Author Topic: Ginsburg dies; Amy Coney Barrett confirmed  (Read 17317 times)

mmmmm and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #165 on: September 22, 2020, 12:09:32 AM »

Offline Neurotic Guy

  • JoJo White
  • ****************
  • Posts: 16859
  • Tommy Points: 1859
NG, you seem like a reasonable person. I donít generally tell people how they should vote, but Iím fairly certain that youíre being taken for a ride if you think that Biden has any clue about whatís going on. His handlers donít let him speak unscripted. Ever. This entire thing is a charade. His brain is mush.

If Biden wins youíll be kicking yourself. I actually canít believe that there is any centrist on the planet still not on the Trump train after all weíve seen over the last 12 years. I went in to vote intending on voting for Hillary because I viewed a Trump as a moron, but changed my mind last second. Best election decision Iíve ever made.

Heís not perfect and I still think that heís pretty much a moron, but at least I know for 100% certainty that there wonít be any leftist nonsense... and thatís a big relief for me.

Erik, Iím 62 and reasonably informed and pretty much resent the attempt at being ďschooledĒ by someone who couldnít possibly know what he claims to know. You are entitled to your opinion and I wish you well but I do believe DJT is the worst mistake Iíve ever witnessed in American politics and Joe Biden ending Trumpís reign of lying, self-serving, lunacy and purposeful division in November will be a great start. Truly Hope it happens. Best.

« Last Edit: September 22, 2020, 12:26:21 AM by Neurotic Guy »

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #166 on: September 22, 2020, 12:35:47 AM »

Offline Ilikesports17

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8435
  • Tommy Points: 834
Quote from: Lindsay Graham
Being lectured by Democrats about how to handle judicial nominations is like an arsonist advising the Fire Department

Quote
ďDemocrats chose ...to try to destroy Brett Kavanaughís life to keep the Supreme Court seat. You reap what you sow.

That captures how most conservatives feel right now, I suspect.

My only thing with this is -

Lindsey and the 'Publicans can do what they want. They DO have the numbers and such, at face value.

But when will it stop? The back and forth?

There WILL be repercussions....we all know this.
I donít see it ending.

Canít remember a time before both parties entered this ends justify the means sort of governing. I donít think Republicans are evil nor democrats, but no one seems interested in doing the right thing anymore because they see it as more noble to act otherwise. Iím sure republicans genuinely believe they are best serving their country by pushing this nomination through and by barring garland. I really wish Trump had nominated Garland for Kennedyís seat. Felt that he was a good choice and would have soothed many tensions.
Quote from: George W. Bush
Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #167 on: September 22, 2020, 12:47:38 AM »

Offline rocknrollforyoursoul

  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7802
  • Tommy Points: 215
Quote from: Lindsay Graham
Being lectured by Democrats about how to handle judicial nominations is like an arsonist advising the Fire Department

Quote
ďDemocrats chose ...to try to destroy Brett Kavanaughís life to keep the Supreme Court seat. You reap what you sow.

That captures how most conservatives feel right now, I suspect.

My only thing with this is -

Lindsey and the 'Publicans can do what they want. They DO have the numbers and such, at face value.

But when will it stop? The back and forth?

There WILL be repercussions....we all know this.
I donít see it ending.

Canít remember a time before both parties entered this ends justify the means sort of governing. I donít think Republicans are evil nor democrats, but no one seems interested in doing the right thing anymore because they see it as more noble to act otherwise. Iím sure republicans genuinely believe they are best serving their country by pushing this nomination through and by barring garland. I really wish Trump had nominated Garland for Kennedyís seat. Felt that he was a good choice and would have soothed many tensions.

Yeah, it won't end. It's like the Hatfields and McCoys. At this point, it doesn't even matter who fired the first shot, or that it happened a long time ago. Everyone's got revenge and payback on their minds.
"There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,' and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.'"

"You don't have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body."

ó C.S. Lewis

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #168 on: September 22, 2020, 01:00:40 AM »

Offline Ogaju

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13373
  • Tommy Points: 1394
Trump has definitely brought out the worst in everyone.  People calling for war if they don't get their way seems to be proof enough of that.

Or itís the first time a generation of entitled brainwashed kids didnít get their way? Think about your average rioter: grew up under Obamaís 8 years, went to college only to be taught that leftist ideologies are superior and to be afraid of anyone who disagrees.

I was a college grad liberal around the time Obama got elected. I heard my fair share of disdain for Obama by conservatives generally annoyed, but nothing like this. It goes exactly one direction. Conservatives go to polls when theyíre upset. Leftists throw a tantrum.

You post stuff like this and you think you are a Centrist?

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #169 on: September 22, 2020, 01:07:41 AM »

Offline Ogaju

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13373
  • Tommy Points: 1394
Quote from: Lindsay Graham
Being lectured by Democrats about how to handle judicial nominations is like an arsonist advising the Fire Department

Quote
ďDemocrats chose ...to try to destroy Brett Kavanaughís life to keep the Supreme Court seat. You reap what you sow.

That captures how most conservatives feel right now, I suspect.

non sequiturs

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #170 on: September 22, 2020, 01:26:03 AM »

Offline keevsnick

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3805
  • Tommy Points: 381
The way out politics are right now, I just can't help but think a massive disaster in on the horizon. Right now you have a Republican Party who doesn't need to win a majority of votes to take the White House, doesn't need a majority of votes to take the senate because a 500,000 person state has the same number of senators as one with 40,000,000 and as a result can control a 9 person committee appointed for life that has far more power than it probably should given its the least democratic of our government branches.

The net result is that because the Republican's party doesn't actually really need to capture the vote of most centrists it has moved dramatically father to the radical end of its support than it was 20 years ago. That in turn is creating a very real sense of disenfranchisement among a set of Americans who dont feel like their vote actually matters, because it literally doesn't. On the other hand that sense of anger doesn't just exist among the left, but among the right as well. Because Republicans have spent the better part of the last decade stoking irrational fears about race, socialism, and dehumanizing their enemy to stoke their base that the right feels aggrieved, even when they win. And there's no way to really fix it because facts dont mean anything anymore.

I don't know how long a democracy can function when half the country no longer feels like  they live in a democracy, and the other half thinks the first half should "go back where they came from." Add to that the more consistent and constant "norm breaking" and it just feels like this is going to end up in violence eventually.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #171 on: September 22, 2020, 03:29:35 AM »

Offline blink

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11633
  • Tommy Points: 833
I went in to vote intending on voting for Hillary because I viewed a Trump as a moron, but changed my mind last second. Best election decision Iíve ever made.


200,000 families with dead loved ones probably disagree with you.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #172 on: September 22, 2020, 05:11:38 AM »

Offline The Oracle

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1121
  • Tommy Points: 287
It is going to be entertaining when many of you begin to question everything you thought to be true.  Trump is going to win in a landslide and many of you on the left/on the fence will end up voting for him.  R.I.P.  RBG.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #173 on: September 22, 2020, 05:56:21 AM »

Offline Erik

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1246
  • Tommy Points: 200
  • The voice of reason
Trump has definitely brought out the worst in everyone.  People calling for war if they don't get their way seems to be proof enough of that.

Or itís the first time a generation of entitled brainwashed kids didnít get their way? Think about your average rioter: grew up under Obamaís 8 years, went to college only to be taught that leftist ideologies are superior and to be afraid of anyone who disagrees.

I was a college grad liberal around the time Obama got elected. I heard my fair share of disdain for Obama by conservatives generally annoyed, but nothing like this. It goes exactly one direction. Conservatives go to polls when theyíre upset. Leftists throw a tantrum.

You post stuff like this and you think you are a Centrist?

What part of my post do you disagree with?


Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #174 on: September 22, 2020, 05:59:53 AM »

Offline Erik

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1246
  • Tommy Points: 200
  • The voice of reason
I went in to vote intending on voting for Hillary because I viewed a Trump as a moron, but changed my mind last second. Best election decision Iíve ever made.


200,000 families with dead loved ones probably disagree with you.

Reposting:

Covid: As most of you know, this viral strain is named Covid-19 (originating in roughly November 2019 -- although I've seen some reports of confirmed  cases retrospectively as early as March 2019). This means that people were bring in the virus as early as or before November 2019, months before we even knew anything about it (infer what you will about China here). When you see charts or infographics showing us being at 0 cases on X date in 2020 and then it jumped due to "Trump's mishandling of the situation," you are purposely being lied to. In reality, if we were testing in December of 2019, we'd have a lot of cases already, considering the amount of air traffic coming from China to US. In reality, the number of COVID deaths compared to the ideal strategy if you look in hindsight, it's true that if Trump had acted perfectly, less people would have died, but it's such a disingenuous argument to make because weíre dealing in hindsights and he would have had to shut down in November 2019.

Once itís in the US, The makeup of the US government makes it almost impossible for every city and state to shut down at the exact time because the federal government cannot mandate this stuff. All Trump could do is cut off foreign travel, help out where he can with aid, and urge people to take all safety precautions possible (here is probably where he failed the most). But to blame him entirely for COVID deaths is about as disgusting of an argument as one could make. State and local governments set all of the policy once the virus has already entered.

From all accounts, Trump has helped out all state and local governments and shut down when the doctors advised him.

So, how many of those deaths belong to
A) Trump
B) China
C) local leadership
?

To pin all 200k deaths on Trump is either being purposely deceitful or unknowingly regurgitating leftist talking points.
« Last Edit: September 22, 2020, 06:10:56 AM by Erik »

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #175 on: September 22, 2020, 07:38:34 AM »

Online Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4948
  • Tommy Points: 428
My prediction is that this will not get through before the election (the election has actually already started) but I think Republican Senators are going to pay a price for this.  Some of them will lose their seat because of it.

To me, it is not so much that they are trying to push this one through.  The bigger issue is the failure to act on the Obama nomination and then all the things they said to try and defend that, which they not have to 180 degree back track on.  They are essentially conceding that they lied; publicly, dramatically, unambiguously, in order to defend not fulfilling their constitutional duties as Senators.  Any politician that is willing to lie to this extent for the benefit of party over constitution should be an issue to voters and I think will be an issue for enough voters to cost them seats.

Now if I am right, and guys like say Graham lose, what are the remaining republicans who are up for vote in 2 or 4 years going to do during the lame duck period?  What then is the political calculation?  Dam the torpedoes, full steam ahead with the judge?  Probably but if they do  that in the face of an impending democratic senate majority, things will then get ugly and it will probably cost some of them reelection.

I actually don't think reform of how judges are appointed is such a bad idea.  It has clearly lost its way where every single judge on the supreme court is already predisposed to vote one way or the other on nearly every case.  This is not the way it is supposed to be.  Maybe it is time to blow this whole process up.  I also don't think having an even number of judges is bad.  Say there are 10, why not require at least 6 in favor?  I think it would make supreme court ruling mean more.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #176 on: September 22, 2020, 08:34:47 AM »

Offline tazzmaniac

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6018
  • Tommy Points: 462
My prediction is that this will not get through before the election (the election has actually already started) but I think Republican Senators are going to pay a price for this.  Some of them will lose their seat because of it.

To me, it is not so much that they are trying to push this one through.  The bigger issue is the failure to act on the Obama nomination and then all the things they said to try and defend that, which they not have to 180 degree back track on.  They are essentially conceding that they lied; publicly, dramatically, unambiguously, in order to defend not fulfilling their constitutional duties as Senators.  Any politician that is willing to lie to this extent for the benefit of party over constitution should be an issue to voters and I think will be an issue for enough voters to cost them seats.

Now if I am right, and guys like say Graham lose, what are the remaining republicans who are up for vote in 2 or 4 years going to do during the lame duck period?  What then is the political calculation?  Dam the torpedoes, full steam ahead with the judge?  Probably but if they do  that in the face of an impending democratic senate majority, things will then get ugly and it will probably cost some of them reelection.

I actually don't think reform of how judges are appointed is such a bad idea.  It has clearly lost its way where every single judge on the supreme court is already predisposed to vote one way or the other on nearly every case.  This is not the way it is supposed to be.  Maybe it is time to blow this whole process up.  I also don't think having an even number of judges is bad.  Say there are 10, why not require at least 6 in favor?  I think it would make supreme court ruling mean more.
Disagree.  They're aren't a lot of competitive races.  Most Republican Senators biggest threat is getting primaried not their Democratic opponent.  Pushing through the nomination might contribute to Graham losing. However if he were to oppose doing so he would p--- off his supporters and he'd much more likely lose this election.  If he somehow managed to win, he'd certainly get primaried in the next election. 

People who talk about blowing up these well established processes really need to consider that those processes have contributed to the US being a great nation.  Supreme Court justices don't always vote in lock step with the party whose President appointed them.  Chief Justice Roberts has angered conservatives with some of his votes.  Having an even number on the court would mean 5-5 ties which would be bad.  The Supreme Court rulings provide direction to the lower courts whose rulings may not agree.  Ties would essentially give more power to the lower court judges who are much more beholden to party politics. 

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #177 on: September 22, 2020, 08:39:46 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42664
  • Tommy Points: -27082
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
My prediction is that this will not get through before the election (the election has actually already started) but I think Republican Senators are going to pay a price for this.  Some of them will lose their seat because of it.

To me, it is not so much that they are trying to push this one through.  The bigger issue is the failure to act on the Obama nomination and then all the things they said to try and defend that, which they not have to 180 degree back track on.  They are essentially conceding that they lied; publicly, dramatically, unambiguously, in order to defend not fulfilling their constitutional duties as Senators.  Any politician that is willing to lie to this extent for the benefit of party over constitution should be an issue to voters and I think will be an issue for enough voters to cost them seats.

Now if I am right, and guys like say Graham lose, what are the remaining republicans who are up for vote in 2 or 4 years going to do during the lame duck period?  What then is the political calculation?  Dam the torpedoes, full steam ahead with the judge?  Probably but if they do  that in the face of an impending democratic senate majority, things will then get ugly and it will probably cost some of them reelection.

I actually don't think reform of how judges are appointed is such a bad idea.  It has clearly lost its way where every single judge on the supreme court is already predisposed to vote one way or the other on nearly every case.  This is not the way it is supposed to be.  Maybe it is time to blow this whole process up.  I also don't think having an even number of judges is bad.  Say there are 10, why not require at least 6 in favor?  I think it would make supreme court ruling mean more.
Disagree.  They're aren't a lot of competitive races.  Most Republican Senators biggest threat is getting primaried not their Democratic opponent.  Pushing through the nomination might contribute to Graham losing. However if he were to oppose doing so he would p--- off his supporters and he'd much more likely lose this election.  If he somehow managed to win, he'd certainly get primaried in the next election. 

People who talk about blowing up these well established processes really need to consider that those processes have contributed to the US being a great nation.  Supreme Court justices don't always vote in lock step with the party whose President appointed them.  Chief Justice Roberts has angered conservatives with some of his votes.  Having an even number on the court would mean 5-5 ties which would be bad.  The Supreme Court rulings provide direction to the lower courts whose rulings may not agree.  Ties would essentially give more power to the lower court judges who are much more beholden to party politics.

Agreed.  The biggest problem with ties is that one role of the Supreme Court is to solve discrepancies between the Circuit Courts.  The way our system works, the 9th Circuit can hold that Federal law says one thing, while the 4th Circuit says it means something completely different.  Until the Supreme Court resolves those issues, different parts of the country are subject to the same law meaning different things.  A 4-4 or 5-5 tie leaves that confusion in place.

I agree with Ginsberg, and other members of the Court:  Nine is a good number.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #178 on: September 22, 2020, 08:46:40 AM »

Offline Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 42664
  • Tommy Points: -27082
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
One thing that I find distasteful:  picking a Justice based upon how it plays politically.

I hate identity politics in general.  I hate the idea of giving somebody a boost because they're female, or black, or gay, or Hispanic.  Pick the best person for the job.

But, even worse is this suggestion that Trump should pick Barbara Logoa because she'll help him win Florida in the general election.  We're talking about a lifetime appointment.  I'm sure Logoa is very good, but I don't think she's seen as one of the intellectual legal giants in the country.  She's a Kagan, not a Ginsburg.  A Kennedy, not a Scalia. 

If Trump passes over Barrett -- a truly brilliant legal mind -- in favor of a lesser judge to play electoral politics, I'll be disappointed.
Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat. CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012.

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies; Supreme Court Vacancy
« Reply #179 on: September 22, 2020, 09:11:54 AM »

Online Vermont Green

  • Antoine Walker
  • ****
  • Posts: 4948
  • Tommy Points: 428
My prediction is that this will not get through before the election (the election has actually already started) but I think Republican Senators are going to pay a price for this.  Some of them will lose their seat because of it.

To me, it is not so much that they are trying to push this one through.  The bigger issue is the failure to act on the Obama nomination and then all the things they said to try and defend that, which they not have to 180 degree back track on.  They are essentially conceding that they lied; publicly, dramatically, unambiguously, in order to defend not fulfilling their constitutional duties as Senators.  Any politician that is willing to lie to this extent for the benefit of party over constitution should be an issue to voters and I think will be an issue for enough voters to cost them seats.

Now if I am right, and guys like say Graham lose, what are the remaining republicans who are up for vote in 2 or 4 years going to do during the lame duck period?  What then is the political calculation?  Dam the torpedoes, full steam ahead with the judge?  Probably but if they do  that in the face of an impending democratic senate majority, things will then get ugly and it will probably cost some of them reelection.

I actually don't think reform of how judges are appointed is such a bad idea.  It has clearly lost its way where every single judge on the supreme court is already predisposed to vote one way or the other on nearly every case.  This is not the way it is supposed to be.  Maybe it is time to blow this whole process up.  I also don't think having an even number of judges is bad.  Say there are 10, why not require at least 6 in favor?  I think it would make supreme court ruling mean more.
Disagree.  They're aren't a lot of competitive races.  Most Republican Senators biggest threat is getting primaried not their Democratic opponent.  Pushing through the nomination might contribute to Graham losing. However if he were to oppose doing so he would p--- off his supporters and he'd much more likely lose this election.  If he somehow managed to win, he'd certainly get primaried in the next election. 

People who talk about blowing up these well established processes really need to consider that those processes have contributed to the US being a great nation.  Supreme Court justices don't always vote in lock step with the party whose President appointed them.  Chief Justice Roberts has angered conservatives with some of his votes.  Having an even number on the court would mean 5-5 ties which would be bad.  The Supreme Court rulings provide direction to the lower courts whose rulings may not agree.  Ties would essentially give more power to the lower court judges who are much more beholden to party politics.

I don't disagree that the republicans are in a "dammed if they do, dammed if they don't" situation where if they go along and push through the judge, they face backlash from moderate voters and may likely lose their seat and if they don't, they may get primary'ed next time.  That is why I mentioned it is a tricky political calculation for them.

As to changing the court, it has already changed a number of times and the country was great before and was great after.  I don't see how anyone can look at the way things have gone in terms of nominations and then court decisions and say that if we change the court to make it better, that we won't be great anymore.

The key if they do "reform" the process is to reform it in a non-political way vs. a way that favors one party or the other.  That ultimately may not be possible but it would help our country be greater, not hurt our country.