RIP RGB. Ginsburg Gonzo.

Discussion in 'The Club House' started by microadventure, Sep 18, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    13,196
    3,007
    113
    It is well within bounds. Yes, the Republican Senate picks and chooses, depending on who the President is. It is their constitutional prerogative, that's what they are elected to do. Nobody pretends to be impartial in this case.

    Are you on any meds? If so, did you know the big bad pharma invented them :)
     
    locutus likes this.
  2. Chainfire

    Chainfire Well-Known Member Supporter

    10,731
    10,037
    113
    2016, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

    2018, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

    2016, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

    2016, Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

    2016, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

    2016, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

    2016, Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

    2016, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

    2016, Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

    2016, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

    2016, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

    Mitch McConnell, March 2016: “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.”
     

  3. G_Whitcomb

    G_Whitcomb Active Member

    50
    102
    33
    It was wrong then and it’s wrong now. The “team sport” mentality of politicians is exactly why nothing gets done. The win is more important than the actual result. Us against them,my way or the highway. I really believe that’s why DJT was elected in the first place. So many of us are sick and tired of the status quo. I sincerely hope we get 4 more years just to piss them all (politicians) off. Of course it will mean another stretch of fighting and getting absolutely nothing done but hopefully some will learn their lesson and actually START DOING THEIR JOB. Government is for the people by the people and some day the end results will matter more than the win. My best friend just notified me that he lost his business (restaurant) that he has owned for 25+ years. Thanks to all the inbreds in Washington digging in their heels sadly this story is all too common.
     
    Caveman Jim and G66enigma like this.
  4. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    8,575
    7,379
    113
    https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...ruth-bader-ginsburgs-legacy-and-mcconn-n25765


    |
    Posted: Sep 19, 2020 4:25 AM
    has died. She was 87. Now, the Left is in total panic mode. Donald Trump is still president. The Senate is still controlled by Republicans. And Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed to hold a vote on a SCOTUS nominee should the president select one. This election cycle just got crazier. On the bright side, COVID, which dominated the news cycle all summer will vanish as if nothing happened. Just watch. There is nothing scarier than a solidly conservative Supreme Court majority in liberal media circles. We could be amid a pandemic from an alien virus, like The Andromeda Strain, and the media would still devote more attention to this issue than any pathogen.


    Liberals are now hoping Democrats threaten to pack the Court to offset what they see as the damage caused by some illegitimate jurists. They only feel that way because Trump won the 2016 election. It’s as simple as that; it’s pure derangement syndrome.

    So, can it be done? Well, the late Justice John Paul Stevens’ Supreme Court nomination lasted all of 19 days. Sandra Day O’Connor’s lasted 33 days. So, there is precedent, but a deep dive into our history goes even further to support the move for McConnell, Trump, and the GOP to fill this vacancy as soon as possible. Dan McLaughlin wrote more on this over at National Review in a very lengthy piece on the subject:

    History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. Republicans should not create a brand-new precedent to deviate from them.

    […]

    Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration. (This counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 1835–36 and 1987–88.) The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases. George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Thomas Jefferson did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Dwight Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up a nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate.

    During the 1844 election, for example, there were two open seats on the Court. John Tyler made nine separate nominations of five different candidates, in one case sending up the same nominee three times. He sent up a pair of nominees in December, after the election. When those failed, he sent up another pair in February (presidential terms then ended in March). He had that power. Presidents have made Supreme Court nominations as late as literally the last day of their term.

    […]

    At the same time, in terms of raw power, a majority of senators has the power to seat any nominee they want, and block any nominee they want. Historically, that power of the majority was limited by the filibuster, but a majority can change that rule, and has. Norms long limited the filibuster’s use in judicial nominations in the first place, and violation of those norms led to its abolition. No Supreme Court nominee was filibustered by a minority of Senators until 1968. Senate Democrats attempted filibusters of William Rehnquist twice, and launched the first formal filibuster of a new appointment to the Court on partisan lines against Samuel Alito in 2005. Joe Biden participated prominently in the Rehnquist and Alito filibusters. Senate Democrats, led by Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer and joined by Biden, were the first to filibuster federal appellate nominees in 2003. After Republicans adopted the same tactic years later, Senate Democrats eliminated the filibuster for appellate nominees in 2013. Republicans extended that elimination to Supreme Court nominees in 2017.

    So, today, Donald Trump has the raw power to make a Supreme Court nomination all the way to the end of his term. Senate Republicans have the raw power to confirm one at least until a new Senate is seated on January 3, and — so long as there are at least 50 Republican senators on that date — until Trump leaves office. Whether they should use this power, however, is a matter of norms, and of politics.

    […]

    In 2016, Barack Obama used his raw power to nominate Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia in March of the last year of Obama’s term, with the Trump–Clinton election underway. The Republican majority in the Senate used its raw power to refuse to seat that nominee. Having reached that decision, the Republican majority did not even hold a hearing for an outcome that was predetermined. In looking back at that exercise of Senate power in 2017, I concluded that it was supported by historical precedent…

    There have been ten vacancies resulting in a presidential election-year or post-election nomination when the president and Senate were from opposite parties. In six of the ten cases, a nomination was made before Election Day. Only one of those, Chief Justice Melville Fuller’s nomination by Grover Cleveland in 1888, was confirmed before the election. Four nominations were made in lame-duck sessions after the election; three of those were left open for the winner of the election. Other than the unusual Fuller nomination (made when the Court was facing a crisis of backlogs in its docket), three of the other nine were filled after Election Day in ways that rewarded the winner of the presidential contest

    […]

    Nineteen times between 1796 and 1968, presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party controlled the Senate. Ten of those nominations came before the election; nine of the ten were successful, the only failure being the bipartisan filibuster of the ethically challenged Abe Fortas as chief justice in 1968. Justices to enter the Court under these circumstances included such legal luminaries as Louis Brandeis and Benjamin Cardozo. George Washington made two nominations in 1796, one of them a chief justice replacing a failed nominee the prior year. It was his last year in office, and the Adams–Jefferson race to replace him was bitter and divisive. Woodrow Wilson made two nominations in 1916, one of them to replace Charles Evans Hughes, who had resigned from the Court to run for president against Wilson. Wilson was in a tight reelection campaign that was not decided until California finished counting votes a week after Election Day. Three of the presidents who got election-year nominees confirmed (Benjamin Harrison in 1892, William Howard Taft in 1912, and Herbert Hoover in 1932) were on their way to losing reelection, in Taft’s and Hoover’s cases by overwhelming margins. But they still had the Senate, so they got their nominees through.

    Nine times, presidents have made nominations after the election in a lame-duck session.

    Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) also noted another reason for filling the vacancy. This election could be like the 2000 election and be litigated all the way up to the Supreme Court. You cannot have a 4-4 tie in these cases.
     
    Caveman Jim, bluez and G66enigma like this.
  5. microadventure

    microadventure Well-Known Member

    2,405
    3,426
    113
    in re opinions flying within an hour of her death: it would be different if she was 55 and played tennis every week. nobody should be surprised when an 87 year old dies. people have been expecting this for a long time. everybody is past "that's sad" and went straight to "it's over"

    I'm thinking, the way 2020 is going, something major medical will come up for Breyer and Biden before the election.
     
  6. Hookeye

    Hookeye Well-Known Member

    3,468
    2,534
    113
    She should have retired.
    Only reason she didn't was spite.
    Not professional.
    Liberal til her last breath.
    Good riddance.
     
    Caveman Jim and winds-of-change like this.
  7. Mercator

    Mercator Well-Known Member

    13,196
    3,007
    113
    It has always been team sport, by design. The conflict ebbs and flows. The whole system is based on the Founders notion that human beings are flawed and cannot be trusted to act impartially and selflessly. So they set up a system of productive conflict.
    And according to DJT in particular, no deal is better than a bad deal.
     
  8. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,914
    2,733
    113
    The thing is, however, the people via their representatives always do have a voice. Just happens to be the luck of the draw, in a given instance, as to how the timing falls. One month left, eight months left, eighteen months left ... doesn't much matter; either way, the people are "being heard" when votes are cast by their reps to get the job done.

    And if the reps need to go running to the People each and every time a decision is to be made, then 100% of the reps hired were mistakes and are unworthy to accomplish what they've been hired to do. They "went running" when they ran for office as candidates; the People made their choice then, had their say then. It's how it works. As these self-aggrandizing snots know.

    Aside from the hypocrisy of claiming X but ending up doing Y, and the raw taste in the mouth from the putrifyingly-political tang of it all, at the end of the day it is a key opportunity of every given legislature and administration to shape one-ninth of the Court to how they see the future. Next time around, largely by random chance, it'll be the opportunity of that legislature and administration to do the same.

    Only one basic rule in this: that the Executive shall nominate and, with the advice and consent of the Legislature, appoint justices to the Court. So sayeth the Constitution.

    All the rest is merely political posturing in an attempt to gain advantage. It has nothing to do with the essential process, nor the essential "luck of the draw" this time around. Next time it'll just as likely be different.

    I despise the hypocritical baser natures laid bare in our reps, through such a process. Yet, the process is simple and straightforward. The authority is simple and clear: nomination, advice and consent, then appointment of one's chosen justice.
     
  9. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,914
    2,733
    113
    Of course, the "spin" machine is turned on "high," right now, though that shouldn't come as a surprise. Given that one of the greatest imprints that can be made for the next generation is playing out.

    The impression some "news" organizations are attempting to create? That unholy congress is happening behind closed doors, in smokey back rooms, where our future is being stolen from us.

    Yeah.


    [​IMG]


    I wonder if there are folks of a certain persuasion, in D.C., who are wishing (perhaps even muttering) that at least the woman could have had the good grace to have postponed it until mid-November. (Wouldn't surprise me in the least, given how nasty things have gotten in the past couple of years.)

    Hold onto your suspenders. It's going to be a bumpy ride the next few weeks.
     
  10. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,914
    2,733
    113
    Looks like there are growing threats (and public calls) to "pack the court" by altering the U.S. code authorizing the number of justices on SCOTUS.


    From a Twitter post by Senator Markey (D-Mass):

    “Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.”


    For reference, the number of justices authorized on the Court is specified in 28 U.S. Code § 1:

    28 U.S. Code § 1 -- Number of justices; quorum:

    The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight associate justices, any six of whom shall constitute a quorum.
     
  11. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,914
    2,733
    113
    And, from RBG's own lips back in 2016, when the replacement for Antonin Scalia was nominated (Merrick Garland), regarding what constraints there might be as to the responsibilities of the Senate and the President in an election year ...

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg, No Fan of Donald Trump, Critiques Latest Term @ The New York Times, 7/10/16.


    Gee. She was correct. Typical conventions and habit notwithstanding, there's only the responsibility and authority. They can opt to do it sooner or later, but it's their responsibility to do it.
     
  12. partdeux

    partdeux Well-Known Member Supporter

    6,058
    2,534
    113
    Elections matter.

    Chain, funny how you posted all the R quotes... maybe you could show some balance and post all the D quotes, even RBG quote made in 2016.
     
  13. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,914
    2,733
    113
    I half regret the Founders didn't specify a fixed number of justices on SCOTUS, to disallow exactly this sort of unconscionable, retaliatory, politically-motivated fiddling some are proposing along these lines. (Of course, we could set the number, via Amendment, but that's about as likely as a duck flying to the moon.)

    They can't get what they want via persuasion, so they're (basically) threatening "force" to accomplish it. Damn the consequences, so long as they get what they want.

    Despicable.
     
    Caveman Jim and locutus like this.
  14. G66enigma

    G66enigma Well-Known Member Supporter

    1,914
    2,733
    113
    Just doing the simple math ...

    231 years of U.S. history of SCOTUS, from 1789-2020.
    115 justices on SCOTUS, in that time.
    Chance of an election year appointment: one-fourth.
    Chance of a non-election year appointment: three-fourths.

    Expected number of 115 justices coming during an election year: 0.25 * 115 = 28.

    Expected number of 115 justices coming in outside of an election year: 0.75 * 115 = 86.


    So, 19's a bit on the low side. Luck of the draw. Time to do it. By the timeline specified by the Senate majority.

    Irrespective of how loudly some might howl.


    Imagine how ugly things could get if the results (of the election) were contested and the ninth "tie-breaker" vote fell to the Vice President. The "howling" (rioting) people have been doing lately could be like a Sunday picnic by comparison, if that occurs. If they are true to themselves and make good on their promises to "Burn that ***** down!"
     
  15. jigs-n-fixture

    jigs-n-fixture Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    3,356
    4,139
    113
    Government and the law run on precedents. For eighty plus years we haven’t appointed justices in presidential election years.

    Four years ago, the republican senators refused to hear Merrit Garland nomination, with much hoopla about how important the precedent is. Now they have flip flopped, and are trying to push trough a nominee.

    Pretty two faced, forked tongue devil behavior.
     
    MisterMcCool likes this.
  16. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    8,575
    7,379
    113
    How many vacancies occurred when the same Party held both the Presidency and the Senate?

    Which party broke the 60 vote "precedent" to appoint judges so the D's could get Obama's judges on courts without the R's blocking them?

    If we relied on the verbiage of the COTUS instead precedents, we probably would not have this issue to discuss.
     
  17. Gatoragn

    Gatoragn Well-Known Member Supporter

    8,575
    7,379
    113
    In hindsight, they should have gone through the motions and voted NO!
     
  18. Txhillbilly

    Txhillbilly Well-Known Member

    5,292
    1,970
    113
    Caveman Jim, locutus and partdeux like this.
  19. jigs-n-fixture

    jigs-n-fixture Well-Known Member Lifetime Supporter

    3,356
    4,139
    113
    They didn’t because Merrit Garland was pretty much a centrist who would have been confirmed. There were still some traditional Republicans in the Senate at that time.

    Now it is dominated by pseudo republican trumpists.

    And you miss the point. The should honor their own words. There used to be a huge issue with right wing voters about folks changing their minds even over decades. Now they can flip flop constantly, so long as teh new opinion is the currently popular one with the trumpists, and no one says a thing.
     
  20. Sniper03

    Sniper03 Supporting Member Supporter

    11,335
    9,255
    113
    The good news is Trump is not afraid of the Socialist in the Hate Party.
    This appointment will be done and it will protect our Second Amendment and other rights for years to come no matter who gets elected. SO lets get it done! I regret that a person had to die to open up the position. As was mention, I would have hoped it was due to a retirement. IMO with her past health issues she might have thought about retiring. But I am sure the Hate Party coached her to hang in their, because if she would retire she would mess up their ultimate plan for America. "Socialism" But the position is open now! So lets fill it to hammer a Stake in the Socialist Anti Gun groups agenda for many years to come! It seems About the time they think they have the upper hand, something blows up for them! This is just another blow up for them. They deserve it!
    Could it be intervention due to their lies corruption and hate????:rolleyes:

    03
     
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2020
    Caveman Jim, locutus and Txhillbilly like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.