Ruth Bader Ginsburg, powerhouse Supreme Court Justice, dies at 87

  
Via:  John Russell  •  one month ago  •  126 comments

By:   DEVIN DWYER (YahooNews)

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, powerhouse Supreme Court Justice, dies at 87
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the powerhouse Supreme Court justice and champion for women's rights, has died at the age of 87. "Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died this evening surrounded by her family at her home in Washington, D.C., due to complications of metastatic pancreas cancer,"

Leave a comment to auto-join group Down With Trump

Down With Trump


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the powerhouse Supreme Court justice and champion for women's rights, has died at the age of 87.

"Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died this evening surrounded by her family at her home in Washington, D.C., due to complications of metastatic pancreas cancer," Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg said.

Her death while still serving on the Court, a scenario long-dreaded by liberals, creates a rare election-year opportunity for President Donald Trump to nominate a conservative replacement, triggering a pitched political battle.

"Our Nation has lost a jurist of historic stature. We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague," Chief Justice John Roberts said in a statement. "Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her -- a tireless and resolute champion of justice."

Ginsburg had become the standard bearer for the court's liberal wing, writing landmark opinions that advanced gender equality and rights for disabled Americans and immigrants in her more than quarter century on the bench.

She was equally known for impassioned dissents on major social issues -- from affirmative action to equal pay -- which earned her a sort of rock-star status among progressives and inspired lawmakers on how to legislate social change.

MORE: Former President Bill Clinton reveals abortion conversation with Ruth Bader Ginsburg before nomination

"In the last 26 years, she has far exceeded even my expectations," former President Bill Clinton, who appointed Ginsburg to the court, at a 2019 event honoring the justice at his presidential library. "We like her because she seems so totally on the level in a world hungry for people who are not trying to con you, who are on the level."

Ginsburg was the second woman to sit on the high court, joining Sandra Day O'Connor in 1993, and went on to become its longest-serving woman in history. She was the first female Jewish justice.

Story continues

"Ruth Ginsburg is an inspiration," said Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court's newest member, in his first public speech as a justice in 2019. He called her a "dedicated, hardworking and generous soul."

Chief Justice John Roberts has called Ginsburg a "rock star."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the third woman and first Latina appointed to the Supreme Court, has likened her colleague to a "steel magnolia." "She's delicate on the outside," Sotomayor said of Ginsburg in 2018, "but she has an iron rod behind it."

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg shares #MeToo experience

Throughout her career, Ginsburg defied gender norms and skeptics of her mettle.

She was one of just nine women in a class of 500 students at Harvard Law School in 1956 and became the first female member of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. She later transferred to Columbia University Law School, following her beloved husband Marty who landed a job in Manhattan.

When she graduated top of her class in 1959 without a single job offer from a New York law firm, she accepted a clerkship with a federal judge in Manhattan.

Undeterred, Ginsburg pursued the law through academia, first as a researcher at Columbia and later joining the faculty of Rutgers University in New Jersey, where she became one of the first women to teach at any American law school.

In the 1970s, Ginsburg began taking up sex discrimination cases with the ACLU and co-founded the organization's Women's Rights Project. She argued six cases before the Supreme Court and won five of them.

She argued on behalf of men as well as women, part of a strategy to fight gender inequality in a way that appealed to a predominantly male judiciary. In the 1975 case Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, Ginsburg represented a widower seeking to recover his wife's Social Security survivor benefits, which at the time were only granted to widows. She won.

"I was doing what my mother taught me to do - be a good teacher," Ginsburg told a crowd at Meredith College in North Carolina last year. "It was getting the court to understand that these were no favors to women and opening their eyes to that reality was the challenge."

MORE: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: In a minute

President Jimmy Carter appointed Ginsburg to the U.S. Court of Appeals in 1980 where she spent 13 years and wrote hundreds of opinions. "What Jimmy Carter began was to change the complexion of the judiciary," she said of her nomination and that of 40 other women, a record.

In 1993, Justice Byron White announced his retirement from the Supreme Court, giving a young President Bill Clinton his first chance to make an appointment, just seven months after taking office. Clinton considered several candidates before settling on Ginsburg after a face-to-face Oval Office meeting.

"She was brilliant and had a good head on her shoulders. She was rigorous but warm hearted. She had a good sense of humor and sensible, attainable judicial philosophy," Clinton said recently, reflecting on his pick.

"I thought she had the ability to find common ground in a country increasingly polarized," he said. "She had already proved herself to be a healer. In short, I liked her and I believed in her."

The U.S. Senate confirmed Ginsburg on Aug. 3, 1993, by a vote of 96-3.

Judicial legacy


Her judicial philosophy advocated narrowly-tailored, thoughtful decisions that did not get out too far ahead of public opinion or the responsibility of legislators to make policy.

Ginsburg famously lamented the Supreme Court's reasoning in its 1973 Roe v Wade opinion, which grounded abortion rights in a constitutional right to privacy rather the principle of equal protection.

While she staunchly defended reproductive rights, Ginsburg believed the Court had gone too far, too fast, putting forward a "grand philosophy" at a time when many states were taking steps to "liberalize" abortion laws on their own.

"No measured motion, the Roe decision left virtually no state with laws fully conforming to the Court's delineation of abortion regulation still permissible," Ginsburg wrote in a 1993 Washington Post op-ed. "Around that extraordinary decision, a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction."

She authored dozens of majority opinions in her career, earning a reputation among her colleagues for speed and accuracy.

