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.
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.
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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
You might be right. I heard a blurb that said McDonnel has promised a vote if a nominee is presented.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
Being a right winged oriented woman is the antipathy of Women's Rights.
The right wing Republican ruse is quite transparent. Just having a female nominee is neither novel and is certainly not enough in itself to stave off criticism.
That's an opinion.
Just as if I were to say BLM and Antifa are terrorists would be an opinion.
It just so happens that the people who are on the left, are the ones calling to "Burn it all down" or to "eradicate all police".
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news … ection-day
https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/08/bl … s-knew-it/
The Federalist definitely misconstrued any link between the Dallas shooter and Black Lives Matter. You should stop believing that racist trope and do your own research before forming your own opinions.
I consider your sources to be "racist trope", what little you use.
See how that works?
Probably not, I doubt you consider your sources as biased, only those you don't agree with, or that don't fit the narrative you believe.
"Being a right winged oriented woman is the antipathy of Women's Rights."
C'mon bud, that's just silly. Take a look at the current top- 2 contenders and get back to me if you still feel your statement is valid.
"the justices tackle some of society’s most contentious issues, including abortion rights, healthcare reform and racial inequality, legal experts said."
Reliably conservative means to threaten all of the above, perhaps it is not so silly now, GA?
Do you really believe that antichoice is a step forward in Woman Rights or the overturning of Roe vs Wade?
A rightwinger is rightwinger regardless of how they are packaged.
The LA times article is all I need to confirm what most progressives already know.
https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ … e-nominees
So, after reading Ms. Barret's legal credentials in your link, including a couple of notes and quotes
"She has also expressed willingness to overturn precedents that she believes are not in line with the Constitution."
If you find this troubling doesn't that indicate you prefer a bench that legislates instead of just ruling on matters of the law—which is the Constitutional intent of their purpose?
"Barrett replied that she “would faithfully apply all Supreme Court precedent” as an appellate judge. She added later that she would “never impose my own personal convictions on the law.”
If this concerns you then you must believe she is lying—any judge with religious beliefs must be compromised because they have those beliefs? And that it is impossible for a dedicated and honest judge to rule on a matter of law without being influenced by those same beliefs?
Does that sum up your "all I need to confirm what most progressives already know."? The only trustworthy and believable judge is a Liberal judge?
Geesh. You and your labels.
"If you find this troubling doesn't that indicate you prefer a bench that legislates instead of just ruling on matters of the law—which is the Constitutional intent of their purpose?"
For heavens sake, the GOP always say that Right leaning jurists properly interpret the law as opposed to the more liberal jurists, that just a matter of opinion depending on which side you sit. Trump would not appoint women or men that would not support the conservative agenda.
And don't tell me that the conservative agenda is the only one legitimate and consistent with the proper operation and the appropriate role for High court, because that is certainly what it sounds like.
Yes, it does sound like that because I do believe history shows liberal-leaning justices to be more prone to legislating from the bench than ruling strictly on the law.
We could gon for days if cited a few examples, so I won't. It wouldn't make any difference.
When you say "that is what it sounds like," I hope you are referring to it sounding like the Supreme Court's job is to interpret laws relative to their constitutionality because that is exactly what I meant.
Yes and how that idea of interpreting the constitutionality of laws rather than legislating from the bench has depended upon the issues at hand and your point of view. The conservative jurist will herald all this original intent stuff against a progressive point of view, but will not when it comes to a conservative point of view. There are no heroes here, it is 6 of one verses half dozen of the other.
But of course, your being conservative, you are content with change moving at the speed of dark in otherwise like running molasses in winter time.
The best jurists were in the Era of the Warren Court, I hardly consider their rulings activist, but a clarification of what the 14th Amendment really meant "equal protection" applied to everyone and was not within the purview of the states to dole out as they saw fit.
I liked the Miranda warnings, just the beginning of change to guarantee suspects certain rights at the point of arrest, do we not now hold those dear?
