Ruth Bader Ginsberg - dies 9.18.2020

[chasfm11]

This is the reality of it all. If we don't fill that seat ASAP, all we will hear for the next two months is about how the Right is going to take away rights with a supreme court pick.

I think that the reverse is true as well - perhaps more so. The Republicans gained the Senate in 2016 and added seats in 2018 on the strength of them exercising their "advise and consent" role in the appointment of jurists. The Evangelicals, who have been luke warm on President Trump, fully recognize the impact on the Supreme Court of the appointment of a Constitution oriented justice rather than a Liberal activist like RBG. Both sides recognize that Roe v Wade might hang in the balance. The suggestion was made that Justice Ginsberg's passing changed the tone of every Senate race across the country. People who might not have voted at all because of the ongoing rancor may be energized to come to the voting booth in support of a President and a Senate who will rein in the Supreme Court's activist traits. Time will tell if that is true or not.

[jason812]

Ted Cruz Offers a Solid Reason for Filling Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Vacancy Now
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa ... n-n2576501


History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/ ... =true&s=09

Good reads.

While I can see the hypocrisy in the senate having a hearing, these articles point out that what was done in 2016 and if a nomination is made this year, it would be following precedent throughout US history. Also, it was the dims who fillerbustured nominations first and was the dims who did away with the filibuster for appellate nominations. This senate just applied that to Supreme Court nominations. I doubt the libs bother to acknowledge history and will just throw a tantrum.

Then I think what would the dims do? They would cram a nomination down our throats the way Obamacare was rammed down out throats.

The libs are trying to steal the election with mail in ballots and not even trying to hide that fact any more. I say give us a solid conservative judge and get him/her confirmed before the election.

The marxist are going to riot and throw a fit no matter what. Its time to fight back and not give in by taking the high road.

Amy Barrett would be my hope.

[Rafe]

Rest in peace, Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She was a remarkable woman with a will and a work ethic with which no one can argue. Even in her 80s and battling cancer multiple times, she almost never missed a single day on the bench. Whether or not I agree with all of her opinions and politics, I still give massive respect to a life powerfully lived, and pray that God holds her soul in His presence.

Personally, I believe the nomination for a new justice will come quickly. Trump already made public his shortlist (notice that Biden hasn't made a peep about who he would nominate?) and I believe the intent to nominate was made a long time ago and just waiting for another vacancy. If I had my guess, the only delay will be working with the top of the shortlist of candidates to come up with someone brave enough to endure, for the remainder of 2020 and maybe into 2021, a confirmation process that will make the disgusting Kavanaugh process pale by comparison. This nominee's route to the bench will look more like a trip through Dante's Fifth Circle of Hell, where wrathful and angry souls spend eternity waging battle on the River of Styx.

I don't think anyone believes a nominee can be confirmed before the election. But I think the President will start the process ASAP. I'll bet he's already talking with his shortlist. And I agree with the double-edged sword analogy. A nomination now may fire-up what has become the radical left base of the Democrats. Conversely, however, the vats of acid and burning oil that will be dumped on the nominee by the Democrats during the public confirmation hearings will rile-up the conservative base, and given how deplorable the Kavanaugh hearings were it might just also put a rancid taste in the mouths of a lot of independents and undecideds.

I think a lot of the latter will depend upon who is nominated and how the Republicans handle the rest of the process. Unfortunately, for that reason and the fact that he has an active senate seat, I don't think we'll see Ted Cruz's name. Probably not Harvard-law trained Army vet Tom Cotton, either...though I think he'd be more likely than Cruz.

And a big part of the handling of it will come down to that hypocrisy issue that Schumer et al. will scream every waking moment of every day. Somehow the Republicans will need to put front and center what was actually said and argued when Obama put forward Merrick Garland to take Antonin Scalia's seat. Two very important differences are that, 1) the president making the nomination and the elected senate majority were of different parties; and 2) it was a lame-duck presidency: the incumbent could not be re-elected and therefore the White House would have a new occupant for whom the people would vote in a few month's time.

When Biden made his June 25, 1992 Senate speech, which came to be called the "Biden Rule" (inaccurately because the Senate never voted on it and it never became an operating rule) arguing that should there become a vacancy the Senate should delay confirmation hearings, Bush was the incumbent facing Bill Clinton and Ross Perot in the upcoming election, there was a Democrat-controlled Senate and a Democrat-controlled House, and there was no opening on the SCOTUS bench at that time. Article II Section 2 of the Constitution doesn't say the President "may" or "when convenient"; it says "he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint...Judges of the supreme Court." So regardless of politics I do think the Constitution is on the side of a timely nomination.

In 1992 we had a Republican in the White House and Democrat majorities in both the House and Senate. And back then Sleepy Joe was still in full use of his faculties. So here's a brief quotation from his 1992 Senate speech that just goes to show that, nearly two decades later, D.C. is still a swampy cesspool:

Given the unusual rancor...and the overall level of bitterness that sadly infects our political system and this presidential campaign already, it is my view that the prospects for anything but conflagration with respect to a Supreme Court nomination this year are remote at best.

RIP, Ruth Bader Ginsberg. And may we see a Constitutionalist take a seat on the Supreme Court.

[J.R.@A&M]

RIP, Ruth Bader Ginsberg. And may we see a Constitutionalist take a seat on the Supreme Court.

Agree with both sentiments. And from a optics standpoint, I think the Left would have a harder time opposing Judge Lagoa (the Floridian Cubana and mother of three daughters). I think they are already geared up for Judge Barrett.

[C-dub]

I'm not sure there is a high or low road when it comes to politics anymore. There's just politics. Thank you Dingy Harry.

It's just business. It's not personal.

[srothstein]

I'm not sure there is a high or low road when it comes to politics anymore. There's just politics.

I agree. I was not urging anyone to take the high road when I pointed out the hypocrisy of making the late term appointment. I was actually trying to discuss the political strategies and tactics involved.

I think it boils down to basically the following points to consider:

1. If trump does not make an appointment before election day, how will that play with the public? By public, I mean the moderates or independents that are not already locked in to a party no matter what. Will they be more likely to vote for Trump or not? Flip side, if Trump does make the nomination and gets the appointment through, how will that affect the undecided voters?

My personal call (and I have a poor record of accurate political prognostications) is that pushing the nomination through will swing many of the undecided/independent voters to vote against Trump. Not making the nomination will swing more of them to vote for Trump since they will not see him as being as hypocritical.

2. If Trump does not make an appointment before the election, how will it affect the two bases? Are the Democrats more likely to show up to vote in hope of winning the presidency so they can make the nomination? Are the Republicans more likely to show up to help get Trump re-elected to control the nomination? Flip side, if Trump does make the nomination, are the members of either base more likely to not vote because of this?

My personal call on this is not making the nomination is more likely to affect both bases to turn out. as the nomination will be viewed as a reward for whichever party wins. Pushing the nomination through bring out many of the Democrats because of their being upset at the future of the SCOTUS being more conservative.

3. If Trump does get the nomination through and the appointment made before the election, what are the effects? Will it cost the Republicans the presidency or control of the Senate? What will the effect be on the court cases that come as a result of the election?

My personal call is that making the appointment would cost the Republicans the presidency and control of the senate. It may even cost them some control of states (legislature or governors).

4. If Trump makes the appointment and the Democrats do win, what punishment will they inflict (packing the court with more members that are liberal, removing the filibuster completely, etc.)?

This is actually irrelevant in this examination IMO, because they have already shown that they will push through anything they want without trying to work with the Republicans. They are going to do all of these whenever they win and get a chance no matter what. This is also a point where the Republicans need to learn from the Democrats and start doing the same thing.

Conclusion:

I do not think Trump should make the nomination before the election, or maybe start the process of vetting the candidate but no public announcement or senate hearing until Nov. 4th, the day after the election. This get more people out to vote, but alienates the fewest people. The appointment can still be made by Trump while he is a lame duck if necessary. If he wins as I think he will, then no one can complain about when the appointment was made.

I am not concerned about the court cases coming in after the election. I am not as sure that it will be a 4-4 vote on anything. Roberts is not guaranteed to vote as a conservative, but in most of the cases I see coming, he will vote to uphold the law. The challenges I foresee are trouble for the Democrats because they involve an established precedent - you cannot change the rules on an election while the races are under way. That includes allowing the mail-in ballots for everyone, especially if the law does not specifically say that already. I think most of those desicions would be 5-3 anyway.

[SQLGeek]

That is well argued, Steve. I don't quite agree but you've given me much to think about.

