tuscl

Ruth Bader Ginsburg / Dead at age 87

Warrior15
Anywhere there are Titties.
Friday, September 18, 2020 4:51 PM
The presidential election just got a little more important just now. [view link] No way can any Supreme Court Justice get approved before January. So the next president will nominate her replacement. Ginsburg has been one of the most liberal judges in some time, nominated by Bill Clinton almost 30 years ago. This could have far reaching implications for many issues.

153 comments

  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    O - M - G I had been thinking this was a possibility - if the Republicans push thru a nominee the Libs are gonna take up arms (I hope Trump does it after all the shit the Libs have done this summer)
  • RandomMember
    •
    4 years ago
    No way can any Supreme Court Justice get approved before January" _______ Why not?
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    If Trump tried to push through a nominee before election, it would be chaos. He’ll wait.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    She was a feisty little thing
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    The Supreme Court is too important to let this opportunity pass by and just possibly hand it to the Dems - plus Trump DGAF
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    I recall watching something on TV about Mitch McConnell and how obsessed he is w.r.t. Supreme Court justices b/c of a nomination the Dems derailed in the 80s and supposedly he never forgave the Dems for it - so I can see McConnell pushing for it - but remains to be seen
  • Tetradon
    •
    4 years ago
    The stakes just went way up. This will not get resolved in a presidential election season by Nov 3.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    If someone does get nominated he/she better have some thick-skin b/c the process is gonna be nuclear
  • ime
    •
    4 years ago
    Democrat election fraud is going to hit levels never thought possible. Shit they already have been so brazen about it and their plans. Shit is gonna be wild.
  • Richard_Head
    •
    4 years ago
    Trump and McConnell will absolutely try to replace her prior to the election. McConnell has repeatedly said this over the past couple of months, he sees all of this court packing as his lasting legacy. Trump needs to or he risks losing the evangelicals.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    If the Dems were in power I doubt they'd "take the high-road and wait after the election" - especially after all the power-grabbing-shit the Dems have been throwing around latey like eliminating the filibuster; adding D.C. and Puerto Rico as states so the Dems can almost have a lock on the Senate for years to come; etc.
  • Richard_Head
    •
    4 years ago
    If Trump gets a new justice added and then loses to Biden, I would expect Biden to expand the court.
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    Thanks to Chuck Schumer, the last time the Democrats had a Senate majority, the filibuster was eliminated. Legally, not a single Democrat needs to be consulted to fill this position before January.
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    Can you imagine the line of women who will show up claiming improprieties if Trump nominates someone before Nov 3 ? It will make the Cavanaugh nomination look like a Tea Dance.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    "... If Trump gets a new justice added and then loses to Biden, I would expect Biden to expand the court ..." Chances are high that will happen either way
  • twentyfive
    •
    4 years ago
    Since when has D.C. and Puerto Rico become states have I been sleeping that long ?
  • ime
    •
    4 years ago
    Of course Biden would want to expand it, Democrats always want to change the rules to their favor. They hate the constitution.
  • Richard_Head
    •
    4 years ago
    The filibuster was eliminated for lower court judges, not SCOTUS appointments, that’s all on McConnell.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    The Dems decided to take the gloves off in 2020 - IMO the Republicans don't have a choice but to pay them with the same coin
  • rickdugan
    •
    4 years ago
    No Dick_Head, the Dems set the precedent. McConnell even warned them at the time that it could come back to haunt them in the future. Well the future is here.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    "... Since when has D.C. and Puerto Rico become states have I been sleeping that long ..." That's what the Dems would like to do if they get power
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    I nominate @Eve for justice
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    Exactly RickDugan. I can’t wait to see Schumer’s reaction.
  • Richard_Head
    •
    4 years ago
    No dickdugan, the only precedence that was set was the made up Biden Rule precedence. [view link]
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    Some brought up the point on TV that Ginsburg had been asked to retire while Obama was in office but that she had refused. Someone on TV also brought up the point that Justices shouldn't have lifetime appointments b/c it gives the court too-much power.
  • Richard_Head
    •
    4 years ago
    ^^^ Any replacement attempt by Obama would have been obstructed. I’m all for term limits for the SCOTUS.
  • rickdugan
    •
    4 years ago
    ^ Not if he had a Dem controlled Senate. Fortunately he did not. Also fortunately, the the Republicans DO have the Senate.
