Ruth Bader Ginsburg passes

KenJackson said:

No. Conservative justices don't implement their personal policy preferences the way leftists do. They interpret the constitution as written. That's why it makes no sense to call a justice extreme right. There is no extreme. The goal is to accurately represent what the Constitution says.

Leftist justices, on the other hand, implement personal policy preferences.

Click to expand...

You do remember 2000?

Kentonio said:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87

RIP. Now I guess we’ll see what McConnells principles are worth.

Click to expand...

Don't expect her seat to grow cold.

GoldenBoy89 said:

I don’t want to make this thread political but we have another thread in her memory.

Click to expand...

The crocodile tears in that thread make me sick. RBG dying has been on the wishlist of many a conservative for 4 years.

loveofourlord said:

Oh and lets just have a moment of silence for the united states, it was a good run.

Click to expand...

Eh, good riddance

KenJackson said:

Does anyone know if Ginsburg ever declared if she was an atheist or believed in God? Her work with the ACLU suggests she was an atheist, but googling I can't find where she ever actually said it.

Click to expand...

Working with the ACLU has absolutely nothing to do with religion If you have any proof it is, let me see it.

KenJackson said:

Oh good grief. How does my question imply anything like a theocracy? I always figured she didn't believe in God, though I now realize I don't think I ever heard if she actually said that. Criticize? This is the Christian Forums site, so is it OK to ask her beliefs?

Click to expand...

One rule on CF is you are not allowed to say another person is not a Christian without knowing that about him or her. Sp no, it is not OK.

Perhaps. Though by upholding the right to abortion she didn't stand up for the rights of babies to be born.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you have no idea what morals and ethics are. You definitely do not know a baby has already been born.

KenJackson said:

More than a few tears have been shed over the 62 million unborn babies murdered in the US.

Click to expand...

You are obviously trolling this thread. There is no reason not to put your petty complaints based on lies in the abortion section where they belong.

Right now, more than a few tears are being shed over the death of a human rights champion.

Goonie said:

You do remember 2000?

Click to expand...

I am sure he does not care how George Bush became the POTUS. Republicans only care about the fact he did.

ChristianForCats said:

I am sure he does not care how George Bush became the POTUS. Republicans only care about the fact he did.

Click to expand...

I know, just the idea that right wing judges don't follow there own biases

Pavel Mosko said:

Um that was actually fallout from Obama's negligence. They still haven't gotten pay back from Harry Reid but hopefully they will and soon....

Click to expand...

Again, false. Obama appointed lots of judges; the Senate didn't confirm them. Most of Obama's term, while the Democrats had control of the Senate, judicial nominees could be "filibustered." Because of this, very few of Obama's judicial nominations were being approved -- Republicans were blocking them because Democrats rarely had 60 members in the Senate. Between Sen Franken being in a contested election, and not being seated until July, and Sen Kennedy's illness, as well as a variety of other changes, the Democrats only had a 60 vote majority for a very short time.

Sen. Reid got frustrated with the Republicans blocking judicial nominations and, in Nov 2013 (just short of 5 years after Obama took office) he used the "nuclear option" to get rid of judicial filibusters -- judicial nominees could finally be passed with 51 votes, Republicans could no longer block them. McConnell and other Republican warned Sen. Reid but Reid did it anyway -- and Democrats managed to get some of the backlog of Judicial nominees confirmed. Of course, then the problem was Democrats lost the Senate a year later.

In 2016, McConnell took full advantage of Reid's action and has moved to confirm as many of Trump's judicial nominees as possible. Additionally, McConnell himself used the nuclear option to get rid of filibusters against Supreme Court nominees (to push Gorsuch's nomination through faster). Reid's karma has been paid back -- though it will be interesting to see what "karma" McConnell has now collected. As I mentioned earlier, if Trump gets another nominee through, it would not surprise me if Democrats "pack" the court -- and if they control both the Presidency and the Senate, Republicans (due to McConnell) will not be able to stop them.

Tom 1 said:

Turns out that is exactly what he is doing.

Click to expand...

Has there been any indication that the vote will be before the election? Because it seems you’re all assuming it will be before.

RocksInMyHead said:

Yeah, about that...

McConnell says Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg ‘will receive a vote’ in the Senate.

Click to expand...

Of course there will be a vote. It’s a vacancy that needs to be filled. Are you suggesting the vote will be tomorrow? Next week? Next year?

AvilaSurfer said:

Has there been any indication that the vote will be before the election? Because it seems you’re all assuming it will be before.

Click to expand...

That’s how it has been set up, it’s already in motion.

Tom 1 said:

That’s how it has been set up, it’s already in motion.

Click to expand...

It’s not. There has been NO indication as to when the vote will be. None.

Kentonio said:

RIP. Now I guess we’ll see what McConnells principles are worth.

Click to expand...

I fully expect him to go back on it, even if someone else said it. Whether it's right or left, I have just come to expect political theater over everything like this. People seem to acquire whatever principles become convenient.

AvilaSurfer said:

Of course there will be a vote. It’s a vacancy that needs to be filled. Are you suggesting the vote will be tomorrow? Next week? Next year?

Click to expand...

Sorry but where was the urgency 2016? Sorry but if a president is not allowed to have his nomination debated 9 months before an election as the republicans insisted was the case, why is it different this time?

AvilaSurfer said:

It’s not. There has been NO indication as to when the vote will be. None.

Click to expand...

What will you say if there is a vote before the next inauguration?

My guess is "that's just politics lol".

AvilaSurfer said:

It’s not. There has been NO indication as to when the vote will be. None.

Click to expand...

Well, hold on to your hat, private discussions will conclude soon enough. Expect justifications for a pre-election vote to be proposed quite soon.

Tom 1 said:

Well, hold on to your hat, private discussions will conclude soon enough. Expect justifications for a pre-election vote to be proposed quite soon.

Click to expand...

Fox News will tell the conservatives why this time it's different.

LOLOL You people are entertaining.