Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Moderators: Shirley, Sabo, brian, rass, DaveInSeattle
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"What a bunch of pedantic pricks." - sybian
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
McConnell has Romney (and based on reports and public statements, 50 other GOP Senators).
This happens every time. The GOP allows a couple of strategic defectors (in this case Murkowski and Collins), but Mitch always finds the votes on judicial nominees.
This happens every time. The GOP allows a couple of strategic defectors (in this case Murkowski and Collins), but Mitch always finds the votes on judicial nominees.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Guy still wants to be president. No go is Republican primary death.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
I love the idea that you can do something really shitty and aggressively partisan and then POOF it's now precedent! It's not at all shitty the next time!
Totally Kafkaesque
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
"But you see it is different. We won so quit being a cuckold snowflake."
Did I do that correctly? Just preparing myself to convert to stay alive in a Trump Amerikkka.
To quote both Bruce Prichard and Tony Schiavone, "Fuck Duff Meltzer."
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Why didn't they just keep the woman on a machine for 3 months. Conversation must have been had. Seemed like that's what she was doing in life.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
I wish they would at least use the argument that Trump isn't a lame duck, but Obama was. While that's not a great argument (especially when you consider how close we are to the election), at least it's not as corrosive as the argument that the acceptable behavior depends on the alignment of the political parties involved as if that's in any way supposed to be what the Constitution intended.
Totally Kafkaesque
- degenerasian
- The Dude
- Posts: 12377
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:22 pm
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
It's amazing to me how US Senators are judged on pretty much one vote. During their 6 years, they vote on hundreds of bills, most to screw Americans. But as long as they vote correctly on Supreme Court nominations, they get a pass.
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23553
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
But they held up Garland for like 10 months. This is less than two. I think I read that there is precedent for not filling a seat so close to election day even with a reelection bid. I'll have to try to track that down.Shirley wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:51 am I wish they would at least use the argument that Trump isn't a lame duck, but Obama was. While that's not a great argument (especially when you consider how close we are to the election), at least it's not as corrosive as the argument that the acceptable behavior depends on the alignment of the political parties involved as if that's in any way supposed to be what the Constitution intended.
Hold on, I'm trying to see if Jack London ever gets this fire built or not.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
If they take both the Senate and the White House and keep the House, the Dems should just use the nuclear options and remove the filibuster and pack the Court. Fuck 'em. Don't they have anyone in the Senate willing to play hardball?
And to Degen's point, why is no one hammering them in the media that those GOP fucks haven't even brought COVID relief bills up in the Senate? That should be the lead in every CNN and CNBC opinion show, like the way the national evening news after the Tet Offensive would lead with the number of dead in Vietnam. Hammer the fuck out of them.
And to Degen's point, why is no one hammering them in the media that those GOP fucks haven't even brought COVID relief bills up in the Senate? That should be the lead in every CNN and CNBC opinion show, like the way the national evening news after the Tet Offensive would lead with the number of dead in Vietnam. Hammer the fuck out of them.
Last edited by L-Jam3 on Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
My avatar corresponds on my place in the Swamp posting list with the all-time Home Run list. Number 45 is Paul Konerko with 439.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Right, that's a good argument, but it's obviously not one the GOP can use.A_B wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:55 amBut they held up Garland for like 10 months. This is less than two. I think I read that there is precedent for not filling a seat so close to election day even with a reelection bid. I'll have to try to track that down.Shirley wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:51 am I wish they would at least use the argument that Trump isn't a lame duck, but Obama was. While that's not a great argument (especially when you consider how close we are to the election), at least it's not as corrosive as the argument that the acceptable behavior depends on the alignment of the political parties involved as if that's in any way supposed to be what the Constitution intended.
Totally Kafkaesque
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Unfortunately for the Dems here, this isn’t a court proceeding, and precedent doesn’t matter much. This case and Garland’s are consistent in the only way that really matters: the GOP wants as many federal judges as possible, and will do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal. It’s long past time for the Dems to use hardball tactics rather than appealing to precedent, consistency or Mitt Romney’s conscience.
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23553
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
True. It's an appeal to fairness falling on deaf ears.Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:07 am Unfortunately for the Dems here, this isn’t a court proceeding, and precedent doesn’t matter much. This case and Garland’s are consistent in the only way that really matters: the GOP wants as many federal judges as possible, and will do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal. It’s long past time for the Dems to use hardball tactics rather than appealing to precedent, consistency or Mitt Romney’s conscience.
