ADVERTISEMENT

Ginsburg

Rbg's interpretation of constitution was scary to say the least. Not quite as racist as Sotomayor but partisan comments were over the top.

Djt for 3 justices love it
I don't think RBG was racist. I think she was very focused on equality which in itself is noble. She just held the wrong Federal job for change under our Constitution.

Sotomayor is racist, she mentions race in a lot of rulings. No place for that either.
 
And let’s not kid ourselves, an 87yo terminal cancer patient who is not giving up their post while circling the drain is a lot more of a “fvck you” than it is some act of strength or courage.
Yes. She should have given up her spot years before.
 
EiSLMxyXgAEkMrb
Wow---huge difference! Even if you only like 1/2 what Trump is for, it's still better than the left. I will never understand the violent approach---it has to be impacting the moderate democrats. I've talked with a few and they aren't voting? I wonder if that is the case with others. They don't like Trump, but they are scared to vote for someone who has dementia and doesn't show strong support for law/order.
 
Last edited:
This is the best summation I’ve seen.

Justice Ginsburg was absolutely brilliant, principled and from all accounts a great person. I admire and respect her.

But she didn’t own that seat anymore than one party owns it. I’m not sure how this plays out as politically better for one side or the other, but Trump is constitutionally entitled to nominate and the Senate is constitutionally entitled to hold hearings and vote when it wants to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darterbury and wick
You can be hypocritical. Just admit it and move on.

If your side does it and Biden wins, Dems will add two more seats on the court and **** you anyways

What is sad is I have a case set for argument in October that actually affects real Americans. Like you and me. If the court is tainted by politics it will vote against the American people and nobody will know what happened until it happened and they are screwed. It’s depressing fighting for people who have no clue that corporate America is ****ing them.
I took a brief look at the October calendar. Some interesting cases but frankly none that seemed as widely significant as you indicate.
 
  • Like
Reactions: texasguyto and wick
If trump wins, he can appoint who he sees fit with the consent of the senate.

Can you really support a nomination before the election after the Garland issue?

(Your spelling of when as win troubles me greatly btw. Makes me think you’re an idiot)
dems didn't push back much in 2016 because they were 99% sure they would win in november..
also, split parties btwn ovama and senate is the clear distinction.

then there's 98 with the oddly adolescent dig at incorrect spelling.. so dumn.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darterbury
dems didn't push back much in 2016 because they were 99% sure they would win in november..
also, split parties btwn ovama and senate is the clear distinction.

then there's 98 with the oddly adolescent dig at incorrect spelling.. so dumn.
Yeah, no push back. That’s ignorant. If not, why all these quotes?
2016: Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

2018: Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

2016: Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term - I would say that if it was a Republican president.”

2016: Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “The very balance of our nation’s highest court is in serious jeopardy. As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

2016: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

2016: Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

2016: Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

2016: Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

2016: Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.”

2016: Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. This wouldn’t be unusual. It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

2016: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”


** “The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”
-- Mitch McConnell, March 2016

Just say we had the majority and f’d you and we are ok with hypocrisy to f you again. That is a position I can respect. Saying it’s something else is lying.
 
dems didn't push back much in 2016 because they were 99% sure they would win in november..
also, split parties btwn ovama and senate is the clear distinction.

then there's 98 with the oddly adolescent dig at incorrect spelling.. so dumn.
Show me one quote from a republican where they said something about a split? And what the hell does that matter?
 
Lindsay Graham 2016 "I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,
 
Before anyone says "Kavanaugh changed everything", according to Lindsey Graham that's not true.

Graham makes these statements on October 8th- 2 days after Kavanaugh was sworn in on October 6th.


Lindsey Graham: (21:07)
Now, I’ll tell you this. This may make you feel better, but I really don’t care. If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term and the primary process has started, we’ll wait till the next election. And I’ve got a pretty good chance of being the judiciary-

Jeffrey Goldberg: (21:28)
You’re on the record.

Lindsey Graham: (21:29)
Yeah.
 
Before anyone says "Kavanaugh changed everything", according to Lindsey Graham that's not true.

Graham makes these statements on October 8th- 2 days after Kavanaugh was sworn in on October 6th.


Lindsey Graham: (21:07)
Now, I’ll tell you this. This may make you feel better, but I really don’t care. If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term and the primary process has started, we’ll wait till the next election. And I’ve got a pretty good chance of being the judiciary-

Jeffrey Goldberg: (21:28)
You’re on the record.

Lindsey Graham: (21:29)
Yeah.
But some guy they’ve never heard of before that confirmation cried about boofing with Squee so hypocrisy by elected officials is ok. Duh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bcg_2006
Bandemer vs Ford.

Personal jurisdiction issue. Basically can people sue corporations for defective products in their own state, or do they have to go to the companies home state. If the later, big companies like Ford will just move to Canada so they will never be sued for defective products.
 
Bandemer vs Ford.

Personal jurisdiction issue. Basically can people sue corporations for defective products in their own state, or do they have to go to the companies home state. If the later, big companies like Ford will just move to Canada so they will never be sued for defective products.
Ok. Interesting case. I’ll read the briefs. I thought that was essentially decided in Goodyear.
 
Ok. Interesting case. I’ll read the briefs. I thought that was essentially decided in Goodyear.
Goodyear focused on general jurisdiction. Then Bristol Myers sort of moved that to specific, but as they tend to do, made it super narrow. This is going to be the real first one to decide specific for companies selling products in a specific state.

Interesting thing is RGB is the one that’s been against general jurisdiction. She’s written almost all the jurisdiction opinions starting with Goodyear.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cstanfld
Goodyear focused on general jurisdiction. Then Bristol Myers sort of moved that to specific, but as they tend to do, made it super narrow. This is going to be the real first one to decide specific for companies selling products in a specific state.

Interesting thing is RGB is the one that’s been against general jurisdiction. She’s written almost all the jurisdiction opinions starting with Goodyear.
Bristol Myers is the one I was thinking of. But I haven’t read it in a while.
 
Before anyone says "Kavanaugh changed everything", according to Lindsey Graham that's not true.

Graham makes these statements on October 8th- 2 days after Kavanaugh was sworn in on October 6th.


Lindsey Graham: (21:07)
Now, I’ll tell you this. This may make you feel better, but I really don’t care. If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term and the primary process has started, we’ll wait till the next election. And I’ve got a pretty good chance of being the judiciary-

Jeffrey Goldberg: (21:28)
You’re on the record.

Lindsey Graham: (21:29)
Yeah.
No, Kavanaugh didn't change everything, Robert Bork changed everything. Before that the approval of a justice was a mere formality. That was the hill the dems choose to change everything. Then came Thomas, then Kavanaugh. This is a game the dems started and now they want to cry. Sure, there are lots of comments in 2016 by republicans saying wait, but there are just as many comments of dems saying go forward. All that is meaningless. What matters now is a Republican president, A republican Senate and a Democrat party that will stop at nothing to slow the power shift that is going away from them.
 
No, Kavanaugh didn't change everything, Robert Bork changed everything. Before that the approval of a justice was a mere formality. That was the hill the dems choose to change everything. Then came Thomas, then Kavanaugh. This is a game the dems started and now they want to cry. Sure, there are lots of comments in 2016 by republicans saying wait, but there are just as many comments of dems saying go forward. All that is meaningless. What matters now is a Republican president, A republican Senate and a Democrat party that will stop at nothing to slow the power shift that is going away from them.

Even Bork has nothing to do with the same Senate majority and leadership of '16 employing a principle admittedly in good faith of setting precedent then renegging on it 4 years later because of (x).
 
just having some fun with that stammering genius who used to live at Trump's house:

Elections have, umm, consequences.

If you like your President, you can keep your President. *smugface pursed lips*
and if you like your Senate, you can keep your Senate..
period.
 
Even Bork has nothing to do with the same Senate majority and leadership of '16 employing a principle admittedly in good faith of setting precedent then renegging on it 4 years later because of (x).
No, the point is the whole process wasn't a political game until the dems choose to on Bork. then they did it on Thomas and then Kavanaugh. Once again the old saying rings true, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If you just would have left traditions true then maybe it wouldn't bite you in the ass down the road. The rule changes made to serve a purpose right now tend to hut you down the road even worse. QUIT TRYING TO CHANGE THE PROCESS ALL THE TIME!!!
 
No, the point is the whole process wasn't a political game until the dems choose to on Bork. then they did it on Thomas and then Kavanaugh. Once again the old saying rings true, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If you just would have left traditions true then maybe it wouldn't bite you in the ass down the road. The rule changes made to serve a purpose right now tend to hut you down the road even worse. QUIT TRYING TO CHANGE THE PROCESS ALL THE TIME!!!
Don't forget that Justice Alito's wife was brought to tears based on the character assassinations tried against him as well.
 
Don't attack Bork and Thomas and maybe you get Garland because then it's tradition as long as there are no drastic red flags (I don't think Garland had any) and then you wouldn't have Kavanaugh. What history could have been if the system wasn't constantly trying to be altered in the name of power grabs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2th_doc
I like how persons screaming about the Republican senators hypocrisy totally gloss over the fact Obama and the democrat senators absolutely thought that confirming their guy before an election was totally justified. Of course the Republicans are making a different argument now because they are in charge. If you don't think the democrats would do the same thing if they were in charge, then you are not very bright.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dad_in_tx
dems didn't push back much in 2016 because they were 99% sure they would win in november..
also, split parties btwn ovama and senate is the clear distinction.
Show me one quote from a republican where they said something about a split?
And what the hell does that matter?
one point to consider is that dems were fully on board with putting merritt garland on the court during an election year.. what were you saying about hypocrisy?

also, regarding one quote about split party btwn prez and senate.. is mcconnell 2016 satisfactory?
mitch mcconnell 2016
"One might say this is an almost unprecedented moment in the history of our country. It has been more than 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy arose and was filled in a Presidential election year, and that was when the Senate majority and the President were from the same political party. It has been 80 years.
Since we have divided government today, it means we have to look back almost 130 years to the last time a nominee was confirmed in similar circumstances."
 
  • Like
Reactions: wick
No, the point is the whole process wasn't a political game until the dems choose to on Bork. then they did it on Thomas and then Kavanaugh. Once again the old saying rings true, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If you just would have left traditions true then maybe it wouldn't bite you in the ass down the road. The rule changes made to serve a purpose right now tend to hut you down the road even worse. QUIT TRYING TO CHANGE THE PROCESS ALL THE TIME!!!

Change the process all the time? What more have the Democrats done to the actual Supreme Court process than what Mcconnell has done in the last 4 years going simple majority or imploring withholding advice and consent in an election year (also appealing to future actions ie tradition) except when convenient?
 
Change the process all the time? What more have the Democrats done to the actual Supreme Court process than what Mcconnell has done in the last 4 years going simple majority or imploring withholding advice and consent in an election year (also appealing to future actions ie tradition) except when convenient?
On the simple majority point, is there some magic distinction between simple majority for filling other judgeships versus the Supreme Court?
 
  • Like
Reactions: wick
On the simple majority point, is there some magic distinction between simple majority for filling other judgeships versus the Supreme Court?

Simple majority is simple majority. What distinction are you talking about?

Edit: I see, they're all still simply presidential appointments.
 
Change the process all the time? What more have the Democrats done to the actual Supreme Court process than what Mcconnell has done in the last 4 years going simple majority or imploring withholding advice and consent in an election year (also appealing to future actions ie tradition) except when convenient?
Well, maybe if Harry Reid didn't mention it as something they were going to do if they held the Senate it wouldn't have been done. One thing you have to know about McConnell, he isn't going to do something unless there is a precedent to do it. If Reid doesn't jump the shark and shuts his mouth it probably wouldn't happen. Now Schumer is talking about killing the filibuster. Why wait for the ones with the ideas to actually do it?

 
Change the process all the time? What more have the Democrats done to the actual Supreme Court process than what Mcconnell has done in the last 4 years going simple majority or imploring withholding advice and consent in an election year (also appealing to future actions ie tradition) except when convenient?
And not to mention they are talking about making DC and Puerto Rico states just so they can pull in the 4 new Senators which ironically would be lifelong Democrat. Or maybe the talk of expanding courts. Not just the SC but all federal courts. No real need to do either except it's a pure power grab.
 
Simple majority is simple majority. What distinction are you talking about?

Edit: I see, they're all still simply presidential appointments.
I was curious if and why you thought Reid’s use of the nuclear option was ok.
 
I was curious if and why you thought Reid’s use of the nuclear option was ok.

Arguing for or against it hinges on if you thought the amount of times Obama's appointees were filibustered was acceptable. 79 times cloture had to be invoked versus 68 times for all other presidents combined.
 
Arguing for or against it hinges on if you thought the amount of times Obama's appointees were filibustered was acceptable. 79 times cloture had to be invoked versus 68 times for all other presidents combined.
Thank God
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT