Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[swansont]

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the demure firebrand who in her 80s became a legal, cultural and feminist icon, died Friday. The Supreme Court announced her death, saying the cause was complications from metastatic cancer of the pancreas.”

https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/100306972/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-champion-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

[drumbo]

This is great news for the Republicans. I am sorry that a human being died, but everyone dies.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPIdRJlzERo

[J.C.MacSwell]

Even in Canada this is a significant news story.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dead-1.5730809

She was a great lady.

RIP RBG.

[Arete]

34 minutes ago, drumbo said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPIdRJlzERo

I guess being trashy and tactless in reference to the death of a political rival is pretty on point for the republican base these days. 

[iNow]

These next 45 days until the election are only going to get even uglier and more vicious than they’ve already been.

McConnell has already issued a statement that he WILL bring Trumps replacement nominee to the floor for a vote (despite the Merrick Garland episode, hypocrisy has never stopped him before).

Trump will be flogging this issue and fanning the flames with his own list of nominees to drive up what’s been lukewarm and tepid support among evangelicals. This will also offer a lifeline to republican senators in close elections.

They waited 400 days after Scalia died to allow a vote on replacement bc of “the election.”  Now they won’t even wait 45 days after Ginsberg died. 

Its not just Justices who are dying, but our democracy and justice itself. 
 

.

Edited September 19, 2020 by iNow

[MigL]

Are there no rules in place, constitutional or otherwise, that prevent replacement nominations in the thick of the election campaign ?

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Are there no rules in place, constitutional or otherwise, that prevent replacement nominations in the thick of the election campaign ?

Well as iNow said, the Republicans blocked a nomination by Obama arguing that a seat should only filled by the incoming president. As we all know, it is unlikely that the GOP will remember what they themselves claimed. But there was no real rule that they could claim other than having control of the senate.

Edit:

Well it is clear that they do not care about being hypocrites, McConnell already announced that “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”

[iNow]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Are there no rules in place, constitutional or otherwise, that prevent replacement nominations in the thick of the election campaign ?

No. 

Most likely outcome: Trump gives a red meat nominee to senate, one that will give a massive hard on to the celibate evangelical portion of his base and McConnell will force a floor vote. He’s not here to avoid hypocrisy. He’s here to concentrate and maintain power. Judges are the best way to do this since they get the final decision when laws drafted by congress get challenged.

While some of McConnells members like Murkowski from Alaska and Romney from Utah will balk, and the media and left will be apoplectic, the rest of the GOP senators will forfeit whatever remaining backbone they had and fall in-line like good little school children voting in favor of the nominee... Better to do that and “own the libs” than to piss off their rabid and QAnon captured electorate who is cultish toward trump and armed to the teeth. 

The GOP needs 50 votes to confirm a nomination and have 53 seats in the senate. Even if Democrats manage to convince 3 to join them in opposition, a tie would send the vote to VP Pence to break. Unless a 4th Republican steps up, Trump will get a 3rd Supreme Court Justice on to the bench. 

At that point, the only remaining option is for the Democrats to sweep the election and pack the court, moving the 5-4 conservative majority instead to a 7-5 liberal majority after switching from a bench of 9 justices instead to a bench of 11. 

Nothing in the constitution prevents this, but it does sadly continue the race to the bottom since the GOP would just move to 13 Justices once they regained power. 

Edited September 19, 2020 by iNow

[StringJunky]

4 hours ago, iNow said:

No. 

Most likely outcome: Trump gives a red meat nominee to senate, one that will give a massive hard on to the celibate evangelical portion of his base and McConnell will force a floor vote. He’s not here to avoid hypocrisy. He’s here to concentrate and maintain power. Judges are the best way to do this since they get the final decision when laws drafted by congress get challenged.

While some of McConnells members like Murkowski from Alaska and Romney from Utah will balk, and the media and left will be apoplectic, the rest of the GOP senators will forfeit whatever remaining backbone they had and fall in-line like good little school children voting in favor of the nominee... Better to do that and “own the libs” than to piss off their rabid and QAnon captured electorate who is cultish toward trump and armed to the teeth. 

The GOP needs 50 votes to confirm a nomination and have 53 seats in the senate. Even if Democrats manage to convince 3 to join them in opposition, a tie would send the vote to VP Pence to break. Unless a 4th Republican steps up, Trump will get a 3rd Supreme Court Justice on to the bench. 

At that point, the only remaining option is for the Democrats to sweep the election and pack the court, moving the 5-4 conservative majority instead to a 7-5 liberal majority after switching from a bench of 9 justices instead to a bench of 11. 

Nothing in the constitution prevents this, but it does sadly continue the race to the bottom since the GOP would just move to 13 Justices once they regained power. 

