Ruth Bader Ginsburg crossed a very important line

[ivwshane]

If the Biden rule were actually something then I guess the senate will vote on Obama's nomination after the election. Anyone want to place any bets on whether or not that happens?

 

[fskimospy]

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

1. Seems like a violation of the separation of powers in that it's giving Congress control over how a coequal branch conducts its business.

2. All that aside, who could constitutionally enforce this code of conduct? The Supreme Court is by definition supreme so who would judge if they had violated the code? Lower courts can't bind the decisions of higher courts and there can't be a higher court.

 

[emperus]

If the Biden rule were actually something then I guess the senate will vote on Obama's nomination after the election. Anyone want to place any bets on whether or not that happens?

Despite their argument that they want to let the next president decide. I think if Hilary wins they will vote on Obama's nomination instead of Hilary picking a further left justice and backing themselves in a corner.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Despite their argument that they want to let the next president decide. I think if Hilary wins they will vote on Obama's nomination instead of Hilary picking a further left justice and backing themselves in a corner.

The whole notion of stacking the court is ridiculous, but the reality is that even SCOTUS justices align to partisan agendas. Having said that, it's a calculated risk to delay SCOTUS appointments to the next President.

Republicans have no leverage over Obama. He is a popular sitting President. They have no bargaining chip so easier to obstruct, and make SCOTUS appointments a rallying cry for Congressional seats.

Assuming a Clinton Presidency, she will enter the White House bloodied by what I expect will be a bitter content with Trump, probably starting her administration with low favorability ratings and the looming threat of continued partisan investigations into her email. Not to mention potentially low voter turnout, which will still give her victory but arguably a weak mandate.

Of course this scenario also assumes the Republicans hold their majority in Congress.

My preference would be a bipartisan appointment that introduces a wild card but well respected justice into the mix. Not going to happen under the current poisoned political climate.

 

[ivwshane]

The whole notion of stacking the court is ridiculous, but the reality is that even SCOTUS justices align to partisan agendas. Having said that, it's a calculated risk to delay SCOTUS appointments to the next President.

Republicans have no leverage over Obama. He is a popular sitting President. They have no bargaining chip so easier to obstruct, and make SCOTUS appointments a rallying cry for Congressional seats.

Assuming a Clinton Presidency, she will enter the White House bloodied by what I expect will be a bitter content with Trump, probably starting her administration with low favorability ratings and the looming threat of continued partisan investigations into her email. Not to mention potentially low voter turnout, which will still give her victory but arguably a weak mandate.

Of course this scenario also assumes the Republicans hold their majority in Congress.

My preference would be a bipartisan appointment that introduces a wild card but well respected justice into the mix.

You can't get more neutral than garland.

 

[zinfamous]

Correct me if I'm wrong, didn't one of the current guys shout "You lie" to Obama about Citizen's United. Again I may be wrong.

that was some 22 year-old freshman redneck Congressman choking on his dip from the peanut gallery.

 

[Jhhnn]

that was some 22 year-old freshman redneck Congressman choking on his dip from the peanut gallery.

This guy-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Wilson_(U.S._politician)

He was a Teahadi before there was Teahad.

 

[zinfamous]

This guy-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Wilson_(U.S._politician)

He was a Teahadi before there was Teahad.

LOL--I recall him being one of those children that was elected that year to replace one of the real republicans that had their long-held seat.

Didn't realize it was a child pretending to be an adult.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Not disagreeing with you guys. I was just stating the new reality of our polarized political world. I would seriously bet that the Ds would do the same given the current political climate. It's just where we've come to in our decaying republic.

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

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.

 

[werepossum]

Not disagreeing with you guys. I was just stating the new reality of our polarized political world. I would seriously bet that the Ds would do the same given the current political climate. It's just where we've come to in our decaying republic.

This, exactly. However, the Democrats have changed our immigration to bring in more poor and more non-Europeans, plus they largely control the media and our educational system. So I suspect it won't be long until we fully enter the next stage of decay, that of a corrupt single party unity.

Hey, at least things will look like they are working.

 

[Thump553]

Despite their argument that they want to let the next president decide. I think if Hilary wins they will vote on Obama's nomination instead of Hilary picking a further left justice and backing themselves in a corner.

You are assuming Obama will not withdraw the nomination which he could do in five minutes. The GOP strategy on the Garland nomination is stupidity based on pigheadedness and they have pretty much boxed themselves into a can't win situation (assuming USA doesn't go insane and elect Trump as the last President of the USA).

 

[Jhhnn]

Not disagreeing with you guys. I was just stating the new reality of our polarized political world. I would seriously bet that the Ds would do the same given the current political climate. It's just where we've come to in our decaying republic.

You have to believe in that fact free assertion to condone Repub conduct, obviously.

"They would if they could" is just a variant of "They're just as bad" which is demonstrable bullshit. From 2008 forward, Repubs have provided the most obstructionist Congresses in history. If the people won't choose them to lead they'll be damned if they'll let anybody else do it well.

 

[thraashman]

You are assuming Obama will not withdraw the nomination which he could do in five minutes. The GOP strategy on the Garland nomination is stupidity based on pigheadedness and they have pretty much boxed themselves into a can't win situation (assuming USA doesn't go insane and elect Trump as the last President of the USA).

I don't think Obama would though. Unlike the current crop of Republicans, Obama didn't nominate Garland as some political ploy. He did it because the man is qualified and Obama was doing his job. Have the current Republicans done ANYTHING over the last 7½ years that wasn't wholly for political purposes?

 

[Starbuck1975]

You can't get more neutral than garland.

Stroke of genius on Obama's part. Give the Republicans someone they can live with and force their hand. Do you go with the sure thing but lose a congressional district boogeyman man talking point or do you go for the nuclear option.

 

[zinfamous]

This, exactly. However, the Democrats have changed our immigration to bring in more poor and more non-Europeans,

weird, I recall Reagan being a republican and having the full-pledged army of the republican party behind him when he made that happen.

plus they largely control the media and our educational system. So I suspect it won't be long until we fully enter the next stage of decay, that of a corrupt single party unity

ah, that ol' LMSM, boogeyman, eh?

 

[Jhhnn]

Stroke of genius on Obama's part. Give the Republicans someone they can live with and force their hand. Do you go with the sure thing but lose a congressional district boogeyman man talking point or do you go for the nuclear option.

Or just do the right thing, which is try to fill the vacancy as quickly & as reasonably as possible for the good of the institution of the SCOTUS and the People. Be reasonable in the process in an attempt to insure success. Get all that shoved back in your face by people whose main purpose in life has been to do just that since 2008. Repubs have never questioned Garland's suitability but rather Obama's right to make the pick at all. It's just one more spiteful act in a long string of them.

The best thing Hillary can do about it is to affirm Garland & Obama's right to name him, then watch McConnell eat crow. If Repubs won't do it that way, re-nominate Garland her first day in office.

That would affirm the Constitution

 

[umbrella39]

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

Yep, rinse, wash, repeat, same old debunked talking points...

The one thing we all must remember about the GOP and Obama nominations to the courts, in the entire history of our country, only a grand total of 68 individual nominees have been blocked prior to Obama taking office.


Since 2009, at total of 79 individual nominees for the courts have been blocked during Obama’s term, for a total of 147.


So can we cut the BS about this being an election year issue or that Biden said this and Obama said that? The point and FACT remains that 6 times since 1900 there have been SCOTUS nominations during election years and never once has they failed to vote or confirm the nomination. This is your modern day GOP trying to reinvent history. Not going to happen.

 

[Paratus]

I'm not sure what all I feel about her actions. I did however find this article interesting. It covers possible reasons the notorious RBG made the comments she did.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2016/07/ruth_bader_ginsburg_risks_her_legacy_to_insult_donald_trump.html

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has decided to take a stand against a major party’s presidential candidate in a way that she—and arguably no prior justice—has ever done before. Over the course of several interviews, the justice has spent the last few days hammering Donald Trump for his reckless campaign and outrageous policies, suggesting that a President Trump would pose a serious danger to the republic. Her explicitly political statements set off a familiar firestorm about whether Ginsburg had “crossed the line,” sending the conservative blogosphere in particular into howling fantods. Critics on the left and right have criticized Ginsburg’s comments as explosive, unprecedented, and unethical.

They are. That’s the point.......

 

[jackstar7]

LK delivers full LK in another thread. What is he going to do after the conventions when things really get rolling?

 

[Jhhnn]

LK delivers full LK in another thread. What is he going to do after the conventions when things really get rolling?

He'll be working that crazy beat until November.

 

[sportage]

We all know that right wing republicans will never forgive Scalia for dropping dead on them.
And the court is and has been ruling against their agenda ever since.
But tit for tat does not apply here.
Just because Scalia died and Ginsburg is still merrily strolling along doesn't give pissed off republicans a free GO To JAIL card to play.
If republicans hope to balance the score, they will need for their own Pat Robertson to re-engage his prayer vigils asking for her death or for her cancer to return.
Something very evil.
That type of evil only Pat Robertson could pull off.

 

[lopri]

I do not understand how liberals can defend Justice Ginsberg's initial remarks, let alone her doubling-down the next day. "She has the 1st amendment right" is a non sequitur because she was not speaking in her private capacity. She can do it with her family, friends, and colleagues, and few will bat an eye even if those conversations leaked out. But she consciously chose to speak out in a setting where she was giving an interview as the SCOTUS justice.

It is also a misguided defense to say that "Everyone already knows what she believes in, so what is the big deal?" Well, for one thing, one's spoken words tend to reinforce one's thoughts, consciously or subconsciously. We all have a sense of honor, and want to avoid being seen as a hypocrite. When justice makes a public comment on a political issue, she may have limited her future opinions on similar issues for fear of being seen inconsistent. That is why we require judges to maintain appearance of neutrality - because the court's legitimacy depends on it, and because languages are not mere expression of thoughts. They also reinforces ones previous thoughts.

I frankly have no idea what her intention was. She is an extremely smart person and by all accounts her remarks were not a momentary slip in the heat of discussion. She must have weighed the cost and risks of her speaking out, and I wonder what convinced her to go on with the plan. What did she deem such an urgent issue that she would go out of the established norm, fully aware that her comments will attract backlash?

 

[ivwshane]

Just a point of fact, no matter how you feel about RBG's comments, they weren't illegal, they aren't disallowed, and they aren't a violation of her oath or duty. Anything saying as much or saying she should step down or recuse herself are simply wishful thinking and have no basis in terms of reality, politics, or with regards to the constitution.

 

[compuwiz1]

You can't get more neutral than garland.

I think the GOP, as we knew it is dead. Not confirming Garland, to me, seems more about fucking with Obama and making sure that the next POTUS is the one to choose, probably figuring on Trump getting elected. Trump might just nominate a liberal....you never know with that guy. ???

 

[ivwshane]

I think the GOP, as we knew it is dead. Not confirming Garland, to me, seems more about fucking with Obama and making sure that the next POTUS is the one to choose, probably figuring on Trump getting elected. Trump might just nominate a liberal....you never know with that guy. ???

Wow! I don't know what is more shocking, the fact that you now see the Republicans motives for what they are or the fact that it has taken you this long to see it?

Serious question: what specifically made you come to this conclusion? Was it a series of events or was there something particular that you saw that can't be explained as anything more than just fucking with Obama?