RBG leaves the stage.

[Minoosh]

I’m not as worried as some of you. It’s true we are in a pickle but there are a lot of variables. Lindsey Graham is in a dead heat in his race. A bunch of lame ducks could be dangerous, but if there are enough of them Dems take the Senate. They can’t undo a confirmation but they might expand the court (not sure how that works). I still think Trump is alienating more people than he’s picking up. He may be combative but he’s not courageous. He might not have the stomach for trying to fight for his seat. Governors must be mightily pissed at him for several reasons, like suggesting they are the enemy this election cycle. Replacing RBG with a rammed-through appointment would turn a lot of people off.

I also suspect that a bunch of noisy pro-lifers are actually not that eager to throw out Roe v Wade.

Whistling in the dark I may be, but remember, there are always unintended consequences. And if we were only one death away from totalitarianism we were already ******* before she died.

And if Republicans do get some kind of stranglehold on all branches of government they’re likely to rip themselves apart.

 

[Puppycow]

Seems people are saying Romney is suggesting he won't confirm anyone until after election.

Which leaves the question of the lame duck session unanswered.

 

[Minoosh]

They just could not internalize that Obama was not president yet.

They knew. It was all theater. Really all they had to offer at that point.

 

[Minoosh]

I already turned the news off. I just lost my dog 2 days ago and I can't take any more of this **** right now.

I’m very sorry to hear that.

Good call to turn off the news for now IMO.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Biden:
"In the coming days, we should focus on the loss of [RBG] & her enduring legacy. But there is no doubt - let me be clear - that the voters should pick the POTUS & the POTUS should pick the Justice for the Senate to consider. This was the position the GOP Senate took in 16"

 

[Nova Land]

My point was that cases usually get to the Supreme Court after winding their way through the federal system, even after they are decided by the highest state court, and then they would usually start at the lowest federal level. I think it's unusual for any case to go from state courts directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I did not say that cases go from state courts directly to the US supreme court and I'm sorry you got that impression from what I wrote.

My point was simply that cases do not start at the Supreme Court. Before a case gets to the Supreme Court, others have made decisions about what should or should not be done in a situation and the Supreme Court is deciding whether those previous decisions are correct.

If the Supreme Court is not able to reach a decision because it has an evenly split number of members, that's not a problem. It simply means that the last decision on the matter to be made before the case reached the Supreme Court remains in effect.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Biden:
"In the coming days, we should focus on the loss of [RBG] & her enduring legacy. But there is no doubt - let me be clear - that the voters should pick the POTUS & the POTUS should pick the Justice for the Senate to consider. This was the position the GOP Senate took in 16"

Why should some hypothetical senate wait in this scenario?

And did the senate wait before? They seemed to express their position pretty clearly even if they didn't say it in words. Silence speaks mountains.

 

[Mumbles]

Whistling in the dark I may be, but remember, there are always unintended consequences. And if we were only one death away from totalitarianism we were already ******* before she died.

Yeah, about that...We were pretty much ****** before she died. One of the major issues with allowing one of two viable parties to

a) become a proto-fascist party,

b)assume control of all branches of government

In that order.

 

[Segnosaur]

Biden:
"In the coming days, we should focus on the loss of [RBG] & her enduring legacy. But there is no doubt - let me be clear - that the voters should pick the POTUS & the POTUS should pick the Justice for the Senate to consider. This was the position the GOP Senate took in 16"

Why should some hypothetical senate wait in this scenario?

Ummmm... because the republicans themselves set the precedent when they refused to even consider the nomination of Merrek Garland for over half a year.

If you have a justice that dies near an election, either you always wait and let the election victor pick the nominee, or you always let the current president make the pick.

And did the senate wait before?

Scalia died in February of 2016. Obama picked Garland in March 2016. The election was in November.

The seat was allowed to stay vacant for over half a year before the election.

So yeah, the republican-led senate waited. Held up the appointment.

 

[turingtest]

I’m not as worried as some of you. It’s true we are in a pickle but there are a lot of variables. Lindsey Graham is in a dead heat in his race. A bunch of lame ducks could be dangerous, but if there are enough of them Dems take the Senate. They can’t undo a confirmation but they might expand the court (not sure how that works). I still think Trump is alienating more people than he’s picking up. He may be combative but he’s not courageous. He might not have the stomach for trying to fight for his seat. Governors must be mightily pissed at him for several reasons, like suggesting they are the enemy this election cycle. Replacing RBG with a rammed-through appointment would turn a lot of people off.
I also suspect that a bunch of noisy pro-lifers are actually not that eager to throw out Roe v Wade.

Whistling in the dark I may be, but remember, there are always unintended consequences. And if we were only one death away from totalitarianism we were already ******* before she died.

And if Republicans do get some kind of stranglehold on all branches of government they’re likely to rip themselves apart.

The highlighted is kind of what I'm thinking ("hoping" might be more accurate). McConnell's argument for why the Trump and the Repubs should get their way on replacing RBG strikes me as a somewhat abstruse, technical politician's argument- enough for the rank-and-file Trumpkins who won't really understand it anyway, on any deeper a level than "trolled the libs, ha ha!"; and maybe enough to get the Republican senators seen as doubtful onboard with the hypocrites. But, at what cost? This is one time when Democrats have the more easily expressed and comprehended arguments- confront McConnell with his own words from four years ago- "The American people are perfectly capable of having their say on this issue, so let's give them a voice. Let's let the American people decide"- and ask him why he doesn't think the American people are still perfectly capable of having their say, right now, not two years ago or whenever. Like this-

Biden:
"In the coming days, we should focus on the loss of [RBG] & her enduring legacy. But there is no doubt - let me be clear - that the voters should pick the POTUS & the POTUS should pick the Justice for the Senate to consider. This was the position the GOP Senate took in 16"

Shout that from the rooftops, shine a searchlight on the GOPs hypocrisy. Yeah, it may be shouting into the wind, but it may work well enough to exact a higher cost than the GOP really wants to pay for four more years of the ****-show that has been Trump. If nothing else, highlighting hypocrisy just needs to be done- what's the alternative, lie there quietly and take it?

 

[grunion]

One expects that the cocktails are flowing at the White House and throughout the Senate Office Building tonight. I hope the celebratory footage goes viral, and juxtaposed with the alleged Muslim celebrants on 9-11 as to who is celebrating a tragic moment for the nation.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Ummmm... because the republicans themselves set the precedent when they refused to even consider the nomination of Merrek Garland for over half a year.

If you have a justice that dies near an election, either you always wait and let the election victor pick the nominee, or you always let the current president make the pick.


Scalia died in February of 2016. Obama picked Garland in March 2016. The election was in November.

The seat was allowed to stay vacant for over half a year before the election.

So yeah, the republican-led senate waited. Held up the appointment.

A) there is no requirement to honor a non-precedent. If you don't have to honor it, what is the case for waiting?

B) they ghosted the nomination. In my (ample) experience, that is a no. The senate gets to determine their own procedure. Their approach seemed to have been a way to say no.

 

[Venom]

Susan Collins
Cory Gardner
Lisa Murkowski
Mitt Romney

That's all we have to count on at the moment.

Time for Democrats to blast the airwaves with the implication of a 6-3 Supreme Court.

 

[theprestige]

I think people didn't hear me.

We get McConnell/Trump/the Senate to delay the confirmation of a new Justice.

That means we don't have a full, functioning Supreme Court to make legal decisions during the election.

So what happens when Trump declares himself the winner before the absentee ballots are counted? Or throws out a state because their election was "rigged?"

What happens then?

No.

The Supreme Court is fully operational with 8 justices. Or four. Or one.

It's hard to for me to imagine the kind of drugs that would be necessary to convince someone that the Supreme Court is invalid if one seat is vacant. Scopalamine and torture prior to a Soviet show trial, maybe?

 

[BobTheCoward]

No.

The Supreme Court is fully operational with 8 justices. Or four. Or one.

It's hard to for me to imagine the kind of drugs that would be necessary to convince someone that the Supreme Court is invalid if one seat is vacant. Scopalamine and torture prior to a Soviet show trial, maybe?

And if you had zero judges....you would have possibly different decisions in different districts. That isn't awful.

 

[Segnosaur]

A) there is no requirement to honor a non-precedent. If you don't have to honor it, what is the case for waiting?

Because all political systems rely in part on at least some integrity and cooperation (even if some of that is based on unwritten rules/assumptions).

The republicans have been engaging in dirty tricks for years (of which the supreme court nominations are one factor). If at some point the decide that they cannot do anything under 'fair' rules, they too will start to engage in the same sort of dirty tricks. Society suffers as a result.

B) they ghosted the nomination. In my (ample) experience, that is a no.

Your "experience" seems to be in bobbing threads.

"ghosting" the nomination is functionally equivalent, so please quite trying to argue how "they didn't delay it" just because you are using some bizarre definition that nobody else is using.

 

[Babbylonian]

Susan Collins
Cory Gardner
Lisa Murkowski
Mitt Romney

That's all we have to count on at the moment.

You can probably count on them right through election day. After that, they'll jump back in line and do whatever McConnell tells them to do.

Time for Democrats to blast the airwaves with the implication of a 6-3 Supreme Court.

Why? The only audience that matters are the current senators, specially the Republican senators who absolutely want whatever unqualified arch conservative they can find. Even voting out every Republican senator up for reelection will do no good when it comes to this problem since they can come back into session and vote in whomever Trump appoints.

I like the idea of the quorum roadblock in the judiciary committee, but let's be real: Senate rules can change.

I have no hope at all on this issue.

 

[Segnosaur]

And if you had zero judges....you would have possibly different decisions in different districts. That isn't awful.

Given the fact that much of the country is populated/controlled by people who are rather awful themselves? (You know, the type that proudly fly the racist confederate flag and don't quite understand the basics of biology)

But hey! It would only be minorities and woman in the deep south that would be oppressed as a result! That's not a big deal!

 

[BobTheCoward]

Because all political systems rely in part on at least some integrity and cooperation (even if some of that is based on unwritten rules/assumptions).

The republicans have been engaging in dirty tricks for years (of which the supreme court nominations are one factor). If at some point the decide that they cannot do anything under 'fair' rules, they too will start to engage in the same sort of dirty tricks. Society suffers as a result.

Your "experience" seems to be in bobbing threads.

"ghosting" the nomination is functionally equivalent, so please quite trying to argue how "they didn't delay it" just because you are using some bizarre definition that nobody else is using.

Is there a material difference between a no vote and not having the vote? The method used by the senate seems to have comparisons to the non-wars declared by congress. Regardless of what verbal gymnastics are used, it is rejection.

ETA: the government continuing to enact policy up to the last day in office sounds like the fair process.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Given the fact that much of the country is populated/controlled by people who are rather awful themselves? (You know, the type that proudly fly the racist confederate flag and don't quite understand the basics of biology)

But hey! It would only be minorities and woman in the deep south that would be oppressed as a result! That's not a big deal!

Why would the circuit court be worse at protecting people in the circuit than the supreme court?