Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 45

Thread: RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

  1. #1

    Default RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg



    No doubt it would be completely unacceptable to replace her so close to the election. /sarcasm
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post


    No doubt it would be completely unacceptable to replace her so close to the election. /sarcasm
    Yeah.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  3. #3
    Aaaaah shit.

    There goes the neighbourhood.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's actually the original French billion, which is bi-million, which is a million to the power of 2. We adopted the word, and then they changed it, presumably as revenge for Crecy and Agincourt, and then the treasonous Americans adopted the new French usage and spread it all over the world. And now we have to use it.

    And that's Why I'm Voting Leave.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post


    No doubt it would be completely unacceptable to replace her so close to the election. /sarcasm
    This is the wrong angle. American conservatives aren't principled. If McConnell replaces Ginsburg, the pressure on the next Dem president and senate to expand the court will be irresistible. The best thing Trump can do is to not nominate anyone until after the election.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    This is the wrong angle. American conservatives aren't principled. If McConnell replaces Ginsburg, the pressure on the next Dem president and senate to expand the court will be irresistible. The best thing Trump can do is to not nominate anyone until after the election.
    Well, now. Let's see if Trump does the "best thing." Would be the first time in four years he didn't reach to do more evil, but there's a first time for everything.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  6. #6
    2020 just went from brutal to Ruthless.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post


    No doubt it would be completely unacceptable to replace her so close to the election. /sarcasm
    I'm sure Republicans will have the same sentiment as they had in 2016 with regard to Scalia. And that was 9 months prior to the election, not 6 weeks. Surely they won't try to capitalise on the death of .... oh hi Mitch.

    My bad.
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    Well, now. Let's see if Trump does the "best thing." Would be the first time in four years he didn't reach to do more evil, but there's a first time for everything.
    Best thing for himself, I mean. It would make it much more difficult for the tiny handful of principled conservatives to vote against him.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  9. #9
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,330
    At least Lindsey Graham wants you to use his words against him.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    At least Lindsey Graham wants you to use his words against him.
    Lindsey has been giving Trump hand-jobs for the last 3.5 years, after first denouncing candidate Trump in no uncertain terms, so don't expect much.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Best thing for himself, I mean. It would make it much more difficult for the tiny handful of principled conservatives to vote against him.
    The people that want a conservative in that spot are voting for Trump no matter what. He has zero to gain by waiting.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    The people that want a conservative in that spot are voting for Trump no matter what. He has zero to gain by waiting.
    Yes, but what about the five honorable principled conservatives who've been psyching themselves up with Project Lincoln videos... if Trump replaces Ginsburg with a new, young, conservative justice, it'll be even easier for them to vote against him in November.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    Yes, but what about the five honorable principled conservatives who've been psyching themselves up with Project Lincoln videos... if Trump replaces Ginsburg with a new, young, conservative justice, it'll be even easier for them to vote against him in November.
    They're in California.
    Spent my days watching and waiting, killed my faith participating
    In this crusade still masquerading as the lie that we're creating
    Blinding lights leave me in silence, hopes and dreams taken with violence
    Right and wrong have made alliance, now I will turn in defiance

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    At least Lindsey Graham wants you to use his words against him.
    He already changed his tune on that issue in 2019.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    This is the wrong angle. American conservatives aren't principled. If McConnell replaces Ginsburg, the pressure on the next Dem president and senate to expand the court will be irresistible. The best thing Trump can do is to not nominate anyone until after the election.
    It wouldn't surprise me if he waits until after the election, then tries to nominate someone and get them ratified in Nov/Dec before the new Senate and President get inaugurated in January.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  16. #16
    By that point Congress will have adjourned, Rand. He'd have to call the Senate into special session due to extraordinary circumstances, that will get challenged in the courts and I expect the courts will delay until it's no longer justiciable, i.e. January.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  17. #17
    I wouldn't put it past Trump or McConnell trying.

    Do the Courts really have the power to challenge a special Lame Duck session of the Senate?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  18. #18
    To overrule it directly, against the wishes of the Executive and the house in question? They definitely don't have the power to do so, regardless of whether they'd technically have the authority or not. To delay things? Always, absolutely. And since it's not something they'd want to get involved it, I expect them to just delay, particularly since if SCOTUS does issue a formal ruling it would be with only eight justices which raises the possibility of a 4/4 decision.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Flixy View Post
    At least Lindsey Graham wants you to use his words against him.
    Nope, he's gonna pretend he didn't say that.

    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  20. #20
    Senior Member Flixy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    6,330
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    He already changed his tune on that issue in 2019.
    I know, it wasn't posted in a hope he'd actually do that, more to show what a dishonest guy he is.
    Keep on keepin' the beat alive!

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
    I'm sure Republicans will have the same sentiment as they had in 2016 with regard to Scalia. And that was 9 months prior to the election, not 6 weeks. Surely they won't try to capitalise on the death of .... oh hi Mitch.

    My bad.
    People are really stupid about this. What Mitch did was about optics and not holding a hearing. The reality is that the other party is NEVER obligated to approve the president's nominee to the Supreme Court. Garland was never getting confirmed by a Republican senate. The rhetoric was all smoke and mirrors to justify not having public hearings that could sway public perception.

  22. #22
    I know they were talking bullshit back then to save face, just as they are now talking bullshit to rush to take advantage of the death of RBG. "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president" vs "We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us", both statements are tosh. "We are motivated only by power, principles or ideology or even respect for the recently deceased are dropped the moment they get in the way of the ultimate goal" would be the honest statement.

    https://youtu.be/49pDoICdrqw?t=320

    Foxnews, so you feel at home. See how this dick blatantly avoids answering any questions about this?
    Last edited by Ziggy Stardust; 09-20-2020 at 05:36 PM.
    I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
    I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
    Which is what I am

    I aim at the stars
    But sometimes I hit London

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
    I know they were talking bullshit back then to save face, just as they are now talking bullshit to rush to take advantage of the death of RBG. "The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president" vs "We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us", both statements are tosh. "We are motivated only by power, principles or ideology or even respect for the recently deceased are dropped the moment they get in the way of the ultimate goal" would be the honest statement.
    If they pull this stunt then they'd better hold onto the Oval Office or Senate. Otherwise there's nothing stopping Biden from nominating 4 liberal Justices giving the Court a 7-6 liberal majority.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  24. #24
    I mean, there's nothing stopping him but that doesn't mean he'll actually do it.
    Spent my days watching and waiting, killed my faith participating
    In this crusade still masquerading as the lie that we're creating
    Blinding lights leave me in silence, hopes and dreams taken with violence
    Right and wrong have made alliance, now I will turn in defiance

  25. #25
    Given the stunt that the GOP played last time, if they play silly buggers now then I think its quite probable he'll do something to restore balance if they have the Senate majority.

    The GOP would have no grounds to complain. They will complain, but they'll have no grounds to do so. Oh and the GOP removed the filibuster from SCOTUS appointments so it will just take a simple majority in the Senate to do it.

    The GOP may be better leaving RBG's position unfilled and letting the new President fill it, removing any excuse to act like that. That way even if RBG is replaced by a liberal they still have a 5-4 majority anyway.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  26. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    People are really stupid about this. What Mitch did was about optics and not holding a hearing. The reality is that the other party is NEVER obligated to approve the president's nominee to the Supreme Court. Garland was never getting confirmed by a Republican senate. The rhetoric was all smoke and mirrors to justify not having public hearings that could sway public perception.
    Several Republican politicians explicitly stated that it was, at least to them, about the principle—the principle a president should not be allowed to nominate anyone to SCOTUS towards the end of his term, until the people have expressed their approval or disapproval in a new election. Their present reversal of opinion on that matter shows them to be unprincipled, spineless liars—not rhetoricians. If you're trying to say that cowardice and lying are conservative virtues, okay, fine—but don't expect to be regarded as anything better than a contemptible shithead. People are only as good as their word; a person whose word means nothing, is, in several important respects, worth nothing.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    I mean, there's nothing stopping him but that doesn't mean he'll actually do it.
    If they push a replacement through before the election, or in the lame duck period, the political pressure on the next Dem-controlled Senate to expand the court will be nigh irresistible; failure to nullify and punish that move will have negative consequences for several of the 12 Dem senators up for re-election in 2022. Though ordinary people don't tend to care much about SCOTUS, they do care about being screwed or humiliated—and then let down by their political representatives. Dem senators would be leaving themselves open to savage attacks from challengers on their left.
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  28. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    People are really stupid about this. What Mitch did was about optics and not holding a hearing. The reality is that the other party is NEVER obligated to approve the president's nominee to the Supreme Court. Garland was never getting confirmed by a Republican senate. The rhetoric was all smoke and mirrors to justify not having public hearings that could sway public perception.
    Except for the fact that every other Senate in American history did hold a hearing. But since you don't care about norms, I guess you won't whine when the Democrats increase the size of SCOTUS to 13.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  29. #29
    I don't really understand where you guys are getting the idea that it's such a sure thing that Biden is going to do this if he wins the election. I mean, he might do it but it would be a fairly major change in from how the Dems normally do things, and Biden is an extremely conventional D candidate.

    How many nakedly corrupt, Bullshit Republican Things have there been this term which have had no more consequences than Lindsey Graham getting owned on Twitter? Six, seven hundred? Why is this the one that's going to push the Dems over the edge?
    Spent my days watching and waiting, killed my faith participating
    In this crusade still masquerading as the lie that we're creating
    Blinding lights leave me in silence, hopes and dreams taken with violence
    Right and wrong have made alliance, now I will turn in defiance

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I wouldn't put it past Trump or McConnell trying.

    Do the Courts really have the power to challenge a special Lame Duck session of the Senate?
    Frankly, though, it's a lot more likely they'll rush things in before the election. And that's not really stoppable. If any of the vulnerable Republican senators bolt, it'll practically be guaranteeing their loss, no matter how ridiculous a nomination Trump makes.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •