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]

TheCube

September 18th, 2020 at 9:23 PM ^

True pioneer whose need to see a woman President will cost this country dearly. She should have retired in Obama’s second term. Obama should’ve forced the issue. The mayhem from this will destroy the republic. Democrats always playing checkers when Republicans play chess. RIP. 
 

Mitch McConnell will not stay true to what he did when Scalia passed. It’s going to come down to what Collins, Murkowski and Romney do along w the Arizona Senate winner who gets confirmed in November. 

Even a Democrat victory gives Republicans until January to replace RBG. Get ready for a 6-3 uber conservative SC. 7-2 if Trump wins bc Breyer is 82 yo. 
 

Packing it is the only choice at this point, which will only expedite the race to the bottom. Even FDR couldn’t do that. Oh well. 
 

 

Joined: 12/19/2018

MGoPoints: 31596

Gameboy

September 18th, 2020 at 9:34 PM ^

This. 

I am sorry but RBG was a selfish, selfish person who will set back the progressive movement back 20 years because of her desire to serves as a justice until she died. She should have resigned during Obama, this was plain stupidity. Nothing she has done in her seat will overshadow the amount of acrimonious and bitter fight that progressives will face over next 20 years.

Roe V Wade? Kiss that goodbye

Universal Healthcare or even Obamacare? Unconstitutional.

Any gun control? Surely you jest.

Gay Marriage? Hope you enjoyed it while you had it.

RBG will go down as doing more damage to women/minority rights than anyone in last 30 years.

RIP, because we certain won't get any.

Joined: 11/28/2010

MGoPoints: 9656

mi93

September 18th, 2020 at 10:53 PM ^

The key assumption is that Mitch McConnell would not have stonewalled another seat.  If Scalia passes in 2015, who's to say he still wouldn't have stonewalled?  "We shouldn't allow a lame duck President to appoint a Justice."

I wholly appreciate the concern for the Republic.  For now, let's honor a legendary figure and prepare for the future by getting out the vote in 46 days.

Joined: 11/15/2008

MGoPoints: 30413

uminks

September 18th, 2020 at 11:57 PM ^

RIP RBG, she showed women that they could have careers in high places. As more of libertarian, I disagreed with her on somethings, just like disagreed with the conservative judges. But don't tell me if a D president was in the same position and had a D majority Senate He/She would not try to nominate  a justice of their choice before Jan 20 of 2021, even if they did become a lame duck!

Joined: 11/10/2009

MGoPoints: 32040

mi93

September 19th, 2020 at 12:41 AM ^

It's not about an R WH and Senate or a D WH and Senate.  It's about establishing a precedent - which was unprecedented - and then changing the rules to suit his new need.  Presidents recommend SC (and Federal) justices, the Senate votes.  McConnell didn't do his duty - on both counts - while Obama was President.

Long after he's gone, we will all have to live by McConnell's rule of law based on how he hijacked federally appointed benches.

Joined: 11/15/2008

MGoPoints: 30413

SC Wolverine

September 19th, 2020 at 8:24 AM ^

You do realize that it was not Mitch McConnell who removed the cloture rule on judicial appointments.  Just saying.  None of what he is doing would be possible if the Democratic Senate had not placed power ahead of the stability of the Republic.  Now Dems are talking about packing the court if Biden wins.  The lack of respect for a political process in which people who disagree with you can win elections is making it impossible to have a stable republic and will sooner or later (sooner, I'd say) cost us a free government.  McConnell can do what he is doing because the Republicans won the presidential election and a majority of the senate elections -- and because the Dems removed the historic procedural respect for a multi-party system.  

I am a conservative, but am not all that alarmed if Biden wins and the Democrats take the Senate.  Why?  Because I am quite sure that their policies will result in them being booted out of power in a future election.  (You are free to disagree, at least for the present.)  What alarms me is the polarization that wants to impose political power without respect for the minority party.  The result will be totalitarianism, which progressives seem to want.  And this after the repeated examples in the 20th century of what totalitarianism actually looks like.

With all that said, I really wish Mitch would put the long term interests of the Republic ahead of power and leave the seat vacant until after the election.  Clearly, that is not going to happen.  You can thank the Obama Senate for it.

