Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has died

[homersapien 11,353]

McConnell's argument that this is different from Garland because the Senate and Presidency is controlled by the same party.  That is unconstitutional BS.  The Constitution doesn't address what party controls the Senate. 

If Garland was voted down, fine, it would have been constitutional.  Who is McConnell to prevent a vote - which the constitution affords? 

The constitution provides for the POTUS to nominate and the Senate to consent. 

McConnell said then it should be left up to the voters (with the election still 270+ days away).  I am OK with a custom of any fourth year POTUS deferring a nomination until after the election (Lincoln did it), but if they do, the Senate is constitutionally obligated to take it up.

McConnell's weak rationalization won't fly with the American people.  It was clearly a unconstitutional power play in 2016, and it's a breathtakingly hypocritical power play today.

I also further politicizes the SCOTUS - if that's even possible.  Regardless it's not good for our democracy.  I trust it will be even worse for the future of the Republican party. 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,353]

On 9/25/2020 at 10:15 PM, RunInRed said:

 

Would she also defer elections since they might also ("inappropriately") and "dramatically flip the balance of power"? 

This sounds like a self-reveal for a potential Justice who will clearly be a partisan in what is supposed to be a non-political position.

[Leftfield 2,585]

Even if she is confirmed before the election, is there not a clear conflict of interest if anything related to the election goes to the Supreme Court? Anyone confirmed in this situation should recuse themselves from election issues.

[homersapien 11,353]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Even if she is confirmed before the election, is there not a clear conflict of interest if anything related to the election goes to the Supreme Court? Anyone confirmed in this situation should recuse themselves from election issues.

I agree.  But don't expect her to recuse herself before confirmation.  Trump would withdraw her nomination.  He's already stated that as a reason to proceed.

[Grumps 3,693]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Even if she is confirmed before the election, is there not a clear conflict of interest if anything related to the election goes to the Supreme Court? Anyone confirmed in this situation should recuse themselves from election issues.

Can you explain why it would be a conflict of interest?

[Leftfield 2,585]

Just now, Grumps said:

Can you explain why it would be a conflict of interest?

She is a judge nominated six weeks before an election by a President that has already stated he expects the Supreme Court to be involved in that election due to widespread voting fraud.

[Grumps 3,693]

Just now, Leftfield said:

She is a judge nominated six weeks before an election by a President that has already stated he expects the Supreme Court to be involved in that election due to widespread voting fraud.

If she is a judge nominated and confirmed exactly as constitutionally outlined before the election then I don't see shy she should recuse herself. But I don't think that the election will end up in the hands of the SCOTUS, so maybe it won't matter.

[Leftfield 2,585]

7 minutes ago, Grumps said:

If she is a judge nominated and confirmed exactly as constitutionally outlined before the election then I don't see shy she should recuse herself.

When a person is in a situation where they could be compromised, they traditionally recuse themselves. It eliminates questions of integrity in our legal system. Seeing as how that trust is already being eroded, lack of recusal in this situation would make it far worse. 

[Grumps 3,693]

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

When a person is in a situation where they could be compromised, they traditionally recuse themselves. It eliminates questions of integrity in our legal system. Seeing as how that trust is already being eroded, lack of recusal in this situation would make it far worse. 

Should all of Trumps SCOTUS nominees recuse themselves? If she has been legally nominated and confirmed then she would be as legitimate as any of Trump's other nominees.

[Leftfield 2,585]

3 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Should all of Trumps SCOTUS nominees recuse themselves? If she has been legally nominated and confirmed then she would be as legitimate as any of Trump's other nominees.

Those nominations were not made with an impending election.

[Grumps 3,693]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Those nominations were not made with an impending election.

What bearing does the election have on her nomination/confirmation?

[Leftfield 2,585]

2 minutes ago, Grumps said:

What bearing does the election have on her nomination/confirmation?

Apologies, as I don't mean to be insulting, but are you baiting on this, or do you really not understand? Trump is choosing a judge to sit on the very court that may be tasked with deciding issues related to his re-election. How can you not see that as a conflict of interest?

[TitanTiger 20,471]

3 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Apologies, as I don't mean to be insulting, but are you baiting on this, or do you really not understand? Trump is choosing a judge to sit on the very court that may be tasked with deciding issues related to his re-election. How can you not see that as a conflict of interest?

I mean, on a surface level I can see that.  But one of the things about the SCOTUS is, once a judge is confirmed, there's nothing that any President or Senator can really do that has any power or leverage over them.  The second they are sworn in, they could literally tell everyone that got them in, "**** off, suckers!" and there's not a damn thing anyone could do about it.  The best you could say is that they just internally *feel* some kind of loyalty to those who got them confirmed and nominated, but there's nothing that could be done to remove them if they immediately screwed over every single person involved.

[Leftfield 2,585]

Certainly, but if there is a court challenge that is ruled in the President's favor then the question of whether there was a quid pro quo to get the nomination would still stand. 

 

[SocialCircle 570]

8 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Certainly, but if there is a court challenge that is ruled in the President's favor then the question of whether there was a quid pro quo to get the nomination would still stand. 

 

It wouldn’t for those who have paid attention as she has always been on Trump’s list and was vetted prior to at least the Kavanaugh nomination. It has been clear to me she was always going to be the likely nominee if anything happened with RBG and Trump had anything to do with it. 

[homersapien 11,353]

7 hours ago, Grumps said:

If she is a judge nominated and confirmed exactly as constitutionally outlined before the election then I don't see shy she should recuse herself. But I don't think that the election will end up in the hands of the SCOTUS, so maybe it won't matter.

Like Trump, you probably don't understand why Sessions recused himself either.

[Grumps 3,693]

47 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Like Trump, you probably don't understand why Sessions recused himself either.

I thought Sessions did the right thing by recusing himself since he was part of Trump's campaign and Trump's campaign was being investigated. ACB would not be ruling on her nomination/confirmation. She would not be any more likely to side with Trump's wishes than would Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.

Sorry you are wrong again.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

9 minutes ago, Grumps said:

I thought Sessions did the right thing by recusing himself since he was part of Trump's campaign and Trump's campaign was being investigated. ACB would not be ruling on her nomination/confirmation. She would not be any more likely to side with Trump's wishes than would Gorsuch or Kavanaugh.

Sorry you are wrong again.

The whole bench should just recuse themselves...I’m sure they are all so polarized in their left or right beliefs their decision is already tainted. You’d think that none of them have any integrity with all this talk. 

[Grumps 3,693]

2 minutes ago, wdefromtx said:

The whole bench should just recuse themselves...I’m sure they are all so polarized in their left or right beliefs their decision is already tainted. You’d think that none of them have any integrity with all this talk. 

It is clear that all SCOTUS appointed by republicans should resign as should all republican house and senate members should resign. Anyone who is not a liberal clearly has brain damage and is not "fit" to be in government. 🤣

[jj3jordan 2,040]

10 hours ago, Leftfield said:

She is a judge nominated six weeks before an election by a President that has already stated he expects the Supreme Court to be involved in that election due to widespread voting fraud.

Sorry Kagan ruled on Obamacare after advising writers and helping them write it so it would pass muster with the court. She refused to recuse.  So, guess what, recusal is off the table.

[Leftfield 2,585]

7 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Sorry Kagan ruled on Obamacare after advising writers and helping them write it so it would pass muster with the court. She refused to recuse.  So, guess what, recusal is off the table.

This has some bearing on the current situation how?

[jj3jordan 2,040]

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

This has some bearing on the current situation how?

You don’t see the similarities?  Fresh off a case now on the court ruling on her case. Refused to recuse. If that’s not clear then nothing is.  If Barrett is a strict constructionist she will file accordingly. Not illegally as a favor to the person who nominated her.  SC is supposed to be above this. I believe Barrett is. Kagan is clearly not. 

[TitanTiger 20,471]

17 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Certainly, but if there is a court challenge that is ruled in the President's favor then the question of whether there was a quid pro quo to get the nomination would still stand. 

 

They could wonder, but again, even if there was a quid pro quo understanding...how would the president hold her to it?  Once she's on the bench, he has zero power to do anything about it.  She could "double-cross" him so to speak and there's not a damn thing he could do.

[homersapien 11,353]

On 9/27/2020 at 1:37 PM, Leftfield said:

When a person is in a situation where they could be compromised, they traditionally recuse themselves. It eliminates questions of integrity in our legal system. Seeing as how that trust is already being eroded, lack of recusal in this situation would make it far worse. 

Sad you have to explain this. 

[Leftfield 2,585]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

They could wonder, but again, even if there was a quid pro quo understanding...how would the president hold her to it?  Once she's on the bench, he has zero power to do anything about it.  She could "double-cross" him so to speak and there's not a damn thing he could do.

Already admitted that she could absolutely double-cross him, but then, what would that say about her integrity?

My point is not to attack Barrett on this. The point is that justices routinely recuse themselves when there is a conflict of interest so as to ward off any ethical questions. I'm surprised so many have expressed the opinion that this doesn't qualify as a conflict of interest.