Ruth Bader Ginsberg died

TheBeav815

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Feb 19, 2007
18,204
7,339
113
Chicago Suburbs
Let’s not pretend the Dems wouldn’t do the exact same thing if the shoe were on the other foot. If they had controlled the Senate in 2016, they would definitely have seated a Justice in an election year - and they would have had every right to do so. As Obama told us: “Elections have consequences “.
There is no way of knowing that. The precedent with SCOTUS appointees has always been that it was designed for compromise by coming from the POTUS but having to be confirmed through the senate. The theory is that should mean, "You get to seat a justice, but if you're a liberal and the senate is conservative you'll have to compromise to find somebody that you can all live with."

The spirit of our country's system was never supposed to be, "We have the numbers so f*** you if you don't like it." The whole thing was supposed to be built to prevent extremes on either side.

The country has not always been this partisan. Compromise is dying (if not dead already) and that's very worrisome. This is a great video that shows it in very simple terms.

 

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,859
17,466
113
There is no way of knowing that. The precedent with SCOTUS appointees has always been that it was designed for compromise by coming from the POTUS but having to be confirmed through the senate. The theory is that should mean, "You get to seat a justice, but if you're a liberal and the senate is conservative you'll have to compromise to find somebody that you can all live with."

The spirit of our country's system was never supposed to be, "We have the numbers so f*** you if you don't like it." The whole thing was supposed to be built to prevent extremes on either side.

The country has not always been this partisan. Compromise is dying (if not dead already) and that's very worrisome. This is a great video that shows it in very simple terms.

There isn't much left for the Republicans to compromise on. This country legislatively has swung so far to the left that it's ridiculous. JFK would be considered a far right extremist if he were alive today.
 

starbrown

Walk On
Dec 4, 2011
280
460
63

Yes, but only twice has a vacancy occurred closer to a presidential election, and neither case did they seat a judge. They waited until after the election to nominate and confirm. So, it would quite literally be unprecedented if they tried to push this through before the election. For the sake of comparison, it was six months before the election when Obama made his SCOTUS nomination. We are 46 days out now. At any rate, that's the problem with precedent. What goes around, come around. I don't like that stance, it's hugely why our nation is as polarized as it is today. Norms are set for a reason.
(Patient Zero for TDS pandemic?)

This norm has eroded in the military, but it also applies to other elements of the federal government, like the judicial branch. Last week Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg completely obliterated that particular norm in a wide-ranging interview she gave to the New York Times’ Adam Liptak.
Unless they have a book to sell, Supreme Court justices rarely give interviews. Even then, they diligently avoid political topics. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes a different approach.
These days, she is making no secret of what she thinks of a certain presidential candidate.
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
As my Post colleague Aaron Blake notes, this was not a stray comment by Ginsburg. She has made this point repeatedly this month:
For Ginsburg, it’s clear that this has become a calculated risk that she is going to take. The New York Times comments weren’t even the only time she has been critical of Trump. In an Associated Press interview published Friday, she also said a Trump presidency is basically unthinkable. …
 

RaisingArizona

Walk On
Mar 30, 2009
354
334
63
If Republicans in the Senate go down this route they better make sure they don’t lose both the Senate and the Presidency bc it would be a foregone conclusion that Democrats will reform the court and add more justices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: little a

starbrown

Walk On
Dec 4, 2011
280
460
63
If Republicans in the Senate go down this route they better make sure they don’t lose both the Senate and the Presidency bc it would be a foregone conclusion that Democrats will reform the court and add more justices.
I was waiting for this ... that doesn't work anymore. The republicans took the high road for 150 years, it didn't get them anything but mocked and rolled. The left views compassion as weakness.
The idea that: "if the republicans upset the dems they are gonna pay" ...sorry, there is no placating the left. The appeasement you are calling for has only emboldened them to travel to extremes.
 

little a

Junior
Jul 4, 2001
1,860
1,133
113
Her last words were political. That should tell us everything we need to know about how objective she was on the court. I respect the woman, but she always had a political agenda that superceded her desire to rule on the constitutionality of a case.
It’s fascinating to me how Liberal justices NEVER get blasted for being political but Conservative Justices get blasted FOR being political?
 

jrhuskerdad

Redshirt Freshman
Jan 9, 2011
855
584
93
It wasn't technically against the rules-as-written but it was unprecedented what the GOP did when Scalia died. They said in March of Obama's final year that they intended to block the nomination until after the election. Which they did by refusing to meet with the new nominee in committee and promising to filibuster any actual vote of approval.

Bear in mind the term isn't over in November, the POTUS sits until January. They declared before even seeing any nominee that they would block whoever it was because they could. Let's not pretend that if the roles were reversed conservatives wouldn't be absolutely furious if the dems had said they're blocking a nominee sight unseen so they can seat a liberal if/when they get the White House.

It was perhaps not surprising but was widely regarded as dirty pool and contrary to the intentions of the policy that sitting Presidents nominate justices. They declared that with 9-10 months left in his term that President no longer has the right to nominate a justice. Pretty obviously 1) Because they wanted that seat to stay conservative and 2) Because they couldn't be stopped from doing so

Obama tried to call their bluff by nominating a moderate in Garland who Bush had famously endorsed years prior. Garland was, in my opinion, the best nominee. Better even than a liberal to carry the intention of the SCOTUS forward much though I am pretty socially liberal. That body is meant to deliberate and compromise, to pass down decisions that don't overtly favor one stripe over another. Stacking the court in either direction is terribly dangerous IMO.

Fast forward to 2017 when the GOP turned around and made it so you can't filibuster a SCOTUS nominee and block them going through. So those particular chickens are not Harry Reid's, they're Lindsay Graham's. He headed up that effort.

Hence the reason that so many people now want to say, "OHHHHHH no, you guys set the new precedent, you don't get to nominate anyone." Well the problem is the rules have been changed and the dems can't stop them like the GOP stopped Obama.

My understanding is that as it sits, the 53-47 GOP majority Senate cannot be stopped from confirming a justice prior to the election if they vote the party line. It would require 4 GOP defections because in the event of a 50-50 tie Pence can break the tie and confirm their justice.

I will be shocked if they don't announce an archconservative nominee on Monday. I have no indication that the party nor the president has any fear of the American public nor concern for any majority opinion on any matter. They have their agenda and they have been much better than the dems the last couple decades at getting their goals enacted by any means necessary.
Also pay attention to Mark Kelly in AZ. If he wins that special election senate race (he is currently favored) then he can be sworn in by November 30th. That would bring the split to 52-48 and would only require 3 defectors. Mitch will ram this through to avoid that scenario.
 

jrhuskerdad

Redshirt Freshman
Jan 9, 2011
855
584
93
If Republicans in the Senate go down this route they better make sure they don’t lose both the Senate and the Presidency bc it would be a foregone conclusion that Democrats will reform the court and add more justices.
It would only be a matter of when. Even if they couldn’t in 2021 they will do it the next time they have the power to do so.
 

TheBeav815

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Feb 19, 2007
18,204
7,339
113
Chicago Suburbs
There isn't much left for the Republicans to compromise on. This country legislatively has swung so far to the left that it's ridiculous. JFK would be considered a far right extremist if he were alive today.
Would he now? And what would the GOP think of Eisenhower?
 

TheBeav815

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Feb 19, 2007
18,204
7,339
113
Chicago Suburbs
Also pay attention to Mark Kelly in AZ. If he wins that special election senate race (he is currently favored) then he can be sworn in by November 30th. That would bring the split to 52-48 and would only require 3 defectors. Mitch will ram this through to avoid that scenario.
If you think Mitch will allow it to come within whispering distance of November I have a (thing that doesn't exist) to sell you.

The prop bet should be if it lasts until October.
 

starbrown

Walk On
Dec 4, 2011
280
460
63
There isn't much left for the Republicans to compromise on. This country legislatively has swung so far to the left that it's ridiculous. JFK would be considered a far right extremist if he were alive today.
FINALLY!!!! (but really it's the courts not the legislature who have damaged us, that's why Bork is important. He was the shot across the bow where the Dems admitted their power comes from the judicial branch)

What has happened since 1963 is that the republicans in a quest for power have tried to become democrat-lite
And the democrats have become anti-american in that time frame. We are fighting for the soul of a nation. This is worse than the 60s unrest. Much worse.
**********************************​

When Richard Nixon was confronted with impeachment he resigned in shame.

When Bill Clinton was faced with impeachment he declared, "it's a vast right-wing conspiracy" and refused to resign.

^^^^^^^^^^ THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2 PARTIES, ONE CAN BE SHAMED AND ONE CAN'T ... sorry folks, that is a huge difference ... read my signature to understand the threat we are facing
 

TheBeav815

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Feb 19, 2007
18,204
7,339
113
Chicago Suburbs
It would only be a matter of when. Even if they couldn’t in 2021 they will do it the next time they have the power to do so.
Which is why you see the GOP openly working to ensure they can't be voted out in key areas. They understand the demographic trends very well, if things were a matter of a national popular vote every time the nation would be overwhelming blue already and getting bluer every year.

They're well aware that getting voter ID laws in place favors them. Just as they're well aware that dems are more likely to vote by mail. They have openly stated their desire to impact both those practices.

Watch, if they see heavy losses coming to both houses they'll suddenly take a rapid turn in favor of procedures that allow the minority party to once again grind things to a halt.
 

starbrown

Walk On
Dec 4, 2011
280
460
63
lol ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ projection

Open borders is what you do when you can't win debates ... or hearts and minds

There is a reason the Dems don't want to debate. People of all colors are figuring out the left. Your demographic advantage is weakening by the day, and you know it
 

little a

Junior
Jul 4, 2001
1,860
1,133
113
If Republicans in the Senate go down this route they better make sure they don’t lose both the Senate and the Presidency bc it would be a foregone conclusion that Democrats will reform the court and add more justices.
there gonna do that anyways, talked about for 2 years as well making DC a state and inviting Puerto Rico as a state
 
  • Like
Reactions: starbrown
Jun 20, 2001
2,448
4,514
113
The spirit of our country's system was never supposed to be, "We have the numbers so f*** you if you don't like it."
Agreed. And for at least the last 12 years, every single thing of significance that's been accomplished has been rammed through, blunt force, in that exact manner.

That defines the style of McConnell and Pelosi. Schumer and Graham. Obama and Trump.

Ram it through if you have the votes and be certain to shove a sharp stick in the eye of the "other side" while you are at it.

If the votes are not there, gridlock it up for 2 years in hopes you get them.

It's not going to end well.
 
Last edited:

GBRforLife1

Sophomore
Feb 18, 2020
1,463
2,406
113
Please, another false claim, stirred by extreme right media. BLM is not burning down cities. These are easily disproved falsehoods. I'm not the one regurgitating nonsense. I'm basing my information on facts. You don't like the left, so you allow your mind to be easily manipulated by whatever rightwing sources you digest. I'm not arguing that every single protest involving BLM has been peaceful. Nor am I saying that every single BLM protester is innocent of destroying property. What I am saying is that overwhelmingly BLM protesters have not broken any laws. This can and has been verified. Instead, rightwingers like you have taken the incidents where a BLM has engaged in violence, and conflated those incidents with Antifa. Suddenly, to your mind, it's all evil and the entirety of the country is on fire. Yet you make no mention of right wing militias, which have also contributed significantly to the violence. It's willful act of bias, which is made worse by your accusations that others are biased. Regarding your first question, what do we all have to share? How about we're all Americans, and presumably we all want a fairer, inclusive and prosperous nation. I am going to assume the right wants those things.
 

starbrown

Walk On
Dec 4, 2011
280
460
63
Agreed. And for at least the last 12 years, every single thing of significance that's been accomplished has been rammed through, blunt force, in that exact manner.

That defines the style of McConnell and Pelosi. Schumer and Graham. Obama and Trump.

Ram it through if you have the votes and be certain to shove a sharp stick in the eye of the "other side" while you are at it.

If the votes are not there, gridlock it up for 2 years in hopes you get them.

It's not going to end well.
How did you feel when the supreme court over-ruled California when that state voted down same-sex marriage?
How did you feel when the supreme court over-ruled all 50 states and approved a holocaust of unborn children?

To put it simply. If you're upset when people are elected to do something and do it, how do you feel about UNELECTED people doing extreme things without a mandate?

We got here because the left couldn't get what they wanted thru legislation, so they did a run-around of the electorate and got the courts to do what the voters refused to do. That's the real source of our current divide.

You wanna know what precipitated a civil war ?

People of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants — whether or not they were slaves — were not included under the Constitution and could never be citizens of the United States.

^^^^ That's what. And like before, it is our courts doing the bidding of the DNC, which refused to rule that Obamacare was unconstitutional (which it was) .. and have refused to uphold the rule of law on DACA, abortion, executive-legislation and a thousand other decisions which have brought us here.
 
Last edited:

GBRforLife1

Sophomore
Feb 18, 2020
1,463
2,406
113
There is no way of knowing that. The precedent with SCOTUS appointees has always been that it was designed for compromise by coming from the POTUS but having to be confirmed through the senate. The theory is that should mean, "You get to seat a justice, but if you're a liberal and the senate is conservative you'll have to compromise to find somebody that you can all live with."

The spirit of our country's system was never supposed to be, "We have the numbers so f*** you if you don't like it." The whole thing was supposed to be built to prevent extremes on either side.

The country has not always been this partisan. Compromise is dying (if not dead already) and that's very worrisome. This is a great video that shows it in very simple terms.

 

mwulf

All-American
Dec 15, 2013
4,840
2,675
113
Thigh Land
So the list the Trump puts out as potential nominees who actually puts that list together? Is mainly McConnell or other high ranking officials? Clearly Trump doesn't actually have any insight on the qualifications so who is making this call? Who has the last voice he will hear before they pull they trigger on a name
 

starbrown

Walk On
Dec 4, 2011
280
460
63
So the list the Trump puts out as potential nominees who actually puts that list together? Is mainly McConnell or other high ranking officials? Clearly Trump doesn't actually have any insight on the qualifications so who is making this call? Who has the last voice he will hear before they pull they trigger on a name
You just got served by Rambo.



I hear that Hiden has a Top 12:
Ilhan Omar
Rashida Tlaib
Ayanna Pressley
Gretchen Whitmer
AOC
AOC
AOC
AOC
AOC
AOC
AOC
AOC
 
  • Like
Reactions: dinglefritz

John_J_Rambo

Senior
Jan 10, 2020
2,714
4,916
113

mwulf

All-American
Dec 15, 2013
4,840
2,675
113
Thigh Land
You just got served by Rambo.



I hear that Hiden has a Top 12:
Ilhan Omar
Rashida Tlaib
Ayanna Pressley
Gretchen Whitmer
AOC
AOC
AOC
AOC
AOC
AOC
AOC
AOC
What does that have to do with Trumps list? Like at all? Try to focus on the legitimate question without immediately going to some sort of Biden or left quip. You came out of the woodwork here when politics were allowed more freely. Clearly it's time to make this policy a little more sport specific. If you want to discuss things like an actual adult that would be greatly appreciated
 

chicolby

All-American
May 3, 2012
4,069
3,441
113
Any person who knows right from wrong knows that you can’t argue for no vote on Garland 9 months before the election and somehow argue a vote on a Ruth Bader Ginsberg replacement under 2 months before an election. It’s obviously hypocrisy beyond belief. We elect people to behave with character and for their word to mean something. If they had only allowed a vote on Garland, they could replace Bader Ginsberg willingly. Follow the constitution to the T but don’t play both sides only when it works to your advantage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheBeav815

starbrown

Walk On
Dec 4, 2011
280
460
63
Any person who knows right from wrong knows that you can’t argue for no vote on Garland 9 months before the election and somehow argue a vote on a Ruth Bader Ginsberg replacement under 2 months before an election. It’s obviously hypocrisy beyond belief. We elect people to behave with character and for their word to mean something. If they had only allowed a vote on Garland, they could replace Bader Ginsberg willingly. Follow the constitution to the T but don’t play both sides only when it works to your advantage.
So Dems fit your moral paradigm?

 
  • Like
Reactions: Sinomatic

mwulf

All-American
Dec 15, 2013
4,840
2,675
113
Thigh Land
So Dems fit your moral paradigm?

https://www.businessinsider.com/joe-biden-campaign-disavows-richard-spencer-endorsement-2020-8


 

litespeedhuskerfan

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Aug 27, 2006
17,970
9,126
113
Waiting for a link to this "rule"
I was in Valentine NE. when I posted my thoughts earlier today, so I've been a little busy.

Looks like I was duped by my party when they stated you cannot do this in an election year in 2016, and again during the mid terms when the left tried to delay the last nomination until after the mid terms, and all of us said mid terms don't count, only Presidential election years. Am I the only one who remembers all that??

