(07-09-2018 08:10 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: It needs to be before 2023 - if it's 2024, they can't replace her until 2025. Or if it's 2020, you can't replace her until 2021 (talking about RBG).
LOL you don't actually think the GOP would go by that standard they used to not hold a vote on Garland do you?
Win the Senate majority, and you can go by which ever standard you choose. Elections have consequences and not just Presidential ones.
(07-10-2018 12:02 AM)NoDak Wrote: David Brock says Brett Kavanaugh mouth b*tch when he saw Hillary at a State of a Union address so Kavanaugh should be disqualified.
(07-09-2018 08:10 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: It needs to be before 2023 - if it's 2024, they can't replace her until 2025. Or if it's 2020, you can't replace her until 2021 (talking about RBG).
LOL you don't actually think the GOP would go by that standard they used to not hold a vote on Garland do you?
Win the Senate majority, and you can go by which ever standard you choose. Elections have consequences and not just Presidential ones.
No doubt. Elections have consequences and memories will not be short on that fact. It will not be good for the long term health of this country, but the next time the Dems pick a justice I fully expect it to be someone who makes Ginsburg look like a “moderate”. I don’t think it’s a good thing at all that both sides are sprinting as far away from the center as possible, and somehow I hope this changes, but if not enjoy Justice Fidel Castro IV in the future.
(07-09-2018 08:10 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: It needs to be before 2023 - if it's 2024, they can't replace her until 2025. Or if it's 2020, you can't replace her until 2021 (talking about RBG).
LOL you don't actually think the GOP would go by that standard they used to not hold a vote on Garland do you?
Win the Senate majority, and you can go by which ever standard you choose. Elections have consequences and not just Presidential ones.
No doubt. Elections have consequences and memories will not be short on that fact. It will not be good for the long term health of this country, but the next time the Dems pick a justice I fully expect it to be someone who makes Ginsburg look like a “moderate”. I don’t think it’s a good thing at all that both sides are sprinting as far away from the center as possible, and somehow I hope this changes, but if not enjoy Justice Fidel Castro IV in the future.
Isn't that what Obama did when he picked the left wing activists Sotomayor and Kagan? If Hillary would have won, do you think she would have nominated a moderate? No.
I honestly think Ginsburg will retire soon after Kavanaugh is seated on the court. She is older then the Constitution and probably doesn't want to sit their and make her mark on dissenting opinions after every loss. She wanted to stick around and have Hillary name her replacement. She gambled and lost. She is an old lady in front of a slot machine and she has run out of quarters. She can't win anymore jackpots.
As of now, this the Supreme Court will lean conservative for at least the next 15 years, regardless of which party wins the presidency. If Ginsburg leaves, make it the next 25 years.
(This post was last modified: 07-10-2018 08:51 AM by Side Show Joe.)
I think the Court will lean Conservative, but as things stand now, I don't think there is any chance that something like overturning Roe V Wade will occur.
In order for that to occur, as things stand now, Justice Roberts would have to vote to overturn the judicial precedent that has become the law of the land.
From a practical standpoint, you are asking a guy who got cold feet about deeming Obamacare unconstitutional to overturn precedent of the most controversial issue of our time.
(07-10-2018 06:58 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: No doubt. Elections have consequences and memories will not be short on that fact. It will not be good for the long term health of this country, but the next time the Dems pick a justice I fully expect it to be someone who makes Ginsburg look like a “moderate”.
That's what they did with Sotomayor and Kagan, so no reason to expect different.
Quote:I don’t think it’s a good thing at all that both sides are sprinting as far away from the center as possible, and somehow I hope this changes, but if not enjoy Justice Fidel Castro IV in the future.
The center is gone in US politics. Donald Trump may very well be the closest thing we will see to a centrist for decades.
(07-09-2018 08:10 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: It needs to be before 2023 - if it's 2024, they can't replace her until 2025. Or if it's 2020, you can't replace her until 2021 (talking about RBG).
LOL you don't actually think the GOP would go by that standard they used to not hold a vote on Garland do you?
Win the Senate majority, and you can go by which ever standard you choose. Elections have consequences and not just Presidential ones.
No doubt. Elections have consequences and memories will not be short on that fact. It will not be good for the long term health of this country, but the next time the Dems pick a justice I fully expect it to be someone who makes Ginsburg look like a “moderate”. I don’t think it’s a good thing at all that both sides are sprinting as far away from the center as possible, and somehow I hope this changes, but if not enjoy Justice Fidel Castro IV in the future.
Isn't that what Obama did when he picked the left wing activists Sotomayor and Kagan? If Hillary would have won, do you think she would have nominated a moderate? No.
I honestly think Ginsburg will retire soon after Kavanaugh is seated on the court. She is older then the Constitution and probably doesn't want to sit their and make her mark on dissenting opinions after every loss. She wanted to stick around and have Hillary name her replacement. She gambled and lost. She is an old lady in front of a slot machine and she has run out of quarters. She can't win anymore jackpots.
As of now, this the Supreme Court will lean conservative for at least the next 15 years, regardless of which party wins the presidency. If Ginsburg leaves, make it the next 25 years.
I think there’s a far better chance she dies than retires at this point. You are right she arrogantly and idiotically thought Hillary was a shoe in and wanted her to pick her replacement. If she does die though the court will not “lean” conservative it will be activist conservative for the next 15-20 years at a minimum. Elections have consequences and arrogance has consequences. Dems are gonna have to learn this the really hard way, and the GOP is going to make it very painful.
(07-10-2018 08:59 AM)solohawks Wrote: I think the Court will lean Conservative, but as things stand now, I don't think there is any chance that something like overturning Roe V Wade will occur.
In order for that to occur, as things stand now, Justice Roberts would have to vote to overturn the judicial precedent that has become the law of the land.
From a practical standpoint, you are asking a guy who got cold feet about deeming Obamacare unconstitutional to overturn precedent of the most controversial issue of our time.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
Roberts legal philosophy is that, wherever possible, to leave such issues to the voters. That was the basis of allowing Obamacare to stay. I didn't like the decision either, but maybe it was the right one if he uses the same approach across the board. Call it a tax, fee, penalty, whatever, but congress does have the power to generate revenue. Otherwise, Roberts has been pretty solid and in the long run it is probably better that he rules on legal philosophy and not political ideology. Putting that legal philosophy to Roe v Wade, I would think he would want to leave the abortion issue to the people.
(07-10-2018 06:58 AM)b0ndsj0ns Wrote: No doubt. Elections have consequences and memories will not be short on that fact. It will not be good for the long term health of this country, but the next time the Dems pick a justice I fully expect it to be someone who makes Ginsburg look like a “moderate”.
That's what they did with Sotomayor and Kagan, so no reason to expect different.
Quote:I don’t think it’s a good thing at all that both sides are sprinting as far away from the center as possible, and somehow I hope this changes, but if not enjoy Justice Fidel Castro IV in the future.
The center is gone in US politics. Donald Trump may very well be the closest thing we will see to a centrist for decades.
(07-09-2018 08:10 PM)Fort Bend Owl Wrote: It needs to be before 2023 - if it's 2024, they can't replace her until 2025. Or if it's 2020, you can't replace her until 2021 (talking about RBG).
LOL you don't actually think the GOP would go by that standard they used to not hold a vote on Garland do you?
Win the Senate majority, and you can go by which ever standard you choose. Elections have consequences and not just Presidential ones.
No doubt. Elections have consequences and memories will not be short on that fact. It will not be good for the long term health of this country, but the next time the Dems pick a justice I fully expect it to be someone who makes Ginsburg look like a “moderate”. I don’t think it’s a good thing at all that both sides are sprinting as far away from the center as possible, and somehow I hope this changes, but if not enjoy Justice Fidel Castro IV in the future.
Hard to get further left than Ginsburg. She is the epitome of flaming progressive TDS.
Don't expect them to nominate a true liberal like Breyer.
We desperately need Scalia type strict constructionists as the left is abandoning liberal principles. When it came to individuals vs. the government, Scalia and Breyer were usually on the same side. The far left and Roberts/Alito were more likely to side with the state.
(07-10-2018 09:35 AM)bullet Wrote: We desperately need Scalia type strict constructionists as the left is abandoning liberal principles. When it came to individuals vs. the government, Scalia and Breyer were usually on the same side. The far left and Roberts/Alito were more likely to side with the state.
I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I completely agree with you. While I fundamentally disagreed with Scalia on more issues than I could name he had a philosophy of siding with individual liberty over big government and you’d see him vote in what would appear to be strange ways against the interest of the GOP at times because he stuck to that principle.
(07-10-2018 08:59 AM)solohawks Wrote: I think the Court will lean Conservative, but as things stand now, I don't think there is any chance that something like overturning Roe V Wade will occur.
In order for that to occur, as things stand now, Justice Roberts would have to vote to overturn the judicial precedent that has become the law of the land.
From a practical standpoint, you are asking a guy who got cold feet about deeming Obamacare unconstitutional to overturn precedent of the most controversial issue of our time.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
Roberts legal philosophy is that, wherever possible, to leave such issues to the voters. That was the basis of allowing Obamacare to stay. I didn't like the decision either, but maybe it was the right one if he uses the same approach across the board. Call it a tax, fee, penalty, whatever, but congress does have the power to generate revenue. Otherwise, Roberts has been pretty solid and in the long run it is probably better that he rules on legal philosophy and not political ideology. Putting that legal philosophy to Roe v Wade, I would think he would want to leave the abortion issue to the people.
Roberts caved to peer pressure. Whether that was the right, wise thing to do for the sake of the country or not can be debated. But the preponderance of evidence points to the notion he let outside influence change his mind.
(07-10-2018 08:59 AM)solohawks Wrote: I think the Court will lean Conservative, but as things stand now, I don't think there is any chance that something like overturning Roe V Wade will occur.
In order for that to occur, as things stand now, Justice Roberts would have to vote to overturn the judicial precedent that has become the law of the land.
From a practical standpoint, you are asking a guy who got cold feet about deeming Obamacare unconstitutional to overturn precedent of the most controversial issue of our time.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
Roberts legal philosophy is that, wherever possible, to leave such issues to the voters. That was the basis of allowing Obamacare to stay. I didn't like the decision either, but maybe it was the right one if he uses the same approach across the board. Call it a tax, fee, penalty, whatever, but congress does have the power to generate revenue. Otherwise, Roberts has been pretty solid and in the long run it is probably better that he rules on legal philosophy and not political ideology. Putting that legal philosophy to Roe v Wade, I would think he would want to leave the abortion issue to the people.
Roberts caved to peer pressure. Whether that was the right, wise thing to do for the sake of the country or not can be debated. But the preponderance of evidence points to the notion he let outside influence change his mind.
If true, that is troublesome, but this is kind of weak... "I am told by two sources with specific knowledge of the court's deliberations"
![[Image: 600full-shannon-bream.jpg]](http://iv1.lisimg.com/image/11686567/600full-shannon-bream.jpg)
![[Image: ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-justic...oto-31.jpg]](https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-justice-young-photo-31.jpg)