Hold on, I'm trying to see if Jack London ever gets this fire built or not.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Hear me out ... what if Schumer tweeted Graham's 2016 quote about using his words against him with those big side-eyes emojis at the end?
- degenerasian
- The Dude
- Posts: 12377
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:22 pm
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
I made this argument earlier. The GOP have viewed the court as important for the last 40 years (since Roe v Wade) and they now put elephants on their side of the seesaw, with support from their unified base. The Dems can scream all they want and even expand the court to 11, but if they put moderates on the court, like Kagan, with those two extra seats, will it matter? For example, you put a democrat judge on there who's wishy-washy on Medicare For All, then what' the point? You need to move left and put bomb-throwers on the court to combat the elephants.Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:07 am Unfortunately for the Dems here, this isn’t a court proceeding, and precedent doesn’t matter much. This case and Garland’s are consistent in the only way that really matters: the GOP wants as many federal judges as possible, and will do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal. It’s long past time for the Dems to use hardball tactics rather than appealing to precedent, consistency or Mitt Romney’s conscience.
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
- Nonlinear FC
- The Dude
- Posts: 11022
- Joined: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:09 pm
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Mitch was on record in like... March of 2016, at least, saying he wanted the will of the voters to prevail.A_B wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:55 amBut they held up Garland for like 10 months. This is less than two. I think I read that there is precedent for not filling a seat so close to election day even with a reelection bid. I'll have to try to track that down.Shirley wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:51 am I wish they would at least use the argument that Trump isn't a lame duck, but Obama was. While that's not a great argument (especially when you consider how close we are to the election), at least it's not as corrosive as the argument that the acceptable behavior depends on the alignment of the political parties involved as if that's in any way supposed to be what the Constitution intended.
I'm with whoever said that if there is a blue wave, there should be a reckoning that includes ditching the filibuster and packing the court.
Fucking sick and tired of minority rule in this country.
You can lead a horse to fish, but you can't fish out a horse.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Besides expanding the court the other proposal that needs to be on the table should Dems win the White House and Congress is statehood for DC and Puerto Rico. Unless GOP Senators are scared of such structural challenges to their power, they will never compromise.
- The Sybian
- The Dude
- Posts: 19068
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
- Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Yet another problem with the Dems. As the GOP moves way farther Right, the Dems move towards the center on many issues, yet the GOP controls the narrative that the Dems are all Radical Leftists. And when they can't get that to stick on Biden, they say he is a puppet controlled by the Radical Left. I can't imagine that will stick with anyone but the most brain dead sheep, but the fear of Socialism and the Radical Left has certainly gained a ton of traction. Obamacare was essentially the GOP's counter to Hillary's healthcare plan, but didn't go far enough for the 1990s Dems to compromise on. Obama nominated Garland because he was a Center-Right judge and he thought the Republicans couldn't say no to him. Before Obama made his selection, Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee Lindsey Graham listed Garland as one of potential nominees he'd most like to see on the Court, but said Obama would never select Garland. Even if you give them an impeccably qualified Center-Right nominee, they won't even hold a vote.degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:17 amI made this argument earlier. The GOP have viewed the court as important for the last 40 years (since Roe v Wade) and they now put elephants on their side of the seesaw, with support from their unified base. The Dems can scream all they want and even expand the court to 11, but if they put moderates on the court, like Kagan, with those two extra seats, will it matter? For example, you put a democrat judge on there who's wishy-washy on Medicare For All, then what' the point? You need to move left and put bomb-throwers on the court to combat the elephants.Joe K wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:07 am Unfortunately for the Dems here, this isn’t a court proceeding, and precedent doesn’t matter much. This case and Garland’s are consistent in the only way that really matters: the GOP wants as many federal judges as possible, and will do whatever is necessary to achieve that goal. It’s long past time for the Dems to use hardball tactics rather than appealing to precedent, consistency or Mitt Romney’s conscience.
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
-Pruitt
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
The only thing I can reason with here is, all things being equal, we'd have Garland instead of Gorsuch. That's really it. And he was a moderate, right?
Kennedy was always going to quit during a republican presidency and hand select his successor.
RBG "being put in bubble wrap" was a meme for a very long while and then she eventually passes.
The only way this shit wouldn't have happened is if a non-Hillary Democratic nominee was on the ticket in 2016 and won. But that is way oversimplified and very hindsight-y.
In the meantime Republicans played the game better and Democrats rolled over.
Regardless, FUCK OL' MITTENS. So brave of him to march after George Floyd's death and vote with Democrats on 1 of 2 Articles of Impeachment. But he's still a fucking Republican.
Reminder: it would've taken 4 Republicans with backbone at any point in the last 4 years to go independent and caucus with the Democrats to get rid of McConnell. They didn't do that because it's party over country.
Kennedy was always going to quit during a republican presidency and hand select his successor.
RBG "being put in bubble wrap" was a meme for a very long while and then she eventually passes.
The only way this shit wouldn't have happened is if a non-Hillary Democratic nominee was on the ticket in 2016 and won. But that is way oversimplified and very hindsight-y.
In the meantime Republicans played the game better and Democrats rolled over.
Regardless, FUCK OL' MITTENS. So brave of him to march after George Floyd's death and vote with Democrats on 1 of 2 Articles of Impeachment. But he's still a fucking Republican.
Reminder: it would've taken 4 Republicans with backbone at any point in the last 4 years to go independent and caucus with the Democrats to get rid of McConnell. They didn't do that because it's party over country.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Except we don't want more judges. We don't want PR and DC to be states. How about they compromise.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
We. Not you.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
You're going to want them atleast the latter if they can fuck around with the census enough to redistribute the House in their direction.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Nah. Not sure you make structural governing changes to achieve short term political goals. Actually I am sure. Destined to backfire.
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23553
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
When this judge gets pushed through, packing the court wouldn't even help until people started dying.
And it makes no sense that DC doesn't have more representation.
Hold on, I'm trying to see if Jack London ever gets this fire built or not.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
The simplest way to resolve the DC thing in your mind is to ask whether or not it would already have two Senators if it had the same demographics as North Dakota.
Last edited by mister d on Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.
- degenerasian
- The Dude
- Posts: 12377
- Joined: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:22 pm
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
I heard that there's a provision to split Texas (and other states) in three that could be used by the GOP if DC decides to give DC and PR statehood?
Kung Fu movies are like porn. There's 1 on 1, then 2 on 1, then a group scene..
- DaveInSeattle
- The Dude
- Posts: 8566
- Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:51 am
- Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
It’s Not Hypocrisy -
Mitch McConnell’s machinations are something far more degrading.
Mitch McConnell’s machinations are something far more degrading.
I was watching the president of the United States suggest to a mostly maskless crowd that a Democratic congresswoman had married her brother when the news broke that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died. The shock of her death sledgehammered a country teetering on an ugly and desperate edge. It came in waves. It wasn’t merely the loss to the country, or the sadness that a champion of equal rights had died. Nor was it the fact that an increasingly corrupt Republican Party is very close to forcing through the judicial supermajority it needs in order to lock in minority rule and overturn American women’s right to reproductive choice. (You will no doubt hear often in the coming weeks that, of the five conservative Supreme Court justices, four were nominated by presidents who had lost the popular vote.) There was a flashback to the contempt and grief Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing aroused in so many appalled onlookers. And then there was the dread of realizing that a citizenry breaking—financially, politically, even cognitively—under five different kinds of instability was going to have to endure more. We have been in a bad way for a long time, but this is the hurricane on top of the wildfire that follows the earthquake.
- A_B
- The Dude
- Posts: 23553
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:36 am
- Location: Getting them boards like a wolf in the chicken pen.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
I can’t see anything less popular for Texans than making the state smaller.degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:15 am I heard that there's a provision to split Texas (and other states) in three that could be used by the GOP if DC decides to give DC and PR statehood?
Hold on, I'm trying to see if Jack London ever gets this fire built or not.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Let’s put aside Puerto Rico for a second. What exactly is the moral argument against DC statehood? It’s more populous that a handful of existing states and the people who live there are no less deserving of representation in the House and Senate.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
People just like having a nice, round number of 50 states. I admit that I like it too. And for the vast majority of Americans, 50 is all we've ever known.
Plus there's the weird precedent that somebody decided long ago that DC should be separate from the states. I'm not really sure why that was decided, but it's obviously been that way from day 1.
Add in the aspect of adding a predominantly black and a predominantly Hispanic, Spanish-speaking population, and well, I'm guessing statehood for those two is a pretty unpopular option for most Americans. Even among Democrats.
All that said, I think the smarter political move is to grant them senators with voting rights, but not statehood - at least not at first.
Plus there's the weird precedent that somebody decided long ago that DC should be separate from the states. I'm not really sure why that was decided, but it's obviously been that way from day 1.
Add in the aspect of adding a predominantly black and a predominantly Hispanic, Spanish-speaking population, and well, I'm guessing statehood for those two is a pretty unpopular option for most Americans. Even among Democrats.
All that said, I think the smarter political move is to grant them senators with voting rights, but not statehood - at least not at first.
Totally Kafkaesque
- govmentchedda
- The Dude
- Posts: 12838
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:36 pm
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Puerto Rico would be the 30th most populous state, and DC is more populous than Vermont and Wyoming.
Until everything is less insane, I'm mixing weed with wine.
- The Sybian
- The Dude
- Posts: 19068
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 10:36 am
- Location: Working in the Crap Part of Jersey
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Brilliant!A_B wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:18 amI can’t see anything less popular for Texans than making the state smaller.degenerasian wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:15 am I heard that there's a provision to split Texas (and other states) in three that could be used by the GOP if DC decides to give DC and PR statehood?
An honest to God cult of personality - formed around a failed steak salesman.
-Pruitt
-Pruitt
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
I'll start with it's a city not a state and end with the fact that it's one of the very small number of things that actually have plain meaning in the constitutional and arent theoretical creations of ivory tower lawyers to support their own power ambitions. How does a state govern itself if it must be governed by the federal government?
- govmentchedda
- The Dude
- Posts: 12838
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:36 pm
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Now do that argument with Puerto Rico.
Until everything is less insane, I'm mixing weed with wine.
- Steve of phpBB
- The Dude
- Posts: 8634
- Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:44 am
- Location: Feeling gravity's pull
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Yes, there is only one stolen seat. The Kavanaugh nomination and the upcoming one are both basically legit. It just so happened that two Supreme Court justices retired/died during Trump's term.Johnnie wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:46 am The only thing I can reason with here is, all things being equal, we'd have Garland instead of Gorsuch. That's really it. And he was a moderate, right?
Kennedy was always going to quit during a republican presidency and hand select his successor.
RBG "being put in bubble wrap" was a meme for a very long while and then she eventually passes.
The only way this shit wouldn't have happened is if a non-Hillary Democratic nominee was on the ticket in 2016 and won. But that is way oversimplified and very hindsight-y.
In the meantime Republicans played the game better and Democrats rolled over.
Regardless, FUCK OL' MITTENS. So brave of him to march after George Floyd's death and vote with Democrats on 1 of 2 Articles of Impeachment. But he's still a fucking Republican.
Reminder: it would've taken 4 Republicans with backbone at any point in the last 4 years to go independent and caucus with the Democrats to get rid of McConnell. They didn't do that because it's party over country.
But, you know, her emails.
And his one problem is he didn’t go to Russia that night because he had extracurricular activities, and they froze to death.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
The fact that Rhode Island and Wyoming simultaneously exist in this country makes any argument against any statehood or splitting a state up completely pointless. It's all a power grab none the less and in the future will be used against the original intent.
mister d wrote:Couldn't have pegged me better.
EnochRoot wrote:I mean, whatever. Johnnie's all hot cuz I ride him.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
You wouldn't even need to do that. When FDR tried it, he proposed adding a new justice every time one reached 70 years old. That works as a great counter to all the younger justices the GOP put up under Trump. Fuck 'em.
My avatar corresponds on my place in the Swamp posting list with the all-time Home Run list. Number 45 is Paul Konerko with 439.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Well they've got to want statehood before the democrats can use them for political leverage. And whos to say it would be a democratic seat? I bet those interests might not square as nicely as you might hope in 2021 much less 2051. Like I said destined to backfire.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Anyone who was alive for Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico would never vote for a Republican.
If you knew any Puerto Ricans you'd know that at least.
If you knew any Puerto Ricans you'd know that at least.
Bandwagon fan of the 2023 STANLEY CUP CHAMPIONS!