Ruth Bader Ginsberg passes on at 87

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
18,303
15,339
113
Is there another path for Democrats? Below is the pertinent section of the Constitution. If they take back the Senate and Presidency, could they not just pass a law making the ACA and abortion beyond Supreme Court review? It appears any originalist would be forced to accept that law. Well, assuming I am not right and originalism is more than an argument of convenience.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.​
Discussed at length here:


My guess is that the current or future Court would rule such limits as unconstitutional.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mcmurtry66

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
8,047
3,972
113
Is there another path for Democrats? Below is the pertinent section of the Constitution. If they take back the Senate and Presidency, could they not just pass a law making the ACA and abortion beyond Supreme Court review? It appears any originalist would be forced to accept that law. Well, assuming I am not right and originalism is more than an argument of convenience.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.​
At this point, I'm in favor of scorched Earth. The main arguments the GOP made over not allowing Obama to replace Scalia was that he was a Conservative and his seat needed to be replaced with someone from a similar orientation. Now instead of simply keeping things even, they want to press the advantage, and I believe Dems should respond in kind.

Allow them to have the advantage for a month or so, and then render it all meaningless and inconsequential. I believe this is a case of "be careful what you wish for".

People who were voting for Trump/GOP Senators as a way of ensuring Trump would get to replace her in a 2nd term are already mobilized. All this will do is wake up and mobilize people on the left who were going to sit out because they didn't feel Biden was "progressive enough".

There is literally ONE Dem Senator who is realistically in danger of being defeated while the GOP has about 10 or so, many of whom currently trail in funding and the polls. This just makes it much harder for those very vulnerable Senators to navigate the support they need to win from moderate Dems and Independents in some very purple states...
 

jet812

All-Big Ten
Feb 28, 2008
3,063
1,926
113
At this point, I'm in favor of scorched Earth. The main arguments the GOP made over not allowing Obama to replace Scalia was that he was a Conservative and his seat needed to be replaced with someone from a similar orientation. Now instead of simply keeping things even, they want to press the advantage, and I believe Dems should respond in kind.

Allow them to have the advantage for a month or so, and then render it all meaningless and inconsequential. I believe this is a case of "be careful what you wish for".

People who were voting for Trump/GOP Senators as a way of ensuring Trump would get to replace her in a 2nd term are already mobilized. All this will do is wake up and mobilize people on the left who were going to sit out because they didn't feel Biden was "progressive enough".

There is literally ONE Dem Senator who is realistically in danger of being defeated while the GOP has about 10 or so, many of whom currently trail in funding and the polls. This just makes it much harder for those very vulnerable Senators to navigate the support they need to win from moderate Dems and Independents in some very purple states...
Just remember, that makes you no better than Mitch...
 

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
8,047
3,972
113
Just remember, that makes you no better than Mitch...
Well I'm not a politician. And I'm much more concerned with the regression of rights that certain US citizens will face if certain elements start to dominate the SCOTUS. There is a reason those cases came to the Court in the first place. It's ridiculous to think people in certain states could be denied rights they've already been given just because a gerrymandered Legislature is allowed to retroactively enact laws disenfranchising them...

At any rate, this move has really galvanized those on the Left, from a monetary standpoint.

The NYT today points out that a huge flood of donations has flowed into Senate campaigns that were previously just an afterthought. The influx of cash has resulted in even more GOP seats becoming contested than previously believed. Lindsey was already in a much tighter race than he'd like or has previously experienced, but contributions to Jamie Harrison have literally exploded over the past few days...

"From Alaska to Maine to North and South Carolina, Democratic strategists working on Senate campaigns described a spontaneous outpouring of donations the likes of which they had never seen, allowing Democrats the financial freedom to broaden the map of pickup opportunities, or press their financial advantage in top battlegrounds already saturated with advertising.


By Monday, Democratic contributors had given more than $160 million online through ActBlue, the leading site for processing digital donations. ActBlue broke one record after another — its biggest hour in 16 years, its busiest day, its busiest weekend — after Ginsburg’s death, with an estimated tens of millions of dollars going toward efforts to retake the Senate, where the acrimonious confirmation fight to replace Ginsburg will occur."

https://news.yahoo.com/ginsburgs-death-reshaped-money-race-121428798.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: hondo314

jet812

All-Big Ten
Feb 28, 2008
3,063
1,926
113
I don’t give two shits about a galvanized left or right, I’m just pointing out your hypocrisy...
 

