Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

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 »

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: 9442
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by vnatale »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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: 14264
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:18 am
Location: synagogue of Satan
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by dualstow »

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.
Gold is 2360 10:20am EST Tues per ajpm
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9442
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by vnatale »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

Why does this make me think of @vnatale?
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/rbg-mom- ... afbe990c15
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9442
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by vnatale »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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?
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9442
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by vnatale »

On live right now. Outstanding! You can catch the end of it now. Or, watch it later.

Tons of insight into the Supreme Court. How it fits into this country, and how Congress abdicates much of its responsibilities and, instead, leaves it to the Supreme Court.

Example is the Republicans attempt to repeal Obamacare via the Supreme Court and Scalia's response to them, "You keep funding it every year!"

Vinny


Washington Journal

James Wallner Discusses the Senate & Upcoming Supreme Court Confirmation Battle

R Street Institute Senior Governance Fellow James Wallner discusses the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation battle in the Senate.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?476166-3/ ... attle&live
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
Maddy
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 1694
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2015 8:43 am

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Maddy »

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

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Libertarian666 »

MangoMan wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:18 am
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
Tech, what on earth were you doing on HuffPost to run across this gem? ;D
Mark Dice cited it and I had to check whether it was real.
These days, it's pretty hard to tell!
User avatar
Xan
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 4397
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:51 pm

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by Xan »

vnatale wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:50 am On live right now. Outstanding! You can catch the end of it now. Or, watch it later.

Tons of insight into the Supreme Court. How it fits into this country, and how Congress abdicates much of its responsibilities and, instead, leaves it to the Supreme Court.

Example is the Republicans attempt to repeal Obamacare via the Supreme Court and Scalia's response to them, "You keep funding it every year!"

Vinny


Washington Journal

James Wallner Discusses the Senate & Upcoming Supreme Court Confirmation Battle

R Street Institute Senior Governance Fellow James Wallner discusses the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation battle in the Senate.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?476166-3/ ... attle&live
I've mentioned this here before. EVERY federal elected or appointed official swears to uphold the Constitution, and they all outsource this duty to the Supreme Court.

A prime recent example is Bush saying, as he signed the McCain/Feingold repeal of the first amendment (aka campaign finance reform) that he thought it was unconstitutional and the court would throw it out. Well then don't sign it!

Another is Eisenhower saying that he thought it wasn't constitutional to send federal troops to integrate schools. But just because the court thought it was, he did anyway. He should have said no. He took an oath!
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 »

Since it doesn't appear as if anyone else has appropriated it yet, I'm going to start referring to myself as Notorious MRL

I would appreciate it if y'all could spread it around.
User avatar
I Shrugged
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2064
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:35 pm

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by I Shrugged »

As far as election rulings, the court is currently 5-3 presumably conservatives
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9442
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by vnatale »

Mark Leavy wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:32 pm Since it doesn't appear as if anyone else has appropriated it yet, I'm going to start referring to myself as Notorious MRL

I would appreciate it if y'all could spread it around.
I do work for a place that makes a ton of t-shirts so I can put you in touch with them so they can help you with a design for all the t-shirts you will no doubt want to sell of The "Notorious MRL"!

Mine would be quite the dud. The "Notorious VAN"???!!

Directed to Cortopassi! What IS my middle name!

Vinny
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
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 »

vnatale wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:09 pm
Mark Leavy wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:32 pm Since it doesn't appear as if anyone else has appropriated it yet, I'm going to start referring to myself as Notorious MRL

I would appreciate it if y'all could spread it around.
I do work for a place that makes a ton of t-shirts so I can put you in touch with them so they can help you with a design for all the t-shirts you will no doubt want to sell of The "Notorious MRL"!

Mine would be quite the dud. The "Notorious VAN"???!!

Directed to Cortopassi! What IS my middle name!

Vinny
Gotta be Anthony...
User avatar
vnatale
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 9442
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2019 8:56 pm
Location: Massachusetts
Contact:

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by vnatale »

Cortopassi wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:35 pm
vnatale wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:09 pm
Mark Leavy wrote: Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:32 pm Since it doesn't appear as if anyone else has appropriated it yet, I'm going to start referring to myself as Notorious MRL

I would appreciate it if y'all could spread it around.
I do work for a place that makes a ton of t-shirts so I can put you in touch with them so they can help you with a design for all the t-shirts you will no doubt want to sell of The "Notorious MRL"!

Mine would be quite the dud. The "Notorious VAN"???!!

Directed to Cortopassi! What IS my middle name!

Vinny
Gotta be Anthony...
I knew I could count on my paisan! If you are male and Italian, good chance it's either your first name or your middle name!

Vinny
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."
WiseOne
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 2692
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2022 11:08 am

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Post by WiseOne »

I hate to say something even slightly disparaging of a woman who is genuinely and deservedly a national figure, but ...

I do think the Republicans are rather transparently acting in their own self interest to push through a nomination quickly. However, think about why we are in this position in the first place: it’s because Ginsburg did not resign when it became obvious she could not serve any longer. Instead she hung onto the post in order to forestall a nomination from the current administration.

The situation is not at all similar to what happened to Scalia. That was genuinely an unexpected event. This was not.
Post Reply