RIP: Ruth Bader Ginsberg Dead!

[nafod]

There should be term limits.

[Turdacious]

RBG was egotistical in this regard. Obama was sniffing around for her to step down way back in 2014, but she wouldn't have it. Then again, nobody likes being told they're too old and in the way.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... V020140801

Not egotistical, but pragmatic:

Referring to the political polarization in Washington and the unlikelihood that another liberal in her mold could be confirmed by the Senate, Ginsburg, the senior liberal on the nine-member bench, asked rhetorically, “So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?”

The time for Obama to ask would have been in 2009.

[Fat Cat]

"We've got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg's replacement before the election. That's what's coming." -Sen. Lindsay Graham

Seems like Grassley and Garnder have both committed to a vote for, which means they have the support required to confirm. Will be interesting to see what they do.

[Fat Cat]

RBG was egotistical in this regard. Obama was sniffing around for her to step down way back in 2014, but she wouldn't have it. Then again, nobody likes being told they're too old and in the way.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... V020140801

Not egotistical, but pragmatic:

Referring to the political polarization in Washington and the unlikelihood that another liberal in her mold could be confirmed by the Senate, Ginsburg, the senior liberal on the nine-member bench, asked rhetorically, “So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?”

The time for Obama to ask would have been in 2009.

As usual, wrong. Both Kagan and Sotomayor were confirmed after 2009 with minimal resistance, certainly way less BS than either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh faced. If she had retired then, Merrick Garland or some similar nominee would be sitting on the SCOTUS.

[Turdacious]

RBG was egotistical in this regard. Obama was sniffing around for her to step down way back in 2014, but she wouldn't have it. Then again, nobody likes being told they're too old and in the way.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... V020140801

Not egotistical, but pragmatic:

Referring to the political polarization in Washington and the unlikelihood that another liberal in her mold could be confirmed by the Senate, Ginsburg, the senior liberal on the nine-member bench, asked rhetorically, “So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?”

The time for Obama to ask would have been in 2009.

As usual, wrong. Both Kagan and Sotomayor were confirmed after 2009 with minimal resistance, certainly way less BS than either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh faced. If she had retired then, Merrick Garland or some similar nominee would be sitting on the SCOTUS.

If you wanted a strong liberal Justice, the best time to confirm would have been 2008-2010, or after the 2020 election. The only thing RBG got wrong (timeline-wise) was her prediction about her own mortality.

Trump was able to convince Kennedy to retire. Obama was able to convince nobody to retire. And 2014 was very different than 2009-2010 (when Kagen and Sotomayor were confirmed). The closest comparison was 2016-- Garland was a centrist and got nowhere.

[nafod]

RBG was egotistical in this regard. Obama was sniffing around for her to step down way back in 2014, but she wouldn't have it. Then again, nobody likes being told they're too old and in the way.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... V020140801

Not egotistical, but pragmatic:

Referring to the political polarization in Washington and the unlikelihood that another liberal in her mold could be confirmed by the Senate, Ginsburg, the senior liberal on the nine-member bench, asked rhetorically, “So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?”

The time for Obama to ask would have been in 2009.

As usual, wrong. Both Kagan and Sotomayor were confirmed after 2009 with minimal resistance, certainly way less BS than either Gorsuch or Kavanaugh faced. If she had retired then, Merrick Garland or some similar nominee would be sitting on the SCOTUS.

Gorsuch didn't face much. Kavanaugh faced a lot because of his actions as a Chad frat dude and his lying about it

[Fat Cat]

Be sure to let them know how you feel.

[nafod]

Didn't you find it even a little hypocritical that mister drain the swamp picked two judges that attended the same Swampington DC prep school, where swampers send their children to get swamp indoctrinated?

That Swampy Prep School has sent more folks to SCOTUS than probably half the states.

Not a single home-spun backwoods lawyer from the far state of Montana or Idaho that can talk some sense into the rest of the eight? An actual red stater?

[Turdacious]

< insert rose mcgowan gif of your choice here >

[Grandpa's Spells]

They can certainly confirm. It seems like the Dem response if they take the WH/Senate is a question do they add two or four justices to SCOTUS, or two plus "are you sure you don't want term limits."

[Fat Cat]

Didn't you find it even a little hypocritical that mister drain the swamp picked two judges that attended the same Swampington DC prep school, where swampers send their children to get swamp indoctrinated?

That Swampy Prep School has sent more folks to SCOTUS than probably half the states.

Not a single home-spun backwoods lawyer from the far state of Montana or Idaho that can talk some sense into the rest of the eight? An actual red stater?

It's a fair criticism. The one thing you WON'T find on the SCOTUS is a white Protestant male like the ones that created this country. Calvinist lives matter.

[Fat Cat]

They can certainly confirm. It seems like the Dem response if they take the WH/Senate is a question do they add two or four justices to SCOTUS, or two plus "are you sure you don't want term limits."

You're writing lacks clarity and elegance. Can you please explain what your second sentence means to those of us who aren't from the hinterlands of Chicongo?

[Grandpa's Spells]

Current incentives are such that presidents want to nominate particularly young judges who serve for 40+ years and for Senators to permit/deny a given president what constitution says is his job. There's no reason for this. Term limits for justices staggered such that a president's four year term yields a given number of nominations might disincentive shenanigans.

[newguy]

They can certainly confirm. It seems like the Dem response if they take the WH/Senate is a question do they add two or four justices to SCOTUS, or two plus "are you sure you don't want term limits."

You're writing lacks clarity and elegance. Can you please explain what your second sentence means to those of us who aren't from the hinterlands of Chicongo?

I don't know if this will happen or not, but it feels like we are moving into complete political warfare. I am not as well versed as all of you, but it feels like we have moved beyond a time when the two parties served as a balance to each other and this is going to effectively end the ability to govern.
1. Obama faces unprecedented resistance from a republican controlled congress.
2. Obama overreaches with the use of executive decisions.
3. Republican controlled congress and president (vomit in mouth) run amock and destroy democracy.

Which leads to GSpells statement.

When democrats control congress and presidency, it will be war, with one of the first battles to undo the overarching power of the supreme court by packing it with more justices.

Whatever ends up happening, my personal belief is that for democracy and government to work, you have to have belief and buy in for the idea of government and democracy. There has to be an ideal that is higher than either democrat or republican and it feels like we have lost that. (Or it has been manipulated out of us.)

I was not a fan of George W Bush. But I never had the idea that he cared MORE about a party than America. Or more about himself than America.

I was in a HOR hearing (hearing, session???) a several years back (observing, not "IN" the hearing) and I can't remember who, but one of the democrat reps was lambasting one of the republican reps over their handling of the tax bill and essentially it came down to "this isn't how we do business. We used to try to work together."

Those days seem to be gone.

[Fat Cat]

Current incentives are such that presidents want to nominate particularly young judges who serve for 40+ years and for Senators to permit/deny a given president what constitution says is his job. There's no reason for this. Term limits for justices staggered such that a president's four year term yields a given number of nominations might disincentive shenanigans.

There, there, dry your tears. Do you really think that Senators who won't vote for term limits for themselves will vote for term limits for justices?

[Fat Cat]

They can certainly confirm. It seems like the Dem response if they take the WH/Senate is a question do they add two or four justices to SCOTUS, or two plus "are you sure you don't want term limits."

You're writing lacks clarity and elegance. Can you please explain what your second sentence means to those of us who aren't from the hinterlands of Chicongo?

I don't know if this will happen or not, but it feels like we are moving into complete political warfare. I am not as well versed as all of you, but it feels like we have moved beyond a time when the two parties served as a balance to each other and this is going to effectively end the ability to govern.
1. Obama faces unprecedented resistance from a republican controlled congress.
2. Obama overreaches with the use of executive decisions.
3. Republican controlled congress and president (vomit in mouth) run amock and destroy democracy.

Which leads to GSpells statement.

When democrats control congress and presidency, it will be war, with one of the first battles to undo the overarching power of the supreme court by packing it with more justices.

Whatever ends up happening, my personal belief is that for democracy and government to work, you have to have belief and buy in for the idea of government and democracy. There has to be an ideal that is higher than either democrat or republican and it feels like we have lost that. (Or it has been manipulated out of us.)

I was not a fan of George W Bush. But I never had the idea that he cared MORE about a party than America. Or more about himself than America.

I was in a HOR hearing (hearing, session???) a several years back (observing, not "IN" the hearing) and I can't remember who, but one of the democrat reps was lambasting one of the republican reps over their handling of the tax bill and essentially it came down to "this isn't how we do business. We used to try to work together."

Those days seem to be gone.

There's still plenty of bipartisanship, but SCOTUS nominees have always been a venue for political hardball. Go look back at the Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork. Also, your estrogen-fueled hysterics about republicans running amok and destroying democracy is sad. And gay. And fake.

[newguy]

They can certainly confirm. It seems like the Dem response if they take the WH/Senate is a question do they add two or four justices to SCOTUS, or two plus "are you sure you don't want term limits."

You're writing lacks clarity and elegance. Can you please explain what your second sentence means to those of us who aren't from the hinterlands of Chicongo?

I don't know if this will happen or not, but it feels like we are moving into complete political warfare. I am not as well versed as all of you, but it feels like we have moved beyond a time when the two parties served as a balance to each other and this is going to effectively end the ability to govern.
1. Obama faces unprecedented resistance from a republican controlled congress.
2. Obama overreaches with the use of executive decisions.
3. Republican controlled congress and president (vomit in mouth) run amock and destroy democracy.

Which leads to GSpells statement.

When democrats control congress and presidency, it will be war, with one of the first battles to undo the overarching power of the supreme court by packing it with more justices.

Whatever ends up happening, my personal belief is that for democracy and government to work, you have to have belief and buy in for the idea of government and democracy. There has to be an ideal that is higher than either democrat or republican and it feels like we have lost that. (Or it has been manipulated out of us.)

I was not a fan of George W Bush. But I never had the idea that he cared MORE about a party than America. Or more about himself than America.

I was in a HOR hearing (hearing, session???) a several years back (observing, not "IN" the hearing) and I can't remember who, but one of the democrat reps was lambasting one of the republican reps over their handling of the tax bill and essentially it came down to "this isn't how we do business. We used to try to work together."

Those days seem to be gone.

There's still plenty of bipartisanship, but SCOTUS nominees have always been a venue for political hardball. Go look back at the Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork. Also, your estrogen-fueled hysterics about republicans running amok and destroying democracy is sad. And gay. And fake.

I don't consider it to be republicans are destroying democracy. I feel it is entrenchment on both sides and an increasingly polarized narrative that is less about governing people and more about securing power. It's not republicans bad/democrats good. But currently one party is in total power and the optics of even trying to work together are not there. This has ramifications. Perception matters.

In quickly researching the issue of court packing, I saw that FDR threatened it as political power play and the court itself quickly started being a bit more flexible in how it was voting.

But perception and precedent matters. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should because the next group along takes what you did and runs with it.

In the same article, Biden was quoted as saying he didn't like the idea of packing the court because once you do that, what stops the next group from doing the same?

Tradition and precedent matter.

Republicans set a precedent with the obama supreme court thing.

The more you break precedent, the more you walk away from even the optics of conciliatory gestures in governing, then the more it bites you later.

I do not want a situation in which either party has total power and is willing to use it unchecked. I do not think that is good for any of us.

[DrDonkeyLove...]

They can certainly confirm. It seems like the Dem response if they take the WH/Senate is a question do they add two or four justices to SCOTUS, or two plus "are you sure you don't want term limits."

You're writing lacks clarity and elegance. Can you please explain what your second sentence means to those of us who aren't from the hinterlands of Chicongo?

I don't know if this will happen or not, but it feels like we are moving into complete political warfare. I am not as well versed as all of you, but it feels like we have moved beyond a time when the two parties served as a balance to each other and this is going to effectively end the ability to govern.
1. Obama faces unprecedented resistance from a republican controlled congress.
2. Obama overreaches with the use of executive decisions.
3. Republican controlled congress and president (vomit in mouth) run amock and destroy democracy.

Which leads to GSpells statement.

When democrats control congress and presidency, it will be war, with one of the first battles to undo the overarching power of the supreme court by packing it with more justices.

Whatever ends up happening, my personal belief is that for democracy and government to work, you have to have belief and buy in for the idea of government and democracy. There has to be an ideal that is higher than either democrat or republican and it feels like we have lost that. (Or it has been manipulated out of us.)

I was not a fan of George W Bush. But I never had the idea that he cared MORE about a party than America. Or more about himself than America.

I was in a HOR hearing (hearing, session???) a several years back (observing, not "IN" the hearing) and I can't remember who, but one of the democrat reps was lambasting one of the republican reps over their handling of the tax bill and essentially it came down to "this isn't how we do business. We used to try to work together."

