RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

[Aclion]

Hah. Tenth amendment. There's no tenth amendment.

The 10th amendment is a placeholder in the eyes of the law.

The tenth amendment has been eroded to the point of nonexistence. At this point most of what the federal government does violates it.

[West Leas Oros 2]

The 10th amendment is a placeholder in the eyes of the law.

The tenth amendment has been eroded to the point of nonexistence. At this point most of what the federal government does violates it.

I mean, the amendment was vaguely worded to begin with.

[Fluvannia]

Is there really any reason to convene the senate judiciary committee portion of the nominee process since either barrett or lagoa as already gone through the grilling process just recently and just move straight to a confirmation vote on the senate floor.
IMO, it would serve as nothing more than a dog and pony show to convene a senate judiciary hearing.

Personally I still think following the usual procedure is the right thing to do. From a more cynical point of view, it would also bolster the GOP's position instead of making it look like they're ramming a nominee through with all haste.

I would imagine given the fact that both likely appointees have been through an SJC hearing within the past few years means the hearing itself would be brief (especially compared to Kavanaugh), but even if it is more of a formality it remains an important one.

[Kowani]

Crosspoosting, because fuck Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz blocks resolution honoring RGB because it included her dying wish.

[The Black Forrest]

Is there really any reason to convene the senate judiciary committee portion of the nominee process since either barrett or lagoa as already gone through the grilling process just recently and just move straight to a confirmation vote on the senate floor.
IMO, it would serve as nothing more than a dog and pony show to convene a senate judiciary hearing.

Personally I still think following the usual procedure is the right thing to do. From a more cynical point of view, it would also bolster the GOP's position instead of making it look like they're ramming a nominee through with all haste.

I would imagine given the fact that both likely appointees have been through an SJC hearing within the past few years means the hearing itself would be brief (especially compared to Kavanaugh), but even if it is more of a formality it remains an important one.

Hmmm? They are ramming it through. Remember all that we can’t place anybody during an election year? People also wanted Trump to announce it now and for once he did the honorable thing in waited for Saturday out of respect for RBG.

[Fluvannia]

Crosspoosting, because fuck Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz blocks resolution honoring RGB because it included her dying wish.

Sounds like the original resolution (without that clause) probably would have had a better chance of passing.

[Fluvannia]

Personally I still think following the usual procedure is the right thing to do. From a more cynical point of view, it would also bolster the GOP's position instead of making it look like they're ramming a nominee through with all haste.

I would imagine given the fact that both likely appointees have been through an SJC hearing within the past few years means the hearing itself would be brief (especially compared to Kavanaugh), but even if it is more of a formality it remains an important one.

Hmmm? They are ramming it through. Remember all that we can’t place anybody during an election year? People also wanted Trump to announce it now and for once he did the honorable thing in waited for Saturday out of respect for RBG.

Yes, I do remember. Don't let my sig confuse you, I haven't expressed support for them filling it, so the mouth-frothing is unnecessary.

[The Black Forrest]

Hmmm? They are ramming it through. Remember all that we can’t place anybody during an election year? People also wanted Trump to announce it now and for once he did the honorable thing in waited for Saturday out of respect for RBG.

Yes, I do remember. Don't let my sig confuse you, I haven't expressed support for them filling it, so the mouth-frothing is unnecessary.

I didn’t review your sig and I was taking a drink of my mocha.

[Elwher]

I wouldn't say thats true. The Tenth Amendment supports the federalist design of the constitution. Any power not given to the United States (government) by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it, is reserved for the states.

This might seem like an obvious statement but its important that it remains law. For example DOMA. Congress doesn't have the power to legislate on marriage, which makes DOMA unconstitutional, because the 10th amendment delegates that power to the states. States must however recognize same sex marriages because the 14th amendment prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, so by the 10th amendment, they also cannot discriminate.

It has imprtant legal function, it's not just a benign statement of the obvious

The DOMA really doesn't counter the 10th Amendment as it did not proscribe anything to the states, if there were any legal issue with DOMA prior to the Obergefell decision it would be the issue it has with the full faith and credit clause. Given same-sex marriages legally entered into in one state could be legally ignore in another state. Effectively meaning if someone were to get into a same-sex marriage in a state that allowed it, and then moved to a state which didn't, the couple would effective loose all spousal rights and privileges in the law. Basically it made a mockery of full faith and credit.

And that is the basis on which Obergefell should have been decided. The state should have the right to decide the basis for marriage licenses issued within the state, but due to full faith and credit, they should have been obligated to acknowledge marriages performed in other states even if they do not meet their criteria. That is how it works with degrees of consanguinity, and there seem to be no problems associated with that issue.

[Elwher]

The 10th amendment is a placeholder in the eyes of the law.

The tenth amendment has been eroded to the point of nonexistence. At this point most of what the federal government does violates it.

Unfortunately, that is all too true. One can only hope that at some time in the future it will be reinstated.

[Elwher]

Hah. Tenth amendment. There's no tenth amendment.

The Tenth amendment proposed first was not passed. However, amendments are numbered by order of passage.

The tenth amendment is a very open amendment. It actually reads "... to the States, respectively, or to the People".

Trying to make the case that the Federal government cannot regulate abortion therefore State governments can fails on the basis that the States also cannot do anything contrary to the Constitution, therefore abortion remains a matter for the People. Ie a freedom.

Roe v. Wade was binding on States as well as Federal government, because since incorporation, all SCOTUS rulings are.

How forced procedures like ultrasound were not instantly struck down on the same basis as Roe v Wade, ie privacy, baffles me.

That would be true if the Constitution gave the Federal government the power to regulate medical procedures within the states. As it did not, Roe was decided on the basis of a manufactured Right to Privacy, which right appears exactly nowhere within the text. As there is no basis for the Federal government to intervene, the power passes to the respective states or to the people. If the individual state decides not to exercise that power then your contention that it is a matter for the people is completely correct.

[The Emerald Legion]

Crosspoosting, because fuck Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz blocks resolution honoring RGB because it included her dying wish.

Seems more like a fuck Chuck Schumer moment to me.

[Krausch]

Can't wait to see what arguments the GOP will use. When Scalia died, Republicans refused to let Obama put in a replacement, even though they were around 6 month from the election. That's reasonable. Now, when it's less than 2 months to the election, they're trying to push through a conservative justice? I have no idea how they can defend that, and it doesn't exactly show confidence in Trump.

[Grinning Dragon]

Is there really any reason to convene the senate judiciary committee portion of the nominee process since either barrett or lagoa as already gone through the grilling process just recently and just move straight to a confirmation vote on the senate floor.
IMO, it would serve as nothing more than a dog and pony show to convene a senate judiciary hearing.

Personally I still think following the usual procedure is the right thing to do. From a more cynical point of view, it would also bolster the GOP's position instead of making it look like they're ramming a nominee through with all haste.

I would imagine given the fact that both likely appointees have been through an SJC hearing within the past few years means the hearing itself would be brief (especially compared to Kavanaugh), but even if it is more of a formality it remains an important one.

I can see that point of it. I'm just looking at it in regards to my work here in IT, it would seem to be a waste of time and double redundancy, since the front end process has been completed.

[The Emerald Legion]

Can't wait to see what arguments the GOP will use. When Scalia died, Republicans refused to let Obama put in a replacement, even though they were around 6 month from the election. That's reasonable. Now, when it's less than 2 months to the election, they're trying to push through a conservative justice? I have no idea how they can defend that, and it doesn't exactly show confidence in Trump.

So long as the seat is open, there's a chance people will vote for Biden just to secure that seat. Once it's closed, that's no longer a concern.

[Grinning Dragon]

Sen. Murkowski changing her mind?
Alaska’s Sen. Murkowski says she can’t rule out voting for Trump’s Supreme Court pick

If Democrats were counting on Lisa Murkowski to vote against President Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court, they should think again.

Sen. Murkowski said Tuesday she could not rule out that she would vote to confirm a Trump nominee if the Judiciary Committee approves one before the November election.....

...Murkowski said Tuesday she still opposes a Senate confirmation vote this close to an election.

“I do not support this process moving forward,” she said. “Now, having said that, this process is moving forward with or without me.”

Murkowski said she did not know whether she would withhold her vote to protest the timing of the appointment, but she said the quality of the confirmation process would be a factor....

I wonder if Sen. Collins will come around?

Must be lots of horse trading going on and perhaps lots of angry constituents emailing and phone calls to push her into supporting.

[Tekania]

That would be true if the Constitution gave the Federal government the power to regulate medical procedures within the states. As it did not, Roe was decided on the basis of a manufactured Right to Privacy, which right appears exactly nowhere within the text. As there is no basis for the Federal government to intervene, the power passes to the respective states or to the people. If the individual state decides not to exercise that power then your contention that it is a matter for the people is completely correct.

Your argument is fundamentally flawed in the Constitution does not enumerate only the rights we possessed. Effectively right now you are making the very same error that was concerning when the Bill of Rights was being drafted that made them add the Ninth Amendment. Simply because a "Right To Privacy" isn't specifically enumerated, does not mean that people do not have that right. In fact privacy makes up a large part of multiple specific enumerated rights such that it is clearly inline with the enumerated rights.

The Constitution does not grant people things, it restrains government.

[The Black Forrest]

Crosspoosting, because fuck Ted Cruz

Seems more like a fuck Chuck Schumer moment to me.

uhm ok how?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Sen. Murkowski changing her mind?
Alaska’s Sen. Murkowski says she can’t rule out voting for Trump’s Supreme Court pick

If Democrats were counting on Lisa Murkowski to vote against President Trump’s next nominee to the Supreme Court, they should think again.

Sen. Murkowski said Tuesday she could not rule out that she would vote to confirm a Trump nominee if the Judiciary Committee approves one before the November election.....

...Murkowski said Tuesday she still opposes a Senate confirmation vote this close to an election.

“I do not support this process moving forward,” she said. “Now, having said that, this process is moving forward with or without me.”

Murkowski said she did not know whether she would withhold her vote to protest the timing of the appointment, but she said the quality of the confirmation process would be a factor....

I wonder if Sen. Collins will come around?

Must be lots of horse trading going on and perhaps lots of angry constituents emailing and phone calls to push her into supporting.

I imagine both Murkowski and Collins are being flooded by the base to vote yes.

[The Black Forrest]

Can't wait to see what arguments the GOP will use. When Scalia died, Republicans refused to let Obama put in a replacement, even though they were around 6 month from the election. That's reasonable. Now, when it's less than 2 months to the election, they're trying to push through a conservative justice? I have no idea how they can defend that, and it doesn't exactly show confidence in Trump.

So long as the seat is open, there's a chance people will vote for Biden just to secure that seat. Once it's closed, that's no longer a concern.

so if the seat is filled those people will not vote for biden?

[Grinning Dragon]

So long as the seat is open, there's a chance people will vote for Biden just to secure that seat. Once it's closed, that's no longer a concern.

so if the seat is filled those people will not vote for biden?

I took the post to mean it'll take the wind out of the sails, it would be one less thing to run on.

[The Black Forrest]

so if the seat is filled those people will not vote for biden?

I took the post to mean it'll take the wind out of the sails, it would be one less thing to run on.

Oh ok. I guess that works.

[Eukaryotic Cells]

Sen. Murkowski changing her mind?
Alaska’s Sen. Murkowski says she can’t rule out voting for Trump’s Supreme Court pick


I wonder if Sen. Collins will come around?

Must be lots of horse trading going on and perhaps lots of angry constituents emailing and phone calls to push her into supporting.

I imagine both Murkowski and Collins are being flooded by the base to vote yes.

Likely, yeah. At this point, they're still weighing the electoral impact, I think. Their votes will not matter, unless something disqualifying comes up in the hearing (which I doubt, since they're probably not going to be so thorough).

[Washington Resistance Army]

I imagine both Murkowski and Collins are being flooded by the base to vote yes.

Likely, yeah. At this point, they're still weighing the electoral impact, I think. Their votes will not matter, unless something disqualifying comes up in the hearing (which I doubt, since they're probably not going to be so thorough).

I don't think Murkowski has any reason to vote no tbh. Collins should, it's the best move for her politically, but Murkowski has more to less than she could gain from breaking ranks.

[Tekania]

So long as the seat is open, there's a chance people will vote for Biden just to secure that seat. Once it's closed, that's no longer a concern.

so if the seat is filled those people will not vote for biden?

You've seen what voter turnout is like here in the US. Americans are generally extremely complacent to the point of their own detriment. I mean, basically 1/2 the country is deciding things for the other half who don't got out to vote. I mean, basically if 55% of the registered voters turn out, we call that a high voter turnout.