Justice Ginsburg dies

[Goalpost]

Amy Coney Barrett is one of the likely odds on favorite who Trump will nominate.

[*bfine32*]

Biden and Trump send their well-wishes:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-09-18/2020-contenders-ruth-bader-ginsburg

TRUMP:

Quote:“Renowned for her brilliant mind and her powerful dissents at the Supreme Court, Justice Ginsburg demonstrated that one can disagree without being disagreeable toward one’s colleagues or different points of view,” the statement said.

The statement conveyed thoughts and prayers to her loved ones and made no mention of whether or when the president intended to nominate a successor.

BIDEN:

Quote:“There is no doubt — let me be clear — that the voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider,” Biden said in New Castle, Del., after a day of campaigning in Minnesota. “This was the position of the Republican Senate took in 2016 when there were almost 10 months to go before the election. That’s the position the United States Senate must take today.”

[masonbengals fan]

(09-18-2020, 09:14 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Ruth Ann Ginsberg was great person who served the people of this country for many decades, much like Anthony Scalia. As divisive as our politics are right now, my wish (as it was with Scalia) is that we remember that a human being has died and mourn appropriately.

May her memory be a blessing.

 Well said. Rest in Peace RBG.

And when the time comes lets all hope it doesn't get as ugly as the last confirmation.

[Truck_1_0_1_]

Not being in the know about Supreme Court dealings and the like, precisely, why is her death such a big deal?

JoeB said on the previous page that corporations will have more rights and such, but what exactly is the major sticking point with her passing?

[Belsnickel]

(09-19-2020, 10:21 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Biden and Trump send their well-wishes:
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/2020-09-18/2020-contenders-ruth-bader-ginsburg

TRUMP:

BIDEN:

Not disingenuous at all to ignore the preceding statements Biden made honoring RBG.

[*bfine32*]

(09-19-2020, 10:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Not disingenuous at all to ignore the preceding statements Biden made honoring RBG.

How many here focused on the early part of Mitch's statement before condemning it?

Why not call them out? 

[hollodero]

(09-19-2020, 10:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: How many here focused on the early part of Mitch's statement before condemning it?

Why not call them out? 

Not remotely comparable. People condemn McConnell for showing no honor and no willingness to stick to his own take regarding nominations in an election year. Of course Democrats have to say something about that.

[Fan_in_Kettering]

While I don’t agree with RBG on practically anything I admire her accomplishments and her intellect.

[*bfine32*]

(09-19-2020, 10:52 AM)hollodero Wrote: Not remotely comparable. People condemn McConnell for showing no honor and no willingness to stick to his own take regarding nominations in an election year. Of course Democrats have to say something about that.

Oh, got it.

McConnell talk about replacement-bad
Biden talk about replacement-Not bad

Any idea of Biden's take on the Garland nomination? 

At least POTUS has shown more class than both to date. 

[Benton]

(09-19-2020, 11:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, got it.

McConnell talk about replacement-bad
Biden talk about replacement-Not bad

Any idea of Biden's take on the Garland nomination? 

At least POTUS has shown more class than both to date. 

I don't remember the date, but Trump released a list of potential replacements 'should there be an opening soon' the first week of September.

Maybe option three: they're all bad trying to gain political points off RBG's death?

[Belsnickel]

(09-19-2020, 10:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: How many here focused on the early part of Mitch's statement before condemning it?

Why not call them out? 

(09-19-2020, 11:05 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Oh, got it.

McConnell talk about replacement-bad
Biden talk about replacement-Not bad

Any idea of Biden's take on the Garland nomination? 

At least POTUS has shown more class than both to date. 

McConnell fired the shot and Biden responded. I think both of them were pretty classless to bring it up so soon. But those criticizing McConnell's statement didn't just leave out the first part in a bad faith attempt as misrepresenting his statement.

[Belsnickel]

So, after sitting on this over the weekend, here are my thoughts on the politics of this all. I disagree with the idea that there should not be a Justice nominated in an election year. I disagreed with the idea of it in 2016, and I disagree with it now. In this specific instance, though, I will absolutely advocate against nominating a Justice this year. If it is held off until after the inauguration, then it is a wash. This is why I have no issue with Democrats fighting the idea of a Trump nominee.

I also want to add that the extremes to which Republicans are twisting to back out of their words four years ago is not surprising, but it is absolutely disgusting. There is zero integrity or honor among the likes of Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and others. They set a precedent when it benefited them and now turn their back on it. I'm betting there would be some conversations we had on here four years ago that were concerned about the precedent.

[BmorePat87]

(09-21-2020, 10:47 AM)Benton Wrote: I don't remember the date, but Trump released a list of potential replacements 'should there be an opening soon' the first week of September.

Maybe option three: they're all bad trying to gain political points off RBG's death?

Trump was tweeting about needing someone in there ASAP on Saturday morning. A day later he retweeted a tweet about Murkowski speaking at an Alaska event and said "No Thanks!" 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dying wish, according to her granddaughter, was "my most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed". Trump came out today on Fox and Friends and said he doubts she said that. Biden may be bad for playing politics, but he's pushing for her own dying wish.

[GMDino]

(09-21-2020, 10:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, after sitting on this over the weekend, here are my thoughts on the politics of this all. I disagree with the idea that there should not be a Justice nominated in an election year. I disagreed with the idea of it in 2016, and I disagree with it now. In this specific instance, though, I will absolutely advocate against nominating a Justice this year. If it is held off until after the inauguration, then it is a wash. This is why I have no issue with Democrats fighting the idea of a Trump nominee.

I also want to add that the extremes to which Republicans are twisting to back out of their words four years ago is not surprising, but it is absolutely disgusting. There is zero integrity or honor among the likes of Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and others. They set a precedent when it benefited them and now turn their back on it. I'm betting there would be some conversations we had on here four years ago that were concerned about the precedent.

I had to just get off social media for the most part over the weekend because the comments were just mind-blowingly stupid.

RBG was a decent human being to devoted so much of her life to helping.

As to the politics:  Too many of my friends think because the Democrats wanted the Garland nomination to go through that *THEY* are the hypocrites for telling the Republicans to stay consistent and not nominate anyone now.  The disconnect is maddening.

Had the GOP allowed the nomination in 2016 then the Democrats would have no argument now...but they didn't so they do.

Not that Republicans (or their supporters) care.  They will simply do what they want and then DEMAND they be treated as equals when/if they are in the minority again.  For once I hope that if that happens the Democrats rub the GOP's nose in the crap they are spewing. 

[masonbengals fan]

Newsflash....

They are all hypocrites. Neither side holds a monopoly on that. Both sides will do what's in their own best interest.

When I see & hear Chuck & Nancy, integrity or honor are not words that come to my mind.

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2020, 10:50 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: McConnell fired the shot and Biden responded. I think both of them were pretty classless to bring it up so soon. But those criticizing McConnell's statement didn't just leave out the first part in a bad faith attempt as misrepresenting his statement.

You know, I know, and everyone reading knows that everyone who responded to McConnell's comments ignored the first part of his comments. 

I provided the link where folks could read the comments in full if they wanted and quoted the part where Biden did the exact same thing McConnell did. There was no "misrepresenting"; you just didn't like it and everyone reading knows full well why you spoke negatively to those and not to the others.

As to the nomination: I'd like to see Trump nominate Khamala just to watch heads explode on both sides. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-21-2020, 11:19 AM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Newsflash....

They are all hypocrites. Neither side holds a monopoly on that. Both sides will do what's in their own best interest.

When I see & hear Chuck & Nancy, integrity or honor are not words that come to my mind.

This is exactly the reason I posted the Biden comments (but I did wait a day). Don't hate the player, hate the game. 

[BmorePat87]

(09-21-2020, 10:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, after sitting on this over the weekend, here are my thoughts on the politics of this all. I disagree with the idea that there should not be a Justice nominated in an election year. I disagreed with the idea of it in 2016, and I disagree with it now. In this specific instance, though, I will absolutely advocate against nominating a Justice this year. If it is held off until after the inauguration, then it is a wash. This is why I have no issue with Democrats fighting the idea of a Trump nominee.

I also want to add that the extremes to which Republicans are twisting to back out of their words four years ago is not surprising, but it is absolutely disgusting. There is zero integrity or honor among the likes of Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and others. They set a precedent when it benefited them and now turn their back on it. I'm betting there would be some conversations we had on here four years ago that were concerned about the precedent.

Here's Graham in 2016 saying to use his words against him in 2020 if there's a GOP president and a vacancy in their last year. "Use my words against me and you'd absolutely right". 


Barrett seems like the lock as the pick. She was inexperienced when Trump put her on the bench in 2017, and I don't think 3 years gives you the necessary experience for a lifetime appointment on the highest court. Then again, Kagan was inexperienced too. 

[CJD]

Let's see if 4 Republican Senators have spines and integrity.

I'm not going to hold my breath haha.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2020, 10:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, after sitting on this over the weekend, here are my thoughts on the politics of this all. I disagree with the idea that there should not be a Justice nominated in an election year. I disagreed with the idea of it in 2016, and I disagree with it now. In this specific instance, though, I will absolutely advocate against nominating a Justice this year. If it is held off until after the inauguration, then it is a wash. This is why I have no issue with Democrats fighting the idea of a Trump nominee.

I also want to add that the extremes to which Republicans are twisting to back out of their words four years ago is not surprising, but it is absolutely disgusting. There is zero integrity or honor among the likes of Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and others. They set a precedent when it benefited them and now turn their back on it. I'm betting there would be some conversations we had on here four years ago that were concerned about the precedent.

Was there ever any doubt?  Here's the problem though, the hypocrisy is rampant on both sides.  If you were against not filling the vacancy in 2016 then you have to be against it now, otherwise you're a hypocrite.  If your position in 2016 was that the next president should fill the seat and you're for filling the seat now then you're a hypocrite.  Ginsburg herself was against not filling the position in 2016, stating something along the lines of the president doesn't stop being the president in their final year in office.  You cite precedent, but precedent is not law, it's not binding in any sense.  I also have zero doubt that if it was a Dem POTUS and a Dem controlled Senate that they'd be confirming before the inauguration.

So essentially it's a massive group of hypocrites all contradicting their former positions.  In other words, business as usual in DC.