Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

mugtang

RBG has died

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, NVGiant said:

You know what I think is the saddest part of this? RBG was absolutely the liberal equivalent of Scalia. A pioneering lawyer and then the intellectual backbone of the court’s liberal wing. To many, she is a hero as Scalia was a hero to the right.

And all we can talk about is the politics of replacing her, including me. I know it’s the times we’re in, and the unusual circumstances that come with this opening. But I just want to pause and say we’ve lost a great one today, and she probably won’t be replaced by her equal, no matter who ultimately gets the pick.

Thanks @halfmanhalfbronco and a few others for trying to pay her that respect. 

I disagreed about many of her decisions but I respected her and admired her. I do think it is a shame instead of paying respect to her life and career it instantly turned political but those are the times we live in. 

I did think tonight about her friendship and mutual respect she had with Scalia. It made me think of better times when we could be ideologically opposed but still be civil and friendly to each other. One day I hope that returns. Our future depends on it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

You know what I think is the saddest part of this? RBG was absolutely the liberal equivalent of Scalia. A pioneering lawyer and then the intellectual backbone of the court’s liberal wing. To many, she is a hero as Scalia was a hero to the right.

And all we can talk about is the politics of replacing her, including me. I know it’s the times we’re in, and the unusual circumstances that come with this opening. But I just want to pause and say we’ve lost a great one today, and she probably won’t be replaced by her equal, no matter who ultimately gets the pick.

Thanks @halfmanhalfbronco and a few others for trying to pay her that respect. 

That has been one of my issues with lifetime appointments; it makes the stakes for these so high that you can’t not immediately think about the future ramifications of who replaces a justice when they die. Something has always felt... gross, for lack of a better word, about how our feelings about a justice’s death will vary depending on the party of the President at that particular time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rebelbacker said:

I disagreed about many of her decisions but I respected her and admired her. I do think it is a shame instead of paying respect to her life and career it instantly turned political but those are the times we live in. 

I did think tonight about her friendship and mutual respect she had with Scalia. It made me think of better times when we could be ideologically opposed but still be civil and friendly to each other. One day I hope that returns. Our future depends on it. 

Me too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SalinasSpartan said:

That has been one of my issues with lifetime appointments; it makes the stakes for these so high that you can’t not immediately think about the future ramifications of who replaces a justice when they die. Something has always felt... gross, for lack of a better word, about how our feelings about a justice’s death will vary depending on the party of the President at that particular time. 

It also is slowly causing Presidents to nominate younger and less qualified candidates as time goes on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Got ya. So what can the Democrats actually do to slow this down? I’m guessing part of the strategy will be to constantly publicly insisting on them finishing stimulus negotiations before getting to a Supreme Court nominee. 

They can’t do anything if the nominee is acceptable to 50 senators. The voters are the main check with the election coming up. Although if 2018 is any indication, that’s not going to be any consolation for senate Democrats.

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SalinasSpartan said:

That has been one of my issues with lifetime appointments; it makes the stakes for these so high that you can’t not immediately think about the future ramifications of who replaces a justice when they die. Something has always felt... gross, for lack of a better word, about how our feelings about a justice’s death will vary depending on the party of the President at that particular time. 

Agree 100%. We would be so better off if SCOTUS served 10 year terms and term limits were placed on Congress. I'd say 12 years for both houses. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, robe said:

This is Trump country. 2016 was crazy. The primary was massive. I had never seen anything like it. It’s hard to tell this year. But I don’t think the Trump enthusiasm is gone. 


Kansas is like a reverse NJ or What New York was. We send Republicans to Washington but elect a ton of Democrat Governors. Our Supreme Court is way Left. The Carr brothers raped, tortured and murder 5 25 to 28 year olds. They overturned the conviction. The US Supreme Court reversed their decision. 

The Trump enthusiasm isn’t gone but the resolute we must vote him out is strong on the other side.  I will use my son as an example.   He missed voting last election.  He will be in Croatia during this election but made sure before he left for Croatia that he had a way to vote.  My daughter and all her 26 year old friends are determined to vote.   

I would hate to be a pollster for this election.  It’s going to come down to turnout and who votes.  It’s going to be very hard to predict.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

Got ya. So what can the Democrats actually do to slow this down? I’m guessing part of the strategy will be constantly publicly insisting on them finishing stimulus negotiations before getting to a Supreme Court nominee. 

A third of these senators have an election to campaign for, too. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rebelbacker said:

Agree 100%. We would be so better off if SCOTUS served 10 year terms and term limits were placed on Congress. I'd say 12 years for both houses. 

If that was the case Biden would have been long gone and forgotten and wouldn’t even be running for president. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, NVGiant said:

You know what I think is the saddest part of this? RBG was absolutely the liberal equivalent of Scalia. A pioneering lawyer and then the intellectual backbone of the court’s liberal wing. To many, she is a hero as Scalia was a hero to the right.

And all we can talk about is the politics of replacing her, including me. I know it’s the times we’re in, and the unusual circumstances that come with this opening. But I just want to pause and say we’ve lost a great one today, and she probably won’t be replaced by her equal, no matter who ultimately gets the pick.

Thanks @halfmanhalfbronco and a few others for trying to pay her that respect. 

'My thoughts exactly I posted on facebook a few hours ago.
image.png.ec10a9ecebe84ed3f81b5f9405a5e2f8.png
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rebelbacker said:

Agree 100%. We would be so better off if SCOTUS served 10 year terms and term limits were placed on Congress. I'd say 12 years for both houses. 

Yea people always talk of the intentions of the founding fathers; well considering the lifespans of people in the 1700s, I don’t think they ever envisioned people being able to serve in the Supreme Court for 30+ years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, thelawlorfaithful said:

They can’t do anything if the nominee is acceptable to 50 senators. The voters are the main check with the election coming up. Although if 2018 is any indication, that’s not going to be any consolation for senate Democrats.

Yea just from looking around on the internets it seems like political pressure is all that can be done. Procedurally if they want it done, it’ll get done within a few weeks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, SalinasSpartan said:

How long do these typically take? Is it normal to fill a vacancy in 6 weeks? I agree it seems like it will be full speed ahead, but that is an incredibly tight timeline. Democrats are also going to be able to accuse the Republicans of selling out the American people to rush to nominate a Justice, because there is no way a second stimulus will be passed in the middle of all this.

Good point.  Wonder how many will understand a filibuster exists for legislation but not Supreme Court justices.  Seems ass backward as always.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, sactowndog said:

I’m guessing they take on nothing of consequence until they have a full court again which could be very soon 

They always have things of consequence on the slate and a full menu hearing arguments starting in October. DOJ vs House Judiciary Committee you might find notable.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pending_United_States_Supreme_Court_cases#Cases

If election counting disputes come up they’ll jump in if it comes down to it. Other than that, I think you’re right that they’ll err on the side of caution. 

We’re all sitting in the dugout. Thinking we should pitch. How you gonna throw a shutout when all you do is bitch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...