Ruth Bader Ginsburg Gorrrrnnnneeeeeeeeeeee

[stemoc]

The last decent and intelligent Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States is no more,

She died at 87 years of age on September 18, 2020 of metastatic pancreatic cancer at her home.

[Gumboot]

Yuuuge win for the teflon Donald. To hell with election years, Moscow Mitch is gonna get a conservative replacement through confirmation lickety-split.

[stemoc]

Yuuuge win for the teflon Donald. To hell with election years, Moscow Mitch is gonna get a conservative replacement through confirmation lickety-split.

can he though?, remember they stopped obama from doing it because his term was up, Trump can't do it unless he wins..

[Gumboot]

Yuuuge win for the teflon Donald. To hell with election years, Moscow Mitch is gonna get a conservative replacement through confirmation lickety-split.

can he though?, remember they stopped obama from doing it because his term was up, Trump can't do it unless he wins..

McConnell indefinitely delayed Merrick Garland's confirmation hearing under the pretense that it was an election year and the appointment should be left until there was a new president. But he's since made no bones about the fact that if he gets the same scenario under Trump he wouldn't give a shit how close to election day it was.

[Ata Rangi]

Yuuuge win for the teflon Donald. To hell with election years, Moscow Mitch is gonna get a conservative replacement through confirmation lickety-split.

can he though?, remember they stopped obama from doing it because his term was up, Trump can't do it unless he wins..

McConnell indefinitely delayed Merrick Garland's confirmation hearing under the pretense that it was an election year and the appointment should be left until there was a new president. But he's since made no bones about the fact that if he gets the same scenario under Trump he wouldn't give a shit how close to election day it was.

it was only where the President and Senate majority are from different parties.




Apparently

[Gumboot]

Mitch said this in 2016: "It's all about a principle, not a person."

I suspect he may have changed his tune somewhat since Trump's election.

[Carter's Choice]

If I voted GOP I would expect Trump and McConnell do everything in their power to appoint a new SCJ before the election. Just as I would want a Democratic President and Senate Majority leader to do the same if I voted Democrat. Americans have a GOP majority in the Senate because they want conservative laws and conservative SCJ appointees.

[Carter's Choice]

[stemoc]

LETS HOPE GOP members vote against trumps nominee..a few regret not saying YES to his impeachment in January which led to the shithole America is in right now.

[Hugo]

Yuuuge win for the teflon Donald. To hell with election years, Moscow Mitch is gonna get a conservative replacement through confirmation lickety-split.

can he though?, remember they stopped obama from doing it because his term was up, Trump can't do it unless he wins..

McConnell indefinitely delayed Merrick Garland's confirmation hearing under the pretense that it was an election year and the appointment should be left until there was a new president. But he's since made no bones about the fact that if he gets the same scenario under Trump he wouldn't give a shit how close to election day it was.

Yeah it was another example of GOP obstructionism. Obama nominated Merrick Garland in the first place because he was considered a moderate who would be palatable to the Republicans.

I think the GOP cited a precedent that had been established when Biden had advocated that nominations should not be confirmed in election years. I'm sure it wasn't said in good faith but I recall that being McConnell's position.

[Gumboot]

McConnell indefinitely delayed Merrick Garland's confirmation hearing under the pretense that it was an election year and the appointment should be left until there was a new president. But he's since made no bones about the fact that if he gets the same scenario under Trump he wouldn't give a shit how close to election day it was.

Yeah it was another example of GOP obstructionism. Obama nominated Merrick Garland in the first place because he was considered a moderate who would be palatable to the Republicans.

I think the GOP cited a precedent that had been established when Biden had advocated that nominations should not be confirmed in election years. I'm sure it wasn't said in good faith but I recall that being McConnell's position.

Yep, that YouTube clip I posted earlier is Mitch saying that very thing in 2016.

[Hugo]

McConnell indefinitely delayed Merrick Garland's confirmation hearing under the pretense that it was an election year and the appointment should be left until there was a new president. But he's since made no bones about the fact that if he gets the same scenario under Trump he wouldn't give a shit how close to election day it was.

Yeah it was another example of GOP obstructionism. Obama nominated Merrick Garland in the first place because he was considered a moderate who would be palatable to the Republicans.

I think the GOP cited a precedent that had been established when Biden had advocated that nominations should not be confirmed in election years. I'm sure it wasn't said in good faith but I recall that being McConnell's position.

Yep, that YouTube clip I posted earlier is Mitch saying that very thing in 2016.

Oops, my mistake, didn't see that.

Interesting thing here will be to see if anti Trump GOP folks want his nomination to be confirmed. I guess its one thing to find him repulsive and want him out of office in a few months, yet another to pass up an open goal and potentially enable the democrats to put someone on the court who might be there for decades.

[Ted.]

If I voted GOP I would expect Trump and McConnell do everything in their power to appoint a new SCJ before the election. Just as I would want a Democratic President and Senate Majority leader to do the same if I voted Democrat. Americans have a GOP majority in the Senate because they want conservative laws and conservative SCJ appointees.

And that perfectly illustrates why the US labours under a readily corruptible system.

As an aside, I would not want my party of choice to act against the public interest and good, I wouldn't want to see political expediency override honesty and ethical behaviour. And, if that wasn't good enough for the self serving, morally bankrupt amongst us, then surely the knowledge that what goes around comes around with a nasty twist should persuade most people that they are on the wrong side of right.

[Uncle fester]

Yuuuge win for the teflon Donald. To hell with election years, Moscow Mitch is gonna get a conservative replacement through confirmation lickety-split.

can he though?, remember they stopped obama from doing it because his term was up, Trump can't do it unless he wins..

McConnell indefinitely delayed Merrick Garland's confirmation hearing under the pretense that it was an election year and the appointment should be left until there was a new president. But he's since made no bones about the fact that if he gets the same scenario under Trump he wouldn't give a shit how close to election day it was.

Same way the deficit only matters when a democratic president is in power.

[Hal Jordan]

What do the GOP care for previous precedent? There's a dead liberal to replace and Gilead won't build itself.

[sockwithaticket]

If I voted GOP I would expect Trump and McConnell do everything in their power to appoint a new SCJ before the election. Just as I would want a Democratic President and Senate Majority leader to do the same if I voted Democrat. Americans have a GOP majority in the Senate because they want conservative laws and conservative SCJ appointees.

With the amount of gerrymandering and voter suppression in play, I'm not sure that's true.

[Fangle]

If I voted GOP I would expect Trump and McConnell do everything in their power to appoint a new SCJ before the election. Just as I would want a Democratic President and Senate Majority leader to do the same if I voted Democrat. Americans have a GOP majority in the Senate because they want conservative laws and conservative SCJ appointees.

That could all switch after this election. And, of course, the Democrats would do exactly the same. And I would expect them to.

As Mr Mike, who seems to know a lot more than most of us days, once appointed the justices don’t behave the way the president expects them to. John Roberts sometimes votes against the more conservative justices even though he was appointed by a Republican president.

[Hugo]

I'm reading that if the Republicans rush this through a potential democrat strategy is to expand the court in the event they win the Presidency & have control of Congress.

The SC had fewer than 9 justices at its inception and has been expanded before.

[Fangle]

I'm reading that if the Republicans rush this through a potential democrat strategy is to expand the court in the event they win the Presidency & have control of Congress.

The SC had fewer than 9 justices at its inception and has been expanded before.

Yep. I’ve heard that as well. FDR tried to do that when he was president to get a majority who would vote his way, but was blocked. I think that it would be difficult.

[Saint]

I'm reading that if the Republicans rush this through a potential democrat strategy is to expand the court in the event they win the Presidency & have control of Congress.

The SC had fewer than 9 justices at its inception and has been expanded before.

Yep. I’ve heard that as well. FDR tried to do that when he was president to get a majority who would vote his way, but was blocked. I think that it would be difficult.

It's actually a very difficult decision under the surface for the GOP.

1 - try to force a nominee through before the election. It's actually unclear that this would work - there's enough GOP senators at real risk that this could be the death blow to a GOP Senate majority for years. So, they're only confirming a Trump nominee if they think it's a forlorn cause already.

2 - deliberately slow walk the whole thing. Tactically this might actually make the most sense. Vote for Trump or get a far left liberal judge. If the campaign thinks there's enough moderate rights who are leaning Biden but could be swayed, this is the ONLY play.

3 - go hardball, nominate and confirm regardless. At that point, the gloves, already half off, are gone. The US system only works when both parties operate i good faith, and this will be the tipping point. Packing the SC will be the least of the issues- I would expect the Dems to ho thermo-nuclear (and make no mistake, they would have complete control of both houses if the GOP ho down this route).

I suspect there are enough moderate GOP senators to avoid option 3

I'm not sure what happens with option 2 and the GOP lose the Presidency and the Senate - would the votes exist in a true lsme duck session?

[Random1]

I reckon they’ll push it through.

Be damned the house - getting a judge to tip the balance buys a decade or more of cultural influence.

There is no bigger picture than shaping culture.

The only thing I can see stopping it is if a poll comes out that makes trump think it’ll lose him the election.

[Fangle]

I reckon they’ll push it through.

Be damned the house - getting a judge to tip the balance buys a decade or more of cultural influence.

There is no bigger picture than shaping culture.

The only thing I can see stopping it is if a poll comes out that makes trump think it’ll lose him the election.

All polls say that Trump is way behind anyway.
It’s reported that he will nominate a female.

[Fangle]

When will Biden release his list of potential justices?

[Saint]

When will Biden release his list of potential justices?

Never. No reason to

[JM2K6]

If I voted GOP I would expect Trump and McConnell do everything in their power to appoint a new SCJ before the election. Just as I would want a Democratic President and Senate Majority leader to do the same if I voted Democrat. Americans have a GOP majority in the Senate because they want conservative laws and conservative SCJ appointees.

That could all switch after this election. And, of course, the Democrats would do exactly the same. And I would expect them to.

As Mr Mike, who seems to know a lot more than most of us days, once appointed the justices don’t behave the way the president expects them to. John Roberts sometimes votes against the more conservative justices even though he was appointed by a Republican president.

Kavanaugh absolutely does and will continue to vote the way the president expects him to.

[Saint]

If I voted GOP I would expect Trump and McConnell do everything in their power to appoint a new SCJ before the election. Just as I would want a Democratic President and Senate Majority leader to do the same if I voted Democrat. Americans have a GOP majority in the Senate because they want conservative laws and conservative SCJ appointees.

That could all switch after this election. And, of course, the Democrats would do exactly the same. And I would expect them to.

As Mr Mike, who seems to know a lot more than most of us days, once appointed the justices don’t behave the way the president expects them to. John Roberts sometimes votes against the more conservative justices even though he was appointed by a Republican president.

Kavanaugh absolutely does and will continue to vote the way the president expects him to.

Let's be honest here. There's only 2 issues that matter for SCOTUS appointments- maybe 3 longer term

These are 2nd amendment and abortion. As long as SCOTUS judges vote party line on those issues then the rest is an irrelevance. The only possible change to that us Obamacare; civil rights and climate change have done secondary importance

Roberts only interest in all of this us that he doesn't want to be remembered as the guy that split the country.

[Ted.]

When will Biden release his list of potential justices?

Never. No reason to

Yep. I wonder why he would when all that will happen is that the nominee(s) and the selection process will, once again, become a political football. I thought Biden was specifically trying to avoid that sort of carry one and the other tactics to manipulate the SC. As an aside, some Dems seems to be hell bent on shooting themselves in the foot with the various suggestions to circumvent the process or balance of the SP.

[Fonz]

Let's be honest here. There's only 2 issues that matter for SCOTUS appointments- maybe 3 longer term

These are 2nd amendment and abortion. As long as SCOTUS judges vote party line on those issues then the rest is an irrelevance. The only possible change to that us Obamacare; civil rights and climate change have done secondary importance

Roberts only interest in all of this us that he doesn't want to be remembered as the guy that split the country.

Matter to who? The public? Perhaps. To those who vet, select, and eventually confirm these justices? No.

Something like whether deference is given to an administrative agency's interpretation of an unclear statute might be deemed Insufficiently Sexy by the media and the algorithms they use to determine what we are supposed to care about, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter massively to the party insiders that decide these things.

[Saint]

Let's be honest here. There's only 2 issues that matter for SCOTUS appointments- maybe 3 longer term

These are 2nd amendment and abortion. As long as SCOTUS judges vote party line on those issues then the rest is an irrelevance. The only possible change to that us Obamacare; civil rights and climate change have done secondary importance

Roberts only interest in all of this us that he doesn't want to be remembered as the guy that split the country.

Matter to who? The public? Perhaps. To those who vet, select, and eventually confirm these justices? No.

Something like whether deference is given to an administrative agency's interpretation of an unclear statute might be deemed Insufficiently Sexy by the media and the algorithms they use to determine what we are supposed to care about, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter massively to the party insiders that decide these things.

For public perception. I agree that SCOTUS is materially important in a lot of areas, but the only areas that the general politic cares about is those two, very specific, areas. Ultimately, in todays massively polarised environment, that translates to the Senate. Hirsute and Kavenaugh can go and do whatever they want outside ifvtgese areas, provided they ignore the second half if the 2nd amendment and vote against Roe, or if they're clever, vote with Roe but write their own opinions providing an increasingly narrow base for the existing staus quo.

[fishfoodie]

Let's be honest here. There's only 2 issues that matter for SCOTUS appointments- maybe 3 longer term

These are 2nd amendment and abortion. As long as SCOTUS judges vote party line on those issues then the rest is an irrelevance. The only possible change to that us Obamacare; civil rights and climate change have done secondary importance

Roberts only interest in all of this us that he doesn't want to be remembered as the guy that split the country.

Matter to who? The public? Perhaps. To those who vet, select, and eventually confirm these justices? No.

Something like whether deference is given to an administrative agency's interpretation of an unclear statute might be deemed Insufficiently Sexy by the media and the algorithms they use to determine what we are supposed to care about, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter massively to the party insiders that decide these things.

So just completely ignore the ACA decision in the New Year then ?

[Ata Rangi]

Hirsute and Kavenaugh can go and do whatever they want outside ifvtgese areas, provided they ignore the second half if the 2nd amendment and vote against Roe,

Who is hairy?

[Saint]

Hirsute and Kavenaugh can go and do whatever they want outside ifvtgese areas, provided they ignore the second half if the 2nd amendment and vote against Roe,

Who is hairy?

My phone's version of autocorrect. God knows how it got from Gorsuch to Hirsute, but it made the jump nonetheless

[Fonz]

Let's be honest here. There's only 2 issues that matter for SCOTUS appointments- maybe 3 longer term

These are 2nd amendment and abortion. As long as SCOTUS judges vote party line on those issues then the rest is an irrelevance. The only possible change to that us Obamacare; civil rights and climate change have done secondary importance

Roberts only interest in all of this us that he doesn't want to be remembered as the guy that split the country.

Matter to who? The public? Perhaps. To those who vet, select, and eventually confirm these justices? No.

Something like whether deference is given to an administrative agency's interpretation of an unclear statute might be deemed Insufficiently Sexy by the media and the algorithms they use to determine what we are supposed to care about, but that doesn't mean it doesn't matter massively to the party insiders that decide these things.

For public perception. I agree that SCOTUS is materially important in a lot of areas, but the only areas that the general politic cares about is those two, very specific, areas. Ultimately, in todays massively polarised environment, that translates to the Senate. Hirsute and Kavenaugh can go and do whatever they want outside ifvtgese areas, provided they ignore the second half if the 2nd amendment and vote against Roe, or if they're clever, vote with Roe but write their own opinions providing an increasingly narrow base for the existing staus quo.

That's fair enough, really. I'd argue there's cases here and there that grab the public's attention out of nowhere, Citizen's United for instance. I think civil rights and criminal justice will get a little more airtime, immigration as well, and to the extent the justices don't play their positions on those issues, there could possibly be political and electoral ramifications as well. But re: public perception, yeah you're mostly correct.

Unfortunately, I'm also correct about how these people are selected; which means you can appease your constituency by making the right noises about very few issues (as you say) and yet the neo-whatever political establishment gets what it wants by finding judges that will happily continue to chip away from American institutions (from the right and the left!) as they see fit.

[Hong Kong]

Have we done the hysterically hypocritical nonsense by the orange shitgibbon supporters over their pathetically weak POV on nominating a new SCOTUS, within a month or so before the election?

[Kiwias]

Have we done the hysterically hypocritical nonsense by the orange shitgibbon supporters over their pathetically weak POV on nominating a new SCOTUS, within a month or so before the election?

No more needs to be said.

[Fonz]

Have we done the hysterically hypocritical nonsense by the orange shitgibbon supporters over their pathetically weak POV on nominating a new SCOTUS, within a month or so before the election?

There's zero doubt in my mind that it would be the same if the shoe was on the other foot. And to be fair, as the dear departed RBG said in 2016 when the Senate failed to vote on Garland, there's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.

[Tichtheid]

Have we done the hysterically hypocritical nonsense by the orange shitgibbon supporters over their pathetically weak POV on nominating a new SCOTUS, within a month or so before the election?

There's zero doubt in my mind that it would be the same if the shoe was on the other foot. And to be fair, as the dear departed RBG said in 2016 when the Senate failed to vote on Garland, there's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.

The shoe was on the other foot and McConnell blocked it, the reason given was that the incoming administration should make the nomination.

So McConnell will feel the same way now, I'm sure.

[stemoc]

Maybe Americans on this bored and that other one should stop defending their country now..America is a laughing stock and has been for the last 4 years and even if by some miracle Biden wins, it will not change, the precedence has been set and no matte what america does now even if biden wins, it won't change anything, not just a laughing stock but a country filled with religious nuthouses, illiterates and morons , if there was ever a time to use an example as to why religions are dangerous, one answer "AMERICA" is all thats needed..

[Fangle]

Have we done the hysterically hypocritical nonsense by the orange shitgibbon supporters over their pathetically weak POV on nominating a new SCOTUS, within a month or so before the election?

There's zero doubt in my mind that it would be the same if the shoe was on the other foot. And to be fair, as the dear departed RBG said in 2016 when the Senate failed to vote on Garland, there's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.

Little as I like it, I agree. The Democrats would have done exactly the same if they could. This is politics.

I would like to hear Mr Mike’s ideas on this as he seems to know a lot about it, a lot more than we do.

[Uncle fester]

Let it happen. They need to suffer the consequences of continually voting for pricks. Hopefully Aunt Lydia gets the job.