"As a litigator and then as a judge, she changed the face of American anti-discrimination law," Justice Elena Kagan said of her colleague in 2014.

Ginsburg considered one of her most important opinions the 1996 case United States v Virginia that found the Virginia Military Institute's male-only admission policy violated the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.

"Neither the goal of producing citizen soldiers nor VMI's implementing methodology is inherently unsuitable to women," she wrote in an opinion joined by five of her colleagues. "And the school's impressive record in producing leaders has made admission desirable to some women."

Watch: Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Rare Interview

In her memoir, My Own Words, Ginsburg writes that she regards the case as "the culmination of the 1970s endeavor to open doors so that women could aspire and achieve without artificial constraints."

In 1999, Ginsburg delivered the majority opinion in Olmstead v L.C. which affirmed the right of Americans with disabilities to receive state-funded support and services in their communities, instead of only designated institutions.

"We confront the question whether the proscription of discrimination may require placement of persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions," she wrote. "The answer, we hold, is a qualified yes."

As the court moved to the right, Ginsburg often challenged her colleagues with polite but impassioned dissents.

"If there was one decision I would overrule, it would be Citizens United," she told law professor Jeffrey Rosen in 2019. "I think the notion that we have all the democracy that money can buy strays so far from what our democracy is supposed to be. So that's number one on my list."

One of her most famous dissents came in Bush v. Gore, which brought an end to the contested 2000 election and cleared the way for George W. Bush to claim the presidency. "I dissent," Ginsburg wrote sharply, breaking with the customary "I respectfully dissent" in a subtle protest.

"There's never been a case like Bush v. Gore before or since. From the day of that decision, continuing to this day, the Court has never cited it as precedent in any other case, and I think it will remain that way," she said in a lecture in 2014.

Defending abortion rights was a hallmark of her tenure. In 2007, Ginsburg blasted a narrow 5-4 decision in Gonzales v Carhart upholding a ban on intact dilation and extraction abortions as "quite simply irrational."

"The notion that the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act furthers any legitimate governmental interest is, quite simply, irrational," she wrote in her dissent. "The Court's defense of it 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."

Occasionally lawmakers used Ginsburg's dissents as inspiration for new legislation.

When the Court in 2007 upheld a statute of limitations for pay discrimination claims against Goodyear Tire, Ginsburg read her dissent from the bench and proposed a legislative fix.

"In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination," she said.

Two years later, after action by Congress, President Obama signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, named after the woman who had sued Goodyear and lost at the Supreme Court, extending the statute of limitations for future unequal pay claims. A framed copy of the law hung in Ginsburg's chambers.

"The idea that the dissent put forward was the soul of simplicity," Ginsburg later said. "It said, 'Every paycheck that this woman receives is renewing the discrimination, so she can sue within 180 days of her latest paycheck, and she will be on time.' That's what Congress said: 'Yes, that's what we meant.'"

"If there was one decision I would overrule, it would be Citizens United," she told law professor Jeffrey Rosen of the landmark 2010 decision lifting corporate spending limits in campaigns. "I think the notion that we have all the democracy that money can buy strays so far from what our democracy is supposed to be. So that's number one on my list."

In 2013, Ginsburg strongly opposed the Court's controversial Shelby County v. Holder decision that struck down a key portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act requiring state and local governments with a history of discrimination to get preclearance from the Justice Department before changing voting laws.

"Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet," Ginsburg wrote in her dissent.

The opinion gave rise to a new nickname for Ginsburg -- "Notorious R.B.G." -- coined by an NYU law school student as a play on the late rapper Notorious B.I.G.

"She was angry, and then it came to her that anger is a useless emotion," Ginsburg said of the student. "And the positive thing she did was to put on her blog my dissenting opinion in the case and then it took off from there."

In 2012, Ginsburg wrote what longtime court reporter Jeffrey Toobin called "probably the most powerful opinion of her career" endorsing the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act.

"Unlike the market for almost any other product or service, the market for medical care is one in which all individuals inevitably participate," she wrote, defending Congress' sweeping power under the Constitution's commerce clause. "Virtually every person residing in the U.S., sooner or later, will visit a doctor or other health care professional."

"Dissents speak to a future age," Ginsburg told NPR's Nina Totenberg in 2002. "The greatest dissents do become court opinions and gradually over time their views become a dominant view. So that's the dissenter's hope: that they are writing not for today but for tomorrow."

While she would clash with her colleagues ideologically, Ginsburg extended a hand of friendship to even her most conservative peers -- including, famously, the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

MORE:Brett Kavanaugh calls Ruth Bader Ginsburg an 'inspiration,' heaps gratitude on allies

"When he was nominated, although his views were very well known, he was confirmed unanimously. And I came pretty close to that -- the vote on me was 96 to 3," Ginsburg said of her friend in a recent conversation with the law professor Rosen. "It would not be that way today, but don't you think that's the direction in which we should seek to return?"

Ginsburg and Scalia shared a love of opera, occasionally attending performances together at the Kennedy Center. The duo was also the subject of an opera -- Scalia/Ginsburg -- written by a University of Maryland law school student. Ginsburg's favorite duet in the work is titled "We Are Different, We Are One."

"The idea is that there are two people who interpret the Constitution differently yet retain their fondness for each other and, much more than that," she said, "their reverence for the institution that employs them."

Brooklyn-born and activist roots


Born Joan Ruth Bader in Brooklyn, New York, in 1933, she was the second daughter of Jewish immigrants.

