RBG Has Died

[nastynice]

He'd probably get more votes if he said he was going to wait to appoint a Justice until after the election because then he could tell every Republican he needs their vote or else Democrats will appoint the Justice.

Hmm, lol, hold them hostage!

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[GGGGG-Men]

Everything in DC is partisanship . But……There is partisanship and there is partisanship

Show me where the repubs did something like……

The Bork appointment
The Thomas appointment
The Kavanaugh appointment

Screaming outside people's homes

Threatening to "burn it all down"

Lying about Romney's tax returns

Impeachment over nothing

Whining about voter suppression after a loss.

Sometimes you just lose. Sometimes the landscape changes against you by happenstance.

Tge Dems can't take it.

You’re kidding right? Sending death threats to dem leaders, doctors who perform abortions, claiming Obama wasn’t even a citizen, staging a riot and storming a county clerk office in 2000 to intimidate people recounting votes, making up lies about pedophilia rings to the point where someone showed up at a pizza place with a gun, etc etc

Whining about voter suppression? Honestly, you’re going to tell me that whining about that problem is worse than creating the problem (lest I remind you there’s actual settled court cases and audio of gop reps admitting to these tactics).

Both sides are horrible in this. Debating the degrees of how bad each side is just distracts from the core problem. We are lead by two corrupt parties that profit off our bitter divisions. Cable media profits when they ran the flames. Social media profits when they force engagement and fights.

[valade16]

It's like you are ignorant on history. This is the Biden rule in 2016. You can blame the dems if you want to be truthful.

Yes, Dems definitely changed things that allowed Republicans to do what they're about to do. But Republicans rationale is they are doing it because they can. Cool. So if Democrats win all 3 of the White House, the Senate, and the House they will be able to change the number because they can. Same rationale.

If you don't think they should, maybe Republicans should not do this simply because they can.

[brett05]

Yes, Dems definitely changed things that allowed Republicans to do what they're about to do. But Republicans rationale is they are doing it because they can. Cool. So if Democrats win all 3 of the White House, the Senate, and the House they will be able to change the number because they can. Same rationale.

If you don't think they should, maybe Republicans should not do this simply because they can.

Does the constitution not say the President nominates and the senate considers and ultimately votes for approval? It was Biden that wanted that part to be ignored.

[Scoots]

There would be no lawsuit. It’s a simple law that substitutes the number 9 for another. It’s perfectly constitutional and has been done dozens of times. If modifying it isn’t constitutional then the court has a sticky deal of untangling what the number of justices is. But it wouldn’t be 9 because it was made to 9 by the 1869 law that would also de facto be unconstitutional.

You are right that it's not in the constitution ... I do wonder about the "dozens of times" ... has the official total number of seats changed 24+ times?

[valade16]

Does the constitution not say the President nominates and the senate considers and ultimately votes for approval? It was Biden that wanted that part to be ignored.

A bad example considering the last time that didn't happen was in 2016 when the Senate refused to even consider the nomination of the President. If this is the way it should have gone, then why weren't you upset at the Senate for not doing it as the Constitution states it should be done in 2016?

[Sluggo1]

Of course I'm OK with it. If Republicans are going to be OK with being gigantic hypocrites to get another SC Justice on the court before this election then why wouldn't I be?

The thing that would stop Republicans from doing it is they'd have to control all 3 of the White House, the Senate and the House.

The reason Democrats would add 4 SC Justices to the court is the exact same reason Republicans are saying they can appoint a new SC Justice before this election: because they can.

If Republicans don't want this to happen, maybe they should stop being hypocrites and appointing a Justice simply because they have the ability to do so.

But I bet you are against gerrymandering though, aren't you???

Packing the court, adding phony states is just like gerrymandering……adjusting political entities to get what you want.

So if packing the court is OK and gerrymandering is not…who is the hypocrite here????


And for the record (again) Merrit Garland should have had hearings. The repubs should not have refused.

[Sluggo1]

You’re kidding right? Sending death threats to dem leaders, doctors who perform abortions, claiming Obama wasn’t even a citizen, staging a riot and storming a county clerk office in 2000 to intimidate people recounting votes, making up lies about pedophilia rings to the point where someone showed up at a pizza place with a gun, etc etc

Whining about voter suppression? Honestly, you’re going to tell me that whining about that problem is worse than creating the problem (lest I remind you there’s actual settled court cases and audio of gop reps admitting to these tactics).

Both sides are horrible in this. Debating the degrees of how bad each side is just distracts from the core problem. We are lead by two corrupt parties that profit off our bitter divisions. Cable media profits when they ran the flames. Social media profits when they force engagement and fights.

Writing letters by wackos……that's the same as your "peaceful protests." Claiming BO wasn't a citizen……any business burned down over that???

How many cities had riots this year???? They were all dems.

Has there ever been violent protests over SC justices from the right like there was for Bork, Thomas, and Kava??? If so, I never saw it.

Any repubs screaming outside of dems homes, yelling at them in the streets and restaurants??? If so I've missed those.

Which party has caused cities the most $$$ this summer??? Get back to me on that one.

Voter suppression………show me. All anyone has to do is a few months before an election, call the local county election supervisor and ask "What do I have to do or need to vote in the November election?" Then when they tell you…just go do it. People too stupid to figure it out or too lazy to do it are quick to cry suppression. It only exists if you let it exist.

You're kidding right???

[Scoots]

Can we limit this thread to just talking about RBG and have the general SC discussion in the new SC thread?

[valade16]

But I bet you are against gerrymandering though, aren't you???

Packing the court, adding phony states is just like gerrymandering……adjusting political entities to get what you want.

So if packing the court is OK and gerrymandering is not…who is the hypocrite here????

And for the record (again) Merrit Garland should have had hearings. The repubs should not have refused.

Oh, packing the court and gerrymandering are both wrong. But if one side does it, then it's OK for the other side to do it too unless both sides agree to stop and make things equal again.

And as for your admission Garland should have had a hearing. It's easy to say it should have happened when you're about to get everything you want. Your sentiment won't stop Republicans from nominating and adding a 6th Justice now despite their blatant hypocrisy.

The fact that it didn't happen is why I'm perfectly OK with adding Justices to the court by Democrats. If Republicans don't want court packing, they should probably not try to pack the court with a nominee less than 2 months from an election.

[Sluggo1]

You are right that it's not in the constitution ... I do wonder about the "dozens of times" ... has the official total number of seats changed 24+ times?

It has not changed from 9 justices in 150 years.

This is a very bad precedent to be setting and it will make things far worse than it is now.

The court has been liberal for 50 years or more and conservatives had to sit put and live with it. No one was looking for repub admins to pack the court conservative.

Some of you are apoplectic over this. Why is this change so hard for some of you to take?? What will happen with a conservative court that will change your life as you know it??? What is the big concern here???

[valade16]

It has not changed from 9 justices in 150 years.

This is a very bad precedent to be setting and it will make things far worse than it is now.

The court has been liberal for 50 years or more and conservatives had to sit put and live with it. No one was looking for repub admins to pack the court conservative.

Some of you are apoplectic over this. Why is this change so hard for some of you to take?? What will happen with a conservative court that will change your life as you know it??? What is the big concern here???

As was not considering Garland and ramming through a SC Justice with 2 months to an election.

[spliff(TONE)]

I don't see how the SC nom assures him winning.

Neither do I.

Here here.

[Sluggo1]

Oh, packing the court and gerrymandering are both wrong. But if one side does it, then it's OK for the other side to do it too unless both sides agree to stop and make things equal again.

And as for your admission Garland should have had a hearing. It's easy to say it should have happened when you're about to get everything you want. Your sentiment won't stop Republicans from nominating and adding a 6th Justice now despite their blatant hypocrisy.

The fact that it didn't happen is why I'm perfectly OK with adding Justices to the court by Democrats. If Republicans don't want court packing, they should probably not try to pack the court with a nominee less than 2 months from an election.

Bolded………I said it when it occurred.

And no matter what happen with Garland and will happen with Ruthie croaking…that is not a reason to change the structure of our society and, by setting precedent, opening the door to the opposite party doing the same thing. It is a very bad idea.

Look, I know you are all PO'd over Garland not being heard and this one being pushed thru but that is how the cards fell…and this has been done numerous times in the past…numerous times. Nothing new here. But you do not change the structure of the country over something like bad luck happening to you party.


And don't forget……all of this could have been avoided if Ruthie would have simply retired during the BO admin. She was certain Hilly would win in 2016 and decided to wait a few more years. So her poor planning is really what led to all this. She could have easily retired at 82, gotten all the legal giant accolades, done some speeches and enjoyed being adored for the rest of her life. She could have picked her own replacement. But she didn't. Instead, she died as a fragile old woman with people waiting for her to kick the bucket. And no one wants to talk about this.

[spliff(TONE)]

Great post (I suppose.)

But it has nothing to do with why can't dems just lose gracefully. Why can't they accept a loss???

You do realize Trump continuously says that the only way he'll lose is if there is voter fraud?