My take is this:

In at least my life time, Republicans have always tried to play the nice guy only to get continuously punched in the mouth.

They squandered a majority in both houses while holding the Presidency.

They seem to believe that politics should be noble and what have they to show for it? The leftists don't respect them. Look how they treated McCain and Romney when they ran. They don't care about nice guys they can run roughshod over.

Look at the dirty tricks they pulled to shove the ACA down our throats. Traditionally the GOP has said they're above that. And for what?

If the Democrats were in control right now, they'd be full steam ahead on a confirmation.

Trump was elected for a reason. To not be the nice guy but the one that got things done. This is something he can get done with the Senate and will have long lasting implications.

The time to strike is now.

[C-dub]

I am also very poor at politics and don't know which way would be better politically.

Flightmare made a point, though, that if the GOP gets this done before the election it may very well take the wind out of their sails for the election itself and many may just stay home and not vote because they wouldn't see a reason to vote after already having lost another supreme seat.

Which would be better in the long run? Another 4 years of Trump, that still isn't a given? Or a 6-3 majority in the Supreme Court for quite a while longer? Or since we can't much count on Roberts this would make it 5-4.

[strogg]

Let's not forget that the dems can stack the supreme court if they win.

This event cannot have happened at a worse time politically. I am still unswayed with taking the high road, though. It is seemingly the best political move as well as the more scrupulous route. It seems like it's not going to happen, though, based on the words of McConnell and Trump. I hope this won't turn ugly come November.

[C-dub]

Let's not forget that the dems can stack the supreme court if they win.

This event cannot have happened at a worse time politically. I am still unswayed with taking the high road, though. It is seemingly the best political move as well as the more scrupulous route. It seems like it's not going to happen, though, based on the words of McConnell and Trump. I hope this won't turn ugly come November.

Sorry, too late.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/ruth-ba ... enny-nance

Consider also that McSally could loose her seat in Arizona to Mark Kelly on November 3, he could be sworn in by November 30th and vote on the nominee if that is still up in the air at that time.

[philip964]

This is a guy who wrote for Simpsons. He has a political blog. He is very liberal and thinks the Dems in power are all worthless.

This is about RBG dying and how the Dems didn’t fight hard to get the Obama judge selected in 2016. They have apparently recently caved on all Trump’s other judge appointments.

It is worth a listen, he is pretty funny and trashes the Dems pretty hard.

[philip964]

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/m ... ia-n944817

Flashback.

Liberals celebrated the death of Justice Antonio Scalia.

Was n’t he the conservative Justice that mysteriously died in Texas at a remote ranch with a pillow over his head in 2016?

His family refused an autopsy?

[striker55]

Pelosi says the democrats will block any nominations by Trump ABC News: Pelosi says Democrats will 'use every arrow in our quiver' to block Trump's Supreme Court nominee.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pelosi- ... d=73121750

[Rafe]

Pelosi says the democrats will block any nominations by Trump ABC News: Pelosi says Democrats will 'use every arrow in our quiver' to block Trump's Supreme Court nominee.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/pelosi- ... d=73121750

"We have a responsibility," she said. "We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

To make her statement as accurate as possible, I would revise it to this: "We have a responsibility," she said. "We take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States...until such time the Constitution as written doesn't suit our own agendas. After all, the Constitution was written by old white men, some of them slave owners, and is just a piece of paper that doesn't always mean what it actually says, and it should be considered a living document whose interpretations and language should change depending upon which political party is in power."

There ya go; fixed it for ya, Nancy!

My own prediction is that Trump will announce the nominee the last week of September. I'll go with a choice of Barbara Lagoa 1st, Amy Barrett 2nd (and if you like large caliber rifles, Barrett does have a great last name, doesn't she?). But I'll also predict that confirmation hearings will not be set to begin until after November 3.

[dlh]

I am sure Justice Ginsburg was a nice person and I mourn her passing.

However, her beliefs were totally poisonous when it came to our beloved Second Amendment.

She said this:

But, Justice Ginsburg explains, "When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function, its function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own. So I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So...the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete."

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/ta ... sburg-says

She also joined the minority opinion in Heller and would have ruled that the Second Amendment does not protect your right to a handgun in your
home and the government can take it away.

I look forward to (or, I hope for) the confirmation of either Judge Barrett or Judge Lagoa to the Supreme Court of the United States.