Breaking news: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a pioneering figure in the fight for women’s legal equality and the second woman to serve on the Supreme Court, died on Friday at the age of 87.

This entry was posted in Culture Wars, Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

238 Responses to Breaking news: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

  1. C.L.

    I bet they tried to revive her for hours – possibly days.

  2. Arnost

    I reckon a Trump nomination will be in the pipe within a week.

  3. Leigh Lowe

    And here I sit without champagne.
    .
    h/t Q&A

  4. Carpe Jugulum

    The progressive left will go apeshit crazy in 3…..2……1

  5. stackja

    POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2020 BY STEVEN HAYWARD IN SUPREME COURT
    BREAKING: JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG HAS PASSED AWAY

    If you thought this election was already thermonuclear, just wait for what happens over the next 72 hours—and seven weeks to the election for that matter.

  6. William the Conjuror

    Breaking emergency.

    Efforts are being made to revive Mitch McConnell with massive doses of hydroxychloroquine. It is believed all blood has rushed from his head to his groin.

  7. Arnost

    And here I sit without champagne.

    Do not speak ill of the dead.

    It must be recognised that what she did for her “side” was heroic. It was elder abuse to encourage/force her to stay on the court whilst ill. It probably took years off her life.

  8. vlad

    I hope DJT already has a list in a desk drawer of who to appoint.

  9. Funny how Trump released an updated list of Supreme Court picks just last week.
    The man seems to now in advance. Always one step ahead.

    I thought RBG would retire leading up to the election to stir up the left to go and vote.
    This is actually bad for Trump because the left will get out the vote for fear of losing Roe v Wade.
    Nothing is more important to the left than the ability to kill babies.

  10. Carpe Jugulum

    Weekend at Bernies will be on a rerun marathon

  11. Craig Mc

    And we thought the left had already lost their tiny minds.

    Poor woman. Should have retired years ago and left herself some time to smell the roses. RIP.

  12. FelixKruell

    I’m sure they’ll leave the replacement pick to the whoever wins the election…right? The people’s choice and all that.

  13. Ozman

    C.L.
    #3590206, posted on September 19, 2020 at 9:56 am

    I bet they tried to revive her for hours – possibly days

    Some believe she has been kept alive (in name only for last 18 months) ever since Kavanaugh was sworn in as an associate justice of SCOTUS.

    5/3 to the republicans or 4/4 to the swamp. Roberts is believed to be bought.

  14. I’m sure they’ll leave the replacement pick to the whoever wins the election…right? The people’s choice and all that.

    Ha… ha… no.

  15. Leigh Lowe

    Arnost
    #3590231, posted on September 19, 2020 at 10:08 am
    And here I sit without champagne.

    Do not speak ill of the dead.

    That was a direct quote of what a panel member said on Q&A when Maggie Thatcher’s death was announced, to lots of giggling among the impartial audience.

  16. Oh come on

    Holy hell. If Trump can get someone like Amy Coney Barrett confirmed soon, the streets are going to burn. More. Images of Trump’s opponents losing their shit is going to help him.

    And if any prissy evangelical types were thinking of sitting this one out, they now have a powerful interest in voting.

  17. Leigh Lowe

    mOnster just threw up that free lunch JC bought him on the previous bet as to RBG’s longevity.

  18. Ozman

    Bloody hell! The python is feeling the pain already.

  19. Leigh Lowe

    Within a couple of days the MSM will start treating her SCOTUS seat as an hereditary title, to be bequeathed to her nominated successor.
    Anything else would disrespect feminism, the fight for social justice, yada, yada.

  20. Scott Osmond

    As if this election season wasn’t insane enough. The republicans have the numbers do they have the mongrel? Or will they once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The next 7 weeks are going to be entertaining to watch. From half the world away should be far enough.

  21. Carpe Jugulum

    m0nty
    #3590258, posted on September 19, 2020 at 10:22 am

    Bloody hell.

    Would you like some champagne?

  22. Oh come on

    Arnost, RBG was completely in her element as a SCOTUS justice. No one forced her to stay on the bench. She died doing the job she loved.

    It’s pretty amazing she lived so long. Not sure what she died of, but she beat pancreatic cancer for far longer than you would expect.

  23. Good news for Trump, he gets a campaign reset.

    I see the US Left is already getting extremely bolshie about packing the courts if McConnell rams through a Federalist Society droog.

  24. Shy Ted

    metastatic pancreas cancer! Pah, it was Covid what done it. Couldn’t be anything else.

  25. pete m

    The people voted in 2016 for a president knowing he would serve 4 years and that vote counts until the next election, so go FUCK YOURSELVES lefties.

  26. The people voted in 2016 for a president knowing he would serve 4 years and that vote counts until the next election, so go FUCK YOURSELVES lefties.

    Merrick Garland says hey.

  27. Oh come on

    The republicans have the numbers do they have the mongrel

    I think in this instance, yes. Mitch McConnell is a judge confirmation machine. It’s his superpower.

  28. Oh come on

    I see the US Left is already getting extremely bolshie about packing the courts if McConnell rams through a Federalist Society droog.

    They were going to do that anyway.

  29. a happy little debunker

    zyconoclast
    #3590222, posted on September 19, 2020 at 10:02 am

    I was disgusted that an ABC audience would cheer the death of Margret Thatcher – so to I am disgusted that anyone could celebrate RBG death.

    My humble suggestion is – don’t be disgusting…

  30. visions

    The senate and president make the decision and Amy Barrett has some democrat support – but is there enough time to nominate within next 60 days – a big ask – Ginsburg is the head of the lefties so if people thought Kavanauh selection was tough this one will be atomic!!

  31. is there enough time to nominate within next 60 days – a big ask

    Would it actually be better for Trump if he waited, so that he has an issue to go to the election with?

  32. William the Conjuror

    I would expect the Republicans preferred replacement to be announced today. Time’s awastin’.

  33. stackja

    Trump’s Supreme Court list: President reveals names of 20 more people he’d consider nominating
    Published September 9
    The list included sitting GOP senators Ted Cruz, Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley

    Other names include:

    – Bridget Bade, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

    – Paul Clement, former U.S. solicitor general

    – Stuart Kyle Duncan, 5th Circuit judge

    – Stephen Engel, assistant attorney general

    – Noel Francesco, former solicitor general

    – James Ho, 5th Circuit judge

    – Gregory Katsas, D.C. Circuit judge

    – Barbara Lagoa, 11th Circuit judge

    – Christopher Landau, U.S. ambassdor to Mexico

    – Carlos Muniz, Florida Supreme Court

    – Martha Packold, Northern District of Illinois judge

    – Peter Phipps, 3rd Circuit judge

    – Sarah Pitlyk, Eastern District of Missouri judge

    – Allison Jones Rushing, 4th Circuit judge

    – Kate Todd, deputy assistant to the president

    – Lawrence Van Dyke, 9th Circuit judge

  34. Oh come on

    Merrick Garland be damned. McConnell had the numbers to say no back then, and he has the numbers to say yes now. Do I understand why liberals would be upset at the double standard? Yes. Do I feel sorry them, feel that McConnell is doing the wrong thing? Good lord no. The Dems would do exactly the same thing if they had the numbers.

    They probably shouldn’t have started the process of dumping the Senate filibuster back in 2013. Chickens, roosting etc.

  35. JC

    FelixKruell
    #3590261, posted on September 19, 2020 at 10:23 am

    I’m sure they’ll leave the replacement pick to the whoever wins the election…right? The people’s choice and all that.

    Small edit suggestion, dickhead.

    I’m sure they’ll leave the replacement pick to the whoever wins the election…right? The people’s choice and all that and then the Demonics can front up with perjury trolls to destroy the nominee. ” 40 years ago, he bumped into me at a High school reunion and it wasn’t accidental”.

  36. Oh come on

    Kamala Harris will have to take a break in campaigning if there is a confirmation hearing…

  37. Oh come on

    This throws a massive spanner in the works.

  38. Scott Osmond

    No. Do it now. At this point the left’s insanity is one of Trump’s biggest selling points. Riots and open hysteria can only improve his chances. He can also use it as part of his promise that people would become tired of all the winning. It’s about momentum.

