Page 4 of 5
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:50 am
by yankees60
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
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:53 am
by Maddy
Maddy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 5:12 am
Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 25, 2020 9:07 pm
yankees60 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?
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:18 am
by Libertarian666
MangoMan wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:18 am
Tech, what on earth were you doing on HuffPost to run across this gem?
Mark Dice cited it and I had to check whether it was real.
These days, it's pretty hard to tell!
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:19 am
by Xan
yankees60 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!
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 7:32 pm
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.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:02 pm
by I Shrugged
As far as election rulings, the court is currently 5-3 presumably conservatives
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 8:09 pm
by yankees60
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
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:35 pm
by Cortopassi
yankees60 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...
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:46 pm
by yankees60
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:35 pm
yankees60 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
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 7:19 am
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.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:00 am
by yankees60
- Capture.JPG (27.7 KiB) Viewed 4384 times
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:48 am
by glennds
yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:00 amCapture.JPG
It should be apparent at this point that very little is going to happen in the foreseeable future based on what voters want. In the present age of power politics, the voter is irrelevant. It looks unlikely that the election will be decided on votes.
Welcome to the Machine.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:05 am
by yankees60
glennds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:48 am
yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:00 amCapture.JPG
It should be apparent at this point that very little is going to happen in the foreseeable future based on what voters want. In the present age of power politics, the voter is irrelevant. It looks unlikely that the election will be decided on votes.
Welcome to the Machine.
However, could the choice of when to fill this vacancy affect how a voter votes?
Vinny
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:28 am
by glennds
yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:05 am
glennds wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:48 am
yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:00 amCapture.JPG
It should be apparent at this point that very little is going to happen in the foreseeable future based on what voters want. In the present age of power politics, the voter is irrelevant. It looks unlikely that the election will be decided on votes.
Welcome to the Machine.
However, could the choice of when to fill this vacancy affect how a voter votes?
Vinny
I think so, yes
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:44 pm
by Tyler
yankees60 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:05 am
However, could the choice of when to fill this vacancy affect how a voter votes?
I seriously doubt anyone will think "I planned to vote for Trump and want him to nominate the next SC justice, but because he did it now I'm going to vote for Biden." I suppose there might be a small handful of true undecideds who are pushed over the edge by the perception that the process isn't "fair", but I don't think it will be enough to move the needle. The more likely possibility to me is that the left wing of the Democrat party ends up flipping a significant number of independents or even centrist Democrats to Republican by going after ACB way too strongly in the confirmation hearings. Coming out as hardcore anti-Christian and attacking her family will raise quite a few eyebrows among normal people.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:28 pm
by Tortoise
How relevant are voters’ wishes to Supreme Court nominations and confirmations?
Did the U.S. founders intend for voters to directly influence those processes, other than by electing the President and senators to take care of it?
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:38 pm
by Libertarian666
Tortoise wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 5:28 pm
How relevant are voters’ wishes to Supreme Court nominations and confirmations?
Did the U.S. founders intend for voters to directly influence those processes, other than by electing the President and senators to take care of it?
The US Founders didn't even provide for the Senate to be popularly elected.
That was changed by the 17th Amendment, which was a terrible idea that essentially removed the state legislatures as a check on the federal government's power.
However, there are several states that have never ratified that amendment:
"The Utah legislature rejected the amendment on February 26, 1913. No action on the amendment has been completed by: Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, Virginia, Alaska or Hawaii. Alaska and Hawaii were not yet states at the time of the amendment's proposal, and have never taken any official action to support or oppose the amendment since achieving statehood. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeen ... the_states
It could be reasonably argued that the states that joined after the ratification of the 17th Amendment, namely Alaska and Hawaii, consented to its provisions by joining the union.
However, the states that existed at that time and never ratified it still retain their rights under Article V, namely:
" no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_F ... nstitution)
This means that the legislatures of those states, namely Utah, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Virginia, could appoint Senators without having a popular vote if they wanted to do so. That would give them far more influence over the federal government than the others where Senators are popularly elected.
Of course I support this because it would serve as a check on the federal government.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:34 am
by boglerdude
Checks on gov? Like overturning the 22nd amendment so Trump could serve more terms?
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:23 pm
by WiseOne
Tyler wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:44 pm
Coming out as hardcore anti-Christian and attacking her family will raise quite a few eyebrows among normal people.
I was wondering about this too. Especially because the Democrats have been trumpeting Biden's Catholicism in (I guess) an attempt to woo the religious right voters who are more than a bit appalled at Trump's twitter posts. Now it's coming across as it's OK for a man to be a devout Catholic but it's not OK for a woman. The optics of that are really, really bad.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:47 pm
by Cortopassi
Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:28 pm
WiseOne wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:23 pm
Tyler wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:44 pm
Coming out as hardcore anti-Christian and attacking her family will raise quite a few eyebrows among normal people.
I was wondering about this too. Especially because the Democrats have been trumpeting Biden's Catholicism in (I guess) an attempt to woo the religious right voters who are more than a bit appalled at Trump's twitter posts. Now it's coming across as it's OK for a man to be a devout Catholic but it's not OK for a woman. The optics of that are really, really bad.
They should just ask a few facially reasonable questions and then shut up, but they can't do that because then their lunatic fringe would try to burn
their houses down.
That's just one of the reasons why this was a brilliant pick by Trump.
Isn't it amazing how someone so dumb as he is can make such good moves, entirely by accident?
There's no way they'll question her faith. No way.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 3:59 pm
by Maddy
WiseOne wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:23 pm
Tyler wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:44 pm
Coming out as hardcore anti-Christian and attacking her family will raise quite a few eyebrows among normal people.
I was wondering about this too. Especially because the Democrats have been trumpeting Biden's Catholicism in (I guess) an attempt to woo the religious right voters who are more than a bit appalled at Trump's twitter posts. Now it's coming across as it's OK for a man to be a devout Catholic but it's not OK for a woman. The optics of that are really, really bad.
Being Catholic is a problem only when you're in a position to sway the vote on abortion.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:28 pm
by WiseOne
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:47 pm
There's no way they'll question her faith. No way.
That ship has sailed, Corto.
From the Guardian:
Amy Coney Barrett: spotlight falls on secretive Catholic group People of Praise
Trump’s pick is a member of a ‘covenant community’ that faces claims of a ‘highly authoritarian’ structure
I looked up People of Praise. They have a website, a list of chapters, extensive "about us" and "who we are" descriptions, and a writeup about schools they've set up and inner city initiatives designed among other things to improve social structure and reduce crime. There's maybe a lot you can say about what looks like a charismatic/born again Christian group, but "secretive" and "authoritarian" didn't exactly come across. And anyway...what's the problem with someone of that persuasion serving in a public office? Are we saying that people can be disqualified due to their religious beliefs? I thought the Constitution was pretty clear that a "religious test" is not allowed.
I guess we'll find out if she is 100% behind her statement that her religious principles will not affect her judgments. That is the more important issue. I don't care if she's a pole dancer or a priest in her spare time, I just want to know that her performance on the Supreme Court would be based on a sound, well-founded interpretation of the law.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:53 pm
by Cortopassi
WiseOne wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:28 pm
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:47 pm
There's no way they'll question her faith. No way.
That ship has sailed, Corto.
From the Guardian:
Amy Coney Barrett: spotlight falls on secretive Catholic group People of Praise
Trump’s pick is a member of a ‘covenant community’ that faces claims of a ‘highly authoritarian’ structure
I looked up People of Praise. They have a website, a list of chapters, extensive "about us" and "who we are" descriptions, and a writeup about schools they've set up and inner city initiatives designed among other things to improve social structure and reduce crime. There's maybe a lot you can say about what looks like a charismatic/born again Christian group, but "secretive" and "authoritarian" didn't exactly come across. And anyway...what's the problem with someone of that persuasion serving in a public office? Are we saying that people can be disqualified due to their religious beliefs? I thought the Constitution was pretty clear that a "religious test" is not allowed.
I guess we'll find out if she is 100% behind her statement that her religious principles will not affect her judgments. That is the more important issue. I don't care if she's a pole dancer or a priest in her spare time, I just want to know that her performance on the Supreme Court would be based on a sound, well-founded interpretation of the law.
I read that a few days ago. And me, personally, I was like wow.
But I still hold to my feeling that no senator will negatively question her faith. Can't take that chance 5 weeks before an election.
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:54 pm
by Cortopassi
Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 3:46 pm
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:47 pm
Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:28 pm
WiseOne wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:23 pm
Tyler wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:44 pm
Coming out as hardcore anti-Christian and attacking her family will raise quite a few eyebrows among normal people.
I was wondering about this too. Especially because the Democrats have been trumpeting Biden's Catholicism in (I guess) an attempt to woo the religious right voters who are more than a bit appalled at Trump's twitter posts. Now it's coming across as it's OK for a man to be a devout Catholic but it's not OK for a woman. The optics of that are really, really bad.
They should just ask a few facially reasonable questions and then shut up, but they can't do that because then their lunatic fringe would try to burn
their houses down.
That's just one of the reasons why this was a brilliant pick by Trump.
Isn't it amazing how someone so dumb as he is can make such good moves, entirely by accident?
There's no way they'll question her faith. No way.
Want to bet? I'm in for $10.
What are the ground rules for this bet?
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Posted: Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:48 pm
by glennds
Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 5:24 pm
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 4:54 pm
Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 3:46 pm
Cortopassi wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:47 pm
Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 2:28 pm
WiseOne wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2020 1:23 pm
Tyler wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 12:44 pm
Coming out as hardcore anti-Christian and attacking her family will raise quite a few eyebrows among normal people.
I was wondering about this too. Especially because the Democrats have been trumpeting Biden's Catholicism in (I guess) an attempt to woo the religious right voters who are more than a bit appalled at Trump's twitter posts. Now it's coming across as it's OK for a man to be a devout Catholic but it's not OK for a woman. The optics of that are really, really bad.
They should just ask a few facially reasonable questions and then shut up, but they can't do that because then their lunatic fringe would try to burn
their houses down.
That's just one of the reasons why this was a brilliant pick by Trump.
Isn't it amazing how someone so dumb as he is can make such good moves, entirely by accident?
There's no way they'll question her faith. No way.
Want to bet? I'm in for $10.
What are the ground rules for this bet?
At least one Senator will bring up her faith during the hearings in a negative way.
I think it will be pretty obvious whether that happens but if you want to propose third-party verification, it's fine with me.
Feinstein already did it. She used the term "dogma" as a proxy for faith or religious beliefs at the Court of Appeals confirmation hearing.
Although it was widely regarded as a move that backfired so maybe nobody will try it again?