Jump to content
270soft Forum

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, SilentLiberty said:

https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/npr/100306972/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-champion-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87

 

Obviously a deeply moving passing from a true American. However, this will have a great effect on the election. 

God dammit. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, billay said:

They dont have time to nominate another justice before the election do they?

Sure they do.  Despite the Republicans 2016 protestations about nominating a justice in the last year of a president's term, they will undoubtedly confirm whoever is nominated next week.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

“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 in 2016

Somehow, I think he'll forget he ever said this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pilight said:

Sure they do.  Despite the Republicans 2016 protestations about nominating a justice in the last year of a president's term, they will undoubtedly confirm whoever is nominated next week.

Murkowski said she is a no. 3 more. Romney is a likely no, Collins cant afford to say yes...we shall see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pilight said:

Sure they do.  Despite the Republicans 2016 protestations about nominating a justice in the last year of a president's term, they will undoubtedly confirm whoever is nominated next week.

In 2016, McConnell said if the executive and Senate branches were split in party control and it was the year of a Presidential election, he wouldn't proceed with a nomination. Presumably this time things might go differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

In 2016, McConnell said if the executive and Senate branches were split in party control and it was the year of a Presidential election, he wouldn't proceed with a nomination. Presumably this time things might go differently.

Give me a goddamn break. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

In 2016, McConnell said if the executive and Senate branches were split in party control and it was the year of a Presidential election, he wouldn't proceed with a nomination. Presumably this time things might go differently.

No, he didn’t.  Why would you fucking lie like this?

Within ONE HOUR of Scalia’s death, McConnell’s exact words:  ““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,” McConnell said.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, billay said:

If they are smart they make it an election issue and nominate during the lame duck months.

If they lose the senate in November, they'll have too many defectors to get someone approved.

This was already an election issue.  She was never going to last four more years.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 minute ago, Actinguy said:

“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,” McConnell said.

Yes, that's exactly what he said. The question is: why did he say the people should have a voice in the selection of their next SC Justice? The reasoning he gave was based on the split between the executive and Senate. Republicans at the time referenced the so-called 'Biden rule', which was also about a split between the executive and Senate.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

 

Yes, that's exactly what he said. The question is: why did he say the people should have a voice in the selection of their next SC Justice? The reasoning he gave was based on the split between the executive and Senate. Republicans at the time referenced the so-called 'Biden rule', which was also about a split between the executive and Senate.

Which was kind of ridiculous.  Biden voted for Anthony Kennedy when Ronald Reagan appointed him with a Democrat controlled Senate.  That vote was in the final year of Reagan's second term.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, pilight said:

Which was kind of ridiculous.  Biden voted for Anthony Kennedy when Ronald Reagan appointed him with a Democrat controlled Senate.  That vote was in the final year of Reagan's second term.

Yes, McConnell's was a partisan move, although with risks (the Dems could have won the Senate and Presidency, and then confirmed someone further to the left than Garland). One odd dynamic here is that Biden in 2016 was very much in favour of confirming Justices during election years. My guess is he will now argue against it, because of McConnell's precedent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Yes, McConnell's was a partisan move, although with risks (the Dems could have won the Senate and Presidency, and then confirmed someone further to the left than Garland). One odd dynamic here is that Biden in 2016 was very much in favour of confirming Justices during election years. My guess is he will now argue against it, because of McConnell's precedent.

If the GOP had lost the senate they would have done a lame duck confirmation of Garland

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, pilight said:

If the GOP had lost the senate they would have done a lame duck confirmation of Garland

Yes, I'm not familiar with the legal technicalities here - could Obama have withdrawn the nomination immediately, and so prevented this?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Yes, I'm not familiar with the legal technicalities here - could Obama have withdrawn the nomination immediately, and so prevented this?

He could have, but I doubt he would have.  That would be an awful way to treat Garland, saying he's good enough when they have to appeal to Republicans but not good enough when they don't.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

 

Yes, that's exactly what he said. The question is: why did he say the people should have a voice in the selection of their next SC Justice? The reasoning he gave was based on the split between the executive and Senate. Republicans at the time referenced the so-called 'Biden rule', which was also about a split between the executive and Senate.

Because he wanted to do whatever the fuck he felt like doing.  I will never understand why you pretend this is okay.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

Because he wanted to do whatever the fuck he felt like doing.  I will never understand why you pretend this is okay.

RIP RGB. Disagreed a lot but still a patriot who stood up for herself, and beliefs. Mitch McConnell is easily the worst politician I've seen since I've followed politics.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

RIP RGB. Disagreed a lot but still a patriot who stood up for herself, and beliefs. Mitch McConnell is easily the worst politician I've seen since I've followed politics.

Bush was worse, and I'm pretty sure he had someone different as Senate Majority Leader to be his criminal majordomo in the Senate (at least until after the 2006 Midterms), but I can't remember off-hand who that was.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...