  39. Makka

    Spare a thought for mUnty. Trump will shit it in, SCOTUS is about to become resolutely conservative for a generation. It’s all slipping away, isn’t it mOron? The Dreams of My Father are stuck to toilet paper now, wiped away and flushed.

  40. stackja

    Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1933-2020)

    As a judge on the D.C. Circuit, Ginsburg had established a solidly liberal record. But as constitutional scholar Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute notes in his forthcoming book Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America’s Highest Court, Ginsburg perfected the relatively new art of concealing her judicial views during the confirmation process — a reaction to the way that conservative Judge Robert Bork was grilled by then-Sen. Joe Biden (D-DE) and others in 1987.

  41. Bear Necessities

    Will she get the same amount of funerals as George Floyd? Maybe they can embalm her and put her in a glass sarcophagus like Lenin so she can live on for eternity and still vote!

  42. Damon

    It has to be a ‘woman of colour’, otherwise they’ll invent more fake rape accusations.

  43. Merrick Garland be damned. McConnell had the numbers to say no back then, and he has the numbers to say yes now. Do I understand why liberals would be upset at the double standard? Yes. Do I feel sorry them, feel that McConnell is doing the wrong thing? Good lord no. The Dems would do exactly the same thing if they had the numbers.

    “We have to do fascism because the opposition would be fascists if they won government.”

    The argument of fascists.

  44. thefrollickingmole

    It’s pretty amazing she lived so long. Not sure what she died of, but she beat pancreatic cancer for far longer than you would expect.

    Tough old chook, Pancreatic cancer is 99% of times a death sentence, and she beat it once.

    They probably shouldn’t have started the process of dumping the Senate filibuster back in 2013. Chickens, roosting etc.

    That was my first thought, and Monty im afraid your howling and clinging to Bidens skirts on it being wrong to force it through might need reviewing in light of his own statements on the matter.

    As Democrats’ chances of gaining a majority in the Senate have increased, calls for the abolition of the filibuster if they take control have also gained steam. Some senators who have been previously skeptical of change, such as Chris Co ons (D-Del.), have indicated an openness to reform. At the funeral of civil rights leader Representative John Lewis (D-Ga.), former President Barack Obama argued that if Republicans obstructed voting rights legislation in the next Congress, Democrats should eliminate the filibuster to pass it. For his part, Biden told reporters in July that “depend[ing] on how obstreperous [Republicans] become … I think you’re going to just have to take a look” at abolishing the procedure.

    ….
    Also..
    While much of the Senate’s business now requires the filing of cloture motions, there are some important exceptions. One involves nominations to executive branch positions and federal judgeships on which, thanks to two procedural changes adopted in 2013 and 2017, only a simple majority is required to end debate.

    Roost, coming home, chickens, some assembly required….

  45. thefrollickingmole

    “We have to do fascism because the opposition would be fascists if they won government.”
    ..
    For his part, Biden told reporters in July that “depend[ing] on how obstreperous [Republicans] become … I think you’re going to just have to take a look” at abolishing the procedure.

    thanks to two procedural changes adopted in 2013 and 2017, only a simple majority is required to end debate.

    You like to take a swing at defending those statements 7 changes made by the HariDen/ Obama administrations?

  46. Bruce

    O C O:

    “Not sure what she died of, but….”

    I hear that COVID-19 is the Cause of Death du jour..

  47. Oh come on

    No, it’s just politics, m0nty. I understand you’re too dim-witted to realise your people would do exactly the same thing if the shoe were on the other foot, and you’d cheer them on as they were doing it.

    Maybe you do realise this but you’re too dishonest to admit it.

    Maybe some from column A, some from column B.

  48. Infidel Tiger

    This will help the Dems bigly.

    Expect a massive turnout now.

  49. Lee

    I’m sure they’ll leave the replacement pick to the whoever wins the election…right? The people’s choice and all that.

    I am sure that the Democrats would have waited till the election!
    LOL

  50. RJH

    This is sure to send the Left Regressives stark raving crazy in trying to work out which way Trump will use his SCOTUS nomination in what remains of the election cycle. You watch he will just play masterfully with their minds, it will be beautiful to watch & in the meantime he will concentrate on winning his re-election

  51. McConnell confirms he will ram through a new SCOTUS pick before the election.

    Murkowski already saying she will vote no, you’d expect Romney also would be a no. Pressure on Collins, and there has to be one other to block it.

  52. thefrollickingmole

    McConnell confirms he will ram through a new SCOTUS pick before the election.

    And hell be able to do it using the changes made by the Obama administration….

  53. “The democratic system allows us to be fascists so we must be fascists” is certainly a take.

  54. thefrollickingmole

    McConnells statement.
    The Senate and the nation mourn the sudden passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the conclusion of her extraordinary American life. Justice Ginsburg overcame one personal challenge and professional barrier after another. She climbed from a modest Brooklyn upbringing to a seat on our nation’s highest court and into the pages of American history. Justice Ginsburg was thoroughly dedicated to the legal profession and to her 27 years of service on the Supreme Court. Her intelligence and determination earned her respect and admiration throughout the legal world, and indeed throughout the entire nation, which now grieves alongside her family, friends, and colleagues.

    In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year. By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise.

    President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.

  55. thefrollickingmole

    If only the Fascist administration of Obama hadnt made the changes eh Monst?

    Poor Dems, they were so convinced ‘Illary would win they banked on not riling up the Repub voters by using the rules they put in place.

    Footage of Obama & ‘Illary contemplating changing the rules about confirming judges, 2016, colourised.

  56. Bear Necessities

    McConnell has to get 50 votes from the Senate Floor. He can then use Pence’s vote to tie break if needed.

    All Dems (47) will not vote for the nominee so he can only have 3 No’s from the Reps side.

    I think McConnell is right to let the Senate vote. Repbulicans only have to appear normal. You can trust the Dems and their peaceful protestors to batshit crazy. It is the only playbook they know.

  57. Oh come on

    Here’s what I think will happen. Trump will nominate before election day – probably a woman to avoid the possibility of his selection being Kavanaughed. This may help with suburban women. Conventional wisdom (ie. normie polling) states Trump needs to to shore up their support. Whether this is true or not remains to be seen.

    The Senate will noisily commit to NOT confirming until after the election – and GOP senators will run on a message that the only way to get the SCOTUS nominee confirmed is to maintain the Republican hold on the Senate, ie. vote for them. This could be decisive in tight Senate races. It might mean the end for Dem senators in red states like Joe Manchin, though he obviously has a strong connection with his constituents that has transcended partisan politics before. The guy who beat Roy Moore in 2018 in Alabama was never going to win. It may further complicate Susan Collins’s campaign, but she has a connection with her constituents like Manchin has with his. Anyway, the game is afoot.

  58. Oh come on

    “The democratic system allows us to be fascists so we must be fascists” is certainly a take.

    It’s what you people do very well. Although you like to call yourselves anti- fascists whilst you’re behaving like brownshirts.

  59. McConnell’s reasoning is basically that the system allows him to be an extremist partisan with no principles except loyalty to the King, so that’s what he’s going to do. There is nothing normal about that in a modern democracy.

  60. No, it’s just politics, m0nty.

    OCO, I’ll give you this: at least you have the honesty to admit that you have no morals.

  61. Oh come on

    It’s okay, m0nty. I know you’re upset. This must be very disheartening for you.

    Again, I don’t feel sorry for you in the slightest. Your people would do the very same thing McConnell has done and is doing if they were in his position, and you’d be cheering them on as they did it AND being all smarmy about it here. So let the salt flow, m0nts. Delicious salty goodness.

  62. Oh come on

    lol hark at the Moral Montgomery. He’s very very angry.

  63. Huck

    y
    #3590413, posted on September 19, 2020 at 11:38 am
    McConnell’s reasoning is basically that the system allows him to be an extremist partisan with no principles except loyalty to the King, so that’s what he’s going to do. There is nothing normal about that in a modern democracy.

    This from dover on the open forum.

    John McCormack
    @McCormackJohn
    ·
    42m
    “Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration…. The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases.”

    What was that you were saying about “nothing normal” m0nty?

  64. Bruce of Newcastle

    There is nothing normal about that in a modern democracy.