  • IceyLoco
    •
    4 years ago
    She had a dying wish to not be replaced until a nee president is elected
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    I assume the VP would break a 50/50 time for a Justice nomination
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    @Papi - as President of the Senate, Vice President Pence would break a tie vote in the senate.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    "... She had a dying wish to not be replaced until a nee president is elected ..." Yeah and I have a wish to have a 12" dick - we don't all get what we want
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    @IceyDodo - it's going to be nice to see the dying wish of someone who hurt so many people come to naught.
  • Richard_Head
    •
    4 years ago
    Murkowski already saying she won’t support naming a replacement in election year. Susan Collins is on the clock.
  • rickdugan
    •
    4 years ago
    You're splitting hairs Dick_Head. You can't say on one hand that it was ok for the Dems to remove the filibuster for a number of court positions, including some very important Appeals Court nominations, but then moan and groan when the Repubs do the same for Supreme Court nominations when the Dems engage in similar obstructive behavior. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    What if, like in 2000, the election requires an opinion from the Supreme Court ?
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    Some on TV are talking about not doing it b/c of the mob-violence that would break out - I'd say it'd be more dangerous *not* to do it b/c of fear of the mob (which might be Trump's line of thinking; but then again it may be up to McConnell and not Trump?)
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    To Richard_Head and all other liberals who can't count - the Republicans hold 53 seats in the Senate. If 3 Republicans were to turn against the Trump nominee, surely Vice President Pence would vote in favor of the candidate and break the 50-50 tie. In other words, it takes 4 Republican Senators to turn against the nominee to prevent things from going forward.
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    @Mark94 - all the more reason to get things settled before November 3rd.
  • rickdugan
    •
    4 years ago
    Does anyone else feel like the day just got a little bit brighter? 😀
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    I nominate @Founder - he has a steady hand
  • Warrior15
    •
    4 years ago
    ^ Sorry Rick. I dont' feel good about someone dying. Even if I am happy that she is being replaced.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    I think McConnell released a statement that he would bring a nominee to the Senate floor if Trump nominated someone
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    @RickDugan - not just the day - the entire year just got brighter.
  • Richard_Head
    •
    4 years ago
    Lower courts vs Supreme Court dickdugan, 2 very different things. This is yet another reason that Senate malappropriation is an issue, minority rule will only be put up with for so long.
  • Tetradon
    •
    4 years ago
    ^ Constitution full of anti majoritarian provisions. We were never meant to be ruled by 50%+1. Don't like it, get an amendment passed.
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    @Tetradon - I wish I could give you more than a simple thumbs up for that post.
  • rickdugan
    •
    4 years ago
    Still splitting hairs Dick_Head. Those Appeals Court positions are also very important since only a fraction of the cases ruled on appeal get taken up by the Supreme Court. You don't get to set a precedent by removing the filibuster and then bitch when the same is done to you for the same reasons. The Dems made it crystal clear that they were never going to approve a Trump Supreme Court nominee, which paved the way for the tit for tat.
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    Trump's nominee will receive a floor vote [view link]
  • Huntsman
    •
    4 years ago
    RIP RBG.
  • Richard_Head
    •
    4 years ago
    Dickdugan, You are leaving out the part about Merrick Garland.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    Trump and his cabinet gave their respects - Biden got up there and I knew he was gonna politicize it like Obama did at John Lewis' service - Biden made it a point to mention that there shouldn't be a nominee till after the election (while the body is still warm)
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    Biden's statements should be seen as a reason the Republicans shouldn't give an inch - bc the Dems are trying to take a mile with all the shit they've been pulling and want to pull in the future
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    @Richard_Head - what, did you want Rick to say that Garland was Borked? Hmmmm, I wonder how Borked became a verb......
  • Richard_Head
    •
    4 years ago
    ^^^ Bork got a hearing and a vote and a bipartisan rejection, that led to another appointment by Reagan who was subsequently approved. None of that applies to Merrick Garland. So yeah, Bork is a bad comp. Nice try though.
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    Robert Bork was unquestionably qualified for a seat on the Supreme Court. He was denied that seat for political reasons. Payback is a birch, isn’t it?
  • Muddy
    •
    4 years ago
    I’m pretty pro choice (within reason) but this country can not afford a “gender is merely a social construct!” kind of judges. Fuck that.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    2020 - a year that shall live in infamy - we might end up in a damn civil-war b/f the year is over.
  • nickifree
    •
    4 years ago
    Man this sucks. As if the upcoming election wasn't enough turmoil already. If the GOP shoehorn's a nominee, given they denied Obama a nominee in an election year, then they'd lost my vote- and my confidence. We are still a nation of laws.
  • nickifree
    •
    4 years ago
    @Papi And I thought 2016 was bad.
  • shailynn
    •
    4 years ago
    THIS JUST IN: President Trump has just nominated Ivanka Trump to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Ivanka will be starting law school at Georgetown next week.
  • twentyfive
    •
    4 years ago
    It’s a Friday night don’t any of you schoolboys have dates Too bad about R. B. G may she R. I. P. Man you guys have boring lives.
  • nickifree
    •
    4 years ago
    Bork was a rejection of a particular candidate, not a scrupulous tactic to deny a sitting President a Supreme Court appointment. Republican politicians like McConnell are always mouthing off about the 'rule of law', yet never hesitate to break them. If Trump loses I hope his most ardent Senate and House supporters go with down with them. I'm really hating both sides this year. But really I'm hoping we can at least start eliminating the extremes on both sides.
  • nickifree
    •
    4 years ago
    @shailynn - What's Scooter Libby doing these days?
  • ATACdawg
    •
    4 years ago
    Lady I checked, confirmation of a Supreme Court Justice requires a 3/5 majority of voting senators. What do you think the odds of a Trump nominee getting 60 votes? Pretty darn small, I would think (hope)!
  • ATACdawg
    •
    4 years ago
    *Last* I checked... Damned autocorrect.
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    @ATACdawg - you need to check again - it's a simple majority. If a super majority was required, there would be 2 vacancies on the Supreme Court.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    A point someone made on TV is that this election could possibly be a contested election like 2000 and thus a vacancy in the court could lead to a 4-4 tie - thus I say Ivonka for the SCOTUS
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    Rumor has it Sleepy Joe wants to nominate Cardi B for the SCOTUS vacancy
  • twentyfive
    •
    4 years ago
    Trump is gonna be pissed someone got the headline and pushed him down below the fold
  • IceyLoco
    •
    4 years ago
    The biggest fear is more right wing violence. Yrump calling out all the rittenhouse wannabes
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    Amy Coney Barrett is the clear favorite- Mother of 7 ( that’s not a typo ). Trump has said in the past he would name her to replace RBG.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    The left is already threatening violence - all the more reason to do it - you don't negotiate with terrorists; it only emboldens them - this is why we are where we are now, bc the rioters have been allowed to have their way - and at the end of the day it'll likely be Dem cities/states that will likely take the brunt of it: [view link]
  • skibum609
    •
    4 years ago
    Let there be riots. Its time to admit the civil war has started.... and Kyle Rittenhouse clones will be on the street with the rioters. Some young people make popcorn so I can watch you bugs destroy your own future ......
  • datinman
    •
    4 years ago
    There might be a GOP advantage to not making a quick replacement. I think there are a lot of conservatives and evangelicals that find Trump's behavior to be repugnant. They would be far more likely to cast a vote for Trump in November if the SCOTUS appointment was on the line. The only reason to rush is if the GOP sees Trump as seriously vulnerable.
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    @Justin - that's really a weak argument. Of the current Supreme Court members, Clarence Thomas is 72 and his health isn't the greatest. Stephen Breyer is 82 Samuel Alito is 70 There will be at least 2 chances to seat Supreme Court justices between 2021 and 2025. And two of the likely people to be replaced are conservatives. Even before you consider the need to continue putting conservatives in the Federal courts, there is still a need to maintain the balance in the Supreme Court during the next cycle.
  • datinman
    •
    4 years ago
    How much foresight do you think the average American has. A current opening is more of a call to arms than a speculative future opening. Unfortunately, we are an immediate need gratification society now.
  • twentyfive
    •
    4 years ago
    ^ If you’re so confident in that position why not wait until after the election, I get it y’all know Trump is going to lose, and badly, so you’re trying to get whatever you can before the inevitable happens
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    @Justin - that is a good point. So to answer your question, I don't think that the average American has much foresight at all. But average Americans are more likely to focus on things like "personality" in an election cycle. More informed Americans may focus on policy, but few can truly understand the ramifications. Case in point, in the coming election, Arizona has Proposition 208 - it increases spending on public schools. It also increases the top tax rate in Arizona from 4.5% to 8.0% - a massive tax increase. It is being sold in ads as being "good for the economy". People who understand the long game and the importance of getting judicial nominees are much rarer. That's why you don't see accomplishments in seating judges mentioned in campaign ads. But the people who are aware of the importance of the judicial system are aware of the facts that I posted in the previous post. Four year terms tend to bring 2 or 3 opportunities tend to seat Supreme Court justices in the long run. Obviously there is some variance - the country is fortunate that Obma only seated 2 Supreme Court justices over his 8 years in office. But 2 or 3 per term is a long term average. And failing to seat someone when you have a majority in the Senate would be seen as a negative. Outside of getting another conservative in the US Supreme Court, I believe this will be good for Republican morale.
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    @TwentyFive - you like football, so I'll put this in easy to understand terms. I've got a bet for you on the Giants/Bears game tomorrow. To get in the bet, you need to put the deed to your house on the line. If you lose the bet, your house is mine. If you win the bet, I'll give you the deed to your house back. Are you in?
  • Richard_Head
    •
    4 years ago
    ^^^ Good for Republican morale until their precedence breaking new norm leads to the removal of the filibuster for legislation, statehood for DC/PR and an expanded supreme court by a Democratic majority.
  • gammanu95
    •
    4 years ago
    The Supreme Court is well rid of her. She is another example of a greedy politician, who despite being gravely and terminally ill, refused to step down. She selfishly put her own political activism ahead of the best interests of the country. Scumbag John McCorpse was another, as was John Lewis. I wish I could say that I disagree with Sen McConnell's plan to install the next justice before the election. We all the know the democrat party ignored their own Biden rule in 2016, and they would ignore it again in 2020. Therefore, I must assent to Trump immediately proceeding with nominating a next Supreme Court justice, and the Senate swiftly proceeding with nomination hearings. Can you imagine the stains that democrat party hacks will put upon themselves as they attack the next nominee as much or more viciously than they attacked the Hon. Judge Kavanaugh? They'll torpedo their own campaigns and lose all hope of retaking the Senate and White House. Hell, they could even gift the House of Reps to the Republican Party.
  • twentyfive
    •
    4 years ago
    That’s stupid ace, the deed to my house is probably worth more than your entire net worth why would I care who wins the game that much ? Just like IDGAF how these politics end up I’ve got mine y’all can fight amongst yourselves for the leftovers
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    @Gammanu95 - very good point in bringing up the nonsense that happen with the Kavanaugh confirmations. A repeat before the election would be very good for Republicans across the board. Talk about a "get-out-the-vote" operation...
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    @TwentyFive - what's stupid is you. You didn't understand the simple analogy. You lose the bet, you lose your house. You win the bet, you win nothing - you just get to keep your house. The point is making a bet when you have nothing that you can possibly win is foolish.
  • nicespice
    •
    4 years ago
    Rest In Peace. Read a headline earlier about Scalia’s son mourning Ginsberg. In light of how tribal politics tends to be, the Scalia and Ginsberg friendship is something I consider especially memorable and amazing.
  • twentyfive
    •
    4 years ago
    No dummy what’s stupid is you thinking that what happens in Washington is going to change my life one little bit, now you on the other hand are going to continue to subsist on scraps There was an interesting article this morning in one of the news magazines don’t remember which one basically was about the difference between empathy, sympathy, and pity it made me remember that old TV show “T he A Team” and to paraphrase Mr T a/k/a B. A. Baracus I pity the fool LOL
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    Why am I not surprised that you like low brow entertainment like the A Team? Probably because you STILL don't understand the analogy I gave you. You said that if Republicans were confident, they would wait until after the election to replace Ginsburg. OK, that's equivalent to making a bet. To win that bet, not only does Trump have to win, but the Republicans also have to maintain the Senate. The reward for winning the bet? They get to replace Ginsburg. Someone would have to be as stupid as you are to take that bet. (I'll give you a second chance risking your house on the Giants/Bears game tomorrow with no possibility of winning anything if you would like)
  • twentyfive
    •
    4 years ago
    @nicespice good thoughts we were talking about that last night after dinner and you actually have your heart in the right place
  • gammanu95
    •
    4 years ago
    The most pragmatic argument for Trump and McConnel to swiftly fill the vacancy is because of the high likelihood of a contested outcome to 2020 presidential election. There will be almost no way for this to avoid going to SCOTUS, and we cannot have a 4-4 split and subsequent constitutional crisis. Historically, justices installed by a GOP president have voted according to the Constitution and rule of law, while democrat-aligned judges legislate from the bench as instructed by the dnc and their special interest boosters. There is no graver threat to our constitutional Republic than such liberal activism, and therefore a clear and present need to have the next justice installed by the GOP ASAP.
  • twentyfive
    •
    4 years ago
    ^ There is no graver threat to our constitutional republic, BWAHAHAHA the only threat to your constitutional republic is idiots like you, who run around calling me a porch monkey I'm in Sarasota this week how about calling me Porch Monkey to my face you little pussy.
  • skibum609
    •
    4 years ago
    The press should be embarrassed about mentioning the unique relationship between Scalia and Ginsburg and leaving out completely how highly she respects Brett Kavanaugh, who she holds in high regard.
  • Hank Moody
    •
    4 years ago
    Republicans (of which I’m a lifetime constituent) need to own the black hat on this one. They changed the rules to block Garland and confirm Gorsuch and said they wouldn’t do it if the situation was reversed. Well, lo and behold the situation is reversed and the gymnastics to justify the hypocrisy is embarrassing. Just own it. Republicans want a conservative majority in the Supreme Court. Nobody cares anymore about hypocrisy so stop wasting our time trying to distinguish this from Garland. It’s the same thing, even worse because the election is 45 days away. Take the majority, overturn Obamacare and abortion rights and let’s get on with it.
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    The McConnell rule on Garland, as he detailed back then, was that you delay the nomination if TWO situations both exist 1. It’s an election year, AND 2. The Senate and President are different parties. Only one of those conditions currently exists. The media will ignore the second half of the rule and call Republicans hypocrites.
  • RandomMember
    •
    4 years ago
    RBG was a brilliant and magnificent person. While she's not a family member, there's a sense of grief. Tiny little woman who graduated first in her class at Cornell and Columbia law. After leaving law school, she couldn't get a job with NY law firms, facing discrimination as a woman and a jew. She went on to be the first woman to get tenure at Columbia Law and, of course, the 2nd female Supreme Court justice. Just an amazing and courageous human being. She probably suffered a lot with colon, lung, pancreatic cancer. Wish she could have lived a little longer.
  • Warrior15
    •
    4 years ago
    Hate to admit it. But I agree with Random for once. I didn't RBG on the Court anymore. But she was a very accomplished woman.
  • RandomMember
    •
    4 years ago
    McNulty: No matter what the composition of the Court, I bet Obamacare will *not* be overturned by the S.C. It's a bullshit lawshit without any merit and any changes will be made by Congress.
  • Richard_Head
    •
    4 years ago
    “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.” --Mitch McConnell, February 2016
  • Hank Moody
    •
    4 years ago
    @mark - that’s gymnastics. There was no “rule.” It was a justification then to get the result McConnell wanted and it’s a justification now. Just own it. It’s embarrassing.
  • gammanu95
    •
    4 years ago
    the democrat party violated their own Biden rule in 2016, and they would do ot today. Fuck 'em. Get a conservative majority on the Supreme Court so they cannot steal the 2020 election.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    There s no "gymnastics" here - *any* party in rule is gonna try to push thru their agenda like Obama did with ObamaCare; that's politics - anyone thinking the Dems wouldn't do the same thing is being intellectually dishonest and just expressing a political view.
  • Richard_Head
    •
    4 years ago
    ^^^ are you telling me that Obamacare didn’t get 60 votes in the Senate? Because that’s the only way your analogy works.
  • RandomMember
    •
    4 years ago
    I agree with @McNulty. Just own it. It's like the guys here who dance in circles trying to justify cheating on their wives. It's immoral, dishonest, and fun -- but be honest and own it. I guess we'll have the wild-west from here on out. Hope the Democrats play dirty, too.
  • ime
    •
    4 years ago
    Democrats been playing dirty for years. Time for some payback, only fair right?
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    From here on out ? Obamacare only passed because Al Franken was the 60th vote after cheating in the election. Thousands of late votes suddenly appeared to put him over the top. So, let’s not pretend Democrats have the vapors over Republican aggressiveness. Democrats have always believed the rules are only there to protect their interests. It’s only recently that Republicans have taken the gloves off.
  • ime
    •
    4 years ago
    Chuck Schumer Tweeted on 2/22/16 Attn GOP: Senate has confirmed 17 #SCOTUS justices presidential election years. #DoYourJob I guess they shouldn't do their jobs now that it wouldn't benefit that scumbag Schumer. Now he wants to threaten nothing is off the table if they do, while various leftists threaten violence and riots if the seat is filled. So I guess if Trump is re-elected which he certainly will be if the Democrats can't pull of their mail in voting fraud, they should go ahead and add a bunch more supreme court seats and then maybe divide up Texas into 5 states and get pick up a few more seats as well.
  • gammanu95
    •
    4 years ago
    It's politics as usual. Both sides are disgusting hyporcrites, but liberals always find a way to be more disgusting than anyone else. Schumer, New York piece of shit that he is, may be the most disgusting of all.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    "... are you telling me that Obamacare didn’t get 60 votes in the Senate? Because that’s the only way your analogy works ..." Your statement confirms my post above/prior to yours - my point is that both sides will push their agenda when they have the #s - Obama/Dems had the #s (barely) for ObamaCare and pushed it through w/ Pelosi saying something along the lines of you can read it after you vote for it - the Republicans were vehemently against it and have used the legislative process in place to try to change it; but they haven't threatened with "we'll do X and invent new rules" and republican voters certainly didn't threaten violence - again, ObamaCare was an example of a non-bipartisan agenda the Dems pushed thru b/c they the #s - and thus why the Republicans have the same right in this instance *they* have the #s (plus they are not breaking any laws nor inventing a new law) - that's the way politics/democracy works, majority rules; instead of everyone getting what they want - it's not perfect but like the great statesman Juice-Mane once said "Democracy is the worst form of government except for the all the others".
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    Trump is having a rally in NC and he's doubling-down on filling the seat - and the crowd started chanting "fill - the - seat"
  • rickdugan
    •
    4 years ago
    There were things I liked about RBG and many that I did not. But over the last 5 years or so she was starting to become a bit of a showboat with her public comments and increasing resentment over being part of the minority. The worst were her thoughtless comments during the last Presidential election, but she was crawling down into the muck in a variety of other way as well with her many interviews and public appearances. Supreme Court justices are supposed to be above politics, which is precisely why they are insulated from them by holding their positions for life. Her more recent behavior diminished that perception of impartiality for all of them, which is not a good thing as it invites heightened animosity and discord. If her attention seeking behavior was not enough of an indicator, she would have stepped down years ago if she was truly motivated more by her causes rather than her own self glorification, when Obama could have named a younger successor. But she didn't, despite her advancing age and poor health. Instead we got treated to an endless stream of goofy articles about her workout regimen and sharp mind. Now it is never acceptable to celebrate someone's passing, but she really did diminish herself a lot in my eyes in her later years.
  • gammanu95
    •
    4 years ago
    I may have taken the bait, but I'm not letting anyone set the hook. Anyone else who has a lot to lose, like myself, would have to be an idiot to cross Florida's draconian elderly assault laws: The 2019 Florida Statutes Title XLVI CRIMES Chapter 784 ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE View Entire Chapter 784.08 Assault or battery on persons 65 years of age or older; reclassification of offenses; minimum sentence.— (1) A person who is convicted of an aggravated assault or aggravated battery upon a person 65 years of age or older shall be sentenced to a minimum term of imprisonment of 3 years and fined not more than $10,000 and shall also be ordered by the sentencing judge to make restitution to the victim of such offense and to perform up to 500 hours of community service work. Restitution and community service work shall be in addition to any fine or sentence which may be imposed and shall not be in lieu thereof. (2) Whenever a person is charged with committing an assault or aggravated assault or a battery or aggravated battery upon a person 65 years of age or older, regardless of whether he or she knows or has reason to know the age of the victim, the offense for which the person is charged shall be reclassified as follows: (a) In the case of aggravated battery, from a felony of the second degree to a felony of the first degree. (b) In the case of aggravated assault, from a felony of the third degree to a felony of the second degree. (c) In the case of battery, from a misdemeanor of the first degree to a felony of the third degree. (d) In the case of assault, from a misdemeanor of the second degree to a misdemeanor of the first degree. (3) Notwithstanding the provisions of s. 948.01, adjudication of guilt or imposition of sentence shall not be suspended, deferred, or withheld. History.—s. 1, ch. 89-327; s. 1, ch. 92-50; s. 18, ch. 93-406; s. 1200, ch. 97-102; s. 19, ch. 97-194; s. 5, ch. 99-188; s. 1, ch. 2002-208.
  • twentyfive
    •
    4 years ago
    Why don’t you stop being a twat and shut the fuck up you constantly write checks with your mouth (or in this case text) that your ass can’t cash If you’d shut the fuck up you’d a been way better off You tell everyone that I’m on your ignore lis, but in threads like this one you constantly make references to me, your not just stupid you’re completely owned by me you are my bitch now and always will be.
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    Ruth Bader Ginsburg could have casually retired at 80 yrs old under Obama and been replaced by an ultra progressive in their 40s... but she chose not to. Probably because everyone knew that Hillary would win. It's not Republicans' or Trump's fault that they get the opportunity to push through a new justice.
  • Richard_Head
    •
    4 years ago
    JimmyMcNulty the only honest conservative in this whole thread, I respect him for that, why is it so so hard for the rest of you to just own it?
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    In 2016, RBG recommended the Senate proceed with the Garland nomination, even if they had to do it during the lame duck session following the election. My, how times change. [view link]
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    In 1980, Stephen G. Breyer was nominated as a Federal Judge (a key stepping stone to the Supreme Court) by Jimmy Carter AFTER Carter had lost the election to Ronald Reagan.
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    Link to Wikipedia article on Stephen G. Breyer [view link]
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    Mitch McConnell to Democrats in 2013 after Harry Reid changed to a simple majority for approving judges: “You’ll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think."
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    Mitch McConnell is a man of his word. It’s nice to see that in a politician.
  • Richard_Head
    •
    4 years ago
    We discussed this already, Harry Reid removed the filibuster for lower court judges (not for Supreme Court judges) due to unprecedented blockade of lower court judge confirmations by Mitch McConnell. Harry Reid never removed the filibuster of Supreme Court judges, that is something that Mitch McConnell did. Just own it already.
  • RandomMember
    •
    4 years ago
    Richard, the Democrats will always have trouble with the Supreme Court. I think this is obvious, but as things stand, Democrats are concentrated in urban areas and Republicans in rural areas. So the Senate will reflect a whiter and more conservative pool of voters (think TUSCL). The Senate confirms supreme court justices -- so the Democrats are at a disadvantage. That's life in America. Too lazy to Google, but I think McConnell was elected by only 2% of the population. Yet he has enormous power to shape the direction of the country for generations.
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    Obama didn’t bother to fill something like 100 of the 800 federal judge positions, speaking of lazy. That’s what let Trump name 200+ judges.
  • Richard_Head
    •
    4 years ago
    ^^^^ He wasn’t too lazy to fill them, they were blocked and obstructed by MCConnell, which is why Reid removed the filibuster on those court positions.
  • RandomMember
    •
    4 years ago
    @Mark- If this continues, at some point we'll lose our independent judiciary. Maybe that's what you want? Speaking of which, I'm very interested to see how the Obamacare ruling will play out in November. It's a profoundly stupid lawsuit and if the ACA is overturned it will create chaos for something like 20M on Medicaid expansion and another 50M with pre-existing conditions.
  • Hank Moody
    •
    4 years ago
    “Speaking of which, I'm very interested to see how the Obamacare ruling will play out in November. It's a profoundly stupid lawsuit and if the ACA is overturned it will create chaos for something like 20M on Medicaid expansion and another 50M with pre-existing conditions.” Trump was supposed to unveil his healthcare plan last week and promised it would cover preexisting conditions. Promises made, promises kept.
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    When Democrats appoint judges who expand the meaning of the constitution, that’s an “ independent judiciary”. When Republicans appoint judges who believe in the letter of the law, that’s fascism. Anarchy ! Chaos !
  • Hank Moody
    •
    4 years ago
    For all of you reveling in Trump and McConnell pushing through this appointment because elections have consequences, senate must do their job, republicans have senate and presidency, etc... be careful to take a longer view. After Harry Reid dropped the filibuster/60 vote requirement for lower court judges, then McConnell did it for Supreme Court Justices to get Gorsuch through, the last remaining guardrail to bipartisanship is the filibuster/60 vote majority is still in place for major legislation. We’re pretty divided as a country and government right now but putting the nomination through ensures that we’ll see maximum democrat voter turnout. Is it enough to take the presidency and senate and keep the house? I have no fucking idea. But if Democrats hold both houses and the presidency say goodbye to the filibuster on legislation. We’ll be divided as a country and restaurants, strip club message boards and everywhere else will be overcome by political vitriol. And Putin Xi Kim Erdogan al-Assad cheered.
  • Tetradon
    •
    4 years ago
    Jimmy, I'd love to see a compromise solution, but I don't think there's any such thing. The For the People Act, which the Democratic House passed right after they wore sworn in, includes provisions to entrench the Democratic majority (such as adding 4 new Democratic senators and restoring voting rights to felons). They talked about eliminating the legislative filibuster and packing before RBG died. If Biden and/or a Democratic Senate gets sworn in, they're going to make power grabs regardless. Tactically, Trump and McConnell have nothing to lose by forcing a nominee through. The die has been cast.
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    It’s like Portland where the rioters blamed the presence of federal troops for the rioters righteous actions even though troops didn’t show up until weeks after the riots began. So, now, Trump is supposed to hand the Supreme Court to the left or they will fuck the country up. Trump made us do it ! It’s not our fault. Orange man bad.
  • Hank Moody
    •
    4 years ago
    “Hand the Supreme Court to the left?” You do realize the court is currently 5-3 in favor of conservatives?
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    You are counting John Roberts as conservative ? Isn’t that special.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    "... Ruth Bader Ginsburg could have casually retired at 80 yrs old under Obama and been replaced by an ultra progressive in their 40s... but she chose not to. Probably because everyone knew that Hillary would win ..." The Dems expect the Republicans to make the same mistake
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    If anyone thinks that Trump replacing Ginsburg will have any impact on anything the Democrats do over the next four years, they are as dumb as RandumbMember.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    After everything the Dems have done the last few months, plus everything they are threatening to do, the Republicans can't afford to give an inch - when someone declares war on you you have no choice but to go to war.
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    It's not just the last few months. It's a couple of decades.
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    Democrats have warned that nothing is off the table if Trump replaces Ginsburg Things that were already (apparently) on the table: 1. Shooting up GOP baseball games 2. Allowing supporters to burn cities. 3. Staging coups against democratically elected president. 4. FBI collusion/perjury traps. 5. Leaking classified information.
  • gammanu95
    •
    4 years ago
    Anyone who watched Dems outrageous treatment of Kavanaugh, should understand why the Republican Senate is justified in confirming another Trump nominee. Regardless if anything a Repulican Senator might have said in 2016, the Dems have proved dishonorable and unworthy of any benevolent reciprocity.
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    Remember when Obama used every trick, legal and illegal, to steamroller Republicans to push through Obamacare ? His justification was “ I won”. Well, this time, we won. Payback is a bitch.
  • yahtzee74
    •
    4 years ago
    "We’ll be divided as a country and restaurants, strip club message boards and everywhere else will be overcome by political vitriol." We're already at that point and have been for a while. There are plenty of videos out there of leftists harassing restaurant and bar patrons. To so many leftists, anyone who isn't with them is regarded as a Nazi, fascist, or white supremacist.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    I don't trust that turncoat @Mitt-Romney - I wonder if he'll say "yeah I'll vote" then vote against her to stick it to Trump - he's 73 ys/o so he may not give much of a shit w.r.t. his political future
  • Warrior15
    •
    4 years ago
    That'll still make it 52-48. She will still get confirmed.
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    I actually like Mitt Romney, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him run in 2024. I assume that the only reason he became a Senator is s he can be a conservative option after Trump is out of the picture. Unlike Biden, his mind has not turned to mush.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    Unlikely one can become president after losing a previous presidential run - plus Romney is seen as a traitor by many in the Republican party and I don't think he'd get the necessary support
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    "... That'll still make it 52-48. She will still get confirmed ..." I thought there were 2 Republican women senators that said they would not vote unless it was after the election
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    I agree with your first point. Nixon was the last candidate in either party to receive the nomination after losing a presidential election. But I don’t believe the likelihood of him receiving the nomination is likely to prevent him from trying. We may find out as early as November 4th (or whenever the results are finalized) or as late as two years from now.
  • mark94
    •
    4 years ago
    Romney will be 77 in 2024. No way, Jose.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    He looks very good for his age though - and his mind seems very sharp
  • winex
    •
    4 years ago
    Mike Pence is in an ideal situatino regardless of what happens in November. But I expect to see challengers regardless of what happens in November. And if Biden should be declared the winner (not necessarily the same thing as winning fairly), I expect to see a crowded Republican field in 2024.
  • rickdugan
    •
    4 years ago
    ===> "But if Democrats hold both houses and the presidency say goodbye to the filibuster on legislation. " Jimmy, that would happen whether or not the Republicans name a Supreme Court Justice. In too many speeches to count, Dem leaders have made it very clear that they do not intend to honor the filibuster, just as they stopped doing so for judges. Sadly they have so successfully convinced themselves that their goals are noble that they have embraced an "ends justify the means" mentality that has become increasingly hostile over these last few years.
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    The Dems declared war on Trump and Republicans 4 years ago - nothing new here w.r.t. any threats they make - the Dems'/Libs' minds were made up 4 years ago, not this week when Trump tried to fill the SCOTUS seat.
  • Mate27
    •
    4 years ago
    4 more years!! 4 more years!! 4 more years!!
  • Mate27
    •
    4 years ago
    4 more years!
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    Latest from the Dems is that they want RBG mummified and have her mummified-corpse serve in the SCOTUS till January 20th
  • Papi_Chulo
    •
    4 years ago
    "Joe Biden: ‘You’ll Know My Opinion On Court-Packing When The Election Is Over’" "... Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden committed to a timeline Thursday on when he will reveal his stance on court-packing: after the 2020 election ..." "... Biden once again declined to comment publicly on his position on packing the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as lower federal courts, as he spoke to reporters on the campaign trail in Arizona. Biden has dodged the question numerous times in recent weeks, claiming that he does not want his answer to dominate headlines ..." "... “You’ll know my opinion on court-packing when the election is over,” Biden told reporters ..." [view link]
You must be a member to leave a comment.Join Now
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion