Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87

[Jaguar]

Grassley may keep his word:

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told Fox News in 2018 he would not support a Supreme Court nomination vote in 2020 following the commitment he made in 2016, adding “that's a decision I made a long time ago."

 

[Virtual ghost]

it's AT LEAST disrespectful.

Yeah, they should have perhaps waited for a few days, at least for the sake of image. However now the democrats really have the full right to attack them on this (and it will probably land).



But here is one simple food for thought.
In my country parliament and executive branch have much more of a say next to the top court in the country. Therefore people on the long run have much more of a say regarding the top ideological questions on the long run. Especially since we can remake the whole government with snap elections at any time. In real life I don't think I ever heard "OMG, the supreme court. We have to vote!".

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I don't think there's any way around this problem: anyone willing to be nominated and quickly appointed to replace her under these current conditions (the utmost issue being the hypocrisy of changing the rules of the game in the middle of playing it in a bombastically self-serving manner) is uniquely wildly unqualified for the job.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Time to stall the vote. This is only fair. Remember how they stalled in 2016? They should follow their own precedent. They set this precedent, remember? I can’t wait to see the mental gymnastics these hypocrites use to justify how they will inevitably ignore their own precedent

I can’t wait to see how their supporters say it’s “different” this time when it wasn’t “different” the first time those crooks ignored existing precedents to their own political ends.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I suppose the fact that Trump hasn't publicly retaliated with juvenile smearing about Collins or Murkowski more or less confirms this is the case.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I've been seeing a story about Pelosi being willing to impeach Trump and Barr - to interrupt the SCOTUS process - make its way up the ranks of credibility in the media. It's now being posted by The Hill.

Pelosi: House will use 'every arrow in our quiver' to stop Trump Supreme Court nominee

It might be the exhaustion talking, but I'm not sure I'm even opposed to using an abuse of authority like that to interrupt McConnell's consistent (and progressively blatant) abuse of authority on the other end.

 

[Totenkindly]

I've been seeing a story about Pelosi being willing to impeach Trump and Barr - to interrupt the SCOTUS process - make its way up the ranks of credibility in the media. It's now being posted by The Hill.

Pelosi: House will use 'every arrow in our quiver' to stop Trump Supreme Court nominee

It might be the exhaustion talking, but I'm not sure I'm even opposed to using an abuse of authority like that to interrupt McConnell's consistent (and progressively blatant) abuse of authority on the other end.

Now's the time for them to step up their game, since -- god love 'em -- Dems have often been the sort to bring casseroles and house warming gifts to a knife fight.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Exactly.^

 

[Z Buck McFate]

"...try to destroy Brett Kavanaugh's life." By investigating claims of sexual assault.

He posted a few tweets earlier about how this time is different (than the last time an opening on SCOTUS happened during an election year), but I didn't think to screen grab them. Of course they were ridiculous. He's such a tub of spineless, rancid goo.

 

[The Cat]

"...try to destroy Brett Kavanaugh's life."

He posted a few tweets earlier about how this time is different (than the last time an opening on SCOTUS happened during an election year), but I didn't think to screen grab them. Of course they were ridiculous. He's such a tub of spineless, rancid goo.

and his hair looks like it's angry with the sky and the rest of him.

 

[Jaguar]

.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

 

[anticlimatic]

It's not a huge deal. SCOTUS just interprets the constitution, it's not really a partisan thing- or shouldn't be.

I was against it, but the republicans have more precedent than I originally thought, so I changed my mind.

We will see what happens, but if Trump rams this lady through:

It will only be RGB's fault. She should have resigned under Obama. Instead, she fell victim to the same hubris most people on the left did, in assuming that the future was going to go a specific way, that they alone held the rights to progress, and that the country was just going to bend to their desires; the one TRUE God. She thought it would be cute and symbolic for Hillary to choose her replacement, and here we are. How devastating for her legacy- if Trump does manage to ram someone through at the buzzer before losing to Joe Biden- that had she held on just a few more weeks, or maybe just a few more days, she could have been replaced by another progressive activist judge by the democrats.