    Nothing is normal right now M0nty.
    You may have noticed this.
    It’s the 1930’s all over again complete with Brownshirts.
    They call themselves Antifa this time.
    The Dems are playing for all the marbles, since they’ve lost theirs.

  65. So McConnell and Trump are going to install some Fed Society cardboard cutout, probably another mediocre white man who reminds Trump of the frat boys he feels superior to as he is threatened by strong women. What does he go to the election with? His job would have been done. No need to re-elect him.

    It’s kind of difficult to win back suburban women when you just made a massive move to ban abortion. Women tend to like their personal rights.

  66. Oh come on

    Now, m0nty. Many people here have witnessed the depths you’re willing to sink to in your efforts to score cheap partisan points. You’re not on a very strong footing to label others as amoral.

    So, you’re either too dim to recognise this OR you know it full well and you’re disingenuous enough to pretend this isn’t the case.

    Which is it? Dim or disingenuous? Or do we need an ‘and’?

  67. Herodotus

    Felix Kruell: I’m sure they’ll leave the replacement pick to the whoever wins the election…right? The people’s choice and all that.
    Yeah, right. Just like we’re sure the Dems and their running dogs will respect the Trump victory.

  68. JC

    They call themselves Antifa this time.

    No, no,no. They were calling themselves Antifa then too.

    Antifaschistische Aktion

    Anyone who isn’t a communist is a fascist.

  69. Oh come on

    another mediocre white man who reminds Trump of the frat boys he feels superior to as he is threatened by strong women.

    Oh that is priceless. Hilarious! m0nty is hurting. Not quite at meltdown temperature, but will be soon if he doesn’t calm himself.

  70. thefrollickingmole

    Monty still studiously avoiding acknowledging it was the changes brought in by OBAMAS mob that makes this possible.

    Because he cant admit it was all set in train by the lightworker..

    McConnell also argued that his decision to scrap the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees — a move that came after his predecessor, former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), ended the minority party’s power to filibuster executive branch and most judicial nominees — wasn’t really revolutionary.

    He noted that filibusters of judicial and executive branch nominees were a recent phenomenon.

    “Even though it was possible on the executive calendar to filibuster nominees, it just wasn’t done until Bush 43 got elected,” he said, referring to former President George W. Bush.

    McConnell said Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who was elected to the Senate in 1998, was the “ringleader” of shifting Senate strategy on opposing presidential nominees during the Bush administration.

  71. JC

    McConnell has to get 50 votes from the Senate Floor. He can then use Pence’s vote to tie break if needed.

    Romney will vote with the left for a start.

  72. Oh come on

    m0nty. Better stick a control rod up your arse, quick.

  73. JC

    Susan Collins?

    The GOP – even in the majority- won’t have the votes. Think about that!

  74. Herodotus

    probably another mediocre white man who reminds Trump of the frat boys he feels superior to as he is threatened by strong women.
    That’s quite a brain fart from Monty when in fact Amy Barrett is the hot tip.
    But that sort of crap is all Monty is capable of.

  75. JC

    You know what, I’m glad the Kenyan won in 08 and 12. McCain and Romney would have been multiples worse.

  76. thefrollickingmole

    Nuclear option
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

    In November 2013, Senate Democrats led by Harry Reid used the nuclear option to eliminate the 60-vote rule on executive branch nominations and federal judicial appointments, but not for the Supreme Court.[1] In April 2017, Senate Republicans led by Mitch McConnell extended the nuclear option to Supreme Court nominations in order to end debate on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.

    Thanks Obama!

  77. Susan Collins?

    She’s getting belted in her race this year, not sure voting against Trump would help her. Her conscience is extremely overrated.

    Plenty of other GOP Senators in close races in purple or blue states, it’s going to be a wide field to get those other two votes.

  78. That’s quite a brain fart from Monty when in fact Amy Barrett is the hot tip.

    She didn’t get the nod last time because Trump didn’t like her at the interview.

  79. Makka

    probably another mediocre white man who reminds Trump of the frat boys he feels superior to as he is threatened by strong women.

    Lots to decode here. mOron obviously was ridiculed mercilessly by Alpha males in school, tubby lazy shortarse that he is. Lacking in confidence with the ladies too I see. Perfect Stasi material is mUnty.

  80. Bear Necessities

    McConnell has to get 50 votes from the Senate Floor. He can then use Pence’s vote to tie break if needed.

    Romney will vote with the left for a start.

    He probably won’t get 50 votes before November 3 but probably will after. The Lame ducks in the GOP (if there are any) have less reason to vote no.

  81. Herodotus

    Trump didn’t like her at the interview.
    Monty was there, of course. More likely he has saved up a female nomination for just this moment.
    He’s usually thinking ahead, as opposed to creeps like Mont who just spout shit.

  82. one old bruce

    Monty, just because Trump occupies a significant portion of your mind doesn’t mean you can read his.

  83. Jonesy

    Agree, as if the US political landscape is not batshit crazy enough already. Trump will nominate a woman. The balance is swinging away from activism back to boilerplate constitutional law. History is with Trump to get his nomination confirmed by the Senate. With the nomination will come ARMAGEDDON. There will be no subterfuge, there will be an undeclared civil war!

  84. Craig Mc

    Monty is a just preview of coming attractions. Unlike movie trailers, the best is yet to come. I’m off to Democratic Underground!

  85. Ceres

    Democrats are going to go ballistic. Go Mitch. USA in for even more crazy times. 2020 the year of insanity.

  86. Megan

    What an interesting, and entertaining development. Pure consequences coming back to haunt those who thought they were re-writing the rules in their favour.

  87. Rob MW

    Breaking news: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

    Oh dear what will cocaine Mitch do ?

    Under Oboma’s watch Harry Reid removed the Senate super majority needed to vote in all Federal Judges EXCEPT and BUT left nominations to the Supreme Court still requiring the Senate super majority. Harry Reid and the Democrats changed the rules for their own ideological benefit BUT had made two huge mistakes by both not including Supreme Court nomination AND NOT reversing the rules on the potential loss of the Senate Majority at (any) election time.

    It was this super majority that thawed (fucked up) Obama and the Democrats from installing Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court following the untimely death of Anthony Scalia in February 2016, 8 months before the Presidential election of 2016.

    Following Trump’s election victory in 2016 AND with the Republicans retaking the majority both in the House and the Senate, the Senate Republicans under cocaine Mitch, simply using the precedent set by the Democrats extended the Democrats own rule changes to also include nominations to the Supreme Court not requiring a Senate super majority to get confirmed to the Supreme Court. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander !!

    Without hesitation just before the Presidential election in 2016, the Democrats tried very hard and used every dirty trick in the book to get Merrick Garland nominated to the Supreme Court but in the end fucked up by not having the required Senate super majority numbers, giving appropriate meaning to how one was to fuck one’s self.

    What will cocaine Mitch do ? With slight modification – Do unto others as they would do unto you.

  88. bobby b

    References to Garland are facile. Had a vote been allowed, he would have lost.

  89. It was this super majority that thawed (fucked up) Obama and the Democrats from installing Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court following the untimely death of Anthony Scalia in February 2016, 8 months before the Presidential election of 2016.

    This kind of knocks OCO’s argument that the Democrats would do exactly the same thing into a cocked hat. They literally had the exact same chance in 2016, and chose not to blow everything up.

  90. Rob MW

    They literally had the exact same chance in 2016, and chose not to blow everything up.

    No they didn’t you moron. They needed a super majority that they didn’t have so there was not point. Fucking idiot. Did you graduate in anything other than how to be the village idiot ?

  91. They needed a super majority that they didn’t have so there was not point.

    They could have removed the Senate filibuster for SCOTUS nominations with a simple majority. As McConnell did later.

  92. Leigh Lowe

    m0nty

    #3590525, posted on September 19, 2020 at 12:38 pm

    They needed a super majority that they didn’t have so there was not point.

    They could have removed the Senate filibuster for SCOTUS nominations with a simple majority. As McConnell did later.

    Have you fact checked that?
    Who removed the “super majority” convention?

  93. Ed Markey @EdMarkey
    Mitch McConnell set the precedent. No Supreme Court vacancies filled in an election year. If he violates it, when Democrats control the Senate in the next Congress, we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court.

    2020, the year of the Chinese curse.

  94. feelthebern

    You know what, I’m glad the Kenyan won in 08 and 12. McCain and Romney would have been multiples worse.

    Hard to argue with that.
    McCain would have started 16 wars.
    Not the 6 that Obama did.

  95. Rob MW

    They could have removed the Senate filibuster for SCOTUS nominations with a simple majority. As McConnell did later.

    Harry Reid set the precedent by removing the filibuster for all other Federal Court nominations when the Democrats had control of the Senate under Obama but failed to do so for the Supreme Court nominations. When Democrats make the rules and arrogantly leave them in place as a gift for the Republicans then bullshitting and gaslighting is all they have left to argue with.

    It’ll be interesting to see what Trump does given that now he holds all the cards over the RINO Republicans, including cocaine Mitch, who desperately want to hold a clear majority on the Supreme Court on the one hand yet who have done everything they can to fuck up the MAGA agenda on the other.

    What if Trump does not nominate anyone until after November 3 ? The RINOs will have to grovel for forgiveness and pull all stops out to actually get Trump reelected. It’ll be something to behold. The weather vane will be to watch to see if the Never Trumpers in the Lincoln Project publicly and all of a sudden change their opinion of Trump.

  96. feelthebern

    It will definitely be a female nominee.
    By Trump.
    To force the DNC into campaigning against a woman.

  97. Oh come on

    This kind of knocks OCO’s argument that the Democrats would do exactly the same thing into a cocked hat

    It really doesn’t. Read on…

    They literally had the exact same chance in 2016, and chose not to blow everything up.

    Wrongology strikes again! You do realise the GOP gained a majority in the 2014 midterms? So, no. The Senate Dems didn’t literally have the exact same chance in 2016.

    we must abolish the filibuster and expand the Supreme Court

    They are planning to do this anyway. They also want to get rid of the electoral college and grant statehood to DC and Puerto Rico.

  98. If I were a betting man, I’d have my money on enough Republican Senators blocking Trump’s SCOTUS pick, so that Trump can run against the Swamp in his own party. Which is probably what he’s counting on. But it won’t work, as suburban women will consolidate even further against him.

  99. I’m looking forward to hearing Lindsey Graham’s weasel words on why he is reneging on his 2018 commitment not to support a SCOTUS pick this close to an election.

    Grassley and Collins said the same thing, they are choosing not to address it today but the pressure is on them as well.

  100. Makka

    But it won’t work, as suburban women will consolidate even further against him.

    The latest Demorat talking point. It wont matter so much in numbers as all races of non-college educated males are swarming to Trump. All ages, all states.

  101. Rob MW

    If I were a betting man, I’d have my money on enough Republican Senators blocking Trump’s SCOTUS pick, so that Trump can run against the Swamp in his own party.

    And run the risk of not having a Republican nominee after November 3 ? Wishful thinking.

    Which is probably what he’s counting on

    Sure Jan.

    But it won’t work, as suburban women will consolidate even further against him.

    What you mean those 20 year old female white black lives matter antifa rioting screechers ?

  102. Judge Dredd

    God will not look kindly on her pro-abortion stance and rulings which has helped lead to the murder of ~30 million babies.

  103. Perfidious Albino

    I would not be surprised if the Democrats smothered RBG with a pillow. If Trump wins he gets to nominate anyway, but I reckon the Dems saw a last opportunity to leverage RBG’s death to energise and encourage the waverers non-plussed by Biden. ‘This election isn’t just about the next 4 years, if Trump makes another appointment we’ll lose the SC for a generation’ will be the line they run. They will also be hoping enough never-Trumpers will hold up the senate. Calculated risk, but they have nothing to lose at this point.

  104. Bear Necessities

    f I were a betting man, I’d have my money on enough Republican Senators blocking Trump’s SCOTUS pick, so that Trump can run against the Swamp in his own party.

    And run the risk of not having a Republican nominee after November 3 ? Wishful thinking.

    Which is probably what he’s counting on

    Sure Jan.

    But it won’t work, as suburban women will consolidate even further against him.

    What you mean those 20 year old female white black lives matter antifa rioting screechers ?

    There is still the lame duck session from November 3 to early January. Those defeated Senators can still vote for a Trump Nominee until the new Senators are sworn in. I’m expecting either if Trump wins or loses his nominee will still get on the Supreme Court.

  105. Tim Neilson

    Hey m0nty, want to retract your assertion that election year nominations are not normal, in the light of Huck’s 11.48 am post?

  106. Rex Anger

    “We have to do fascism because the opposition would be fascists if they won government.”

    The argument of fascists.

    This mUntage is brought to you today by Hoyts- We project things for your entertainment, so you don’t have to and Demolition Ranch- We do the same, but we blow ’em up also!

    Find them and Golden Hairy Legs (C’mon man!) on your Social Media chanels tofay!

    Free Corn Pop for the first 100 to Downvote…

  107. Arky

    so to I am disgusted that anyone could celebrate RBG death.

    ..


  108. There is still the lame duck session from November 3 to early January. Those defeated Senators can still vote for a Trump Nominee until the new Senators are sworn in. I’m expecting either if Trump wins or loses his nominee will still get on the Supreme Court.

    Not ambitious enough. Alito and Thomas to also retire and be replaced with 27-day-old clones from the Fed Society vats.

  109. Tel

    It’s morally wrong to gloat … and bad strategy as well when you consider how much hangs in the balance. Based on my personal ability to know the difference between male and female, I’m happy that RBG brought some alternative views to the bench, but we have to also admit that she was more than just alternative, she was hopelessly partisan and in the bigger picture that undermines the trust that we place in such senior adjudicators.

    Now … the replacement: Janice Rogers Brown … you know she’s the right choice.

  110. Arky

    so to I am disgusted that anyone could celebrate RBG death.

    ..


  111. incoherent rambler

    If I were a betting man,

    If munts was a betting man, he would be broke.

  112. Rex Anger

    Like Simon Chaucer as we met him in that anachronistic romp Knight’s Tale, starving and stark bollock naked. But nowhere near as witty or entertaining.

  113. Arky

    so to I am disgusted that anyone could celebrate RBG death.

    ..


  114. FelixKruell

    So amusing to see how many people here pick a side, rather than a principle.

    If it was wrong for the Senate to consider Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court just before an election, then it is wrong for the Senate to consider Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court just before an election.

    If the senate should have considered Obama’s nominee, then the senate should consider Trump’s nominee.

    I support the latter.

    McConnells weasel words show he’s just being partisan, and not following a consistent principle. Big surprise, given he’s a politician. But we should be calling out the hypocrisy, regardless of which side does it. Otherwise, you’re just a partisan hack.

  115. Boris

    The people voted in 2016 for a president knowing he would serve 4 years and that vote counts until the next election,

    Until the next inauguration to be precise. That gives Trump and McConnell almost 4 months.

  116. Jonesy

    History is on Trump for getting his nomination confirmed. An opposition Senate has not confirmed a presidential nomination since the nineteenth century. A Senate of the same party as the President has ALWAYS confirmed the nomination. Monty needs to read his history better. McConnel is obviously very not the same party as the obummer

  117. Boris

    McConnells weasel words show he’s just being partisan, and not following a consistent principle. Big surprise, given he’s a politician. But we should be calling out the hypocrisy,

    I agree. In 2016, McConnel could have avoided hypocrisy by saying we will not allow this nomination to proceed because we have a majority elected by the people. And you will have your pick only if and when you have both a DEM president and DEM senate majority and a SCOTUS vacancy. And not one minute earlier.

    That’s is what the US judiciary have become.

    Having said that, it was easier for the GOP to prevent confirmation of an obama candidate than to rush through Trumps pick, because their majority is rather slim.

  118. An opposition Senate has not confirmed a presidential nomination since the nineteenth century.

    Incorrect. Two of the current SCOTUS justices were nominated by Republican presidents and confirmed by Democratic majority Senates, the latest in 1991.

  119. Jonesy

    To find a Supreme Court nominee from a Democrat President, approved by a Republican-controlled Senate, you need to go back to 1895. The last Supreme Court nominee to come from a President whose party didn’t control the Senate was Clarence Thomas in 1991, who was nominated by President George H.W. Bush. Of the 30 successful confirmations since 1945, 13 of the votes, or about 43 percent, came when the President’s party didn’t control the Senate. This was especially true when the Democrats ran the Senate for long periods during the 1960s and 1970s.

