Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87
Category: News & Politics
Via: texan1211 • 4 years ago • 179 commentsBy: By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press 25 mins ago (MSN)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87
WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a diminutive yet towering women's rights champion who became the court's second female justice, died Friday at her home in Washington. She was 87.
© Provided by Associated Press FILE - In this April 6, 2018, file photo, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg applauds after a performance in her honor after she spoke about her life and work during a discussion at Georgetown Law School in Washington. The Supreme Court says Ginsburg has died of metastatic pancreatic cancer at age 87. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon, File)
Ginsburg died of complications from metastatic pancreatic cancer, the court said.
Ginsberg's death just over six weeks before Election Day is likely to set off a heated battle over whether President Donald Trump should nominate, and the Republican-led Senate should confirm, her replacement, or if the seat should remain vacant until the outcome of his race against Democrat Joe Biden is known.
Ginsburg announced in July that she was undergoing chemotherapy treatment for lesions on her liver, the latest of her several battles with cancer.
Ginsburg spent her final years on the bench as the unquestioned leader of the court's liberal wing and became something of a rock star to her admirers. Young women especially seemed to embrace the court's Jewish grandmother, affectionately calling her the Notorious RBG, for her defense of the rights of women and minorities, and the strength and resilience she displayed in the face of personal loss and health crises.
Those health issues included five bouts with cancer beginning in 1999, falls that resulted in broken ribs, insertion of a stent to clear a blocked artery and assorted other hospitalizations after she turned 75.
She resisted calls by liberals to retire during Barack Obama's presidency at a time when Democrats held the Senate and a replacement with similar views could have been confirmed. Instead, Trump will almost certainly try to push Ginsburg's successor through the Republican-controlled Senate — and move the conservative court even more to the right.
Ginsburg antagonized Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign in a series of media interviews, including calling him a faker. She soon apologized.
Her appointment by President Bill Clinton in 1993 was the first by a Democrat in 26 years. She initially found a comfortable ideological home somewhere left of center on a conservative court dominated by Republican appointees. Her liberal voice grew stronger the longer she served.
Ginsburg was a mother of two, an opera lover and an intellectual who watched arguments behind oversized glasses for many years, though she ditched them for more fashionable frames in her later years. At argument sessions in the ornate courtroom, she was known for digging deep into case records and for being a stickler for following the rules.
She argued six key cases before the court in the 1970s when she was an architect of the women's rights movement. She won five.
"Ruth Bader Ginsburg does not need a seat on the Supreme Court to earn her place in the American history books," Clinton said at the time of her appointment. "She has already done that."
© Provided by Associated Press FILE - In this Feb. 6, 2017 file photo, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaks at Stanford University in Stanford, Calif. The Supreme Court says Ginsburg has died of metastatic pancreatic cancer at age 87. (AP Photo/Marcio Jose Sanchez, File)
On the court, where she was known as a facile writer, her most significant majority opinions were the 1996 ruling that ordered the Virginia Military Institute to accept women or give up its state funding, and the 2015 decision that upheld independent commissions some states use to draw congressional districts.
Besides civil rights, Ginsburg took an interest in capital punishment, voting repeatedly to limit its use. During her tenure, the court declared it unconstitutional for states to execute the intellectually disabled and killers younger than 18.
In addition, she questioned the quality of lawyers for poor accused murderers. In the most divisive of cases, including the Bush v. Gore decision in 2000, she was often at odds with the court's more conservative members — initially Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
© Provided by Associated Press FILE - In this July 31, 2014, file photo, Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is seen in her chambers in at the Supreme Court in Washington. The Supreme Court says Ginsburg has died of metastatic pancreatic cancer at age 87. (AP Photo/Cliff Owen, File)
The division remained the same after John Roberts replaced Rehnquist as chief justice, Samuel Alito took O'Connor's seat, and, under Trump, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh joined the court, in seats that had been held by Scalia and Kennedy, respectively.
Ginsburg would say later that the 5-4 decision that settled the 2000 presidential election for Republican George W. Bush was a "breathtaking episode" at the court.
She was perhaps personally closest on the court to Scalia, her ideological opposite. Ginsburg once explained that she took Scalia's sometimes biting dissents as a challenge to be met. "How am I going to answer this in a way that's a real putdown?" she said.
When Scalia died in 2016, also an election year, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell refused to act on Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to fill the opening. The seat remained vacant until after Trump's surprising presidential victory. McConnell has said he would move to confirm a Trump nominee if there were a vacancy this year.
Ginsburg authored powerful dissents of her own in cases involving abortion, voting rights and pay discrimination against women. She said some were aimed at swaying the opinions of her fellow judges while others were "an appeal to the intelligence of another day" in the hopes that they would provide guidance to future courts.
"Hope springs eternal," she said in 2007, "and when I am writing a dissent, I'm always hoping for that fifth or sixth vote — even though I'm disappointed more often than not."
She wrote memorably in 2013 that the court's decision to cut out a key part of the federal law that had ensured the voting rights of Black people, Hispanics and other minorities was "like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."
Change on the court hit Ginsburg especially hard. She dissented forcefully from the court's decision in 2007 to uphold a nationwide ban on an abortion procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion. The court, with O'Connor still on it, had struck down a similar state ban seven years earlier. The "alarming" ruling, Ginsburg said, "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court — and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."
© Provided by Associated Press FILE - In this June 15, 1993, file photo, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg poses with Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., left, and Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington. The Supreme Court says Ginsburg has died of metastatic pancreatic cancer at age 87. (AP Photo/Marcy Nighswander, File)
In 1999, Ginsburg had surgery for colon cancer and received radiation and chemotherapy. She had surgery again in 2009 after being diagnosed with pancreatic cancer and in December 2018 for cancerous growths on her left lung. Following the last surgery, she missed court sessions for the first time in more than 25 years on the bench.
Ginsburg also was treated with radiation for a tumor on her pancreas in August 2019. She maintained an active schedule even during the three weeks of radiation. When she revealed a recurrence of her cancer in July 2020, Ginsburg said she remained "fully able" to continue as a justice.
Joan Ruth Bader was born in Brooklyn, New York, in 1933, the second daughter in a middle-class family. Her older sister, who gave her the lifelong nickname "Kiki," died at age 6, so Ginsburg grew up in Brooklyn's Flatbush section as an only child. Her dream, she has said, was to be an opera singer.
Ginsburg graduated at the top of her Columbia University law school class in 1959 but could not find a law firm willing to hire her. She had "three strikes against her" — for being Jewish, female and a mother, as she put it in 2007.
She had married her husband, Martin, in 1954, the year she graduated from Cornell University. She attended Harvard University's law school but transferred to Columbia when her husband took a law job there. Martin Ginsburg went on to become a prominent tax attorney and law professor. Martin Ginsburg died in 2010. She is survived by two children, Jane and James, and several grandchildren.
Ginsburg once said that she had not entered the law as an equal-rights champion. "I thought I could do a lawyer's job better than any other," she wrote. "I have no talent in the arts, but I do write fairly well and analyze problems clearly."
Continue ReadingShow full articles without "Continue Reading" button for {0} hours.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
505 visitors
This makes the third Justice Trump will get to select.
And now we know what the biggest news will be from here to Election Day.
Let the screaming commence!
Depends on if McConnell tries to ignore the Biden rule he used against Merrick Garland and what ( if any ) excuse he uses.
If Trump wins, he gets to pick someone next year, If not someone else will and I don't believe Cruz, Giuliani or Graham will be on the short list.
I would prefer a balanced Court, not stacked with either ideology and a POTUS to see the wisdom in that, like most Presidents of the past.
We will have to see on Nov 03, 2020 which way the wind blows our history.
They already have an excuse lined up although I dont remember it exactly. It has to do with the fact that when Garland was going to be nominated the Senate majority was with the opposite party from the president, and this time the senate majority is from the same party as the president. Not sure why they think that matters, but expect that to be the reason they go through with it.
Perhaps you would, but rumor has it the far left Dems want to stack the court.
No excuses needed. The left convinced me there is no such thing as the Biden Rule.
Even if Trump doesn't win, he can select someone tomorrow if he so chooses.
Perhaps, or we could have a new Justice by then.
No excuse necessary. If Trump nominates someone, the Senate may or may not act on it.
McConnell stated several months ago that he would not hesitate to confirm a new Justice nominated by Trump prior to the election.
She should be replaced as soon as possible while Republicans still control the Senate, although a Biden win isn't very likely.
As is his perogative.
McConnell and Trump are up for reelection...
I doubt they will choose to piss everyone off.
But, that is their prerogative! I say, "Go for it!"
They also will they need Collins and Romney.
Nevermind! You have it all figured out already.
From what I read, you have to go back to the 1980's to find a Senate that confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year. I'm not sure of all the political calculations going on or how it's all going to turn out but I'm confident in my opinion that if the parties were reversed with the Dem's holding both the Senate and the WH that they would be pushing for a nomination.
It's also time to stock up on popcorn and your favorite drinks because it's going to be loud. McConnell has stated that any nomination by President Trump will get a vote on the floor. Now I don't know for sure if that will happen, a lot of this is partisian politics talking.
So I have heard.
The only ones I have heard in the least pissed off are all Democrats.
Hardly everyone.
Yes, that has been clearly established and agreed to by most.
No, McConnell can't confirm anyone. It's not his "perogative". In case you didn't know, it takes a majority of the Senate to confirm a Justice.
I do know, thanks for dropping by.
Just providing a necessary correction to your inaccurate response to my comment.
Okay, great!
Very good John. It's because the "reasoning" is that the people have shown unity on the issue of the Court by electing a Republican President and a Republican Senate. Clearly it is just a technicality to use the will majority if McConnell wants to. I'm not sure he does. Keeping a GOP majority in the Senate should be priority one. If it jeopardizes Republican Senators the matter should wait until after the election. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins already said they would not vote to fill a SCOTUS vacancy before the election.
The Democrats in the Senate represent 15,000,000 more Americans than the Republicans. Hillary Clinton received 3,000,000 more votes than Trump. To contend that "the people" have shown unity by electing Trump and the Republican Senate majority is a falsehood.
The election of 2016 stands, as does the ones in 2018.
Simple fact is that the President has a duty to nominate, the Senate has a duty to confirm or reject, and there really isn't much Democrats can do about it.
I look forward to President Biden's 6 appointees being confirmed to the new 15 member Supreme Court.
Take the damn seat, and let's all see if the experiment of being ruthless Americans who turn back the clock on reality to a darker time will succeed. I'm interested to see if today's Americans can live in a faux reality of the 50's.
I bet that it won't happen in your lifetime.
Saner heads will prevail, and no new Justices will be added during a Biden Presidency--if he wins.
Being a lawyer--you of all people should easily recognize the dangers of stacking the court politically. if you don't or can't, I am sorry.
Calm down. The world isn't going to end because of Justice Ginsburg's death.
"Take the seat"? By nominating someone to fill a vacancy like every President does?
I am sorry you have such little respect for every other member of SCOTUS.
I don't think the very vast majority of people want a return to the Democratic Jim Crow days. There might be a few nut jobs out there wanting it, but they are a miniscule minority,
the Senate has a duty to confirm or reject
Which is exactly what the what the republicans didn't do in the case of Garland as he didn't even get a hearing. Why won't republicans respect the Constitution?
sorry, but Garland isn't the to[pic and really has nothing to do with Trump's ability to nominate someone.
Do two wrongs make a right to you?
Garland is the very topic here. A precedent was set. It was also set by Lincoln.
Wow, such a sad statement by you. Lincoln, the father of the Republican party was a righteous man. I trust his judgment over most.
I wouldn't be so certain it won't happen.
The Republicans already ARE stacking the court politically. That is the clear and present danger. Adding additional Supreme Court Justices would be an effective counter-measure, if necessary.
No, some may wish he were the topic, but he isn't. He just isn't.
And Lincoln wasn't the father of the Republican Party. He wasn't even the first Presidential candidate that the party ran.
As a lawyer, I had hopes you at least would be able to discern the dangers of what you are suggesting.
That's called rejecting him.
I understand the arguments on both sides.
( deleted )
Sorry, Garland became part of the topic when you responded to comment 1.1 rather than flag it as of topic.
I certainly see no evidence of it.
Sure, Garland is mentioned in the article and therefore MUST be the topic.
Got it.
Thanks.
I rarely flag for off topic, as it seems like it is rather meaningless.
Of course the world is not going to end. Thankfully, conservatives won't be in control of the third branch of the world court. So miss me with your 'advice.' And you can play coy all you want, Texan. Shit is going to hit the fan in a big way from now on and if Trump supporters expect to find great joy in life going forward it will be far and in-betweens. Liberals have there call to action in spades.