Those days seem to be gone.

There's still plenty of bipartisanship, but SCOTUS nominees have always been a venue for political hardball. Go look back at the Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork. Also, your estrogen-fueled hysterics about republicans running amok and destroying democracy is sad. And gay. And fake.

Maybe it's just when I started paying attention, but I mark the modern beginning of Hunger Games SC nominees to the Bork nomination and the vile attacks on his person from the ever evil Teddy Kennedy and his partner in character assassination, Joe Biden.

[newguy]

They can certainly confirm. It seems like the Dem response if they take the WH/Senate is a question do they add two or four justices to SCOTUS, or two plus "are you sure you don't want term limits."

You're writing lacks clarity and elegance. Can you please explain what your second sentence means to those of us who aren't from the hinterlands of Chicongo?

I don't know if this will happen or not, but it feels like we are moving into complete political warfare. I am not as well versed as all of you, but it feels like we have moved beyond a time when the two parties served as a balance to each other and this is going to effectively end the ability to govern.
1. Obama faces unprecedented resistance from a republican controlled congress.
2. Obama overreaches with the use of executive decisions.
3. Republican controlled congress and president (vomit in mouth) run amock and destroy democracy.

Which leads to GSpells statement.

When democrats control congress and presidency, it will be war, with one of the first battles to undo the overarching power of the supreme court by packing it with more justices.

Whatever ends up happening, my personal belief is that for democracy and government to work, you have to have belief and buy in for the idea of government and democracy. There has to be an ideal that is higher than either democrat or republican and it feels like we have lost that. (Or it has been manipulated out of us.)

I was not a fan of George W Bush. But I never had the idea that he cared MORE about a party than America. Or more about himself than America.

I was in a HOR hearing (hearing, session???) a several years back (observing, not "IN" the hearing) and I can't remember who, but one of the democrat reps was lambasting one of the republican reps over their handling of the tax bill and essentially it came down to "this isn't how we do business. We used to try to work together."

Those days seem to be gone.

There's still plenty of bipartisanship, but SCOTUS nominees have always been a venue for political hardball. Go look back at the Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork. Also, your estrogen-fueled hysterics about republicans running amok and destroying democracy is sad. And gay. And fake.

Maybe it's just when I started paying attention, but I mark the modern beginning of Hunger Games SC nominees to the Bork nomination and the vile attacks on his person from the ever evil Teddy Kennedy and his partner in character assassination, Joe Biden.

I absolutely acknowledge that this could all have always been a cluster fuck and nothing has ever changed.

[nafod]

Didn't you find it even a little hypocritical that mister drain the swamp picked two judges that attended the same Swampington DC prep school, where swampers send their children to get swamp indoctrinated?

That Swampy Prep School has sent more folks to SCOTUS than probably half the states.

Not a single home-spun backwoods lawyer from the far state of Montana or Idaho that can talk some sense into the rest of the eight? An actual red stater?

It's a fair criticism.

Why not pick a state supreme court judge? It'd be liking having a governor win the presidency. They bring a fresh perspective

We could do a lot better than kavanaugh. He was Swampy McSwampFace.

[Fat Cat]

Didn't you find it even a little hypocritical that mister drain the swamp picked two judges that attended the same Swampington DC prep school, where swampers send their children to get swamp indoctrinated?

That Swampy Prep School has sent more folks to SCOTUS than probably half the states.

Not a single home-spun backwoods lawyer from the far state of Montana or Idaho that can talk some sense into the rest of the eight? An actual red stater?

It's a fair criticism.

Why not pick a state supreme court judge? It'd be liking having a governor win the presidency. They bring a fresh perspective

We could do a lot better than kavanaugh. He was Swampy McSwampFace.

Provided it's a WASP male with red blooded American values, sure. Give me that patrician shit.

[nafod]

No Sharia?

[Fat Cat]

No Sharia?

Absolutely fucking not.

[nafod]

Some things never change.
.
Heh
.

Capture.PNG (151.02 KiB) Viewed 3258 times

This should definitely be argued before SCOTUS

[Fat Cat]

NYT is reporting Amy Coney Barrett as the nominee to fill RBG's spot:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/p ... e=Homepage

I'm sure we're all united in wishing her great success.