Ginsburg "chastised the Senate for refusing to act on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee"

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
She actually expressly wishes for the candidate to be named by the winner of the next election.
What she said was this:

“The president is elected for four years not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four. Maybe members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”
 
  • Informative
Reactions: jacks
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
What she said was this:

“The president is elected for four years not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four. Maybe members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.
But they did not, and therefore set the precedent. Which they now appear intent on violating.
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,775
17,082
✟1,389,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
So perhaps Trump should push his nominee through to honor her wishes. It is what RBG would have wanted.

Nominate Judge Garland and Trump could "triangulate" the opposition....alas, he's not politically savy enough for that...
 
Upvote 0

Nithavela

our world is happy and mundane
Apr 14, 2007
27,997
19,443
Comb. Pizza Hut and Taco Bell/Jamaica Avenue.
✟489,034.00
Country
Germany
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Single
What she said was this:

“The president is elected for four years not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four. Maybe members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”
Well, would you look at that. People changing their opinion when it politically suits them. Who would have thought.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
But they did not, and therefore set the precedent. Which they now appear intent on violating.
The Obama situation did not set any precedent for this situation today. I've tried to explain that the two cases are not identical.
 
Upvote 0

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
Nominate Judge Garland and Trump could "triangulate" the opposition....alas, he's not politically savy enough for that...
When you have a majority in the Senate, to nominate a liberal just to get the nomination through to confirmation isn't exactly a winning strategy.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: hislegacy
Upvote 0

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
However, I don't believe that there actually has been any flip-flop on the Republican side, if we look closely. Not as far as the decisions taken are concerned. This nomination certainly is not parallel to the Garland situation, for instance.

I cannot vouch for what any individual Senator might have said along the way, though.

Why not just admit you don’t care about hypocrisy as long as you get another SCOTUS seat? It would at least be honest.
 
Upvote 0

durangodawood

Dis Member
Aug 28, 2007
23,412
15,559
Colorado
✟428,018.00
Country
United States
Faith
Seeker
Marital Status
Single
What she said was this:

“The president is elected for four years not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four. Maybe members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”
Yes. So after they hold hearings for Obama's nominee, they should hold hearings for Trump's nominee.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,775
17,082
✟1,389,831.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
When you have a majority in the Senate, to nominate a liberal just to get the nomination through to confirmation isn't exactly a winning strategy.

....placating an ever-shrinking base certainly isn't a winning strategy.
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,723.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

GoldenBoy89

We're Still Here
Sep 25, 2012
23,802
25,695
LA
✟551,813.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
So explain to us what are they doing now then?
Pointing out McConnel’s shameless hypocrisy.
What's the problem?
The problem is that the president was denied having his nominee to be appointed when a vacancy opened up in early 2016 and the rule that was invoked then to justify it is being ignored now by the very same person that came up with the rule. Rules that only apply sometimes or when the opposition holds office or when it’s convenient are not rules worth following. Such a move should carry a heavy political cost but the Republican voter base would first need some basis of standards for the leadership to care to follow. There doesn’t seem to be any that I can discern.
 
Upvote 0

RocksInMyHead

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!
May 12, 2011
6,813
7,420
PA
✟317,269.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
The Obama situation did not set any precedent for this situation today. I've tried to explain that the two cases are not identical.
No two cases are identical, and yet precedents still apply. Any differences that you've shown have been demonstrated to be inconsequential.

As I pointed out in the other thread, Senator Graham outlined this exact situation as a hypothetical back in 2016 and said that it should be treated the same. If that's not setting a precedent, I don't know what is.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,346
10,240
Earth
✟137,598.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
That's the twisted way she ruled on cases, also, and it's why we need to make sure we don't end up with another justice like her.
She was a centrist, often joined with “Nino” on majorities.
Get her away from gender equality cases and she leaned a bit to the right.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Albion

Facilitator
Dec 8, 2004
111,138
33,258
✟583,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
No two cases are identical, and yet precedents still apply. Any differences that you've shown have been demonstrated to be inconsequential.
Keep talking to yourself if you wish. There's no need for my contributions nor is there a "discussion" going on here if you answer yourself all the time and then judge your answers to have been convincing.
 
Upvote 0

Pommer

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic
Sep 13, 2008
16,346
10,240
Earth
✟137,598.00
Country
United States
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Democrat
The Obama situation did not set any precedent for this situation today. I've tried to explain that the two cases are not identical.
But “my side is correct in whatever they do”?
Yeah, you’re a polemicist (and a fine one at that), so...par.
 
Upvote 0

Bobber

Well-Known Member
Feb 10, 2004
6,584
3,076
✟213,723.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Pointing out McConnel’s shameless hypocrisy.

Why is it hypocritical? McConnel points out in his speech today that their actions in 16 we in line with historical norms....WITH DIVIDED GOVERNMENT. You should at least hear what McConnel has to say starting at 12:28 in the clip below,


The problem is that the president was denied having his nominee to be appointed when a vacancy opened up in early 2016 and the rule that was invoked then to justify it is being ignored now by the very same person that came up with the rule.

No. You're overlooking the issue of Divided Government. Again I refer to listen to the Leader of the Senate's speech. I'd kindly suggest for those who do might find his arguments convincing.

Rules that only apply sometimes or when the opposition holds office or when it’s convenient are not rules worth following.

So tell me what the actual Constitution say about this matter. Does the President have the Constitutional right to put forth his nomination. And 2) Does the Senate have the right to consider to carry out a vote in the time of the sitting President. Yes OR No. The law is the only thing that matters.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

whatbogsends

Senior Veteran
Aug 29, 2003
10,370
8,314
Visit site
✟281,129.00
Faith
Atheist
The Obama situation did not set any precedent for this situation today. I've tried to explain that the two cases are not identical.

Correct. In one instance, the vacancy was 240 days prior to the election, in which Republicans deemed it "too close to an election" to fill the seat. In the other instance, it's 45 days prior to the election, and Republicans don't seem to think "too close to an election" is a reason not to fill the seat.

The two situations are not identical, but the hypocrisy on this issue from the right is off the charts.
 
Upvote 0