Ruth Bader Ginsberg has pancreatic cancer

[GG]

8 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

From the party that chose Joe Biden, who literally has video of consistent abhorrent behavior towards women.  Boundless hypocrisy, with frightening consistency, all made possible by a media so compliant that even Hitler would be proud.

Remember the Godwin rule doesn't apply when you refer to Stalin, which is a more appropriate analogy anyway.  

[Alaska Darin]

1 minute ago, GG said:

Remember the Godwin rule doesn't apply when you refer to Stalin, which is a more appropriate analogy anyway.  

You know I don't care about rules.  Lol

[snafu]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

That's not possible now with this news. RBG's death tilts the Senate races that might have gone blue back into firm red territory.

 

I disagree.  If I were a liberal-leaning independent who was maybe not going to vote, now I’m definitely going to vote. Voters like these will not be canceled out by conservatives who will vote in any circumstance. 

 

 

[snafu]

59 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I know it was Harry Reid who went nuclear, but it was Mitch McConnell who extended that to the SCOTUS.  I think for the sake of not politicizing the most respected of the three branches of government, SCOTUS appointments should require a 60 vote minimum.  Regardless of who is to blame for this change, let me ask you this:

 

Could Brett Kavanaugh have been confirmed with a 60 vote majority?  

 

Personally, I don't think so.  The Republicans are politicizing the Court by nominating someone who would never have gotten in under the old standard.  And if the Republicans were required to nominate someone with a 60 vote majority in mind, they would have selected a much less controversial candidate; one that would have politicized the Court to a significantly lower degree.  

 

I think the Court is at it's best when the Justices aren't ideologues and their rulings on a given case are far more unpredictable than their political views might suggest.  

 

Capco, nice discussion.  

I do think Kavanaugh would have gotten 60 votes if the Senate would have adhered to a review of his judicial record and his statements about being a Supe. That’s not what came about. He was smeared in a personal and really questionable way.

 

[TakeYouToTasker]

4 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

And there was no rigid partisanship on behalf of the Republicans during the nomination of Merrick Garland?  Republicans don't vote in lock step either?  

 

Again, I'm trying to avoid piling blame on one side but most of the people here keep playing politics.  It's not just the Democrats that are partisan.  

 

Nothing is going to get better if all we do is point fingers at each other.  This is starting to look like the 1850s all over again.  

But we aren’t talking about Garland, we’re talking about Kavanaugh, and your insistence that he wasn’t a qualified jurist simply because more Democrats didn’t vote to confirm him.

 

To wit:  Merrick Garland was perfectly qualified to be seated on the Bench. Republican’s refusal to allow a vote does not somehow spike his quality.

 

And of course we’re headed for a Civil War. I’ve been warning of exactly that for about 10 years. Don’t worry, it will be over quickly, won by the people who have almost all of the guns, produce all the food, and comprise the overwhelming majority of the military.

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

Capco, nice discussion.  

I do think Kavanaugh would have gotten 60 votes if the Senate would have adhered to a review of his judicial record and his statements about being a Supe. That’s not what came about. He was smeared in a personal and really questionable way.

 

Just like any nominee would have been.  The left side would have felt the need to push left of whoever was nominated.  The right would use the same tactics but eventually back down.

[LB3]

10 minutes ago, Alaska Darin said:

You know I don't care about rules.  Lol

You better watch out. Someone is crying in the OTW RBG thread that they should be allowed to talk politics there. That PPP is too mean and abusive for their delicate sensibilities and that PPP needs better moderation. 🤣

[Doc Brown]

LOL

 

 

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Just like any nominee would have been.  The left side would have felt the need to push left of whoever was nominated.  The right would use the same tactics but eventually back down.

 

The way things are today, I agree.

That said, I can’t think of anyone nominated by Clinton or Obama who’s personal life became the issue — other than the pot smoker, I think from UCLA (I honestly don’t remember his name off hand).

 

[Capco]

24 minutes ago, TakeYouToTasker said:

But we aren’t talking about Garland, we’re talking about Kavanaugh, and your insistence that he wasn’t a qualified jurist simply because more Democrats didn’t vote to confirm him.

 

I did not say (or mean to suggest) that Kavanaugh (or Thomas) were not qualified jurists.  Both are superior in accomplishment to anything I will do in my legal career (probably, anyway). 

 

I just happen to believe that people with credible sexual assault allegations against them have no place on the highest court in the land.  

[Doc Brown]

11 minutes ago, snafu said:

 

The way things are today, I agree.

That said, I can’t think of anyone nominated by Clinton or Obama who’s personal life became the issue — other than the pot smoker, I think from UCLA (I honestly don’t remember his name off hand).

That's because all they did was replace retired Supreme Court justices and it didn't significantly shift the balance of the court.  What's interesting now is whether the Biden campaign will run on packing the court if Trump's nomination gets through. 

[LB3]

1 minute ago, Capco said:

 

I did not say (or mean to suggest) that Kavanaugh (or Thomas) were not qualified jurists.  Both are superior in accomplishment to anything I will do in my legal career (probably, anyway). 

 

I just happen to believe that people with credible sexual assault allegations against them have no place on the highest court in the land.  

There were no credible allegations against him.

[Alaska Darin]

7 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I did not say (or mean to suggest) that Kavanaugh (or Thomas) were not qualified jurists.  Both are superior in accomplishment to anything I will do in my legal career (probably, anyway). 

 

I just happen to believe that people with credible sexual assault allegations against them have no place on the highest court in the land.  

"Credible?"   And you're a ***** lawyer?  Ladies and gentlemen...liberals.

 

I would 100% give you Thomas' accuser as credible but Kavanaugh?  That is the least credible public witch hunt I've ever seen.  Pull up your pants, your partisan is showing.

[snafu]

2 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I did not say (or mean to suggest) that Kavanaugh (or Thomas) were not qualified jurists.  Both are superior in accomplishment to anything I will do in my legal career (probably, anyway). 

 

I just happen to believe that people with credible sexual assault allegations against them have no place on the highest court in the land.  

 

Thomas’ matter wasn’t an assault.

Kavanaugh’s matter wasn’t considered credible by the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee — until it looked like he was going to be voted in with no problem. And even after a show pony tacked-on hearing, it wasn’t credible. 

 

4 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

That's because all they did was replace retired Supreme Court justices and it didn't significantly shift the balance of the court.  What's interesting now is whether the Biden campaign will run on packing the court if Trump's nomination gets through. 

 

Are you saying it is okay to delve deep into sketchy personal history only when the balance of the Court is in jeopardy?

 

As for Biden’s campaign, if they weren’t beating that drum before Ginsburg passed away then they were missing a golden opportunity and that’s their failing. It is clear that the next President will get one or two more appointments in the next term.

 

 

 

[Capco]

Just now, snafu said:

 

Thomas’ matter wasn’t an assault.

Kavanaugh’s matter wasn’t considered credible by the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee — until it looked like he was going to be voted in with no problem. And even after a show pony tacked-on hearing, it wasn’t credible. 

 

 

Good catch.  It was sexual harassment.  I should have said sexual deviancy to be more general.  

 

We can argue about credible or not all day.  But tell me, IF we assume the allegations to be true, would that keep you from supporting his nomination or would you still have supported it anyway?

[Uncle Joe]

12 minutes ago, LB3 said:

There were no credible allegations against him.

You're saying Michael Avenatti wasn't credible? /s

[Doc Brown]

11 minutes ago, snafu said:

Are you saying it is okay to delve deep into sketchy personal history only when the balance of the Court is in jeopardy?

 

As for Biden’s campaign, if they weren’t beating that drum before Ginsburg passed away then they were missing a golden opportunity and that’s their failing. It is clear that the next President will get one or two more appointments in the next term.

No but you asked why.  I disagree with your second point.  Biden's team can now point to all the Republican Senators who promised not to confirm a Supreme Court judge during the last year of Trump's term (Graham, Grassley) and say if they want to play dirty then so can we.

Edited September 19, 2020 by Doc Brown

[Nanker]

The Dems have always played dirty... filthy dirty. “Romney hasn’t paid any taxes in over ten years.”  “Well, it worked.”

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 hour ago, Capco said:

 

Brett Kavanaugh, just like Clarence Thomas, has no place on the Court.  And for the same reasons.

 

bull####. 

 

Period 

[Buffalo_Gal]

22 minutes ago, Capco said:

 

I did not say (or mean to suggest) that Kavanaugh (or Thomas) were not qualified jurists.  Both are superior in accomplishment to anything I will do in my legal career (probably, anyway). 

 

I just happen to believe that people with credible sexual assault allegations against them have no place on the highest court in the land.  

You think they had credible sexual assault allegations made against them!? Ummm not even close.