Justice Ginsburg dies

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2020, 03:22 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: But do we want an 8-8 court with the very real possibility of a contested election?  That could get very ugly.

I can't imagine they will appoint 8 new Supreme Court justices before the election.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2020, 03:22 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: But do we want an 8-8 court with the very real possibility of a contested election?  That could get very ugly.

(09-21-2020, 03:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That is irrelevant.


I think you mean 4-4, and the court isn't 4-4, it's 5-3. Also, the Republicans were willing to risk that in 2016; why not now?

This just goes to my earlier statement: I wish they'd just admit it's for the power and get rid of all the excuses.

Bel pretty much fielded this one for me.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-21-2020, 03:28 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: I can't imagine they will appoint 8 new Supreme Court justices before the election.

Don't put it past Trump to try something unheard of. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2020, 03:37 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Don't put it past Trump to try something unheard of. 

Like claiming Shifty Schiff wrote RBG's dying wish?  No, I don't put that past Trump.

[BmorePat87]

(09-21-2020, 03:19 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: But the White House was Dem and Senate Rep. with Garland.  

Has a SCOTUS ever been confirmed when opposite parties held the White House and Senate?

That wasn't their argument, though. Their argument was "none during an election year". 

[Mickeypoo]

(09-21-2020, 03:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That is irrelevant.


I think you mean 4-4, and the court isn't 4-4, it's 5-3. Also, the Republicans were willing to risk that in 2016; why not now?

This just goes to my earlier statement: I wish they'd just admit it's for the power and get rid of all the excuses.

It shows precedent.

Yes, 4-4.  My bad.

I couldn't care less about what anybody said or how hypocritical they are.  It's normal practice on both sides.  What matters is whether it is legal and constitutional. That answer is yes.

Republicans regained control of the Senate in 2014.  The people then voted to expand Republican control of the Senate in 2018. 

If roles were reversed, I might not like it, but it would be perfectly understandable, legal and constitutional and I wouldn't say anything about it.

Bottom line is nothing is legally or constitutionally wrong with Trump nominating and the Senate confirming a SCOTUS pick right now.  I would say the same if it were the Dems in control, cause that's just life.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2020, 04:13 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: It shows precedent.

Yes, 4-4.  My bad.

I couldn't care less about what anybody said or how hypocritical they are.  It's normal practice on both sides.  What matters is whether it is legal and constitutional. That answer is yes.

Reps. were elected to control Senate in 2014.  The people voted to expand the Senate in 2018. 

If roles were reversed, I might not like it, but it would be perfectly understandable, legal and constitutional and I wouldn't say anything about it.

Bottom line is nothing is legally or constitutionally wrong with Trump nominating and the Senate confirming a SCOTUS pick right now.  I would say the same if it were the Dems in control, cause that's just life.

What?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(09-21-2020, 04:31 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What?

He's saying the GOP gained control of the Senate and then expanded on their lead last election.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2020, 04:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: He's saying the GOP gained control of the Senate and then expanded on their lead last election.

Thanks.

Back to Mickey's statement.

Not acting on a president's SCOTUS nomination is not "normal practice" that both sides do.  It occurs with less than 1/10th of 1 % of nominations and the last time it occurred before McConnell did it in 2016 was over 160 years ago.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2020, 11:38 AM)bfine32 Wrote: 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. 

Not surprising considering the source. Because applauding trolling encourages "earnest" debate, right?

[Mickeypoo]

(09-21-2020, 05:17 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Thanks.

Back to Mickey's statement.

Not acting on a president's SCOTUS nomination is not "normal practice" that both sides do.  It occurs with less than 1/10th of 1 % of nominations and the last time it occurred before McConnell did it in 2016 was over 160 years ago.

It is precedent that no SCOTUS has been confirmed when one party holds the White House and the other party holds the Senate.  In that respect Garland was "normal practice".  

What does the time frame matter?  Is it legal and constitutional or not?

Out of this whole SCOTUS thing, what is illegal and/or unconstitutional?  That's all that matters.  Doesn't matter who says what, who agrees or disagrees, who thinks the other side is a big, orange, meanie, poopy pants.  Non of that is relevant.  

There is literally nothing to see here other than politicians being their normal douche bag selves on both sides.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-21-2020, 04:31 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: What?

Sorry for the confusion.  I updated my post.

[masonbengals fan]

(09-21-2020, 06:15 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: It is precedent that no SCOTUS has been confirmed when one party holds the White House and the other party holds the Senate.  In that respect Garland was "normal practice".  

What does the time frame matter?  Is it legal and constitutional or not?

Out of this whole SCOTUS thing, what is illegal or unconstitutional?  That's all that matters.  Doesn't matter who says what, who agrees or disagrees, who thinks the other side is a big, orange, meanie, poopy pants.  Non of that is relevant.  

There is literally nothing to see here other than politicians being their normal douche bag selves on both sides.

 That pretty much sums it up.

[Belsnickel]

(09-21-2020, 04:13 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: It shows precedent.

Yes, 4-4.  My bad.

I couldn't care less about what anybody said or how hypocritical they are.  It's normal practice on both sides.  What matters is whether it is legal and constitutional. That answer is yes.

Republicans regained control of the Senate in 2014.  The people then voted to expand Republican control of the Senate in 2018. 

If roles were reversed, I might not like it, but it would be perfectly understandable, legal and constitutional and I wouldn't say anything about it.

Bottom line is nothing is legally or constitutionally wrong with Trump nominating and the Senate confirming a SCOTUS pick right now.  I would say the same if it were the Dems in control, cause that's just life.

(09-21-2020, 06:15 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: It is precedent that no SCOTUS has been confirmed when one party holds the White House and the other party holds the Senate.  In that respect Garland was "normal practice".  

What does the time frame matter?  Is it legal and constitutional or not?

Out of this whole SCOTUS thing, what is illegal and/or unconstitutional?  That's all that matters.  Doesn't matter who says what, who agrees or disagrees, who thinks the other side is a big, orange, meanie, poopy pants.  Non of that is relevant.  

There is literally nothing to see here other than politicians being their normal douche bag selves on both sides.

So, any discussion of following precedent and the GOP is laughable at best. Precedent and norms have been utterly demolished during these past four years by the Republican party. The GOP has no legs to stand on when discussing precedent. In addition, the precedent used in 2016 was that no Justice was confirmed in an election year. It had nothing to do with parties, had nothing to do with any of that. What they hung their collective hats on was it was election year, and Graham doubled down on that in 2018.

All of that being said, I agree that there is nothing wrong legally with the GOP replacing RBG. I agree that they should try. But I also agree that the Democrats should make it an election issue, run as many ads as possible to highlight the lies from the GOP and make them eat their words, and do what they can to stop it because public opinion is behind them. What the GOP did to Garland was without precedent and should not have happened and the Democrats should, and will, retaliate for that.

Also, that bolded part is a bit ironic considering I literally said something was irrelevant that fell into the category you call irrelevant in that line and you disagreed.

[BigPapaKain]

(09-21-2020, 03:19 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: But the White House was Dem and Senate Rep. with Garland.  

Has a SCOTUS ever been confirmed when opposite parties held the White House and Senate?

Let's see...


* 1955 - John Marshall Harlan II - Nominated by Eisenhower (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1957 - William Brennan Jr - Nominated by Eisenhower (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1957 - Charles Evans Whittaker - Nominated by Eisenhower (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1959 - Potter Stewart - Nominated by Eisenhower (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1969 - Warren E Burger - Nominated by Nixon (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1970 - Harry Blackmum - Nominated by Nixon (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1971 - Lewis F. Powell Jr - Nominated by Nixon (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1971 - William Rehnquist - Nominated by Nixon (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1975 - John Paul Stevens - Nominated by Nixon (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1987 - Anthony Kennedy - Nominated by Reagan (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1990 - David Souter - Nominated by G.W. Bush (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1991 - Clarence Thomas - Nominated by G.W. Bush (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


[SOURCE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States)


I am unable to find any examples in the past 100 years of Republicans returning the favor. It looks like the only time this "rule" applies is against Democrats. You have to go back to Grover ***** Cleveland in 1895 to find a Democratic President nominating a Supreme Court justice and having it confirmed by a Republican Senate. 


The 1 time in 100 years that a Democrat tried to nominate a Justice with a Republican Senate and suddenly "*OMG no people are voting later this year and we need to hear the voice of the people in this!*" Now here we are with **PEOPLE VOTING NOW** and Republicans are lying and trying to pretend it's anything but what it really is. Republicans will do what they can get away with. That's all. Everyone else with their principles and arguments of what's the right thing to do can get ******. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(09-21-2020, 06:15 PM)Mickeypoo Wrote: It is precedent that no SCOTUS has been confirmed when one party holds the White House and the other party holds the Senate.  In that respect Garland was "normal practice".  

What does the time frame matter?  Is it legal and constitutional or not?

Out of this whole SCOTUS thing, what is illegal and/or unconstitutional?  That's all that matters.  Doesn't matter who says what, who agrees or disagrees, who thinks the other side is a big, orange, meanie, poopy pants.  Non of that is relevant.  

There is literally nothing to see here other than politicians being their normal douche bag selves on both sides.

The time frame indicates Halley's Comet makes twice as many appearances as your so called "normal practice."

Your earlier point was the voters have a say in the Senate and what the Senate does.  Ah, so you agree with 2016 McConnell the voters should have a say in who picks the next SC justice.

[Mickeypoo]

(09-21-2020, 07:17 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Let's see...


* 1955 - John Marshall Harlan II - Nominated by Eisenhower (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1957 - William Brennan Jr - Nominated by Eisenhower (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1957 - Charles Evans Whittaker - Nominated by Eisenhower (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1959 - Potter Stewart - Nominated by Eisenhower (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1969 - Warren E Burger - Nominated by Nixon (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1970 - Harry Blackmum - Nominated by Nixon (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1971 - Lewis F. Powell Jr - Nominated by Nixon (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1971 - William Rehnquist - Nominated by Nixon (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1975 - John Paul Stevens - Nominated by Nixon (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1987 - Anthony Kennedy - Nominated by Reagan (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1990 - David Souter - Nominated by G.W. Bush (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


* 1991 - Clarence Thomas - Nominated by G.W. Bush (Republican), confirmed by the Senate (Democrats).


[SOURCE](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nominations_to_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States)


I am unable to find any examples in the past 100 years of Republicans returning the favor. It looks like the only time this "rule" applies is against Democrats. You have to go back to Grover ***** Cleveland in 1895 to find a Democratic President nominating a Supreme Court justice and having it confirmed by a Republican Senate. 


The 1 time in 100 years that a Democrat tried to nominate a Justice with a Republican Senate and suddenly "*OMG no people are voting later this year and we need to hear the voice of the people in this!*" Now here we are with **PEOPLE VOTING NOW** and Republicans are lying and trying to pretend it's anything but what it really is. Republicans will do what they can get away with. That's all. Everyone else with their principles and arguments of what's the right thing to do can get ******. 

Well geez, I sure bungled that one!  lmao!!

[Bengalzona]

(09-21-2020, 01:36 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: An impeachment of anyone at this point will look brazenly partisan and an abuse of the process.

I think that any action on anything by either party at this point is construed as "brazenly partisan and an abuse of the process" by pundits from the other side. That is the political situation in the U.S. in 2020.

The saddest thing in all of this is that that is what we have become conditioned to expect. As soon as the death of Justice Ginsburg was announced, any of us could have wrote the script as to how each sides politicians would act/react.

[Benton]

(09-21-2020, 09:30 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I think that any action on anything by either party at this point is construed as "brazenly partisan and an abuse of the process" by pundits from the other side. That is the political situation in the U.S. in 2020.

Hell, that's been the issue since the 90s. 

Republicans opened that can of worms when they impeached a POTUS for lying about an affair. Now, whether justified or not, it's only seen as a partisan tool. They won a few political points, but peed on the importance of the action. Which, judging their response during the most recent process, was maybe the point.

[*bfine32*]

As usual the Libs show their moral superiority:

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-rbg-casket-supreme-court-vote-him-out-chant-154504775.html

Quote:President Trump on Thursday visited the casket of Ruth Bader Ginsburg outside the Supreme Court, where she has been lying in repose this week. And the president was met with chants of “vote him out” from supporters of the iconic liberal justice.

Trump, accompanied by first lady Melania Trump, arrived at the viewing around 10 a.m. ET. Both were wearing masks, a precaution recommended by health officials amid the coronavirus pandemic but often eschewed by the president.

As Trump paused behind Ginsburg’s casket, a crowd about a block away from the court erupted, booing the president before joining in the derisive chants.

The president turned and walked away after about spending about a minute at the casket as the crowd continued to chant “vote him out” and “honor her wish.” It’s unclear whether he could hear them.