Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
This is why it’s important to be unemotional and steady. This is a problem for democratic politicians, leadership and every day Dems, who get too emotional and cry about things, and republicans get off looking at how upset the liberals get. Pelosi and Schumer, who I both like, complain and whine endlessly in congress and on TV about how unfair the GOP is. Time to change your approach, Democrats.
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
Tearing up papers on tv
Ha!
Pelosi just said something like the only thing that she can do is make sure everybody votes. Uh this is happening in real-time and we need the people we voted for to take action before Election Day on this and of course the ongoing pandemic that we’ve all decided to forget due to RBGs passing.
Someone just said on the telly to slow down the senate and force R senators who need to raise money and campaign - they can do endless quorum calls until Election Day which forces them to physically be in the senate, then if Biden wins, they can impeach trump again after the election to tie up the senate during the lame duck until Jan 3 when the new congress gets sworn in. And this would also give them leverage if an impeached president tries to nominate someone after losing an election to pass a new law to pack the court (if the Dems win). It’s still very likely a 6-3 conservative court, goodbye Obamacare and womans right to choose
Couldn’t the senate just prioritize the Nomination over yet another impeachment? Another impeachment seems like bad optics.
I believe the senate must prioritize impeachment. The “optics” would only work if republicans try to ram thru a judge after the election and trump lost and the senate flips to the Dems . It would violate McConnell’s new excuse that the voters in 2018 reaffirmed same party control of senate and executive branch by now voting trump out in 2020. With many republican senators in blue/purple states in risk of getting voted out now, it’s likely McConnell holds off the confirmation vote until the lame duck session.
I would think they should start by impeaching senators who lost their reelection and are trying to vote in a new judge. The optics would be the voters have spoken and we are impeaching you to respect the votes of your constituents. The goal is to simply tie up the senate for six weeks during the holidays so they can’t act, or have legal arguments in 2021 that McConnell took a dump on the constitution and the election so Dems are exercising their constitutional right to add more justices to the high court. They could also continue quorum calls while multiple senators face impeachment. The goal is to slow it down and highlight mcconnell is disrespecting the results of the election.
its a long shot extreme but that’s the point. The gop continually lies about the constitution to bend it in their favor while Dems want proper optics. That’s probably why this court will remain conservative for 50 years
NPR had a good piece about all of this. Additionally, yesterday I caught parts of a rebroadcast about America's Hidden Duopoly and how we got to this stage in US politics. It was really interesting to listen to. They talked about choice ranked voting and single ballot primaries to help lessen the stranglehold both the dems and repubs have on forcing certain candidates on us.
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
This is why it’s important to be unemotional and steady. This is a problem for democratic politicians, leadership and every day Dems, who get too emotional and cry about things, and republicans get off looking at how upset the liberals get. Pelosi and Schumer, who I both like, complain and whine endlessly in congress and on TV about how unfair the GOP is. Time to change your approach, Democrats.
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
Tearing up papers on tv
Ha!
Pelosi just said something like the only thing that she can do is make sure everybody votes. Uh this is happening in real-time and we need the people we voted for to take action before Election Day on this and of course the ongoing pandemic that we’ve all decided to forget due to RBGs passing.
Someone just said on the telly to slow down the senate and force R senators who need to raise money and campaign - they can do endless quorum calls until Election Day which forces them to physically be in the senate, then if Biden wins, they can impeach trump again after the election to tie up the senate during the lame duck until Jan 3 when the new congress gets sworn in. And this would also give them leverage if an impeached president tries to nominate someone after losing an election to pass a new law to pack the court (if the Dems win). It’s still very likely a 6-3 conservative court, goodbye Obamacare and womans right to choose
Couldn’t the senate just prioritize the Nomination over yet another impeachment? Another impeachment seems like bad optics.
I believe the senate must prioritize impeachment. The “optics” would only work if republicans try to ram thru a judge after the election and trump lost and the senate flips to the Dems . It would violate McConnell’s new excuse that the voters in 2018 reaffirmed same party control of senate and executive branch by now voting trump out in 2020. With many republican senators in blue/purple states in risk of getting voted out now, it’s likely McConnell holds off the confirmation vote until the lame duck session.
I would think they should start by impeaching senators who lost their reelection and are trying to vote in a new judge. The optics would be the voters have spoken and we are impeaching you to respect the votes of your constituents. The goal is to simply tie up the senate for six weeks during the holidays so they can’t act, or have legal arguments in 2021 that McConnell took a dump on the constitution and the election so Dems are exercising their constitutional right to add more justices to the high court. They could also continue quorum calls while multiple senators face impeachment. The goal is to slow it down and highlight mcconnell is disrespecting the results of the election.
its a long shot extreme but that’s the point. The gop continually lies about the constitution to bend it in their favor while Dems want proper optics. That’s probably why this court will remain conservative for 50 years
NPR had a good piece about all of this. Additionally, yesterday I caught parts of a rebroadcast about America's Hidden Duopoly and how we got to this stage in US politics. It was really interesting to listen to. They talked about choice ranked voting and single ballot primaries to help lessen the stranglehold both the dems and repubs have on forcing certain candidates on us.
even would be good. less national law gets enacted via courts. and would require vigorous debate to get a majority.
oh and term limits. 18 years if the make up stays at 9. every two years the longest tenure justice retires.... or whatever the make up ends up being x 2.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Remember when the DNC thought it could win by catering to “moderate” republicans?
Remember when Bernie supporters voted third party or stayed home out of spite because their non-dem party candidate didn’t win the dem party’s nomination?
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
This is why it’s important to be unemotional and steady. This is a problem for democratic politicians, leadership and every day Dems, who get too emotional and cry about things, and republicans get off looking at how upset the liberals get. Pelosi and Schumer, who I both like, complain and whine endlessly in congress and on TV about how unfair the GOP is. Time to change your approach, Democrats.
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
Tearing up papers on tv
Ha!
Pelosi just said something like the only thing that she can do is make sure everybody votes. Uh this is happening in real-time and we need the people we voted for to take action before Election Day on this and of course the ongoing pandemic that we’ve all decided to forget due to RBGs passing.
Someone just said on the telly to slow down the senate and force R senators who need to raise money and campaign - they can do endless quorum calls until Election Day which forces them to physically be in the senate, then if Biden wins, they can impeach trump again after the election to tie up the senate during the lame duck until Jan 3 when the new congress gets sworn in. And this would also give them leverage if an impeached president tries to nominate someone after losing an election to pass a new law to pack the court (if the Dems win). It’s still very likely a 6-3 conservative court, goodbye Obamacare and womans right to choose
Couldn’t the senate just prioritize the Nomination over yet another impeachment? Another impeachment seems like bad optics.
I believe the senate must prioritize impeachment. The “optics” would only work if republicans try to ram thru a judge after the election and trump lost and the senate flips to the Dems . It would violate McConnell’s new excuse that the voters in 2018 reaffirmed same party control of senate and executive branch by now voting trump out in 2020. With many republican senators in blue/purple states in risk of getting voted out now, it’s likely McConnell holds off the confirmation vote until the lame duck session.
I would think they should start by impeaching senators who lost their reelection and are trying to vote in a new judge. The optics would be the voters have spoken and we are impeaching you to respect the votes of your constituents. The goal is to simply tie up the senate for six weeks during the holidays so they can’t act, or have legal arguments in 2021 that McConnell took a dump on the constitution and the election so Dems are exercising their constitutional right to add more justices to the high court. They could also continue quorum calls while multiple senators face impeachment. The goal is to slow it down and highlight mcconnell is disrespecting the results of the election.
its a long shot extreme but that’s the point. The gop continually lies about the constitution to bend it in their favor while Dems want proper optics. That’s probably why this court will remain conservative for 50 years
NPR had a good piece about all of this. Additionally, yesterday I caught parts of a rebroadcast about America's Hidden Duopoly and how we got to this stage in US politics. It was really interesting to listen to. They talked about choice ranked voting and single ballot primaries to help lessen the stranglehold both the dems and repubs have on forcing certain candidates on us.
A really bold move for the Dems would be to pass a law to legally “pack” the court, but stop at 3 so the court is 6-6 by party.
That would be a bold statement and have terrific optics. Politics should not decide the law.
A SCOTUS with 12 would be a disaster. They have to be able to decided things, they can't split and move along to the Really Supreme Court.
How many people sit on a jury again?
But juries don’t go by majority vote like the Supreme Court does.
Majority seems easier to me than unanimous agreement, especially among people who actually know what they're doing regarding the law vs. your idiot neighbor with nothing better to do than sit with a bunch of other idiot neighbors with nothing better to do and pass judgments on their fellow citizens.
Remember when the DNC thought it could win by catering to “moderate” republicans?
