Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has died

[AUDub 11,149]

1 minute ago, SaturdayGT said:

I think you have the entire left on your side!

Threat's gotta have teeth, bruh. 

[SaturdayGT 719]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

Threat's gotta have teeth, bruh. 

It absolutely does. We have all seen.

[AUDub 11,149]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

 

This got deleted. Wonder if Murkowski is dithering. 

[Leftfield 2,601]

3 hours ago, AUDub said:

And there it is lol. 

 

I'm wondering why he felt it necessary to address the issue of whether a vote will go to the floor. Could that not have waited a few days? Seriously, he brings it up in the same statement? 

[AUDub 11,149]

1 minute ago, Leftfield said:

I'm wondering why he felt it necessary to address the issue of whether a vote will go to the floor. Could that not have waited a few days? Seriously, he brings it up in the same statement? 

You unfamiliar with the political creature that is Mitch McConnell?

As if the fact that her corpse not even being cold would have any bearing. 

[AUDub 11,149]

20 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

 

Essentially have a "try me" conversation with Mitch and see who blinks.

 

Good luck. He'd simply stare you down while slowly nibbling on a leaf of lettuce. 

[auskip07 930]

 

8 hours ago, AUDub said:

You unfamiliar with the political creature that is Mitch McConnell?

As if the fact that her corpse not even being cold would have any bearing. 

 

You can take it to the bank that the right cares very little about appeasing those on the left.     They dont need your permission. 

[AUDub 11,149]

Just now, auskip07 said:

You can take it to the bank that the right cares very little about appeasing those on the left.     They dont need your permission. 

Nope! Sure don't! But that's not going to stop me from pointing out that the abject hypocrite has done more damage to the Senate than any politician in recent memory. 

[auskip07 930]

10 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Nope! Sure don't! But that's not going to stop me from pointing out that the abject hypocrite has done more damage to the Senate than any politician in recent memory. 

Point all you want but be sure to point a few of those fingers at RBG  herself.  She had ample opportunity to vacate her seat when the time was right and avoid this issue.   She chose to stay in power and ride it to the absolute end. 

[AUDub 11,149]

Just now, auskip07 said:

Point all you want but be sure to point a few of those fingers at RBG  herself.  She had ample opportunity to vacate her seat when the time was right and avoid this issue.   She chose to stay in power and ride it the absolute end. 

You'd have to go back quite a ways for her to have had a proper time to do that, I imagine. McConnell was willing to hold open a seat for a year. Doubt he'd have a had a problem doing it longer had she retired at any point during Obama's second term. 

[TitanTiger 20,483]

19 minutes ago, auskip07 said:

You can take it to the bank that the right cares very little about appeasing those on the left.     They dont need your permission. 

I don't really give a whit about appeasing the left either.  What bothers me is the abject hypocrisy of how it's being handled.  There's no excusing or explaining away that.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

9 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Is it fundamentally a good idea?  No 

Would I threaten it and follow through if McConnell tries to ram through a nominee?  Yep.

First thing Schumer should do is pull Mitch aside and make it very clear what the ramifications would be if McConnell goes through with this and the Dems win the Senate and WH.  He should threaten court packing and statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico and then be willing to do it.

Essentially have a "try me" conversation with Mitch and see who blinks.

On the bright side, we agree on one thing (see your first line above).

[auskip07 930]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

You'd have to go back quite a ways for her to have had a proper time to do that, I imagine. McConnell was willing to hold open a seat for a year. Doubt he'd have a had a problem doing it longer had she retired at any point during Obama's second term. 

I do remember people calling for her to vacate her seat shortly after obama won a 2nd term 2012.   That wasnt a long time ago.   

timeline   99,  diagonosed with colon cancer,   2009 pancreatic cancer.  

[auskip07 930]

9 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't really give a whit about appeasing the left either.  What bothers me is the abject hypocrisy of how it's being handled.  There's no excusing or explaining away that.

moot point if trump is elected a second term.    I dont believe there will be a vote  this year. 

Obama did nominate merrick garland to replace scalia.    trump is allowed to nominate someone like Obama did.        

[AUDub 11,149]

Just now, auskip07 said:

I do remember people calling for her to vacate her seat shortly after obama won a 2nd term 2012.   That wasnt a long time ago.   

timeline   99,  diagonosed with colon cancer,   2009 pancreatic cancer.  

8 years, man. And let's recall why it the judicial filibuster isn't a thing anymore to begin with. 

It's because McConnell absolutely put the clamps down on Obama nominating anyone to the courts once he had the power to do so. No matter what, the Rs were intransigent. They simply weren't going to allow him to fill those vacancies end of story. The dems burned the judicial filibuster as a result. Then the Rs had the majority after 14.

Unless the dems had been willing to burn the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees like McConnell did, I doubt they could have filled the seat after 2010. And there's no way they were going to be able to do it after the Rs took the majority. 

[TitanTiger 20,483]

5 minutes ago, auskip07 said:

moot point if trump is elected a second term.    I dont believe there will be a vote  this year. 

Well of course it's moot point if he's reelected.  But that's not the issue.  The issue is, if you thought in 2016 that eight months out from an election "the voters should have a say" in the next SCOTUS appointment and you refuse to even hold a vote on Garland's nomination, then certainly you should feel the same way now.  Be consistent.

That said, I think when there's a vote depends on November.  If Trump wins and the GOP keeps the Senate (or keep at least 50 seats allowing Pence to be the tiebreaker), they're less pressure to rush one through.  But if Biden wins, or the Senate flips, McConnell will put a nominee through quickly.  Whether they do it by Dec 31st or before the inauguration and new Senate is installed isn't really important.  The point is, one way or the other, they will ram one through.

[auskip07 930]

Just now, AUDub said:

8 years, man. And let's recall why it the judicial filibuster isn't a thing anymore to begin with. 

It's because McConnell absolutely put the clamps down on Obama nominating anyone to the courts once he had the power to do so. No matter what, the Rs were intransigent. They simply weren't going to allow him to fill those vacancies end of story. The dems burned the judicial filibuster as a result. Then the Rs had the majority after 14.

Unless the dems had been willing to burn the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees like McConnell did, I doubt they could have filled the seat after 2010. And there's no way they were going to be able to do it after the Rs took the majority. 

so it wasnt because the dems took the moral hi ground ....  they just couldnt get the nomination voted through? 

[auskip07 930]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Well of course it's moot point if he's reelected.  But that's not the issue.  The issue is, if you thought in 2016 that eight months out from an election "the voters should have a say" in the next SCOTUS appointment and you refuse to even hold a vote on Garland's nomination, then certainly you should feel the same way now.  Be consistent.

That said, I think when there's a vote depends on November.  If Trump wins and the GOP keeps the Senate (or keep at least 50 seats allowing Pence to be the tiebreaker), they're less pressure to rush one through.  But if Biden wins, or the Senate flips, McConnell will put a nominee through quickly.  Whether they do it by Dec 31st or before the inauguration and new Senate is installed isn't really important.  The point is, one way or the other, they will ram one through.

would the dems have done the same thing if they had the senate in 2012?    I think so.    Opportunity and ability are the driving factors. 

Trump will get his nomination like Obama did in 2016.  

[AUDub 11,149]

1 minute ago, auskip07 said:

so it wasnt because the dems took the moral hi ground ....  they just couldnt get the nomination voted through? 

McConnell wouldn't have let it while had the power to do so. The dems could have burned the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees if they had the political will, but that's the biggest difference between the Ds and the Rs, IMO. When the Rs have their hands on the levers of power, they'll actually use it. 

Which is why I want the Ds to start playing that game too. Screw the norms.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

Just now, auskip07 said:

would the dems have done the same thing if they had the senate in 2012?    I think so.    Opportunity and ability are the driving factors.

Speculating that the Dems "would have done the same thing" is just that - guessing.  And in this case it's guessing to try and justify what Republicans actually did and are doing.  It doesn't hold water as an excuse.

 

Just now, auskip07 said:

Trump will get his nomination like Obama did in 2016.  

This is false equivalence.  Obama nominated someone in 2016 and the R's wouldn't even give him an up/down vote for eight months or more until Trump could nominate someone else.  Yet they're going to bring Trump's nominee to a vote in record time.  Just call it what it is man.

[auskip07 930]

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

McConnell wouldn't have let it while had the power to do so. The dems could have burned the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees if they had the political will, but that's the biggest difference between the Ds and the Rs, IMO. When the Rs have their hands on the levers of power, they'll actually use it. 

Which is why I want the Ds to start playing that game too. Screw the norms.

you act like harry reid didn't eliminate the nuclear option  to benefit the democrats only to see it blow up in the partys face.   The democrats play dirty as much as the republicans.   Its just depends on which side you agree with. 

 

[auskip07 930]

3 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

Speculating that the Dems "would have done the same thing" is just that - guessing.  And in this case it's guessing to try and justify what Republicans actually did and are doing.  It doesn't hold water as an excuse.

 

This is false equivalence.  Obama nominated someone in 2016 and the R's wouldn't even give him an up/down vote for eight months or more until Trump could nominate someone else.  Yet they're going to bring Trump's nominee to a vote in record time.  Just call it what it is man.

 

again,  if the senate was in obamas favor he would have had the vote.     Thats what it is. 

Does nominating and confirming a SCOTUS Justice violate any laws/rules?
Sentiment isn't a winning strategy.

[TitanTiger 20,483]

1 minute ago, auskip07 said:

again,  if the senate was in obamas favor he would have had the vote.     Thats what it is. 

No, that's what is is now - after the Republicans ran over all the norms surrounding the process.  It's not how these things have been traditionally handled.

 

1 minute ago, auskip07 said:

Does nominating and confirming a SCOTUS Justice violate any laws/rules?
Sentiment isn't a winning strategy.

Of course not.  No one is suggesting jail time for anyone here.  What we are saying is that if you're going to lay a stick of dynamite to custom and precedent in the SCOTUS process that you at least be consistent.  Otherwise you're a hypocrite and lacking basic integrity.  This isn't complicated and doesn't require all the pretzel contortions to make it seem like no biggie.  If "the voters should have a say" in 2016, then the voters should have a say in 2020.  Had they allowed Garland and any subsequent nominees to come to the floor and the Senate just voted them down, then we wouldn't be having this discussion.  But that's not what happened.

[AUDub 11,149]

35 minutes ago, auskip07 said:

you act like harry reid didn't eliminate the nuclear option  to benefit the democrats only to see it blow up in the partys face. 

There was really nothing else they could do. The Rs were holding open 17 judicial and 59 executive positions for no reason.

At least Reid was somewhat willing to play dirty. I'm at a point now that I think they should simply play the game the same way the Rs will. 

Quote

The democrats play dirty as much as the republicans.   Its just depends on which side you agree with. 

Not to the degree Rs do. 

An example.

The Ds tried to play the game the right way with PPACA, accepted Republican input and made all sorts of concessions suggested by the Rs. Still didn't earn them a single vote in the senate and cost them their supermajority in short order.

The R's signature healthcare legislation? The Rs tried to ram it through via reconciliation, requiring a simple majority lol.

[DKW 86 7,425]

This is going to go about as well as the War on the Eastern Front. 

OMG, I may just turn the TV off till after November.