RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

[Nobel Hobos 2]

4 votes. If Mitch loses 3 Pence breaks the tie and they still win.

The optics are already bad enough for the Republicans with this among more moderate voters; having the Vice President break a tie on this would be politically devastating along this group so close to the election.

Hell, Mitch has already done a hell of a lot of damage by not even giving the weekend before putting out a statement an hour after the news broke. At this point, they have written a great campaign ad for the Democrats.

The Republicans couldn't have had worse optics on this if they actively tried. Being such brazen hypocrites is not a good look, and a tie break would be utterly devastating on that front.

Considering the polls, they're facing 4 or 8 years in the wilderness and probably don't care any more how the public sees it.

[Gig em Aggies]

I am shocked....shocked I say.

What obligation is that? The republicans showed we can operate with a blank seat for 2 years.

Lindsey Graham a lying toad ... never!

"Harry Reid changed the rules to allow a simple majority vote for Circuit Court nominees dealing out the minority. Chuck Schumer and his friends in the liberal media conspired to destroy the life of Brett Kavanaugh and hold that Supreme Court seat open"

It was Mitch McConnell who further changed the rules the same way for the Supreme Court. Of course Schumer gave Kavanaugh a hard time: it's the Senate's role to consider and make judgement on the past of nominees.

I hope he loses. Won't be missed.

But accusing someone of sexual misconduct w/o proof is not giving them a hard time, it is an attempt to discredit and destroy someone who did nothing wrong

[New haven america]

I am shocked....shocked I say.

What obligation is that? The republicans showed we can operate with a blank seat for 2 years.

Lindsey Graham a lying toad ... never!

"Harry Reid changed the rules to allow a simple majority vote for Circuit Court nominees dealing out the minority. Chuck Schumer and his friends in the liberal media conspired to destroy the life of Brett Kavanaugh and hold that Supreme Court seat open"

It was Mitch McConnell who further changed the rules the same way for the Supreme Court. Of course Schumer gave Kavanaugh a hard time: it's the Senate's role to consider and make judgement on the past of nominees.

I hope he loses. Won't be missed.

Hey, you're not allowed to say mean things about politicians in this thread.

Could be considered trolling even though it's not.

[Punished UMN]

I'm a socialist.

The fact of the matter is that the American Constitution is not able to conform to socialism and having our laws determined by a council of elders who interpret an arcane document written by the fathers of the people is a stupid basis for a system of governance.

It's almost like Socialism isn't worth two shits to begin with anyway, so failing to see the issue here with this.

Even if you're not a socialist you should see the problem with locking your political system behind arcane legalese from the 18th century.

[Senkaku]

I'm a socialist.

The fact of the matter is that the American Constitution is not able to conform to socialism and having our laws determined by a council of elders who interpret an arcane document written by the fathers of the people is a stupid basis for a system of governance.

It's almost like Socialism isn't worth two shits to begin with anyway, so failing to see the issue here with this.

Perhaps a document intended to lay out the ground rules for a small, poor, isolated, and internally divided 18th century oligarchy whose economy was largely based on agricultural slave labor and whose society was organized by a strict racial caste system is not in fact the best way to organize a 21st century postindustrial democracy with a global empire and a much more cohesive national culture and identity that aspires to ideals like equality before the law

[The Black Forrest]

Lindsey Graham a lying toad ... never!

"Harry Reid changed the rules to allow a simple majority vote for Circuit Court nominees dealing out the minority. Chuck Schumer and his friends in the liberal media conspired to destroy the life of Brett Kavanaugh and hold that Supreme Court seat open"

It was Mitch McConnell who further changed the rules the same way for the Supreme Court. Of course Schumer gave Kavanaugh a hard time: it's the Senate's role to consider and make judgement on the past of nominees.

I hope he loses. Won't be missed.

But accusing someone of sexual misconduct w/o proof is not giving them a hard time, it is an attempt to discredit and destroy someone who did nothing wrong

Let’s not pollute the thread with the joke that was the kav circus.

[San Lumen]

The optics are already bad enough for the Republicans with this among more moderate voters; having the Vice President break a tie on this would be politically devastating along this group so close to the election.

Hell, Mitch has already done a hell of a lot of damage by not even giving the weekend before putting out a statement an hour after the news broke. At this point, they have written a great campaign ad for the Democrats.

The Republicans couldn't have had worse optics on this if they actively tried. Being such brazen hypocrites is not a good look, and a tie break would be utterly devastating on that front.

Considering the polls, they're facing 4 or 8 years in the wilderness and probably don't care any more how the public sees it.

That’s if polls don’t change. I fear they could shift dramatically

[Aclion]

4 votes. If Mitch loses 3 Pence breaks the tie and they still win.

The optics are already bad enough for the Republicans with this among more moderate voters; having the Vice President break a tie on this would be politically devastating along this group so close to the election.

Hell, Mitch has already done a hell of a lot of damage by not even giving the weekend before putting out a statement an hour after the news broke. At this point, they have written a great campaign ad for the Democrats.

The Republicans couldn't have had worse optics on this if they actively tried. Being such brazen hypocrites is not a good look, and a tie break would be utterly devastating on that front.

All the bad optics in the worlds are better then allowing the democrats to make the appointment an election issue. There's a massive enthusiasm gap between trump and Biden. Last thing the Republicans need to do is give Biden an actual cause to run on.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

There's a massive enthusiasm gap between trump and Biden.

I don't think there is. I think you're not getting invited to the right parties

[Aclion]

There's a massive enthusiasm gap between trump and Biden.

I don't think there is. I think you're not getting invited to the right parties

You better not be having parties. You will get us sick

[The Black Forrest]

I don't think there is. I think you're not getting invited to the right parties

You better not be having parties. You will get us sick

Oh come on. Group hug time!

[Kowani]

So Murkowski has straight said she won't vote for a replacement until after the election. So that's 1 of 3 votes we need to deny Mitch.

“We”? You’d actually agree with it not being appointed until January?

Tars actually cares about the Republic-he’s not a raging partisan.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

It shouldn’t, because that man could be Biden and he would pick a far leftist to appease the Sanders block

Sanders isn't far left, and if the people elect Biden, the people elect Biden. If Obama couldn't nominate a justice in his last year, neither can Trump.

But Obama was in his eighth year, Trump is in his fourth.
I trust the Trump will nominate whomever in order to try to benefit himself most, but I am unaware of a reason that he should not be able to, as he is currently POTUS and might remain POTUS for four more years.

[New haven america]

Sanders isn't far left, and if the people elect Biden, the people elect Biden. If Obama couldn't nominate a justice in his last year, neither can Trump.

But Obama was in his eighth year, Trump is in his fourth.

Doesn't matter, it's an election year, he shouldn't get a pick.

As Mitch and Graham put it, it's unprecedented to have a SC pick during election season, best wait till we figure out the winner.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

But Obama was in his eighth year, Trump is in his fourth.

Doesn't matter, it's an election year, he shouldn't get a pick.

As Mitch and Graham put it, it's unprecedented to have a SC pick during election season, best wait till we figure out the winner.

I agree that that would be best and least controversial, but I am unaware of a constitutional reason that Trump should not be able to. This ironically seems like a job for the Supreme Court, but seeing that Trump has appointed some of the justices, it can be argued that it might not be unbiased (not that its bias has ever stopped it before, and making it biased one way or another seems to be the goal now).

[Grinning Dragon]

But Obama was in his eighth year, Trump is in his fourth.

Doesn't matter, it's an election year, he shouldn't get a pick.

As Mitch and Graham put it, it's unprecedented to have a SC pick during election season, best wait till we figure out the winner.

Why? Over the years the senate has confirmed 17 supreme court justices during an election year. It isn't unheard of.

[Broader Confederate States]

But Obama was in his eighth year, Trump is in his fourth.

Doesn't matter, it's an election year, he shouldn't get a pick.

As Mitch and Graham put it, it's unprecedented to have a SC pick during election season, best wait till we figure out the winner.

not only is that not true, but one of the biggest nut shots of the 18th century was the Midnight Judges.

[New haven america]

Doesn't matter, it's an election year, he shouldn't get a pick.

As Mitch and Graham put it, it's unprecedented to have a SC pick during election season, best wait till we figure out the winner.

not only is that not true, but one of the biggest nut shots of the 18th century was the Midnight Judges.

But they said it's true, so it's true, Trump doesn't get to pick a Justice atm.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Trump nominates Sarah Palin.

[Sundiata]

Trump nominates Sarah Palin.

I would prefer that he stop the partisan games and just appoint President Obama or Bill Clinton.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Trump nominates Sarah Palin.

I would prefer that he stop the partisan games and just appoint President Obama or Bill Clinton.

That would probably result in the Tea Party gaining votes.

A more non-partisan court would be less biased however, and thus more inclined to interpreting the law and less often twist the law towards their goals.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Most of us like our freedoms, mind you. I agree with No State.

No, I get that. I might disagree with the Second Amendment, but I'm across the pond, so a lot of things about the US is odd to me, the Second Amendment being one of them. However, I don't get this idea that just because the founders of the country said or did something, it must be a good thing, and that it ought to be followed about two and a half centuries on because it was "what they intended". What they said or did might have solid foundations irrespective of them having said it, but I see this "it was what the Founding Fathers intended" non-argument all the bloody time. It makes no sense.

It's especially ironic in the context of a liberal democracy, because what dead people have intended really shouldn't matter in a liberal democracy. North Korea might be a different case, but the US is (for the time being) a liberal democracy.

Also a foreigner, I repeat. I have more respect for the 'rigidity' of the US constitution than you do. Justices should not go by the letter of the law, they must consider the intent (and intent behind that intent, for instance previous documents back to the Magna Carta). They also consider the thinking of judges since it was written, and government intent. There are many cases where the Court considers the meaning and intent of the Constitution and allows it to be infringed slightly to serve "compelling government interest".

To think the US constitution should be "soft" is essentially to think it should be irrelevant by now. The masses of written precedent could be used without considering the constitution, and new government laws assessed on the basis of whether the Blackmun court (for instance) would have allowed it.

Now Australia has a fairly minimalist constitution, which defines the federal electoral method (and more loosely the allowable State methods), and the relationship between States and the Federal government. Most of the "constitutional perspectives" Americans talk about are from the Bill of Rights and later amendments. We don't have that. The body of laws and the body of court decisions stand by themselves (common law I guess) and most of what Americans consider "rights" could be changed here. Parliament passes it, Senate passes it, courts up the High Court approve it (laws are subject to legal challenge, at least), and that's it for freedom of speech.

It's just as viable as a working system, and not prone to collapse (UK has no constitution at all, their democracy shows no sign of collapsing) but from the citizen's point of view I think a strong Constitution is better. They learn the Constitution in school, and everything they learn about laws after that, fits somewhere on this "tree" of rights. It makes the body of law seem much more consistent and legitimate.

I'm gonna politely say no on that one.

Both of those are good tho

I haven't read it all, but her dissent in Kanter v. Barr seems from the start tailored to whether the felon poses a threat to the public or not (not because his conviction was for defrauding Medicare).

She also specifically says her reasoning does not apply to "civil" rights, like voting. Ugh.

I'm not sure you want this precedent. It wouldn't be too hard to prove in court that someone with no criminal accusations against them is a threat to the public and shouldn't have a gun.

Wat.

If felons are released from prison they should have their rights restored in full and if for some reason they're deemed too dangerous for that then they should just never be released at all and I support the death penalty.

Uh, parole? If you get rid of parole boards and parole conditions, you'll get longer sentences, and probably more recidivism.

I think having "you may not possess a gun" is a very reasonable parole condition, for anyone convicted of a gun crime, and possibly any violent crime. Others felons, maybe.

But they have to go back to the crime-ridden slum where they committed their crime? Uh, why? Isn't that the last thing we want them doing, as it vastly increases the chances they will re-offend? We should encourage them to move somewhere there is less crime and more jobs, and give them a place to live while they look for said job.

I have said this elsewhere, but I think Trump should be nominated. Is there a rule against the president also being a supreme court justice (if there is, it needs to be changed asap).

Nobody can hold two different positions in government in the US. It would take a constitutional amendment to fix that

Yes, but he wouldn't actually hold the position until sworn in.

So Trump could resign the Presidency some time before Inauguration day, be sworn in as a Justice, and as reward for all his hard work Pence would get a pension upgrade. Greeeaaat.

Which is why the Rep controlled Senate is currently trying to pack the court in their favor.

Actions speak louder than words and they couldn't even wait till Monday to jump on that chance.

Filling a seat isn't packing the court, packing the court is increasing the number of seats from 9 to a higher number and confirming judges who align with X political inclinations.

Court packing, then. This is NOT just "filling a seat" when you consider the GOP's blatant disregard of the Constitution on an earlier occasion they had to "fill a seat".

1. I've done no such thing, as most of the GOP has done that job well enough on their own.
2a. Yes, the party that prides itself on personal freedoms is against certain personal rights, b. That's maybe what you believe, but the GOP generally has much farther reaching goals.
3. Kinda too late for that when we have users like GMS being allowed to say they hope the Reps pack the court as quickly as possible...

I hope the Republicans pack the court too, because then even if Trump loses in November there would be a conservative majority in the court for the next few decades

Firstly, you're counting Roberts as still one of "yours".
Secondly, Thomas is no spring chicken.
Thirdly, your new justice might be so bad we can impeach him.

he said he don't confirm justices in election years.

Being a hypocrite is a small price to pay to avoid getting a far leftist on the court

K&K speaking for the whole GOP. Everybody else: never elect them again.

If the GOP pulls this shit, Democrats will grind their face in liberal shit like they've never seen. For 12 years not just the usual 8.

You think we don't have ideas the Supreme Court can't strike down? Uh-uh. Massive tax and spend.

Lindsey Graham a lying toad ... never!

"Harry Reid changed the rules to allow a simple majority vote for Circuit Court nominees dealing out the minority. Chuck Schumer and his friends in the liberal media conspired to destroy the life of Brett Kavanaugh and hold that Supreme Court seat open"

It was Mitch McConnell who further changed the rules the same way for the Supreme Court. Of course Schumer gave Kavanaugh a hard time: it's the Senate's role to consider and make judgement on the past of nominees.

I hope he loses. Won't be missed.

But accusing someone of sexual misconduct w/o proof is not giving them a hard time, it is an attempt to discredit and destroy someone who did nothing wrong

You SAY he did nothing wrong. And you have the Senate hearings as proof of that.

But if we're going to play it "innocent until proven guilty means making the accusation of wrong-doing itself wrong" then we can never put anyone on trial, for anything. Making accusations is the only way of finding out.

[Grinning Dragon]

No, I get that. I might disagree with the Second Amendment, but I'm across the pond, so a lot of things about the US is odd to me, the Second Amendment being one of them. However, I don't get this idea that just because the founders of the country said or did something, it must be a good thing, and that it ought to be followed about two and a half centuries on because it was "what they intended". What they said or did might have solid foundations irrespective of them having said it, but I see this "it was what the Founding Fathers intended" non-argument all the bloody time. It makes no sense.

It's especially ironic in the context of a liberal democracy, because what dead people have intended really shouldn't matter in a liberal democracy. North Korea might be a different case, but the US is (for the time being) a liberal democracy.

Also a foreigner, I repeat. I have more respect for the 'rigidity' of the US constitution than you do. Justices should not go by the letter of the law, they must consider the intent (and intent behind that intent, for instance previous documents back to the Magna Carta). They also consider the thinking of judges since it was written, and government intent. There are many cases where the Court considers the meaning and intent of the Constitution and allows it to be infringed slightly to serve "compelling government interest".

To think the US constitution should be "soft" is essentially to think it should be irrelevant by now. The masses of written precedent could be used without considering the constitution, and new government laws assessed on the basis of whether the Blackmun court (for instance) would have allowed it.

Now Australia has a fairly minimalist constitution, which defines the federal electoral method (and more loosely the allowable State methods), and the relationship between States and the Federal government. Most of the "constitutional perspectives" Americans talk about are from the Bill of Rights and later amendments. We don't have that. The body of laws and the body of court decisions stand by themselves (common law I guess) and most of what Americans consider "rights" could be changed here. Parliament passes it, Senate passes it, courts up the High Court approve it (laws are subject to legal challenge, at least), and that's it for freedom of speech.

It's just as viable as a working system, and not prone to collapse (UK has no constitution at all, their democracy shows no sign of collapsing) but from the citizen's point of view I think a strong Constitution is better. They learn the Constitution in school, and everything they learn about laws after that, fits somewhere on this "tree" of rights. It makes the body of law seem much more consistent and legitimate.

Both of those are good tho

I haven't read it all, but her dissent in Kanter v. Barr seems from the start tailored to whether the felon poses a threat to the public or not (not because his conviction was for defrauding Medicare).

She also specifically says her reasoning does not apply to "civil" rights, like voting. Ugh.

I'm not sure you want this precedent. It wouldn't be too hard to prove in court that someone with no criminal accusations against them is a threat to the public and shouldn't have a gun.

If felons are released from prison they should have their rights restored in full and if for some reason they're deemed too dangerous for that then they should just never be released at all and I support the death penalty.

Uh, parole? If you get rid of parole boards and parole conditions, you'll get longer sentences, and probably more recidivism.

I think having "you may not possess a gun" is a very reasonable parole condition, for anyone convicted of a gun crime, and possibly any violent crime. Others felons, maybe.

But they have to go back to the crime-ridden slum where they committed their crime? Uh, why? Isn't that the last thing we want them doing, as it vastly increases the chances they will re-offend? We should encourage them to move somewhere there is less crime and more jobs, and give them a place to live while they look for said job.

Nobody can hold two different positions in government in the US. It would take a constitutional amendment to fix that

Yes, but he wouldn't actually hold the position until sworn in.

So Trump could resign the Presidency some time before Inauguration day, be sworn in as a Justice, and as reward for all his hard work Pence would get a pension upgrade. Greeeaaat.

Filling a seat isn't packing the court, packing the court is increasing the number of seats from 9 to a higher number and confirming judges who align with X political inclinations.

Court packing, then. This is NOT just "filling a seat" when you consider the GOP's blatant disregard of the Constitution on an earlier occasion they had to "fill a seat".

I hope the Republicans pack the court too, because then even if Trump loses in November there would be a conservative majority in the court for the next few decades

Firstly, you're counting Roberts as still one of "yours".
Secondly, Thomas is no spring chicken.
Thirdly, your new justice might be so bad we can impeach him.

Being a hypocrite is a small price to pay to avoid getting a far leftist on the court

K&K speaking for the whole GOP. Everybody else: never elect them again.

If the GOP pulls this shit, Democrats will grind their face in liberal shit like they've never seen. For 12 years not just the usual 8.

You think we don't have ideas the Supreme Court can't strike down? Uh-uh. Massive tax and spend.

But accusing someone of sexual misconduct w/o proof is not giving them a hard time, it is an attempt to discredit and destroy someone who did nothing wrong

You SAY he did nothing wrong. And you have the Senate hearings as proof of that.

But if we're going to play it "innocent until proven guilty means making the accusation of wrong-doing itself wrong" then we can never put anyone on trial, for anything. Making accusations is the only way of finding out.

How is the senate "blatantly" disregarding the Constitution?

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Most of us like our freedoms, mind you. I agree with No State.

No, I get that. I might disagree with the Second Amendment, but I'm across the pond, so a lot of things about the US is odd to me, the Second Amendment being one of them. However, I don't get this idea that just because the founders of the country said or did something, it must be a good thing, and that it ought to be followed about two and a half centuries on because it was "what they intended". What they said or did might have solid foundations irrespective of them having said it, but I see this "it was what the Founding Fathers intended" non-argument all the bloody time. It makes no sense.

It's especially ironic in the context of a liberal democracy, because what dead people have intended really shouldn't matter in a liberal democracy. North Korea might be a different case, but the US is (for the time being) a liberal democracy.

They are (quite literally sometimes) placed upon pedestals. It is frowned upon to acknowledge their faults.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

No, I get that. I might disagree with the Second Amendment, but I'm across the pond, so a lot of things about the US is odd to me, the Second Amendment being one of them. However, I don't get this idea that just because the founders of the country said or did something, it must be a good thing, and that it ought to be followed about two and a half centuries on because it was "what they intended". What they said or did might have solid foundations irrespective of them having said it, but I see this "it was what the Founding Fathers intended" non-argument all the bloody time. It makes no sense.

It's especially ironic in the context of a liberal democracy, because what dead people have intended really shouldn't matter in a liberal democracy. North Korea might be a different case, but the US is (for the time being) a liberal democracy.

They are (quite literally sometimes) placed upon pedestals. It is frowned upon to acknowledge their faults.

They were a mixed bunch. What they should most be admired for, from a modern perspective, is the ability to come together an reach a compromise on some project they all had common interest in.

Great people and not-so-great, can come together and make something good. Not as ideological allies, not as "my enemy's enemy is my friend", but as something in-between. But in contention of minds and ideology in their ability to persuade.

A small share of power, for those with small minds, but a share nonetheless. I think they set a good example which America has not followed.

Representation Democracy is supposed to be all about this. Elect someone smarter than you, to represent you. What went wrong?