Most (not all) Trump supporters are gross liars as this incident is plainly illustrating in the senate, period. Most Trump supporters have limited honor that I can respect. Full stop.
What third branch of what world court???????????????????????
Sorry, but I really have no clue what you are going on about here.
What world court has a third branch?
Or what world court have conservatives ever been in control of?
Way to make it personal and insulting at the same time.
Some Trump supporters speak with forked tongues. When they can not defeat you with the truth, many Trump supporters will lie and hide the truth under a rock. History repeats itself in a new form.
Some Trump conservatives want "ancestral" powers in America. Let's be clear. This is not about morals -they won't speak with you on the subject; this is not about religion - they won't confess anything; this is not about economics - the virus handicapped Donald Trump on the merits, this is not about decency, civility, or honor - Trump supporters leave the discussion with shouts of derision about "virtue signalling."
This is about an ancient belief that While males took and own this country because they subordinated this land's native people and to the victors comes the spoils. To the so-called, "victor" goes the wealth and the constitution which originally spoke to their power alone—and none others.
We've tipped-toed long enough about what Trump supporters are "shouting" with their take-over government principles! They want this country under white male dominance at all and may be any cause.
Don't let it worry you, Texan. Don't be a master of passing remarks. Read them, glean what you can out of it, and move on. My (that) statement was hastily written and I was distracted, but I don't plan on doing a rewrite of it. Interpret it and move the hell on.
[Deleted]
Clear English: I DON'T CARE.
then why are you even bothering to comment?
Why are you? Oh, you CARE. Really, Texan?
yes, I do.
enough said
Deleted
Then why didn't they win the Presidency and take control of the Senate?
Because that is not the way our election process works- so they don't really matter. The Republicans in the Senate are beholden to their constituents that put them in office; and that doesn't included the 15 million you speak of.
that's where your wrong, obama's pick was "rejected by the senate
no need for a vote when they know they already know they would not support the pick.
Not according to McConnell.
Really? What evidence do you have that the 6 Republican Senators still in office in 2016, that voted to confirm Garland to the DC court, wouldn't vote to confirm him for the SCOTUS?
There is no evidence, that is the entire point. The GOP stance is entirely based on an unknowable. The US Senate should not work like that.
You never know John, 8 may have a super secret source that only he is privy to that he can share...
oh well. I guess we will see soon,
Liberty for all has just suffered a near fatal blow. However, one way or the other liberty will survive. Thank you Justice Ginsberg for your 'lifetime' of service.
A tad melodramatic.
So you know that it isn't anywhere near a "near fatal blow".
Agreed.
That would be that "White, straight, male privilege" thing stirring at this advent of new opportunities to regress (again).
Yes! Liberty got up off its ass once and freed the oppressed in 'America' and it looks like the old 'girl' will have to reignite the fire in her belly and run on yet again; without one of her fallen stalwarts!
Civil rights has been kicked repeatedly and driven do its knees this year, but after several strong breaths, up the tired old girl goes to run on to see what the end going to be!
Ruth, I knew your dress had begun to rip; I was watching you from a distance. No one could take the great blows you were withstanding and not be bruised, battered, and at a loss. Friends for life dear lady. You made dreams reality for me. And so I danced, I danced for life briefly, and it was a joy for me and many to behold!
Doris Day - Que Sera Sera
Mmmm.......sorry, but I can't jump on the Chicken Little The Sky is Falling train.
No matter. You didn't lose anything today in this bit of disaster news. As for me, I'll make it alright. I have no choice. I've lived long enough to see both sides now.
My solemn tribute to Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg:
Joni Mitchell - Both Sides Now (Official Audio)
Ruth, I have watched you since you entered my life, and made an impressionable impact. So now I am in tears, because you helped me know life with a smile I couldn't have known without you. Kisses, my "Lady Day." Go now! Light us the night out there.
We all lost a respected Supreme Court Justice.
Just remember, liberty and justice always eventually win, even if they have set backs. Progressive's and liberals always see to that, conservatives can gnash their teeth and dig in their heels against it but as Dr. King once said “ the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice". These cowards who are so fearful their current dip shit and chief is going to lose they will do anything to try to cling to power have shown who they really are and that they cannot be trusted. I believe the American people will see it for what it is and if they choose to do this regardless of the cost, the eventual cost will be higher than they can ever imagine.
Her last dying wish will not be honored.
Dismayed Patriot, she gave us her all. She kept the course! She honored, us. She did not take the easy way out. She found "good trouble" and thumped its butt in her day! She locked her sails towards oblivion and she took off fiercely! "Long live the memory of "Notorious RBG."
her last wish isn't for her to decide.
It most certainly was hers to decide.
Whether it's honored by a wholly dishonorable man is another matter.
parse. parse, parse.
POTUS has no obligation to satisfy any of her wishes.
Still having an issue recognizing that words matter I see. Analysis of a word is relevant in a venue where words are our main form of communication Tex.
Which is why it's ironic that you seem to think that you're insulting me by saying I parse words when in this venue it's actually a compliment.
So thanks, thanks, thanks.
Never said he did, DID I Tex?
no. you didn't, which is precisely why I never said you did!
BTW, instead of asking if you wrote something, simply refer back to what you wrote!
[Deleted]
She really was a strong woman. I am sorry to hear of her passing. Rest easy Ruth.
I expect women voters will be paying close attention.
Her death is national news. Everyone is paying attention. Do you really think women will be paying any closer attention to the news of her death than men?
Maybe not "paying closer attention" but definitely feeling less represented. Women are 50% of our citizens yet now just 2 out of 8 supreme court justices. And yes, some worthless pieces of shit might claim that's more than there were back in the 1950's that they so desperately want to get back to with their precious white Christian patriarchy running America, but I think most women will take this into consideration as they vote this November, and if one was on the fence about the stakes in this election, I have no doubt how Republicans handle the next 46 days will definitely play a part in their decisions.
Right. Because for progressives, identity politics is what matters to women. All that matters is a judge like their VP nominee, checks the right boxes in the diversity Olympics.
. So if Trump nominates a woman, problem solved.
Ok, true enough. Women are underrepresented in many, many fields.
Oh, gosh, who would ever want to return to the old Democratic Jim Crow days? I don't think even Democrats want that. I am sure there are probably a few nut jobs out there that want that, but they are a miniscule minority.
I suspect conservative women will be happy with just about anyone Trump selects.
And more liberal women would be happy with whoever a Democrat would pick.
I think it breaks down more along ideological lines rather than gender lines.
While other pieces of shit want a woman to be president, not because she would make the best president, but because she’s a woman.
if all the left wants is a woman?
amy barrett would do...
Well, that's thinking like a sane person. Remember, a segment of the left is so obsessed with race and gender that biological factors are just as , if not more, important to them. Hence, openly wanting a black woman to be VP, with race and gender being the most important qualifications.
Absolutely.
I don't think women are more aware of her death than men are.
Sorry.
A woman of strong principles.
RIP great lady.
Thank you, Sunshine for not discussing today. Very decent of you.
She was indeed. For once we can be in agreement. I will definitely hold her up as a role model for my daughters when they are old enough.
She made a big difference in my daughters lives
Anyone confident in a Trump win should be pushing for McConnell to stick to his word and let the next elected President decide. If not then that really tells us how insecure and desperate they really are.
All those who who are nothing but worthless slimy piece of shit hypocrites will of course demand Trump continue to wipe his dirty ass on our nation and constitution by supporting the sniveling weasel McConnell as he shamelessly shows America just how much we should trust his word and goes ahead with a nomination that just four years ago he held for nearly 11 months supposedly on "principle". But I get it, we can't expect Republicans to have principles or ethics anymore, many have all but abandoned any reason, logic or patriotism. Those who will push to replace her before her body is even cold are just dogs of Trump groveling at the feet of their master desperate for the crumps from his corrupt table. Any patriotic American would feel shame for even thinking about opportunistically and hypocritically filling this seat at such a time, but I have little faith that any of Trumps sycophantic supporters have even a shred of shame left.
yone confident in a Trump win should be pushing for McConnell to stick to his word and let the next elected President decid
Just like Clnton supporters pushed Obama to follow Biden's advice and let the next elected President nominate a replacement for Scalia?
The elected President is going to decide. The election was in 2016, and hos term is not expired.
It is his duty to nominate someone.
So what?
Can you dust the ceiling fan while perched on your soapbox?
The nerve of talking about hypocrisy when so many Democrats still haven't accepted the result of the election.
They are going to force it through no matter the November results. The rules are broken, in fact they no longer exist.
Please show me the "RULE" that says Trump doesn't get to nominate someone, or that the Senate cannot confirm.
The 2016 "rule" of Mitch McConnell. Again, if the GOP isn't going to honor their own rules, then fuck it, game on.
I was thinking more of dodgeball where you intentionally target the head.
now that, is our kind of game....
the left can even go first
American Democracy is totally fucked lol.
Who knew that the death of one Justice could be the straw that broke the camels back?
The GOP will not play by the same rules that they held "oh so dear" in Obama's last year (who gives a shit that this is 6 weeks before the election), and if the Democrats should take the presidency and senate, I think they should play in kind. Stack the court. Fuck it, there are no rules anymore.
Not everyone will be jumping on that Chicken Little The Sky Is Falling train.
Nothing is broken, get a grip.
I just love it when people refuse to recognize recent history. Do you remember what happened the last time the Senate was in Democratic hands and they changed the rules?
LOL!
Who cares? Frankly if I am a would-be dictator I would prefer that.
The SCOTUS is highly contentious as is, do you really think it would be any less so with a nomination now? Anyone nominated and approved now will be viewed as illegitimate by the majority of the country, which makes the courts rulings illegitimate, which makes the court illegitimate.
Tell me.
so some disgruntled folks will whine and cry. no big deal, they'll get over it, or not.
nothing they can do anyways
You must since you're doing it.
Yes, yes I do and I also remember WHY they changed the rules.
In 4 years, the Republicans blocked 82 of Obama's judicial nominees. In the 40 years prior to that, 86 judicial nominees were blocked in TOTAL. How's that for recognizing recent history?
oh well
Try and prove that.
Oh my bad, it was much worse.
Now refute it with facts or [ Deleted ]
Your numbers are still wrong, likely because you've abused the word filibuster. Out of ignorance, people conflate the invocation of cloture with the existence of a filibuster, which is what Harry Reid and politifact did.
Per the Congressional Research Service:
Although cloture affords the Senate a means for overcoming a filibuster, it is erroneous to assume that cases in which cloture is sought are always the same as those in which a filibuster occurs. Filibusters may occur without cloture being sought, and cloture may be sought when no filibuster is taking place. The reason is that cloture is sought by supporters of a matter, whereas filibusters are conducted by its opponents.”
Harry Reid often sought cloture (which supposedly counts as a "filibuster") and it was not opposed.
The reality is that The CRS data show that of the 147 nominees that faced the cloture gauntlet, just 20 received between 50 and 59 votes and yet did not eventually get confirmed. Fifteen of these people were nominated before Obama became president—and most were derailed when Democrats were in the minority.
The reality, as shown by CRS is that Democrats actually used the filibuster to keep more nominees with majority support from office than Republicans ever did.
Hopefully, after reading this, you'll stop spreading false information.
Fun fact. Under Dulays standard for “blocking nominees” trumps nominees have been blocked more than the nominees by all other presidents combined:
During Trump’s presidency, McConnell and the Senate GOP have held time-sapping roll call votes to break a filibuster and end debate on nominees a whopping 314 times, according to Senate tallies . All previous presidents combined faced 244 roll call votes to advance nominees over a filibuster.
one can only wonder why the media doesn’t talk about this...
Well, we know that is an easy question to answer.
Because much of the media is in the bag for Democrats.
Well gee Sean, since I haven't used the word filibuster, that would be impossible.
Hopefully after reading that, you'll stop posting BS.
Well gee Sean, since I haven't used the word filibuster, that would be impossible.
Dulay in 8.2.6:
Harry Reid was much closer to being correct when he said, "In the history of the United States, 168 presidential nominees have been filibustered, 82 blocked under President Obama, 86 blocked under all the other presidents."
Every time I think you can't make a more blatantly false argument, you go ahead and surprise me.
nice rebuttal, and so precise!
Yours is the blatantly false argument since everyone can see that the comment you cited is block quoted in my post and includes the link. In short, I didn't use the word Sean, the author of the article did.
Yet false...
wrong!
In short, I didn't use the word Sean, the author of the article did.
You blocked quoted the excerpt in an attempt to justify your first false claim and that's how you try and weasel out of it? By claiming you didn't use the word you decided to cut out of an article and highlight because the "author of the article" used it first?
This can't possibly get more ridiculous.
Every time I think you can't make a more blatantly false argument, you go ahead and surprise me
Prove it Tex. Quote the comment in which I used the word filibuster.
read post 8.2 12
are you really surprised,
I'm not trying to 'weasel out' of anything Sean. I am merely stating FACTS.
Again, I stated a FACT, not a claim. The author of the article is the ONLY one that used the word filibuster in this thread until YOU did. Are YOU responsible for the 7 ties the Congressional Research Service used filibuster Sean?
Yes, your argument is quite ridiculous.
Again, YOURS is the blatantly false argument.
Sean posted that Tex.
yes I know.
read it
I did and I refuted it. Now, unless you can prove your claim, [deleted]
I dont think you refuted anything
are you really surprised,
The sad thing is I'm not. It's like those who will claim 90 some percent of all the people arrested in Kenosha were outside right wing agitators even after being shown proof they were not. Sometimes letting people expose their own dishonesty is all you can do.
exactly!
You chose to use that word in the excerpt of the argument that you posted. Not the author of the original piece. You either typed it out or cut and pasted it. To try and claim the "author" did it and you aren't responsible for the words you chose to post is simply beyond belief.
What makes this even more bizarre is that the article you posted in a failed attempt to justify your false claim is substantively premised on the filibuster.. Do you even understand your own link? [Deleted]
[Dulay and Sean - stop making this personal]
I could not care less.
I don't think that YOU supported your claim. Please proceed.
Are YOU responsible for the 7 times the Congressional Research Service used filibuster Sean?
already had my say.
I get that Democrats are still steaming over Obama's pick not getting a hearing or vote.
Personally, I wish he had gotten a vote.
but what I now see is that the complaining in some cases is just because it was done by Republicans to Democrats, not that what happened was wrong. that is easily seen by calls from the same people to delay a nomination now. it can't be wrong then and ok now
Yes, it can be wrong then and ok now. It's a matter of situational ethics. The Garland travesty remains unremediated. Acting on a Trump nominee now would only serve to exacerbate and compound the original impropriety. I'm certain you can comprehend that.
two wrongs never make a right.
I'm sure you know that
Gorsuch was the second wrong and Kavanaugh the third. Both confirmed after McConnell changed the Senate rules to give Trump his prizes.
ridiculous fluff
The wrong was committed with regard to Garland. Not going forward with a nomination now would in no sense be a "wrong".
if it isn't wrong now, it wasn't wrong then
You have a logical problem with your position. We're not in a situation where the majority leader is blocking a nomination 8 months before an election on the alleged grounds that it should be left to "the voice of the people" in the upcoming election, as was the case with Garland. In fact, the situation now, where the majority leader is, in essence, contending that what matters is the result of an election years ago and the peoples' voice in an election only 6 weeks away doesn't matter, is almost the complete antithesis.
What's ridiculous fluff about my comment?
no, apparently YOU have a logical problem, I'm good.
what exactly does the LAW state about nominees?
pretty much all of it
Translation: I can't support my claim so I deflect.
since when do translators make shit up?
No, MY argument is perfectly logical and YOU aren't able to counter it.
I'm okay with you thinking that.
doesn't make it so
what does the law say about nominees?
However, it does happen to be "so".
what does the LAW say about nominees?
That's irrelevant to this colloquy.
Again, that's irrelevant to this particular discussion.
please tell me that was meant as a joke
Nope. Start with comment 9 and proceed forward. You're trying to add a different element to the discussion. If you can't see that, I'm sorry.
you are sorry?
okay!
I'm sorry that you are unable to follow the discussion.
But, since you seem to be so anxious to discuss the law, what does the Constution say about the number of judges on the Supreme Court?
followed it just fine.
Mrs. Ginsburg (Ceremoniously Retired.) You did good by all people. May our Lord richly bless you.
Demons and men will decry you and shred your good works, even do all they can to rid themselves of your values imposed upon them. Mrs.Ginsburg stand tall in Heavenly places, looking into the face of God who directs you from here on. The noise of angry and repressive men fall away at the gaze you are now transfixed to face! Shalom.