idiot is currently behind by 10 points in Arizona (behind Democrat Mark Kelly) and is tweeting rot like this.

Morally bankrupt is the only word. Fortunately, it looks like it has only geed up support for her opponent!

dark crystal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

No disrespect to her but why should we care what she wanted?

It’s the President’s job to nominate someone.

It’s the Senate’s job to advise and consent.

Trump should get someone in there ASAP. The amount of pussyfooting around about how “oh it’s an election year, the right thing to do would be to leave it vacant.”

Republicans got the Senate. Republicans got the Presidency. They have a duty to their supporters and to the country to ensure the Court is properly staffed with Justices who respect the Constitution.

By overturning Roe Vs Wade??

Sean.3516

Overheal wrote: »

And there's the first shot of the civil war.

Sorry but I don’t see the hypocrisy in Cocaine Mitch’s standard.

Why in God’s name should he have cofirmed an opposing party’s nominee in 2016

Why shouldn’t he confirm his own party’s nominee in 2020?

The Democrats didn’t have the Senate in 2016 and in the last two elections, they’ve failed to re-take it. Tough.

Overheal

dark crystal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SenMcSallyAZ/status/1307123253845032960

This idiot is currently behind by 10 points in Arizona (behind Democrat Mark Kelly) and is tweeting rot like this.

Morally bankrupt is the only word. Fortunately, it looks like it has only geed up support for her opponent!

Given my own sentiments tonight I’m curious how other voters will react to the responses from Mitch, Fox and the GOP. You could be looking at record setting single day fundraising. Maybe.

dark crystal

Overheal wrote: »

Given my own sentiments tonight I’m curious how other voters will react to the responses from Mitch, Fox and the GOP. You could be looking at record setting single day fundraising. Maybe.

If you look at the comments underneath, it's quite clear that Mark Kelly may find his election campaign coffers overflowing tomorrow!

I'd be more interested to see what Susan Collins has to say after her support of Brett Kavanaugh. She's also struggling in Maine.

coinop

dark crystal

Overheal wrote: »

Given my own sentiments tonight I’m curious how other voters will react to the responses from Mitch, Fox and the GOP. You could be looking at record setting single day fundraising. Maybe.

https://twitter.com/TVietor08/status/1307129300139864067

Manic Moran

dark crystal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TVietor08/status/1307129300139864067

What's the chart look like for the other side?

dark crystal

coinop wrote: »

Under his eye.

Tell me how

Manic Moran wrote: »

What's the chart look like for the other side?

https://twitter.com/ZachMontellaro/status/1307126621317541888

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

What's the chart look like for the other side?

Don’t upset me

Overheal

dark crystal wrote: »

Under his eye.

Sidebar: what is the meaning of this meme? Woosh

Rjd2

Manic Moran wrote: »

What's the chart look like for the other side?

Easy to forget ,,a lot of social conservatives right or wrong will be gagging for Barrett.

So 4 Republicans I think for ACB to lose?

Collins, Murwoski and Romney look like hard work for Mitch.

Graham would have voted through ACB normally, but he is in a really tough senate race.

Chatter that Grassley not keen either.

Sean.3516

dark crystal wrote: »

By overturning Roe Vs Wade??

Sorry but Roe Vs Wade is a rubbish legal decision. REGARDLESS of what you think of abortion.

Honest pro choicers will admit this by the way.

What it did was erroneously derive a “right to privacy” from the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment in the US Constitution. The Constitution mentions no “right to privacy”. The court said that since the Due Process Clause provides a right against “unreasonable search and seizure”, this equates to a “right to privacy”. Those are not the same things.

It then concluded from this “right to privacy” a right to abortion. Legally erroneous. Since the operative question regarding the legality of abortion is not privacy rights but the legal status of the foetus. The Roe Vs Wade decision begged this question entirely.

Yet bizarrely, the Court said that the right to abortion had to be balanced with protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. Well this is just inconsistent. The right to against “unreasonable search and seizure” and by extension, the “right to privacy” are rights AGAINST government. Negative rights. They don’t have qualifiers. Either they exist or they don’t.

The Court tried to resolve this “balancing issue” by imposing a series of arbitrary regulations on when states could and could not limit abortion in each trimester.

What does any of this have to do with the Constitution? Absolutely nothing. It’s rubbish. Abortion rights have nothing to do with “privacy”. To say they do presumes that the foetus is not a legal person (which is the very question that determines the legality of abortion).

In no other case would privacy be invoked this way. If you came into my house and I killed you, I wouldn’t be able to cite my right to privacy in my own home as a justification. Because you’re a legal human being. The question is whether a foetus is a legal human being.

So yeah. Roe Vs Wade is a legal travesty and should definitely be overturned.

dark crystal

Overheal wrote: »

Sidebar: what is the meaning of this meme? Woosh

It's a quote taken from 'The Handmaid's Tale'.

An eerily prescient story set in an alternative world about women being used as brood mares for religious right wing nutjobs and having no freedom or say over their own bodies.

If you haven't read the book or seen the film/TV show, you should watch it! It's excellent, but terrifying at the same time.

Overheal

Correction Mitch waited half an hour if I have that right. Half an hour dead to be happy to look forward to her replacement; 11 month vacancy totally fine when the shoe was on the other foot though.

Did the October Surprise come early?

dark crystal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Sorry but Roe Vs Wade is a rubbish legal decision. REGARDLESS of what you think of abortion.

Honest pro choicers will admit this by the way.

What it did was erroneously derive a “right to privacy” from the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment in the US Constitution. The Constitution mentions no “right to privacy”. The court said that since the Due Process Clause provides a right against “unreasonable search and seizure”, this equates to a “right to privacy”. Those are not the same things.

It then concluded from this “right to privacy” a right to abortion. Legally erroneous. Since the operative question regarding the legality of abortion is not privacy rights but the legal status of the foetus. The Roe Vs Wade decision begged this question entirely.

Yet bizarrely, the Court said that the right to abortion had to be balanced with protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. Well this is just inconsistent. The right to against “unreasonable search and seizure” and by extension, the “right to privacy” are rights AGAINST government. Negative rights. They don’t have qualifiers. Either they exist or they don’t.

The Court tried to resolve this “balancing issue” by imposing a series of arbitrary regulations on when states could and could not limit abortion in each trimester.

What does any of this have to do with the Constitution? Absolutely nothing. It’s rubbish. Abortion rights have nothing to do with “privacy”. To say they do presumes that the foetus is not a legal person (which is the very question that determines the legality of abortion).

In no other case would privacy be invoked this way. If you came into my house and I killed you, I wouldn’t be able to cite my right to privacy in my own home as a justification. Because you’re a legal human being. The question is whether a foetus is a legal human being.

So yeah. Roe Vs Wade is a legal travesty and should definitely be overturned.

What would overturning Roe Vs Wade achieve in your opinion?

Overheal

Graham: if a vacancy opens up in the last year of Trumps term, and the primaries have already started, we will wait until the next election.

https://twitter.com/mmpadellan/status/1307143899425771520?s=21

8-10

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Republicans got the Senate. Republicans got the Presidency. They have a duty to their supporters and to the country to ensure the Court is properly staffed with Justices who respect the Constitution.

The hypocrisy is that they didn't do that in 2016, which was before Trump even got the Republican nomination.

The last point you made is the pertinent one: staffed with Judges who respect the constitution.

It should be the best judges in the country getting onto the SC. It shouldn't matter what President nominates them or what party controls the Senate....because they're literally supposed to be impartial.

The problem with America right now is that they've made an impartial powerful position a pawn of their political games when literally the whole system is build on the separation of power to ensure checks and balances.

The system isn't working. The hypocrisy wasn't that they didn't confirm an Obama nominee, it's that they didn't give him the congressional hearing to determine whether he was fit to serve on the court. They didn't even vote on it which is the mechanism they have for ensuring nobody who doesn't respect the constitution gets on there.

Overall I don't see how one person, the Senate leader, should have as much power as he does (regardless of party).

Any bill from the house should hit the Senate floor. Any presidential nominee should be brought forward to be scrutinised. It's simple. That was the intention. Instead they have a farce over there where a stooge in a position like that can just sit and do nothing when it's something he doesn't like and don't something when he wants to....despite the fact that the majority means overall as a party they can still vote as they like (SC judge is simple majority)

Sean.3516

Overheal wrote: »

Correction Mitch waited half an hour if I have that right. Half an hour dead to be happy to look forward to her replacement; 11 month vacancy totally fine when the shoe was on the other foot though.

Did the October Surprise come early?

The shoe wasn’t quite on the other foot back in 2016 though.

Obama was a lame duck president meaning he was bound to be replaced by somebody. That was Mtich’s justification. It wasn’t that it it was an election year. It was that it was an election year at the end of the 2nd term of a president of the opposing party.

Now I think that’s a silly justification because I don’t think Mitch needed a justification. It’s his Senate. It’s his choice end of story. He doesn’t have to justify himself to anyone. But you can’t claim he was being inconsistent though.

Overheal

What’s frustrating about that 8-10 is that Merrick Garland was not a controversial pick. In fact he was name dropped by prominent GOP as an ideal poster candidate, as someone they felt at the time Obama was too partisan to pick. So when he did, they went into a tizzy trying to justify why the toys had to be thrown out of the pram instead.

Sean.3516

dark crystal wrote: »

What would overturning Roe Vs Wade achieve in your opinion?

It shouldn’t matter what it would achieve.

Judicial decisions aren’t supposed to “achieve” anything. They’re supposed to uphold the law.

Your question highlights the very difference between the two competing theories of judicial philosophies in the United States. One says the job of a Justice is to simply determine if a piece of legislation is in conflict with the constitution or not.

It has nothing to doing with “achieving” anything. It doesn’t even have anything to do with the “greater good”. It’s about words having definitions.

Overheal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The shoe wasn’t quite on the other foot back in 2016 though.

Obama was a lame duck president meaning he was bound to be replaced by somebody. That was Mtich’s justification. It wasn’t that it it was an election year. It was that it was an election year at the end of the 2nd term of a president of the opposing party.

Now I think that’s a silly justification because I don’t think Mitch needed a justification. It’s his Senate. It’s his choice end of story. He doesn’t have to justify himself to anyone. But you can’t claim he was being inconsistent though.

Except he is because at no time in 2016 did he make an opposing parties case. That only came about after Trump won the presidency.

Overheal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It shouldn’t matter what it would achieve.

Judicial decisions aren’t supposed to “achieve” anything. They’re supposed to uphold the law.

Your question highlights the very difference between the two competing theories of judicial philosophies in the United States. One says the job of a Justice is to simply determine if a piece of legislation is in conflict with the constitution or not.

It has nothing to doing with “achieving” anything. It doesn’t even have anything to do with the “greater good”. It’s about words having definitions.

Many a constitutionalist has weighed in on it since though. Rather than overturn it they have affirmed it and continued to establish decades of law upon it. The only way to overturn it now is to amend the constitution - and you had better believe conservatives want to. The 14th amendment is a thorn in their side from Roe v Wade to birthright citizenship to the census

Overheal

Unconfirmed social media reports that Collins, Romney, Murkowski, and Grassley will not confirm a nominee until January (the new Congress). Hoping that’s true. It still gives conservatives a 5-3 majority in ongoing cases, so it’s not a major sacrifice to them to be centrists here.

dark crystal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

It shouldn’t matter what it would achieve.

Judicial decisions aren’t supposed to “achieve” anything. They’re supposed to uphold the law.

Your question highlights the very difference between the two competing theories of judicial philosophies in the United States. One says the job of a Justice is to simply determine if a piece of legislation is in conflict with the constitution or not.

It has nothing to doing with “achieving” anything. It doesn’t even have anything to do with the “greater good”. It’s about words having definitions.

No, the Court's task is to interpret the meaning of a law, to decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of facts, or to rule on how a law should be applied.

The Supreme court is basically the highest appeal court of the land. It's decisions are based on:

Quality of Reasoning. When determining whether to reaffirm or overrule a prior decision, the Supreme Court may consider the quality of the decision’s reasoning.

Workability. Another factor that the Supreme Court may consider when determining whether to overrule a precedent is whether the precedent’s rules or standards are too difficult for lower federal courts or other interpreters to apply and are thus “unworkable.”

Inconsistency with Related Decisions. A third factor the Supreme Court may consider is whether the precedent departs from the Court’s other decisions on similar constitutional questions, either because the precedent’s reasoning has been eroded by later decisions or because the precedent is a recent outlier when compared to other decisions.

Changed Understanding of Relevant Facts. The Supreme Court has also indicated that changes in how the Justices and society understand a decision’s underlying facts may undermine a precedent’s authoritativeness, leading the Court to overrule it.

Reliance. Finally, the Supreme Court may consider whether it should retain a precedent, even if flawed, because overruling the decision would injure individuals, companies, or organizations; society as a whole; or legislative, executive, or judicial branch officers, who had relied on the decision.

In the case of Roe Vs Wade, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. But it also ruled that this right is not absolute, and must be balanced against the government's interests in protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life.

In 1992, the Supreme Court revisited and modified its legal rulings in Roe in the case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In Casey, the Court reaffirmed Roe's holding that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion is constitutionally protected, but abandoned Roe's trimester framework in favor of a standard based on fetal viability, and overruled Roe's requirement that government regulations on abortion be subjected to the strict scrutiny standard.

So abortion has been brought to the Supreme court twice and twice it was determined by law that a woman has a consitutional right to choose what she does with her body.

If you don't like that, well...tough.

Overheal

This is quite the flash mob in DC tonight

https://twitter.com/abc/status/1307157179133296640?s=21

dark crystal

Great time to watch "On the basis of sex", a biopic of RBG starring Felicity Jones and Armie Hammer.

Watched it last year and highly recommended! What a lady...