(09-21-2020 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2020 07:37 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The integrity problem lies in the Senate GOP majority completely disregarding their position from 4 years ago now that it benefits them.

Any more of an integrity problem than democrats completely reversing their position of 4 years ago?

For both sides, it's nothing but political.

The Dems are pointing out the hypocrisy as they were not in the driver's seat last time. Their position is not appointing Obamas judge due to the election but appointing Trump's judge despite it being a much tighter timelime is hypocritical.

Now as I quoted on that WSJ article, the Dems are finally getting a taste of their own medicine in this area and they are not handling it well

Is it hypocritical based on their statements 4 years ago....of course it is.
Would the democrats do it without batting an eye if they were in that position...of course they would.

I did laugh.. I saw a lib friend of mine state this weekend it was time for Trump to set things right and win over "Dem voters" by nominating Garland.

Its not hypocritcal in any way. In 2014, americans decided to put more of a check on Obama, which also meant that he was not likely to get another justice thru the nomination process.

In 2020, americans decided to ensure Trump gets his nomination thru by increasing the numbers in the senate.

If you are a president and the opposition party holds the senate, historically you will never get your nominee thru the process. (Happened once out of 10 times or so)

This is nothing new. The president nominates. THe senate confirms. If your party doesnt hold the senate, you almost will never get a nominee thru, like Obama. If your party does hold the senate, they will get thru.

(09-21-2020 09:55 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Its not hypocritcal in any way. In 2014, americans decided to put more of a check on Obama, which also meant that he was not likely to get another justice thru the nomination process.

In 2020, americans decided to ensure Trump gets his nomination thru by increasing the numbers in the senate.

If you are a president and the opposition party holds the senate, historically you will never get your nominee thru the process. (Happened once out of 10 times or so)

This is nothing new. The president nominates. THe senate confirms. If your party doesnt hold the senate, you almost will never get a nominee thru, like Obama. If your party does hold the senate, they will get thru.

I think you are referring to an election year only. A Justice has been confirmed twice with opposite parties in the WH and in control of Senate. There have been 114 SC Justices. It would be the first time in history for a President to NOT put up a nominee to the Senate which is why this shouldn't even be an arguement. It is the President's obligation and duty to appoint a nominee quickly. Always has been.

RKO outta nowhere

Quote:Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reportedly went further than any other justice in voicing her displeasure that the Supreme Court had only eight justices following the death of Antonin Scalia in 2016 — an election year — calling it “not a good number.”

“The comments mark the furthest a sitting justice has gone, since the sudden death of the late Justice Antonin Scalia earlier this year, to signal that the court would function better with a fully staffed bench,” CNN reported. “Ginsburg was giving an end of the term report to an audience of mostly judges of the Second Circuit Judicial Conference in New York.”

Ginsburg’s resurfaced remark follows her passing late last week after she lost her the fight against her fifth bout with cancer.

“That means no opinions and no precedential value; an equal division is essentially the same as a denial of review,” Ginsburg said on the issue of the Supreme Court only having eight justices. “Eight, as you know, is not a good number for a multi-member court.”

Ginsburg’s resurfaced opinion also comes after she allegedly told her granddaughter that her dying wish was that a “new president” would be the one to replace her.

“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,” Ginsburg allegedly said.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) threatened that Democrats may pack the court with leftist judges if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and President Donald Trump fill her seat because, as Ocasio-Cortez says, they would be in “violation of her dying wish.”

The Supreme Court released the following statement in response to Ginsburg’s death:

Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died this evening surrounded by her family at her home in Washington, D.C., due to complications of metastatic pancreas cancer. She was 87 years old. Justice Ginsburg was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Clinton in 1993. She was the second woman appointed to the Court and served more than 27 years. She is survived by her two children: Jane Carol Ginsburg (George Spera) and James Steven Ginsburg (Patrice Michaels), four grandchildren: Paul Spera (Francesca Toich), Clara Spera (Rory Boyd), Miranda Ginsburg, Abigail Ginsburg, two step-grandchildren: Harjinder Bedi, Satinder Bedi, and one greatgrandchild: Lucrezia Spera. Her husband, Martin David Ginsburg, died in 2010.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. said of Justice Ginsburg: “Our Nation has lost a jurist of historic stature. We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her — a tireless and resolute champion of justice.”

Justice Ginsburg was born in Brooklyn, New York, March 15, 1933. She married Martin D. Ginsburg in 1954. She received her B.A. from Cornell University, attended Harvard Law School, and received her LL.B. from Columbia Law School. She served as a law clerk to the Honorable Edmund L. Palmieri, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, from 1959- 1961. From 1961- 1963, she was a research associate and then associate director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure. She was a Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law from 1963-1972, and Columbia Law School from 1972- 1980, and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California from 1977-1978. In 1971, she was instrumental in launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU’s General Counsel from 1973-1980, and on the National Board of Directors from 1974-1980. She was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980. During her more than 40 years as a Judge and a Justice, she was served by 159 law clerks.

While on the Court, the Justice authored My Own Words (2016), a compilation of her speeches and writings.

A private interment service will be held at Arlington National Cemetery

Link

(09-21-2020 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2020 07:37 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The integrity problem lies in the Senate GOP majority completely disregarding their position from 4 years ago now that it benefits them.

Any more of an integrity problem than democrats completely reversing their position of 4 years ago?

For both sides, it's nothing but political.

What did the GOP majority do in 2016? Nothing in the Constitution says the Senate has to rubber stamp a nominee. Garland didn't have the votes for confirmation plain and simple, so there was no reason to go through the dog and pony show. This time Trump in POTUS and up for re-election and the GOP is still the majority. End of story. The Democrats have no one to blame for this besides themselves and Harry Reid because they thought they were going to be in control of Government for the next 20+ years and it bit them in the backside. The Republicans aren't doing anything to change precedent. This is the precedent. Trump is President until at least Jan. 20, 2021.

RIP RBG, but her mistake was not retiring while Obama was still president. Apparently, she thought Hillary would win. Oops, her bad, not the Repubs.

P.S. Even as a hard indy, I think RBG was the most partisan of a court full of partisan hacks. Thomas is close behind.

Roberts is a blow with the wind dude. I think that might be worse. He's not consistent.

(09-21-2020 11:21 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(09-21-2020 09:33 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(09-21-2020 07:37 AM)solohawks Wrote:  The integrity problem lies in the Senate GOP majority completely disregarding their position from 4 years ago now that it benefits them.

Any more of an integrity problem than democrats completely reversing their position of 4 years ago?

For both sides, it's nothing but political.

What is the GOP majority do in 2016? Nothing in the Constitution says the Senate has to rubber stamp a nominee. Garland didn't have the votes for confirmation plain and simple, so there was no reason to go through the dog and pony show. This time Trump in POTUS and up for re-election and the GOP is still the majority. End of story. The Democrats have no one to blame for this besides themselves and Harry Reid because they thought they were going to be in control of Government for the next 20+ years and it bit them in the backside. The Republicans aren't doing anything to change precedent. This is the precedent. Trump is President until at least Jan. 20, 2021.

Democrats turned down two of Nixon's appointees. And that was after they shut down two Johnson nominations, the elevation of Fortas to Chief Justice, and the nomination of his replacement.

Hi

(09-21-2020 10:25 AM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(09-21-2020 09:55 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  Its not hypocritcal in any way. In 2014, americans decided to put more of a check on Obama, which also meant that he was not likely to get another justice thru the nomination process.

In 2020, americans decided to ensure Trump gets his nomination thru by increasing the numbers in the senate.

If you are a president and the opposition party holds the senate, historically you will never get your nominee thru the process. (Happened once out of 10 times or so)

This is nothing new. The president nominates. THe senate confirms. If your party doesnt hold the senate, you almost will never get a nominee thru, like Obama. If your party does hold the senate, they will get thru.

I think you are referring to an election year only. A Justice has been confirmed twice with opposite parties in the WH and in control of Senate. There have been 114 SC Justices. It would be the first time in history for a President to NOT put up a nominee to the Senate which is why this shouldn't even be an arguement. It is the President's obligation and duty to appoint a nominee quickly. Always has been.

Correct.

Quote:Members of the press are aghast that Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Lindsey Graham has changed his position on Supreme Court vacancies.

Just wait until they find out Democratic nominee Joe Biden has pulled a 180 on this exact issue not once, but twice.

In 1992, during President George H.W. Bush's final year in office, then-Senator Biden said there needs to be a different standard for a Supreme Court vacancy “that would occur in the full throes of an election year.” Bush should not nominate a replacement, and the Democratic-controlled Senate should decline to consider any candidate offered up before Election Day, the Delaware lawmaker said.

“It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over,” said Biden, who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee at the time. “That is what is fair to the nominee and essential to the process. Otherwise, it seems to me we will be in deep trouble as an institution.”

Later, in 2016, Biden adopted the opposite position.

“I know there is an argument that no nominee should be voted on in the last year of a presidency. But there is nothing in the Constitution — or our history — to support this view,” the then-vice president said in an op-ed for the New York Times. “Justice Anthony M. Kennedy was confirmed in the last year of Ronald Reagan’s second term. I know. I was chairman of the Judiciary Committee at the time. And we promptly gave him a hearing, a vote in committee and a full vote on the floor.”

“As I write this,” the op-ed, which was written amid the Obama administration's efforts during the 2016 election to put forward Judge Merrick Garland as a Supreme Court nominee, continues, “nearly all Republican senators have said that they will refuse to consider any nominee — sight unseen. At a time when we need to reduce the gridlock in our politics, this would extend Congress’s dysfunction to the Supreme Court — preventing it from functioning as our founders intended for a year and possibly longer.”

Later that same year, during an address at a Georgetown Law School event, Biden said, "I made it absolutely clear that I would go forward with a confirmation process as [Senate Judiciary] chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires.”

But that was then. This is now. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead and the Trump administration has a chance to put a third judge on the Supreme Court. Biden has re-adopted his 1992 position.

"Let me be clear,” said the Democratic nominee Friday night, “the voters should pick the president and the president should pick the justice for the Senate to consider.”

He added, “This was the position of Republican Senate took in 2016. When there were almost 10 months to go before the election. That's the position the United States Senate must take today."

Before her death, the late Supreme Court justice allegedly said that it is her “most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

On Sunday, Biden called on the Senate to honor Ginsburg’s reported dying wish, saying, "As a nation, we should heed her final call to us, not as a personal service to her, but as a service to the country, our country, at a crossroads."

“There is so much at stake," he continued, adding that, “If [President Trump] wants to put forward a name now, the Senate should not act until after the American people select their next president, their next Congress, their next Senate. To jam this nomination through the Senate is just an exercise in raw political power. And I don’t believe the people of this nation will stand for it.”

Give it enough time and Biden will likely change his mind again on the exact issue of election-year Supreme Court vacancies. A politician changing his beliefs to ones that are more politically expedient? Shocking, I know.

Link

(09-21-2020 07:37 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Trump is nominating a SC Justice just like Obama did.

The integrity problem lies in the Senate GOP majority completely disregarding their position from 4 years ago now that it benefits them.

Can they....yes
Are they justified...absolutely
Should they...probably I guess
Will it come back to bite them.... we will see

Why?
The ones that were going to vote Republican are going to vote Republican. The ones that were going to vote for the fruits and nuts of the Left are going to vote for the Left.

Trump isn’t going to lose any votes because he does his job and let’s the Senate do theres.

I would argue he would lose more votes being a punk and bending over for the Leftists. That’s not why we voted for Trump. We didn’t vote for him to succeed power to the enemy.

Thankfully he’s going to nominate someone late this week. A good Conservative woman.

Trump supporters like myself see that as a sign of strength. As one more Conservative vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

As Nancy, Chuck, St. Barack and countless other Leftists have reminded us, time after time the last few years, “Elections have Consequences”.

(09-21-2020 01:50 PM)CardinalJim Wrote:  

(09-21-2020 07:37 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Trump is nominating a SC Justice just like Obama did.

The integrity problem lies in the Senate GOP majority completely disregarding their position from 4 years ago now that it benefits them.

Can they....yes
Are they justified...absolutely
Should they...probably I guess
Will it come back to bite them.... we will see

Why?
The ones that were going to vote Republican are going to vote Republican. The ones that were going to vote for the fruits and nuts of the Left are going to vote for the Left.

Trump isn’t going to lose any votes because he does his job and let’s the Senate do theres.

I would argue he would lose more votes being a punk and bending over for the Leftists. That’s not why we voted for Trump. We didn’t vote for him to succeed power to the enemy.

Thankfully he’s going to nominate someone late this week. A good Conservative woman.

Trump supporters like myself see that as a sign of strength. As one more Conservative vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

As Nancy, Chuck, St. Barack and countless other Leftists have reminded us, time after time the last few years, “Elections have Consequences”.

If the GOP Senate can get the votes to do this but Trump loses and the Dems get the Senate too, then the Dems will expand the Supreme Court in 2021 and the conservative majority of 5-3-1 will turn into a deficit of 6-5-1 very very quickly

....and the next time a republican wins they add more supreme court justices, until the democrats get back in power and do it again... and we become the Banana Republic some are angling for.