Remember when Bernie supporters voted third party or stayed home out of spite because their non-dem party candidate didn’t win the dem party’s nomination?
I thought it was because the DNC didn’t do enough to court their votes? Because they were focused on mythical Republican Democrat voters.
But juries don’t go by majority vote like the Supreme Court does.
Majority seems easier to me than unanimous agreement, especially among people who actually know what they're doing regarding the law vs. your idiot neighbor with nothing better to do than sit with a bunch of other idiot neighbors with nothing better to do and pass judgments on their fellow citizens.
Note: I've never served on a jury and never will.
Oh it is. I'm just saying, as cincybearcat was, that 12 people in a majority situation could lead to ties. And as for the rest of your post, I've always felt that professional jurors should be a thing. Why not? Got to law school to be juror and learn how to properly interpret the law, rather than have it interpreted by, as you say, "idiot neighbors." The sixth amendment says...
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
Doesn't say anything about "a jury of your peers." So why can't a jury be professionals rather than "peers"? Couldn't professional jurors be impartial just as judges are supposed to be?
Remember when the DNC thought it could win by catering to “moderate” republicans?
Remember when Bernie supporters voted third party or stayed home out of spite because their non-dem party candidate didn’t win the dem party’s nomination?
I thought it was because the DNC didn’t do enough to court their votes? Because they were focused on mythical Republican Democrat voters.
Maybe it was because Bernie supporters were faux dems and thought they had a better chance of having their agenda implemented by Team Trump Treason? The DNC wasn’t on the ballot unless it was on the backside?
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
This is why it’s important to be unemotional and steady. This is a problem for democratic politicians, leadership and every day Dems, who get too emotional and cry about things, and republicans get off looking at how upset the liberals get. Pelosi and Schumer, who I both like, complain and whine endlessly in congress and on TV about how unfair the GOP is. Time to change your approach, Democrats.
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
Tearing up papers on tv
Ha!
Pelosi just said something like the only thing that she can do is make sure everybody votes. Uh this is happening in real-time and we need the people we voted for to take action before Election Day on this and of course the ongoing pandemic that we’ve all decided to forget due to RBGs passing.
Someone just said on the telly to slow down the senate and force R senators who need to raise money and campaign - they can do endless quorum calls until Election Day which forces them to physically be in the senate, then if Biden wins, they can impeach trump again after the election to tie up the senate during the lame duck until Jan 3 when the new congress gets sworn in. And this would also give them leverage if an impeached president tries to nominate someone after losing an election to pass a new law to pack the court (if the Dems win). It’s still very likely a 6-3 conservative court, goodbye Obamacare and womans right to choose
Couldn’t the senate just prioritize the Nomination over yet another impeachment? Another impeachment seems like bad optics.
I believe the senate must prioritize impeachment. The “optics” would only work if republicans try to ram thru a judge after the election and trump lost and the senate flips to the Dems . It would violate McConnell’s new excuse that the voters in 2018 reaffirmed same party control of senate and executive branch by now voting trump out in 2020. With many republican senators in blue/purple states in risk of getting voted out now, it’s likely McConnell holds off the confirmation vote until the lame duck session.
I would think they should start by impeaching senators who lost their reelection and are trying to vote in a new judge. The optics would be the voters have spoken and we are impeaching you to respect the votes of your constituents. The goal is to simply tie up the senate for six weeks during the holidays so they can’t act, or have legal arguments in 2021 that McConnell took a dump on the constitution and the election so Dems are exercising their constitutional right to add more justices to the high court. They could also continue quorum calls while multiple senators face impeachment. The goal is to slow it down and highlight mcconnell is disrespecting the results of the election.
its a long shot extreme but that’s the point. The gop continually lies about the constitution to bend it in their favor while Dems want proper optics. That’s probably why this court will remain conservative for 50 years
NPR had a good piece about all of this. Additionally, yesterday I caught parts of a rebroadcast about America's Hidden Duopoly and how we got to this stage in US politics. It was really interesting to listen to. They talked about choice ranked voting and single ballot primaries to help lessen the stranglehold both the dems and repubs have on forcing certain candidates on us.
A really bold move for the Dems would be to pass a law to legally “pack” the court, but stop at 3 so the court is 6-6 by party.
That would be a bold statement and have terrific optics. Politics should not decide the law.
A SCOTUS with 12 would be a disaster. They have to be able to decided things, they can't split and move along to the Really Supreme Court.
