ADVERTISEMENT

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead at 87

I just want Justices that rule on laws and the Constitution as written and not legislate from the bench to further the Democrat distopian vision of mob rule. Donald Trump is the one that I believe will nominate a non-activist justice (like he has so far). I do not trust Biden's handlers to do so.

I've noticed that "conservative" Justices seem to rule more based on the constitution and the law of the land. In other words, they don't seem to worry as much if their position is 'conservative' or 'liberal' but rather if it is based on the law as they interpret it.

Which is how it should be.
 
It might be to the advantage of Murkowski, Collins, and Romney to fast track Trump’s nominee. They don’t support him and want him gone. The Supreme Court remains the prime reason why a lot of conservatives who disagree with Trump (not calling those three conservative by means... talking about a different sector of voters) are holding their nose and voting for him and not staying home or voting third party.

Push his nominee through and you take that away from him.

Fair point. I do not want Harris....er Biden picking this Justice.
 
There are several scenarios that could play out here...

1. If Moscow Mitch wants to ram this appointment down the American public's throat, he cannot lose four votes in the senate. He has lost Murkowski and Collins (2), and will likely not get Romney to go along. Kelly wins senate in AZ, and by their state law is given immediate voting power in the senate. He is the 4th vote against. The confirmation gets pushed to next year.

2. Trump is going to nominate someone and the republican senate is going to start the process. The dems are going to control congress, win the senate and win the presidency. The lame duck senate is going to seat trump's pick, against the will of the American people, because the likely no votes will have lost their elections by hat point. In 2021 the dems are going to abolish the super majority and pack the court. The dems are going to them restore the soul of this nation. They are going to undo every executive order that Trump ever made. Donald Trump and Eric Trump (the family scape goat) will be convicted of multiple crimes and go to jail.

I think #2 is most likely at this point.

957061_15277148044220_rId5.jpg

Romney has said he supports moving ahead with the vote.

 
  • Like
Reactions: Goodthinkful
Romney has said he supports moving ahead with the vote.


whoo boy, setting some dangerous precedent here. McConnell has 395 bills from congress that he refuses to call a vote on, but he is willing to ram a supreme court justice vote down the american people's throat with six weeks until the election.

The blue wave is getting bigger as we speak. For every action, there is a reaction.
 
whoo boy, setting some dangerous precedent here. McConnell has 395 bills from congress that he refuses to call a vote on, but he is willing to ram a supreme court justice vote down the american people's throat with six weeks until the election.

The blue wave is getting bigger as we speak. For every action, there is a reaction.

The bad precedent was in 2016 if anything, not today. The President picks the SC Justice nominee, and the Senate approves (or doesn't approve). That's how it works. Ginsburg was known to be in ill health. I'm sure Trump and his team already had a 'short list.'

Everyone is also assuming Trump will lose in November. I wouldn't. I also remember hearing about a 'Blue Wave' in 2018. It didn't happen.

It may be in Trump's best interest to wait - and have the Supreme Court as a campaign issue. Supreme Court Nominees are the longest-lasting legacy of a President, theoretically. Might push the fence-sitters to Trump's side.
 
The 'blue wave' will not take the Senate. I think some of those 'close' races are a little bit juiced to give the Sunday morning shows something to talk about. Lindsey Graham is not in danger. I don't care what polling says. People are lukewarm about him (which is showing up in the polling numbers), but they will vote to re-elect him.
 
Also, putting the Democrats on the Judiciary committee front and center in the weeks before the election will not be a positive for Democrats. I have seen that movie before.
 
Also, putting the Democrats on the Judiciary committee front and center in the weeks before the election will not be a positive for Democrats. I have seen that movie before.

They were pretty awe inspiring during the Kavanaugh hearings, I will have to give them that.
 
The bad precedent was in 2016 if anything, not today. The President picks the SC Justice nominee, and the Senate approves (or doesn't approve). That's how it works. Ginsburg was known to be in ill health. I'm sure Trump and his team already had a 'short list.'

Everyone is also assuming Trump will lose in November. I wouldn't. I also remember hearing about a 'Blue Wave' in 2018. It didn't happen.

It may be in Trump's best interest to wait - and have the Supreme Court as a campaign issue. Supreme Court Nominees are the longest-lasting legacy of a President, theoretically. Might push the fence-sitters to Trump's side.

clearly most republican senators think Trump is going to lose. Otherwise they would not be forcing a vote before the election, a move they know is very unpopular (latest poll shows 62% of americans oppose).
 
100% sincere. The naked partisanship and idiocy was absolutely breathtaking.

You ain't seen nothin' yet. They are going to attack Trump's nominee from every direction they can think of.

Which will be kinda funny considering who it is expected to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Goodthinkful
You ain't seen nothin' yet. They are going to attack Trump's nominee from every direction they can think of.

Which will be kinda funny considering who it is expected to be.

It's not funny, but I know what you mean.

For that reason alone, Trump has to nominate someone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Goodthinkful
That is exactly what the constitution says he is supposed to do.
And yet he didn't when it was politically not agreeable. Can we finally concede that the Dems have been playing somewhat fair, but the Pubs have been winning by any means necessary? The dems have been assuming for the last 20 years that you could not shut down the government, that would be career suicide. Well if you make your base believe its SOLELY the other parties fault, then you can do ANYTHING.

Somehow its the DEMS fault that Obama didn't get to nominate a justice right?
 
I've noticed that "conservative" Justices seem to rule more based on the constitution and the law of the land. In other words, they don't seem to worry as much if their position is 'conservative' or 'liberal' but rather if it is based on the law as they interpret it.

Which is how it should be.
You know how I know you haven't been reading the rulings?
 
whoo boy, setting some dangerous precedent here. McConnell has 395 bills from congress that he refuses to call a vote on, but he is willing to ram a supreme court justice vote down the american people's throat with six weeks until the election.

The blue wave is getting bigger as we speak. For every action, there is a reaction.
There is no precedent being set. There has not been a judge nominated and confirmed in an election year when the potus and senate were controlled by different parties in he last 150 yrs. There have been multiple judges nominated and confirmed in an election year when the potus and senate are controlled by the same party. Even RGB said there was no reason a senate should not vote on a nominee in an election year. It has happened multiple times over the years. Of course, she felt different when she knew she would be replaced by a conservative. Would not expect anything less. Obama nominated a candidate when he knew for certain he would not be the next potus and he and the dems all wanted a hearing and confirmation vote. Now, when the pubs are doing exactly what they wanted done, they are all against doing the same. It is all politics, yes. Dems want liberal judges and pubs want conservative judges. Either party would be stupid not to fill an open seat if they were able.

Additionally, we simply need to have the seat filled. Having 8 judges is a dangerous place to be right now. The chance there are issues they may need to decide about the election is fairly high. That can not happen with seven judges. HRC has already stated that Biden should not concede the election no matter what. This implies they are probably going to contest the election on legal grounds if they lose. There would be no other reason not to concede, right? We need the seat filled. There is roughly 4 months to get the seat filled before another judge could even be nominated if we wait until the next president is sworn in. If 4 months is ramming it through, then it would presumably be 8-10 months minimum before the seat would be filled. We simply can not wait that long to fill an open justice seat. Honestly, that is a ridiculous path to take, all politics aside.
 
There is no precedent being set. There has not been a judge nominated and confirmed in an election year when the potus and senate were controlled by different parties in he last 150 yrs. There have been multiple judges nominated and confirmed in an election year when the potus and senate are controlled by the same party. Even RGB said there was no reason a senate should not vote on a nominee in an election year. It has happened multiple times over the years. Of course, she felt different when she knew she would be replaced by a conservative. Would not expect anything less. Obama nominated a candidate when he knew for certain he would not be the next potus and he and the dems all wanted a hearing and confirmation vote. Now, when the pubs are doing exactly what they wanted done, they are all against doing the same. It is all politics, yes. Dems want liberal judges and pubs want conservative judges. Either party would be stupid not to fill an open seat if they were able.

Additionally, we simply need to have the seat filled. Having 8 judges is a dangerous place to be right now. The chance there are issues they may need to decide about the election is fairly high. That can not happen with seven judges. HRC has already stated that Biden should not concede the election no matter what. This implies they are probably going to contest the election on legal grounds if they lose. There would be no other reason not to concede, right? We need the seat filled. There is roughly 4 months to get the seat filled before another judge could even be nominated if we wait until the next president is sworn in. If 4 months is ramming it through, then it would presumably be 8-10 months minimum before the seat would be filled. We simply can not wait that long to fill an open justice seat. Honestly, that is a ridiculous path to take, all politics aside.

The bolded part I thought interesting so I decided to do my own research. Surprise its completely false.


Thomas nomination by George HW Bush in 1991, Senate controlled by Dems.
Kennedy nomination by Ronald Regan in 1987, Senate conrolled by Dems...
Why was it dangerous to have the empty seat now when it was just fine and dandy for a whole year during Obama's last year? Please tell me how facts have helped you to reach a new conclusion.

 
The bolded part I thought interesting so I decided to do my own research. Surprise its completely false.


Thomas nomination by George HW Bush in 1991, Senate controlled by Dems.
Kennedy nomination by Ronald Regan in 1987, Senate conrolled by Dems...
Why was it dangerous to have the empty seat now when it was just fine and dandy for a whole year during Obama's last year? Please tell me how facts have helped you to reach a new conclusion.

LOL... how did the Kennedy nomination go exactly?! What happened to Robert Bork exactly?! How did the Thomas nomination go?!

merrick garland was lucky he was not nominated by a republican and faced with a democratic senate Confirmation!
 
LOL... how did the Kennedy nomination go exactly?! What happened to Robert Bork exactly?! How did the Thomas nomination go?!

merrick garland was lucky he was not nominated by a republican and faced with a democratic senate Confirmation!
Oh so you mean the actual senate hearings that were held as is the constitutional duty of the senate? My point is the person I quoted either lied or was repeating a lie. Gaslighting history to make the Republicans seem saintly. Such bs. They created a new prescedent in 2016 and now a new one in 2020. Only thing that matters seems to be getting their way. Bad faith actors in the democratic process.

Who cares if peoples feeling got hurt during the hearings? At least the Dems did their duty to have them. What a lie to compare it.
 
Oh so you mean the actual senate hearings that were held as is the constitutional duty of the senate? My point is the person I quoted either lied or was repeating a lie. Gaslighting history to make the Republicans seem saintly. Such bs. They created a new prescedent in 2016 and now a new one in 2020. Only thing that matters seems to be getting their way. Bad faith actors in the democratic process.

Who cares if peoples feeling got hurt during the hearings? At least the Dems did their duty to have them. What a lie to compare it.
“Who cares that the Democrats tried to ruin someone’s life?” Was it their duty to slander Bork and Thomas? It is not their duty to have a hearing. The constitution says nothing about hearings. Advise and consent. They were not going to consent to another Obama justice. He did not have the votes to be confirmed. So why have a hearing? Somehow they retained the senate in 2016. Seems like their constituents approved.
 
“Who cares that the Democrats tried to ruin someone’s life?” Was it their duty to slander Bork and Thomas? It is not their duty to have a hearing. The constitution says nothing about hearings. Advise and consent. They were not going to consent to another Obama justice. He did not have the votes to be confirmed. So why have a hearing? Somehow they retained the senate in 2016. Seems like their constituents approved.
Ok so just so Im clear here the mental gymnastics: It was ok for the first time ever to not hold a senate hearing on nominating a judge because: He didn't have the votes.

Senate held hearings for Thomas, could have used your weak excuse but knew the American electorate would not have bought it.
Senate held hearings for Kennedy, could have used your weak excuse.....

By the way there were other nominees ... that didn't get the votes... its ok its a process by which the POTUS nominates until someone gets the votes. This is why the REPUBLICANS set the precedent. I want you to remember that, because Mitch McConnel owns it.

Republicans shut down the federal government multiple times and were never held accountable, they didn't hold hearings on a supreme court nomination even though they were duty bound, because of purely political reasons. These are simple facts and they've occurred since the black man was elected into office.

The precedents set by the republicans in the last 12 years could actually destroy the republic. Gaslight history all you want, thats what people do while gaining un checked absolute power. But actually not doing your constitutional duty and getting away with it while your base of boot lickers agrees with you, will actually destroy the democratic process of our government.
 
Ok so just so Im clear here the mental gymnastics: It was ok for the first time ever to not hold a senate hearing on nominating a judge because: He didn't have the votes.

Senate held hearings for Thomas, could have used your weak excuse but knew the American electorate would not have bought it.
Senate held hearings for Kennedy, could have used your weak excuse.....

By the way there were other nominees ... that didn't get the votes... its ok its a process by which the POTUS nominates until someone gets the votes. This is why the REPUBLICANS set the precedent. I want you to remember that, because Mitch McConnel owns it.

Republicans shut down the federal government multiple times and were never held accountable, they didn't hold hearings on a supreme court nomination even though they were duty bound, because of purely political reasons. These are simple facts and they've occurred since the black man was elected into office.

The precedents set by the republicans in the last 12 years could actually destroy the republic. Gaslight history all you want, thats what people do while gaining un checked absolute power. But actually not doing your constitutional duty and getting away with it while your base of boot lickers agrees with you, will actually destroy the democratic process of our government.
I’ve wasted enough time on you, dude. There’s no constitutional duty. Why didn’t a federal court issue a writ of mandamus to fulfill this constitutional duty? And you’re the one gaslighting... as you continue to refer to the Kennedy confirmation with no mention of Bork.
 
The bolded part I thought interesting so I decided to do my own research. Surprise its completely false.


Thomas nomination by George HW Bush in 1991, Senate controlled by Dems.
Kennedy nomination by Ronald Regan in 1987, Senate conrolled by Dems...
Why was it dangerous to have the empty seat now when it was just fine and dandy for a whole year during Obama's last year? Please tell me how facts have helped you to reach a new conclusion.

Neither of the two examples you give were in presidential election years. Funny how you dismiss the fact that the the pubs are doing Exactly what the dems wanted to be done the very last time this situation occurred in obama's last year and obama knew for a fact that he would not be the next potus.
Also, the urgency is due in large part to the threats of the dem party not to accept the election results and likelihood that the court would need to get involved with legal challenges as a result.
 
This is not about appointing and seating a "Conservative" Justice vs. a "Liberal" justice. It really is about getting a Justice that will interprate laws vs. risking that a potential Harris - Biden administration appoints an activist justice who will attempt to legislate from the bench and in so doing destroy the separation of powers and undermine our Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CUT93
From Forbes...

Attorney General William Barr and other top government officials, including President Trump, have frequently blamed Antifa activists for the violence stemming from recent demonstrations in the wake of George Floyd's death. However, last week NPR published a review of court documents of 51 individuals facing federal charges related to protests, and none is alleged to have links to the Antifa movement. Among all the cases brought by the Justice Department thus far, the only extremist group mentioned in court documents is the right-wing "Boogaloo movement."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tommyb...th-right-wing-boogaloo-movement/#2b58736959bd

I expect strong and immediate denouncing of right wing militias from you.


Ok. I do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CUT93
This is not about appointing and seating a "Conservative" Justice vs. a "Liberal" justice. It really is about getting a Justice that will interprate laws vs. risking that a potential Harris - Biden administration appoints an activist justice who will attempt to legislate from the bench and in so doing destroy the separation of powers and undermine our Constitution.

did you type that with a straight face? Trump absolutely wants a stooge that will help him carry out his agenda. Give me a break. Do you not remember John Roberts actually having to publicly remind Trump that the court is supposed to be independent and not loyal to him?

  • Earlier on Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked Trump, saying, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges."
  • Roberts was responding to Trump calling a judge who ruled against the Trump administration on a matter related to asylum requests at the US-Mexico border an "Obama judge."
 
did you type that with a straight face? Trump absolutely wants a stooge that will help him carry out his agenda. Give me a break. Do you not remember John Roberts actually having to publicly remind Trump that the court is supposed to be independent and not loyal to him?

  • Earlier on Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts rebuked Trump, saying, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges."
  • Roberts was responding to Trump calling a judge who ruled against the Trump administration on a matter related to asylum requests at the US-Mexico border an "Obama judge."

Do you not remember that the three branches of our government are equal. So a "rebuke" of the POTUS by the chief justice means exactly nothing. Roberts is simply defending his organization and his own ego.

Trump in saying what he said about one or all of the Justices shows a lack of decorum but also means exactly zero. Doesn't impact one ruling. Political theater nothing more.

I want justices to be loyal to the constitution and strictly base their rulings on it, and not try to change it or usurp the power of the people (Congress) based upon their own personal political views.

Trump's appointments are more likely to do just that. IMO. It's that simple to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CUT93
Do you not remember that the three branches of our government are equal. So a "rebuke" of the POTUS by the chief justice means exactly nothing. Roberts is simply defending his organization and his own ego.

Trump in saying what he said about one or all of the Justices shows a lack of decorum but also means exactly zero. Doesn't impact one ruling. Political theater nothing more.

I want justices to be loyal to the constitution and strictly base their rulings on it, and not try to change it or usurp the power of the people (Congress) based upon their own personal political views.

Trump's appointments are more likely to do just that. IMO. It's that simple to me.

i guess we will find out sooner rather than later. When Trump loses the election and starts a constitutional crisis by not conceding (claiming voter fraud) and tries to overturn the results, the court will be the final say in the matter. my guess if you will be rooting for your guy to win, even if it means the end of democracy as we know it.
 
i guess we will find out sooner rather than later. When Trump loses the election and starts a constitutional crisis by not conceding (claiming voter fraud) and tries to overturn the results, the court will be the final say in the matter. my guess if you will be rooting for your guy to win, even if it means the end of democracy as we know it.
Considering HRC has implored Biden not to concede under any circumstances if he loses, that is pretty rich. Also why we need to seat a justice. The democrat party and liberal appointed justices who think they need to "fix" the constitution would be the end of democracy as we know it.
Also interesting that RGB supposedly injected politics on her death bed by saying she did not want the current president and senate to replace her when she has said before there is no reason the senate should not confirm a nomination late in an election year. If anyone had any doubt about her not being politically motivated, it is gone. She knew exactly what the result of her statement would be, and knew it directly contradicted her own thoughts and statements on the matter when there was a different political party in charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nsp1996
i guess we will find out sooner rather than later. When Trump loses the election and starts a constitutional crisis by not conceding (claiming voter fraud) and tries to overturn the results, the court will be the final say in the matter. my guess if you will be rooting for your guy to win, even if it means the end of democracy as we know it.

Activist Justices are a very real threat to our Constitution and our nation. Your made up scenario is not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CUT93
Considering HRC has implored Biden not to concede under any circumstances if he loses, that is pretty rich. Also why we need to seat a justice. The democrat party and liberal appointed justices who think they need to "fix" the constitution would be the end of democracy as we know it.
Also interesting that RGB supposedly injected politics on her death bed by saying she did not want the current president and senate to replace her when she has said before there is no reason the senate should not confirm a nomination late in an election year. If anyone had any doubt about her not being politically motivated, it is gone. She knew exactly what the result of her statement would be, and knew it directly contradicted her own thoughts and statements on the matter when there was a different political party in charge.

Who knows what to believe. If RBG said that it removes all doubt that she was a political hack. However I don't put it past the left to have made that quote up. Either way the fact that she "hung on" past the age where any reasonable person would say she was mentally and physically capable of fully discharging her duties leads me to conclude that she had political motivation or simply she loved the status and power and couldn't let go of it.

We need to end lifetime appointments of SCOTUS justices.
 
Considering HRC has implored Biden not to concede under any circumstances if he loses, that is pretty rich. Also why we need to seat a justice. The democrat party and liberal appointed justices who think they need to "fix" the constitution would be the end of democracy as we know it.
Also interesting that RGB supposedly injected politics on her death bed by saying she did not want the current president and senate to replace her when she has said before there is no reason the senate should not confirm a nomination late in an election year. If anyone had any doubt about her not being politically motivated, it is gone. She knew exactly what the result of her statement would be, and knew it directly contradicted her own thoughts and statements on the matter when there was a different political party in charge.

You are taking HRC's comments on not conceding out of context. What she meant, and what has been discussed by others, is that Trump voters (who don't believe in science) will be more likely to go out and vote in person that democratic voters who believe the virus is real and will opt for either mailing in or dropping off a ballot. So the election night results will likely be skewed in Trump's favor, even though they are incomplete. Trump will seize on this and declare victory early, so she is saying Biden should not concede until all votes have been counted.
 
Activist Justices are a very real threat to our Constitution and our nation. Your made up scenario is not.

I would bet you money that this exact scenario is going to happen, but you would never pay up. Let's just remember this conversation and revisit it.
 
Who knows what to believe. If RBG said that it removes all doubt that she was a political hack. However I don't put it past the left to have made that quote up. Either way the fact that she "hung on" past the age where any reasonable person would say she was mentally and physically capable of fully discharging her duties leads me to conclude that she had political motivation or simply she loved the status and power and couldn't let go of it.

We need to end lifetime appointments of SCOTUS justices.

As to RBG's "deathbed statement" - who fvcking cares. She doesn't decide when the next SC Justice will be appointed and approved. The President and the Senate do. The Nation doesn't run on the wishes of a dead SC Justice - regardless of how influential she was (and there is no denying RBG's legacy).
 
You are taking HRC's comments on not conceding out of context. What she meant, and what has been discussed by others, is that Trump voters (who don't believe in science) will be more likely to go out and vote in person that democratic voters who believe the virus is real and will opt for either mailing in or dropping off a ballot. So the election night results will likely be skewed in Trump's favor, even though they are incomplete. Trump will seize on this and declare victory early, so she is saying Biden should not concede until all votes have been counted.
I am taking HRC's comments out of context, but Trump not committing to accept the results if there is massive fraud due to mail in votes have not been, right?
 
I would bet you money that this exact scenario is going to happen, but you would never pay up. Let's just remember this conversation and revisit it.

If there is a question of fraud and the results are close, then I hope he does contest it. In fact as a citizen I demand it. Who in their right mind would accept election results if there is a question that fraud may have impacted the outcome? Unless of course they are getting money under the table to "go along to get along".

Contesting an election is not a constitutional crisis. Stop with the hyperbole.
 
I am taking HRC's comments out of context, but Trump not committing to accept the results if there is massive fraud due to mail in votes have not been, right?

Saying the election is "rigged" is very different than saying "let all of the votes be counted". I am sure you can see that if you take a step back.
 
ADVERTISEMENT