Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by vnatale » Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:34 pm

‘You don’t see any hypocrisy?’ Chris Wallace flattens Trump Supreme Court shortlister Tom Cotton by replaying his Merrick Garland speech

https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/you-do ... paign=5510
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
pp4me
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:12 pm

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by pp4me » Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:30 pm

I think a confirmation hearing would be a very entertaining and enlightening spectacle for the American people to watch just before the election.

It will be interesting to see how they are planning on sliming Amy Comey Barrett if she is nominated, which it's sounding like she will be. She has adopted kids from Haiti so the racist accusations might not play well although they might be able to make something out of a white person adopting black kids. I know a lot of progressives think that is a bad thing. My guess is the main thing they will go after is her religion. I don't know much about it but I've already heard it described as a "sect".

But the big question is are they going to let Kamala Harris play a major role like she did with Kavanaugh? I'm getting the impression lately that the handlers are keeping her out of the spotlight even more than Joe. Probably has something to do with saying things like BLM isn't going to stop and they shouldn't and referring to the "Harris administration". If we are going to have a Harris administration I think it would be a good thing for the American people to see her in action again.
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Tortoise » Sun Sep 20, 2020 2:41 pm

Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Libertarian666 » Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:22 pm

I said this before on a different thread: it will almost certainly be Barbara Lagoa. She ticks the immigrant family, minority, and female boxes, thus presenting the smallest possible attack surface for the Democrat dirty tricks.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14231
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by dualstow » Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:49 pm

Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by WiseOne » Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:05 pm

I was wondering exactly how the Democrats will manage to savage a woman candidate without looking seriously ridiculous. If they suggest she's not qualified they'll be open to discrimination charges, if not outright slander. And the usual sexual abuse stories will be a lot harder to find. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'm really going to enjoy watching this one.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Libertarian666 » Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:48 am

WiseOne wrote:
Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:05 pm
I was wondering exactly how the Democrats will manage to savage a woman candidate without looking seriously ridiculous. If they suggest she's not qualified they'll be open to discrimination charges, if not outright slander. And the usual sexual abuse stories will be a lot harder to find. I guess we'll have to wait and see, but I'm really going to enjoy watching this one.
I expect them to throw everything they have at her, and fail.
But the more they do it, on national TV, the worse they will look.
pp4me
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1190
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2020 4:12 pm

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by pp4me » Mon Sep 21, 2020 8:34 am

I see that Biden has promised to nominate a black woman.

So there you have it. Are the Republicans going to continue to perpetuate systemic racism by putting a white woman on the court in a seat that should rightfully belong to a woman of color?

I guess it wouldn't be 2020 if the race wasn't all about race.
User avatar
Tyler
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2066
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2011 3:23 pm
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Tyler » Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:45 am

With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by glennds » Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:44 pm

Tyler wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:45 am
With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.
So this must mean Mitt is not a RINO after all.
Does toeing the line on the nomination get him back on the team?
User avatar
Mark Leavy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1950
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2012 10:20 pm
Location: US Citizen, Permanent Traveler

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Mark Leavy » Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:58 pm

glennds wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:44 pm
Tyler wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:45 am
With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.
So this must mean Mitt is not a RINO after all.
Does toeing the line on the nomination get him back on the team?
All of the LABELS and REASONS serve only to obfuscate the simple. Politicians act in their best interests at the moment. End of story.

There is value in releasing a statement that implies some high ground "reason". But only because we humans are wired to latch onto and accept a "reason".

So much simpler to just acknowledge that they did the calculation and acted on the highest utility.
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by vnatale » Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:45 pm

Can Democrats Stop the Nomination?

Four questions that could determine whether Mitch McConnell can push through a Trump Supreme Court nominee


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archi ... %3A05%3A21
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Tortoise » Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:57 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:40 am
Tyler wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:45 am
With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.
Now we need U. S. Marshals or some other reliable law enforcement agencies to protect the Senators around the clock until the vote.
That, plus push for one or two more votes just in case the unthinkable happens.
User avatar
Cortopassi
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 3338
Joined: Mon Feb 24, 2014 2:28 pm
Location: https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/webbL ... sWebb.html

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Cortopassi » Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:04 pm

Has it really gotten that partisan that not even one purple state democrat wouldn’t vote for nomination, whoever it might be? To think not that long ago voting on judges was nearly unanimous a lot of the time.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by glennds » Tue Sep 22, 2020 11:30 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:40 pm
glennds wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:44 pm
Tyler wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:45 am
With Grassley, Gardner, and Romney now all releasing statements declaring their support for bringing the nominee to a vote before the election, Republicans officially have 51 votes in-hand. It's happening.
So this must mean Mitt is not a RINO after all.
Does toeing the line on the nomination get him back on the team?
Certainly it will help but if they had 51 without him it's not as important.
He graduates from a RINO with a capital R to a small r, but still mostly in the dog house for the impeachment vote.
No sitting at the grownups table with Mitch yet.
User avatar
dualstow
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 14231
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by dualstow » Wed Sep 23, 2020 6:43 am

Cortopassi wrote:
Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:04 pm
Has it really gotten that partisan that not even one purple state democrat wouldn’t vote for nomination, whoever it might be? To think not that long ago voting on judges was nearly unanimous a lot of the time.
i think you’ve got one too many negatives in that statement.
Sam Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by vnatale » Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:08 pm

Fill Supreme Court vacancy after election

https://www.recorder.com/my-turn-hamdan ... n-36387182



I am a relatively conservative-leaning attorney. While I have tremendous respect for the accomplishments, dignified personality, and logic of the late Justice Ginsburg, (may she rest in peace), I would probably support having another conservative justice on the Supreme Court.

Having said that, I vehemently oppose the ongoing attempts to fill her seat, less than two months before the November election. I think it would be both grossly unfair and politically suicidal for Republicans to try to shoehorn in a nomination in this manner.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by glennds » Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:48 pm

vnatale wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:08 pm
Fill Supreme Court vacancy after election

https://www.recorder.com/my-turn-hamdan ... n-36387182



I am a relatively conservative-leaning attorney. While I have tremendous respect for the accomplishments, dignified personality, and logic of the late Justice Ginsburg, (may she rest in peace), I would probably support having another conservative justice on the Supreme Court.

Having said that, I vehemently oppose the ongoing attempts to fill her seat, less than two months before the November election. I think it would be both grossly unfair and politically suicidal for Republicans to try to shoehorn in a nomination in this manner.
Think about this - what if a new Justice was shoehorned onto the Court at warp speed.
Then three weeks later a case arrives called Trump v. Biden over the contested election.
The new Justice promptly recuses herself as she could not possibly be impartial considering one of the parties in the case just finished appointing her to the pinnacle of her legal career and naturally she feels enormous personal indebtedness towards him.
This leaves an 8 member Court, which then ends up deadlocked in the case.
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by glennds » Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:52 pm

glennds wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:48 pm
vnatale wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:08 pm
Fill Supreme Court vacancy after election

https://www.recorder.com/my-turn-hamdan ... n-36387182



I am a relatively conservative-leaning attorney. While I have tremendous respect for the accomplishments, dignified personality, and logic of the late Justice Ginsburg, (may she rest in peace), I would probably support having another conservative justice on the Supreme Court.

Having said that, I vehemently oppose the ongoing attempts to fill her seat, less than two months before the November election. I think it would be both grossly unfair and politically suicidal for Republicans to try to shoehorn in a nomination in this manner.
Think about this - what if a new Justice was shoehorned onto the Court at warp speed.
Then three weeks later a case arrives called Trump v. Biden over the contested election.
The new Justice promptly recuses herself as she could not possibly be impartial considering one of the parties in the case just finished appointing her to the pinnacle of her legal career and naturally she feels enormous personal indebtedness towards him.
This leaves an 8 member Court, which then ends up deadlocked in the case.
Alternate Ending -
When the new Justice recuses herself in the face of the Trump v. Biden case, Chief Justice Roberts, wanting to avoid a potentially deadlocked Court, reinstates retired Justice David Souter for the one case.
Trump loses in a 4-5 decision with Souter casting the swing vote against him.
Would it make a good movie?
User avatar
Tortoise
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2751
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2010 2:35 am

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Tortoise » Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:02 pm

glennds wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:48 pm
Think about this - what if a new Justice was shoehorned onto the Court at warp speed.
Then three weeks later a case arrives called Trump v. Biden over the contested election.
The new Justice promptly recuses herself as she could not possibly be impartial considering one of the parties in the case just finished appointing her to the pinnacle of her legal career and naturally she feels enormous personal indebtedness towards him.
This leaves an 8 member Court, which then ends up deadlocked in the case.
By that line of reasoning, wouldn't Gorsuch and Kavanaugh also recuse themselves of a Trump vs. Biden case since they were also appointed by Trump?
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:21 pm

Why does this make me think of @vnatale?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rbg-mom- ... afbe990c15
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9423
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by vnatale » Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:29 pm

Libertarian666 wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:21 pm
Why does this make me think of @vnatale?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rbg-mom- ... afbe990c15
Because you may oftentimes be guilty of over-generalizing based upon limited information / evidence and viewing / interpreting such information / evidence through a super narrow viewpoint which then results in you grossly missing the mark?

Vinny
Last edited by vnatale on Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Above provided by: Vinny, who always says: "I only regret that I have but one lap to give to my cats." AND "I'm a more-is-more person."
glennds
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1265
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:24 am

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by glennds » Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:37 pm

Tortoise wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 8:02 pm
glennds wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:48 pm
Think about this - what if a new Justice was shoehorned onto the Court at warp speed.
Then three weeks later a case arrives called Trump v. Biden over the contested election.
The new Justice promptly recuses herself as she could not possibly be impartial considering one of the parties in the case just finished appointing her to the pinnacle of her legal career and naturally she feels enormous personal indebtedness towards him.
This leaves an 8 member Court, which then ends up deadlocked in the case.
By that line of reasoning, wouldn't Gorsuch and Kavanaugh also recuse themselves of a Trump vs. Biden case since they were also appointed by Trump?
Technically, yes.
Look, I'm not saying any of this is going to happen. Just illustrating the obvious point that we're in uncharted territory and almost anything can happen. Usually we have history and tradition as a barometer against which to form our expectations. Here, all tradition is out the window, and it's anyone's guess how this will play out. Orderly is not a word that comes to mind.
So yes, Supreme Court justice recusals are unlikely, but only a short few years ago, everything that is happening before our eyes would have seemed unlikely.
Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5994
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Libertarian666 » Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:48 pm

vnatale wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:29 pm
Libertarian666 wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:21 pm
Why does this make me think of @vnatale?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rbg-mom- ... afbe990c15
Because you may oftentimes be guilty of over-generalizing based upon limited information / evidence and viewing / interpreting such information / evidence through a super narrow viewpoint which then results in you grossly missing the mark?

Vinny
LOL.
User avatar
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Maddy » Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:12 am

Libertarian666 wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:07 pm
vnatale wrote:
Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:08 pm
Fill Supreme Court vacancy after election

https://www.recorder.com/my-turn-hamdan ... n-36387182


I am a relatively conservative-leaning attorney. While I have tremendous respect for the accomplishments, dignified personality, and logic of the late Justice Ginsburg, (may she rest in peace), I would probably support having another conservative justice on the Supreme Court.

Having said that, I vehemently oppose the ongoing attempts to fill her seat, less than two months before the November election. I think it would be both grossly unfair and politically suicidal for Republicans to try to shoehorn in a nomination in this manner.
I'm sorry, but you are not a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word. No conservative could possibly do anything other than vote for Trump in this election, because the alternative is the destruction of the Republic.
The content of Vinny's post is not his own. It is a quote from an article from the Greenfield Recorder, authored by a self-described "conservative-leaning attorney."

My first impression, upon reading the post, was, "Why the hell should I care what this nobody thinks?" Is the mere attribution of an opinion to somebody who managed to acquire a law degree supposed to influence me?

I, too, am a conservative-learning lawyer, and I adhere to pretty much the opposite view, finding the article one more tired iteration of the relentless Alynski-esque "never stop accusing the republicans of what we're doing" theme. Historically, the hallmark of the PP forum has been the quality of the contributors' analysis. Has the posting of articles in droves and the attribution of an idea to somebody with a credential supposed to substitute for reasoned analysis?
Post Reply