Jump to content
270soft Forum

Replacing RBG


Replacing RBG  

30 members have voted

  1. 1. Should RBG be replaced by Trump

    • Yes. It’s the duty of the president and the senate.
    • No, because of the Merrick Garland precedence.
    • Other
  2. 2. Do you think Trump has enough time to get someone nominated and confirmed

  3. 3. Will anti-Trump GOP senators help block Trump’s nominee?

  4. 4. Will RBG’s death help or hurt the Pres nominees ?

    • Helps Biden
    • Helps Trump
    • Won’t make a difference


Recommended Posts

I feel the need to clarify all four of my answers.  

1.  I don't actually support the Merrick Garland decision at all.  But with McConnell being the decision maker in both cases, he should be consistent.  The Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical.  McConnell has turned it into an abomination.  It is remarkable that there is not a single person in the entire world who expected that McConnell would actually stand behind his own statement this time around.  Literally every single person knows that McConnell stands for absolutely nothing other than seizing control by any means possible.  

2.  Do I believe there is time to do it well?  Absolutely not.  Do I believe they'll do it anyway?  Of course they will!  Why would they start worrying about doing things well NOW?

3.  They will try.  But I worry about whether we can depend on 100% of the Democrats in red states.

4.  It won't change the electorate in a significant way.  If anything, it makes the Supreme Court a less urgent concern as the worst thing that could happen has indeed happened.  However, Trump and McConnell stacking the Supreme Court will of course be the deciding factor in any legal challenges regarding the election.

  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Supreme Court was already baked into the election.  Everybody knew there would be at least one seat up during the next term.

Murkowski and Collins have already said earlier this year they won't confirm a nominee this close to the election.  Of course Ginsburg was still alive when they said it (I think, Murkowski actually talked about this earlier today).

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

New poll 

 

54 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I feel the need to clarify all four of my answers.  

1.  I don't actually support the Merrick Garland decision at all.  But with McConnell being the decision maker in both cases, he should be consistent.  The Supreme Court is supposed to be apolitical.  McConnell has turned it into an abomination.  It is remarkable that there is not a single person in the entire world who expected that McConnell would actually stand behind his own statement this time around.  Literally every single person knows that McConnell stands for absolutely nothing other than seizing control by any means possible.  

2.  Do I believe there is time to do it well?  Absolutely not.  Do I believe they'll do it anyway?  Of course they will!  Why would they start worrying about doing things well NOW?

3.  They will try.  But I worry about whether we can depend on 100% of the Democrats in red states.

4.  It won't change the electorate in a significant way.  If anything, it makes the Supreme Court a less urgent concern as the worst thing that could happen has indeed happened.  However, Trump and McConnell stacking the Supreme Court will of course be the deciding factor in any legal challenges regarding the election.

 

7 minutes ago, pilight said:

The Supreme Court was already baked into the election.  Everybody knew there would be at least one seat up during the next term.

Murkowski and Collins have already said earlier this year they won't confirm a nominee this close to the election.  Of course Ginsburg was still alive when they said it (I think, Murkowski actually talked about this earlier today).

 

What there REALLY needs to be is a hard rule that Federal Justices chosen for ideological bias or partisan patronage and spoils appointments should be made invalid choices. Just null and void, regardless of Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. "Choice not available, choose another candidate." The U.S. Federal Judiciary lacks any integrity, credibility, legitimacy, and respectability, the whole purpose of the branch of government is undermined, it's a permanent and continuous miscarriage of justice, and EVERY Supreme Court ruling is under the shroud of suspicion of bias - partisan bias, because of this almost overwhelming slant toward justice selection. This REALLY needs to be cleaned up.

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

How do you determine whether a choice is made for "ideological bias or partisan patronage and spoils" or not?

You have a review committee go over their judicial ruling records and compare them to the platform of the Party, or, if applicable, camp in their Party, of the President and motivating Senators in the vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The base of both campaigns will be energized, so I don't see any real advantage. Trump's Covid response gets less important, so this might be a slight gain. However, I still believe it won't directly help the nominees in a significant way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

The base of both campaigns will be energized, so I don't see any real advantage. Trump's Covid response gets less important, so this might be a slight gain. However, I still believe it won't directly help the nominees in a significant way.

Did you read my post above about having Justices chosen for ideological reason and/or partisan spoils and patronage appointments ideally become actually barred - that is, such a choice invalidated, and a new candidate having to be chosen - and the reasons I gave as to why? And, if so, do you still support partisan Justices as a good and acceptable institution with any integrity and validity at all? And why do you have the most soulless, unfeeling, inhuman, and downright evil Vice President in U.S. History as a proposed candidate for Supreme Court Justice? He belongs serving a life sentence with no chance of parole or any pardons allowed in a military-grade prison along with the rest of the Bush Administration for their high crimes - not getting a position to inflict his wickedness upon the highest organ of justice in the nation...

