Justice Ginsburg has died

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
yeah but that election was not going to end in a Court Battle

lefties should consider the Court leans to the Right now ...
Won't matter. I do see this election as one incredibly rampant with fraud. With so many ballots being mailed in, it wouldn't surprise me if tens of thousands of ballots all for Biden suddenly appear out of nowhere after a state is called for Trump.

I also see outrage from our far leftie types should Trump win even with cheating from the left.
 

Smokey1

Well-Known Member
MY original point was a counter point to both Hijinx and your points that only MEN seated on the USCOTUS are capable of unbiased opinions. 🙄

Through the years, Presidents of both parties have chosen male candidates who were in their party and they have turned out to rule much different on some cases.
Where did I say only men are capable of unbiased opinions? I never said that nor would I say that. Stop making things up.
 

Bann

Doris Day meets Lady Gaga
PREMO Member
Where did I say only men are capable of unbiased opinions? I never said that nor would I say that. Stop making things up.
What sex based agenda would the men on the SC have? Example?
Correction - you questioned my post about how males on the SCOTUS would have a sex based agenda bias...

...which was a dovetail off of Hijinx's post.

apologies.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
You do not need to be a lawyer to be on the Supreme Court.
Trumps daughter could serve if she was confirmed.
 
Reactions: BOP

glhs837

Power with Control
These 2 articles definitely changed my mind. Thank you
Let's add this about our friends the anti-Trumpers of The Left and the #NeverTrumpers (now of The Left and formerly of The Right):

--- End of line (MCP)

This right here.

"This election is almost certainly going to end up in court over ballot issues. We’ve already had lower courts rule that ballots in certain states can be counted up to two weeks after election day. All of this is going to be challenged. Having a Supreme Court that could split would be a real constitutional crisis. It is the duty of the Senate to ensure this seat is filled and that doesn’t happen. "

So, he nominates, they confirm, then the election ends up in front of the court, and Trump wins in court?

Katie bar the door. Cities will burn. People will die. I should say more people. The only people you can be sure wont die are those who have fanned the flames to ensure on oxygen rich environment. I wish I saw another outcome. Glad the daughter and her girlfriend didn't move any closer to DC than Frederick.
 

Yooper

Up. Identified. Lase. Fire. On the way.
PREMO Member
Yeah, but what's he say now?
That's pretty much the point.

If, as Obama would have liked everyone to believe back then, that what he was saying was a PRINCIPLE, then it should not matter which party, etc. Because, it's a matter of PRINCIPLE. Which means he would still be saying the same thing today even though it would put his party and ideological vision in peril.

But if, all of a sudden, things have changed so that he now says that what he said then no longer applies, then it's POLITICS. This, The Lightbringer has done.

So since this is not PRINCIPLE but rather POLITICS, then cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. All's fair in love, war, politics, and Seventh District corn hole. This time around the GOP has the opportunity to drink the Dems'/The Left's tears so it had better avail itself of the opportunity and do so. The Dems/The Left have already done the same to the GOP/The Right and will do so again in a nano-second (having said so numerous times with their threats to once again change Senate rules, attempt to pack SCOTUS, impeach Trump and Barr in order to derail the SCOTUS nomination, etc.). "I have a phone and pen" someone once said. Well, turnabout is fair play.

We're well past the point where we should hope good behavior on the part of The Right will engender a similar response from The Left. In other words, well past time to invoke Newton's Third Law of Political Motion. Here's to hoping Mitch the Warrior Turtle is able to rally the GOP (especially Mitt the Self-Saintly, Lisa the Lukewarm, and Susan the Line Splitter).

--- End of line (MCP)
 
Last edited:

22AcaciaAve

Well-Known Member
The specter of the old Merrick Garland thing is going to re-emerge.

What gets me is - does anyone believe that anyone takes a position on this that ISN'T utterly motivated by political expedience?

Of course, we have what was later termed - the Biden rule (ironic, huh) where in 1992 Senator Biden spoke at length about the possibility of nominating a SCOTUS member during a hotly campaigned political season where the White House and Senate would likely flip?


So - when it got brought up in 2016 when Scalia died - the Dems were all over the place indicating their complete opposition to this previously embraced principle - don't do it during a presidential campaign season.

There's little question in my mind - what the Republicans did with Garland was wrong. They should have just let the nomination go through - and voted it down. They reasoned incorrectly that it was more politically advantageous to stop it than go on the record as voting it down. But it's what they should have done.

But you can't have it both ways - the argument NOW is going to be the other way around - again. After vehement denials that there's any such thing as a "Biden rule" - they will invoke it anyway.

Because they know most people have short memories.
I'm right there with you on this. I thought at the time the best way to handle the Garland nomination was to let it come to a vote, and make sure republicans were all on board to vote no. It now comes back to haunt them because it is hypocritical to try to rush through a nomination when they took the total opposite stand on Garland. They can do it because there is nothing constitutionally that prevents them from doing it. But the political capital they could lose with independents who will note that their principles were so easily changed could affect them for years to come.
 
Reactions: BOP

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
I'm right there with you on this. I thought at the time the best way to handle the Garland nomination was to let it come to a vote, and make sure republicans were all on board to vote no. It now comes back to haunt them because it is hypocritical to try to rush through a nomination when they took the total opposite stand on Garland. They can do it because there is nothing constitutionally that prevents them from doing it. But the political capital they could lose with independents who will note that their principles were so easily changed could affect them for years to come.
The thing is, it's the argument both sides can make - the Democrats are saying that this close to an election, the "people" should have a say in who gets placed on the court - the VERY argument made against Garland by Senator Cotton.

So I guess it depends on which side of the aisle you're on. Which side is being "hypocritical" when both have made the same argument on both sides? And my argument is usually - were you wrong THEN, or wrong now? The argument is also made that such a nomination is unprecedented, which is wrong historically no matter how you cut it. Senator Warren was objecting to the speed with which it would be done - but RBG herself was confirmed in roughly the same time - and Stephens was even less.

Nevertheless, the REAL concern underneath is - Roe v. Wade. THAT is the 800 lb. gorilla. The Dems really don't have another dog in this fight. They are more concerned that the tilt of the court to the right will result in an overturning of Roe v. Wade than any other issue. And with this, I think they're mistaken. Not that Roe v. Wade cannot be "overturned". In my mind, Roe v. Wade shouldn't have been made "law" - the courts aren't supposed to create law but rule on law passed by Congress - and for that reason ALONE should be overturned. But there really isn't one other issue they're concerned about. And I think beneath it all, they've latched onto an idea that really shouldn't bother them at all. If they want abortion to remain legal, CONGRESS should make it law.

It of course, is all moot if Trump wins re-election. He doesn't even need to keep the Senate, because we can't have an empty SCOTUS seat for four years.
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
The fact remains that the Repubs could have let Garland's nomination come to the senate floor and it would have been voted down by the Repub majority. Dems lost the Senate due to the Obama admin and the people spoke by giving the majority to the Repubs. Thats been addressed over and over, losing has consequences. Tim Pool gives a good summation of the differences between 2016 and now.

 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
But if, all of a sudden, things have changed so that he now says that what he said then no longer applies, then it's POLITICS. This, The Lightbringer has done.
It was ALWAYS Politics, IMHO.

I thought at the time the best way to handle the Garland nomination was to let it come to a vote,
I respectfully disagree .....The Senate changed hands to oppose Obama

Period End of Story

In my mind, Roe v. Wade shouldn't have been made "law"
I agree ...


and I so :sshrug: what RvW gets overturned at a Federal Level ... states that wish to have this will run right our and pass Pro Abortion Laws PPH will start a bus service to those states at allow abortion. Women might have a little longer to reconsider murdering their unborn child, but I don't see EVER Going Away.
 

gemma_rae

Well-Known Member
That's pretty much the point.

If, as Obama would have liked everyone to believe back then, that what he was saying was a PRINCIPLE, then it should not matter which party, etc. Because, it's a matter of PRINCIPLE. Which means he would still be saying the same thing today even though it would put his party and ideological vision in peril.

But if, all of a sudden, things have changed so that he now says that what he said then no longer applies, then it's POLITICS. This, The Lightbringer has done.

So since this is not PRINCIPLE but rather POLITICS, then cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war. All's fair in love, war, politics, and Seventh District corn hole. This time around the GOP has the opportunity to drink the Dems'/The Left's tears so it had better avail itself of the opportunity and do so. The Dems/The Left have already done the same to the GOP/The Right and will do so again in a nano-second (having said so numerous times with their threats to once again change Senate rules, attempt to pack SCOTUS, impeach Trump and Barr in order to derail the SCOTUS nomination, etc.). "I have a phone and pen" someone once said. Well, turnabout is fair play.

We're well past the point where we should hope good behavior on the part of The Right will engender a similar response from The Left. In other words, well past time to invoke Newton's Third Law of Political Motion. Here's to hoping Mitch the Warrior Turtle is able to rally the GOP (especially Mitt the Self-Saintly, Lisa the Lukewarm, and Susan the Line Splitter).

--- End of line (MCP)
I would follow you into battle any day Sir.
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
I'm right there with you on this. I thought at the time the best way to handle the Garland nomination was to let it come to a vote, and make sure republicans were all on board to vote no. It now comes back to haunt them because it is hypocritical to try to rush through a nomination when they took the total opposite stand on Garland. They can do it because there is nothing constitutionally that prevents them from doing it. But the political capital they could lose with independents who will note that their principles were so easily changed could affect them for years to come.
You're correct, but don't forget the circumstances at the time. The Republican'ts were terrified that they'd be labelled racists for down-voting Garland. In their teeny, little minds, far better to not let it come to a vote at all than to be smeared in the press for opposing the Won.

Good times.
 
Top