RBG leaves the stage.

[Segnosaur]

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.

I think the argument is that by pointing out how people will suffer under a republican-controlled supreme court, they will either 1) Increase the number of people who will vote democrat in the next election (it won't give them the supreme court, but make give them more elected positions.), or 2) give some republican senators second thoughts about confirming a Trumpian replacement, because it might affect them in future races (a long shot admittedly)

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

They can, but I don't think they can change on the fly. (Can't they only be done at the start of a session?)

I have no hope at all on this issue.

Your pessimism is understandable.

 

[Segnosaur]

Is there a material difference between a no vote and not having the vote?

Yes. Because if it is a qualified applicant and vetted by the senate without finding problems, then the senators will have to justify (at least to their voters) why they rejected a nominee.

Furthermore, if a candidate is rejected, it would give the president the opportunity to nominate an alternate.

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

It is only fair if it is applied consistently. Either stop all judicial nominations shortly before or after an election, or let them all proceed.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Yes. Because if it is a qualified applicant and vetted by the senate without finding problems, then the senators will have to justify (at least to their voters) why they rejected a nominee.

Furthermore, if a candidate is rejected, it would give the president the opportunity to nominate an alternate.

It is only fair if it is applied consistently. Either stop all judicial nominations shortly before or after an election, or let them all proceed.

It sounds like the senate found the nomination process that worked for them as they are entitled to by the constitution. And they have to justify that decision, too. They denied their consent as is their prerogative.

The whole time it seemed pretty clear that it was the senate not giving consent....they were not actually delaying but pursuing their opposition strategy.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Anyone now appointed, and Trump's two appointees, should all be immediately impeached in 2121 as having being selected to protect a criminal and his treasonous party.

 

[Segnosaur]

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?

Many laws go through a state's court system, and the judges in those courts might either be appointed by the governor (who often gets power through things like voter suppression) or elected to office (where they may have been elected by appealing to the angry white voter).

If the legislature of the state of Oklaexabama passes a law that says "you can hunt minorities for sport", the state court may say "Yup, that law is valid" (because the judges appeal to the majority in the state). Without the supreme court as the final arbiter (with judges drawn from a wide range of backgrounds) such laws might stand.

 

[Segnosaur]

Anyone now appointed, and Trump's two appointees, should all be immediately impeached in 2121 as having being selected to protect a criminal and his treasonous party.

I would hope they'd be impeached long before that. Maybe in 2021. I don't think any of them will live to 2121

Unless we find out that Gorsuch and Drunky McRapeface are actually immortals and need to be beheaded (highlander style).

ETA: I would be all for the removal of Trump's appointees. However, I think conviction/removal in the senate requires a 2/3rds vote. Even if the Democrats manage to control the senate after the next election, I doubt they'd get enough seats to remove them from the court by themselves, and I can't see any republican senators joining with the Democrats to remove them.

 

[Segnosaur]

It sounds like the senate republicans in the senate found the nomination process that worked for them loud minority evangelicals who are bigots and want to oppress women, gays and minorities

Fixed it for you.

as they are entitled to by the constitution.

And once again, as I have explained before... the fact that an action may be "within the rules" does not mean that it is beneficial to the country as a whole to engage in those actions.

If the democrats decide to follow the Republican example and engage in every possible dirty trick, then the system will probably come crashing down.

The whole time it seemed pretty clear that it was the senate not giving consent....they were not actually delaying but pursuing their opposition strategy.

Quit trying to bob the thread.

 

[a_unique_person]

Probably Romney, maybe Sasse and Alexander on principle. Also probably everybody who's in a close race for re-election -- like S. Collins. It wouldn't surprise me if they went to McConnell quietly and said "Don't do this to us."

What would do you live in? Trump, once again, will be taking all credit for the hard work done by McConnell who will push this through in record time. There is no question of that. They will have been well aware that Ginsberg was about to die and all their plans are prepared. You have the McConnell pledge on that.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Anyone now appointed, and Trump's two appointees, should all be immediately impeached in 2121 2021 as having being selected to protect a criminal and his treasonous party.

I like that option.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Many laws go through a state's court system, and the judges in those courts might either be appointed by the governor (who often gets power through things like voter suppression) or elected to office (where they may have been elected by appealing to the angry white voter).

If the legislature of the state of Oklaexabama passes a law that says "you can hunt minorities for sport", the state court may say "Yup, that law is valid" (because the judges appeal to the majority in the state). Without the supreme court as the final arbiter (with judges drawn from a wide range of backgrounds) such laws might stand.

The circuit court is drawn very similarly to the supreme court.

Though by statute it has to go to the supreme court? But that seems like a legislative fix. Also, nothing stops congress and the president from stripping the supreme and Lower courts of various jurisdiction.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Fixed it for you.

And once again, as I have explained before... the fact that an action may be "within the rules" does not mean that it is beneficial to the country as a whole to engage in those actions.

If the democrats decide to follow the Republican example and engage in every possible dirty trick, then the system will probably come crashing down.

Quit trying to bob the thread.

I note my continued disagreement with your position but will not debate it further.

 

[Segnosaur]

Probably Romney, maybe Sasse and Alexander on principle. Also probably everybody who's in a close race for re-election -- like S. Collins. It wouldn't surprise me if they went to McConnell quietly and said "Don't do this to us."

What "hard work" by Moscow Mitch? All he had to do with previous candidates was not let Garland's vote to go forward, and to not probe into Drunky McRapeface's background. Sounds pretty lazy to me.

who will push this through in record time.

That Moscow Mitch will push a Trump nominee through is a given.

The question is, will he push it through before the election or after the election, in the "Lame duck" session after the election but before the inauguration. I think its possible that some senators will want to wait until after the election, since doing so before the election would risk giving those senators at risk of losing (such as Collins or Gardner) a bigger headache. And remember, the majority of voters opposed the nomination of Drunk McRapeface....

I can't think of much benefit to pushing the nomination through pre-election... they already have the bigoted evangelicals solidly behind Trump (and they know he'll nominate another wing-nut).

 

[Elagabalus]

What would do you live in? Trump, once again, will be taking all credit for the hard work done by McConnell who will push this through in record time. There is no question of that. They will have been well aware that Ginsberg was about to die and all their plans are prepared. You have the McConnell pledge on that.

I don't know, Trump looked genuinely stunned to hear that she died. See Joe Morgue's comments.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13228490#post13228490

 

[Mumbles]

I don't know, Trump looked genuinely stunned to hear that she died. See Joe Morgue's comments.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13228490#post13228490

Don't care. I'm uninterested in such sentiments from a sociopathic white supremacist.

 

[smartcooky]

They will try to replace he with the indecent haste expected of an indecent party.

RIP RBG. Your innate and compassionate wisdom will be missed, especially in the cluster-**** that is the present day USA.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Nominating a replacement for Liberal Saint RBG, while being hypocrites about for refusing to vote on Obama's nominee, will troll the libs.

That's all the motivation to do it they need.

...and Bingo was his name-o.

 

[Segnosaur]

There is no question of that. They will have been well aware that Ginsberg was about to die and all their plans are prepared.

I don't know, Trump looked genuinely stunned to hear that she died. See Joe Morgue's comments.

I don't think it is contrary for someone to think "this person will die in the next year or 2" yet still be taken by surprise when it does happen. After all RBG had been through some medical treatments recently but I don't think there was anything to suggest her death was imminent.


Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

 

[Elagabalus]

Don't care. I'm uninterested in such sentiments from a sociopathic white supremacist.

Agreed. I was merely remarking that Trump did not look at all prepared. Of course, it's Trump. When has he ever been prepared?

And Joe's comment is funny.

ETA: For what it's worth at this point the expression on his face in the picture in the CNN article does seem to be some recognizable negative human emotion. At least he didn't start giggling like a schoolgirl and pop a boner.

 

[Elagabalus]

I don't think it is contrary for someone to think "this person will die in the next year or 2" yet still be taken by surprise when it does happen. After all RBG had been through some medical treatments recently but I don't think there was anything to suggest her death was imminent.


Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

I still don't think they have a plan. McConnell probably scheduled a "plan meeting" with Trump a half a dozen times but Trump was 404. That doesn't mean that they won't "wing" some horrendous thing at us, unfortunately.

 

[a_unique_person]

I don't know, Trump looked genuinely stunned to hear that she died. See Joe Morgue's comments.


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=13228490#post13228490

That's what I said. Trump plans nothing. Mitch will be right on top of this.