  120. Boris

    McCain would have started 16 wars.

    Yeh sure appeasement by both Obama and Trump is much better. Clowns.

  121. Arky

    Clowns.

    ..
    Warmongering pig.

  122. Fisky

    The Left will try to assassinate SCOTUS justices.

  123. thefrollickingmole

    Cruz has a very good argument on why it should be filled before polling day.
    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/09/18/ted-cruz-explains-perfectly-why-rbgs-seat-must-be-filled-before-the-election-n944445

    Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election. They intend to fight the legitimacy of the election. As you you know Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden ‘under no circumstances should you concede, you should challenge this election.’ and we cannot have election day come and go with a 4-4 court.”

    Cruz continued, “A 4-4 court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine-justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of … a contested election.”

    Can you imagine the insanity levels of the left if it got bogged in the courts?

  124. “We have to pack the court with a conservative majority to decide a contested election” is a take.

  125. Makka

    “We have to pack the court with a conservative majority to decide a contested election”

    …..By any and all means possible.

  126. thefrollickingmole

    We must leave the vacancy open so we have a civil war after 3 months of no resolution to the election’ is a take as well you squealer

  127. The Supreme Court functions perfectly well with eight. If there is a 4-4 deadlock, the decision from the lower court stands.

  128. Makka

    Don’t worry mOron. It will be a landslide. There will be no contest. 179 EC votes max.

  129. 1735099

    RBG’s legal accomplishments speak for themselves.
    Irrespective of partisan politics, she has advanced the quality of the lives of the people of her country more than any other Supreme Court justice in US history.
    It’s often forgotten that she was confirmed 96 to 3.
    She had a clear and firm strategy, and followed it with supreme discipline and determination through all her decisions.
    We will not see her like again.

  130. Makka

    We will not see her like again.

    God willing.

  131. Pyrmonter

    Steel yourselves … Monty is right.

    The GOP could have marshalled their own supporters behind a post election nomination of a named candidate: judicial appointments matter to a lot of the presently wavering or lost GOP voters. If however they appoint now, they’ll motivate the Dems to (a) turn out and (b) when the almost inevitable loss comes, to pack the court. It’s a disaster … yet another wrought by that insult to traditional liberal conservatism

  132. Remember what happened at the election soon after Kavanaugh was confirmed? Trump got smashed.

  133. Oh come on

    McConnells weasel words show he’s just being partisan, and not following a consistent principle

    No shit. Who would have thought a politician belonging to a political party would act in a partisan fashion! Hold the presses, everyone.

  134. Makka

    Pyro, mUnty has never been right. That’s a courageous call.

  135. Hugh

    “It’s often forgotten that she was confirmed 96 to 3.”

    How many unborn babies were in that tally?

  136. mh

    The Democrats and their supporters are going to look super radical leading up to Nov 3.

    And that will be a huge turn off for middle America.

    Bill Maher and Jane Fonda:

    “This is right before the election. And who is going to be the next Supreme Court Justice? Scott Baio?” joked Maher, adding, “That is very sad news. First of all, before we go on to the political part of it, she was just awesome. I mean, you know, I’ve said it before on this show: power begets power. This is why you can’t let a guy like Trump become president—this is not just about the presidency.”

    Then, he introduced his main guest, the legendary actress and liberal activist Jane Fonda, onto the program.

    “I’m still reeling, Bill,” offered Fonda, clearly shaken. “I just heard Ruth Bader Ginsburg died. We have to be as tough as Mitch McConnell and not do one freaking thing until the election is over. We have to rise up and not allow them to do it. If Mitch McConnell can do it, lets grow some balls and ovaries. Oh my god.”

  137. Bear Necessities

    The only problem with the REPS nominating someone is that someone will probably have their home or work regularly visited by BLM and Antifa between now and the election. I don’t think they will be bringing muffins or donuts as a congratulation present.

    Whether someone would put up with that I’m not too sure.

  138. Snoopy

    Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

    Video or it didn’t happen.

    Hearsay evidence is inadmissible.
    /Judge Judy

  139. Zulu Kilo Two Alpha

    Then, he introduced his main guest, the legendary actress and liberal activist Jane Fonda, onto the program.

    Legendary traitor Jane Fonda?

  140. thefrollickingmole

    “It’s often forgotten that she was confirmed 96 to 3.”

    Not 91.6% to 3?

  141. David Brewer

    Trump is a pretty good tactician, but this is a tough one.

    In a way, as Infidel Tiger says, RBG’s death is a godsend to the Dems. Policy-wise, it has become clear they have nothing to campaign on, and Biden is now reading from Trump’s playbook on the economy, the police, China etc. He is clearly senile, and the riots are starting to hurt the Dems in the suburbs where the election will be decided. Worst of all, there is a total lack of enthusiasm for the Biden/Harris ticket. A good dose of wailing and moaning about Trump appointing a KKK Grand Wizard to the SCOTUS bench is just what the Dems need to mobilise their base.

    Trump would seem to have two main options – ram through a nominee and make sure of a sympathic court in the event of a contested election, or leave the whole thing till the new year, saying that he has already put out the list he will choose from, and when is Biden going to do the same? Second option might be safer.

    Not sure what all the fuss is about on the issue of whether the Republicans have the moral right to confirm a nominee. Of course they do. They control the Senate, and the Senate has the constitutional power to confirm or reject a nominee. Whether it was morally right to stall Obama’s nominee in 2016 is a totally different question, and whatever your answer might be, it has nothing to do with the Senate’s authority now.

  142. Leo G

    “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

    If SCOTUS justices hold office as long as they choose, barring impeachment, could this mean RBG might remain moulding on the bench until early 2025?

  143. Not sure what all the fuss is about on the issue of whether the Republicans have the moral right to confirm a nominee. Of course they do. They control the Senate, and the Senate has the constitutional power to confirm or reject a nominee. Whether it was morally right to stall Obama’s nominee in 2016 is a totally different question, and whatever your answer might be, it has nothing to do with the Senate’s authority now.

    “Okay, so we totally flouted the system last time, but we think you should totally respect it this time when it favours us.”

    Yeah nah.

  144. Arky

    as Infidel Tiger says

    ..
    I think I have found the problem with your reasoning.

  145. Leo G

    Whether it was morally right to stall Obama’s nominee in 2016 is a totally different question, and whatever your answer might be, it has nothing to do with the Senate’s authority now.

    Trump’s nominee should consider wearing a garland at the swearing-in- as a mark of respect for Obama’s loser.

  146. Rex Anger

    “Okay, so we totally flouted the system last time, but we think you should totally respect it this time when it favours us.”

    Yeah nah.

    Still going with the projections, mUnted?

    You’re more boring than all your fellow travellers combined…

  147. Mother Lode

    If I were a betting man,

    Why mention betting? It adds nothings to the hypothetical.

  148. Rob MW

    Okay, so we totally flouted the system last time, but we think you should totally respect it this time when it favours us.”
    Yeah nah.

    Sit down monster, you’re full of shit mate.

    History Is on the Side of Republicans Filling a Supreme Court Vacancy in 2020

    History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. Republicans should not create a brand-new precedent to deviate from them.

    Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration. (This counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 1835–36 and 1987–88.) The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases. George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Thomas Jefferson did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Dwight Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up a nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate.

    Waiting for Boris…..3……….2………..1

  149. Tel

    Boris #3590697,

    McCain would have started 16 wars.

    Yeh sure appeasement by both Obama and Trump is much better. Clowns.

    Oh really?

    Tell us all, right here and now which nation Trump should declare war on and why.

    Go on, spit it out Boris. I’m a bit fed up with your slinking around pretending to be respectable so I want to hear about this “appeasement” crap. Talk about you plan for war, huh? How does it work out? Who goes first?

  150. If it’s going to come down to numbers, I presume you lot would take it in good humour if four Republican Senators vote the nomination down in traditional Strom Thurmond style.

