Ruth Bader Ginsburg passes

[GodLovesCats]

I have family members here praising God that she died in time to be replaced. I think you underestimate the callousness of some Republicans.

Tell them she really died too late for that. When the Senate Majority Leader is seeking re-election, he will not be there to push it through anyway. For Congress the lame duck session ends on New Year's Day.

Yes, Republicans are disgusting. I hate everyone who idolizes Donald Trump. (Some people call him "King Donald" or "The Donald" while denying he ever lied about anything.)

 

[Pavel Mosko]

2016 he was blocking a nomination on account of an upcoming election, but you can bet he's going to push this one through asap. a complete double standard.

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

That would be awesome! Are you worried about bad Karma from the days of Harry Reid?

 

[Fantine]

I am heartbroken.

As i have told my adult children, if the Court is stacked with 50 year old conservative ideologues, AOC could be our president in 2024, with Democratic majorities in both Houses of Congress, and the ideologues would rule that every single law they passed was unconstitutional.

We have had four or five different numbers of Supreme Court justices. "Nine" is not in the Constitution.

Harvard and other universities have developed plans for a more equitable Supreme Court. One, championed by Buttigieg, would have five Republican nominated justices, five Democrats, and five recommended by the first ten.

This may be the only way to preserve the checks and balances in our demicracy.

 

[SimplyMe]

hey genius they did just that remember?

No, they didn't. Traditionally, the rule has been that if there was not enough time for the Senate to properly investigate, hold hearings, and approve of the nominee before the election that one would not be nominated -- previously this would be about six months before the election. In the case of the Democrats, there was more than enough time, roughly nine months before the election.

It was Republicans, at the time, pushing the idea that "the voters should decide," despite the fact there was ample time to investigate and hold hearings. What Democrats may or may not have done is irrelevant -- it was Republicans that decided to ignore the precedents in 2016, and it is Republicans in 2020 that are not only again ignoring the past precedents, but also hypocritically going against their own statements in 2016.

 

[SimplyMe]

The conflict between President Trump and Senator Romney is personal.

On Trump's side, not on Romney's. Romney, despite the animosity, has supported Pres. Trump on many occasions. If more Republicans were like Romney, people who stand up for what they believe, I'd likely still be a Republican.

 

[SimplyMe]

That would be awesome! Are you worried about bad Karma from the days of Harry Reid?

The Democrats have already had their bad karma from Harry Reid, it is how Trump has managed to fill so many vacant court positions regardless of how bad the nominee was.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Harvard and other universities have developed plans for a more equitable Supreme Court. One, championed by Buttigieg, would have five Republican nominated justices, five Democrats, and five recommended by the first ten

This may be the only way to preserve the checks and balances in our demicracy.

The only way to have an unbiased SCOTUS should be obvious, but is never suggested by law experts and candidates: three Republicans, three Democrats, and three independents.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

The Democrats have already had their bad karma from Harry Reid, it is how Trump has managed to fill so many vacant court positions regardless of how bad the nominee was.

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....

 

[Pommer]

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....

“Obama’s negligence”?
Pray, what?

 

[Fantine]

The only way to have an unbiased SCOTUS should be obvious, but is never suggested by law experts and candidates: three Republicans, three Democrats, and three independents.

But the current court members, including, God forbid, another Trump appointee, are there for life. The only alternative us increasing the numbers in an equitable manner.

 

[loveofourlord]

No, they didn't. Traditionally, the rule has been that if there was not enough time for the Senate to properly investigate, hold hearings, and approve of the nominee before the election that one would not be nominated -- previously this would be about six months before the election. In the case of the Democrats, there was more than enough time, roughly nine months before the election.

It was Republicans, at the time, pushing the idea that "the voters should decide," despite the fact there was ample time to investigate and hold hearings. What Democrats may or may not have done is irrelevant -- it was Republicans that decided to ignore the precedents in 2016, and it is Republicans in 2020 that are not only again ignoring the past precedents, but also hypocritically going against their own statements in 2016.

No I mean the democrats did wait for election rather then try to railroad it in.

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Are they unable to vote if they're the nominee? I don't think such an exception is in the Constitution. Or was there some law passed that creates that restriction?

True, there is nothing to stop them from voting. But no sitting senator who has been nominated for the Supreme Court has voted on their own nomination. Similarity, Jeff Sessions voted “present” when he was up for nomination as Attorney General.

 

[JSRG]

So I was wondering about the likelihood that Republicans, if they wanted to, would get this through before the election. This article has some interesting information about some of them (specifically Graham, Murkowski, Collins, Grassley, and Romney):
Where Key GOP Senators Stand On An Election Year SCOTUS Vacancy

Obviously any politician can say one thing, and then do another (often justifying it with trying to come up with some kind of distinction)--heck, it notes how Graham, even before this, walked back some of his comments--but it does raise the question of whether the Republicans have the votes to put an appointment through.

 

[GodLovesCats]

But the current court members, including, God forbid, another Trump appointee, are there for life. The only alternative us increasing the numbers in an equitable manner.

One thing that never made any sense to me is this:

Voters elect the President.
Voters elect the Senators.
Voters elect the Representatives.

So why don't voters elect the Supreme Court judges?

 

[iluvatar5150]

One thing that never made any sense to me is this:

Voters elect the President.
Voters elect the Senators.
Voters elect the Representatives.

So why don't voters elect the Supreme Court judges?

Because having people elect judges is a terrible idea.

 

[GodLovesCats]

So I was wondering about the likelihood that Republicans, if they wanted to, would get this through before the election. This article has some interesting information about some of them (specifically Graham, Murkowski, Collins, Grassley, and Romney):

November 3 is not the deadline for this, win or lose. Republicans who lose their re-election campaigns will have almost 2 months to get it done. But that would require not having any recesses for the holidays.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Because having people elect judges is a terrible idea.

People elect city, county, and state judges. Do you think that is a bad idea too?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

People elect city, county, and state judges. Do you think that is a bad idea too?

Not everywhere, and yes. Legal decisions should not be made based on public opinion.

 

[loveofourlord]

One thing that never made any sense to me is this:

Voters elect the President.
Voters elect the Senators.
Voters elect the Representatives.

So why don't voters elect the Supreme Court judges?

can you imagine 9 trumps on the supreme court? Part of the way the supreme court works is it's supposed to be non partisan and such. SUPPOSED to be.

 

[GodLovesCats]

can you imagine 9 trumps on the supreme court? Part of the way the supreme court works is it's supposed to be non partisan and such. SUPPOSED to be.

Than God we never lost nine judges in four years.