If those are examples you consider activist, I say let's have more.
I would be interested in a case where you say the liberal wing of the court was legislating from the bench and why......
The first case that comes to mind is the ACA ruling that said a textually specific term "fee" or "penalty," which was textually specific in the law, specifically promoted to the legislators and the American people really amounted to a tax—so the law was constitutional because a "fee" or "penalty" would not be constitutionally legal.
That seems like the Court changing a piece of legislation from the bench. Why didn't the Court declare this unconstitutional and force a rewriting of the law—as it has in so many other important instances?
However, I won't stick my neck in your trap of thinking I know more about it than those Justices, this is just my opinion.
I see your point, just a game of semantics, fee/penalty or a tax.
I think that the principle behind ACA was sound, the mechanics needed to be adjusted. As I see it, the costs to society of the uninsured on all of us was excessive. You are going to pay one way or the other.
How does it cost less to insure additional millions with tax money, paying not only for care but profits as well, than it does to simply for it through increased insurance rates and/or public assistance (medicaid, hospital grants, etc.)? Especially when the "insurance" had such high deductibles it couldn't be used anyway?
It is more than just semantics. The court interpreted the law as if it were just a case of semantics. Fees vs. penalty, vs. tax, whatever, it's the same thing was their view. I strongly disagree, words have meanings, and fee and penalty were clearly purposely used in the language of the law.
They ruled on the law based on what they interpreted it to mean, rather than what it actually said. There was no ambiguity to be interpreted until the court introduced it—thus, legislating from the bench.
I would disagree with that - when the "fee" is collected via the tax form filled out each year, and treated as any other tax on that form, then the verbiage might have been meant to try and slip it in as something other than a tax, but the reality was a tax.
Damn, that tax form thing is a valid point. I am going to have to give this one some more thought.
Does the method of collection, (tax form vs. separate billing), or the collecting agency, make a difference in the interpretation? Hmm . . .
I am not sold on your interpretation, but you have planted a seed of doubt on mine. I better check out the ruling.
There are only a small handful of things, that I can think of, that Americans are required to "purchase". The services of the govt. A retirement program (called Social Security). Unemployment insurance (only for employers, so is actually a choice). And health insurance.
Of these, only the health insurance is not paid for via a tax...instead the terminology used is "fee" in order to make it legal. In spite of being collected as if it is a tax, on tax forms and at tax time, it is a "fee". In addition, I'll point out that line 15 of the 1040 indicates "total tax", and your refund, or what you owe, is based on that figure.
The court saw differently, and IMO was correct; it is a tax, just as all the other involuntary "purchases" that are required of all citizens are. Everything except the terminology used to go around the law points to that; if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
You are not forced to purchase car insurance. You ARE forced to purchase (or participate in the purchase) of the army. There is a very major difference.
How are we not forced? It's against the law to drive without car insurance.
In Arkansas you are forced to purchase car insurance or you will not be able to license your car. I'm sure some other states have the same requirement. Try another example.
"In Arkansas you are forced to purchase car insurance or you will not be able to license your car."
Then you have a choice: if you wish to drive your car on public roadways, then you must have insurance. And if you don't want to do that, you won't be forced to buy anything. Note that if you wish to drive your car on public roads, you must also purchase the car, the fuel to run it and the maintenance to keep it running.
On the other hand, if you are alive you were forced to buy health insurance on pain of penalties if you don't. The only option was to die or to pay the cost without getting the product.
That's a huge difference; one is that you must pay for a privilege and the other you must pay if you are alive. I trust you understand the difference.
I still disagree with your assessment. While driving a car is a privilege, it is a necessity for most people. We are forced to buy insurance if we need to drive to work and to live our everyday lives. If we drive without insurance in an unlicensed auto, we are subject to a penalty. People who did not buy insurance were subjected to a penalty. Pay the penalty, which some people found cheaper than the insurance. That was also their choice. Either way there were government-mandated consequences.
You can disagree that driving a car is a choice, but that doesn't make it so. If you get a job further from your home than you want to bicycle, walk or take other forms of transportation then move closer to work. Or find another job; it is very rare person that is limited, somehow, to a specific job at a specific location that is further from their home than an hour's trip without a car.
Yes, there were government mandated consequences, but they were not for not having insurance - they are for driving without insurance. You even say so: "If we drive without insurance in an unlicensed auto, we are subject to a penalty". Unsaid, of course, is driving on private property, which is fine; even young children can drive all over the family farm without consequences and often do so. You just can't drive on public roadways.
Again, the choice to drive on public roads isn't even in the same category as being force to buy insurance because you are alive. Unless you would argue that dying to avoid having to buy insurance is a viable option?
Your logic is that of a rich Republican. I can just see the Governor's administrative assistant in her Gucci shoes, perfect makeup, perfect hairdo, with her briefcase strapped to the back of her bicycle pedaling from the heights in a light rain down to work. She arrives looking like a character from a Tim Burton movie with makeup running, runny nose, hair a mess, shoes scuffed, silk blouse soaked to the bone. She drips into the office to be greeted by two dignitaries from Paris, France who are there to discuss expanding the L'Oreal plant in North Little Rock. And you say she has a choice to bicycle rather than buy automobile insurance and drive to work. Or her other choice is to find another job within walking distance from her home. Maybe she doesn't want to strain her 150 IQ by working at McDonalds or waiting on tables at Loca Luna. You are being ridiculous.
No, the logic is one of reality, not a pretend utopia where one gets whatever they want.
I've worked with people limited to a bicycle (too many DUI's), with the job changing address every few weeks. Poor guy rode all over town, miles each day, rain, shine or snow. It is not impossible, just unpleasant...which is why most people choose to buy a car and operate it.
Your assistant chooses to buy a car. She chooses to buy fuel. She chooses to buy maintenance on her car. And along with it, she chooses to buy insurance. It's really pretty simple; if you demand a specific job, and refuse to move within walking distance, and have no access to public transportation, and refuse to bike or walk...then you are choosing private transportation and that means insurance along with a raft of other costs. Pretending that all those choices are, in fact, required as a part of being alive is ridiculous.
Well, your "tax form" perspective sent me looking. After a couple hours at Cornel Law School's syllabus on the decision, and then reading the text of the decision, I found reasons to think I was both right and wrong, and that your "tax form" perspective is also wrong.
The part I was wrong on was that I thought the constitutionality question was decided wrongly. I know believe it was validly decided. Here's why:
"The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).
In other words, if there is an interpretation that saves the act, that is the one the court must take.
However, because of the machinations the court had to use to legitimately interpret the penalty as a tax, I stand by my original comment—the court used semantics to save the Act.
Stuff like first deciding it was not a tax —relative to a ruling on whether the suit was prohibited by The Anti-Injunction Act.
Then for the second Part, a ruling about the "penalty" as being beyond Congress' scope under the Commerce Clause.
It wasn't until the ruling on Part 3—Congresses 'power to lay taxes, that the Justices found a valid reason to interpret the penalty as a tax. That reason, by my reading, is the above-quoted blurb.
Finally, if you visit the link below, and I hope you will, you will find multiple examples that show the use of the tax form, and the IRS as the collection agency was solely for the purpose of processes and enforcement power: you can ignore a bill, but not filing your taxes.
Specific quotes like this:
" The Act provides that this “penalty” will be paid to the Internal Revenue Service with an individual’s taxes, and “shall be assessed and collected in the same manner” as tax penalties. §§5000A(c), (g)(1)."
". . . is a directive only to the Secretary of the Treasury to use the same “ ‘methodology and procedures’ ” to collect the penalty that he uses to collect taxes. Brief for the United States 32–33 (quoting Seven-Sky, "
So, I still think the court legislated from the bench on this one, (resorting to semantic comparisons to find a constitutional interpretation. I won't argue that they validly reached this interpretation, but that doesn't change what it essentially was.
Here's the read, I think you will at least like the syllabus, even if you don't do the whole Court Opinion section, (it is long).
Cornell Law School - ACA's Mandate Penalty fee is a tax.
Well, I pulled up your link and looked at the little marker on the side of the screen. It was far to small for me to read it all, but I DID go over the syllabus, and then read the opinions of court members. My impressions:
Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito all discussed the commerce factor, and decided it was of primary importance and that the requirements of the Constitution were not satisfied. Not being a lawyer, it was very difficult for me to follow, but I finally decided I agreed.
Ginsburg, on the other hand, spent a great deal of time and effort explaining that it was for the good of the nation and should therefore be done. She then addressed the commerce clause, but seemed to me to be trying hard to "prove" that it was not applicable because she thought the act should be passed. She failed, IMO; that a law is "good for the nation", in the opinion of the speaker, does not mean that it is constitutional.
So we disagree: I found that the five presented their case well, that the requirements of the ACA went beyond the constitutional limits on Congress. Ginsburg, on the other hand, definitely "legislated from the bench", presenting reasons it was a valuable and good piece of legislation and therefore should pass the Constitution test. In doing so, she ignored (I think - her opinion was so long I merely scanned the second half) a very valid (IMO) point that Thomas brought out - that the young were charged more than was actuarily reasonable and that the "penalty" was used simply to subsidize others rather than provide for themselves. A telling point, IMO, when it comes to that important Commerce clause and whether Congress may force commerce on those that don't want it.
I'm not sure I really understand this explanation, so I don't agree or disagree with it. But when you see all these fees levied on your bills, if they are levied as "fees", then I don't believe they can be deducted on your 1040A along with your deductible state and local taxes.
I agree with you on this one GA. Fee, penalty, and tax were not synonymous in the past. They were charged or levied, but for different purposes in different instances. Look at your phone bill for proof. There are "fees" on that bill, but unless they are delegated to specific purposes, they are nothing but a tax. A penalty was not a fee or tax, it was charged for a misdeed, a penalty for speeding, a penalty for late payment, etc. I don't see how it can be synonymous with either of the other two.
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.
The temerity involved that surrounds the selection and vetting process so close to the election will bring the attention of the Democrats and solidify its base akin to waking a sleeping giant.
The memory of Ginsberg and her last wishes in contrast with the treachery of Republicans, I will take a ringside seat to watch this.
I think that your strategy could well backfire.
I admonish Republicans to veer from this disastrous course, because if they lose and chances are well in favor of that, payback will be a b****.
My conscience is clear that since the Republicans have dissed on idea of bipartisanship, our hands are politically untied and Schumer can state that "nothing is off the table" henceforth.
And if they take back the Senate and White House, many people have already called for them to expand the court to eleven members due to this kind of chicanery.
Agreed, this is to be left for after the election, however and whenever those results are decided
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.
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"
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.
"A 6-3 Supreme Court could be the best thing for liberal politics in the last 50 years."
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
See, you're pushing the GOP agenda and you expect us all to just play along?
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.
Yeah, I sort of see it the way you explain it
McConnell's explanation is bull$hit.
So was Biden's 2016 claim that it was a president's constitutional duty, even in an election year, also bull$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.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps after the Dems sweep the election next fall we will find a new definition. Lets hope you hold the same attitude when Dems have control of Congress. Just as long as it is consistent.
Why talk to me about all the kumbaya stuff, it does not exist? The side and position that you consistently take is evident and it not about fairness and equity but about raw power. I tell my Democrat Party colleagues to realize how ruthless their adversary is and to treat them accordingly.
So, the rightwing better hope that they win election night, because if they don't and they had replaced Ginsberg before election, there will be hell to pay.
So much for a Congress of bipartisanship.
The ACA thing is bull$hit., all initiatives are partisan. The GOP has done dastardly things based on its dominance in the Senate and in the past, the House. Yet, when Democrats circle the wagons supporting their take of legislation, that is ramming a policy down the throat? I, for one, loathe the GOP and insist Democrats take a heavier hand with them by now on.
That you want to place arguments of race ahead of arguments of class and opportunity means you will forever be fighting the divisive fight that allows no true progress to be made.
The last truly beneficial progress for race considerations was when?
20 years ago? 30 years ago? 40?
I find Democrats just as ruthless and two faced as Republicans, and for the last 30 years there has been very little difference between the two... both parties have been filled with enough politicians willing to sell out the American people to keep our decline continuous no matter who was in control.
The ACA is a prime example of that... written by the Insurance and Big Pharma companies to benefit themselves, at the expense of hard working Americans.
That was a prime example of "raw power", the people didn't want it, the Republicans gave it no support, and it was rammed through anyways. For every American that wanted to see such a monstrosity passed 3 did not.
You are not on the correct side, you are not on the virtuous side, you are on the side that prefers the destruction of society rather than the continuation of it... people are calling to "burn it all down" rather than accept the fact that today the Republicans control the Senate and Presidency.
You support the side that lies to itself and says "the Russians did it", the Republicans are "fixing the election" and the President is 'sabotaging the Post Office and stealing mailboxes".
Your side is totally unhinged, there is nothing sane or worth supporting in the side that is out there attacking police officers, burning homes, and threatening to do even more of it if they don't get their way.
Race and class are both intertwined and each is separate from the other yet can be taken together at times in my opinion. As a Black person, I have not seen so much of this issue being brought to front and center, is it the cell phone camera or Trump fundamental beliefs?
So, it ALL needs to be fought.
What evidence have you that says that Obamacare was opposed by most of the American people?
I accept the fact that Republicans are in control, unfortunately, that is why I must cast my ballot to change that as soon as possible.
"You support the side that lies to itself and says "the Russians did it", the Republicans are "fixing the election" and the President is 'sabotaging the Post Office and stealing mailboxes".
I don't know about all that, I support a party that has a progressive agenda and will adhere to tireless pursuit of civil rights as part of that.
You associate me with the radical left, what if I associate you with QAnon or those folks that say that "Jews will not Replace us" in Charlottesville 3 years ago? Biden himself said he wasn't in favor of defunding police, why do you cling to the most radical interpretations on the left but ignore them from the Right? Once I remove your label and examine the contents, the conclusion become quite clear.
The belief that the radical right is harmless and to be ignored that is the first mistake of naïveté .
It was very unpopular, and led to the "Tea Party" wave of Republicans that got voted into office during the mid-term elections.
This was a poll in 2016 shows 51% against it
https://news.gallup.com/poll/195383/ame … e-aca.aspx
This 2010 CNN poll shows 59% do not support it
https://www.dailysignal.com/2010/03/22/ … obamacare/
And while I can't find a reliable link to where opinions stood when first introduced to the public, I remember the percentage against it was running in the 70% range for a while.
There are a few reasons for this.
The Republicans don't have prominent political figures like Pelosi, and others, kneeling in unison to extremist groups like the BLM movement (this is divisive not unifying). When I start seeing Republicans getting down and kneeling to any extremist element, like White Pride or its equivalent, I'll be just as concerned.
The Republican politicians have never hinted at the fact that violence and riots would be forthcoming if they didn't get their way, this is being done now, today, if ever so subtly by Democrat leaders.
The absurdity that the Republicans would wait, on anything, when the Democrats never have. The Democrats didn't wait they rammed through the ACA.
They CHANGED the rules to allow them to ignore the Republicans back in 2013:
https://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/ … egret-this
And now that the Republicans are doing the same, the Democrats act as if every law and oath is being violated. Its the opposite, the Republicans are doing what they were elected to do, and using the tools the Democrats left them to do it with.
The Republicans aren't threatening to "burn it all down" and they didn't do so even when Obama was President and the Dems had total control of Congress. They may have pushed some dirty politics into play, but that was the extent of their dastardly deeds... what we are seeing now is a step or two more extreme.
"The Republicans don't have prominent political figures like Pelosi, and others, kneeling in unison to extremist groups like the BLM movement (this is divisive not unifying). When I start seeing Republicans getting down and kneeling to any extremist element, like White Pride or its equivalent, I'll be just as concerned."
Trump does that latently and patently every day giving encouragement to the Right while denigrating the Left regardless of the facts on the ground. Republicans have already been kneeling to this Trump and the most nauseating of right wing organizations here and abroad have cited him as an example.
I have heard plenty of refences to violence fromTrump if he is not reelected, and I will get the sources if need be.
Because Republicans have been at the helm, it is already burning down. Removing them from power just might put the fires out. Trump golfs while America burns.....
This is exactly right. Basically, whoever has the power can do what they want. Everyone needs to stop crying. The GOP has the power and they're going to use it. They have that right. They were elected to do precisely what they are doing. If the liberals don't like it, all those idiots who voted for Jill Stein should have thought of that when they cast that vote. And the DNC should have thought of it when they decided to push a highly flawed candidate on us.
And if they're swept out of office because of it, then the Democrats can use their power to do what they want.
Consider it a good thing. Let's see what motivation a 6-3 SCOTUS provides for people to get out and vote and keep voting into the future. And for the DNC to start putting together a slate of candidates that inspires people.
But hopefully conservatives are ready. Don't cry if a blue wave drowns you.
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.
She was a marvelous, brave woman who did her part to make life better for everyone, but especially for women.
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.
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?
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.
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.
You're absolutely right, and that's the reason for the growing tide of people wishing for term limits for congress.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
She said she wont. For now. We all know how that goes.
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.
Somebody probably will sue. I heard a blurb from a Democrat lawyer that said there are already 41 +/- election lawsuits going on. ;-)
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.
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?
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/
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.
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/
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
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?
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.
"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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
Agreed, but they won't. We all know that there's little integrity left in Congress, on either side.
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.
Are you saying Democrats and integrity are synonyms? If I open the dictionary to "integrity" will I see a picture of Schumer or Pelosi?
Okay, I did check the thesaurus. Synonyms for integrity are:
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.
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.
by Sharlee 4 months ago
Left-wing activist groups are planning to send protesters to the homes of conservative Supreme Court justices following a leak indicating the court may soon overturn Roe v. Wade.The activists are organizing under the moniker "Ruth Sent Us" and have published the supposed home addresses of...
by Sharlee 21 months ago
Is Trump finally on his way to the Supreme Court with his allegations of voter irregularities and fraud? It would appear we will soon know."By Tom Hals(Reuters) - A federal appeals court on Friday rejected a request by U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign to block President-elect Joe...
by ga anderson 23 months ago
If you, (can), put aside all the political charges and machinations against her nomination, what is your opinion of the qualifications of our newest Supreme Court Justice? I think she is exactly the kind of person we should want to sit on our Supreme Court.To be clear, I strongly support her...
by Scott Belford 5 years ago
My thought is No, they should go ahead and filibuster Judge Gorsuch now and not wait. The fear of filibustering now is that the Rs might use the "Nuclear Option" - using a simple majority to change Senate rules to eliminate filibustering for Supreme Court nominees; just as Democrats...
by Credence2 2 years ago
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi … gK1iPD_BwEThis nice reassurance ruling from the Supreme Court may well give the Electoral College a new lease on life and make the institution less troublesome in my eyes than before.No more happenstance, if you don't want something to occur,...
by Mary's Crumbs 10 years ago
Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of upholding ObamaCare?In what can only be characterized as a victory for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision which basically upholds the The Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This 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.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We 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 Pixels||We 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.|