Friday, 18 September 2020

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies At 87

quote [ 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 I will not be replaced until a new president is installed." ]

I don't think anybody's really surprised at this point. Somehow I suspect the Senate is about to feel very industrious...
[SFW] [politics] [+9 Sad]
[by Menchi@11:43pmGMT]

Comments

lilmookieesquire said @ 12:09am GMT on 19th Sep [Score:4]
Fuck
Hugh E. said @ 2:04am GMT on 19th Sep [Score:4 Underrated]
Grief is mitigated by the anger that she didn't retire with a Democratic president and majority Congress. Irresponsibly selfish.
lilmookieesquire said @ 2:50am GMT on 19th Sep
To be fair no one thought Trump would win- but this was the exact literal reason I was gutted when he won. And so close to November.

If the Democrats show up strong maybe they can build out and stack the scotus but if Trump wins, as far as I can tell, the Democrats might as well be a minor party.
HoZay said @ 11:48pm GMT on 18th Sep [Score:1 Underrated]
RBG DOA; USA SOL
rylex said @ 4:02am GMT on 19th Sep [Score:1 Funny]
"that sure is a nice society you got there. be a shame if anything were to happen to it."

- 2020 to the US
ComposerNate said[2] @ 8:54am GMT on 19th Sep [Score:1 Insightful]
Float a bunch of evangelical friendly names, nominate the most ridiculously unqualified political sycophant as public gift of legitimacy payback for their party loyalty, begrudgingly and disdainfully withdraw that nomination as false compromise, nominate a young experienced personality hard set foremost to bend law to keep Republican criminals out of prison and in total control of all branches of government, including press, victory for a one party authoritarian system and end to legitimate US democracy.
HoZay said @ 9:35am GMT on 19th Sep
Plus years of non-state violence, death squads, ethnic cleansing, etc, etc.
cb361 said @ 10:42am GMT on 19th Sep
It's what Jesus would do.
ComposerNate said @ 10:55am GMT on 19th Sep
It's what white Jesus would do.
cb361 said @ 10:56am GMT on 19th Sep [Score:2]
WWWJD?
zarathustra said @ 1:17am GMT on 19th Sep
I have a feeling that, if the democrats take the senate, the supreme court is about to get a whole lot bigger.
C18H27NO3 said @ 6:02pm GMT on 19th Sep
I think that's the fight they are willing to take on as long as the SCOTUS is dominated by conservatives. IOW, they will push and push hard to appoint a justice before november, and I don't think they care much how it affects senatorial races.

Does it have to be 2/3 majority in the senate to increase the number of justices? How many years will have passed (along with SCOTUS decisions on abortion, the ACA, etc) before the court is stacked in favor of liberals? Or at least even? They will legally contest every effort. I'm guessing years, maybe a decade or more before anything happens. By that time, decisions will have been reversed, and precedent will be set for generations.

And I have my doubts dems will take the senate now that conservatives have been energized with the prospect of taking over SCOTUS.
zarathustra said @ 7:58pm GMT on 19th Sep [Score:2]
Changing the size of the court is just another law. Simple majority of house and senate plus presidential signature. If the dems take all three they could do it on day one. Of course it is one that has historically been fraught will political peril (FDR), but the dems should hardly be bound by good behavior after the abuses of the present administration. They could have a fifteen person court by next session. There would be few grounds to contest it. The Constitution does not set the number and it has been changed a number of times by the legislature historically. Last time it was tried the courts folded and reversed themselves, giving FDR what he wanted. If they could have blocked him, they would have.

The other thing the legislature could do it limit the jurisdiction of the court to those things granted to it in the Constitution. Its "original jurisdiction" is fairly limited and its appellate jurisdiction is limited to what congress allows.

I don't know how this will effect the elections. There are several gop senators ( collins comes immediately to mind) who will be trowing away any chance to hold their seats it they support a rush to replace RBG. Others will have to face a constant cycle of advertising playing their statements on how you shouldn't appoint a justice during the election year. As to motivating voters, Trumps supporters are already highly motivated, there might be a greater effect on the unenthusiastic Biden supporter ( with all the down ballot implications of that.)
hellboy said @ 12:09am GMT on 20th Sep
ActBlue got $6.2 million in an hour after RBG's death was announced, breaking the previous record of $4.3 million (from the end of the convention in August). The hour after that was $6.3 million. As of this morning they were up $31 million with more coming every minute.

So yeah, it isn't just Republicans who will be motivated by this. And the Bootlicker Base was going to vote for the Dumpster no matter what, so as you say he doesn't have much room to grow. This could end up working against him.
damnit said @ 6:54am GMT on 19th Sep
The only time McConnell will actually want to get back to Capitol Hill. It’s really messed up.
cb361 said @ 11:02am GMT on 19th Sep
I presume that Trump will not nominate a replacement right away, but use this as a weapon to threaten wavering voters. Vote for me or Biden will nominate Chez Guevara.
Dienes said @ 5:13pm GMT on 19th Sep
Lol at the idea that the conservatives won't try to rush a nomination through to secure their stranglehold over all three branches of government.
cb361 said[1] @ 6:02pm GMT on 19th Sep
But I'm not talking about about the conservative establishment, just about Trump.

I doubt that Trump holds any ethical position, conservative or any other, except what's good for Trump. He's in a political symbiotic relationship with the far right - they vote for him and adore him, and he'll pander to them. But does he actually feel loyalty to the cause of conservatism? I find it difficult to believe that he is capable of loyalty to something greater than himself.

So I can't imagine Trump cares who is High Court Justice, except how it effects him personally. His ego, his business, his re-election chances. Which is why it could be a threat to hang over wavering conservative voters who might be disillusioned with him but still want a conservative Judge.

If he pushes through a new conservative Judge but loses the election, it wouldn't benefit him personally?

PS: All I know about the US government is what I've picked up on SE, so there may be rules that make what I say invalid.
Dienes said @ 12:20pm GMT on 20th Sep
His base will be pissed if he doesn't nominate - its his job, and they are slavering at the idea of turning over Roe v Wade. Its not an effective threat for them - refusing to nominate when he holds all the cards is just going to turn them against him.

But I don't think he's even that much of a strategist. He's a bully - he'll nominate just to prove that he can.
mechanical contrivance said @ 4:10pm GMT on 20th Sep
His base will vote for him no matter what he does or does not do. As far as political strategy, his employees can come up with ideas, so Trump doesn't need to. The only question is: will Trump listen to the strategists or himself?
rylex said @ 5:50pm GMT on 19th Sep
chez guevara.... i ate there once
cb361 said @ 6:08pm GMT on 19th Sep [Score:1 Funny]
Their Pique a lo Macho are worth being summarily executed for.
zarathustra said @ 1:18am GMT on 20th Sep [Score:1 Funny]
Isn't that next door to Bistro D'Burden?
hellboy said @ 12:04am GMT on 20th Sep
No, Trump wants his toady on the court ASAP. He knows his only chance of getting reelected is to contest the election all the way to the supreme court.
Ebichuman said @ 1:14pm GMT on 19th Sep
As various other forums have pointed out, it appears Arizona's special election will seat a new senator November 30th, and it seems by all counts to be Mark Kelly (D).

At that point, republicans need need 2-3 defections. Murkowski has said she will not vote before a new president is seated. So 1-2 defections. Romney and Collins are not reliable, but the easiest to pressure.

Romney may do it out of principle. I can't say for sure, but the impeachment vote was a situation where he had nothing to gain and he did at least do (half) the right thing.

Collins I wouldn't rely on at all. She will likely waffle and refuse to vote BEFORE the election. But if Trump wins, she will of course vote. If Trump loses, she has nothing left to lose, and will also vote.

So it likely has to be Gardner or another. Many have the same calculus as Collins. I haven't given up, but it seems like this will likely be a political fight for 2 months, and the confirmation will happen after the election, but before Trump is (hopefully, dear god, please vote for Biden) kicked out of office in January.
Hugh E. said @ 4:01pm GMT on 19th Sep
"I want you to use my words against me. If there is a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say, Lindsey said let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination, and you'd be absolutely right to do so."

Lindsay Graham "Use my words against me"
Ebichuman said @ 4:52pm GMT on 19th Sep [Score:1 Funsightful]
Lindsay Graham in 2020: "That doesn't look like anything to me."
steele said @ 2:09pm GMT on 19th Sep
HoZay said @ 3:05pm GMT on 19th Sep
I'm no twitterati, but isn't it possible to ask Aslan himself?
Hugh E. said @ 4:03pm GMT on 19th Sep
Isn't that essentially what Kaitlyn Greenidge is doing?
endopol said[1] @ 5:54pm GMT on 19th Sep [Score:1 Insightful]
She's asking him to answer for an entire group of which he may or may not be a part.
endopol said[2] @ 5:57pm GMT on 19th Sep [Score:1 Insightful]
Which may not even exist, being the hypothetical intersection of two other groups.
Hugh E. said @ 10:15am GMT on 20th Sep
Be that as it may, in Twitterverse Greenidge is satisfying HoZay's expressed concern.

The rest of the who's who, what is liberal, who's responsible, and who's to answer, etc. surely can be debated.
mechavolt said @ 3:19pm GMT on 19th Sep
Scalia dies 6 months before election
Republicans: We need to wait for the presidential election to replace him!
Democrats: OK

RBG dies less than 2 months before election
Democrats: So we wait until the presidential election, right?
Republicans: Fuck you, losers
cb361 said @ 4:24pm GMT on 19th Sep
Well, yes. Business and politics have always been not about fairness, but about what exactly you can get away with.
hellboy said[3] @ 12:22am GMT on 20th Sep
Nine months actually.

The Democrats need to stop bringing a butter knife to a gun fight, and recognize that this is effectively the second Civil War. If they retake the Senate they need to eliminate the filibuster and stack the courts. And regardless of what happens with the Senate, there will need to be massive criminal investigations of everyone who had anything to do with the Dumpster. He and Barr need to die in prison. McConnell's probably guilty too; I suspect most of the GOP is compromised.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.



Posts of Import
If you got logged out, log back in.
4 More Years!
SE v2 Closed BETA
First Post
Subscriptions and Things
AskSE: What do you look like?

Karma Rankings
ScoobySnacks
arrowhen
lilmookieesquire
HoZay
XregnaR