  151. Oh come on

    Goodness me there is some pearl clutching going on. In 2016, McConnell said he wanted to hold up the nomination process. Why? He needed an answer. Well, he said, you shouldn’t confirm a SCOTUS justice during an election year. Was that the real reason? No. What was the real reason? Ummm I’m going to go with he’s a Republican and he wanted to wait and see if a Republican prez would be able to fill that vacancy. Was this all legal and above board? Yes, he was the Senate majority leader, so it was up to him.

    Today, there’s a Republican president up for re-election very soon. He might not win. And McConnell may be the minority leader after the election, too. So um yeah he’s sure as hell going to confirm whoever Trump puts up.

    Now I know this gives some people here the vapours. And I can’t blame them, as it is totally unheard of for politicians to apply different standards to similar situations to achieve a political imperative. It just never happens. Never! Shocking. It’s shocking. I am shocked. Totally.

  152. Oh come on

    Yes, m0nty. If McConnell can’t get the numbers from his own caucus, he can’t get the numbers. Pity, but them’s the breaks.

    Of course, if the Dems make the confirmation process as corrupt and dirty as they did with Kavanaugh, I would have something to say about that.

  153. Righto then OCO, I am sure you would not object if President Biden gives statehood to DC and Puerto Rico, merges the Dakotas, plus splits New York into five states. It’s just political imperatives!

  154. dover_beach

    I bet they tried to revive her for hours – possibly days.

    I shouldn’t be laughing but..rofl.

  155. Also, the US left is calling for court stacking, I’m sure you wouldn’t mind if we had 29 Supreme Court justices. Political imperatives!

  156. dover_beach

    OCO has been brilliant in this thread. monty, do you need a hug?

  157. stackja

    Liberal America Had an Epic Meltdown Over Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Death, But They Have Only One Person to Blame

    Matt Vespa| @mvespa1|Posted: Sep 19, 2020 4:45 AM

    ….

    Still, ‘Notorious RBG’ made a serious miscalculation by not retiring during the Obama years. If she had, there probably would be a much younger jurist holding the line for the liberal wing of the Supreme Court right now. No hassle. Alas, that didn’t happen, and for all these liberals who are going ballistic—this battle was really RBG’s choosing. I think she, like many, thought Hillary Clinton would win the 2016 election. She would then ride off into the sunset and that would be it. Instead, Trump won arguably the biggest political upsets of all time, certainly within the last generation, and got stuck. It’s an unpopular opinion among liberal circles for sure, maybe more agree but keep it to themselves. Still, the meltdown is popcorn worthy.

  158. David Brewer

    I am warming further to my idea that Trump might be best advised not to nominate anyone before the election. Reasons:

    – It deprives the Dems of a rallying point. The issue of who he might nominate if re-elected was already out there and will just not be big enough to change anyone’s mind.
    – It puts more pressure on Biden to put out his own roster of people he might nominate, and draws further attention to the fact that he has failed to put up a list so far, despite being challenged by Trump to do so.
    – If the election ends up getting decided in the Supreme Court, Trump should have a majority anyway, 5-3.
    – It gives Trump an occasion to appear statesmanlike and unprovocative – his two weakest points with undecided voters. It may also discourage RINOs who were going to vote for Biden.

    BTW Arky, I forgot to also compliment Infidel Tiger for being spot on with her prediction about Biden’s pick for VP, made at least as early as 4 March. Well done! Can you tell us more about the deal you said was behind this, Infidel?

  159. twostix

    Have you considered that you’re on the wrong side of history m0nty?

  160. twostix

    I feast on this sight of m0nty begging for mercy and please-guys, be fair and let my unelected team nominate the judge that will agree with us to imprison and eradicate everyone we hate.

    Trump doesn’t do deals with losers, sorry.

  161. The Mushroom Whisperer

    There is no real excuse for anti-originalism. Its not a valid point of view. But the lawyers seem to go for these weird theories that attempt to justify it. Because it gives their class a lot of arbitrary power.

  162. Today is a notable day in history, no doubt, but there will be many more before we figure out who gets to write the history.

  163. Oh come on

    Go cry yourself to sleep, m0nty, you hyperventilating buffoon. It’ll probably be easier to locate and cobble together the pieces of your exploded head in the morning.

  164. JC

    m0nty
    #3591056, posted on September 19, 2020 at 8:38 pm

    Also, the US left is calling for court stacking, I’m sure you wouldn’t mind if we had 29 Supreme Court justices. Political imperatives!

    Conservatives states have said they will ignore any decision that comes about as a result of the stackers’ vote.

  165. JC

    FelixKruell
    #3590664, posted on September 19, 2020 at 2:21 pm

    So amusing to see how many people here pick a side, rather than a principle.

    If it was wrong for the Senate to consider Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court just before an election, then it is wrong for the Senate to consider Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court just before an election.

    Dickhead, if you really want to be consistent, then here it is. The Kenyan was within is rights as the president to nominate Garland as his SCOTUS pick. It was also within the senate majority’s rights to set it aside until after the election. The senate majority makes that decision. There is nothing inconsistent about this and the MAJORITY decides.

    If the senate should have considered Obama’s nominee, then the Senate should consider Trump’s nominee.

    The majority can do what it chooses and in fact, the majority voted to leave Garland waiting in the wings as it’s the majority’s choice.

    I support the latter.

    No one cares what you support, hun.

    McConnells weasel words show he’s just being partisan, and not following a consistent principle. Big surprise, given he’s a politician. But we should be calling out the hypocrisy, regardless of which side does it. Otherwise, you’re just a partisan hack.

    Lol… Of course, McConnell is partisan, you lumphead. He heads a political party in the senate. If you want to talk about partisanship, the need to stack the court with your own has historically been a demonic thing while the GOP has done the right thing. It’s about time they caught even before Bork.

  166. dover_beach

    JC is clearly right.

  167. JC

    Cruel is inferring that if Schumer was the majority leader with a demonic prez he would hold off the vote until after the election. Laughable.

  168. dover_beach

    Chucky in 2016:

    Chuck Schumer
    @SenSchumer
    · Feb 23, 2016
    Attn GOP: Senate has confirmed 17 #SCOTUS justices in presidential election years. #DoYourJob

    Couldn’t agree more.

  169. dover_beach

    BTW, never forget what they did to Kavanaugh.

  170. David Brewer

    Looks like Trump is going to go for it before the election:

    We were put in this position of power and importance to make decisions for the people who so proudly elected us, the most important of which has long been considered to be the selection of United States Supreme Court Justices. We have this obligation, without delay!

  171. stackja

    From the Thomas More Society’s Tom Brejcha:

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will go down in legal history as a Jurist of very high stature and lasting repute who played a pioneering and pivotal role in paving the way for the advancement of women lawyers to their present positions of power and influence in our legal profession.

    She was supremely gifted and dedicated in her singular devotion and masterly contributions to the legal and associated social reforms that brought about this monumental progress over the many decades of her labors. But what marks her as a truly legendary jurist is her fidelity to the law, as a body of principles that stands apart from, and transcends, mere policy preferences and political partisanship, however deeply felt and ardently fought for.

    Thus we witnessed her voting twice in favor of our advocacy, which was assailed (stridently albeit baselessly) in so many quarters in the marathon NOW vs. Scheidler litigation, which gave birth to our Thomas More Society, a public interest law firm.

    The case lasted over 28 years from start to finish, and it culminated in a pair of successive U.S. Supreme Court decisions against the use of the federal racketeering and extortion laws against peaceable non-violent political protest.

    In that case, Justice Ginsburg joined an 8-1 majority in Scheidler II, handed down in 2003, and then again she joined an 8-0 majority in Scheidler III, handed down in 2006 (Justice O’Connor having retired, or it would have been 9-0) — proving herself faithful to the operative legal principles that proved dispositive, despite the fact that she was casting her vote against the National Organization for Women, another high profile advocate for the cause, so styled, of women’s rights.

    We deeply disagreed with her about abortion rights, but we too, at the Thomas More Society, salute her record of judicial service and mourn her passing.
    Sincerely,
    Tom Brejcha
    President & Chief Counsel

  172. FelixKruell

    JC:

    The majority can do what it chooses and in fact, the majority voted to leave Garland waiting in the wings as it’s the majority’s choice.

