Vote
for
anyone but tr*mp
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
191–200 of 1001 posts
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#192For every one of the coming takes that Republicans will be hypocrites to appoint and confirm a justice (which they will) They do not give a fuck. That’s not how they see power and it is why they have a far disproportionate share of power/representation than their support across the electorate. This is about power. In politics, nothing else matters.
They will 100% fill that seat before Jan 20th. The outcome of the election does not matter. Anyone who thinks otherwise really doesn't understand McConnell and the gang. They'll let Romney dissent, it'll be the impeachment vote v2.
I saw some interviews with her, pretty amazing lady. Sad to see her go.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#193The potential ramifications of this are chilling. If the Republicans mishandle this, it could drastically increase the chances of widespread conflict around the time of the elections.
I figure it was already pretty high to begin with.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
But that was a republican senate that had the power to confirm or not. Now you have a republican president and senate so if they want to ram somebody through they can do that.
They can do it. But the very same Senate Majority leader set the precedent to not confirm appointments in an election year. If McConnell violates this precedent that he set, I would strongly advocate for Democrats (whenever they have the Senate) to remove the legislative filibuster and increase the size of the SCOTUS to 17.
I would not be entirely surprised. There was a time when Democrats seemed to be intimidated by threats over nuclear options and such. Now that they know the truth, maybe they won't heed such warnings and decide that they need to win at any cost, just like their opposition.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#195Here's my prediction:
Trump will nominate a successor in the next couple weeks. McConnell will start the process, but delay the vote until after the November election. This way:
If Trump wins, McConnell can say that he was entirely reasonable and consistent, and he waited until after the election to ensure that the people really wanted Trump's SCOTUS nomination to be confirmed.
If Trump loses, McConnell still has the option say hell with it, and ram Trump's nomination through anyway. Any Republican Senators who might be worried about re-election chances will already have kept or lost their seats. I expect election results won't be final enough to call by the end of election day like they usually are, but even if it takes a couple weeks, that still leaves over a month for the Senate to vote on the nomination before their session ends at the beginning of January.
The other possibility is that McConnell will just get it all done immediately. He likely has the numbers now -- I doubt any of the fence-sitting Republican Senators would vote no, even those who are up for re-election this year -- and it's not clear that he actually gives a damn about appearances at this point. Waiting could also have a downside: it's possible that enough Republican Senators who have lost their seats in the election could feel too uncomfortable confirming a nomination of this magnitude during their own lame-duck session. But again, not sure how much these people will care about fairness when the chips are down.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#196Absolutely. My family is feverishly working on how to leave this hellscape of a country we’re in. The United States is dead.
You might want to see how this election turns out, first.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They do not give a fuck Something that the Democrats need to realize is that they (especially Obama) assumed too much good faith in the congressional GOP. You can stick to your principles while doing it but, when you are against a party who now considers its last nominee (Romney) a radical BLM leftist, when they go low you need to be ready to kick them in the head.
Precisely. There is a desire, specifically and especially on the left, to get so caught up in their principles that people believe it is the primary source of change. For example: What should be the first acts and priorities be of a democratic administration? Healthcare? Nope. Climate change? Nope. A federal holiday for election days? Yes. Passing legislation mandating mail-in ballots? Yes. That’s how you think about…
Voting and gerrymandering are the metagame.
We should pay people to vote, that would help turnout (up to about as much as it would ever get).
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
There would seem to be precedent for this now. Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, a replacement was nominated in March of 2016, and because Scalia's seat had become vacant during an election year, the Senate would not even consider a nomination from the president [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...
In a normal government, precedent would likely be followed. This is not a normal government.
The precedent set was that the Senate can overrule the president. That precedent will be followed.
I don't think anyone misunderstands the situation - McConnell is going to do whatever is most expedient to get a Supreme Court composition that he likes. Any specific justification is mostly cosmetic - Senate has the power, and the controller of the Senate uses the power.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm somewhat curious how much deference and respect the administration will grant her. Basically how many days before they start pitching their nominee. Edit: Fwiw, the RBG movie about her is on Hulu now.
They already pitched nominees because they knew she was dying. So zero respect. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/trump-suprem...
I suppose, but the number of days before they bring a nominee to the floor seems a more direct measure.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
#200Worked right to the end even with her health challenges. What a role model.
She should have retired before 2016 and let someone step up. Occupying the seat of power until you keel over at the age of 85 is a peculiar expression of ego and selfishness.
Clearly the congress at that time was acting in bad faith and would have delayed her successor being appointed, as they did with Merrick Garland.