RBG has passed away
-
-
@Copper said in RBG has passed away:
@Jolly said in RBG has passed away:
Just saw Coons from Connecticut interviewed.
They don't call them that in Connecticut.
-
@Copper said in RBG has passed away:
@Jolly said in RBG has passed away:
Just saw Coons from Connecticut interviewed.
They don't call them that in Connecticut.
Speak to the Coons...
-
You were confusing me! Coons is from DE...
-
It’s going to be hard to get a vote in before the election. More likely to happen in Mid-November which makes things all kinds of more interesting. I find those scenarios more interesting...
I agree with Jon about the open seat helping Trump’s re-election efforts. It definitely has me rethinking my options.
-
@LuFins-Dad said in RBG has passed away:
You were confusing me! Coons is from DE...
Sorry.
They all look alike to me... -
@LuFins-Dad said in RBG has passed away:
It’s going to be hard to get a vote in before the election. More likely to happen in Mid-November which makes things all kinds of more interesting. I find those scenarios more interesting...
I agree with Jon about the open seat helping Trump’s re-election efforts. It definitely has me rethinking my options.
LuFins, what do you mean by "rethinking my options?"
I have found that when things are complicated, like 10 layers thick, I can get to layer 3-4 by myself. So, whenever I can learn from someone else, that's helpful and gives me things to ponder.
I have also never been able to "read" people very well. I'm serious, and it's been pointed out to me over the years. I'm great at "words have meaning, so say what you mean and mean what you say!" But, when it comes out that I should "read between the lines" I have a tough time. Body language, expressions, devious people, I have to be very cautious even if I don't really understand the hidden dynamics.
Hey, just answer the damn question. I went off on my nutso weakness, what a marroon I am at times.
-
@jon-nyc said in RBG has passed away:
Nice little roundup here.
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 2016I haven’t read the rest of the thread yet but I’d imagine there’s an equally long list of democrat quotes in 2016 saying the opposite, that a nominee should be voted on, regardless of the election.
-
-
@Rainman I guess you would call me a Never Trumper, I likely wasn’t going to vote for him in November, and still may not. An actual open SC seat, though? Not a hypothetical seat, but a true blue vacancy? Yeah, that could tip the balance.
If he got the seat filled beforehand, it would lessen the chance of him getting my vote.
Curious to see how it affects some of the other Never Trumpers. @89th does this change things at all for you?
-
@LuFins-Dad said in RBG has passed away:
Curious to see how it affects some of the other Never Trumpers. @89th does this change things at all for you?
Not really, mainly because Virginia will go for Biden regardless.
That being said, I had already factored in the fact that 1-3 SCOTUS seats were at play between now and 2024 anyway (RGB definitely, Thomas/Alito maybe), so this current vacancy was already considered.
Now, if Virginia were in play, I would consider voting for Trump because I think it's important to keep the courts as conservative as possible. Free societies naturally become liberal over time and I think conservative courts help to temper the velocity to which that happens.
-
@89th said
That being said, I had already factored in the fact that 1-3 SCOTUS seats were at play between now and 2024 anyway (RGB definitely, Thomas/Alito maybe), so this current vacancy was already considered.
Don't forget Bryer; he's in his 80's as well.
-
Kevin Williamson's rather, ahem, acerbic take on the Ginsburg legacy:
https://www.nationalreview.com/the-tuesday/ruth-bader-ginsburg-didnt-understand-her-job/
Ruth Bader Ginsburg did a great many interesting and impressive things in her life, but she never did the one thing she probably really should have done: run for office. Ruth Bader Ginsburg wasn’t an associate justice of the Supreme Court — not really: She was a legislator in judicial drag.
You need not take my word on this: Ask her admirers. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a vision for America,” Linda Hirshman argues in the Washington Post. What was her vision? “To make America fairer, to make justice bigger.” That is not a job for a judge — that is a job for a legislator. The job of making law properly belongs to — some people find this part hard to handle — lawmakers. Making law is not the job of the judge. The job of the judge is to see that the law is followed and applied in a given case. It does not matter if the law is unfair or if the law is unjust — that is not the judge’s concern. If you have a vision for America, and desire to make the law more fair or more just, then there is a place for you: Congress. That is where the laws are made.
Much more at the link.
-
@George-K said in RBG has passed away:
Murkowski (as commented above) says, "No."
Not so fast....
If Democrats were counting on Lisa Murkowski to vote against President Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court, they should think again.
Sen. Murkowski said Tuesday she could not rule out that she would vote to confirm a Trump nominee if the Judiciary Committee approves one before the November election.
“I know everybody wants to ask the question, ‘will you confirm the nominee?’” she said outside the Capitol, as her Republican colleagues were gathering for their weekly policy lunch. “We don’t have a nominee yet. You and I don’t know who that is. And so I can’t confirm whether or not I can confirm a nominee when I don’t know who the nominee is.”
“I do not support this process moving forward,” she said. “Now, having said that, this process is moving forward with or without me.”
-
The only opportunity presented here is for posers to pose. Within the law, the politicians should feel bound to do what they were hired to do. And voting for or against a SCOTUS nominee is probably more important than upholding political norms against the vote that are found important by, coincidentally, people who disapprove of the nominee or at least the president who nominated them.
-
Democrats against “court packing”: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/23/senate-hopefuls-supreme-court-expansion-420650
