Ginsberg Passes Away

[Elegiac]

intent of the document and it's writers

Why is taking the opinion of racists and slaveholders into account "balanced"?

I reject the notion of constitutional originalism in its entirety. And you didn't even answer the question, to boot.

[kasuke06]

Why should the right be trusted to rule?

None should be trusted to rule implicitly. All whom would desire to do so must be questioned, examined, and if found wanting cast aside in favor of a greater good, not a lesser evil.

[Elegiac]

None should be trusted to rule implicitly. All whom would desire to do so must be questioned, examined, and if found wanting cast aside in favor of a greater good, not a lesser evil.

Then why are you making excuses for a blatant attempt by the right wing to seize power by claiming that the court is already balanced?

Cut it out with the truisms, they don't mean anything.

[kasuke06]

Then why are you making excuses for a blatant attempt by the right wing to seize power by claiming that the court is already balanced?

Cut it out with the truisms, they don't mean anything.

Again, I never said it was balanced. That's your own fabrication.

[Elegiac]

Again, I never said it was balanced. That's your own fabrication.

That's what was implied when you rolled into the thread with this nonsense:

Love the tribalism.

YOU MUST FOLLOW OUR LAWS! ONLY WE CAN BE TRUSTED TO RULE!

And then backtracking it with vague statements about "rule of law" "original intent" and other garbage that doesn't actually mean anything in this context.

But go ahead and pretend that calling to fix decades of Republican ratfucking the judiciary is "tribalism". Y'all are wild.

[kasuke06]

That's what was implied when you rolled into the thread with this nonsense:



And then backtracking it with vague statements about "rule of law" "original intent" and other garbage that doesn't actually mean anything in this context.

But go ahead and pretend that calling to fix decades of Republican ratfucking the judiciary is "tribalism". Y'all are wild.

We need to win the presidency, win back the Senate and pack the courts.

That was what I was responding to. Blind tribalism masquerading as a search for justice. I think you know that, and just have no intent of arguing in good faith.

[Elegiac]

That was what I was responding to. Blind tribalism masquerading as a search for justice. I think you know that, and just have no intent of arguing in good faith.

Nah, the only one who viewed it as "blind tribalism" was you.

I get that the shtick with woke independents is to pretend that because a viewpoint is held by a minority that therefore it must be correct, but these are life and death stakes these days and we don't exactly have the wiggle room for political hipsterism like we did in 2012.

[Antiganon]

What an utter disgrace to her memory on the part of McConnell and Cruz.

[beanman12345]

Ah, there the fucker is....

Ted Cruz: "I believe that the president should next week nominate a successor to the court, and I think it is critical that the Senate takes up and confirms that successor before Election Day ... this nomination is why Donald Trump was elected."

Leoffler and McSally seem to agree it needs to happen before election day.

[Themius]

Love the tribalism.

YOU MUST FOLLOW OUR LAWS! ONLY WE CAN BE TRUSTED TO RULE!

How many people are in jail in connection with working on the trump campaign?

Who is working with Russian agents the FBI warned the house about?

Who is removing IGs investigating crimes?

Who has been impeached?

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry, but "packing the court" means not representing the country...

The courts across this nation are much further right than the nation. Do you care, or is that cool because you're cool with fascism?

[Kellhound]

Why is taking the opinion of racists and slaveholders into account "balanced"?

I reject the notion of constitutional originalism in its entirety. And you didn't even answer the question, to boot.

You can reject it all you want, but it is up to 9 people alone to decide if a law is constitutional.

[kaelleria]

Love the tribalism.

YOU MUST FOLLOW OUR LAWS! ONLY WE CAN BE TRUSTED TO RULE!

You do realize that packing the courts is completely legal and has happened before? Maybe spend 5 minutes on wikipedia or read a civics text book or something.
You also realize that if Trump gets another justice that a president who lost the popular vote will have appointed more justices than presidents that won the popular vote.

Our courts are completely out of step with the will of the people right now and no amount of concern trolling is going to change my opinion on what needs to happen.

[infinitemeridian]

More mad that she didn't retire in 2015 - she was 81 and had already had 2 bouts of cancer.

It was extremely irresponsible of her to stay on the court past the age of 65.

Kind of sucks that our entire system rests on the fate of eight octogenarians!

[Masark]

More mad that she didn't retire in 2015 - she was 81 and had already had 2 bouts of cancer.

Why? Are you imagining that McConnell wouldn't have blocked her replacement's nomination until trump?

She would have had to retire in 2009 to get a worthwhile replacement.

[infinitemeridian]

Why? Are you imagining that McConnell wouldn't have blocked her replacement's nomination until trump?

She would have had to retire in 2009 to get a worthwhile replacement.

Dems controlled the senate until early 2015. I'm more mad at the system (and the people (aka dems) who only want to work within such a system than change it) than her, but she should have retired after she got diagnosed with cancer initially.

[beanman12345]

Dems controlled the senate until early 2015.

Yeah but they didn't use the nuclear option til mitch was in control on supreme court justices. Probably should have in hindsite.

[Fincayra]

https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/62446...it-matters-now

This article just became relevant info again.

[infinitemeridian]

Yeah but they didn't use the nuclear option til mitch was in control on supreme court justices. Probably should have in hindsite.

Hard to believe that they would have nominated anybody other than some sort of moderate like Garland regardless of trying to appease Mitch, but even that scenario would have preferable to now.

[PACOX]

Why? Are you imagining that McConnell wouldn't have blocked her replacement's nomination until trump?

She would have had to retire in 2009 to get a worthwhile replacement.

The reason why guy stopped the seat because of Scalia's death. It would have been trading a conservative for a moderate/liberal. That scenario did not exist prior to 2016 A resignation before would not as politically favorable or damaging to either party, not could have guy held the seat hostage for that long.

But nothing of that falls onto the shoulders of RBG anyway. Her job wasn't to play into Congressional politics, it was to protect and uphold the Constitution. Something did exceptionally well, so whether or not she should resigned earlier is even up for debate.

One would have to assume that it was her duty to hold the seat for Democrats - which it wasn't. And that the 2016 was lost was guaranteed - which it wasn't.

[For_The_Horde]

Crossposting:


A RAY OF HOPE. Grassley and Collins have apparently joined Romney and Murkowski in committing to not confirming a new Justice until after the inauguration. There is NOTHING to hold them to their promises, of course, but they've all now made these statements publicly as far as I can tell so it's likely the most we're going to get at this point.

EDIT: UGH, jumped the gun, apparently Grassley's comments were made earlier this year so who the fuck knows anymore. I wish I drank.

Don't forget about this little gem.

"If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump's term, and the primary process has started, we'll wait to the next election" - Sen. Lindsey Graham

https://twitter.com/YahooNews/status...09950778335232