Is there no constitutional limit on the number of justices?

[MigL]

Did a little research.
Oddly enough there is a non-binding rule, called the Biden rule ( from 92 ), which suggests that, if there is going to be a change in the Presidency, then the people's will should be followed, and a wait for the new President is suggested. This was the case in 2016, as B Obama could not be President in January 2017.
In this case, the argument is that D Trump may still be President in January 2021, so he shouldn't have to give up his Constitutional powers to appoint SC justices.

Looks like D Trump will get another nomination ( although he's been quiet on the matter ), and, barring quite a few defectors, the Republican controlled Senate will ram it through.

Edited September 19, 2020 by MigL

[J.C.MacSwell]

Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."  https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/100306972/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-champion-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87

[J.C.MacSwell]

Trump in rare form:

 

[iNow]

5 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Is there no constitutional limit on the number of justices?

No

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Trump in rare form:

His press team, actually. None of those words are in his voice, either 

9 hours ago, iNow said:

At that point, the only remaining option is for the Democrats to sweep the election and pack the court, moving the 5-4 conservative majority instead to a 7-5 liberal majority after switching from a bench of 9 justices instead to a bench of 11. 

I should’ve said a 6-3 conservative majority. 5-4 is what we already had before Ginsberg passed

[geordief]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."  https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/100306972/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-champion-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87

I wonder why she said that. Did she think it might somehow count in the balance?

 

Was it an opinion based on reflection ? I wonder what her arguments and opposing arguments might have been (she came down very firmly on the one side)

 

Or was it borne out of strong sentiment?

[iNow]

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

I wonder why she said that

One of her lifelong principles was that laws and processes should apply equally to everyone (see also her work on women’s rights and the 14th amendment).

Saying we should NOT hold hearings on replacement justices during election years when democrats are in power, but then we SHOULD hold hearings during election years when republicans are in power DIRECTLY contradicts that central principle of her lifelong judicial philosophy. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

I wonder why she would expect a wait of over 4 years? 😉

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

His press team, actually. None of those words are in his voice, either 

 

No doubt. But still rare form...

[MigL]

Has everybody seen the clip of D Trump's reaction on finding out about her death ?

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/entertainment/music/other/twitter-reacts-to-trump-learning-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg-s-death-while-elton-john-s-tiny-dancer-plays/ar-BB19cR5l?ocid=msedgntp

If staged ... wow, ballsy !
If coincidence ... wow, weird !

[J.C.MacSwell]

11 hours ago, iNow said:

No

His press team, actually. None of those words are in his voice, either 

I should’ve said a 6-3 conservative majority. 5-4 is what we already had before Ginsberg passed

I'm sure after careful thought Trump and the GOP will do the right thing.

Not much chance they'll do the left thing...

Edited September 20, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell

[iNow]

It’s sad that standing in support of democracy and laws has become a left wing cause and partisan issue (all while the right claims without seeing the irony to be running in support of law and order), but I reckon that’s what happens when representing citizens takes a back seat to holding on to and consolidating power. 

Trump lost the popular vote by roughly 3,000,000 votes. The Democrats who hold a minority in the senate represent approximately 80,000,000 more Americans than the republicans who currently have the senate majority. 

A constitutional republic and representative democracy is only as good as the people representing us, and we’ve allowed corruption, grift, and glad-handing to rule the day for far too long. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by iNow

[iNow]

Amy Barrett. In less than a week, they’ve chosen a candidate, will have hearings early October, and a vote end of October so they can celebrate and boast within mere days of the election. Meanwhile, a relief package for the 30 million Americans out of work due to covid continues just sitting on their desks after months of stalled negotiations. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

Whether you agree with the timing, so close to the election, or not; this is a potential minefield for the Democrats...and they have so many that simply don't have the nature or savvy to tread lightly.

[iNow]

Perhaps you’re right. I do find it interesting how through the years though, almost no matter the issue, you seem to find ways of placing all ownership and the entirety of responsibility for outcomes solely at the feet of Democrats. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

5 hours ago, iNow said:

Perhaps you’re right. I do find it interesting how through the years though, almost no matter the issue, you seem to find ways of placing all ownership and the entirety of responsibility for outcomes solely at the feet of Democrats. 

...and here I am thinking I have a reasonable semblance of balanced viewpoints...

[StringJunky]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

...and here I am thinking I have a reasonable semblance of balanced viewpoints...

Every person is their own reference for neutrality.

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Every person is their own reference for neutrality.

Of course. That was meant tongue in cheek in reply to INow's off topic exaggerations.

Edited September 26, 2020 by J.C.MacSwell