RIP RBG

Jump to Last Post 1-9 of 9 discussions (129 posts)
  1. IslandBites profile image90
    IslandBitesposted 10 months ago

    Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the liberal leader of the Supreme Court and a trailblazing champion of women’s rights, died on Friday. She was 87 years old.


    Really bad and sad news. sad

    1. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      The next worse thing is that the Republicans will take advantage of her passing to confirm another Rightwinged cretin to the high court.

      Too many conservatives turns a court into a tribunal.

      1. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        I could never support a Republican effort to nominate a replacement before the election. I can only hope the Republicans realize how two-faced that fight would make them look.

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image82
          Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          GA, but they will dare, McConnell while pulling this stunt against Obama years ago would not hesitate to exploit the situation to his advantage now.

          I hope that you are right, but knowing the GOP, I doubt it.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image89
            Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            I don't imagine them to be that stupid.

            It would be a poor look politically to try.

            It would take a card off the table that will incentivize people (on both sides) to vote.

            It should bring to mind the Kavanaugh hearings, which I believe when being reminded of it, will help energize the Conservatives.

            1. Credence2 profile image82
              Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Well, Ken, I can imagine it.

              This may well be their last hurrah, if they lose the White House and the Senate, this may well be their only consolation prize. It is an opportunity that they simply cannot afford to let pass by.

              I can't see it affecting my need to cast a ballot, with a rightwing Supreme Court, I need a Democratic controlled Congress and Excutive to counter.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image89
                Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                I could definitely see the Democrats wanting a One Party system being cemented in place if they get ahold of all three again.

                I think it was a true shock to them that they were swept out of power in Congress during the Obama Administration, and then lost the Presidency, to an outsider, I think they will use control over social platforms and voting laws to try and ensure it never occurs again if they regain control.

                In order to prevent a situation where a mob could take over the government, they will provide the population with immediate satisfaction so as to sway the public from expressing any violent discontent with the ruling class, while at the same time continuing to turn the people against one another based on race, religion, ideology.

                Not so different from Rome during its decline, give the mob bread and circuses as the world around them collapses.  Just a more advanced version.

                1. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Funny, I say the same thing about Republicans.

                  Well, I am certainly going to be nervous over a right wing Supreme Court, Republican controlled Congress and Executive. I have to to anything within my power to prevent that catastrophe,

          2. GA Anderson profile image90
            GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            You might be right. I heard a blurb that said McDonnel has promised a vote if a nominee is presented.

            GA

          3. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Of course they will "dare".  It is their sworn duty, under our constitution, to do so.  That Democrats will refuse honest consideration of any nomination offered only points out that they will NOT do their duty.

            Plus, as you correctly point out, it has become the norm for legislators of both parties to play the political game rather than perform their tasks.

            1. Credence2 profile image82
              Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

              At this point, the GOP can expect nothing but resistance. Funny, how you weren't talking about all of this "duty stuff" when McConnell did not accept a nominee from Obama.

              I would be pleased with no less than GOP total defeat

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                That's what I said: Democrats feel no responsibility for doing their job when it might interfere with their political goals.  No more than Republicans did a few years ago.

                If you don't recall my comments on the holdup under Obama then you have a very short (or selective) memory, for I never supported that fiasco, either.  And for the very same reasons: they were derelict in their duty to appoint a SCOTUS justice in any reasonable time frame.  I have, indeed, said in these forums many, many times that when it comes to that sort of thing one party is no better than the other: that neither side is interested in governing the country but only in gaining money and power.

              2. Ken Burgess profile image89
                Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                I hadn't really considered that aspect either, my mind really didn't give this issue a thorough go over.

                So the Republicans will put up a Nominee (probably a woman, I would be willing to bet a few grand on it).

                The Democrats will spend a month character assassinating her, rioting over the nomination, rioting after the confirmation, and just being obtuse as can be.

                So while moderates like myself and GA had initial reactions of "they should just wait until after the election"... after watching the hysterics of "the Left" over the duration of this issue, I'm sure everyone from left leaning moderate to hard core conservative will concretely be in opposition to allowing the Democrats any more power come November.

                If this plays out like the Kavanaugh hearings did, only such smear tactics are used against a woman nominee, the backlash will be substantially more than what occurred from their circus then.

                This one matter could ensure Trump and Republicans win in a landslide across most of the Nation (not the West coast or NY of course), it will be interesting to see who Trump picks and how it plays out.

                1. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  McConnell is the prime example of hypocrisy, for which the Republicans must pay dearly for at the polls, next fall.

                  This one will be another rallying point for the Left bringing focus to the two faced nature if the GOP

                  1. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    I think you are right about some of the public's perception of two-faced politics being a bad thing, but I am not so sure you are right about which party it is that will suffer.

                    As previously mentioned, the nominee will almost certainly be a woman. Do you think the Democrats will benefit from public protestations and character assassinations of such a nominee? I think this one is a no-win for the Democrats, and the Republicans will drive it for all they can.

                    GA

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image89
                    Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    Only if they push it through prior to the election.

                    The President should make the Nomination.

                    The Senate Judiciary Committee should begin the vetting process.

                    The Republicans and President can exert the most political gain out of this situation by stopping there.

                    Let the "Left" slander the nominee, and react in unhinged fashion, that would only work to the Republicans' benefit.

        2. Ken Burgess profile image89
          Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Agreed, this is to be left for after the election, however and whenever those results are decided

        3. MizBejabbers profile image91
          MizBejabbersposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          They don't care. McConnell has no shame.

        4. crankalicious profile image94
          crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          I'm pleased that so many believe it wrong that Republicans would force through a nominee so close to the election.

          However, I'm going to disagree. The Republicans hold the Senate and the Presidency. They can do what they want. The voters voted them in understanding their positions and their roles. While the election will be a referendum on them and their effectiveness, people need to realize that voting carries consequences and this is one of them.

          I think McConnell is a first-class scumbag, but politics is about power. He's using his and always has.

          If they get a new SCOTUS nominee through and then lose the election, it will also be possible that Democrats change the make-up of the court. Frankly, I think 5 conservative justices, 5 liberal justices, and 5 "at-large" justices is an interesting idea. But I'm also fine leaving it the way it is. The problem with the way it is is that timing and luck seem to have more to do with the balance of the court than anything else.

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            It is not just "timing and luck", a good case can be made for why McConnell denied Obama his right to appoint a new jurist to replace Scalia. Yet in the same vein want to rush through a nominee to replace Ginsberg.

            These are dirty tricks for which the GOP must pay. So, I say change the number of jurists on the bench to compensate for those that were stolen.

            A 6/3 conservative court will have all the women back in whalebone corsets and is an anachronistic concept from which reasonable people cannot expect to survive.

            It all works only when both sides agree to respect certain boundaries of decorum, when this is disregarded it becomes a slug fest. So, it is time for Schumer in the light of a Democrat victory to don the "brass knuckles"

            1. crankalicious profile image94
              crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              I say tough. As if hypocrisy isn't common in politics.

              Perhaps Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned for Democrats to wake up and realize that voting has consequences. I still know people who will be voting for the Green Party this November because they don't like either candidate. Well, that's fine. But it has consequences.

              A 6-3 Supreme Court could be the best thing for liberal politics in the last 50 years.

              1. Readmikenow profile image95
                Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Crank,

                "A 6-3 Supreme Court could be the best thing for liberal politics in the last 50 years."

                Brilliant Insight!

                There have been times when the Supreme Court has had a majority of Democrats.  Let's face it, Democrats held control of the house for over 50 years before Newt Gingrich.  It's sort of a political cycle you see play out through the years.  One party dominates, gets over confident, the other party becomes motivated, and then takes over for a period of time.  It is a political cycle. 

                I have a friend who is a Democrat and she tells me she sees major changes happening within her party very soon.  Unfortunately, I see the Republican party not changing and giving into the political cycle.

                Makes you wonder if this is what will happen no matter what anybody does.

                I agree with you.

              2. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                Ok, so it will be "tough" for THEM if we win and decide to change the rules because we can.....

                We will give as good as we get.

                1. crankalicious profile image94
                  crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Yes.

        5. Ken Burgess profile image89
          Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Interesting how we (even I) accepted the narrative that the Republicans were playing unfair when they did not confirm or even consider the Obama nomination.

          Truth is, it has been more than a century since a divided government (Senate controlled by one party, the Presidency another) allowed such a thing to occur in an election year.

          History and precedence shows that when the Senate and the Presidency are both of the same Party, this moves along in quite a quick fashion,

          McConnell addressed these very misconceptions being put forth by the media and Democrats:

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_0qMu8b8hQ

          1. Valeant profile image87
            Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            So a vacancy with split parties and an election year rarely occurs.  That's all McConnell's statement claims.  His basis in 2016 for denying Garland was that it happened in an election year and the American people deserved a voice. 

            Now, apparently, he changed his stance again to claim that the American people only deserve that voice in an election year when the parties are split.

            If McConnell can alter how the process is done from term to term, then the Democrats can work within those same rules to expand the court and pack it with their own picks as the size of the court has been changed in the past as well.

            1. Ken Burgess profile image89
              Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              You know that is not going to happen.

              Trump will nominate, the Senate will confirm, the election will be held, it will be contested, it will end up in front of the Supreme Court, and the court will rule Trump's favor.

              It will be four years before the Democrats can put someone on the Supreme Court, at best.

              1. Credence2 profile image82
                Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                See, you're pushing the GOP agenda and you expect us all to just play along?

              2. Valeant profile image87
                Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                I agree with Trump's right to nominate.  The Senate will likely confirm.

                This is going to be a blow out.  Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota are all going to Biden.  It will be contested because Trump fears going to jail after he loses.  But, as with previous elections, the GOP can claim voter fraud, but the evidence will be lacking.

                In the Senate, Arizona seat going to Kelly.  Collins is toast.  Ernst is going to be close.  Gardner is toast.  Tillis is in trouble.  Tuberville looks set to retake Alabama.

                1. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Trump already got his a$$ handed to him in Nevada when his suit against ballots by mail was laughed out of court with not so much of as a hearing.

                  It will be difficult for him to make a national case if he is ignored at the state level

            2. Credence2 profile image82
              Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Yeah, I sort of see it the way you explain it

              McConnell's explanation is bull$hit.

              1. GA Anderson profile image90
                GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                So was Biden's 2016 claim that it was a president's constitutional duty, even in an election year, also bull$hit?

                I don't think either party can claim the high ground on this one Cred, but I do think the Republicans are more blatantly wrong than the Democrats—but that'sonly because they are in the position to win the argument.

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image82
                  Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  If McConnell had avoided denying Obama his "Constitutional Duty" in 2016 we would not have to be talking about reprisals now.

                  We are still taking the high road as one presidential right to nominate was already stolen, let's just make certain that there will not be another. It is a lot more than the GOP deserves.

                  I congratulate you in seeing the duplicitous nature of the GOP in all of this.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image90
                    GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    You are going to have trouble convincing me that the Democrats are on the High Road bud. And perhaps you should revisit my comment—I noted the duplicity of both parties. Surely you don't think it is only the Republicans that are singing a different tune this time?

                    They just switched robes and picked up the same old music sheets that the opposing party was singing from in 2016.

                    GA

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image89
                    Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                    That is BS.

                    The Senate has a right to perform their duty as they see fit.

                    Just as they did when they rammed the ACA down America's throat, despite an overwhelming majority of Americans not trusting them, and not wanting it done.

                    Hence... that is why we got a Republican controlled Senate and why Obama could no longer get a Justice confirmed.

                    Your position is no better or more justified than theirs.

                    Obama had a right to nominate, and they had a right to deny.

    2. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      I agree, it is very sad news. Her history had my respect and her tenacity to remain on the job until the very end only amplified that respect.

      What is even sadder, (to me), is the fight that will now ensue when Pres. Trump tries to nominate a replacement less than two months before an election. Hopefully, the Republicans will realize how terrible it will look for them if they support such an action.

      GA

      1. IslandBites profile image90
        IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        https://hubstatic.com/15207828.jpg

    3. profile image0
      PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      She was a marvelous, brave woman who did her part to make life better for everyone, but especially for women.

    4. peterstreep profile image80
      peterstreepposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      I don't know much about her. But what I don't understand is how you can have a system where incredibly powerful judges are having a position for life. Is that not asking for the misuse of power, asking for trouble?
      To me, all powerful positions should rotate on a regular basis. Otherwise, corruption and the misuse of power is far to easy.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image89
        Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Like those in Congress you mean?

        1. peterstreep profile image80
          peterstreepposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Are the politicians in congress also voted for life? That's definitely a bad thing. Is congress like the House of Lords in the UK?

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Pretty much, yes.  As long as they support the party line it is highly unlikely they will be forced out before they wish to leave.  It happens, yes, but on the whole being a congressperson is a lifetime job.

            1. peterstreep profile image80
              peterstreepposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              Wouldn't be a bad idea to restrict it to let's say 10 years. In every company fresh blood is important...You can still use the experience but simply move the people on their posts. To keep that power moving instead of accumulating at one person. No matter the party, a life long position doesn't sound healthy to me.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                You're absolutely right, and that's the reason for the growing tide of people wishing for term limits for congress.

                1. Valeant profile image87
                  Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                  Wow, something we can agree on for once.  What's the thought, four terms for the House and three for the Senate?

            2. crankalicious profile image94
              crankaliciousposted 10 months agoin reply to this

              You seem to be implying that there's some conspiracy, but the reason is that being an incumbent provides considerable power, including the power to raise money. However, it's really the money part that's the problem. It is very hard for a challenger to raise enough money to unseat an incumbent.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

                No conspiracy, and you're right about the money.  The party wants members that will follow their guidance, and can raise money for them.  That money will then be used, in part, in accomplishing re-election.

                The system is at fault, but there is no great conspiracy.  Except, of course, that those in power will fight to remain there - an understandable reaction, if not one we should simply accept.

  2. IslandBites profile image90
    IslandBitesposted 10 months ago

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said unequivocally Friday night that President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee to fill the vacancy of late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

    After all their sh!t, how can some expected different is a mystery.

  3. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 10 months ago

    I'm a conservative Republican and I can wait until after the election to fill the vacancy left by Ginsberg.  At this point in time, the Supreme Court without her, will have the conservatives with a clear majority.  IF the election comes down to being decided by the Supreme Court, the conservative on the bench will be in a position to have the final say.  So, I say, why not wait until after the election.

    1. Ken Burgess profile image89
      Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Wow... I hadn't even thought of that angle, and we all know that the chances of this election being decided by the Supreme Court is way up there.

      1. Readmikenow profile image95
        Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Ken, another thing is how a Supreme Court nomination process may bring out Biden voters that would otherwise remain uninterested.  So, I say..."What's the hurry?"

        1. Ken Burgess profile image89
          Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          I think the odds are greater that this election is decided by the Supreme Court, than by normal election processes.

          The pressure cooker may be getting ready to blow, pandemic, extremist groups rioting, economic depression on the horizon... and now another contested Supreme Court nomination is about to get thrown into the mix.

          1. Credence2 profile image82
            Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Seems like youre already imagining scenarios where Trump can be victorious even though he fails in popular vote and the Electoral College. This contest is to be conducted fair and square without some extraordinary excuses or provisions.

            I hope that The GOP spits on Ginsberg's grave to watch that many more undecideds and uninterested decide against Republicans as a result.

    2. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      At first, I thought that was a valid thought Mike, but then an interesting factoid came to mind. Both parties are lining up dozens, if not hundreds of lawyers preparing to litigate the election—one way or the other.

      The point being, this election could easily end up being a Supreme Court case that would eat-up that interim lame-duck period that would have been your fallback position for waiting until after the vote.

      This may well be a use-it-or-lose-it situation. Also, according to the news blurbs, it is a done deal; Pres. Trump will nominate before the election and the Senate will vote on that nominee before the election.

      GA

  4. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 10 months ago

    I'm thinking that someone from the left just needs to pull a Trump and sue.  If Trump can sue Congress about a subpoena for his tax records, why can't Biden sue to get an injunction pertaining to McConnell's different applications of our laws in the case of the Supreme Court?

    And while some think that the Kavanaugh confirmation may help conservatives, what's happening with Susan Collins is a prime example of where her own constituents are moving away from her on that action as well as her choice to speak about her impeachment vote.

    1. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Relative to your sue McConnel thought,I think that is outside the realm of legal possibilities. I think that regardrdless of the legitimacy of your thought, the concept of suing for that thought would quickly be tossed out.

      As for Susan Collins' constituents, I am not familiar with the situation, but I would venture an uninformed opinion that she will end up supporting the Republican strategy . . . as in a vote for confirmation.

      GA

      1. IslandBites profile image90
        IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EiTYvYVXYAEpAde?format=png&name=largeShe said she wont. For now. We all know how that goes.

      2. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        As is Trump's possibility of keeping his tax records away from the Southern District of NY.  And his son testifying in the fraud case of the Trump Organization.  These are more delaying tactics than actual cases they were likely to win.

    2. GA Anderson profile image90
      GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Somebody probably will sue. I heard a blurb from a Democrat lawyer that said there are already 41 +/- election lawsuits going on. ;-)

      GA

      1. Ken Burgess profile image89
        Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        This election is definitely going to be decided by the Supreme Court.

        And the Left/Democrats are definitely not going to accept the results of it, or the Supreme Court ruling.

        We are just waiting to get past the election, for the real chaos to begin.

        Its taking a while for the rest of America to wake up to this reality, Investigation didn't work, Impeachment didn't work, now the Left/Democrats are pulling out all the stops, even if it brings about a "burn it all down" revolutionary mentality within their mob/base supporters.

        This is the calm before the storm.

        1. Credence2 profile image82
          Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Is that the conclusion that you come to?

          Is it that Trump relies on the court to deliver a victory that he has neither earned through the popular vote or Electoral College?

        2. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Ken, I think you're correct on this one.  The Supreme Court will decide on a hotly contested election.  With mail in ballots...and the Democrats ability to cheat using such methods...the Supreme Court could decided the election. 

          "There is so much potential for mischief here that this process could more accurately be described as “cheat-by-mail.” The U.S. Election Assistance Commission and the Election Administration and Voting Surveys reveal that 16.4 million ballots mailed to registered voters went missing between the 2016 and 2018 elections. All told since 2012 a staggering total of 28.4 million ballots have gone missing. That’s 28.4 million opportunities to cheat.

          In 2016, Democrats likely seized control of California’s Orange County - a longtime reliably Republican bastion - through ballot harvesting, based on the difference between Election Day totals and final totals, which showed a huge, anomalous surge in votes to Democrat candidates.

          Ballot harvesting wasn’t legalized in California until the 2018 mid-term elections. California’s law allows anyone to drop off someone else’s mail-in ballot at a polling station. There is no process for vetting or verifying those who deliver the ballots. Democrats dropped hundreds of thousands of ballots off at polling places and flipped seven Republican seats in the process. Orange County, home of Ronald Reagan and once a bastion of conservatism, has been turned from red to blue virtually overnight. "

          https://www.afa.net/the-stand/culture/2 … -to-cheat/

          1. Valeant profile image87
            Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Weird what happens when the vote isn't suppressed, the party with the lesser numbers actually loses.

            Love that your story uses a private government think tank founded by Steve Bannon, with no research shown, to state its case.

            Here is the fact check to your claims: 
            https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/mail- … s-missing/
            https://www.propublica.org/article/a-co … -in-voting

            In a statement, the National Vote at Home Institute, an advocacy group, challenged the characterization of the 28.3 million ballots as missing. Of those ballots, 12 million were mailed by election officials in Colorado, Oregon and Washington, which by law send a mail-in ballot to every registered voter, roughly 30% of which are not returned for any given election. “Conflating voters choosing not to cast their ballots with ‘missing’ ballots is a fundamental flaw,” the statement reads.

            I do enjoy fact checking your ridiculous claims.

  5. Credence2 profile image82
    Credence2posted 10 months ago

    Republicans realize that there will be reprisals as they stole two SC appointments from the Democrat under clearly unsportsmanlike conditions.

    So, now the gloves are off, and we can dispense with the idea of bipartisanship since any decorum toward that end was clearly discarded by the GOP.  So, no more Mr. nice Guy.

    The GOP better hope that they hold on to the Senate, because I am going to write Mr. Schumer, the new majority leader, to increase the number of SC justices from 9 to 11 to compensate for what was stolen. It is doable from what I read and I have now no missgivings about such a change, when I once did.
    ----
    The Senate cloture rule—which requires 60 members to end debate on most topics and move to a vote—could pose a steep barrier to any incoming president’s policy agenda.
    -------

    Another change that the Dems should move full speed ahead with and disregard any GOP opposition, using their majority the way the Republicans have used theirs.

    So, it's not going to be simple and if I were a GOP, I would think twice before taking a move that they could well regret later.

    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ … 021-418453

    https://www.brookings.edu/policy2020/vo … minate-it/

  6. Valeant profile image87
    Valeantposted 10 months ago

    Hold them to their words.

    2016: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

    2018: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

    2016: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

    2016: Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

    2016: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

    2016: Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

    2016: Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

    2016: Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

    2016: Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

    2016: Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

    2016: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”
    ________________________
    ** “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
    -- Mitch McConnell, March 2016

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Are you then in favor of our legislators, of either party, refusing their sworn constitutional duty, in favor of setting it aside in favor of political games?

      Are you in favor of abiding by the highest law in the land or in favor of ignoring it until you can (maybe) get what you want?

  7. profile image0
    PrettyPantherposted 10 months ago

    There is no need for the Democrats to slander the nominee. They should simply state, at every opportunity, over and over again, ad nauseum, that they are happily following the precedent set by  McConnell, Graham, Cruz, Collins, etc. and are appalled, though not surprised, by the craven hypocrisy of the Republican Trump Tushy Kissers.

    1. Readmikenow profile image95
      Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      "There is no need for the Democrats to slander the nominee." 

      Ah, but they will, they will probably bring out a host of false allegations and turn it into even more of a circus than the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation process. 

      I am waiting for it.  It's all the Democrats have right now.

      1. profile image0
        PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Yeah, I know. Poor fratboy Brett having to answer for his drunken misdeeds was so uncalled for. What is this world coming to? I mean, it's so obvious that most people no longer care about character in high office. Look at Trump!

        Whatever were they thinking?

        1. Readmikenow profile image95
          Readmikenowposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Ah, they were blatant lies told about Kavanaugh.  The Democrats only had lies to tell about him.  This is their way.

          "Grassley, in a letter to the Department of Justice and FBI, said a woman by the name of Judy Munro-Leighton took responsibility for authoring an anonymous letter that made allegations that Kavanaugh and a friend raped her. After she was tracked down and interviewed by Senate investigators, the woman recanted and said she was not, in fact. the author  and had never met Kavanaugh. "

          https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol … 863210002/

          "WASHINGTON – Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley today referred Julie Swetnick and her attorney Michael Avenatti to the Justice Department for criminal investigation relating to a potential conspiracy to provide materially false statements to Congress and obstruct a congressional committee investigation, three separate crimes, in the course of considering Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States."

          https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/ … estigation

          To say the least, Democrats have a serious credibility problem.

          1. profile image0
            PrettyPantherposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Lol, your perspective, Mike. Your perspective.

  8. Readmikenow profile image95
    Readmikenowposted 10 months ago

    Majority of Americans want Senate to move on Supreme Court decision: poll

    "Most Americans, regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrat, believe the Senate should move forward with confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court Justice this year, a new poll says.

    The Marquette University Law School poll found 67% of respondents believed confirmation should proceed in 2020 while just 32% said the chamber should hold off."

    https://nypost.com/2020/09/19/most-amer … -puHFND6PU

    1. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      The poll was taken prior to Ginsburg's death, just to note.

      And in the same poll, 73% said that not holding hearings for Garland was wrong, including 54% of Republicans.

      I don't even fault Trump nominating a justice, that's his job.  But the Republican Senate claimed in 2016 that the American people should have a say with their VOTE, not an opinion poll.  Then they acted on those words.  Asking for consistent application of our laws isn't too much to ask.

    2. IslandBites profile image90
      IslandBitesposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Now do you trust polls? lol

      1. Valeant profile image87
        Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Trump speak...only believe polls that are favorable to our cause.

  9. GA Anderson profile image90
    GA Andersonposted 10 months ago

    I have been mulling this issue because I think that Constitutionally Pres. Trump should have his nominee considered by a Senate vote.

    But, I also think Pres. Obama deserved the same opportunity. We are being bombarded with political statements; prominent Democrats saying that an election year shouldn't matter, the current president deserves a vote, (Biden, 2016), prominent Republicans saying no, the voters' voice must be heard first, (Graham, 2016), and now the parties issuing those two statements have been reversed.

    My bottom line is that tit-for-tat or you did so it's okay for me to do it, is not an acceptable justification. It may be our real-world reality, but that doesn't make it right. Both parties took a stand in 2016 and they should hold to those claims in 2020. Which for me means the Democrats should win this round—they should not fight a nominee Senate vote, and the Republicans should wait until after the election to hold one.

    This political BS, by both parties, must stop. Somebody, somewhere, must show a little integrity. I think that in this instance the Republicans are more wrong than the Democrats. Regardless of all those 'we must do it, it's our Constitutional duty' and 'they tried to do it first' and 'historical precedent' rationalizations we are hearing from the Republicans.

    The Republicans can show a bit of that integrity by at least waiting until after the election and still get their nominee vote in the Lame Duck period.

    GA

    1. Valeant profile image87
      Valeantposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      Agreed, but they won't.  We all know that there's little integrity left in Congress, on either side.

    2. Credence2 profile image82
      Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

      If you want a Congress that operates under rules of decorum rather than mud fights, everybody must play by the same rules.

      If Republicans attempt to fill that vacancy prior to election, I would support the Democrats making the all appropriate adjustments assuming they win the Senate majority and the White House. The GOP will only have itself to blame.

      Republican and integrity are a contradiction in terms.

      1. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        Are you saying Democrats and integrity are synonyms? If I open the dictionary to "integrity" will I see a picture of Schumer or Pelosi?

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image82
          Credence2posted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Check your thesaurus....

          1. GA Anderson profile image90
            GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

            Okay, I did check the thesaurus. Synonyms for integrity are:

            honesty
            principle
            probity
            purity
            rectitude
            sincerity
            virtue
            candor
            forthrightness
            goodness
            honestness
            honorableness
            incorruptibility
            incorruption
            righteousness
            straightforwardness

            Does that sound like Pelosi or Schumer to you?

            Wait! I will save you the effort; that doesn't sound like McConnell or Graham either.

            GA

        2. wilderness profile image96
          wildernessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

          Only if they wrote that dictionary!  lol

    3. Ken Burgess profile image89
      Ken Burgessposted 10 months agoin reply to this

      No, they cannot.  The Republicans cannot give in to these radical threats of more violence, rioting, looting whether they be veiled or openly stated by Democrat politicians.

      The Republicans may have fought against Obama, within the political system, but they never called to their supporters to resist or riot.  They never tried to abolish the Electoral College, or destroy the validity of the voting system by allowing ballots to be sent by mail with absolutely no way to verify the legitimacy of the ballot.

      We have elected Democrat officials, Mayors, DAs, City Council, who are giving in to rioters like College Campus Officials do to their tantrum throwing radical students.  These elected officials are choosing rioters over law and order, they are choosing extremist politics due to their ideological beliefs.

      They are defunding police, abolishing police departments, abandoning sections of their cities to the Mob.

      The Grand sum of what we see going on around us today GA, probably has more in common with how some of the worst usurpations of governments we have seen in the last 100 years had started, than you would like to admit to yourself.

      We have polar opposite MSM news sources, we have unhinged individuals being given voice, we have violent criminals being turned into martyrs, and people trying to murder police, because they are police.

      No, they need to confirm a new Justice ASAP, because it eventually is all going to come down to that Supreme Court, which is going to have to choose, because this cannot continue... society is breaking down, and the politicians and the media are only making it worse... it will come down to the Supreme Court, and we can't have a 4-4 lock.

      1. GA Anderson profile image90
        GA Andersonposted 10 months agoin reply to this

        The Republicans can still get their SCOTUS seat with a vote during the lame duck time frame. It may be no more than appearances, but it is at least that.

        GA

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)