    Yes, as I noted. It’s not about whether they could do it, its about whether they should do it.

    And we should call out when politicians act inconsistently, and without principles. Whichever party they’re in. Otherwise you’re just a partisan act. With poor manners to boot.

  173. Visions

    RBG was enormously gifted but right to the end was an activist if one is to believe that she said she did not want president to choose her relief – RBG tired to reinterpret the constitution – the fact remains that constitution allows President and senate majority to chose a nomination to supreme court.
    It will take a big effort to get up in timeframe.
    There are 3 weak rep senates who may not vote so its touch and go – if 4 senate republicans vote no its game over.
    If Trump get this nomination up it will mean a non activist Supreme Court for next generation -this is huge – always could mean Rowe v wade could come into play again (eg right to life)
    Interesting times – I still cannot believe US citizens are considering voting for Biden – the bloke is senile (and I am a senior citizen so can so say).

  174. dover_beach

    And we should call out when politicians act inconsistently, and without principles. Whichever party they’re in. Otherwise you’re just a partisan act. With poor manners to boot.

    Not at all. McConnell wasn’t establishing a principle. He laid out a reason for the Senate delaying the confirmation of a SCOTUS justice because there was a chance that the presidency could fall into the hands of Republican imminently. This would then align with a Republican Senate and thereby allow them to appoint a justice of their own choosing.

  175. Oh come on

    JC is absolutely correct.

    Yes, as I noted. It’s not about whether they could do it, its about whether they should do it.

    But they should do it. They are Republican senators. They were elected as Republicans and the people who voted for them expect them to fulfil the roles of senators whilst forwarding the Republican agenda. Confirming judges is one of the roles of the Senate. Doing whatever Senate Republicans can do to ensure judicial nominees that Republicans approve of are confirmed, and doing whatever they can to block judicial nominees that Republicans don’t approve of, is exactly what the Senate Republicans should be doing.

    Senate Democrats do exactly the same thing, although they don’t currently have the numbers to block the President’s nominees. They can complain that it’s not fair, McConnell is a big meany, what about Merrick Garland blah blah blah (as if they wouldn’t do exactly the same thing if presented with the opportunity to do so – you’d have to be a naive moron to believe they wouldn’t). They and their surrogates have started whining already. More importantly, they are going to resort to other methods in an attempt to torpedo the upcoming nominee – peel off enough RINO senators to block the confirmation. How they do this is going to be interesting. How low can they go? Pretty damn low: just look at what they did to try and prevent Clarence Thomas’s confirmation, let alone what they did to Kavanaugh.

  176. dover_beach

    BTW, this talk of principles and ‘norms’ is absurd. The ‘norm’ has been that Presidents and Senates can nominate and confirm judicial openings at any time. McConnell’s gambit in 2016 was entirely within existing norm re confirmations. Further, even if you argue that it wasn’t, a single instance doesn’t itself establish a norm. Moreover, it is open to McConnell or anyone else whose attention is brought to the circumstance of 2016 to say, Well, the circumstances are different. The sitting President is up for re-election, that was not the case in 2016. Both the Presidency and the Senate are controlled by the same party, that was not the case in 2016. And so on. Different fact-situations yield differing determinations.

  177. JC

    Cruel, you imbecile. In your world view, you would have expected the GOP to have voted for a Liberal even when holding the majority.

    You’re such a crass Left wing idiot.

    In any event, here is the Demonics’ chance to shine and demonstrate bi-partisanship. Let them support the nomination. 🙂

  178. Conservatives states have said they will ignore any decision that comes about as a result of the stackers’ vote.

    Nullification! That always ends well.

  179. If the Republicans want to play the game of “the majority is always right” when they keep losing the popular vote in elections and the demographics of the country are going in the opposite direction to their white nationalism, they’re not going to have a good time in the long run because gerrymandering only takes you so far.

    Specifically, enfranchising the voters of Puerto Rico and DC in the Senate is a major priority, and cannot be opposed on any legitimate grounds other than partisanship which, as you lot now have established, is irrelevant when you don’t have the numbers. Thanks for that!

  180. The Republicans will likely win this election in a landslide.

    The Democrats voted to remove cloture and McConnell warned them they would regret it.

  181. Oh come on

    Here’s a thing that happened:

    As news of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death was still reverberating through Washington overnight, a crowd began to gather on the steps of the Supreme Court.

    Huddled in the darkness, candles lighting up their faces, some sobbed as they sang John Lennon’s Imagine in hushed, mournful tones.

    Cheesiest memorial ever.

  182. Republicans trying to start a civil war on behalf of the busted-arse flyover states and calling the rich blue states losers, LOL.

  183. Oh come on

    m0nty, you shouldn’t have gone to bed angry. See? You woke up angry. Think about your health. Calm down.

  184. Oh come on

    Republicans trying to start a civil war on behalf of the busted-arse flyover states and calling the rich blue states losers, LOL

    Now that is a bitter LOL escaping through bitter tears. We’re up to the anger stage of grief, I see.

  185. Republicans trying to start a civil war

    This is lunatic stuff. Calm down and don’t drink so much. Know your limits.

    R U Ok?

  186. H B Bear

    Yes mUnty LOLing all the way to the election.

  187. Oh come on

    m0nty. Meltdown imminent – insert your moron control rods now!

  188. Oh come on

    I know this has already been noted, but it’s worth posting again:

    According to American public radio network NPR, Justice Ginsburg dictated a statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera just days before her death, as her strength waned: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

    Staying out of the political process (and staying classy) right to the end.

  189. Last time the conservative states tried nullification, they got they got slaughtered. Literally.

    When putsch comes to tschove, the South always loses.

  190. Oh come on

    m0nty. You’re all worked up and it’s affecting your ability to type and write coherent sentences. You keep repeating the same point. And that pun was awful. Take a break.

  191. dover_beach

    Republicans trying to start a civil war on behalf of the busted-arse flyover states and calling the rich blue states losers, LOL.

    Dear oh dear.

  192. Oh come on

    m0nty, think of all the wonders in life. It’s not too late to make a better choice!

    But if you are going to do it, make sure it’s not where children could find you.

  193. Onya OCO, bouncing up and down like a jackrabbit. Bless.

  194. Oh come on

    And don’t forget, m0nts. Cut across the wrists if it’s just a cry for help.

  195. Prior to RGB’s death, there was a huge enthusiasm gap. It not only showed up in polling, but is visible.
    Now the left have something to rally around. The SCOTUS situation wasn’t even on the agenda. It is now.
    Trump will nominate. It’s his duty to do so. McConnell should confirm to take the SCOTUS question out of the equation. If not, Trump will still win, but McConnell will lose the senate. Then it’s 4 years of lame duck.

    Bork, Thomas, Kavanaugh were all trashed by the Democrats who have difficulty accepting any defeat and try to win by all means necessary.
    Hell, they still haven’t accepted the 2016 result.

    Stuff playing nice guy. Ram the nominee through and get the SCOTUS question off the agenda. Anything else is Republicans snatching defeat from the jaws of victory….yet again.

  196. dover_beach

    Prior to RGB’s death, there was a huge enthusiasm gap. It not only showed up in polling, but is visible.
    Now the left have something to rally around. The SCOTUS situation wasn’t even on the agenda. It is now.

    I don’t buy this for a minute. If Dems couldn’t get enthused by beating Trump then RBG’s death won’t matter.

  197. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Not at all. McConnell wasn’t establishing a principle. He laid out a reason for the Senate delaying the confirmation of a SCOTUS justice because there was a chance that the presidency could fall into the hands of Republican imminently.

    Nope. What he said was:

    Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia.

  198. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Cruel, you imbecile. In your world view, you would have expected the GOP to have voted for a Liberal even when holding the majority.

    You’re such a crass Left wing idiot.

    Nope. But I see you’re putting words in my mouth again, rather than respond to my actual comment.

  199. dover_beach

    How demented must you be to claim as monty does that Republicans want to start a civil war when Dems have been rioting in cities since May, their last presidential nominee is counselling the party to not concede post-election under any circumstances, and Dem zombies on twiiter are now claiming that any replacement of RBG will only occur over their dead bodies. Tone it down you soy boy morons.

