Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 114

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

  1. #41
    The prince that was promised BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    90,948
    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

  2. #42
    ContraQuinndicated BSBH Prospect
    G1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    19,751
    Rep Power
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by rmc51 View Post
    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.
    It's bullshit to act like a both sides argument applies here.

    Democrats spent 5 years trying to govern within the old rules, which are predicated around one simple idea - when you are the majority party, you do not abuse your power, but when you are the minority party, you do not obstruct the work of government; rather, you work across the aisle. That rule was completely shattered in 2009, when the Republican strategy became "block everything". When there's no ZOPA (zone of possible agreement) because of a "my way or the highway" mentality, the work of democracy and governing is impossible. Reid finally got sick of a completely obstructionist Senate five years later and changed the rules to actually do the work of governance. What were the Democrats supposed to do here - appoint no judges, pass no bills, assert no laws - because they were being held hostage by a clear minority of American senators? Remember - this was a problem in a Senate with a 57-41 majority, again a problem in a Senate with a 51-47 majority, and again a problem in a 53-45 majority.

    Bluntly - one side believes in the work of democracy, the other does not. This creates a truly unfortunate setup for democracy: if the rules need to change to do the work, and the balance of power changes, the rules get abused as we're seeing now. And Democrats, Independents, and Republicans who aren't Trump supporters need to stop falling on their swords to appease the clear but powerful minority of GOP/Trump voters who think that acting as if the GOP leadership are currently good-faith actors is a reasonable political strategy. They're not, and it isn't.

    I'll criticize the Democrats when they're worth criticizing. For now, it's fallacious to pretend that the Democrats deserve equal criticism.
    Hidden Content
    Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

  3. #43
    The prince that was promised BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    90,948
    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. #44
    The prince that was promised BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    90,948
    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

  5. #45
    The prince that was promised BSBH Legend
    Phil in Absentia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Brooklyn, NY
    Posts
    90,948
    Rep Power
    572

    What is court packing, and why are some Democrats seriously considering it?

    [Biden] has not been a fan. He sees it as a maneuver that could come back to haunt Democrats when they’re out of power. What’s to stop a Republican president and Republican Congress from expanding it even more, to get what they want? That was a feature of the Reconstruction era. “We’ll live to rue that day,” he said last year during the primary.

    Plus, Biden has served in the Senate for more than 30 years and has a reputation for respecting institutions and the way things are done. He’s an unlikely candidate to be the first president in some 150 years to expand the court. And his campaign seems aware of a risk that even talking about this could turn away moderate voters — who may not be as conservative as the way this Supreme Court is heading but who also don’t want to mess with the way things are done. Ginsburg was opposed to it for that reason.

    “If anything would make the court look partisan,” she told NPR in 2019, “it would be that — one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’ ”

    My Post colleagues report that some people in Biden’s campaign are annoyed by this movement rising on the left. “People in your own party shouldn’t cause you problems 44 days out,” said one Biden adviser, criticizing Democrats in Congress for elevating the idea.
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...mpaign=wp_main
    "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

  6. #46
    Senior Member Midget Division
    4EverRangerFrank's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    4,391
    Rep Power
    89
    GOP no longer believes in fairness. Of course they want to shove the nomination through. It shows me the utter lack of faith they have in this election. All their words spoken about 'letting the next president chose' ring hollow when you fear loss of the WH and Senate. So sure, grab that seat while you can. I think it back-fires by energizing the Dem vote and especially with women and the younger generation who aligns with RBG.

    "The premise of the impeachment idea is that by engineering another partisan vote in the House, Mrs. Pelosi could then force senators to spend their time conducting a lengthy trial instead of confirming a new Supreme Court justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away last week."

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/pelosis...s&page=1&pos=1

    I haven't been able to find it but I thought I recall reading over the weekend a credible source stating that Senate rules would preclude the body from conducting it's business if an impeachment was present. They would have to deal with the impeachment issue first, thus delaying the SCOTUS hearings and inevitable vote. Barr certainly needs a close look.

  7. #47
    ContraQuinndicated BSBH Prospect
    G1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    19,751
    Rep Power
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by 4EverRangerFrank View Post
    GOP no longer believes in fairness. Of course they want to shove the nomination through. It shows me the utter lack of faith they have in this election. All their words spoken about 'letting the next president chose' ring hollow when you fear loss of the WH and Senate. So sure, grab that seat while you can. I think it back-fires by energizing the Dem vote and especially with women and the younger generation who aligns with RBG.

    "The premise of the impeachment idea is that by engineering another partisan vote in the House, Mrs. Pelosi could then force senators to spend their time conducting a lengthy trial instead of confirming a new Supreme Court justice to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away last week."

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/pelosis...s&page=1&pos=1

    I haven't been able to find it but I thought I recall reading over the weekend a credible source stating that Senate rules would preclude the body from conducting it's business if an impeachment was present. They would have to deal with the impeachment issue first, thus delaying the SCOTUS hearings and inevitable vote. Barr certainly needs a close look.
    The Senate may conduct Senate business during an impeachment trial. It's neither an effective nor a desirable strategy.

    That said, this is the David Frum prophecy come to life. Conservatives can't win free and fair elections, so they're abandoning democracy.
    Hidden Content
    Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

  8. #48
    Russian Meddling BSBH Veteran
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    31,534
    Rep Power
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by G1000 View Post
    The Senate may conduct Senate business during an impeachment trial. It's neither an effective nor a desirable strategy.

    That said, this is the David Frum prophecy come to life. Conservatives can't win free and fair elections, so they're abandoning democracy.
    seriously, can we save this shit for twitter?
    Bretty Pancakes for #AJT2020

  9. #49
    Russian Meddling BSBH Veteran
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    31,534
    Rep Power
    438
    I highly doubt her last wish was to ignore the constitution. If so, she probably should have retired long ago.
    Bretty Pancakes for #AJT2020

  10. #50
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    82,086
    Rep Power
    669
    Quote Originally Posted by josh View Post
    I highly doubt her last wish was to ignore the constitution. If so, she probably should have retired long ago.
    What part of the constitution says a potential outgoing president MUST rush to fill an open seat before an election?

    Must be the part that Mitch McConnell didn't read.

  11. #51
    Russian Meddling BSBH Veteran
    josh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    31,534
    Rep Power
    438
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    What part of the constitution says a potential outgoing president MUST rush to fill an open seat before an election?

    Must be the part that Mitch McConnell didn't read.
    maybe youre actually starting to get it


    They're all the same.


    (no, I know you wont get it, even though you typed it out and posted it, and instead point finger at one while defending the other)
    Bretty Pancakes for #AJT2020

  12. #52
    HNIC BSBH Legend
    Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    82,086
    Rep Power
    669
    Quote Originally Posted by josh View Post
    maybe youre actually starting to get it


    They're all the same.


    (no, I know you wont get it, even though you typed it out and posted it, and instead point finger at one while defending the other)
    Nah. You don't get that none of this is in the Constitution.

    And no, they're not all the same. We've been over this hundreds of times. All politicians lie, yes. Do all politicians lie like Trump? Absolutely not.

    Reid used a nuclear option to push past obstructionists. McConnell refused to grant a hearing to a moderate nominee because he's an obstructionist. Now he's being a hypocrite.

    They are not all the same. Saying they're all the same just makes people supporting McConnell feel better about the hypocrisy.

    Lindsey Graham saying that Democrats would do the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot is so flat out off base because we know Democrats care about bad PR and purity tests, and Republicans don't. They will push through their agenda by any means necessary, constitution and precedent be damned, no matter how bad it makes them look.
    Last edited by Pete; 09-22-2020 at 07:53 PM.

  13. #53
    ContraQuinndicated BSBH Prospect
    G1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    19,751
    Rep Power
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by josh View Post
    seriously, can we save this shit for twitter?
    There's a stark difference between inflammatory statements for Twitter and things that are uncomfortable, but true. The entire REDMAP strategy was based on that premise around electability on the platform. Heck, in 2012, Reince Priebus sad as much after Obama beat Romney.

    Now, the whole abandoning democracy thing? Not a matter of opinion here. Here's a loose definition of democracy:

    Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule') is a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their governing legislation. Who people are and how authority is shared among them are core issues for democratic theory, development and constitution. Cornerstones include freedom of assembly and speech, inclusiveness and equality, membership, consent, voting, right to life and minority rights.
    We're striking out real hard on those cornerstones under this administration, and the GOP seems nonplussed by that.
    Hidden Content
    Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

  14. #54
    ContraQuinndicated BSBH Prospect
    G1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    19,751
    Rep Power
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by Pete View Post
    Nah. You don't get that none of this is in the Constitution.

    And no, they're not all the same. We've been over this hundreds of times. All politicians lie, yes. Do all politicians lie like Trump? Absolutely not.

    Reid used a nuclear option to push past obstructionists. McConnell refused to grant a hearing to a moderate nominee because he's an obstructionist. Now he's being a hypocrite.

    They are not all the same. Saying they're all the same just makes people supporting McConnell feel better about the hypocrisy.

    Lindsey Graham saying that Democrats would do the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot is so flat out off base because we know Democrats care about bad PR and purity tests, and Republicans don't. They will push through their agenda by any means necessary, constitution and precedent be damned, no matter how bad it makes them look.
    If Democrats had half the viciousness of Republicans, we'd never be having this sort of conversation, because we'd never have had Trump.
    Hidden Content
    Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

  15. #55
    Senior Member Pee-Wee Division
    tphilly5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    518
    Rep Power
    24
    Stopped in to thank Harry Reid.

    Just 50 votes in the Senate will get us another conservative Justice to protect the Constitution.

  16. #56
    ContraQuinndicated BSBH Prospect
    G1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    19,751
    Rep Power
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by tphilly5 View Post
    Stopped in to thank Harry Reid.

    Just 50 votes in the Senate will get us another conservative Justice to protect the Constitution.
    Supreme Court justices always required a simple majority. You may thank Harry Reid for many things, but not this one.
    Hidden Content
    Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

  17. #57
    Senior Member Pee-Wee Division
    tphilly5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    518
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by G1000 View Post
    Supreme Court justices always required a simple majority. You may thank Harry Reid for many things, but not this one.
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear...in-the-senate/

    A little history. CBS which should be an acceptable site to this forum.

  18. #58
    ContraQuinndicated BSBH Prospect
    G1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    19,751
    Rep Power
    333
    Quote Originally Posted by tphilly5 View Post
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nuclear...in-the-senate/

    A little history. CBS which should be an acceptable site to this forum.
    It's an oversimplification, and actually wrong.

    Many Supreme Court justices have been approved by majorities of smaller than 60 votes - Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist both did not meet that threshold, as an example. What changed was the amount of votes needed to break cloture - aka, break a filibuster. It's not that the Justice requires 60 votes, it's that the means to delay a vote no longer does.
    Hidden Content
    Blueshirts Brotherhood. We do what we must because we can - for the good of all Rangerkind

  19. #59
    Senior Member Pee-Wee Division
    tphilly5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Posts
    518
    Rep Power
    24
    Quote Originally Posted by G1000 View Post
    It's an oversimplification, and actually wrong.

    Many Supreme Court justices have been approved by majorities of smaller than 60 votes - Clarence Thomas and William Rehnquist both did not meet that threshold, as an example. What changed was the amount of votes needed to break cloture - aka, break a filibuster. It's not that the Justice requires 60 votes, it's that the means to delay a vote no longer does.
    Which takes us back to my original point of thanking Harry Reid.

  20. #60
    I feel sorry for the earth's population BSBH Prospect
    AmericanJesus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    19,857
    Rep Power
    395
    Quote Originally Posted by tphilly5 View Post
    Stopped in to thank Harry Reid.

    Just 50 votes in the Senate will get us another conservative Justice to protect the Constitution.
    You're saying the quiet part out loud. Judges are not supposed to be conservative or liberal. That's where the complaint of activist judges comes from. Judges are supposed to be impartial and apply justified theories of law.

    The Senate's advise and consent role in the process should have been a check on the executive from positioning life-time appointments to such justices. Unfortunately, we know how broken Congress is and it is bleeding out into the other two branches.

    It really is past time for term limits.
    Frisbeetarianism is the belief that when you die, your soul goes up on the roof and gets stuck. George Carlin

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... 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
  •