Ruth Bader Ginsburg passes

[Goonie]

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.

You do remember 2000?

 

[Nithavela]

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

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

Don't expect her seat to grow cold.

 

[Nithavela]

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

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

 

[Nithavela]

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

Eh, good riddance

 

[GodLovesCats]

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.

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

 

[GodLovesCats]

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?

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.

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

 

[GodLovesCats]

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

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.

 

[GodLovesCats]

You do remember 2000?

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

 

[Goonie]

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

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

 

[SimplyMe]

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....

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.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Turns out that is exactly what he is doing.

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

 

[AvilaSurfer]

Yeah, about that...

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

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?

 

[Tom 1]

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

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

 

[AvilaSurfer]

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

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

 

[Sanoy]

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

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.

 

[Goonie]

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?

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?

 

[Nithavela]

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

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

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

 

[Tom 1]

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

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

 

[Nithavela]

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

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

 

[AvilaSurfer]

LOLOL You people are entertaining.