Ruth Bader Ginsburg crossed a very important line

[dank69]

Like it or not, they are doing that. They're saying, 'No more justices for you. Your replacement gets this one.' That's that pesky 'consent' part, son. Don't worry. Your beloved Hillary will be elected and she'll pick a nice liberal activist judge and RBG will stay on and continue to be her sweet liberal self as well. Hillary will get a minimum of 2 and very likely 3 picks for the court; all will be left leaning justices. You libs should be happy.

That's bullshit and you know it. If we had a GOP President and it was looking likely that Hillary was going to be elected in November and Democrats blocked the GOP nomination saying you don't get any more appointments, the GOP would be screaming bloody murder, you included.

 

[Thump553]

Certainly out of the ordinary custom but nothing in the judicial ethics rules prohibits her from publicly expressing her opinion-she is an American citizen with First Amendment rights for Pete's sake. Justice "pubic hair" Clarence Thomas certainly is not shy about stating his political opinions or getting actively involved in political activities.

It's just plain stupid to think she would resign if Trump was elected-that would give him a slot to fill-exactly what she is warning against. Although i don't think Ivanka can be VP and a Supreme Court justice at the same time.

 

[Painman]

Certainly out of the ordinary custom but nothing in the judicial ethics rules prohibits her from publicly expressing her opinion-she is an American citizen with First Amendment rights for Pete's sake. Justice "pubic hair" Clarence Thomas certainly is not shy about stating his political opinions or getting actively involved in political activities.

It's just plain stupid to think she would resign if Trump was elected-that would give him a slot to fill-exactly what she is warning against. Although i don't think Ivanka can be VP and a Supreme Court justice at the same time.

I think it's pretty clear that if Trump is elected, she'll die at the bench if necessary.

 

[FerrelGeek]

The GOP would be doing exactly as you say, as they should in that instance; just as the dems are now. You see, I'm being fair. Sadly, everything in this country is being viewed through the polarizing lens of politics these days. My intent wasn't to justify one party over another; I'm just speaking to the reality as it is today. It's nothing personal or partisan. If you've even half followed my posts I have no love for the GOP; I've lost track of how many times I've referred to them as the stupid party, let alone other things.

That's bullshit and you know it. If we had a GOP President and it was looking likely that Hillary was going to be elected in November and Democrats blocked the GOP nomination saying you don't get any more appointments, the GOP would be screaming bloody murder, you included.

 

[Jhhnn]

The GOP would be doing exactly as you say, as they should in that instance; just as the dems are now. You see, I'm being fair. Sadly, everything in this country is being viewed through the polarizing lens of politics these days. My intent wasn't to justify one party over another; I'm just speaking to the reality as it is today. It's nothing personal or partisan. If you've even half followed my posts I have no love for the GOP; I've lost track of how many times I've referred to them as the stupid party, let alone other things.

The basic proposition of refusing to even give Garland a hearing is unfair & another example of Repub spite & obstructionism. It's shameful because it cripples the SCOTUS.

In Clinton's place, I'd call for his swift confirmation in my victory speech.

 

[Painman]

https://www.google.com/#q=is+merrick+garland+liberal

The jury is very much out.

 

[LegendKiller]

The basic proposition of refusing to even give Garland a hearing is unfair & another example of Repub spite & obstructionism. It's shameful because it cripples the SCOTUS.

In Clinton's place, I'd call for his swift confirmation in my victory speech.

Yeah, wouldn't want the Biden rule to go both ways.

 

[emperus]

Yeah, wouldn't want the Biden rule to go both ways.

It's like your brain is one huge Republican Propaganda machine.

 

[LegendKiller]

It's like your brain is one huge Republican Propaganda machine.

And yours isn't one for the dems?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[IronWing]

I didn't care for it when O'Conner shot her mouth off about Gore and that election really did end up on her plate and I don't care for it with Ginsburg either.

 

[dank69]

The GOP would be doing exactly as you say, as they should in that instance; just as the dems are now. You see, I'm being fair. Sadly, everything in this country is being viewed through the polarizing lens of politics these days. My intent wasn't to justify one party over another; I'm just speaking to the reality as it is today. It's nothing personal or partisan. If you've even half followed my posts I have no love for the GOP; I've lost track of how many times I've referred to them as the stupid party, let alone other things.

It's not okay for either party to say to the sitting President that you don't get to nominate people anymore.

 

[werepossum]

It's not okay for either party to say to the sitting President that you don't get to nominate people anymore.

This. For Christ's sake, at least PRETEND to do your damned jobs.

 

[emperus]

And yours isn't one for the dems?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Is that how you see life? Yours is a Republican Propoganda machine so mine must be a Democratic Propoganda machine?

Here is what Biden said. His speech was on June 25th 1992.

""Should a justice resign this summer and the president move to name a successor, actions that will occur just days before the Democratic Presidential Convention and weeks before the Republican Convention meets, a process that is already in doubt in the minds of many will become distrusted by all. Senate consideration of a nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee, or to the Senate itself.

Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

He made the speech on June 25th, weeks before the Party Conventions. Meaning the confirmation process would happen during the heart of the elections. Scalia died 4 months before his speech. Arguably more than enough time to name and confirm a nominee before the conventions. He is also arguing that the current president should be allowed to pick someone but after the actual elections. He is not arguing as the Republicans are that the current president not be allowed to pick someone but the next president should appoint the next supreme court judge.

Again, very differing situations from the propoganda you heard and keep repeating.

 

[Jhhnn]

https://www.google.com/#q=is+merrick+garland+liberal

The jury is very much out.

Immaterial. Obama has the right & the obligation to nominate & the Senate has the obligation to advise & consent or not consent. Garland's ideology makes no difference.

 

[LegendKiller]

Is that how you see life? Yours is a Republican Propoganda machine so mine must be a Democratic Propoganda machine?

Here is what Biden said. His speech was on June 25th 1992.



He made the speech on June 25th, weeks before the Party Conventions. Meaning the confirmation process would happen during the heart of the elections. Scalia died 4 months before his speech. Arguably more than enough time to name and confirm a nominee before the conventions. He is also arguing that the current president should be allowed to pick someone but after the actual elections. He is not arguing as the Republicans are that the current president not be allowed to pick someone but the next president should appoint the next supreme court judge.

Again, very differing situations from the propoganda you heard and keep repeating.

Doesn't matter. The Biden/Schumer/Reid rule is in place. You guys continually fuck up our government, first by this, then by your charade of a "sit in", breaking house rules and general decorum.

The pendulum swings both ways. Hopefully it's about to kick you right in the ass.

 

[Painman]

Immaterial. Obama has the right & the obligation to nominate & the Senate has the obligation to advise & consent or not consent. Garland's ideology makes no difference.

Not immaterial, but academic.

 

[Jhhnn]

Is that how you see life? Yours is a Republican Propoganda machine so mine must be a Democratic Propoganda machine?

Here is what Biden said. His speech was on June 25th 1992.



He made the speech on June 25th, weeks before the Party Conventions. Meaning the confirmation process would happen during the heart of the elections. Scalia died 4 months before his speech. Arguably more than enough time to name and confirm a nominee before the conventions. He is also arguing that the current president should be allowed to pick someone but after the actual elections. He is not arguing as the Republicans are that the current president not be allowed to pick someone but the next president should appoint the next supreme court judge.

Again, very differing situations from the propoganda you heard and keep repeating.

It's LK. He's beyond reason, overwhelmed by cynicism & hatred.

The fact that he can blame Dems for something that never happened means Repubs can be excused for the reality they create.

 

[werepossum]

https://www.google.com/#q=is+merrick+garland+liberal

The jury is very much out.

Then they should vote him down. However, by refusing to vet and vote, they are not doing the jobs they are paid to do.

Doesn't matter. The Biden/Schumer/Reid rule is in place. You guys continually fuck up our government, first by this, then by your charade of a "sit in", breaking house rules and general decorum.

The pendulum swings both ways. Hopefully it's about to kick you right in the ass.

Technically the Democrats only promised to fuck up our government should the occasion arise. The Pubbies DID fuck up our government. Granted, not in a vacuum, but each is responsible for his own actions. "He did it first" is a poor defense; "He threatened to do it first" is no defense at all.

It's LK. He's beyond reason, overwhelmed by cynicism & hatred.

The fact that he can blame Dems for something that never happened means Repubs can be excused for the reality they create.

Oh, the ironing.

 

[Knowing]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...n-judicial-ethics-0712-jm-20160711-story.html

But to say her public comments are unusual is like saying dancing cows are scarce. Supreme Court justices don't — at least until now — take public stands on presidential or other elections. One reason is that they are barred from doing so by the federal code of judicial conduct, which states that as a general rule, judges shall not "publicly endorse or publicly oppose another candidate for public office." They also aren't allowed to make speeches on behalf of political organizations or give money to candidates.
The reasons for the ban are clear and sensible. Judges who sit on the federal bench are protected from political pressures by the life tenure provided in the Constitution. Courts are often asked to rule on matters of public controversy, and the litigants on either side are entitled to expect that the presiding judges will evaluate their arguments fairly.
Nowhere is that impartiality more important than in the highest court in the land, which has the final word on a host of grave questions. For justices to descend into partisan election campaigns would undermine public faith in their willingness to assess each case strictly on its legal merits. It would also encourage justices to let their political biases affect, if not determine, their decisions.

I think it's interesting how exigent circumstances have forced the last two presidents' administrations to bend, break, or re-evaluate and reinterpret rules. Also, how quick partisans on either side of the aisle are to excuse their own while blaming the other side.

Lots of really great precedents that could be exploited if indeed a truly evil individual were elected to the right (wrong) office.

 

[woolfe9998]

The basic proposition of refusing to even give Garland a hearing is unfair & another example of Repub spite & obstructionism. It's shameful because it cripples the SCOTUS.

In Clinton's place, I'd call for his swift confirmation in my victory speech.

Part of me wants her to nominate someone farther to the left just to spite the GOP for blocking Garland. I know, I'm not being very mature but I feel that bad behavior should have consequences.

 

[fskimospy]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...n-judicial-ethics-0712-jm-20160711-story.html

I think it's interesting how exigent circumstances have forced the last two presidents' administrations to bend, break, or re-evaluate and reinterpret rules. Also, how quick partisans on either side of the aisle are to excuse their own while blaming the other side.

Lots of really great precedents that could be exploited if indeed a truly evil individual were elected to the right (wrong) office.

The Supreme Court is not bound by the federal code of judicial conduct. That would be unconstitutional.

That being said, I think it was inappropriate of her to say. While it's fairly obvious that the court is pretty politicized there's always that fig leaf of impartiality that I think is actually important to the court's legitimacy. They should keep that if possible.

 

[Moonbeam]

That being said, I think it was inappropriate of her to say. While it's fairly obvious that the court is pretty politicized there's always that fig leaf of impartiality that I think is actually important to the court's legitimacy. They should keep that if possible.

They elected Bush. The Senate won't act on the President's recommendations, 5,4 5,4 its a joke.

 

[fskimospy]

Part of me wants her to nominate someone farther to the left just to spite the GOP for blocking Garland. I know, I'm not being very mature but I feel that bad behavior should have consequences.

I'm going to be interested to see how this plays out starting in October or so. If it still looks like Trump is going down in flames and maybe bringing the GOP Senate with him I wonder if they will suddenly change their minds and confirm him. Either that or if/when Hillary wins try to confirm Garland before her inauguration.

That would in some ways be a tough sell considering their message was 'the American people should have a voice in who gets nominated' though. My guess is if they keep the Senate they will let her nominate whoever she wants. If they lose the Senate they will try to confirm Garland by saying that America spoke to continue Obama's policies through Hillary so that's close enough.

 

[Thump553]

The so-called "Biden Rule" is certainly not a rule and was nothing more than a decades old speech excerpt until some sharp-eyed GOP researcher found it. The current GOP refusal to do their job is absolutely unprecedented. A strong argument could be made for the GOP leaders to be in violation of their oath to uphold the Constitution by refusing to undertake an obligation squarely laid upon them.

Assuming Hillary wins in November it is quite possible Obama will withdraw the nomination and let Hillary pick her own nominee. He is well within his power and his rights to do so.

 

[Knowing]

That would be unconstitutional.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.