 

[Jaguar]

Can you have some class and stop trolling a dead woman in this thread?

 

[Red Memories]

While I find it classless to immediately replace...I also...

- Find it saddening a dying woman was thinking about this rather than more important things in her death. Such is the state of things now days.
- Find it disheartening to hear threats of changing everything if they replace her
- Find it ridiculous double jeopardy to threaten impeaching Trump again over this and just really waters down what impeachment really is.

Just filibuster the thing to death so his appointee never gets in and call it a day. I realize this is more about whose party is going to run the supreme court for days to come. I'd prefer a balanced supreme court that isn't run by party lines in the first place because justice does not have a party - it only has a judgment of lawful and true vs. disorderly and criminal. I do admit though - an expansion doesn't seem like a terrible idea. But if it is just to make it a "democrat majority" again I will slap the other side too.

 

[The Cat]

2016-through today oh what a difference corruption makes.
I'd say when Mitch and the senate proved that the current administration can just shrug it off that's what really waters down what impeachment really is...

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

While I find it classless to immediately replace...I also...

- Find it saddening a dying woman was thinking about this rather than more important things in her death. Such is the state of things now days.
- Find it disheartening to hear threats of changing everything if they replace her
- Find it ridiculous double jeopardy to threaten impeaching Trump again over this and just really waters down what impeachment really is.

Just filibuster the thing to death so his appointee never gets in and call it a day. I realize this is more about whose party is going to run the supreme court for days to come. I'd prefer a balanced supreme court that isn't run by party lines in the first place because justice does not have a party - it only has a judgment of lawful and true vs. disorderly and criminal. I do admit though - an expansion doesn't seem like a terrible idea. But if it is just to make it a "democrat majority" again I will slap the other side too.

At this point it is just about maintaining a balanced court. Currently it is fairly balanced if you consider Roberts and Kavanaugh as the centrist swing votes (which both have mostly been so far).

So ideally I think she needs to be replaced with another leftist to maintain some semblance of a balanced court

The republicans, if they actually cared about balanced judicial branch, as some claim, would be behind this.

 

[Red Memories]

At this point it is just about maintaining a balanced court. Currently it is fairly balanced if you consider Roberts and Kavanaugh as the centrist swing votes (which both have mostly been so far).

So ideally I think she needs to be replaced with another leftist to maintain some semblance of a balanced court

But why is justice viewed politically in the first place?

I do agree with you - nevertheless I don't think justice should change if I am a centrist, you are a leftist, and Johnny down the road is a staunch conservative. Justice is justice...

 

[The Cat]

But why is justice viewed politically in the first place?

I do agree with you - nevertheless I don't think justice should change if I am a centrist, you are a leftist, and Johnny down the road is a staunch conservative. Justice is justice...

But is it really? and I'm not talking about what it should be ideally; (I'm pretty certain many wouldnt even agree there) but what it actually is within the reality within which we have to work.

 

[Totenkindly]

But why is justice viewed politically in the first place?

I do agree with you - nevertheless I don't think justice should change if I am a centrist, you are a leftist, and Johnny down the road is a staunch conservative. Justice is justice...

Sure, blatant bias should not be part of this.

But obviously there's not a uniform answer for some things, it depends on your perspective and your guiding values in how something should be understood and read... underlying accepted principles. That's why we get into disagreements regarding originalism, for example.

And our current environment today is just screwed because we've fomented a lot of viewpoints not anchored in facts, the news media landscape has become fractured, it's basically the rise of opinion columnists / personalities versus fact/story-reporting, and large portions of the populace can effectively isolate themselves within a news bubble, blocking out other views, because it doesn't impact their direct survival. (Although now it's starting to catch up with everyone as the world seems to devolve.)