Politics - Passing of RBG

Submitted by Hab on September 18th, 2020 at 7:47 PM

Delete when the discussion takes a turn, but I thought it appropriate to post, particularly given her significant legal career.  RIP.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-dead/index.html

[Locked.  Thread has run its course, also see other primary reasons for the lockdown in my post at the bottom of page 9]

BoFan

September 19th, 2020 at 2:35 AM ^

User name seems perfectly chosen. Mike Damone was the character in FTARH  that takes advantage of and has sex with young somewhat innocent and trusting virgin and then he fails to pay for or show up for her abortion because he is selfish and week. 

Joined: 03/09/2012

MGoPoints: 20149

gopoohgo

September 18th, 2020 at 9:20 PM ^

This is the chance to reshape the SCOTUS for a generation.  

No way in heck McConnell is going to pass up the chance to replace a liberal justice with a conservative.  

The only question is, will Trump be smart politically and nominate a woman like Amy Barrett, or the first Asian justice like James Ho.

Joined: 09/12/2011

MGoPoints: 10660

BoFan

September 19th, 2020 at 2:56 AM ^

Your read too many republican blogs.  The Republicans filibustered Obama’s court nominations at unprecedented levels.  Nearly all of his very moderate nominations would have have passed in the previous 100 years based on tradition and custom alone. So Reid out of honor and integrity killed the filibuster for federal bench appointments only because of the unprecedented BS used by republicans to block nominees.  
 

McConnell did even worse once the senate changed hands. And then he committed the equivalent of thermonuclear mass destruction by not only blocking Obama’s moderate SCOTUS nominee for a year but also eliminating the filibuster for Trump SCOTUS nominees as well as eliminating other customary and moderate screening requirements for nominating federal bench appointments. All we have left as a screening criteria is Trump’s required oath of loyalty. 
 

Joined: 03/09/2012

MGoPoints: 20149

Bergs

September 18th, 2020 at 8:21 PM ^

The issue is not the loss of the filibuster. The issue is that the Senate majority leader will not hold himself to the BS extraconstitutional standards he set 4 years ago. I think Supreme Court justices should be nominated by the sitting president and that the Senate should hold hearings for that nominee. I thought that 4 years ago and I think that now. The Senate majority leader disagreed four years ago but agrees now.

Joined: 09/09/2011

MGoPoints: 2866

carolina blue

September 18th, 2020 at 8:17 PM ^

The argument is against your thought process is that we knew there would be a new president last time around. This time, one could be re-elected. In fact the way things are turning right now, it’s entirely possible he does. 
 

the point is that he will say he’s not a hypocrite because we don’t have a lame duck President. It’s a fair point, though a weak one. 

Joined: 02/12/2014

MGoPoints: 30295

Sopwith

September 18th, 2020 at 8:22 PM ^

That's the point of the election. It's the voters who get to decide if he's a lame duck starting in November or not. If he's not, then it's not a really an issue. But if he loses, then it's a massive issue. Which is exactly why you just let the voters decide.

"Lame duck" does not mean what you evidently think it means. It does not refer to a second-term President. Obama was not a lame duck when he nominated Garland.

Joined: 06/29/2010

MGoPoints: 61218

carolina blue

September 18th, 2020 at 8:36 PM ^

Fair point, and I would mostly agree. I’m telling you what the argument against it is. We can get semantic about the definition of lame duck, but the point remains. 
 

it’s an interesting debacle he’s in though. Does he try to stuff it through with Trump and risk the blowback, possibly negatively affecting the outcome of the election? Or is he confident on retaining the Senate (polls are all over the place on whether Rs will retain majority). 

Joined: 02/12/2014

MGoPoints: 30295

Sopwith

September 18th, 2020 at 8:42 PM ^

There is zero debate about what "lame duck" means. 

But I don't think it makes any difference to McConnell. He's filling the seat regardless of the outcome of the election. I don't think he'll do it before then because there are too many GOP senators who don't want to be pulled off the campaign trail while they're fighting for their political lives.

Joined: 06/29/2010

MGoPoints: 61218

sharklover

September 18th, 2020 at 8:44 PM ^

Good point. Lame duck refers to a politician who is in the period between election day and the inauguration day of the person that has been selected to replace them. Obama was not a lame duck until November of 2016. Scalia died more than half a year before the election.

Joined: 11/30/2015

MGoPoints: 6140

BeatIt

September 19th, 2020 at 9:02 AM ^

I believe the fact that the GOP held onto the house and won back the Senate in the 2014 midterms and wasn't running for re-election is why he was considered a lame duck for his last 2 years. The dems took off the gloves the day after the election in 2016. Spent the next 3 years doing nothing except making outlandish claims without basis. They made their bed when they evoked the nuclear option on filibusters and allowing a simple majority to confirm federal judges. Just sour grapes imo. There should always be 9 on the court at all times. RBG was a great lady,mother,wife,friend and colleague to her peers. But was very political. Should of retired 2 years ago but she was hoping to stick around for a Democrat POTUS. Hurts her legacy of being impartial sadly.

Joined: 06/11/2016

MGoPoints: 931