No it would not
Deciding a presidential election along a 5-4 party line vote WAS a disaster, and nobody cared 20 years ago. The “winner” of that election went aggressively conservative with the court and nobody cared.
That one decision in 2000 will lead to a conservative court that will be unbroken for likely 70 years.
Why are Americans brainwashed into believing laws need to be “validated” by the high court? How many times must Obamacare go before the courts? If a law is egregiously bad, it should take far more than a 5-4 party line decision to overturn what was intended to be the most important congressional power. The constitution directs congress to set the laws in Article I and tried desperately to figure out a way to keep politics out of the court. Obviously our framers had trouble with that one.
I read that he supports having a vote, not that he would vote yes. Maybe it doesn't matter, but to me that could mean he thinks each senator should be on record for what they feel is the right step to take. If they vote to proceed, I think we know what is going to happen when democrats gain the majority. You reap what you sow.
Romney is a solid conservative from a solidly red state. If Dems think that’s where their wishes should be, they are lost. They have 50 votes and are even willing to bring in Pence to break a tie if needed. That would be another absurd abuse of constitutional power. The VP decides on the Supreme Court where Congress is supposed to be a check on executive power.
But the constitution does not expressly prohibit that, so the Rs do it.
Until the Dems get more aggressive with politics the republicans will run the govt with the judiciary.
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
This is why it’s important to be unemotional and steady. This is a problem for democratic politicians, leadership and every day Dems, who get too emotional and cry about things, and republicans get off looking at how upset the liberals get. Pelosi and Schumer, who I both like, complain and whine endlessly in congress and on TV about how unfair the GOP is. Time to change your approach, Democrats.
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
Tearing up papers on tv
Ha!
Pelosi just said something like the only thing that she can do is make sure everybody votes. Uh this is happening in real-time and we need the people we voted for to take action before Election Day on this and of course the ongoing pandemic that we’ve all decided to forget due to RBGs passing.
Someone just said on the telly to slow down the senate and force R senators who need to raise money and campaign - they can do endless quorum calls until Election Day which forces them to physically be in the senate, then if Biden wins, they can impeach trump again after the election to tie up the senate during the lame duck until Jan 3 when the new congress gets sworn in. And this would also give them leverage if an impeached president tries to nominate someone after losing an election to pass a new law to pack the court (if the Dems win). It’s still very likely a 6-3 conservative court, goodbye Obamacare and womans right to choose
Couldn’t the senate just prioritize the Nomination over yet another impeachment? Another impeachment seems like bad optics.
I believe the senate must prioritize impeachment. The “optics” would only work if republicans try to ram thru a judge after the election and trump lost and the senate flips to the Dems . It would violate McConnell’s new excuse that the voters in 2018 reaffirmed same party control of senate and executive branch by now voting trump out in 2020. With many republican senators in blue/purple states in risk of getting voted out now, it’s likely McConnell holds off the confirmation vote until the lame duck session.
I would think they should start by impeaching senators who lost their reelection and are trying to vote in a new judge. The optics would be the voters have spoken and we are impeaching you to respect the votes of your constituents. The goal is to simply tie up the senate for six weeks during the holidays so they can’t act, or have legal arguments in 2021 that McConnell took a dump on the constitution and the election so Dems are exercising their constitutional right to add more justices to the high court. They could also continue quorum calls while multiple senators face impeachment. The goal is to slow it down and highlight mcconnell is disrespecting the results of the election.
its a long shot extreme but that’s the point. The gop continually lies about the constitution to bend it in their favor while Dems want proper optics. That’s probably why this court will remain conservative for 50 years
NPR had a good piece about all of this. Additionally, yesterday I caught parts of a rebroadcast about America's Hidden Duopoly and how we got to this stage in US politics. It was really interesting to listen to. They talked about choice ranked voting and single ballot primaries to help lessen the stranglehold both the dems and repubs have on forcing certain candidates on us.
A really bold move for the Dems would be to pass a law to legally “pack” the court, but stop at 3 so the court is 6-6 by party.
That would be a bold statement and have terrific optics. Politics should not decide the law.
A SCOTUS with 12 would be a disaster. They have to be able to decided things, they can't split and move along to the Really Supreme Court.
How many people sit on a jury again?
And in most states juries have to be unanimous. Imagine if all 9 justices had to agree for anything to get done. They probably wouldn't even agree on the color of a rob if that was the case.
I read that he supports having a vote, not that he would vote yes. Maybe it doesn't matter, but to me that could mean he thinks each senator should be on record for what they feel is the right step to take. If they vote to proceed, I think we know what is going to happen when democrats gain the majority. You reap what you sow.
Romney is a solid conservative from a solidly red state. If Dems think that’s where their wishes should be, they are lost. They have 50 votes and are even willing to bring in Pence to break a tie if needed. That would be another absurd abuse of constitutional power. The VP decides on the Supreme Court where Congress is supposed to be a check on executive power.
But the constitution does not expressly prohibit that, so the Rs do it.
Until the Dems get more aggressive with politics the republicans will run the govt with the judiciary.
romney has shown occasionally he has ethics and tried to keep trump in check. it wasn't a slam dunk, but many assumed he would have been one of the dissenters on this one.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
This is why it’s important to be unemotional and steady. This is a problem for democratic politicians, leadership and every day Dems, who get too emotional and cry about things, and republicans get off looking at how upset the liberals get. Pelosi and Schumer, who I both like, complain and whine endlessly in congress and on TV about how unfair the GOP is. Time to change your approach, Democrats.
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
Tearing up papers on tv
Ha!
Pelosi just said something like the only thing that she can do is make sure everybody votes. Uh this is happening in real-time and we need the people we voted for to take action before Election Day on this and of course the ongoing pandemic that we’ve all decided to forget due to RBGs passing.
Someone just said on the telly to slow down the senate and force R senators who need to raise money and campaign - they can do endless quorum calls until Election Day which forces them to physically be in the senate, then if Biden wins, they can impeach trump again after the election to tie up the senate during the lame duck until Jan 3 when the new congress gets sworn in. And this would also give them leverage if an impeached president tries to nominate someone after losing an election to pass a new law to pack the court (if the Dems win). It’s still very likely a 6-3 conservative court, goodbye Obamacare and womans right to choose
Couldn’t the senate just prioritize the Nomination over yet another impeachment? Another impeachment seems like bad optics.
I believe the senate must prioritize impeachment. The “optics” would only work if republicans try to ram thru a judge after the election and trump lost and the senate flips to the Dems . It would violate McConnell’s new excuse that the voters in 2018 reaffirmed same party control of senate and executive branch by now voting trump out in 2020. With many republican senators in blue/purple states in risk of getting voted out now, it’s likely McConnell holds off the confirmation vote until the lame duck session.
I would think they should start by impeaching senators who lost their reelection and are trying to vote in a new judge. The optics would be the voters have spoken and we are impeaching you to respect the votes of your constituents. The goal is to simply tie up the senate for six weeks during the holidays so they can’t act, or have legal arguments in 2021 that McConnell took a dump on the constitution and the election so Dems are exercising their constitutional right to add more justices to the high court. They could also continue quorum calls while multiple senators face impeachment. The goal is to slow it down and highlight mcconnell is disrespecting the results of the election.
its a long shot extreme but that’s the point. The gop continually lies about the constitution to bend it in their favor while Dems want proper optics. That’s probably why this court will remain conservative for 50 years
NPR had a good piece about all of this. Additionally, yesterday I caught parts of a rebroadcast about America's Hidden Duopoly and how we got to this stage in US politics. It was really interesting to listen to. They talked about choice ranked voting and single ballot primaries to help lessen the stranglehold both the dems and repubs have on forcing certain candidates on us.
A really bold move for the Dems would be to pass a law to legally “pack” the court, but stop at 3 so the court is 6-6 by party.
That would be a bold statement and have terrific optics. Politics should not decide the law.
A SCOTUS with 12 would be a disaster. They have to be able to decided things, they can't split and move along to the Really Supreme Court.
How many people sit on a jury again?
And in most states juries have to be unanimous. Imagine if all 9 justices had to agree for anything to get done. They probably wouldn't even agree on the color of a rob if that was the case.
I am sure you could get nine people to agree that Rob Lowe is white.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
This is why it’s important to be unemotional and steady. This is a problem for democratic politicians, leadership and every day Dems, who get too emotional and cry about things, and republicans get off looking at how upset the liberals get. Pelosi and Schumer, who I both like, complain and whine endlessly in congress and on TV about how unfair the GOP is. Time to change your approach, Democrats.
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
Tearing up papers on tv
Ha!
Pelosi just said something like the only thing that she can do is make sure everybody votes. Uh this is happening in real-time and we need the people we voted for to take action before Election Day on this and of course the ongoing pandemic that we’ve all decided to forget due to RBGs passing.