Fast forward to now......I don't understand how you can say with a straight face that none of that happened.

If we do this I think it shows a lack of integrity because of how we 've acted for the last 4 years. I think it's short term thinking. I think Trump's re-election would be better served to make a big deal out of not doing this (citing our own words from 2016 in the process), and could help swing a lot of independents his way, and even some Democrats that don't want to vote for him, but cannot stand the thought of Kamala being one romp in the sack away from President. If we do this, we're no better than Pelosi and Schiff who charged forward with a sham impeachment they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on.

Just my thoughts, obviously I'm in the minority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GBRforLife1

starbrown

Walk On
Dec 4, 2011
280
460
63
I was in Valentine NE. when I posted my thoughts earlier today, so I've been a little busy.

Looks like I was duped by my party when they stated you cannot do this in an election year in 2016, and again during the mid terms when the left tried to delay the last nomination until after the mid terms, and all of us said mid terms don't count, only Presidential election years. Am I the only one who remembers all that??

Fast forward to now......I don't understand how you can say with a straight face that none of that happened.

If we do this I think it shows a lack of integrity because of how we 've acted for the last 4 years. I think it's short term thinking. I think Trump's re-election would be better served to make a big deal out of not doing this (citing our own words from 2016 in the process), and could help swing a lot of independents his way, and even some Democrats that don't want to vote for him, but cannot stand the thought of Kamala being one romp in the sack away from President. If we do this, we're no better than Pelosi and Schiff who charged forward with a sham impeachment they knew they didn't have a leg to stand on.

Just my thoughts, obviously I'm in the minority.
How old are you? 5? Everyone understood the game in 2016. The future of the nation was at stake. Mitch wasn't dealing with a fair media so he said whatever was necessary to keep the hounds at bay. Just like when Orangeman engages in hyperbole. He's got a job to do, and it includes salesmanship.
Do you think it is a choice between perfect and imperfect? My god man, it's a choice between flawed and suicide. You "non-partisan" people who are a big fan of purity tests think you could pass the purity test imposed on you by the left?
I hate the fact the republicans have spent 5 trillion dollars in one year on a lethality hoax. You know why they turned the USA into Greece? To satisfy people into purity and popularity tests. To satisfy you!!!!!!!!

In 2016 Joe Hiden called for Merrick to be put on the court. To not do so would be unforgivable.
Here's Joe in 1992. Anything about this video bother you in light of what he said in 2016?


 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dinglefritz

litespeedhuskerfan

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Aug 27, 2006
17,970
9,126
113
How old are you? 5? Everyone understood the game in 2016. The future of the nation was at stake. Mitch wasn't dealing with a fair media so he said whatever was necessary to keep the hounds at bay. Just like when Orangeman engages in hyperbole. He's got a job to do, and it includes salesmanship.
Do you think it is a choice between perfect and imperfect? My god man, it's a choice between flawed and suicide. You "non-partisan" people who are a big fan of purity tests think you could pass the purity test imposed on you by the left?
I hate the fact the republicans have spent 5 trillion dollars in one year on a lethality hoax. You know why they turned the USA into Greece? To satisfy people into purity and popularity tests. To satisfy you!!!!!!!!

In 2016 Joe Hiden called for Merrick to be put on the court. To not do so would be unforgivable.
Here's Joe in 1992. Anything about this video bother you in light of what he said in 2016?

I'm 52, and I'm not your enemy. I won't bother watching that video as I already knw who and what Biden is, a professional politician who flops around with the best of them on any and all positions and he's a bad guy who's nickname of quid pro Joe was well deserved.

I want a conservative on the bench to replace RBG as much as you do.....I just think we look like total hypocrites doing it.
 

dinglefritz

College Football Hall of Fame
Jan 14, 2011
23,859
17,466
113
Sending the national guard to force integration of Alabama schools was socially conservative? And today's GOP would think so?
Yes. You forget that the southern democrat party was the primary obstacle to integration. You do remember guys like George Wallace right? Does the name of the KKK member Robert Byrd jog your memory? He was a distinguished Democrat senator. The Republican party was the party that fought to end slavery. When I say socially conservative though I primarily mean along the lines of abortion and marriage. The party of Lincoln though lived by the statement of "all men are created equal". That IS a conservative value.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts