tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,319
|
Post by tashoya on Sept 20, 2020 20:08:04 GMT -5
I hope that no nomination is made and no one is considered before the election. It is only the right and fair thing to do. Having said that, should Trump win in November (long shot at best) I will have no interest in any argument that he need temper his appointment to fill the seat held by RBG in order to preserve someone’s idea of balance. As Mr Obama so brilliantly said, elections have consequences. We don't have elections anymore. Trump might maintain power, but when the incumbent says up front that he's going to declare victory on election night and sue to not count any results and leverage all the judges he's installed including a Supreme he's going to try to install less than 60 days before with the understanding that this will come before them and his candidate will need to rule in his favor, that's not an election : Republicans, you all good with this?
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,480
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 21, 2020 5:03:44 GMT -5
With all of the weeping and gnashing of teeth over this Supreme Court seat, the single most hollow argument I have heard is that RBG’s “last wish” must be followed.
The President should not appoint and the Republicans should not confirm until after the election, but the wishes of a now deceased Justice should and do mean nothing.
It is a lifetime appointment, not something any Justice can control from the grave.
I will now wait to be insulted for these thoughts.
|
|
hoyajinx
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,336
Member is Online
|
Post by hoyajinx on Sept 21, 2020 6:05:15 GMT -5
With all of the weeping and gnashing of teeth over this Supreme Court seat, the single most hollow argument I have heard is that RBG’s “last wish” must be followed. The President should not appoint and the Republicans should not confirm until after the election, but the wishes of a now deceased Justice should and do mean nothing. It is a lifetime appointment, not something any Justice can control from the grave. I will now wait to be insulted for these thoughts. Why you would be insulted for not thinking her last wish need be honored? That opinion is actually relevant to the discussion as some people think her wish has weight. I think it’s a nice thought that she loved this country so much that it was on her mind in her last moments. But that’s exactly why it shouldn’t be considered in determining whether to fill her seat or not. The institutions of this country are much bigger than one person. I know we’ve lost sight of that, especially in the last four years under a petty, wannabe autocrat. I would like to believe that at some point we could have some values back in government. A good first step would be to postpone the appointment until after the election, not because it was her dying wish, but because that’s what ought to be done.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,253
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 21, 2020 6:41:09 GMT -5
I have never been as disgusted with our politics, and with my profession, as I was this weekend. Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Friday just before the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year. She was not only one of the greatest jurists in our history, a pioneering defender of women and the oppressed, and one whose life story of love and perseverance inspired millions. She was also a Jew. You don’t have to be a Jew, or a believer, to see the symbolism — the loss of this great woman at the very moment that, in the Jewish tradition, God begins the renewal of the world — to know that there is powerful, spiritual meaning here that should call us all to reflection on the meaning of Ginsburg’s life. Instead, some 80 minutes after her death was reported, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a man without a shred of decency and seemingly without a soul, announced his intent to replace her as fast as possible, before the next president is sworn in. (Even President Trump showed more humanity at first, citing the traditional Jewish expression for the dead, “May her memory be a blessing,” with a Trumpian flourish: “May her memory be a great and magnificent blessing to the world.”) www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/20/they-couldnt-even-wait-until-ruth-bader-ginsburg-was-her-grave/
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,480
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 21, 2020 6:47:34 GMT -5
I have never been as disgusted with our politics, and with my profession, as I was this weekend. Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Friday just before the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year. She was not only one of the greatest jurists in our history, a pioneering defender of women and the oppressed, and one whose life story of love and perseverance inspired millions. She was also a Jew. You don’t have to be a Jew, or a believer, to see the symbolism — the loss of this great woman at the very moment that, in the Jewish tradition, God begins the renewal of the world — to know that there is powerful, spiritual meaning here that should call us all to reflection on the meaning of Ginsburg’s life. Instead, some 80 minutes after her death was reported, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a man without a shred of decency and seemingly without a soul, announced his intent to replace her as fast as possible, before the next president is sworn in. (Even President Trump showed more humanity at first, citing the traditional Jewish expression for the dead, “May her memory be a blessing,” with a Trumpian flourish: “May her memory be a great and magnificent blessing to the world.”) www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/20/they-couldnt-even-wait-until-ruth-bader-ginsburg-was-her-grave/I could not agree with you more. Except you left out Chuck Schumer jumping to Twitter 15 minutes after her death to announce the seat should not be filled. They are all sanctimonious hypocrites.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2020 11:23:05 GMT -5
With all of the weeping and gnashing of teeth over this Supreme Court seat, the single most hollow argument I have heard is that RBG’s “last wish” must be followed. The President should not appoint and the Republicans should not confirm until after the election, but the wishes of a now deceased Justice should and do mean nothing. It is a lifetime appointment, not something any Justice can control from the grave. I will now wait to be insulted for these thoughts.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,480
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 21, 2020 11:44:53 GMT -5
With all of the weeping and gnashing of teeth over this Supreme Court seat, the single most hollow argument I have heard is that RBG’s “last wish” must be followed. The President should not appoint and the Republicans should not confirm until after the election, but the wishes of a now deceased Justice should and do mean nothing. It is a lifetime appointment, not something any Justice can control from the grave. I will now wait to be insulted for these thoughts. I never doubted she said it. I just don’t think it means anything.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2020 12:14:51 GMT -5
I never doubted she said it. I just don’t think it means anything. Well her grieving family is lying according to the President. It's all a Democratic hoax.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2020 12:21:33 GMT -5
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,480
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 21, 2020 12:26:08 GMT -5
I never doubted she said it. I just don’t think it means anything. Well her grieving family is lying according to the President. It's all a Democratic hoax. Would argue with you if I could. Sorry state of affairs.
|
|
|
Post by flyoverhoya on Sept 21, 2020 12:46:49 GMT -5
Whether or not Justice Ginsberg's wishes have anything to do with it (and I don't think they do, although it's not as if it's a novel argument - there are lots of quotes from 2016 about Obama having to nominate a conservative for "Scalia's Seat," and probably lots of quotes from 1991 about Bush having an obligation to replace Thurgood Marshall with a comparable jurist), what IS different is a President whose immediate reaction is to assume that the statement wasn't actually genuine, but was cooked up by his opposition for political purposes.
|
|
Elvado
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,480
|
Post by Elvado on Sept 21, 2020 12:58:14 GMT -5
Whether or not Justice Ginsberg's wishes have anything to do with it (and I don't think they do, although it's not as if it's a novel argument - there are lots of quotes from 2016 about Obama having to nominate a conservative for "Scalia's Seat," and probably lots of quotes from 1991 about Bush having an obligation to replace Thurgood Marshall with a comparable jurist), what IS different is a President whose immediate reaction is to assume that the statement wasn't actually genuine, but was cooked up by his opposition for political purposes. Could not agree more.
|
|
hoyarooter
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 10,197
|
Post by hoyarooter on Sept 21, 2020 20:33:53 GMT -5
I have never been as disgusted with our politics, and with my profession, as I was this weekend. Ruth Bader Ginsburg died Friday just before the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year. She was not only one of the greatest jurists in our history, a pioneering defender of women and the oppressed, and one whose life story of love and perseverance inspired millions. She was also a Jew. You don’t have to be a Jew, or a believer, to see the symbolism — the loss of this great woman at the very moment that, in the Jewish tradition, God begins the renewal of the world — to know that there is powerful, spiritual meaning here that should call us all to reflection on the meaning of Ginsburg’s life. Instead, some 80 minutes after her death was reported, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), a man without a shred of decency and seemingly without a soul, announced his intent to replace her as fast as possible, before the next president is sworn in. (Even President Trump showed more humanity at first, citing the traditional Jewish expression for the dead, “May her memory be a blessing,” with a Trumpian flourish: “May her memory be a great and magnificent blessing to the world.”) www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/20/they-couldnt-even-wait-until-ruth-bader-ginsburg-was-her-grave/There's actually a little more to it than this. In traditional Jewish lore, it is thought that those that God takes on the eve of the new year are the most sanctified. Only the best people, as someone else might say. Personally, my reaction to this was to ask why God couldn't have waited until the start of the next calendar year. Of course, that's not the way it works.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2020 21:47:58 GMT -5
Because Republicans changed the rules in 2016 and now they want to change them back. Democrats just want them to play by the rules and precedent they've established. That's what they wanted in 2016. That's what they want now. They changed the rules to steal Garland's seat, and now they want to change them back to seat their nominee now. That's clearly where the hypocrisy lies. I would add that I think this is all BS because there will be multiple Repubican senators who won’t vote to approve anyone before the election, and not after the election either if Biden is elected. Really don't understand why you thought that but they don't even know who the nominee is and they have the votes. They're not even pretending to vet somebody.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,253
|
Post by SSHoya on Sept 22, 2020 9:10:19 GMT -5
Because Republicans changed the rules in 2016 and now they want to change them back. Democrats just want them to play by the rules and precedent they've established. That's what they wanted in 2016. That's what they want now. They changed the rules to steal Garland's seat, and now they want to change them back to seat their nominee now. That's clearly where the hypocrisy lies. And Democrats wanted the pre-2016 rules to apply in 2016 and now they don’t. They’re all hypocrites. I would add that I think this is all BS because there will be multiple Repubican senators who won’t vote to approve anyone before the election, and not after the election either if Biden is elected. What happened to the multiple Republican senators? 😁Wrong with Romney siding with the sociopath. What about the confirmation of Justice Kennedy in 1988 (97-0) with a Democratic Senate during the Reagan Administration or do you apply a Bork exception to Kennedy so his confirmation doesn't count?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Sept 22, 2020 9:14:45 GMT -5
The new rules are that Republicans will never be the deciding votes for any Democratic-nominated justice and they will approve a Republican-nominated justice without even knowing who it is.
Doesn't really matter though. Democrats are going to expand the court whenever they are presented with the opportunity, and so will Republicans.
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by DallasHoya on Sept 22, 2020 9:42:41 GMT -5
And Democrats wanted the pre-2016 rules to apply in 2016 and now they don’t. They’re all hypocrites. I would add that I think this is all BS because there will be multiple Repubican senators who won’t vote to approve anyone before the election, and not after the election either if Biden is elected. What happened to the multiple Republican senators? 😁Wrong with Romney siding with the sociopath. What about the confirmation of Justice Kennedy in 1988 (97-0) with a Democratic Senate during the Reagan Administration or do you apply a Bork exception to Kennedy so his confirmation doesn't count? Romney surprised me. Guess there's only Snow and Murkowski at this point. I still think Democrats would do exactly the same thing Republicans are doing now if they controlled the presidency and the senate, and the Republicans would be screaming about it just like the Democrats are now. Not sure who the Kennedy comment is directed at.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,442
|
Post by TC on Sept 22, 2020 10:02:20 GMT -5
What happened to the multiple Republican senators? 😁Wrong with Romney siding with the sociopath. What about the confirmation of Justice Kennedy in 1988 (97-0) with a Democratic Senate during the Reagan Administration or do you apply a Bork exception to Kennedy so his confirmation doesn't count? Romney surprised me. Guess there's only Snow and Murkowski at this point. I still think Democrats would do exactly the same thing Republicans are doing now if they controlled the presidency and the senate, and the Republicans would be screaming about it just like the Democrats are now. Not sure who the Kennedy comment is directed at. Collins, not Snowe. Collins probably goes whatever way she thinks helps her most in her election, there's no guiding principle here whatsoever other than naked power. The Kennedy reference is directed at Ed. Kennedy was confirmed after Bork with Democratic votes, so Bork wasn't really the genesis of what the new rules are here. The new rules were made clear in the Garland nomination and the aftermath where Republicans said that even if Hillary was elected that they wouldn't take up her nominees - the rule here is you need partisan control of both Presidency and Senate to get a nomination through. The real kicker here is if this is the deciding vote in throwing out vote-by-mail votes for 2020 and kicking the election of the Presidency to the House, where the Republicans will win. Trump's made it clear that he's going to do a coup on election night, not accept results, and try to invalidate the counting. I'm skeptical our legal system will withstand whatever BS claims he makes.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,480
|
Post by DanMcQ on Sept 22, 2020 10:07:55 GMT -5
|
|
DallasHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,630
|
Post by DallasHoya on Sept 22, 2020 11:05:15 GMT -5
Romney surprised me. Guess there's only Snow and Murkowski at this point. I still think Democrats would do exactly the same thing Republicans are doing now if they controlled the presidency and the senate, and the Republicans would be screaming about it just like the Democrats are now. Not sure who the Kennedy comment is directed at. Collins, not Snowe. Collins probably goes whatever way she thinks helps her most in her election, there's no guiding principle here whatsoever other than naked power. The Kennedy reference is directed at Ed. Kennedy was confirmed after Bork with Democratic votes, so Bork wasn't really the genesis of what the new rules are here. The new rules were made clear in the Garland nomination and the aftermath where Republicans said that even if Hillary was elected that they wouldn't take up her nominees - the rule here is you need partisan control of both Presidency and Senate to get a nomination through. The real kicker here is if this is the deciding vote in throwing out vote-by-mail votes for 2020 and kicking the election of the Presidency to the House, where the Republicans will win. Trump's made it clear that he's going to do a coup on election night, not accept results, and try to invalidate the counting. I'm skeptical our legal system will withstand whatever BS claims he makes. I guess referencing Snowe rather than Collins shows my age. She's already said she does "not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election," and that "Trump has the constitutional authority to make a nomination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and I would have no objection to the Senate Judiciary Committee's beginning the process of reviewing his nominee's credentials." Interesting she leaves open the possibility of voting in a lame duck session. The first half of November is going to be very ugly. Despite his recent statements, I don't think Trump has any idea what he's going to do in November; I think people give him way to much credit for actually thinking and strategizing about anything in advance.
|
|