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Patine said:

Did you read my post above about having Justices chosen for ideological reason and/or partisan spoils and patronage appointments ideally become actually barred - that is, such a choice invalidated, and a new candidate having to be chosen - and the reasons I gave as to why?

No yet, so I can't answer to this now.

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

And why do you have the most soulless, unfeeling, inhuman, and downright evil Vice President in U.S. History as a proposed candidate for Supreme Court Justice? He belongs serving a life sentence with no chance of parole or any pardons allowed in a military-grade prison along with the rest of the Bush Administration for their high crimes - not getting a position to inflict his wickedness upon the highest organ of justice in the nation...

No, that's a grave misunderstanding. I would not nominate Cheney to the Supreme Court. My ''header'' indicates my leaning as a Republican in the mold of Bush (and Cheney) instead of Trumpism and at the same time it shows my special interest in the US Supreme Court. Therefore I label myself jokingly as ''Supreme Court Justice''.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Conservative Elector 2 said:

No yet, so I can't answer to this now.

No, that's a grave misunderstanding. I would not nominate Cheney to the Supreme Court. My ''header'' indicates my leaning as a Republican in the mold of Bush (and Cheney) instead of Trumpism and at the same time it shows my special interest in the US Supreme Court. Therefore I label myself jokingly as ''Supreme Court Justice''.

Neoconservatives are not a political bunch any good people with actual human feelings, concerns, warmth, or care for fellow human beings should admire, emulate, or follow. Their leadership and ideologues are heartless and greed-obsessed plutocrats, soulless warmonger, detached elitists who care nothing for the struggles of the great majority of people. They believe that mass death due to illegal wars on false pretenses backed by lies, bloodmill industrial economics, and brutal police state tactics - as well as utilizing the world's largest, most prolific, and best organized terrorist - the CIA - with abandon are all fully acceptable to fill their own coffers and secure own power. They use shameless propaganda, bald-faced lies, corruption, graft, and bribery and using the Lord's Name in Vain (when they don't even remotely follow the Ministry of Christ and His Path to Salvation in any meaningful way at all) to push their utter evil and wickedness. Are you even aware of who these vile and loathsome empty husks that superficially resemble human beings are, and what they really stand for? Or are you, too, hoodwinked thoroughly by the lies and propaganda - propaganda like that of Goebbels.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Patine said:

 

 

What there REALLY needs to be is a hard rule that Federal Justices chosen for ideological bias or partisan patronage and spoils appointments should be made invalid choices. Just null and void, regardless of Presidential nomination and Senate confirmation. "Choice not available, choose another candidate." The U.S. Federal Judiciary lacks any integrity, credibility, legitimacy, and respectability, the whole purpose of the branch of government is undermined, it's a permanent and continuous miscarriage of justice, and EVERY Supreme Court ruling is under the shroud of suspicion of bias - partisan bias, because of this almost overwhelming slant toward justice selection. This REALLY needs to be cleaned up.

Sure, but how do you enforce it?  

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

Sure, but how do you enforce it?  

@Patine what you are envisioning sounds like utopia but that's practically not doable, I am afraid. Therefore, I'd rather keep the current way than implementing a system which is neither fish nor fowl.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

@Patine what you are envisioning sounds like utopia but that's practically not doable, I am afraid. Therefore, I'd rather keep the current way than implementing a system which is neither fish nor fowl.

"Let's stay in the mud rather than aspire for something better." An attitude that, if mostly of universal sentiment, would have us still in the Dark Ages, socially, politically, economically, and in living standards. I say your answer is nothing but defeatist and fatalistic, and perhaps a circumspect statement of support for the betrayal of the principals of justice and continuous miscarriage of justice that you don't want to have to articulate your REAL reason for supporting such a failed system that undermines the whole reason for a separate judiciary with review powers...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have often described this administration as 90% unmitigated disaster, 9% tolerable, and 1% Neil Gorsuch.

Trump has an opportunity to welcome Amy Coney Barrett into that 1%. Maybe he’ll make it to 1.5%!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Patine said:

"Let's stay in the mud rather than aspire for something better." An attitude that, if mostly of universal sentiment, would have us still in the Dark Ages, socially, politically, economically, and in living standards. I say your answer is nothing but defeatist and fatalistic, and perhaps a circumspect statement of support for the betrayal of the principals of justice and continuous miscarriage of justice that you don't want to have to articulate your REAL reason for supporting such a failed system that undermines the whole reason for a separate judiciary with review powers...

Well, in a world full of harmony I'd support many things I do not currently. I don't see how a court full of justices who are voting completely unpredictable would be an improvement. No one, not the left not right, would know for what these justice are standing. This would downgrade the importance of the court I believe and that's exactly the case in most countries. The courts are unimportant and working somewhere in the background. Most people don't know the court's lengthy and arcane procedures, the judges are basically not known to the public and the justice's appointment rules are equally unknown to the general public. That's also the reason why courts and their decisions are less scrutinized.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Well, in a world full of harmony I'd support many things I do not currently. I don't see how a court full of justices who are voting completely unpredictable would be an improvement. No one, not the left not right, would know for what these justice are standing. This would downgrade the importance of the court I believe and that's exactly the case in most countries. The courts are unimportant and working somewhere in the background. Most people don't know the court's lengthy and arcane procedures, the judges are basically not known to the public and the justice's appointment rules are equally unknown to the general public. That's also the reason why courts and their decisions are less scrutinized.

Now this is a disingenuous attempt at a turnaround. Trying to portray the absolute garbage viewpoint that just because justices are NOT biased to one major party or another, and thus tainting every ruling with "undue bias," (which is a legal term that can declare a miscarriage of justice, and should be used - and usable, and with impunity, for justices' partisan and socio-political ideological bias, if there was any JUSTICE) means they're automatically a bunch of chaotic, madcap, wildcards. Do you, yourself, really believe this flimsy tissue of bad, disingenuous rhetoric, and do you really expect anyone with any common sense or grounding in reality to?

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

means they're automatically a bunch of chaotic, madcap, wildcards. 

Isn't it the case at all? Everyone is entitled to an opinion and I believe it is not given that justices are biased to a party. As you know, I am sure you do, there judicial philosophies to which justices adhere much more than to parties. If a party disagrees with what the judicial philosophy says, a judge should and most do, vote in a way he believes is rigth. 

It is still true if people became less in the courts, their decisions would also be less observed.

3 minutes ago, Patine said:

Do you, yourself, really believe this flimsy tissue of bad, disingenuous rhetoric, and do you really expect anyone with any common sense or grounding in reality to?

I do. I am not a politician who seeks to get voters, you are allowed to agree or disagree with me. At the end of the day, we won't change the other one's own opinion, so I don't worry about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Well, in a world full of harmony I'd support many things I do not currently. I don't see how a court full of justices who are voting completely unpredictable would be an improvement. No one, not the left not right, would know for what these justice are standing. This would downgrade the importance of the court I believe and that's exactly the case in most countries. The courts are unimportant and working somewhere in the background. Most people don't know the court's lengthy and arcane procedures, the judges are basically not known to the public and the justice's appointment rules are equally unknown to the general public. That's also the reason why courts and their decisions are less scrutinized.

Most countries' judiciaries don't have the authority to overturn laws like the US Supreme Court can

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

Most countries' judiciaries don't have the authority to overturn laws like the US Supreme Court can

Yeah, a luxury most countries don't have. I like the US court system the most. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, pilight said:

Most countries' judiciaries don't have the authority to overturn laws like the US Supreme Court can

 

20 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Yeah, a luxury most countries don't have. I like the US court system the most. 

You're information is highly outdated. Judicial Constitutional Review has become close the norm among sovereign nations in the world. And, I like the U.S. Court the least, at least among First World Court systems, because it tends to be the most corrupt, unjust, nepotistic, classist, racist, sexist, and otherwise bigoted system, on average, in the First World - and has a prison institution of slave labour that violates the specifics of the one exception for penal labour in the Fourteenth Amendment, in the privatized prison system (only sociopaths in government privatize prisons) and thus is unconstitutional and illegal in and of itself, but keeps the very worst and highest criminals in the nation de facto untouchable or indictable. But I suppose it makes sense that someone who admires the vile and morally bankrupt socio-political cesspool that is Neoconservatism favours such a broken and loathsome system, as it best serves the soulless, bloody-handed, and shamelessly corrupt and inhuman wickedness of those crooks, liars, traitors, and murderers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

You're information is highly outdated. Judicial Constitutional Review has become close the norm among sovereign nations in the world. And, I like the U.S. Court the least, at least among First World Court systems, because it tends to be the most corrupt, unjust, nepotistic, classist, racist, sexist, and otherwise bigoted system, on average, in the First World - and has a prison institution of slave labour that violates the specifics of the one exception for penal labour in the Fourteenth Amendment, in the privatized prison system (only sociopaths in government privatize prisons) and thus is unconstitutional and illegal in and of itself, but keeps the very worst and highest criminals in the nation de facto untouchable or indictable. But I suppose it makes sense that someone who admires the vile and morally bankrupt socio-political cesspool that is Neoconservatism favours such a broken and loathsome system, as it best serves the soulless, bloody-handed, and shamelessly corrupt and inhuman wickedness of those crooks, liars, traitors, and murderers.

What's your reason for not voting in this poll?

  • 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...