  200. The US Civil War started (in part) over nullification. It’s a serious thing.

    Trump and McConnell are going to try to ram their drone through. If they get the votes, they get smashed in the election just like 2018 and Biden packs the court. If they don’t get the votes, they get beaten anyway and lose everything.

  201. dover_beach

    Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia.

    Oh, FelixK, McConnell mentions the distinguishing marks that I raised in my follow-up comment. Trump is not a lame duck. The president and Senate align. He also adds that the Senate swtiched in 2015 which allowed him to argue that their was popular support behind him. Next! As I said, different fact situations yield differing determinations.

  202. JC

    Nope. But I see you’re putting words in my mouth again, rather than respond to my actual comment.

    You self described as a crass leftwing idiot? Okay. What was your actual comment as you’ve made many ridiculous ones on this thread?

  203. If Trump is not a lame duck then he can wait until he gets re-elected.

  204. That would be irresponsible, monty.

    “To prove he’s not a lame duck, he’s got to act like one”

  205. Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.

    Well said, that man.

  206. Didn’t they have an election in 2016 – valid through to Jan 20, 2021?

  207. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Oh, FelixK, McConnell mentions the distinguishing marks that I raised in my follow-up comment. Trump is not a lame duck. The president and Senate align. He also adds that the Senate swtiched in 2015 which allowed him to argue that their was popular support behind him. Next! As I said, different fact situations yield differing determinations.

    Not quite. He primarily relies on it being an election year No mention of president and senate aligning. And he mentions the last election (which was no mandate for republicans) not the last senate election. He’s retconning you.

  208. FelixKruell

    JC:

    What was your actual comment as you’ve made many ridiculous ones on this thread?

    Scroll up, it’s all there in black and white…

    Next time read first, then throw personal insults around. Or better yet, ditch the personal insults altogether.

  209. JC

    Cruel..

    You’ve made numerous stupid, one-sided partisan assertions. Which one are you referring to that you modestly believe won the sweeps for you? There are too many half-witted remarks to know which one you’re pointing at.

  210. “If you control the Senate and your opponents ended cloture and you warned them not to, you have no mandate”

    The Senate was never meant to have a single election be the determiner of mandate, hence the staggering of Senate elections.

    Felix you really are taking the piss today.

  211. dover_beach

    Not quite. He primarily relies on it being an election year No mention of president and senate aligning. And he mentions the last election (which was no mandate for republicans) not the last senate election. He’s retconning you.

    Not at all. It isn’t merely an election year that he is relying on, it is an election year in which the sitting President must retire. He doesn’t need to mention the Presidency and Senate aligning because where they do his reasoning has otiose. Lastly, he’s clearly referring to the 2014 mid-terms were the Dems lost the Senate. Your attempted gaslighting has failed.

  212. Oh come on

    Here’s what McConnell is saying now:

    Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year. By contrast, Americans re-elected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise.

    Now, if you’re not a Republican, you aren’t going to accept this rationale. Fair enough. He actually does make a distinction between the circumstances today compared with those in 2016. You might say this distinction is splitting hairs, invalid, whatever. Maybe so. You can say it goes against the spirit of the position he took in 2016. Ok, fine, sure. You may think this is a partisan call. It absolutely is.

    The fact is that what’s important when all is said and done is that McConnell has the numbers on paper, he thinks he can get enough of them on board, and he’s going to use them. If anyone is surprised by this, they shouldn’t be. I’m not saying they have to like it, but they shouldn’t be surprised. And they haven’t been wronged, either. As I’ve said many times prior, if their guy was in McConnell’s shoes, he’d do exactly the same.

  213. dover_beach

    And they haven’t been wronged, either.

    Indeed. It wasn’t as if the Senate majority in 2016 was Dem and they were persuaded by McConnell as Senate minority leader to stay their hand. They would have laughed and appointed Garland.

  214. FelixKruell

    Oh come on:

    As I’ve said many times prior, if their guy was in McConnell’s shoes, he’d do exactly the same.

    Remind me how many times a Democrat majority Senate has refused to even consider a presidents nominee for the Supreme Court, because it was an election year…or for any reason really.

  215. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Here ya go..save you tiring out that scrolling finger:

    So amusing to see how many people here pick a side, rather than a principle.

    If it was wrong for the Senate to consider Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court just before an election, then it is wrong for the Senate to consider Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court just before an election.

    If the senate should have considered Obama’s nominee, then the senate should consider Trump’s nominee.

    I support the latter.

    McConnells weasel words show he’s just being partisan, and not following a consistent principle. Big surprise, given he’s a politician. But we should be calling out the hypocrisy, regardless of which side does it. Otherwise, you’re just a partisan hack.

    Now, feel free to explain how that comment is “a stupid, one-sided, partisan assertion”

  216. dover_beach

    Remind me how many times a Democrat majority Senate has refused to even consider a presidents nominee for the Supreme Court, because it was an election year…or for any reason really.

    Who cares? The situation of a surprise SCOTUS opening occurring when the Presidency and the Senate are not aligned hardly ever happens. Moreover, is there any effective difference between rejecting a nominee and simply not conducting a hearing? You could make a good case that the latter is less jarring for the nominee.

  217. Oh come on

    All right, all right. Let’s cut the shit and deal in cold hard facts that nobody is disputing. In 2016, McConnell legally exercised his ability to not confirm Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, Merrick Garland. Over the next few weeks, McConnell is going to (or at least attempt to) confirm Trump’s SCOTUS nominee.

    This is all perfectly legal and entirely within the remit of the position of Senate Majority Leader.

    Whether people think McConnell has acted properly or improperly with regard to the above will soon be known beyond any doubt. If they think McConnell has acted improperly, they will have a political solution available to them on November 3rd.

    Discussion closed.

  218. Haha, OCO’s conscience is gnawing at him. Give it up mate, embrace your role as the baddie.

  219. Rex Anger

    Haha, OCO’s conscience is gnawing at him. Give it up mate, embrace your role as the baddie.

    Lolwut, mUnted?

    What conscience, fool? What baddie? Are you projecting again, mUnted?

    You got the Revolutionary State of Viktoristan you and your fellow leftwits have always drooled over and dreamed dirty dreams about for so long. Why are you fools not deliriously celebrating your freedom to live exactly as you are told? Why are you wasting your joy time howling about a situation in a foreign land , that you have no control over? Or is it only OK for you and your ‘Revolutionary’ friends to be crushed under the jackboot of a Socialist Utopia if everyone else in the world is as well?

    You are an appallingly poor inheritor of the legacies of Joe, Vlad and Leon, mUnted. Karl would be disgusted. Ditto Marcuse, Foucaeult and Robespierre. Even fat doctor Ché and his paymasters Fudel and Raùl would have no time for you.

  220. dover_beach

    Politically, nominating and appointing before the election works for Trump. It takes the SCOTUS pick off the table. And the Dems can’t reverse it if they win. It also neuters any get out the vote rhetoric as the damage is done. They can just pound sand. If they riot, this also will move more Independents into the Trump column. It’s a win/ win.

  221. Oh come on

    Haha, OCO’s conscience is gnawing at him

    I’m totally fine, m0nts. Things are great. You, however, appear to be on the verge of taking a toaster into the bath. Try to relax.

  222. FelixKruell

    Dover:

    Who cares?

    I thought you did? But it turns out you only care about the side, not the principle…

  223. dover_beach

    I thought you did? But it turns out you only care about the side, not the principle…

    Not at all. You asked a silly question which I answered. You have nothing to hang anything on now which is why you’ve retreated into snark.

    On the point about side vs principle, I prefer principle every day. If the Dems were nominating SCOTUS picks of the caliber of Thomas or Alito I would be happy to see them waved through. However, I’m not going to prioritize procedure over substance and that isn’t conceding that in this instance Trump nominating a replacement and the Senate hearing and confirming the nomination constitutes a break in procedure. As explained earlier, McConnell as Senate majority leader is perfectly within his rights to conduct the hearing now as he was to defer the hearing until after the election back then, and his reasons are perfectly fair then and now.

  224. That’s it OCO, might as well enjoy being the villain. Revel in your bastardry!

  225. Oh come on

    Thanks for that affirmation, m0nts. If you think I’m the villain, I’m clearly in the right.

Comments are closed.