Ruth Bader Ginsburg crossed a very important line

[Jhhnn]

Just shows poor judgement. Which is kinda a bad thing for somebody in her position.

We really need to set a retirement age for SCOTUS, I wouldn't be surprised if she is half senile.

I'm sure she wouldn't be surprised if you were half-witted, either.

 

[glenn1]

It's remarkable how her words are seen as an apology to Trump.



http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-i-regret-making-donald-trump-remarks/

"I should have kept my mouth shut" isn't the same as an admission of error wrt what she said about Trump. She certainly didn't withdraw her remarks about Senate Repubs' attack on the institution of the SCOTUS, either.

Yeah we realize that she's a partisan hack and makes no apologies for it. Scalia was also. Her opening her mouth to confirm what we already knew wasn't some grand revelation. Expecting an actual apology where she expressed regret for the content of her speech rather than just getting caught ('keep my mouth shut' in your words) would represent a level of humility and civility that I don't think she possesses. However her "apology" hit the actual concern of most people on both the right and left - namely that we don't expect you not to have political opinions when you're a judge, but it's unethical to act upon them in a political fashion by trying to influence voters in an election.

 

[Jhhnn]

Yeah we realize that she's a partisan hack and makes no apologies for it. Scalia was also. Her opening her mouth to confirm what we already knew wasn't some grand revelation. Expecting an actual apology where she expressed regret for the content of her speech rather than just getting caught ('keep my mouth shut' in your words) would represent a level of humility and civility that I don't think she possesses.

You mean a level of stupidity that she doesn't possess. It's clear that what she said was, indeed, all too true. Well, other than to those easily put in thrall by con men.

However her "apology" hit the actual concern of most people on both the right and left - namely that we don't expect you not to have political opinions when you're a judge, but it's unethical to act upon them in a political fashion by trying to influence voters in an election.

Context is everything. Put it all in the context mentioned earlier- Repubs putting their own political interests above the interests of the institution of the Court, the Constitutional separation of powers and the interests of the People. Garland is about as apolitical a pick as possible, obviously not who right wing zealots want at all.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Just shows poor judgement. Which is kinda a bad thing for somebody in her position.

We really need to set a retirement age for SCOTUS, I wouldn't be surprised if she is half senile.

Don't worry, I'm sure she will retire at some point during Hillary's 8 year term.

 

[Blackjack200]

Don't worry, I'm sure she will retire at some point during Hillary's 8 year term.

I'm under no illusion that a GOP Senate will confirm or even consider a SCOTUS justice under Clinton. They will make some ridiculous claim about one of their manufactured scandals disqualifying her from nominating justices, and then let the SCOTUS dwindle to seven, then six justices. That's how bad the GOP and their constituents are right now.

If the Senate somehow flips, of course that's another story.

 

[Jaskalas]

IMO, the only important line Ginsburg crossed was 80 years old.
Public servants should probably automatically retire at that age.

 

[werepossum]

Well I like to pretend that I believe the illusion. When a justice does something like this, it makes it pretty damn hard for me to do that with any credibility.

Jesus this is depressing. We are all so damn jaded and cynical. I wish we could get a young fresh faced optimistic poster in here to brighten the place up...... and shred mercilessly.

I'm just the opposite - I want to see through the illusion so that I can see the steamroller coming toward me. Not that I can do anything about it.

Agreed about the young fresh faced optimistic poster.

Garland doesn't fit that mold at all.

True. Garland is more like the old GOP nominees like Kennedy and Souter, where they picked someone the Dems wouldn't savage and hoped for the best. The big difference is that for Obama it isn't just capitulation, but also brilliant politics.

 

[werepossum]

yeah, but they probably argued a lot, like any good friend.

I'm just surprised she didn't use the "I'm old and confused, leave me the fuck alone!" excuse.

It's why Target doesn't bother whenever they catch her stealing batteries.

That made me laugh out loud - which left me feeling confused and a bit guilty.

IMO, the only important line Ginsburg crossed was 80 years old.
Public servants should probably automatically retire at that age.

True. Makes no sense to be trusted with interpretation of the Constitution, but not car keys or the TV remote.

 

[bshole]

That made me laugh out loud - which left me feeling confused and a bit guilty.

Yea I think Paratus is the most intelligent P&N poster and Zin is the wittiest. We should create a thread dedicated to Zinisms. Gawd I hope he never leaves, my life would be a little bit emptier if he did.

 

[zinfamous]

Well, I shamelessly stole it from Seinfeld. :\

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm2SuAPuA38

 

[Phynaz]

I'm sure she wouldn't be surprised if you were half-witted, either.

Good thing I don't have to make the decisions she does.

 

[zinfamous]

G Dub actually championed a very reasonable model of SCOTUS term limits of something like 16 years, with an option to step down/retire and only become eligible again after the appointment expiration or retiring 4 years later.

There was a model for phasing out current members if such a policy were to be put in place (which, I think, was for them to just serve out their natural grandfathered term).

Once in place, the rotation of appointments would be such that every president gets about one appointment per term, with no more than 2 possible appointments for a 2-term POTUS.

 

[bshole]

Well, I shamelessly stole it from Seinfeld. :\

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vm2SuAPuA38

Damnit Zin, I knew that the reference rang a bell and from my favorite show no less. Gawd I love that episode, the infamous bathroom book.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

If or when she resigns Diddy should pick her up at the front steps of the Supreme Court in this car see around the 2:15 mark.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=glEiPXAYE-U

 

[bshole]

I'm under no illusion that a GOP Senate will confirm or even consider a SCOTUS justice under Clinton. They will make some ridiculous claim about one of their manufactured scandals disqualifying her from nominating justices, and then let the SCOTUS dwindle to seven, then six justices. That's how bad the GOP and their constituents are right now.

If the Senate somehow flips, of course that's another story.

Damn dude, that is world class cynicism.

 

[Blackjack200]

You really can't see that happening?

I have a harder time imagining Mitch McConnell waking up on Wednesday November 9th and saying "gee, guess we lost, better get rolling on those SCOTUS noms..."

 

[brycejones]

You really can't see that happening?

I have a harder time imagining Mitch McConnell waking up on Wednesday November 9th and saying "gee, guess we lost, better get rolling on those SCOTUS noms..."

Foghorn Leghorn will never get off the pot.

 

[TeeJay1952]

Could you try that again in English?

Sure It is a bit of a if - then logic sequence.
If you think the Senate is unconstitutionally refusing to Advise and Consent then you cannot retire and give more power to a illegal attempt to pack court . Court's first duty is to safeguard against excessive reaches of power as defined in Constitution.
So if you were a tired Judge it would be your duty to "Soldier On!"

 

[PokerGuy]

Sure It is a bit of a if - then logic sequence.
If you think the Senate is unconstitutionally refusing to Advise and Consent

Don't know where you got that crap from, but there is nothing that says the senate has to have a vote on a certain nominee in a certain amount of time. There is nothing "unconstitutional" about them not voting on a candidate right now.

then you cannot retire and give more power to a illegal attempt to pack court .

Illegal attempt to "pack the court".. by whom? The president nominates, is he packing the court? Is refusing to consent to someone "packing the court"? What idiocy. Seriously, wherever you got whatever terrible education, go ask them for your money back.

 

[thraashman]

Don't know where you got that crap from, but there is nothing that says the senate has to have a vote on a certain nominee in a certain amount of time. There is nothing "unconstitutional" about them not voting on a candidate right now.

It doesn't give a time limit, but the Republicans are not delaying, they're outright refusing. And that is absolutely them balking at their constitutional duty. The current crop of Republicans have spent 7 years refusing to do their jobs and skirting the line of committing sedition. And in the case of one Tom Cotton and his 46 Republican friends they almost definitely committed treason.

 

[theeedude]

Senate doesn't have to do anything, and Ginsburg doesn't have to do anything. We'll all just have to get over it.

 

[LegendKiller]

It doesn't give a time limit, but the Republicans are not delaying, they're outright refusing. And that is absolutely them balking at their constitutional duty. The current crop of Republicans have spent 7 years refusing to do their jobs and skirting the line of committing sedition. And in the case of one Tom Cotton and his 46 Republican friends they almost definitely committed treason.

There is absolutely no constitutional requirement for them to confirm or deny a recommended appointment.

The biden/Schumer Rule is in effect. Your team wants to play games, now you don't like the result. Deal with it.

Just like the whole moronic sit-in rejected the rules of the House and it was just a fundraiser. Your party has rejected the rule of law.

 

[fskimospy]

There is absolutely no constitutional requirement for them to confirm or deny a recommended appointment.

The biden/Schumer Rule is in effect. Your team wants to play games, now you don't like the result. Deal with it.

Just like the whole moronic sit-in rejected the rules of the House and it was just a fundraiser. Your party has rejected the rule of law.

There is no such thing as a 'Biden Rule' that says the Senate will not vote on justices in a situation like this. If you believe it you've been duped yet again.

It never ceases to amaze me how easily conservatives can be convinced of anything so long as it suits their personal preferences.

 

[LegendKiller]

There is no such thing as a 'Biden Rule' that says the Senate will not vote on justices in a situation like this. If you believe it you've been duped yet again.

It never ceases to amaze me how easily conservatives can be convinced of anything so long as it suits their personal preferences.

It utterly amazes me that the dems don't understand the concept of blowback. The rule isn't codified in law but in practice. Deal with it.

 

[thraashman]

It utterly amazes me that the dems don't understand the concept of blowback. The rule isn't codified in law but in practice. Deal with it.

If something requires practice to be codified then it should be called the McConnell rule because nothing was ever practiced by a Democrat. I don't expect you to make sense though as you've proven regularly that you are just the dumbest fuck on here.

Interesting thing about the Constitution is that is says the appointment is done by the President with advice and consent. There are many legal scholars who feel that if the Senate absolutely refuses to even consider ANY appointment that they are effectively waiving their right and the President can appoint his nominee without input from the Senate. Funny thing is if the President treated the Constitution like Republicans do, then he'd probably actually do it. It's almost unfortunate that he's a better person than any Republican.