Someone just said on the telly to slow down the senate and force R senators who need to raise money and campaign - they can do endless quorum calls until Election Day which forces them to physically be in the senate, then if Biden wins, they can impeach trump again after the election to tie up the senate during the lame duck until Jan 3 when the new congress gets sworn in. And this would also give them leverage if an impeached president tries to nominate someone after losing an election to pass a new law to pack the court (if the Dems win). It’s still very likely a 6-3 conservative court, goodbye Obamacare and womans right to choose
Couldn’t the senate just prioritize the Nomination over yet another impeachment? Another impeachment seems like bad optics.
I believe the senate must prioritize impeachment. The “optics” would only work if republicans try to ram thru a judge after the election and trump lost and the senate flips to the Dems . It would violate McConnell’s new excuse that the voters in 2018 reaffirmed same party control of senate and executive branch by now voting trump out in 2020. With many republican senators in blue/purple states in risk of getting voted out now, it’s likely McConnell holds off the confirmation vote until the lame duck session.
I would think they should start by impeaching senators who lost their reelection and are trying to vote in a new judge. The optics would be the voters have spoken and we are impeaching you to respect the votes of your constituents. The goal is to simply tie up the senate for six weeks during the holidays so they can’t act, or have legal arguments in 2021 that McConnell took a dump on the constitution and the election so Dems are exercising their constitutional right to add more justices to the high court. They could also continue quorum calls while multiple senators face impeachment. The goal is to slow it down and highlight mcconnell is disrespecting the results of the election.
its a long shot extreme but that’s the point. The gop continually lies about the constitution to bend it in their favor while Dems want proper optics. That’s probably why this court will remain conservative for 50 years
NPR had a good piece about all of this. Additionally, yesterday I caught parts of a rebroadcast about America's Hidden Duopoly and how we got to this stage in US politics. It was really interesting to listen to. They talked about choice ranked voting and single ballot primaries to help lessen the stranglehold both the dems and repubs have on forcing certain candidates on us.
A really bold move for the Dems would be to pass a law to legally “pack” the court, but stop at 3 so the court is 6-6 by party.
That would be a bold statement and have terrific optics. Politics should not decide the law.
A SCOTUS with 12 would be a disaster. They have to be able to decided things, they can't split and move along to the Really Supreme Court.
How many people sit on a jury again?
And in most states juries have to be unanimous. Imagine if all 9 justices had to agree for anything to get done. They probably wouldn't even agree on the color of a rob if that was the case.
But there have already been numerous levels of lawsuits and if something is significantly wrong it would have been apparent before the USSC makes a decision. I would even say gay marriage is judiciary overreach, although I support it. Now we will have a super majority conservative court which has moved to the evangelicals and it’s very possible to be overturned in the upcoming years. This is no way Toruń a country. The problem is it’s become unnecessarily hyper political and if I recall properly that’s something framers wanted to avoid.
TL DR - if it’s anything disagreed about on that level, they should not be canceling out the will of congress. That is the absurdity of our situation
I read that he supports having a vote, not that he would vote yes. Maybe it doesn't matter, but to me that could mean he thinks each senator should be on record for what they feel is the right step to take. If they vote to proceed, I think we know what is going to happen when democrats gain the majority. You reap what you sow.
Romney is a solid conservative from a solidly red state. If Dems think that’s where their wishes should be, they are lost. They have 50 votes and are even willing to bring in Pence to break a tie if needed. That would be another absurd abuse of constitutional power. The VP decides on the Supreme Court where Congress is supposed to be a check on executive power.
But the constitution does not expressly prohibit that, so the Rs do it.
Until the Dems get more aggressive with politics the republicans will run the govt with the judiciary.
How dare you blame Dems for going after red state conservatives? Don’t you know if they lose it’s Bernie’s fault?
I read that he supports having a vote, not that he would vote yes. Maybe it doesn't matter, but to me that could mean he thinks each senator should be on record for what they feel is the right step to take. If they vote to proceed, I think we know what is going to happen when democrats gain the majority. You reap what you sow.
Romney is a solid conservative from a solidly red state. If Dems think that’s where their wishes should be, they are lost. They have 50 votes and are even willing to bring in Pence to break a tie if needed. That would be another absurd abuse of constitutional power. The VP decides on the Supreme Court where Congress is supposed to be a check on executive power.
But the constitution does not expressly prohibit that, so the Rs do it.
Until the Dems get more aggressive with politics the republicans will run the govt with the judiciary.
Given the circumstances of 2016, I do think there should not be anyone appointed until after the election. But how is Pence being the tie breaker in the senate an abuse of constitutional power? That's exactly what is supposed to happen in a tie, so the VP being a tie breaker isn't abuse, that is really the one rule being followed here.
I read that he supports having a vote, not that he would vote yes. Maybe it doesn't matter, but to me that could mean he thinks each senator should be on record for what they feel is the right step to take. If they vote to proceed, I think we know what is going to happen when democrats gain the majority. You reap what you sow.
Romney is a solid conservative from a solidly red state. If Dems think that’s where their wishes should be, they are lost. They have 50 votes and are even willing to bring in Pence to break a tie if needed. That would be another absurd abuse of constitutional power. The VP decides on the Supreme Court where Congress is supposed to be a check on executive power.
But the constitution does not expressly prohibit that, so the Rs do it.
Until the Dems get more aggressive with politics the republicans will run the govt with the judiciary.
Given the circumstances of 2016, I do think there should not be anyone appointed until after the election. But how is Pence being the tie breaker in the senate an abuse of constitutional power? That's exactly what is supposed to happen in a tie, so the VP being a tie breaker isn't abuse, that is really the one rule being followed here.
agreed. if it's a detailed provision in the constitution, like it is here, it's not an abuse. it's only an abuse because democrats don't like it. well, now you know next time, you should use it if necessary.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I read that he supports having a vote, not that he would vote yes. Maybe it doesn't matter, but to me that could mean he thinks each senator should be on record for what they feel is the right step to take. If they vote to proceed, I think we know what is going to happen when democrats gain the majority. You reap what you sow.
Romney is a solid conservative from a solidly red state. If Dems think that’s where their wishes should be, they are lost. They have 50 votes and are even willing to bring in Pence to break a tie if needed. That would be another absurd abuse of constitutional power. The VP decides on the Supreme Court where Congress is supposed to be a check on executive power.
But the constitution does not expressly prohibit that, so the Rs do it.
Until the Dems get more aggressive with politics the republicans will run the govt with the judiciary.
Given the circumstances of 2016, I do think there should not be anyone appointed until after the election. But how is Pence being the tie breaker in the senate an abuse of constitutional power? That's exactly what is supposed to happen in a tie, so the VP being a tie breaker isn't abuse, that is really the one rule being followed here.
agreed. if it's a detailed provision in the constitution, like it is here, it's not an abuse. it's only an abuse because democrats don't like it. well, now you know next time, you should use it if necessary.
But I thought this VP rule was created after McConnell blew up the vote on Gorsuch and went to majority instead of 60 votes for a justice? In the past a VP wasn't involved with the SCOTUS pick because there was no need for a tie break. It's basically cheating. Of course the current VP is going to approve his president's pick. It's just semantics.
I read that he supports having a vote, not that he would vote yes. Maybe it doesn't matter, but to me that could mean he thinks each senator should be on record for what they feel is the right step to take. If they vote to proceed, I think we know what is going to happen when democrats gain the majority. You reap what you sow.
Romney is a solid conservative from a solidly red state. If Dems think that’s where their wishes should be, they are lost. They have 50 votes and are even willing to bring in Pence to break a tie if needed. That would be another absurd abuse of constitutional power. The VP decides on the Supreme Court where Congress is supposed to be a check on executive power.
But the constitution does not expressly prohibit that, so the Rs do it.
Until the Dems get more aggressive with politics the republicans will run the govt with the judiciary.
Given the circumstances of 2016, I do think there should not be anyone appointed until after the election. But how is Pence being the tie breaker in the senate an abuse of constitutional power? That's exactly what is supposed to happen in a tie, so the VP being a tie breaker isn't abuse, that is really the one rule being followed here.
agreed. if it's a detailed provision in the constitution, like it is here, it's not an abuse. it's only an abuse because democrats don't like it. well, now you know next time, you should use it if necessary.
But I thought this VP rule was created after McConnell blew up the vote on Gorsuch and went to majority instead of 60 votes for a justice? In the past a VP wasn't involved with the SCOTUS pick because there was no need for a tie break. It's basically cheating. Of course the current VP is going to approve his president's pick. It's just semantics.
if that's true, then it's still legal. sorry, i thought it was in the doc.
and it's legal for the dems to stack the courts with more justices if they want, if they have the votes. ethical? not really. kinda like cheating? yep. but it's allowed.
democrats need to stop playing nice. it's why they keep losing.
"Oh Canada...you're beautiful when you're drunk" -EV 8/14/93
I read that he supports having a vote, not that he would vote yes. Maybe it doesn't matter, but to me that could mean he thinks each senator should be on record for what they feel is the right step to take. If they vote to proceed, I think we know what is going to happen when democrats gain the majority. You reap what you sow.
Romney is a solid conservative from a solidly red state. If Dems think that’s where their wishes should be, they are lost. They have 50 votes and are even willing to bring in Pence to break a tie if needed. That would be another absurd abuse of constitutional power. The VP decides on the Supreme Court where Congress is supposed to be a check on executive power.
But the constitution does not expressly prohibit that, so the Rs do it.
Until the Dems get more aggressive with politics the republicans will run the govt with the judiciary.
Given the circumstances of 2016, I do think there should not be anyone appointed until after the election. But how is Pence being the tie breaker in the senate an abuse of constitutional power? That's exactly what is supposed to happen in a tie, so the VP being a tie breaker isn't abuse, that is really the one rule being followed here.
agreed. if it's a detailed provision in the constitution, like it is here, it's not an abuse. it's only an abuse because democrats don't like it. well, now you know next time, you should use it if necessary.
But I thought this VP rule was created after McConnell blew up the vote on Gorsuch and went to majority instead of 60 votes for a justice? In the past a VP wasn't involved with the SCOTUS pick because there was no need for a tie break. It's basically cheating. Of course the current VP is going to approve his president's pick. It's just semantics.
I learned in 8th grade VP is always the tie breaker vote in senate. I don’t think the rules would be different for a scotus vote. If senate is tied, VP votes. That’s my understanding.
The majority rule may be newer, but the VP being a tie breaker isn’t.
i stated this earlier. why bother running for prez when he knows he's the most powerful man in america today?
That is a really dumb tweet. His party...of which make up over 50 of the senate members, choose him to lead the party in the senate. It has nothing to do with the number of votes he got in Kentucky. I'm kinda tired of the dumb shit arguments.
i stated this earlier. why bother running for prez when he knows he's the most powerful man in america today?
That is a really dumb tweet. His party...of which make up over 50 of the senate members, choose him to lead the party in the senate. It has nothing to do with the number of votes he got in Kentucky. I'm kinda tired of the dumb shit arguments.
No one here complained about the rules when Harry Reid was in charge of the senate majority for basically the same reason. He got rid of the filibuster when the dems had control of the senate, with the exception of the scotus. Did they really think when the republicans had control again they wouldn't do the same thing and include the scotus this time? I wish politics wasn't dirty, but it is. I think its dirty they didn't vote in 2016 and are pushing one through now. But if the shoe was on the other foot the dems would probably be doing it to. Used car salesmen and politicians are a lot alike.
Comments
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Mitt Fucking Wrongney
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Note: I've never served on a jury and never will.
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."
Doesn't say anything about "a jury of your peers." So why can't a jury be professionals rather than "peers"? Couldn't professional jurors be impartial just as judges are supposed to be?
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
No it would not
Deciding a presidential election along a 5-4 party line vote WAS a disaster, and nobody cared 20 years ago. The “winner” of that election went aggressively conservative with the court and nobody cared.
That one decision in 2000 will lead to a conservative court that will be unbroken for likely 70 years.
Why are Americans brainwashed into believing laws need to be “validated” by the high court? How many times must Obamacare go before the courts? If a law is egregiously bad, it should take far more than a 5-4 party line decision to overturn what was intended to be the most important congressional power. The constitution directs congress to set the laws in Article I and tried desperately to figure out a way to keep politics out of the court. Obviously our framers had trouble with that one.
But the constitution does not expressly prohibit that, so the Rs do it.
Until the Dems get more aggressive with politics the republicans will run the govt with the judiciary.
-EV 8/14/93
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
TL DR - if it’s anything disagreed about on that level, they should not be canceling out the will of congress. That is the absurdity of our situation
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
-EV 8/14/93
and it's legal for the dems to stack the courts with more justices if they want, if they have the votes. ethical? not really. kinda like cheating? yep. but it's allowed.
democrats need to stop playing nice. it's why they keep losing.
-EV 8/14/93
-EV 8/14/93
It was moving and sad.
But what an amazing person she was.
And what a truly great American hero she was.