"I am … a first generation American on my father's side, barely second generation on my mother's," Ginsburg told the Senate Judiciary Committee in her confirmation hearing. "Neither of my parents had the means to attend college, but both taught me to love learning, to care about people, and to work hard for whatever I wanted or believed in."

She credited her mother -- a garment factory worker -- as being one of the greatest influences on her life. "My mother told me two things constantly," Ginsburg said in a recent interview with the ACLU. "One was to be a lady, and the other was to be independent."

MORE: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Bill Clinton recall 'very easy' first conversation

Ginsburg also deeply loved and valued her husband Marty, who she met as an Cornell University undergraduate and married in 1954. Together they were lawyers and co-partners both in advocacy for women and in parenthood.

"I have had more than a little bit of luck in life, but nothing equals in magnitude my marriage to Martin D. Ginsburg," she wrote in her memoir. "I do not have words adequate to describe my super smart, exuberant, ever-loving spouse."

The couple had two children together -- Jane and James -- forging a strong family bond for 56 years up to his death from cancer in 2010.

"I certainly wouldn't be here today were it not for Marty because he made me feel that I was better than I thought I was," she said at an event in January 2018. "He had a great sense of humor and another very important strength -- he was a wonderful cook."

Late-in-life pop culture icon


Ginsburg showed remarkable resilience late into life.

She survived four battles with cancer over her Supreme Court career, never having to recuse herself from casework because of illness. In December 2018, she was absent from oral arguments for the first time in 26 years after undergoing lung cancer surgery, but she participated in the cases remotely. During the coronavirus pandemic, she joined oral arguments by phone from a Maryland hospital where she was being treated for a gallbladder infection.

Even as the court's oldest member, she maintained one of the most aggressive public schedules of any of her peers, regularly traveling the country in her final years.

"I think my work is what saved me because instead of dwelling on my physical discomforts if I have an opinion to write or brief to read I know I've just got to get it done and have to get over it," she said last year.

Her workout regimen became the stuff of legends, performing push-ups, holding abdominal planks and pumping weights late into her 80s. When the Court employee gym shutdown during COVID-19, Ginsburg continued to do her workouts in a special isolated fitness space set up at her request. Her personal trainer, Bryant Johnson, memorialized her routine in the 2017 book, "The RBG Workout: How She Stays Strong… And You Can Too!"

MORE: How to work out like Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Even after receiving radiation treatment for a pancreatic tumor in 2019, Ginsburg told a crowd at the University of California Berkley that she "never left" the gym.

"Even in my lowest periods I couldn't do very much, but I did what I can," she said.

Her persistence electrified her fans and solidified her status as a pop culture icon.

"Regularly she's portrayed on [Saturday Night Live] delivering her 'Ginsburns,'" joked Bill Clinton before a packed Arkansas arena of thousands of RBG fans in 2019. "And now you can see her image on T-shirts, totes, and coffee mugs the world over. You can become resentful of such a person, but you're not."

Her life was the subject of a 2018 Oscar-nominated documentary -- "RBG" -- and a Hollywood biopic -- "On the Basis of Sex" -- starring Felicity Jones and Armie Hammer.

Ginsburg was the recipient of numerous honorary degrees and awards, including the prestigious Berggruen Prize, a $1 million honorarium to recognize a figure whose ideas have "profoundly shaped human self-understanding and advancement in a rapidly changing world."

"You can earn a living but you can also do something outside yourself that will make things a little better for people less fortunate than you," Ginsburg told a group of Duke University law school students in 2019.

MORE: Chief Justice John Roberts, who's clashed with Trump, would oversee impeachment trial

Her tenure was not entirely without controversy. In 2016, Ginsburg waded into the presidential campaign with public criticism for the presumptive presidential nominee, Donald J. Trump, whom she called a "faker."

"Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot - resign!" then candidate Trump tweeted at the time.

Ginsburg later apologized for the remarks, calling them "ill-advised" and promising to be "more circumspect" in the future. Earlier this year, Trump demanded that Ginsburg recuse from "all Trump, or Trump related, matters!" She declined.

Her death during the Trump presidency was something she had hoped to avoid.

Well before Trump's election, Ginsburg rebuffed calls from some liberals to retire and allow Democratic President Barack Obama to name her successor.

"I think it's going to be another Democratic president," Justice Ginsburg told The Washington Post in 2013. "The Democrats do fine in presidential elections; their problem is they can't get out the vote in the midterm elections."

After Trump's surprise defeat of Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, Ginsburg publicly vowed to hold her seat on the court "as long as I'm healthy and mentally agile." With the balance of power at stake, Ginsburg wanted a Democratic president to name her replacement.

That hope ultimately went unfulfilled.

"What is the difference between a bookkeeper in the New York garment district and a Supreme Court justice? My answer is one generation," Ginsburg told young women law students in North Carolina in 2019.

"That's why I'm such an optimist. As bleak as things may seem, I have seen so many changes in my lifetime."

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, powerhouse Supreme Court Justice, dies at 87 originally appeared on abcnews.go.com


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
JohnRussell
1  seeder  JohnRussell    one month ago

Justice Ginsburg wrote a deathbed message asking that she not be replaced on the court until the new Congress and a new presidential term begins next year. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago
Justice Ginsburg wrote a deathbed message asking that she not be replaced on the court until the new Congress and a new presidential term begins next year. 

I am sure those were her wishes, but she doesn't get a say in the decision this time.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    one month ago

well we will see if Mitch McConnell is a man or a mouse

 
 
 
Gsquared
1.1.2  Gsquared  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    one month ago

McConnell is a snake.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    one month ago

Well, what can you do if Trump selects someone?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.3    one month ago

In 2016 McConnell said there would be no nomination hearing that year because of a presidential election that was 8 or 9 months away. Now there is an election less that 2 months away. If he is not a mouse he will say the same thing now he said in 2016. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.5  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.2    one month ago
McConnell is a snake.

Yes, he is.  But he is about to be unemployed snake.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    one month ago

Again, it isn't necessary that anyone like it. If Trump makes a nomination, the Senate can then choose when or if to act on it.

Period.

Don't see how Democrats can stop it.

 
 
 
Gsquared
1.1.7  Gsquared  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.5    one month ago

Hope so.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.8  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.6    one month ago

Try reading 1.1.4 again. It seem to not have took. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.5    one month ago
But he is about to be unemployed snake.

Checked out the polls lately?

He is up by 12 points.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.8    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    one month ago

119920719_186036409726034_2312312965013703200_n.png?_nc_cat=1&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=PuOZJUPu2a0AX8CqxFi&_nc_oc=AQnPajLl0EfxRTxUhtuFTexwfkai6OgljNkAI7Rii6fjNcCyLwwbRpaAH-vE6M0wmC4&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=ddd98e2f1eaef4127513a441300f2438&oe=5F89043F

 
 
 
Gsquared
1.1.12  Gsquared  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    one month ago

Trump said last December that he would not hesitate to confirm a new Trump nominee in 2020.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/mcconnell-senate-would-confirm-new-supreme-court-justice-before-the-presidential-election

There should be only one response.  If the Republicans force through another Supreme Court Justice now, when Biden wins and the Democrats retake the Senate, they must be prepared to expand the Court to 15 seats and confirm 6 new Justices immediately.  No vacillating, no appeasement of the reactionary forces.  For the sake of the future of the country, it must be done.  It will be a fitting tribute to Justice Ginsburg.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.13  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.9    one month ago
Checked out the polls lately? He is up by 12 points.

Believe what you want, but Pappy's on his way out.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.3    one month ago

Pass the word that only someone that is a loser would put up a nominee without a mandate. We all know how Trump hates losers. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.15  Texan1211  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.13    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.16  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.14    one month ago
Pass the word that only someone that is a loser would put up a nominee without a mandate. 

A mandate is not required. The only mandate required was issued in 2016 when Trump won the election.

There is nothing the Democrats can do to stop this, and whining about it will not help them.

 
 
 
Gazoo
1.1.17  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    one month ago

Back in the 2000’s dems, including clinton, obama, schumer, etc were for a border wall/fence. Now? Not so much. I guess they are mice because they changed their mind?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.18  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Gsquared @1.1.12    one month ago

Sen. Hirono (I think it is) of Hawaii just said that if they succeed in getting a new conservative justice on under these circumstances it will lead to more calls for Supreme Court reform ( code for more than 9 justices). 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.19  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.8    one month ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.20  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Gazoo @1.1.17    one month ago

apples and oranges

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.21  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.18    one month ago
Sen. Hirono (I think it is) of Hawaii just said that if they succeed in getting a new conservative justice on under these circumstances it will lead to more calls for Supreme Court reform ( code for more than 9 justices). 

So, because they lost one Presidential election, Democrats are ready and willing to stack the court to avenge their loss.

 
 
 
Gazoo
1.1.22  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.20    one month ago

How os? Please explain.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.23  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.15    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.4    one month ago

does a different party control the senate and presidency? That’s when the Biden/McConnell rule applies.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.25  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.23    one month ago
[deleted]
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.26  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.18    one month ago

Of course the Democrats will pack the court. They will get rid of the filibuster, pack the courts,  whatever they can do with a brute numbers.

The republicans, as always, played by the rules and kept the filibuster despite Trump asking the senate to do away with it. Schumer will never stand up to a democratic president like McConnell did trump.  He will weaken the senate and the checks on the executive if Biden orders him to.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
1.1.27  r.t..b...  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.25    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.1.28  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.1.24    one month ago

i doubt if that is the way the average american will think about this . election year?  no nominee

that is the way the people see the "mc connell" rule

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.29  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.27    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.28    one month ago
that is the way the people see the "mc connell" rule

No, that's the way progressive liberal Democrats may see it.

Who cares?

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.31  Dulay  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.16    one month ago

Whooosh right over your head...

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.32  Texan1211  replied to  r.t..b... @1.1.27    one month ago
Just like the temporary majority leader. 

temporary, eh?

I guess so, since it all depends on winning reelection.

Tell me, do you consider Pelosi the temporary Speaker?

 
 
 
MonsterMash
1.1.33  MonsterMash  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.18    one month ago
Sen. Hirono (I think it is) of Hawaii just said that if they succeed in getting a new conservative justice on under these circumstances it will lead to more calls for Supreme Court reform ( code for more than 9 justices).

That's a great idea, when another Republican president is elected and has the Senate the court will be expanded again. Playing this ignorant game will lead to over 100 Supreme Justices before the end of the century.  

 
 
 
Gazoo
1.1.34  Gazoo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.20    one month ago

Ok john, i didn’t think you could explain. Thanks anyway.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.35  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.1.5    one month ago

That will only happen if KY has finally had enough of him and votes his turtle ass out.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.36  TᵢG  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.1    one month ago

McConnell will not hesitate to confirm during Trump's term.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
1.1.37  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @1.1.28    one month ago

it’s certainly not going to be presented with that nuance. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
1.1.38  MrFrost  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.6    one month ago

Don't see how Democrats can stop it.

The Senate does have a structure with regards to priority. Turns out impeachment would stop a confirmation hearing in the senate. 

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.39  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @1.1.11    one month ago

How do we know this is true or is the grand daughter a die hard liberal like her grandmother was and wanted to put her OWN thoughts into the mix, not what RBG really has said, or said anything about her replacement at all.

We don't

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.40  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.14    one month ago
We all know how Trump hates losers. 

Meh, maybe, but he is still the president of even most ;liberals,

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.41  bugsy  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.36    one month ago

He actually does. He has until January 20 next year to do it. Trump will be your president still then, win or lose.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.42  TᵢG  replied to  bugsy @1.1.41    one month ago
He actually does. He has until January 20 next year to do it. Trump will be your president still then, win or lose.

jrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gif    He actually does what ?   Note that you replied to this comment from me:

TiG @ 1.1.36 McConnell will not hesitate to confirm during Trump's term.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.1.43  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @1.1.40    one month ago

Where you going to make a point any time soon? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1.44  Texan1211  replied to  MrFrost @1.1.38    one month ago

I don't think the Democrats are stupid enough to try that collossal failure again.

I could be wrong about that, though

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.45  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @1.1.43    one month ago
Where you going to make a point any time soon? 

Probably. Where you?

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an icon for me.  She was the possibility of can be.  Death will never erase that.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
1.2.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.2    one month ago

She is more famous than most chief justices are. An icon in our culture for sure. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.2.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @1.2.1    one month ago

On this we can agree. I may not have cared for her politics, but I certainly respected her tremendously as a person and a fighter.

 
 
 
Raven Wing
1.2.3  Raven Wing  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @1.2    one month ago

I can't help but tear up when I read that notice. I just turned on my computer again and her face came into mine and she stared back at me as I tried to digest what had happened. When it finally hit me, I could not hold back the tears that came into my eyes as I looked back at all the years she had been the most steadfast icon on the SCOTUS for so very many years.

Her battles with her cancer over the years took their toll, but, she refused to let it control her life. She stood her ground and faced the world as she always had.

As she moves on to the next steps of her own eternal journey, she leaves with nothing but pride, and an abundance of love and respect from all those she helped along the way over the years, and proved to America what Americans should be doing for our country and its people. 

nv-wa-do-hi-ya-dv (Peace)  RBG. You will never be forgotten. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.3  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago

That fell on Trump's deaf ears.  According to my local news, he has already made his pick.  Her body is barely cold and he is feeding on it.  It is sure to be someone who is a Trump toadie who will get Roe vs Wade overturned.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.3.1  Texan1211  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.3    one month ago
That fell on Trump's deaf ears.  According to my local news, he has already made his pick.  Her body is barely cold and he is feeding on it.  It is sure to be someone who is a Trump toadie who will get Roe vs Wade overturned.

That con was tried on Trump's first two picks for SCOTUS.

Why would anyone fall for that line of bull AGAIN?

Ridiculous!

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.3.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.3    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MonsterMash
1.3.3  MonsterMash  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @1.3    one month ago
It is sure to be someone who is a Trump toadie who will get Roe vs Wade overturned.

Relax Paula, Roe vs Wade will never be overturned even if all the Justices are conservative.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.3.4  Texan1211  replied to  MonsterMash @1.3.3    one month ago
Relax Paula, Roe vs Wade will never be overturned even if all the Justices are conservative.

Just about every time a Republican gets a chance to nominate to SCOTUS, the left tries to scare everyone with the same old tired line of Roe being overturned.

 
 
 
Snuffy
1.4  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @1    one month ago
Justice Ginsburg wrote a deathbed message asking that she not be replaced on the court until the new Congress and a new presidential term begins next year. 

Is there proof of that?  I heard that came from NPR and to be honest NPR has gotten hard into the anti-Trump camp and has been a little loose with facts.

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.4.1  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @1.4    one month ago

Doesn't matter anyways. This is one decision that she doesn't have a say in.

 
 
 
bbl-1
2  bbl-1    one month ago

Prepare.  America is entering a new realm.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
2.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  bbl-1 @2    one month ago
Prepare.  America is entering a new realm

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't slightly freaked out by that news.

 
 
 
bbl-1
2.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @2.1    one month ago

Prepare.  Many have gathered on the steps of The Supreme Court this evening with flowers and candles to pay respect to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and a few folk in MAGA hats arrived---shouting, shoving and evoking the presidents name.  They have since left--but it is beginning.  Trump brings chaos--he views it as opportunity and power.  Prepare.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
2.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  bbl-1 @2.1.1    one month ago
on the steps of The Supreme Court this evening with flowers and candles t

so they are going to start "peacefully" destroying businesses and throwing Molotov cocktails is what you are saying. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
2.1.3  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Sean Treacy @2.1.2    one month ago
so they are going to start "peacefully" destroying businesses and throwing Molotov cocktails is what you are saying.

WTF?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3  seeder  JohnRussell    one month ago

Sen. Lisa Murkowski has just  said she will not vote to confirm a new SC justice before the election. A couple more and they won't be able to put it through. 

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
3.1  Release The Kraken  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one month ago

Don't need her.....Pence!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
3.1.1  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Release The Kraken @3.1    one month ago

Romney, one or two others. All of those losing in the polls right now. I think you could see 4 or 5 Republicans saying no to a new justice before the election. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
3.1.2  Gsquared  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    one month ago

I agree.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
3.1.3  Release The Kraken  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    one month ago

Romney is prolife, a Moron i mean Mormon.

Goodluck with that?

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1.4  Dulay  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    one month ago

Mitch has been having issues with his caucus this year. If Romney and Murkowski say no, we just need one more. It's not beyond possibility. Grassley and Alexander are retiring. Alexander wasn't a happy camper during the impeachment. Then of course there's Collins. 

 
 
 
MonsterMash
3.1.5  MonsterMash  replied to  JohnRussell @3.1.1    one month ago

There won't be a new justice until after Jan. 20, 2021 

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
3.1.6  Release The Kraken  replied to  MonsterMash @3.1.5    one month ago

Mitch has agreed to fast track Ted

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
3.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one month ago

I sure hope so.

 
 
 
bbl-1
3.3  bbl-1  replied to  JohnRussell @3    one month ago

I believe nothing until I see the votes.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
4  Release The Kraken    one month ago

Shit, we gotta find a replacement for Ted Cruz!

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1  Texan1211  replied to  Release The Kraken @4    one month ago

Come on, it's Texas--no problem!

Wouldn't that stick in the Democratic Party's craw if Cruz was placed?

Cracks me up just thinking about the reaction!

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
4.1.1  Release The Kraken  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1    one month ago

Senator Greg Abbott, the most free market gov in Texas history.

GOV Dan Patrick.....

BtW when Texas saves America we are moving the capital here.

 
 
 
Gsquared
4.1.2  Gsquared  replied to  Release The Kraken @4.1.1    one month ago

We're giving Texas back to Mexico ASAP.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.2    one month ago
We're giving Texas back to Mexico ASAP.

Ha! Never going to happen.

 
 
 
Gsquared
4.1.4  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.3    one month ago

True.  We are never moving the capital to Texas.  Why would we move the capital to a foreign country?

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
4.1.5  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.2    one month ago
We're giving Texas back to Mexico ASAP.

Watch it, Buster...  On the other hand, I would agree to it on a case by case basis.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.4    one month ago

I didn't say we were moving the capital anywhere.

foreign country??

lmao

 
 
 
Gsquared
4.1.7  Gsquared  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @4.1.5    one month ago

Hmm... Something tells me you might be in Texas...  In that case, if you're referring to individuals on a case by case basis, I will defer to your local knowledge and obvious expertise.

 
 
 
Gsquared
4.1.8  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.6    one month ago

I didn't say we were moving the capital anywhere.

You, Release the Kraken...  no difference as far as I can tell...

 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.8    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @4.1.8    one month ago

I am sorry you can't tell the difference between two totally different people.

That would be like me attributing to you things said by another poster.

I would consider myself to be dishonest if I did that.

Which is precisely why I don't.

 
 
 
Gsquared
4.2  Gsquared  replied to  Release The Kraken @4    one month ago

Trump will appoint someone whose father he accused of assassinating JFK, and Trumpists think it's all normal.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
4.2.1  Release The Kraken  replied to  Gsquared @4.2    one month ago

Ted is your new Justice 

 
 
 
Gsquared
4.2.3  Gsquared  replied to  Release The Kraken @4.2.1    one month ago

Trump could, and probably will, nominate Ted Kaczynski to the Supreme Court and the Trumpists would stand up and cheer.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.4  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Gsquared @4.2.3    one month ago
“The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.”

Mitch McConnell

Feb 2016
 
 
 
Gsquared
4.2.5  Gsquared  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.4    one month ago

That was then, and this is now.  McConnell has his excuses ready and announced tonight that Trump's nominee will have a vote on the floor of the Senate.

You don't think McConnell cares about what he said in 2016, do you?

 
 
 
devangelical
4.2.6  devangelical  replied to  Gsquared @4.2.5    one month ago

it'll be fun watching mitch the bitch chew that shit sandwich twice.

 
 
 
bbl-1
4.2.7  bbl-1  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.4    one month ago

Those were words McConnell said.  But as always, 'watch what they do and not what they say.'  A line from a movie, "Trust no one" and I will add, "Especially him."

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.8  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @4.2.5    one month ago
That was then, and this is now.  McConnell has his excuses ready and announced tonight that Trump's nominee will have a vote on the floor of the Senate. You don't think McConnell cares about what he said in 2016, do you?

No excuse necessary.

it is the duty of the President to nominate, and the Senate's job to confirm or reject.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.2.9  seeder  JohnRussell  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.8    one month ago
it is the duty of the President to nominate, and the Senate's job to confirm or reject.

Obama nominated Merrick Garland in 2016 and then what happened ? 

 
 
 
Gsquared
4.2.10  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.8    one month ago

the Senate's job to confirm or reject

Not according to McConnell.  According to the McConnell rule, there should not be a vote during an election year.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.11  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @4.2.10    one month ago

You know better. There is no rule written stating that a sitting President can not nominate and that the Senate can not confirm.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.12  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @4.2.9    one month ago
Obama nominated Merrick Garland in 2016 and then what happened ? 

If you don't know, Google it.

 
 
 
Gsquared
4.2.13  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.11    one month ago

Trump has shown us time and again that he thinks the rules are made to be broken.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.14  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @4.2.13    one month ago

well, you show me a rule saying a President can't nominate someone and you will have a point

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.15  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @4.2.3    one month ago

do you have any idea how ludicrous and preposterous that us?

 
 
 
Gsquared
4.2.16  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.15    one month ago

Yawn...

 
 
 
Gsquared
4.2.17  Gsquared  replied to  Texan1211 @4.2.15    one month ago

"You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible."  Donald J. Trump 1/23/2016

That's not ludicrous or preposterous, right?  It must sound reasonable and normal to you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.2.18  Texan1211  replied to  Gsquared @4.2.17    one month ago

WTF does that have to do with Trump nominating someone?

Seriously, please relate that comment to this situation.

Is Trump breaking any laws or rules by nominating someone?

Is the Senate breaking any written rules or laws by considering the nominee?

If you honestly answered no to those questions, you would see that your Trump quote is worthless to this conversation, but way to get the digs in at your President!

 
 
 
JaneDoe
5  JaneDoe    one month ago

She was a strong woman and fought to the end.  May she rest peacefully.

 
 
 
Release The Kraken
6  Release The Kraken    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
MonsterMash
7  MonsterMash    one month ago

Democrats are in panic mode, if Trump nominates a new Justice they'll go into slander mode, if the nominee is confirmed they'll descend into riot mode.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1  TᵢG  replied to  MonsterMash @7    one month ago
Democrats are in panic mode, ...

I suspect that is true since Ds tend to be progressive/liberal.   Trump will nominate someone who will cement a conservative domination of the court.   McConnell will push confirmation through during Trump's term.  

And Rs would be in panic mode too, right?, if the situations were reversed.

 
 
 
MonsterMash
7.1.1  MonsterMash  replied to  TᵢG @7.1    one month ago
And Rs would be in panic mode too, right?, if the situations were reversed.

Right, that's politics. The big difference is Republicans wouldn't riot, attack the police, burn, and loot businesses that's a left-wing thing.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
7.1.2  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MonsterMash @7.1.1    one month ago
The big difference is Republicans wouldn't riot, attack the police, burn, and loot businesses that's a left-wing thing.

Bullshit.

 
 
 
bugsy
7.1.3  bugsy  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @7.1.2    one month ago

Please show us when and where Republicans have done any of the things mentioned in 7.1.1.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.4  Dulay  replied to  bugsy @7.1.3    one month ago

Pretty sure that the Alt Right boys in Charlottesville vote Republican. They did all that and more. 

 
 
 
bugsy
7.1.5  bugsy  replied to  Dulay @7.1.4    one month ago
Pretty sure

So you don't know and you are only spewing bullshit.

How about YOU show some proof for once...

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
8  Perrie Halpern R.A.    one month ago

Geeze people, have you no decency?

The poor woman passed away just hours ago. We should be celebrating a life well lived and devoted to her country. Not discussing who will replace her. 

 
 
 
Gsquared
8.1  Gsquared  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8    one month ago

Yes, we should, and do, celebrate her incredible life and contributions to the advancement of our freedom as Americans, but the issue presented by her passing is so crucial to our future, that the immediate discussion of the aftermath is inevitable.  She would probably revel in it.

 
 
 
bbl-1
8.2  bbl-1  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8    one month ago

Sure.  Except the 'old norms' are gone.  Ushered in by the coiffured hair and the new, emboldened right wing. 

 
 
 
MrFrost
8.3  MrFrost  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @8    one month ago

800

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
8.3.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MrFrost @8.3    one month ago

McConnell needs to go away.  I hope that happens in November.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @8.3.1    one month ago

pipe dream

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
8.3.3  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Texan1211 @8.3.2    one month ago
pipe dream

turkey waddle 

 
 
 
Texan1211
8.3.4  Texan1211  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @8.3.3    one month ago

ok.......................

 
 
 
Freewill
8.3.5  Freewill  replied to  MrFrost @8.3    one month ago

McConnell was VERY clear that his reasons for his statements then and now revolve around the fact that in 2016 the President and Senate majority were of different parties (same reasons for Biden's comments - The Biden Rule - in 1992).  In THIS case, the President and Senate majority are of the same party.  With respect to both situations, the historical precedent involving Supreme Court nominations and confirmations in an election year from the founding of the nation is to delay the confirmation when there are opposing parties, and to confirm the nominations without delay when the President and the Senate majority are of the same party.  See my comment with facts and links below at Comment 10 .

If you do some research you will find that McConnell and several other Republicans are correct with respect to the history and precedent of election year SC nominations and confirmations and that it very much hinges on whether the White House and Senate Majority are held by the same party.  Republicans like McConnell said this both in 2016 and they say it now, consistently . Senators like Chuck Schumer and one time Senator Biden are intent on ignoring these facts and instead continue to accuse the Republicans of being hypocritical on this issue.  Oddly enough then Senator Biden in 1992 said the same thing as McConnell is saying now when he talked about the hypothetical blocking of President Bushes nomination by the then Democratic-controlled Senate were it to occur in the election year at the end of his first and only term.  That was termed the "Biden Rule" which actually did follow historical precedent but is now ignored by Biden and other Democrats who are now calling McConnell and other Republicans hypocrites in the matter.  Go figure.... 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9  seeder  JohnRussell    one month ago

Article open

 
 
 
Split Personality
9.1  Split Personality  replied to  JohnRussell @9    one month ago

from a friend on FB

From a friends page

If you're a woman in the military, RBG is the reason your family gets dependent benefits (Frontiero v. Richardson). She is also the reason you didn't get automatically discharged when you started a family. She made it possible to have a career and a family. Thank you for your service to the women serving in our Armed Forces!

Because of her, she helped pave the way for....

* Women can take out a credit card in their own names without a male signatory

* Women can't be fired for being pregnant

* Women can earn admittance into military academies

* Women are legally protected from any form of violence

* Women are allowed to live with their significant other without being married

* Women can ask for divorce due to domestic violence

* Women can open their own bank accounts without male permission

* Women can adopt a baby as a single woman

* Women are allowed to sue companies for pay discrimination even after six months have passed

and on...and on...and on.

We owe an immeasurable amount of gratitude to Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the freedoms we enjoy today as women. It's now on us to never take for granted the progress we've made while at the same time continuing her fight for equality and women's rights.

 
 
 
Freewill
10  Freewill    one month ago

First, my sincere condolences to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's family and to the SCOTUS for their loss.   She was a greatly respected jurist and dedicated her life to the law, much to the benefit of our country.  She will be terribly missed but never forgotten!

In the matter of her replacement, regardless of who we may feel the hypocrites are, the facts in this matter are these:

1.  The 'Biden Rule" in 1992 was the exact same argument made by the Republicans in March of 2016 when they refused to hear or vote on Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in Obama's lame duck end of second term.  In both cases the Senate was controlled by the opposite party of the departing president, and hence the precedent was to delay the confirmation of the Supreme justice until the new president came into office, just as it had been the precedent before that in American history (as indicated in the next fact).  This is decidedly NOT the same case as we have now with President Trump and the Senate majority being of the same party. In that case, the historical precedent has been for a president to make a nomination and the Senate to confirm it, even within an election year and in some cases even after the election (see link in the next fact).

2.  The historical precedent and traditional norms since the founding of the country regarding Supreme Court nominations by the President and the hearing and confirmation by the Senate during a presidential election year all indicate that the Republicans both should, and indeed have a duty to, nominate and confirm a Supreme Court Justice in 2020.  This is not in any way the same situation as Obama's nomination of Garland in 2016 when the the opposite party controlled the Senate.   The historical facts are laid out in detail in the well cited article   HERE  

a.  In cases where the President and Senate majority were of opposing parties:

There have been ten vacancies resulting in a presidential election-year or post-election nomination when the president and Senate were from opposite parties. In six of the ten cases, a nomination was made before Election Day. Only one of those, Chief Justice Melville Fuller’s nomination by Grover Cleveland in 1888, was confirmed before the election. Four nominations were made in lame-duck sessions after the election; three of those were left open for the winner of the election. Other than the unusual Fuller nomination (made when the Court was facing a crisis of backlogs in its docket), three of the other nine were filled after Election Day in ways that rewarded the winner of the presidential contest. The norm in these cases strongly favored holding the seat open for the conflict between the two branches to be resolved by the presidential election. That is what Republicans did in 2016. The voters had created divided government, and the Senate was within its historical rights to insist on an intervening election to decide the power struggle. Had there been no conflict between the branches to submit to the voters for resolution, there would have been no reason for delay.

b.  In cases where the President and Senate majority were of the same party:

So what does history say about  this  situation, where a president is in his last year in office, his party controls the Senate, and the branches are not in conflict? Once again, historical practice and tradition provides a clear and definitive answer: In the absence of divided government, election-year nominees get confirmed.

Nineteen times between 1796 and 1968, presidents have sought to fill a Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential-election year while their party controlled the Senate. Ten of those nominations came before the election; nine of the ten were successful, the only failure being the  bipartisan filibuster of the ethically challenged Abe Fortas as chief justice in 1968 .

Nine times, presidents have made nominations  after  the election in a lame-duck session. These include some storied nominations, such as John Adams picking Chief Justice John Marshall in 1801 and Abraham Lincoln selecting Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase in 1864. Of the nine, the only one that did not succeed was Washington’s 1793 nomination of William Paterson, which was withdrawn for technical reasons and resubmitted and confirmed the first day of the next Congress (Paterson had helped draft the Judiciary Act of 1789 creating the Court, and the Constitution thus required his term as a senator to end before he could be appointed to the Court). Two of Andrew Jackson’s nominees on the last day of his term were confirmed a few days later, without quibbles. In no case did the Senate reject a nominee or refuse to act on a nomination; why would they? Three of the presidents who filled lame-duck vacancies — Adams, Martin Van Buren, and Benjamin Harrison — had already lost reelection .

The final conclusion given the absolute facts in this matter are well-stated:

The bottom line: If a president and the Senate agree on a Supreme Court nominee, timing has never stopped them. By tradition, only when the voters have elected a president and a Senate majority from different parties has the fact of a looming presidential election mattered. When there is no dispute between the branches, there is no need to ask the voters to resolve one .

I hope this helps clear up this matter.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
11  Right Down the Center    one month ago

The President and Senate should do their jobs.  In 2016 the president did and the senate did not.  In 2020 they should both do their jobs and timing should not be taken into consideration.  Unfortunately even approving a supreme court justice has become partisan of late, gone are the days of 97-0 confirmation votes so we know how these things will most likely turn out.  

 
 
 
Freewill
11.1  Freewill  replied to  Right Down the Center @11    one month ago
gone are the days of 97-0 confirmation votes

Yes, unfortunately so.  Justices should be nominated/confirmed based on their record of fair, reasoned, and impartial decisions in matters of Constitutional importance, not on who can bend to the party platform of either the President who nominated them nor the Senate who confirmed them.  Our rabid partisan division these days threatens the checks and balances of the 3 branches of government.

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online




Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Freefaller
Kathleen


31 visitors