RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

and before the ink was dry on the announcement Mitch McConnel announced that the Senate will vote for whoever Trump nominates.

As if he himself never announced that the Senate shouldn't this close to an election.

Let the shit fight begin.

Before he fled the field, fly made many inappropriate remarks about this possibility.
It will finally mark a line in the sand for the GOP and posterity. If they do take advantage and quickly appoint a conservative replacement, they will win the battle but lose the war. Generations to come will have this taught as an object lession in morality.

Things you learn. RIP is a Christian thing. RBJ was of course Jewish.

ע״ה

Annachie wrote:and before the ink was dry on the announcement Mitch McConnel announced that the Senate will vote for whoever Trump nominates.

As if he himself never announced that the Senate shouldn't this close to an election.

Let the shit fight begin.

At the risk of sounding crass and unfeeling; after all a great personality has just passed, yet I’m forced to ask, if the Democrat dominated Congress can stall any B.O.M. nomination; at least, until after the Election?
Wasn’t there a similar situation during the last Presidential election? When the Republicans stalled on getting Obamas’ approved?

Annachie wrote:Things you learn. RIP is a Christian thing. RBJ was of course Jewish.

ע״ה

There's an equivalent in Hebrew, actually (תנוח על משכבה בשלום).

Arol wrote:At the risk of sounding crass and unfeeling; after all a great personality has just passed, yet I’m forced to ask, if the Democrat dominated Congress can stall any B.O.M. nomination; at least, until after the Election?
Wasn’t there a similar situation during the last Presidential election? When the Republicans stalled on getting Obamas’ approved?

The Democrats control the House, which has no say in the process. In Obama's case, it was the GOP-held Senate which blocked his appointment.

The Republicans probably have the capability to push through a new nominee, if the rush the process and there aren't more than 3 GOP objectors in the Senate. But doing so may spell the death knell for the Court's legitimacy

Annachie wrote:and before the ink was dry on the announcement Mitch McConnel announced that the Senate will vote for whoever Trump nominates.

As if he himself never announced that the Senate shouldn't this close to an election.

Let the shit fight begin.

If only the Democrats hadn't eliminated the filibuster on judicial appointments...

EDIT
Regardless of your leanings, Justice Ginsburg was one CLASS ACT. Wasn't it Justice Antonin Scalia - a man who was diametrically opposed to her on so many occasions - who said "If I had to be stuck on a desert island, the liberal I'd want with me is Ruth Bader Ginsburg." Perhaps my wording isn't exact, but he took the full measure of Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a PERSON and - IMHO - got it spot on correct.

Eyal wrote:

Annachie wrote:Things you learn. RIP is a Christian thing. RBJ was of course Jewish.

ע״ה

There's an equivalent in Hebrew, actually (תנוח על משכבה בשלום).

Arol wrote:At the risk of sounding crass and unfeeling; after all a great personality has just passed, yet I’m forced to ask, if the Democrat dominated Congress can stall any B.O.M. nomination; at least, until after the Election?
Wasn’t there a similar situation during the last Presidential election? When the Republicans stalled on getting Obamas’ approved?

The Democrats control the House, which has no say in the process. In Obama's case, it was the GOP-held Senate which blocked his appointment.

The Republicans probably have the capability to push through a new nominee, if the rush the process and there aren't more than 3 GOP objectors in the Senate. But doing so may spell the death knell for the Court's legitimacy

Whatever legitimacy might mean in this context. As long as the court has the power to render judgments it can still gum up the works. What this does raise is the prospect of FDR style court packing which may well not be a good idea either. What would be better would be judicial reform... perhaps rather than lifetime appointments, terms of, say, 10 years. The argument for Life terms was that it was supposed to insulate the court fromp political pressure. But that ship sailed a long time ago...probably with the Warren Court.

Don

-

WeberFan wrote:

Annachie wrote:and before the ink was dry on the announcement Mitch McConnel announced that the Senate will vote for whoever Trump nominates.

As if he himself never announced that the Senate shouldn't this close to an election.

Let the shit fight begin.

If only the Democrats hadn't eliminated the filibuster on judicial appointments...

Point. But the difficulty was that judicial vacancies weren't being filled...and then after the Republicans took the Senate Obama's appointments were slow walked.

As politically charged as things are right now it is hard to see a good solution to the matter.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:

Whatever legitimacy might mean in this context. As long as the court has the power to render judgments it can still gum up the works. What this does raise is the prospect of FDR style court packing which may well not be a good idea either. What would be better would be judicial reform... perhaps rather than lifetime appointments, terms of, say, 10 years. The argument for Life terms was that it was supposed to insulate the court fromp political pressure. But that ship sailed a long time ago...probably with the Warren Court.

Don

-

The thing is that legitimacy is more critical to the Supreme Court than for either of the other branches. In the end, it doesn't have its own enforcement powers; its decisions are binding because the rsst of the government and legislature agree that they're binding. If that changes...

I agree with you that court packing would not be a good idea (although it could be argued the court should be expanded for purely logistical reasons). But actually addressing the root issues would require a Constitutional amendment and is thus impractical.

Eyal wrote:

n7axw wrote:

Whatever legitimacy might mean in this context. As long as the court has the power to render judgments it can still gum up the works. What this does raise is the prospect of FDR style court packing which may well not be a good idea either. What would be better would be judicial reform... perhaps rather than lifetime appointments, terms of, say, 10 years. The argument for Life terms was that it was supposed to insulate the court fromp political pressure. But that ship sailed a long time ago...probably with the Warren Court.

Don

-

The thing is that legitimacy is more critical to the Supreme Court than for either of the other branches. In the end, it doesn't have its own enforcement powers; its decisions are binding because the rsst of the government and legislature agree that they're binding. If that changes...

I agree with you that court packing would not be a good idea (although it could be argued the court should be expanded for purely logistical reasons). But actually addressing the root issues would require a Constitutional amendment and is thus impractical.

You could be right. A constitutional amendment might eventually turn out more practical than you think. Nobody on either side really likes the current situaltion.

Don

-