Page 1 of 1

RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:39 pm
by Bob Juch
Dead at 87 of pancreatic cancer. :cry:

Re: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:58 pm
by SportsFan68
I'm one of those people who's been praying for Justice Ginsburg's health. I'm so sorry.

Re: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:02 pm
by silverscreenselect
A great legal mind. A very sad day for the country.

Some very ugly days to come.

Re: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2020 7:17 pm
by jarnon
RIP RBG. Her memory is a blessing.

Re: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:38 am
by Buffacuse
Maybe he'll be totally fair and nominate Merrick Garland.*



*Could also have been posted under "Joke of the Day"

Re: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:54 am
by Bob78164
Buffacuse wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:38 am
Maybe he'll be totally fair and nominate Merrick Garland.*



*Could also have been posted under "Joke of the Day"
I have been advocating for a while now what I call the Stolen Justice Act of 2021. It would do three things. First, it would expand the size of the Court to 11 (now 13, if Moscow Mitch succeeds in confirming a new Justice against the wishes of the American people). Second, it would, by attrition, reduce the size of the Court to 9 via attrition starting on January 20, 2025. Third, it would provide that starting 90 days after a nominee is formally submitted to the Senate, any 20 Senators acting by petition could force an immediate up-or-down vote on the nominee. No more Merrick Garlands.

Another idea I've heard that I rather like also would avoid the need for a constitutional amendment. The Constitution does not require that all Justices vote on all cases. So the Stolen Justice Act could permanently increase the size of the Court to 13 but provide that only 9 Justices (the Chief Justice and 8 Associate Justices selected at random) shall hear any particular cause. --Bob

Re: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:31 pm
by silverscreenselect
Bob78164 wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:54 am
I have been advocating for a while now what I call the Stolen Justice Act of 2021.
This nomination will be a test of how many Republicans have any integrity. Right now, I count two: Romney and Murkowski. My hunch is that Mitch McConnell is going to wait until after the election to hold the vote to prevent Susan Collins and Lindsay Graham from being in a very awkward situation. But McConnell can't wait too long if Mark Kelly wins the Arizona Senate election as expected, since he would take office around the end of November and that would leave McConnell even less wiglle room.

There could also be some horse trading if Biden wins with Republicans voting down the nomination in exchange for Biden's agreement not to push an expansion of the court.

Re: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:48 pm
by silverscreenselect
Lindsey Graham 2016 wrote:I want you to use my words against me. If there’s a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said let’s let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination.
It didn't take Lindsey Graham long to weasel out of what he went on record as saying in 2016. Fortunately, Graham is in a fairly close re-election campaign and I fully expect his Democratic opponent to use his words against him in the next month.

Susan Collins has announced that the next president should fill the vacancy. She pretty much has to say that now to have any chance of being re-elected, but if her vote winds up being key, it remains to be seen if she will stick to her guns (especially if McConnell schedules the vote right after the election)..

Re: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:45 am
by Bob78164
silverscreenselect wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:31 pm
Bob78164 wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:54 am
I have been advocating for a while now what I call the Stolen Justice Act of 2021.
This nomination will be a test of how many Republicans have any integrity. Right now, I count two: Romney and Murkowski. My hunch is that Mitch McConnell is going to wait until after the election to hold the vote to prevent Susan Collins and Lindsay Graham from being in a very awkward situation. But McConnell can't wait too long if Mark Kelly wins the Arizona Senate election as expected, since he would take office around the end of November and that would leave McConnell even less wiglle room.

There could also be some horse trading if Biden wins with Republicans voting down the nomination in exchange for Biden's agreement not to push an expansion of the court.
The case challenging the Affordable Care Act is scheduled for oral argument the week after Election Day. I’m thinking McConnell really wants to hold the vote before then to maximize his chances of stripping health insurance from tens of millions of Americans in the middle of a pandemic. —Bob

Re: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:00 am
by Spock
silverscreenselect wrote:
Fri Sep 18, 2020 6:02 pm

Some very ugly days to come.
Lead in many ways by you.

Re: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:18 pm
by ne1410s
I bow to no one in my disgust for our current president and his cultist followers, but why did RBG not retire years ago? At age 80 BO was president and could have filled her position. Did she think she was immortal? Did she put self before country? And where does the white go when snow melts?

Re: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:20 pm
by Ritterskoop
It would have been nice for this thread to be about her life's remarkable legacy, and a separate thread to have been about the chum in the water.

Re: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:25 am
by Estonut
Bob78164 wrote:
Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:54 am
... it would expand the size of the Court to 11 (now 13, if Moscow Mitch succeeds in confirming a new Justice against the wishes of the American people). Second, it would, by attrition, reduce the size of the Court to 9 via attrition starting on January 20, 2025. ...

... permanently increase the size of the Court to 13 but provide that only 9 Justices (the Chief Justice and 8 Associate Justices selected at random) shall hear any particular cause.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with you over court packing. I'd take her opinion over yours. On anything.

Re: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:03 am
by silverscreenselect
Estonut wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:25 am
Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with you over court packing.
And the Republicans didn't listen to her about how her successor should be chosen. You're real choosy about which Ginsburg opinions to listen to.

Re: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:08 am
by Beebs52
silverscreenselect wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:03 am
Estonut wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:25 am
Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with you over court packing.
And the Republicans didn't listen to her about how her successor should be chosen. You're real choosy about which Ginsburg opinions to listen to.
Ah. So you finally admit you toe the left line completely with no exception.

Re: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:27 pm
by Bob78164
Beebs52 wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:08 am
silverscreenselect wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 8:03 am
Estonut wrote:
Sun Sep 27, 2020 6:25 am
Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagreed with you over court packing.
And the Republicans didn't listen to her about how her successor should be chosen. You're real choosy about which Ginsburg opinions to listen to.
Ah. So you finally admit you toe the left line completely with no exception.
Republicans are using raw political power to make an appointment now when a majority of the American people want them to wait. They're using raw political power to make an appointment when under more compelling circumstances they wouldn't even afford a hearing to a Democratic nominee. So if Democrats do take control after the November elections, I will have no sympathy at all for Republican complaints when Democrats respond in kind. As you once put it, "Too bad, so sad."

The Democratic response shouldn't just be limited to increasing the Court's size. Everything will be on the table, starting with eliminating the filibuster. --Bob