 

Joined: 08/18/2010

MGoPoints: 7794

RoxyMtnHiM

September 19th, 2020 at 9:36 AM ^

It was McConnell who killed the 60-vote rule on SCotUS nominees. April 6, 2017.

And, one might ask, why had the Dems found it necessary to go nuclear-last-resort on the lower fed court nominees during the Obama administration?

What in the world could they have been responding to?

 

Joined: 04/21/2009

MGoPoints: 1892

trustBlue

September 19th, 2020 at 9:47 AM ^

Cool story bro, except it was McConell who removed the cloture rule on Supreme Court appointments.

Harry Reid removed the cloture rule for lower court judges after Republicans implemented a standing rule of filibustering every Obama court nominee in attmept to deny him from making any court appointments at any level.

Even still, for the sake of comity and historical precedent, Democrats kept the rule in for Supreme Court appointments. It was McConnell who removed the cloture rule after he realized that Republicans could only muster up a simple majority to confirm Gorsuch. 

Joined: 04/14/2014

MGoPoints: 8169

SC Wolverine

September 19th, 2020 at 9:55 AM ^

Thanks for the correction, and I see that you are right.  Nonetheless, my point about the removal of the cloture rule on judicial appointments still stands.  We need to respect a multi-viewpoint republic and preserve protections like this.  Although I will probably like the SC nominee the Republicans will put it, I really wish McConnell would not do it.

Joined: 08/18/2010

MGoPoints: 7794

trustBlue

September 19th, 2020 at 10:20 AM ^

If I am being honest, I am not in favor of allowing filibusters and I hope that Democrats decide to repeal it entirely if they take control of the Senate.

There is no filibuster in the House. Most parliamentary systems do not have a filibuster. 

Historically, the use of filibusters was quite rare. It was during the Obama years that Republicans decided that they would use the filibuster on every single vote brought by Democrats. 

But the filibuster/cloture was never designed to allow for minority rule. It was supposed to be a way to encourage consensus by forcing Senators to go back to the floor to debate the issue further.

Invocation of cloture is simply the process by which you say "Ok enough debate, let's have a vote now" 

All of the major Republican votes passed during the Trump adminstration have been passed with simple majority - the Trump tax plan passed with just over 50 votes - avoiding the filibuster via reconciliation. They attempted to do Obamacare repeal the same way, but couldnt muster a simple majority when McCain voted no.

Gorsuch was a 54 vote simple majority, Kavanaugh only 50 (VP pence was needed to break the tie)!  If you didnt have any issue with these votes being passed with a simple majority, there's certainly no reason to be upset about confirming some district court judge with a simple majority vote.

I would probably be in favor of keeping the filibuster around big things like, uh, Supreme Court picks, but since that ship has already sailed, I hope they repeal it altogether. 

Joined: 04/14/2014

MGoPoints: 8169

SC Wolverine

September 19th, 2020 at 12:37 PM ^

Thanks for this.  But your points about how the filibuster caused the Republicans to seek reconciliation on a tax plan and kept them from a radical undoing of Obamacare is precisely what I am talking about.  More than our need to vote right or left on any issue is our need to pursue concensus.  Thanks again.

Joined: 08/18/2010

MGoPoints: 7794

Sopwith

September 18th, 2020 at 9:50 PM ^

It’s going to come down to what Collins, Murkowski and Romney do along w the Arizona Senate winner who gets confirmed in November. 

No one gets confirmed in November. McSally will continue to be a sitting Senator until January 20th, 2021 even if she loses.

Joined: 06/29/2010

MGoPoints: 61105

dcloren2121

September 18th, 2020 at 11:44 PM ^

Not true. Arizona is a special election since McSally wasn't voted in but rather appointed after McCain's death. If Kelly wins (likely as of today), he could take office by Nov. 30

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/elections/the-winner-of-the-arizona-senate-race-could-be-seated-in-time-for-a-vote-on-a-supreme-court-pick.html

Joined: 07/30/2013

MGoPoints: 6393

1VaBlue1

September 18th, 2020 at 10:09 PM ^

I don't disagree, but why consider retiring during Obama's second term?  What McConnell did with Garland was extraordinary, not legal, and nothing anyone had ever tried to do.  It could not have been foreseen that anyone would try something so egregious.  

There was no sense in her retiring within his first three years of the second term.  And by then, it was impossible - McConnell froze out Garland for a year.  A FULL YEAR!!!

Following established precedent says there's no way the Senate can bring anyone to a vote until the next Senate is seated.  But if anyone thinks that'll happen, you're a fucking idiot.  The Democrats should be screaming this to high heaven RIGHT NOW.

Joined: 01/31/2016

MGoPoints: 127087

sharklover

September 18th, 2020 at 10:14 PM ^

No one knew that McConnell would do that to Garland, but the writing was on the wall. People were clamoring for RBG to step down in Obama's first term. 

Democrats can and will scream about precedent right up until the election. But that won't change McConnell's tactics. He has 60% approval ratings in his home state.

Joined: 11/30/2015

MGoPoints: 6140

dcloren2121

September 19th, 2020 at 12:46 AM ^

If politico published an article about Michigan's running game, I probably would've clicked on it and maybe even commented. So that's a terrible comparison.

My point is this event isn't some random obscure political event. The death of a Supreme Court Justice, particularly in our current times, is monumental news. 

Joined: 07/30/2013

MGoPoints: 6393

Maize4Life

September 19th, 2020 at 6:36 AM ^

Packing the court?  In other words if you dont like the rules of the game because you LOST just change the rules..Wasnt it Barak Obama who said Elections have consequences.??.But if you lose just change the rules so they favor YOU...Sorry thats Un American

Joined: 11/26/2017

MGoPoints: 3890

1VaBlue1

September 19th, 2020 at 7:44 AM ^

McConnell already changed the rules, and has vowed to change them back. His established precedent is not to confirm anyone in an election year.

You can't complain about changing rules when you're the one changing them...

But what should we expect from Trumpettes, anyway?  Say one thing, do another - the hallmark of Trump's presidency.

Joined: 01/31/2016

MGoPoints: 127087

TheCube

September 19th, 2020 at 8:21 AM ^

Uhh yeah that’s exactly it. I want the SC to lean towards my views bc they’re more aligned with the betterment of the country? So what? 
 

Pack the fucking court. IDGAF. I’m done with establishment Democrats playing nice as Republicans run roughshod over them thus screwing my generation. 

 

Your assumption is hilarious as if I’m just gonna back down bc that’s “not how it’s done.”  Bitch that’s how Republicans have been playing politics since 9/11. Fuck yeah I want to pack the court and make sure Republicans never see power again. These bums haven’t won a popular vote since 2004. GTFO. 

Joined: 12/19/2018

MGoPoints: 31596

BoFan

September 19th, 2020 at 10:14 AM ^

Factually, the conservative activism of the  court does not represent the beliefs of the majority of the country for what it means to be a better society.  Further, their Citizens United and redistricting rulings have ensured that the rich and minority political opinions have more votes and power respectively. 

Joined: 03/09/2012

MGoPoints: 19943

BoFan

September 19th, 2020 at 10:06 AM ^

This isn’t far off at all.  Republicans, behind close doors, admit that they think democrats are fools and easily played because those democrats believe things should be fair. This applies to business and politics. So if the Republican senate does the opposite of what they did 4 years ago and sticks another Federalist on the court then it’s perfectly within the rules to expand it and pack it if the pendulum swings next year.  

Joined: 03/09/2012

MGoPoints: 19943

Sam1863

September 19th, 2020 at 6:57 AM ^

It’s going to come down to what Collins, Murkowski and Romney do along w the Arizona Senate winner who gets confirmed in November.

If this is the case (and it may well be), then I doubt there's any chance. Romney might go against the Senate vote, since he loathes Trump and has a pretty safe seat. But Collins is currently in the fight of her life, trails in the polls, and needs every red vote she can squeeze out of Maine's electorate. She won't dare. And Murkowski comes up for reelection in two years, and has never received a majority in her previous elections. The far-right came at her hard in 2016, and if she doesn't fall in line with McConnell's wishes, they'll come at her even harder 2022. She won't risk it.

Joined: 04/27/2014

MGoPoints: 28880

harmon40

September 19th, 2020 at 7:53 AM ^

Romney won’t oppose the nominee.

Sure he hates Trump but he is a conservative at heart. When Trump nominates a judge, he does whatever those nice people at the Heritage Foundation tell him to do. That means a conservative justice straight from central casting. Romney won’t vote against a qualified candidate who is in line with his political convictions.

Joined: 05/02/2009

MGoPoints: 5743