Ruth Bader Ginsberg passes on at 87

brianiu

Benchwarmer
May 11, 2008
350
260
63
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.
Well Pelosi definitely wouldn’t have done the same thing as she is in the House. I honestly don’t think Schumer would’ve done the same thing McConnell did. Harry Reid may have tried but even still, cant imagine Dems finding 50 Senators to explicitly go against their word six weeks before an election. Of course this speculation is changing the subject. Understandable you would want to do this rarher than defend the indefensible
 

BCCHoosier

Senior
Sep 5, 2001
2,153
1,172
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.
You are not right. You represent everything that is wrong with this country today.
 

Cortez88

Senior
Jan 7, 2017
2,710
3,102
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.
You are excusing what the GOP actually did by stating what the the Democrats might have done in a hypothetical situation. It’s faulty logic.

Say I punch you in the face. You would say “WTF why did you do that?” Would you be satisfied if my rationale was that you could have punched me in the face?
 

ButHerEmails

Junior
Sep 28, 2019
1,266
1,229
113
Well Pelosi definitely wouldn’t have done the same thing as she is in the House. I honestly don’t think Schumer would’ve done the same thing McConnell did. Harry Reid may have tried but even still, cant imagine Dems finding 50 Senators to explicitly go against their word six weeks before an election. Of course this speculation is changing the subject. Understandable you would want to do this rarher than defend the indefensible
It’s like talking to a college sports fan after their school gets busted for cheating. It’s either “everyone does it” or “everyone would do it if they could”. It’s just cowards spewing horseshit.
 

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
54,561
27,417
113
Margaritaville
Well Pelosi definitely wouldn’t have done the same thing as she is in the House. I honestly don’t think Schumer would’ve done the same thing McConnell did. Harry Reid may have tried but even still, cant imagine Dems finding 50 Senators to explicitly go against their word six weeks before an election. Of course this speculation is changing the subject. Understandable you would want to do this rarher than defend the indefensible
I think we can feel pretty sure the Dems would not be able to get 50 members to agree to these kinds of shenanigans, since we already know that we can't even get all the current members to support doing anything to fight back against the Republicans doing these shenanigans.
 

dbmhoosier

Senior
Nov 23, 2005
2,978
1,892
113
I think we can feel pretty sure the Dems would not be able to get 50 members to agree to these kinds of shenanigans, since we already know that we can't even get all the current members to support doing anything to fight back against the Republicans doing these shenanigans.
Who were the Dems who voted against Obamacare?
 

dbmhoosier

Senior
Nov 23, 2005
2,978
1,892
113
What are you talking about? Obamacare was a piece of legislation. McConnell’s play in 2016 was certainly not that.
How many Dems voted against John Roberts who was arguably the most qualified person to ever be appointed to the USSC? How many Pubs voted against RBG who was probably the most left wing radical justice to ever be appointed? And that was after what Dems did to Robert Bork.
 

Cortez88

Senior
Jan 7, 2017
2,710
3,102
113
How many Dems voted against John Roberts who was arguably the most qualified person to ever be appointed to the USSC? How many Pubs voted against RBG who was probably the most left wing radical justice to ever be appointed? And that was after what Dems did to Robert Bork.
You should start at the beginning of the thread to see why people are pissed. McConnell and a number of GOP Senators said in 2016 that a nominee couldn’t be put forward because the American people should decide. Not they are saying f$ck that. That’s the issue.
 

dbmhoosier

Senior
Nov 23, 2005
2,978
1,892
113
You should start at the beginning of the thread to see why people are pissed. McConnell and a number of GOP Senators said in 2016 that a nominee couldn’t be put forward because the American people should decide. Not they are saying f$ck that. That’s the issue.
And for decades both parties had decided that the President should get to appoint whomever he wants and that candidate be automatically approved by the Senate. The Dems broke that trend.
 

Circlejoe

All-Big Ten
Sep 26, 2001
3,520
937
113
And for decades both parties had decided that the President should get to appoint whomever he wants and that candidate be automatically approved by the Senate. The Dems broke that trend.
You couldn't be more wrong with that statement. Ignorance can be fixed in most cases.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BCCHoosier

HooDatGuy

Recruit
Sep 10, 2020
91
58
18
He was confirmed 78-22. Far more support from Dems than Kagan or Sotomayor received from Republicans
Both parties can do a better job of forwarding judges that are more apolitical and palatable for the other side like Roberts or Kavanaugh. Justices like Gorsuch, Kagan & Mayor just serve to exacerbate the problems in an already broken nomination process.
 

Aloha Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 30, 2001
28,012
8,552
113
Actually, the first stone in the judicial filibuster wars was the GOP filibuster of Abe Fortas's nomination as chief justice in 1968
It was bipartisan with almost as many Democrats voting against cloture as Republicans. He had ethics issues. That wasn’t much of a first stone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark

Tacoll

Benchwarmer
Gold Member
Sep 17, 2001
394
28
28
It was bipartisan with almost as many Democrats voting against cloture as Republicans. He had ethics issues. That wasn’t much of a first stone.
I appreciate the post, but this was the 1st filibuster of a scotus nominee, gop leading w/ their racist democrat allies . The ethics matter was not known at the time of the filibuster' it being disclosed in 1969. The course of action pre Fortas was to vote against a nominee, not filibuster. This is an historic matter. The GOP cannot avpoid responsibility Nevertheless the only time a filibuster is tolerable is against a scotus appointee imho, and then it is dubious
 
Last edited:

Cortez88

Senior
Jan 7, 2017
2,710
3,102
113
Asking about this statement would absolutely be fair game in the hearing. This just looks bad and extremely hypocritical.

It’s also one of the most partisan statements I can recall a SCOTUS nominee making. Identifying the Justices by political party is concerning.

 
Last edited:

Aloha Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 30, 2001
28,012
8,552
113
I appreciate the post, but this was the 1st filibuster of a scotus nominee, gop leading w/ their racist democrat allies . The ethics matter was not known at the time of the filibuster' it being disclosed in 1969. The course of action pre Fortas was to vote against a nominee, not filibuster. This is an historic matter. The GOP cannot avpoid responsibility Nevertheless the only time a filibuster is tolerable is against a scotus appointee imho, and then it is dubious
The ethics matter was known per every account I’ve read, including four I skimmed this morning. Here's one of those. It was bipartisan by definition, and dismissing all the Democrats that voted against cloture as racists seems to come out of left field. Racial issues aren't mentioned in any account I've read to date so I'm not sure why you would even made that comment. It's so 2020. ;)

I think we agree about filibusters for judicial nominees. I've always felt they should get an up or down vote and Senators that oppose them should have the courage to vote against them. Filibusters is the less honest and less courageous way to oppose nominees.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1

ButHerEmails

Junior
Sep 28, 2019
1,266
1,229
113
Asking about this statement would absolutely be fair game in the hearing. This just looks bad and extremely hypocritical.

It’s also one of the most partisan statements I can recall a SCOTUS nominee making. Identifying the Justices by political party is concerning.

That only applies to liberals replacing conservatives, not the other way around. Duh. Republicans would still play the victim card and claim the court was unbalanced if it had 9 conservative judges. It’s what they do.
 

Tacoll

Benchwarmer
Gold Member
Sep 17, 2001
394
28
28
The ethics matter was known per every account I’ve read, including four I skimmed this morning. Here's one of those. It was bipartisan by definition, and dismissing all the Democrats that voted against cloture as racists seems to come out of left field. Racial issues aren't mentioned in any account I've read to date so I'm not sure why you would even made that comment. It's so 2020. ;)

I think we agree about filibusters for judicial nominees. I've always felt they should get an up or down vote and Senators that oppose them should have the courage to vote against them. Filibusters is the less honest and less courageous way to oppose nominees.
I misspoke to a degree. Strom Thurman was a leader of opposition along w/ the gop. The democrats were southerners who were racists in their politics. Race was extremely important in 1968--Nixon was deploying the racist southern focus to get elected. Of course racists dont proclaim their racism, but assert other issues Fortas was soft on pornography per his opens(he was for the current law). I think it is fair to say their were ethical issues re his relation to LBJ. The issue he resigned over did not appear til 1969.

Yes, we basically agree on filibusters here. Again, I appreciate the reply.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
18,377
15,406
113
Watching the movement of RBG's casket to the Capital. (I've had my work hours cut back 20%.) Schumer and Pelosi were front and center on the arrival. No sign of Mitch or McCarthy. Something very not right about that.
 

UncleMark

Hall of Famer
Sep 1, 2001
18,377
15,406
113
Watching the movement of RBG's casket to the Capital. (I've had my work hours cut back 20%.) Schumer and Pelosi were front and center on the arrival. No sign of Mitch or McCarthy. Something very not right about that.
Confirmation from Kacie Hunt that McConnell and McCarthy chose not to attend.

Were they afraid they'd get booed?
 

Aloha Hoosier

Hall of Famer
Aug 30, 2001
28,012
8,552
113
I misspoke to a degree. Strom Thurman was a leader of opposition along w/ the gop. The democrats were southerners who were racists in their politics. Race was extremely important in 1968--Nixon was deploying the racist southern focus to get elected. Of course racists dont proclaim their racism, but assert other issues Fortas was soft on pornography per his opens(he was for the current law). I think it is fair to say their were ethical issues re his relation to LBJ. The issue he resigned over did not appear til 1969.

Yes, we basically agree on filibusters here. Again, I appreciate the reply.
I've seen no evidence that racism was a factor in the opposition. Nixon's campaign had nothing to do with the Fortas opposition either, did it?

Also, as has been noted before, Nixon's Southern Strategy wasn't very effective considering that he didn't win the deep south states. Democrat George Wallace won 5 states from the heart of the old Confederacy running third party. Humprhies won Texas, Nixon won Florida, the Middle Atlantic states, the Midwest and West, including California.

Thanks.
 

ButHerEmails

Junior
Sep 28, 2019
1,266
1,229
113
Watching the movement of RBG's casket to the Capital. (I've had my work hours cut back 20%.) Schumer and Pelosi were front and center on the arrival. No sign of Mitch or McCarthy. Something very not right about that.
At least they understood it would be in poor taste to walk with someone’s body while you’re getting ready to screw their legacy.
 

Stuffshot

All-American
Feb 20, 2008
7,065
2,598
113
I misspoke to a degree. Strom Thurman was a leader of opposition along w/ the gop. The democrats were southerners who were racists in their politics. Race was extremely important in 1968--Nixon was deploying the racist southern focus to get elected. Of course racists dont proclaim their racism, but assert other issues Fortas was soft on pornography per his opens(he was for the current law). I think it is fair to say their were ethical issues re his relation to LBJ. The issue he resigned over did not appear til 1969.

Yes, we basically agree on filibusters here. Again, I appreciate the reply.
Yes. Things that (you say) happened 50 years ago are quite instructive in today's unusual environment. Nobody on this board would ever say, "B-B-b-b-u-t that happened before I was even born !!"
 

HooDatGuy

Recruit
Sep 10, 2020
91
58
18
That would be the ultimate pwn. Tell Trump he had her full support knowing she would have to say that to get the job, then rule against him when the time came.
You are operating under the assumption that Trump appoints judges solely to serve his own self-interest. I see no reason to make that assumption.

Or is this about some sort of hypothetical future case concerning contesting the election or impeachment or whateverelse you conjure up in fantasy land.