MrBing

All-Big Ten
Apr 25, 2011
3,429
2,781
113
I normally got up at 0500, but my memory is getting up about 0300 that day. Clear as could be too. I’m doubting my memory now because wives are never wrong. Yes, Dear! ;)
Ha! I've heard you say Yes Dear to Mrs Aloha! It's the right thing to do. 😄
 

MrBing

All-Big Ten
Apr 25, 2011
3,429
2,781
113
At this point, I'm in favor of scorched Earth. The main arguments the GOP made over not allowing Obama to replace Scalia was that he was a Conservative and his seat needed to be replaced with someone from a similar orientation. Now instead of simply keeping things even, they want to press the advantage, and I believe Dems should respond in kind.

Allow them to have the advantage for a month or so, and then render it all meaningless and inconsequential. I believe this is a case of "be careful what you wish for".

People who were voting for Trump/GOP Senators as a way of ensuring Trump would get to replace her in a 2nd term are already mobilized. All this will do is wake up and mobilize people on the left who were going to sit out because they didn't feel Biden was "progressive enough".

There is literally ONE Dem Senator who is realistically in danger of being defeated while the GOP has about 10 or so, many of whom currently trail in funding and the polls. This just makes it much harder for those very vulnerable Senators to navigate the support they need to win from moderate Dems and Independents in some very purple states...
When the Pubs get power back they'll go another step on this. I think if we pack the court to 13 justices the Pubs will pack it to 17 the next time they get a chance to do it. I want my party to do the right thing within the rules. I'm want to be proud of my party and not ashamed. Pubs have a lot to be ashamed of in this and I bet many will be.
 

Cortez88

Senior
Jan 7, 2017
2,674
3,068
113
When the Pubs get power back they'll go another step on this. I think if we pack the court to 13 justices the Pubs will pack it to 17 the next time they get a chance to do it. I want my party to do the right thing within the rules. I'm want to be proud of my party and not ashamed. Pubs have a lot to be ashamed of in this and I bet many will be.
That’s the thing Bing. There is no shame. From Trump down to the rubes driving around in trucks with Trumps flags. Look at Graham. They played the 2016 video for him and he just laughed it off. When you are completely shameless you can do anything.

I hope the Ds don’t follow the Rs in this chase for power at all costs, but at this point I wouldn’t blame them.
 

MrBing

All-Big Ten
Apr 25, 2011
3,429
2,781
113
That’s the thing Bing. There is no shame. From Trump down to the rubes driving around in trucks with Trumps flags. Look at Graham. They played the 2016 video for him and he just laughed it off. When you are completely shameless you can do anything.

I hope the Ds don’t follow the Rs in this chase for power at all costs, but at this point I wouldn’t blame them.
I don't agree because I'm in the military so I work with a lot of Republicans and I know many of them are ashamed of Trump and some of what the Republicans are doing. Irregardless I don't want to be ashamed of my party too. Let's do the right thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jet812

cosmickid

All-American
Oct 23, 2009
8,047
3,972
113
That’s the thing Bing. There is no shame. From Trump down to the rubes driving around in trucks with Trumps flags. Look at Graham. They played the 2016 video for him and he just laughed it off. When you are completely shameless you can do anything.

I hope the Ds don’t follow the Rs in this chase for power at all costs, but at this point I wouldn’t blame them.
A perfect example is the hypocrisy of the Impeachment process. Graham, Starr, and others can't complain that their hypocrisy was repaying the Dems in kind, since there was no other modern-day POTUS to be impeached prior to Clinton. So all the statements about needing witnesses and all the lies Starr told in direct contradiction to the way he treated Clinton are strictly their's to own...
 

jet812

All-Big Ten
Feb 28, 2008
3,063
1,926
113
I don't agree because I'm in the military so I work with a lot of Republicans and I know many of them are ashamed of Trump and some of what the Republicans are doing. Irregardless I don't want to be ashamed of my party too. Let's do the right thing.
Thank you sir. This is the only attitude that will end the perpetual cycle of unethical behavior from both parties...
 

Cortez88

Senior
Jan 7, 2017
2,674
3,068
113
I don't agree because I'm in the military so I work with a lot of Republicans and I know many of them are ashamed of Trump and some of what the Republicans are doing. Irregardless I don't want to be ashamed of my party too. Let's do the right thing.
I hoping you prove me wrong. Country first.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MrBing

brianiu

Benchwarmer
May 11, 2008
350
260
63
:
Thank you sir. This is the only attitude that will end the perpetual cycle of unethical behavior from both parties...
Why laugh when McConnell tramples on a norm he creates four years ago then?

I really haven’t cared up to this point who gets to appoint the SCOTUS Justice, but I have to admit, I will enjoy watching the heads of the leftist bigots of the board explode if he rams one through, & the subsequent hypocrisy as they condone the same deplorable behavior from their party that they condemn from the McConnells of the world...
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
18,303
15,339
113
I don't agree because I'm in the military so I work with a lot of Republicans and I know many of them are ashamed of Trump and some of what the Republicans are doing. Irregardless I don't want to be ashamed of my party too. Let's do the right thing.
I'm with you as long as they don't ram a new Justice through before the election or after if Biden wins. Otherwise, fvck them.
 

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
10,269
2,874
113
current governance is about, and only about, money and power. (a 100% guaranteed result when money can buy governance).

not right or wrong, or what's in the best interests of the citizenry.

any debate on whether Pubs will fill this seat if they have the votes is laughable.

and while those filling the seat will go "look over there", pointing to abortion, in reality those behind closed doors with power will make the choice based in who they feel they can consistently count on to rule in favor of corporations and big oppressive govt, and against the working and middle classes and the citizenry.

the working and middle class never win with the supremes vs money and/or corporate power, nor does Joe Citizen ever win vs oppressive govt.

nor do the supremes ever let The Constitution get in the way of oppressive govt or big money.

this isn't by accident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joe_Hoopsier

Spartans9312

Junior
Nov 11, 2004
1,276
638
113
The process for filling a SCOTUS vacancy is straightforward: the president chooses a new justice "with the advice and consent of the Senate."
The conditions imagined by Republicans in 2016 was self-serving nonsense.
The conditions imagined now by the Democrats is self-serving nonsense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jet812

HooDatGuy

Recruit
Sep 10, 2020
86
56
18
Fair enough. At a certain point, one has to fight fire with fire. I've outlined what that point is for me. What would be yours?
Mine was when Harry Reid blew up the nomination process and sent us down the shit covered path we're on today.
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
18,303
15,339
113
I misspoke, not SCOTUS nomination process, but you get the point, Democrats cast the first stone. On that we can agree.
You're referring to Reid eliminating the filibuster for lower level judges after the Republicans blocked damn near every fvcking one of Obama's nominees, correct?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Neves and cosmickid

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,462
27,357
113
Margaritaville
After unprecedented filibusters of President Bush’s judicial nominations. It’s been tit for tat.
And yet, even without the nuclear option, Bush had his nominees confirmed at a higher rate than either Clinton or Bush, Sr. Obama's confirmation rate was just slightly below Clinton and Bush, but it was only that high because of the filibuster.

I'm not denying that the Dems used the tactic against Bush. I'm just pointing out that the obstruction levied against Obama was unprecedented in scope, even if not in tactic.
 

TommyCracker

Hall of Famer
Mar 18, 2004
12,532
8,648
113
I don’t give two shits about a galvanized left or right, I’m just pointing out your hypocrisy...
Does hypocrisy on top of hypocrisy get us back to normal?

Again you have no ground to shame.

We can wrap our around retribution for better or worse (meaning there is a difference between sucker punching someone and punching back).

Most times yeah, be the better person.

Other times people need to get punched in the mouth.

Again this effects the next thirty to fifty years and it was gained by bad actors being disingenuous.

Honestly it probably would be better if the pubs would just admit its a dick move on their part after all the whining and crying about it in 2016.

It's doubly annoying to watch all of this revisionist history, phoney detachment (well I was against it in 2016) or the ol irrelevant new disclaimer trick to justify why you shouldn't feel like a POS lying, soulless husk of a human (otherwise known as cognitive dissonance).

;-)
 

Aloha Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 30, 2001
28,006
8,531
113
And yet, even without the nuclear option, Bush had his nominees confirmed at a higher rate than either Clinton or Bush, Sr. Obama's confirmation rate was just slightly below Clinton and Bush, but it was only that high because of the filibuster.

I'm not denying that the Dems used the tactic against Bush. I'm just pointing out that the obstruction levied against Obama was unprecedented in scope, even if not in tactic.
Democrats and Republicans struck a compromise to allow for those confirmations after those unprecedented filibusters. They didn’t exercise the “nuclear option.” I’ve been against filibusters of any Presidential nominees all along, but the history of the tit for tat on judicial nominees is what it is. Both sides participated in getting us to where we are and that’s merely a fact.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,462
27,357
113
Margaritaville
Democrats and Republicans struck a compromise to allow for those confirmations after those unprecedented filibusters. They didn’t exercise the “nuclear option.” I’ve been against filibusters of any Presidential nominees all along, but the history of the tit for tat on judicial nominees is what it is. Both sides participated in getting us to where we are and that’s merely a fact.
Yeah, I meant filibuster. The Dems broke new ground by successfully filibustering nominees. I may have mixed up some terms in that post, and typed "filibuster" when I meant "nuclear option" and vice versa.

Originally, I was just arguing against the poster trying to lay all the blame on Reid.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier

jet812

All-Big Ten
Feb 28, 2008
3,063
1,926
113
Does hypocrisy on top of hypocrisy get us back to normal?

Again you have no ground to shame.

We can wrap our around retribution for better or worse (meaning there is a difference between sucker punching someone and punching back).

Most times yeah, be the better person.

Other times people need to get punched in the mouth.

Again this effects the next thirty to fifty years and it was gained by bad actors being disingenuous.

Honestly it probably would be better if the pubs would just admit its a dick move on their part after all the whining and crying about it in 2016.

It's doubly annoying to watch all of this revisionist history, phoney detachment (well I was against it in 2016) or the ol irrelevant new disclaimer trick to justify why you shouldn't feel like a POS lying, soulless husk of a human (otherwise known as cognitive dissonance).

;-)
Quite a list
Does hypocrisy on top of hypocrisy get us back to normal?

Again you have no ground to shame.

We can wrap our around retribution for better or worse (meaning there is a difference between sucker punching someone and punching back).

Most times yeah, be the better person.

Other times people need to get punched in the mouth.

Again this effects the next thirty to fifty years and it was gained by bad actors being disingenuous.

Honestly it probably would be better if the pubs would just admit its a dick move on their part after all the whining and crying about it in 2016.

It's doubly annoying to watch all of this revisionist history, phoney detachment (well I was against it in 2016) or the ol irrelevant new disclaimer trick to justify why you shouldn't feel like a POS lying, soulless husk of a human (otherwise known as cognitive dissonance).

;-)
Got it, your plan is to become the bad actor. Solid...
 

The Watson

Senior
Gold Member
Apr 6, 2007
2,034
2,537
113
So it’s a dick move that pubs are going to replace Ginsberg before the election? C’mon, man!

Do any of you honestly believe & could say with a straight face that Nancy and Chuck wouldn’t do the same thing in the exact same situation? You know damn well they would. Quit being so damn sanctimonious. It’s laughable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,462
27,357
113
Margaritaville
So it’s a dick move that pubs are going to replace Ginsberg before the election? C’mon, man!

Do any of you honestly believe & could say with a straight face that Nancy and Chuck wouldn’t do the same thing in the exact same situation? You know damn well they would. Quit being so damn sanctimonious. It’s laughable.
How can you people be so dense? It's a dick move that they are doing this after swearing in 2016 (and in some cases in 2018 or later) that they wouldn't. Lindsey Graham actually said "Use my words against me" if the situation arose. When his own words were read back to him, he just laughed.

I mean, I know you want the seat filled with a conservative, but at least have the decency to admit the obvious, and stop trying to throw out these BS arguments. Just admit, it's your team, you want them to win, and you don't care about rules or honesty. It's obvious to everyone already that's what this is, so just be open about it.
 

The Watson

Senior
Gold Member
Apr 6, 2007
2,034
2,537
113
Doesn’t matter, goat. Nancy and Chuck woulda done the exact same thing, and you know it. You can not deny it, and if you do, you’re the one being dense.

And, yes - I do want the seat filled with a conservative. Not hiding anything.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,462
27,357
113
Margaritaville
Doesn’t matter, goat. Nancy and Chuck woulda done the exact same thing, and you know it. You can not deny it, and if you do, you’re the one being dense.

And, yes - I do want the seat filled with a conservative. Not hiding anything.
And once again, we have another poster defending shitty behavior by their team by saying, "Well, your team would have done it, too."

It's a cowardly excuse.
 

The Watson

Senior
Gold Member
Apr 6, 2007
2,034
2,537
113
You know I’m right, and that bothers you. I’m okay with that.

Actually, I loathe the current state of politics, and both sides are to blame. To think one party has the market cornered on dastardly conduct is naive.

However, If the donkeys hadn’t made such asses out of themselves - no pun intended - for the last 4 years, perhaps I would feel differently about the situation. As it is, I am A-Okay with going nuclear. I’d be pissed if we didn’t.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUCrazy2