Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 114

Thread: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87; Supreme Court Battle Begins

  1. #21
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    82,074
    Rep Power
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by jsm7302 View Post
    You believe if the shoe were on the other foot and the President was a Democrat and had a Democrat majority in Congress, that they would not rush to fill the SCOTUS seat before January?

    Then you have much more faith in your party and politicians than I do in this system altogether.

    In a normal world of acceptance and peace (obviously not 2020- our country is burning) the rules would be the rules and if a justice dies during a Presidents term then yes, they get to nominate a replacement regardless of how close it is to an election. It could work in either partys favor.
    Yes, they would fill the seat as is their right. Republican's forfeited that "right" when they blocked a moderate appointee simply because a Democrat nominated him. Again, we can't continually ask that only one party follows the rules.

    This old song and dance of protesting all things Trump or Republican is getting old. Have some patience, your time will come around again; history shows it always does. But let me guess, no matter who is nominated, they will ve protested and fundamentally wrong just because of who nominated them?
    I don't protest all things Trump and Republican. I protest vile and disgusting behavior, so Trump and McConnell are top targets there.

    I could be wrong but wasn't the Civil War the last time there was a fluctuation of the number of SCOTUS justices on the bench? Removing the checks and balances of a democracy to fulfill your political parties wishes as the highest level of government is a slippery slope. These people are elected so if they are sitting there, it is because the people chose them. Some have buyers remorse and will have a turn in the next election cycle to change its course. This is a Democracy ( right now anyway)
    Enter abolishing the EC, since Hilary won the majority vote. The will of the people was Hilary.

    If the last four years have shown anything from one party; it has shown lack of patience and lots of whining and yelling for not getting their way (Nancy Pelosi at the state of the Union sums up the past 4 years for her party). It has shown the desire to employ an eye for an eye justice when they receive power back (which is everything they yell against in the CJ system however). The other party has shown lackluster leadership during some very trying times for this country.
    Blaming one party for this is rich. I don't even know where to begin, so I'll just let that statement stand on it's own lack of merit.

    This is our system folks, if you're not a fan, plenty of other countries with other government systems exist. I do not believe a majority party should change the rules to get their way for the entirety of their term just because they can, its the ultimate slap in the face to Democracy.
    No! No, no, no. If you're government isn't working for you, you don't leave the country. You change government. Article 21 of the United Nations' 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government".
    (I still don't believe the seat gets filled by January) Lets show some patience and lets find common ground to stand on as a country as opposed to finding our different viewpoints and yelling at each other ad nauseum for 4 years.
    There is no reason to fill the seat prior to the election where there's a strong chance Dems would be in the White House and control the Senate.

    If Trump wins the election and the Senate is R controlled, have at it. Skew the Court even more towards the right (because fuck moderates, amirite?)
    If Trump wins the election and the Senate is D controlled, then let him deal with the same shit Obama had to. Fair's fair.

    No reason at all to rush before an election OR let a lame duck president dictate policy or lifetime appointments.

  2. #22
    ContraQuinndicated BSBH Prospect
    G1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    19,743
    Rep Power
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by rmc51 View Post
    This would really just be tit for tat. An evening of the scores if you will. If the Democrats make it a mission to repay, then they will ultimately just restart the cycle that they started in 2013 with Reid.
    The Democrats shouldn't make it a mission to repay. The GOP has jumped the shark long ago - the mission at this point is to completely overhaul our government to minimize Trumpism and allow a real conservative party to take foot. Shoot air into the lungs of the Libertarians, or the Constitution Party - just strangle any notion of this obstructionist, protofascist showmanship being "politics".

    I've said repeatedly, I have no problem with conservatism. America needs conservatives. It does not need these "conservatives", because they're not conservatives; they're kleptocrats co-opting the term.

    Undo his damage to the country and get back to the work of being the shining city on the hill instead of the burning country in a trench.
    Last edited by G1000; 09-20-2020 at 09:53 AM.
    Hidden Content
    Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

  3. #23
    The prince that was promised BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    90,939
    Rep Power
    572
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  4. #24
    Senior Member Midget Division
    4EverRangerFrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    4,390
    Rep Power
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by G1000 View Post
    The Democrats shouldn't make it a mission to repay. The GOP has jumped the shark long ago - the mission at this point is to completely overhaul our government to minimize Trumpism and allow a real conservative party to take foot. Shoot air into the lungs of the Libertarians, or the Constitution Party - just strangle any notion of this obstructionist, protofascist showmanship being "politics".

    I've said repeatedly, I have no problem with conservatism. America needs conservatives. It does not need these "conservatives", because they're not conservatives; they're kleptocrats co-opting the term.

    Undo his damage to the country and get back to the work of being the shining city on the hill instead of the burning country in a trench.
    ^^^^THIS x 1,000!!

  5. #25
    Senior Member Bantam Division Tonybologna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,248
    Rep Power
    21
    I just think it would be stupid for McConnell to stick to what he said in 2016 now. There's no arguing that he wouldn't be hypocritical in doing so, he absolutely would be a hypocrite, but he and Graham are only 2 Republican senators out of 53 and only 2 Republicans out of tens of millions. In a practical and dutiful sense, it would be moronic for them to "stick to their word" when they have an opportunity to help their party and their voters in what they believe is right. And it's not like there's anything illegal or unconstitutional about what happened in 2016 or about confirming an appointee now. For the Democrats upset by this, it's understandable but I'd have a hard time believing that if roles were reversed in 2016 and now that things would play out any differently except with Ds where Rs would be and vice versa. Also I'd say while Republicans who were for McConnell's actions are hypocrites for supporting an appointee now, Democrats who were against McConnell's actions are hypocrites for wanting there to be no appointment made now. It's one thing to call out hypocrisy, it's another to become a hypocrite yourself in doing so. In other words if you thought that not confirming in an election year was dumb in 2016 and now want there to be no confirmation that is also hypocritical.

  6. #26
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    82,074
    Rep Power
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by Tonybologna View Post
    I just think it would be stupid for McConnell to stick to what he said in 2016 now. There's no arguing that he wouldn't be hypocritical in doing so, he absolutely would be a hypocrite, but he and Graham are only 2 Republican senators out of 53 and only 2 Republicans out of tens of millions. In a practical and dutiful sense, it would be moronic for them to "stick to their word" when they have an opportunity to help their party and their voters in what they believe is right. And it's not like there's anything illegal or unconstitutional about what happened in 2016 or about confirming an appointee now. For the Democrats upset by this, it's understandable but I'd have a hard time believing that if roles were reversed in 2016 and now that things would play out any differently except with Ds where Rs would be and vice versa. Also I'd say while Republicans who were for McConnell's actions are hypocrites for supporting an appointee now, Democrats who were against McConnell's actions are hypocrites for wanting there to be no appointment made now. It's one thing to call out hypocrisy, it's another to become a hypocrite yourself in doing so. In other words if you thought that not confirming in an election year was dumb in 2016 and now want there to be no confirmation that is also hypocritical.
    Sorry but advocating for politicians to be hypocrites is asinine.

    Also, it doesn't matter what Dems would do. It wasn't Dems in 2016 and it's not Dems now, so trying to justify the bullshit with a fictitious "Well, your party would do the same" isn't even whataboutism. It's worse. It's literally fabricating a scenario to justify the blatant hypocrisy.

  7. #27
    Windmill Cancer Survivor, Super-Duper Missile CDR Bantam Division
    jsrangers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Seaside Park NJ
    Posts
    2,249
    Rep Power
    62
    Quote Originally Posted by Tonybologna View Post
    I just think it would be stupid for McConnell to stick to what he said in 2016 now. There's no arguing that he wouldn't be hypocritical in doing so, he absolutely would be a hypocrite, but he and Graham are only 2 Republican senators out of 53 and only 2 Republicans out of tens of millions. In a practical and dutiful sense, it would be moronic for them to "stick to their word" when they have an opportunity to help their party and their voters in what they believe is right. And it's not like there's anything illegal or unconstitutional about what happened in 2016 or about confirming an appointee now. For the Democrats upset by this, it's understandable but I'd have a hard time believing that if roles were reversed in 2016 and now that things would play out any differently except with Ds where Rs would be and vice versa. Also I'd say while Republicans who were for McConnell's actions are hypocrites for supporting an appointee now, Democrats who were against McConnell's actions are hypocrites for wanting there to be no appointment made now. It's one thing to call out hypocrisy, it's another to become a hypocrite yourself in doing so. In other words if you thought that not confirming in an election year was dumb in 2016 and now want there to be no confirmation that is also hypocritical.
    Very true.

    Just remember that line of thinking when it comes to packing the court should the Dems get that opportunity and take it in the near future.

    Personally I find the depths of the entire shitshow to be disheartening.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Bantam Division Tonybologna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,248
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    Sorry but advocating for politicians to be hypocrites is asinine.

    Also, it doesn't matter what Dems would do. It wasn't Dems in 2016 and it's not Dems now, so trying to justify the bullshit with a fictitious "Well, your party would do the same" isn't even whataboutism. It's worse. It's literally fabricating a scenario to justify the blatant hypocrisy.
    I'm not advocating for anyone to do anything. I'm simply saying it's more strategic to not let pride and ego get in the way of doing something beneficial. They are Republicans so in their mind, appointing judges of their choice is more beneficial to their party. I'll take back my hypothetical, but yeah it wasn't Dems in 2016 and it isn't Dems now. So it should be obvious to anyone that Mitch didn't care about the election year thing he just used that precedent (set by Joe Biden) and his senate majority to not allow another Obama appointee. I don't really care how he tries to qualify his statement now claiming he was talking specifically about a lame-duck or the fact that senate was majority Republican going into the election. It's all bullshit, which is why I think it's silly to try to pin him to what he said in 2016 because what he did then was for his party and confirming someone now would be for the party. It's all politics and I'm really sick of it but anyone would accept being called a hypocrite if it meant a big win for their camp. But again for people who thought the vacancy should be filled in 2016 that now think in 2020 that it shouldn't, it's not because they ever thought replacing Scalia quickly was of utmost importance or else they'd still think replacing Ginsburg is the right thing to do. So yeah, hypocrites all around.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Junior Division
    rmc51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,297
    Rep Power
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by jsrangers View Post
    Very true.

    Just remember that line of thinking when it comes to packing the court should the Dems get that opportunity and take it in the near future.

    Personally I find the depths of the entire shitshow to be disheartening.
    They would do whatever the fuck they want anyway. They started it with the nuclear option. This is how both sides operate. There's no stopping the cycle.

    Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head buried so far in the red or blue sand.

  10. #30
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    82,074
    Rep Power
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by Tonybologna View Post
    I'm not advocating for anyone to do anything. I'm simply saying it's more strategic to not let pride and ego get in the way of doing something beneficial. They are Republicans so in their mind, appointing judges of their choice is more beneficial to their party. I'll take back my hypothetical, but yeah it wasn't Dems in 2016 and it isn't Dems now. So it should be obvious to anyone that Mitch didn't care about the election year thing he just used that precedent (set by Joe Biden) and his senate majority to not allow another Obama appointee. I don't really care how he tries to qualify his statement now claiming he was talking specifically about a lame-duck or the fact that senate was majority Republican going into the election. It's all bullshit, which is why I think it's silly to try to pin him to what he said in 2016 because what he did then was for his party and confirming someone now would be for the party. It's all politics and I'm really sick of it but anyone would accept being called a hypocrite if it meant a big win for their camp. But again for people who thought the vacancy should be filled in 2016 that now think in 2020 that it shouldn't, it's not because they ever thought replacing Scalia quickly was of utmost importance or else they'd still think replacing Ginsburg is the right thing to do. So yeah, hypocrites all around.
    Comparing what Joe Biden said in 1992 to what McConnell and Graham said in 2016 is again, rich.

    Since when did abiding by the same rules you wanted to play by in 2016 become pride and ego?

    I thought the seat should have been filled in 2016 but McConnell didn't let it happen so if that's the set of rules we're operating by, why doesn't it apply now?

    Nothing hypocritical about holding Republicans to the same rules they set in 2016.

  11. #31
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    82,074
    Rep Power
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by rmc51 View Post
    They would do whatever the fuck they want anyway. They started it with the nuclear option. This is how both sides operate. There's no stopping the cycle.

    Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head buried so far in the red or blue sand.
    Mitch could have ended it in 2016. He didn't. So why do we have to end it when the disadvantage is to the Dems?

  12. #32
    The prince that was promised BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    90,939
    Rep Power
    572
    It's important to note, what McConnell did in '16 was flagrant. He wouldn't even allow Garland a Senatorial hearing, let alone a vote. All of this was under the auspices of some new-found "rule" about not confirming SCOTUS appointees in an election year. That's all out the window now because this isn't about procedure, tradition, or long-standing unwritten rules like McConnel made up. It's about power.

    Trump will name his third appointment. McConnell will do everything in his power to ensure they're awarded not just hearings, but a floor vote. These are basically gospel given what we know of both men who don't give a flying fuck about the things they say. They do what they want when they want. Words are just air.

    The Dems need to be strategically focused on retaliation, and need to be doing so with the support of the people, which they'll likely have if the party can hammer the Republicans on their own indignations.
    "Everyone says you should be a good loser. If you’re a good loser, you’re a loser."
    - John Tortorella


    "Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence."
    - Christopher Hitchens

  13. #33
    ContraQuinndicated BSBH Prospect
    G1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    19,743
    Rep Power
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by rmc51 View Post
    They would do whatever the fuck they want anyway. They started it with the nuclear option. This is how both sides operate. There's no stopping the cycle.

    Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head buried so far in the red or blue sand.
    It's not how both sides operate. It's how the GOP operates, and how the Democrats are forced to operate because they have dishonest partners in government, who break the tenuous but necessary rules of decorum at any time when it is convenient to do so.

    I think Mitch should nominate a judge and force one through. Then he can act all sanctimonious, falling on his sword in faux outrage when the Democratic majority in the Senate removes the filibuster, approves DC and PR statehood, adds 6 seats to the Supreme Court, and creates hundreds of new federal judgeships to counterbalance the malignancy of Mitch. All by March.

    Of course, the threat of such a retribution should be enough for Mitch to follow his own damn rules, especially for such a smart politician.
    Hidden Content
    Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

  14. #34
    Senior Member Junior Division
    rmc51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,297
    Rep Power
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by G1000 View Post
    It's not how both sides operate. It's how the GOP operates, and how the Democrats are forced to operate because they have dishonest partners in government, who break the tenuous but necessary rules of decorum at any time when it is convenient to do so.

    I think Mitch should nominate a judge and force one through. Then he can act all sanctimonious, falling on his sword in faux outrage when the Democratic majority in the Senate removes the filibuster, approves DC and PR statehood, adds 6 seats to the Supreme Court, and creates hundreds of new federal judgeships to counterbalance the malignancy of Mitch. All by March.

    Of course, the threat of such a retribution should be enough for Mitch to follow his own damn rules, especially for such a smart politician.
    Exhibit A for blue sand.

  15. #35
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    82,074
    Rep Power
    666
    Quote Originally Posted by rmc51 View Post
    Exhibit A for blue sand.
    You act like you're not clearly in the red quicksand.

  16. #36
    ContraQuinndicated BSBH Prospect
    G1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    19,743
    Rep Power
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by rmc51 View Post
    Exhibit A for blue sand.
    Which part? The part where the GOP are dishonest actors who have zero interest in governance or compromise, or the part where there's an assumption that the Democrats won't force McConnell to watch it all unravel if he deigns to force through a judge? There's going to be a reckoning if he does.
    Hidden Content
    Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

  17. #37
    Senior Member Junior Division
    rmc51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,297
    Rep Power
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by G1000 View Post
    Which part? The part where the GOP are dishonest actors who have zero interest in governance or compromise, or the part where there's an assumption that the Democrats won't force McConnell to watch it all unravel if he deigns to force through a judge? There's going to be a reckoning if he does.
    The part where you absolve the Democrats from wrongdoing. And the part where you think any of the "retribution" you listed in the 2nd paragraph wouldn't happen regardless.

  18. #38
    ContraQuinndicated BSBH Prospect
    G1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    19,743
    Rep Power
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by rmc51 View Post
    The part where you absolve the Democrats from wrongdoing. And the part where you think any of the "retribution" you listed in the 2nd paragraph wouldn't happen regardless.
    Where'd I do that? If you're going for a general sense, sure, but when you've got one person jaywalking and another pointing a gun at pedestrians, you don't treat them as equal threats.

    Fair point on the back-end. That's happening once the Dems win the Senate back anyway.
    Hidden Content
    Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

  19. #39
    Senior Member Junior Division
    rmc51's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    5,297
    Rep Power
    207
    Quote Originally Posted by G1000 View Post
    Where'd I do that? If you're going for a general sense, sure, but when you've got one person jaywalking and another pointing a gun at pedestrians, you don't treat them as equal threats.

    Fair point on the back-end. That's happening once the Dems win the Senate back anyway.
    I mean, if they do what you just said they would do, that is "operating that way". Reid using the nuclear option in 2013 is "operating that way". The self-serving is on both sides. When you enter the discussion and say only one side does it, there's nowhere to go.

  20. #40
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    82,074
    Rep Power
    666
    Dems used nuclear option because Republicans blocked a record number of Obama appointments for no reason other than Obama appointed them. Same thing they did with Garland.

    Garland was a solid moderate pick. No reason to not even allow a hearing.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •