View Full Version : RBG dead at 87
iris lilies
9-18-20, 8:47pm
Justice Ginsburg died this evening.
I didn’t know she was that ill with cancer. I figured she would chug along a while longer.
I doubt the Democrats are gonna let President Trump choose her successor.
gimmethesimplelife
9-18-20, 10:05pm
Things are going to get worse in America now. Rob
If you don’t think the Dems would be acting the same way if parties were reversed, you are sadly mistaken.
Devastating for women in this country.
Mitch McConnell has already reversed his position statement declared in February of 2016. Double standards and lying are prolific among the Reds!
Teacher Terry
9-19-20, 12:09am
McConnell wouldn’t let Obama choose a justice 10 months before the election and a moderate Republican at that. No democrats wouldn’t be trying this crap. She was awesome and it’s really sad.
McConnell wouldn’t let Obama choose a justice 10 months before the election and a moderate Republican at that. No democrats wouldn’t be trying this crap. She was awesome and it’s really sad.
Oh we both know Harry Reid would have done the same if given the opportunity and I believe if you went back to Biden's time in the Senate it was he that suggested that a split White House/Senate shouldn't confirm. This White House/Senate are not split.
The really interesting thing now will be watching those of you who were adamant that McConnell should allow confirmation hearings 4 years ago reverse course and become even more adamant that he shouldn't. Politics may be a nasty business but it's endlessly entertaining.
It seems to me that we should play by the rules that were set in 2016. For the republicans to do otherwise would be pure hypocrisy. I realize, of course, that Moscow Mitch, not to mention all but one of the current republican senators, has absolutely no morals or ethics so I fully expect a nominee by the end of the week and a vote on that nominee a few hours later.
The only way the above won’t play out is if enough of the endangered and currently up for re-election republicans senators say ‘pump the brakes on the Lada Mitch! I can’t do something this hypocritical and high profile and still have a chance of winning re-election.’
I think conservative commentator Charlie Sykes got it about right in his tweet:
Political fallout from quick nomination:
1. Firm up conservative base.
2. Give anti-anti-Trumpers the cover they have been yearning for.
3. Mobilize Democrats in a way that Biden alone never could.
4. Kill GOP among suburban women.
Long term fallout for court. Much worse.
Long term fallout for court. Much worse.I actually think the court is harmed by activist judges such as RBG since activism politicizes the court.
I actually think the court is harmed by activist judges such as RBG since activism politicizes the court.
I’d love to hear where she was an activist rather than following the constitution.
Even if 3-4 GOP senators defect, the VP could break a tie and put a Trump nominee over the top. And the filibuster is no longer available as an option since Harry Reid ended it for federal judges. I personally think Amy Barrett would be a good choice.
As far as who gets energized more by Trump violating imaginary rules, I think it’s pretty much a wash. The rigidly partisan made up their minds in 2016. The non-partisans seem more likely to vote based on other issues than a judicial nominee.
I think we can look forward to another Kavanaugh-style circus.
happystuff
9-19-20, 10:57am
Devastating for women in this country.
A VERY scary time for women in this country!
iris lilies
9-19-20, 11:03am
Even if 3-4 GOP senators defect, the VP could break a tie and put a Trump nominee over the top. And the filibuster is no longer available as an option since Harry Reid ended it for federal judges. I personally think Amy Barrett would be a good choice.
As far as who gets energized more by Trump violating imaginary rules, I think it’s pretty much a wash. The rigidly partisan made up their minds in 2016. The non-partisans seem more likely to vote based on other issues than a judicial nominee.
I think we can look forward to another Kavanaugh-style circus.
How can the august body accomplish anything in 50 ish days?
i dunno, I guess the next 50 ish days will be filled with all kinds of drama. The year 2020 was the year that was!
I think my timeline above was wrong. Mitch may be a traitorous asshole but he's not an idiot. The senate won't do anything before the election, but afterwards they'll do a quick confirmation vote during the lame duck session because that's how republicans roll these days.
Trump, however, will probably have nominated Jerry Falwell Jr by the end of the week since he seems to have the right qualifications.
Several accusers have already been found. They just are waiting to see who is nominated to see if they are going the sexual assault or racist route. Go fund me accounts are being readied.
And of coarse city’s will have to be looted and burned.
The nomination to confirmation process for Kavanaugh was 3-4 months, and that included time to review his high school yearbook and procure Handmaid’s Tale costumes. That would seem to be sufficient.
If Trump were to nominate Barrett, the biggest objection to be raised would probably come from the crowd who doesn’t think Catholics should be judges. That will make for a less interesting confirmation hearing, what with no sexual aspects to hold the public’s interest.
happystuff
9-19-20, 11:32am
The nomination to confirmation process for Kavanaugh was 3-4 months, and that included time to review his high school yearbook and procure Handmaid’s Tale costumes. That would seem to be sufficient.
If Trump were to nominate Barrett, the biggest objection to be raised would probably come from the crowd who doesn’t think Catholics should be judges. That will make for a less interesting confirmation hearing, what with no sexual aspects to hold the public’s interest.
"Catholics" and "no sexual aspects" used together??? ROFLOL! Good laugh, but I REALLY need to stay away from this thread!
"Catholics" and "no sexual aspects" used together??? ROFLOL! Good laugh, but I REALLY need to stay away from this thread!
I was thinking of sexual aspects more along the lines of vaguely remembered accusations of rape than the politics of abortion, but I could see how you could get confused.
iris lilies
9-19-20, 12:01pm
Several accusers have already been found. They just are waiting to see who is nominated to see if they are going the sexual assault or racist route. Go fund me accounts are being readied.
And of coarse city’s will have to be looted and burned.
I was going to add your last sentence but you beat me to it.
I’d love to hear where she was an activist rather than following the constitution.
I'm thinking of her words in the documentary about her, something along the lines of "I see myself as a kindergarten teacher, educating the ignorant".
What a loss. She won't be forgotten. Rest in peace, RBG.
I admired her very much.
frugal-one
9-19-20, 2:13pm
Oh we both know Harry Reid would have done the same if given the opportunity and I believe if you went back to Biden's time in the Senate it was he that suggested that a split White House/Senate shouldn't confirm. This White House/Senate are not split.
The really interesting thing now will be watching those of you who were adamant that McConnell should allow confirmation hearings 4 years ago reverse course and become even more adamant that he shouldn't. Politics may be a nasty business but it's endlessly entertaining.
Entertaining is not the word I would use. Lying and duplicity is more like it for this administration.
frugal-one
9-19-20, 2:19pm
I actually think the court is harmed by activist judges such as RBG since activism politicizes the court.
You obviously are a misogynist! RBG was/is my hero. You were not a woman in the 70's or thereafter and the laws were such that we were chattel. She vastly helped women and minorities get equal rights. Go watch the documentary RBG. You obviously do not know of what you speak.
frugal-one
9-19-20, 2:20pm
Even if 3-4 GOP senators defect, the VP could break a tie and put a Trump nominee over the top. And the filibuster is no longer available as an option since Harry Reid ended it for federal judges. I personally think Amy Barrett would be a good choice.
As far as who gets energized more by Trump violating imaginary rules, I think it’s pretty much a wash. The rigidly partisan made up their minds in 2016. The non-partisans seem more likely to vote based on other issues than a judicial nominee.
I think we can look forward to another Kavanaugh-style circus.
Which was absolutely disgusting.... another abuser.
frugal-one
9-19-20, 2:22pm
Several accusers have already been found. They just are waiting to see who is nominated to see if they are going the sexual assault or racist route. Go fund me accounts are being readied.
And of coarse city’s will have to be looted and burned.
That is the moral character of this administration.
You obviously are a misogynist! If the women in my life were prone to applying labels to everyone, I don't think they'd plant that one on me. but they probably don't know me as well as you do. I'll overlook the insult and just assume that you'd rather see more activism on the Supreme Court. Is that right?
frugal-one
9-19-20, 3:06pm
If the women in my life were prone to applying labels to everyone, I don't think they'd plant that one on me. but they probably don't know me as well as you do. I'll overlook the insult and just assume that you'd rather see more activism on the Supreme Court. Is that right?
Activism isn't the word I would use. Fair, unprejudiced, unbiased are words I would describe a person that should be on the supreme court.
BTW .... RBG is on tonight on CNN 10pm Eastern.
Teacher Terry
9-19-20, 3:51pm
I can see why she was threatening to some men because she was brilliant. It’s a huge loss for the country.
BTW .... RBG is on tonight on CNN 10pm Eastern.
Will Anderson Cooper be conducting a seance?
It's sad to lose a major player in the fight for equal rights for women, especially at a time when we have two gropers running for president, one of whom was instrumental in dismissing and humiliating Anita Hill during a Supreme Court nominee hearing.
gimmethesimplelife
9-19-20, 5:31pm
What a loss. She won't be forgotten. Rest in peace, RBG.
I admired her very much.Me too. I admired her too. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
9-19-20, 5:32pm
Will Anderson Cooper be conducting a seance?I'd love to attend if he is! Rob
frugal-one
9-19-20, 5:37pm
Will Anderson Cooper be conducting a seance?
I don't usually watch that channel but may be worth it tonight.
gimmethesimplelife
9-19-20, 5:39pm
I can see why she was threatening to some men because she was brilliant. It’s a huge loss for the country.Most gay men I've discussed her with love(d) her - and she was all for same-sex marriage passing. Thank God that passed before she died is all I can say. I don't trust a more conservative leaning Supreme Court to care one iota regarding the basic human rights and basic human dignity of gays and lesbians. Let's just hope that this progress is not now undone - and make plans to flee - at least for gays and lesbians that find such monstrous - to a better and more appropriate country, of course getting socialized medicine out of the deal, too. We'll see what transpires but I'm low on faith on this one. Rob
gimmethesimplelife
9-19-20, 5:41pm
That is the moral character of this administration.This administration has moral character? Learn something new every day! (Sarc fully on) Rob
This administration has moral character? Learn something new every day! (Sarc fully on) Rob
:~)!Splat!
gimmethesimplelife
9-19-20, 5:42pm
It's sad to lose a major player in the fight for equal rights for women, especially at a time when we have two gropers running for president, one of whom was instrumental in dismissing and humiliating Anita Hill during a Supreme Court nominee hearing.It's a loss for gay men and lesbians, too - she definitely had our back, too - not just women. Rob
Rob I don't see gay marriage being undone. Roberts has moved to the center and is now considered a swing not a right wing justice.
Rob I don't see gay marriage being undone. Roberts has moved to the center and is now considered a swing not a right wing justice.It takes a while for public figures to get over whatever labels their haters put on them.
frugal-one
9-19-20, 9:20pm
This administration has moral character? Learn something new every day! (Sarc fully on) Rob
You missed the bold highlight......
sexual assault or racist is the moral character
Rob I don't see gay marriage being undone. Roberts has moved to the center and is now considered a swing not a right wing justice.
It takes a while for public figures to get over whatever labels their haters put on them.
He’s not trying to ‘get over’ a label. He’s trying to salvage his future reputation. If trump succeeds in appointing an activist judge that will no longer be possible.
He’s not trying to ‘get over’ a label. He’s trying to salvage his future reputation. If trump succeeds in appointing an activist judge that will no longer be possible.I agree he's not trying to 'get over' the label progressives put on him. The real point of his time on the court is that the labels you guys put on him (and others) is based more on your own ideological hatred than fact.
Jane v2.0
9-20-20, 11:07am
I agree he's not trying to 'get over' the label progressives put on him. The real point of his time on the court is that the labels you guys put on him (and others) is based more on your own ideological hatred than fact.
Oh please--the right is awash in hate. You're projecting.
I listened to the morning political talks today. It was interesting to hear the Republicans dance around their statements from earlier times when they said nominations close to election should wait and let the voters decide. The videos must have included ten of them. The levels of integrity were somewhat expected, but discouraging.
I listened to the morning political talks today. It was interesting to hear the Republicans dance around their statements from earlier times when they said nominations close to election should wait and let the voters decide. The videos must have included ten of them. The levels of integrity were somewhat expected, but discouraging.
I listened to several as well and I find it equally interesting to see the lack of coverage of Democrats doing the same. We all know that if Democrats held the Executive branch as well as the Senate, they would do exactly what they're accusing the Republicans of now so I find the one-sided coverage disappointing but not unexpected.
I listened to several as well and I find it equally interesting to see the lack of coverage of Democrats doing the same. We all know that if Democrats held the Executive branch as well as the Senate, they would do exactly what they're accusing the Republicans of now so I find the one-sided coverage disappointing but not unexpected.
You're comparing hypothetical to historical. Of course there's no coverage.
You're comparing hypothetical to historical. Of course there's no coverage.It's hypothetical only because the Dems did not hold the Senate in 2016. But their desires at the time were well documented including on these very pages where many of you told us again how much Republicans suck for standing in your way. Now it's funny how Republicans still suck for threatening to do what Democrats wanted in 2016.
I think it's dishonest to deny that both parties are filled with opportunists willing to do about turns on any issue at a moment's notice.
Teacher Terry
9-20-20, 1:41pm
If a president cannot pick at 10 months he certainly shouldn’t do so at 6 weeks before election. You can’t have it both ways.
I expect the confirmation vote will note be until after the election. And if trump and perhaps a few republican senators lose it will undoubtedly not change that outcome because republicans don’t think elections matter.
What will be interesting is whether trump can find a moderate enough female sucker to stick her reputation on the line in such a blatantly political way for the possibility of becoming a Supreme Court justice.
The other thing that is apparent is that republicans are very concerned that they are going to lose in 6 weeks. If they had confidence that trump was going to win they wouldn’t be making such a rush job of this.
If a president cannot pick at 10 months he certainly shouldn’t do so at 6 weeks before election. You can’t have it both ways.A president can pick whenever he wants, the question is does the Senate have a duty to confirm or even consider that choice. I think history has shown that the answer to that depends upon who's controlling the Senate at the time, and they obviously can have it both ways since they're under no constitutional mandate.
What's telling is that virtually everyone changes their mind on what should be done based upon who's doing it. It's not just Republicans who believed one way in 2016 and now possibly think differently in 2020, it's also the Democrats. How can you assign hypocrisy to just one team?
The other thing that is apparent is that republicans are very concerned that they are going to lose in 6 weeks. If they had confidence that trump was going to win they wouldn’t be making such a rush job of this.
I think that's correct up to a point. It's not lack of confidence that Trump will win as much as the fear that the Senate may change hands. Trump can only nominate someone but it takes the Senate to confirm and close the deal.
Personally, I don't care which team nominates even though I know that whoever the nominee is you'll hate them if Trump does it (as you've already disparaged whoever that may be) and love them if Biden does.
It's hypothetical only because the Dems did not hold the Senate in 2016. But their desires at the time were well documented including on these very pages where many of you told us again how much Republicans suck for standing in your way. Now it's funny how Republicans still suck for threatening to do what Democrats wanted in 2016.
I think it's dishonest to deny that both parties are filled with opportunists willing to do about turns on any issue at a moment's notice.
I think you are right that both parties talk from both sides of their mouths on procedural quarrels like appointments and the filibuster, depending on the prevailing situation. Last year’s abomination becomes this year’s sacred “norm”. Last month’s brilliant tactic becomes this month’s “threat to our democracy”. I’m reading the Democrats are currently considering bringing back FDR style court-packing. If they succeed, and their opponents later try the same tactic, expect similar indignation.
I could grin and bear it if Republicans nominated smart, well-respected, strict constructionists. But they're putting up nominees who often don't meet basic requirements, according to the ABA, who has rated at least four "unqualified,' more than in any recent administration in the same time frame.
All the bothesiderists apparently don’t see a difference between someone being selected for a Supreme Court sweat 9 months before the election versus one 6 weeks before the election where early voting has actually already started in multiple states.
But whatever. Now that the Republican Party has officially killed the concept of political norms it’s time for the Dems to follow suit. If we’re going to have to endure ‘both sides do it’ regardless we may as well at least give them an actual reason to say it.
“ I think it's dishonest to deny that both parties are filled with opportunists”
Bingo
I could grin and bear it if Republicans nominated smart, well-respected, strict constructionists. But they're putting up nominees who often don't meet basic requirements, according to the ABA, who has rated at least four "unqualified,' more than in any recent administration in the same time frame.Of course you're talking about nominees for federal judge slots rather than Supreme Court slots. It's interesting that the ABA is known to have a liberal bias, probably best represented in their "not qualified" rating for two Reagan nominees while giving "well qualified" ratings to two Clinton nominees while the resume's of all four were virtually the same. Even more interesting was a study from a dozen or more years ago which showed that liberal nominees ranked higher in ABA reviews than conservative nominees, even though their experience and backgrounds were similar. https://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/us/31bar.html
To their credit though, both of Trumps Supreme Court nominees have been rated "well qualified" by the ABA.
I'm surprised that Brett "I like beer" Kavanaugh scored so highly. I hope he's stopped mauling women and can attend to his appointment without distraction.
I'm surprised that Brett "I like beer" Kavanaugh scored so highly. I hope he's stopped mauling women and can attend to his appointment without distraction.I'm sure the opposition will do a better job of destroying whoever's nominated this time. With so little time before the election I'd be surprised if the witnesses/victims haven't been identified and prepped and accusations formulated to cover any contingency that may arise. Now they just need to identify the abuser/nominee and let the show begin.
frugal-one
9-20-20, 4:13pm
I'm sure the opposition will do a better job of destroying whoever's nominated this time. With so little time before the election I'd be surprised if the witnesses/victims haven't been identified and prepped and accusations formulated to cover any contingency that may arise. Now they just need to identify the abuser/nominee and let the show begin.
I'm sure if it there to find, they will.... as they should!
Hillary Clinton in this 2019 article says she "may" have expressed an opinion or two about nominating Ginsburg.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/ruth-bader-ginsburg-bill-and-hillary-clinton-reminisce-about-her-nomination/2019/10/30/57bd1014-fb67-11e9-ac8c-8eced29ca6ef_story.html
A year later RBG dies and on Meet the Press with Chuck Todd Hillary claims that she pushed Bill to nominate her and takes the credit for RBG getting on the Supreme Court. This sort of dishonesty is why she lost the election. Now we have again have two lying major party nominees. It's disheartening.
"That kind of dishonesty" pales in comparison to the pathological lying, grifting Russian asset we got instead.
Taking advantage of public sympathy for someone's death to boost your own reputation with lies is pretty low too.
I listened to several as well and I find it equally interesting to see the lack of coverage of Democrats doing the same. We all know that if Democrats held the Executive branch as well as the Senate, they would do exactly what they're accusing the Republicans of now so I find the one-sided coverage disappointing but not unexpected.
I don't have a strong opinion on when the nomination should take place or which party might be right or wrong as long as things are within the intent of the law. What bothered me is the preponderance of prominent Republicans who had offered in no uncertain terms that they did not accept nomination so close to an election. And then how stories were made up to justify how things are different now. I suppose that's just politics, but it's just sad our country's leaders are not honest with the public. I would think integrity would rate higher. Deception is so common these days it's almost expected and the deceptor in chief provides an awfully poor example. What are our kids learning about leadership and success.
If we truly wanted to make our country great again, integrity over power and gross accumulation of wealth would be an excellent start.
What are our kids learning about leadership and success.I don't think they learn much history or civics in schools anymore so they'll probably get all their impressions from media, and those impressions will be one-sided.
frugal-one
9-20-20, 7:51pm
I don't think they learn much history or civics in schools anymore so they'll probably get all their impressions from media, and those impressions will be one-sided.
Yeah, all trumpers when they don’t like what is being said scream “fake news”. That is the tactic Hitler used to keep the masses swayed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/opinion/hitler-speech-1919.html
I don't think they learn much history or civics in schools anymore so they'll probably get all their impressions from media, and those impressions will be one-sided.
I guess that's how a lot of conspiracy theory starts since the messages from leadership can't be trusted.
Yeah, all trumpers when they don’t like what is being said scream “fake news”. That is the tactic Hitler used to keep the masses swayed.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/16/opinion/hitler-speech-1919.html
Well, I've finally hit the frugal-one trifecta, Misogynist, Trumper and Hitlerian.....and all in just two days and one thread. Yay Me!
Well, I've finally hit the frugal-one trifecta, Misogynist, Trumper and Hitlerian.....and all in just two days and one thread. Yay Me!
Now you know see why I put her or him on my ignore list.
Today's Wash Post had a short article and a video feature that showed a summary collection of the politician's earlier statements regarding the nomination and then dancing around the truth now. I suppose it's just "coincidence" that they are Republicans. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/09/20/ted-cruz-accidentally-shows-democrats-way-forward/
Lying politicians are not anything new, but it seems like these days we are just expecting it because it's so common, it's mostly one sided, and lead by the example of Trump who tells doozies on a daily basis.
I’m reading that the President will announce his pick this coming weekend. Then the fun can really begin.
iris lilies
9-21-20, 11:40am
I’m reading that the President will announce his pick this coming weekend. Then the fun can really begin.
Right. I would expect the president to go forth and offer up a candidate. What the Senate does with it in 40 some days is the circus.
A democratic operative talking on NPR has the opinion that Democrats in the Senate can indeed stop this process by focusing entirely on procedural matters that keeps issues coming to the floor for a vote
frugal-one
9-21-20, 1:33pm
Well, I've finally hit the frugal-one trifecta, Misogynist, Trumper and Hitlerian.....and all in just two days and one thread. Yay Me!
Nope. Read the article. trump is the Hitler-wanna-be. Trumpers believe his "fake news" dogma.
Friday night was rough. I have heard that ActBlue has raised like $90,000,000 since then.
I agree that the Republicans are hypocritical, and all the blah-blah-blah around why these circumstances are different is lies and obfuscation, in keeping with Trump's patterns. Yeah, the President has the RIGHT to nominate a new justice, but given that the vetting process and procedures generally take a minimum of 2 months, the idea of rushing this thru in less than 6 weeks is deeply disturbing. I would happy to see an experienced intelligent moderate nominated...like Merrick Garland, maybe?
I am also a bit concerned with the natterings of "packing the court" as revenge/remedy if this appointment gets rammed through.
iris lilies
9-21-20, 5:13pm
I am also a bit concerned with the natterings of "packing the court" as revenge/remedy if this appointment gets rammed through.
I’m not sure what you mean here.
Supreme court appointment is probably my strongest reason for voting for Trump, not that I will necessarily but it’s the leading Theoretical reason for me.
If he pushes thru his candidate In this term then maybe some of his supporters will wipe their hands of him and say OK we are done. Like the evangelicals. When that be interesting?
I’m not sure what you mean here.
Some of the Democrats have offered up the solution of "well, if the GOP rams through this appointment, after Biden wins we'll just add a few more seats to the Supreme Court and fix it that way..."
FDR threatened this once.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan
iris lilies
9-21-20, 5:42pm
Some of the Democrats have offered up the solution of "well, if the GOP rams through this appointment, after Biden wins we'll just add a few more seats to the Supreme Court and fix it that way..."
FDR threatened this once.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/roosevelt-announces-court-packing-plan
Oh right! I’m glad you brought this up because I heard mention of it on the radio today and then forgot about it. I was gonna look it up to see what the heck that’s about. So more can be added to the supreme court, well now that’s an interesting situation.
I think The Heritage Foundation/Trump is going to nominate an anti-choice zealot to overturn Roe V Wade. Is that what you want? At least some are expecting Trump's court to have another go at same-sex marriage. And DACA will probably be overturned. I shudder to think.
If I were Queen, I'd only choose irreligious candidates; I think we need a wider separation of church and state than we have now.
I think The Heritage Foundation/Trump is going to nominate an anti-choice zealot to overturn Roe V Wade. Is that what you want?
I think overturning Roe v. Wade (along with Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Whole Women's Health v. Herllerstedt) would go against the Court's basic policy of stare decisis.
I think a bold-faced partisan "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would also have other fallout.
Minor compared to the rest of the firestorms consuming our nation, but still.
I think overturning Roe v. Wade (along with Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Whole Women's Health v. Herllerstedt) would go against the Court's basic policy of stare decisis.
I think a bold-faced partisan "overturning" of Roe v. Wade would also have other fallout.
Minor compared to the rest of the firestorms consuming our nation, but still.
I'm not sure the Right would honor stare decisis, and their selling point to evangelicals is "Vote for us--we'll overturn Roe."
frugal-one
9-21-20, 6:59pm
I’m not sure what you mean here.
Supreme court appointment is probably my strongest reason for voting for Trump, not that I will necessarily but it’s the leading Theoretical reason for me.
If he pushes thru his candidate In this term then maybe some of his supporters will wipe their hands of him and say OK we are done. Like the evangelicals. When that be interesting?
Why?
I'm not sure the Right would honor stare decisis, and their selling point to evangelicals is "Vote for us--we'll overturn Roe."
Then we really wouldn't have the sort of legal system that we signed up for.
We'd be more of a shithole country.
iris lilies
9-21-20, 8:23pm
Why?
In my fantasy, we have a better chance of getting a constitutionalist justice with Trump than we do with Biden.
frugal-one
9-21-20, 9:23pm
In my fantasy, we have a better chance of getting a constitutionalist justice with Trump than we do with Biden.
I don’t know what you mean?
https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Justice-Liberal-Theory-Rule/dp/0198298307
iris lilies
9-21-20, 9:45pm
I don’t know what you mean?
https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Justice-Liberal-Theory-Rule/dp/0198298307
And I dont know what point you are trying to make with this reference.
Thinking more long game I wonder if the republicans of the politician class have really thought this out. If they ram this appointment up the country's ass and the new super majority "conservative" justices overturn Row on some "jiggery pokery" justification that would make Scalia proud, what are their voters going to do in the next election? Answer, they are going to stay home because the job is done. Winners aren't inspired to get out and vote. Only losers are inspired to get out and vote. Because they want to change things. Winners are content and lazy. If Row ever gets overturned republicans will be the proverbial dog that caught the car's bumper. "what next?"
frugal-one
9-22-20, 3:04am
And I dont know what point you are trying to make with this reference.
I am trying to figure out what you mean?
And I dont know what point you are trying to make with this reference.
I got the impression that she was trying to point out that conservatives don’t have a stranglehold on the ‘correct’ interpretation of the constitution. Conservatives use the word constitutionalist as a means of trying to paint progressives as unamerican.
iris lilies
9-22-20, 9:31am
I got the impression that she was trying to point out that conservatives don’t have a stranglehold on the ‘correct’ interpretation of the constitution. Conservatives use the word constitutionalist as a means of trying to paint progressives as unamerican.
yes, perhaps that is her point.
But “Liberal” as it apoears in this book title doesn’t always mean progressive or in sync with leftIe goals. My favorite political talker these days is a “classical liberal “as he likes to call himself and he wont be voting for Biden and further left ideas.
But this book is a complicated legal tome and I certainly will not be reading it and I doubt if frugal-one has read it either. So who knows what point of view it espouses, but I think there’s a pretty good chance all of us could read it and come up with a different summary of whether it is “liberal “or “conservative “since those are oversimplifications.
In summary, when I use the word constitutionalist I mean someone who will be more conservative in interpretation. Rather than assuming the constitution allows X the interpretation will be the constitution does not allow X.
Like the ACA mandatory requirement to buy a consumer product is a “tax” and therefore allowed in the constitution.
Still shaking my head over that one, John Roberts.
And, speaking of constitutionality: last week was our annual constitution day folks! What did you do for it? Ha ha I didn’t even know about until somebody sent me email and then I watched a panel discussion on free speech.
frugal-one
9-22-20, 2:02pm
yes, perhaps that is her point.
But “Liberal” as it apoears in this book title doesn’t always mean progressive or in sync with leftIe goals. My favorite political talker these days is a “classical liberal “as he likes to call himself and he wont be voting for Biden and further left ideas.
But this book is a complicated legal tome and I certainly will not be reading it and I doubt if frugal-one has read it either. So who knows what point of view it espouses, but I think there’s a pretty good chance all of us could read it and come up with a different summary of whether it is “liberal “or “conservative “since those are oversimplifications.
In summary, when I use the word constitutionalist I mean someone who will be more conservative in interpretation. Rather than assuming the constitution allows X the interpretation will be the constitution does not allow X.
Like the ACA mandatory requirement to buy a consumer product is a “tax” and therefore allowed in the constitution.
Still shaking my head over that one, John Roberts.
And, speaking of constitutionality: last week was our annual constitution day folks! What did you do for it? Ha ha I didn’t even know about until somebody sent me email and then I watched a panel discussion on free speech.
I had no point. I was just trying to figure out what you meant. I looked up the verbage you used and that is what came up.
I thought the conservative approach was to have as few laws/rules as possible but what you just espoused does not reflect that. Not trying to be snarky but to understand.
In summary, when I use the word constitutionalist I mean someone who will be more conservative in interpretation. Rather than assuming the constitution allows X the interpretation will be the constitution does not allow X.
Like the ACA mandatory requirement to buy a consumer product is a “tax” and therefore allowed in the constitution.
Still shaking my head over that one, John Roberts.
While I agree with you regarding that interpretation for the ACA in that particular case, not to mention how absurdly broad the commerce clause has been defined over the centuries, I don't generally think that non-conservative legal opinions of what the constitution says are by definition not constitutional. They are simply different legal opinions made by different people with different backgrounds or educations or whatever that cause them to reach different conclusions. After all, if the constitution was so straightforward that anyone could accurately know what it says regarding any particular legal disagreement we wouldn't need a supreme court to make those decisions. In fact why would there even be legal disputes at that point since everyone would "just know" what the constitution said. Yet even as wise and educated as they are the justices rarely come to the same conclusion. Very few of their decisions are unanimous. So it just doesn't seem right or fair to claim the conservative viewpoint as the "constitutional" viewpoint. I could just as easily state that I with my modern political liberal leanings is the constitutionalist.
iris lilies
9-22-20, 3:41pm
I had no point. I was just trying to figure out what you meant. I looked up the verbage you used and that is what came up.
I thought the conservative approach was to have as few laws/rules as possible but what you just espoused does not reflect that. Not trying to be snarky but to understand.
We are talking about Supreme Court justices.
Supreme court justices do not make laws.
They interpret the constitution to approve or deny existing laws and regulations. A justice who carries out narrow interpretation of the constitution, a constitutionalist justice as I use the term, could still agree that ten laws he was ruling on that day were consistent with constitutional authority.
It is not a matter of “how many” it is about permissions granted by the U.S. constitution. On any given day, the departed Conservative Justice Scalia could decide many more laws broughT before him were A-Ok than progressive Justice Ginsberg on that same day. It is not a numbers game.
My personal preference for governance is fewer laws, but that burden is more on legislative bodies than on the Supremes, IMHO.
iris lilies
9-22-20, 3:58pm
If jp1 and etc want to argue over label definitions, be my guest. I use the term “constitutionalist” to mean narrow interpreter of the constitution.
But OF COURSE ya’ll want to think your side are “constitutionalists” too! Go ahead. It’s cute. Label yourselves however you want. Maybe I will label myself “principle dancer with NYC Ballet” and that will make me feel better about the 4 lbs
i have gained because hey, i can still dance.
There's nothing more "constitutional" about choosing to interpret the constitution as giving the government only the bare minimal powers that the words used in the constitution explain. Rational people can take different stances. For instance if one defines sex as exclusively one's gender and nothing else related to that then they might reach a different decision in cases such as the recent one including protections for LGBT people in the workplace than one would if one defines sex as anything affected by the fact of one's gender. In the latter viewpoint the fact that people who like to sleep with men are treated differently depending on whether they themself are a male or female the logical conclusion would be that, yes, that would be sex discrimination. Someone with the former viewpoint that sex exclusively means one's gender would reach the opposite decision because discriminating against gay people isn't because of their gender, but only an issue of the gender of the people they prefer to sleep with and therefore the complainant's gender is not itself being discriminated against.
Someone with the former viewpoint that sex exclusively means one's gender would reach the opposite decision because discriminating against gay people isn't because of their gender, but only an issue of the gender of the people they prefer to sleep with and therefore the complainant's gender is not itself being discriminated against.
And then there's the complexity of intersex folks...
So it just doesn't seem right or fair to claim the conservative viewpoint as the "constitutional" viewpoint. I could just as easily state that I with my modern political liberal leanings is the constitutionalist.I'd have to disagree with you on that. The constitution provides a check on government authority and modern political liberal leanings seems to require more government authority. If modern liberals were half the constitutionalists that classical liberals are/were, there'd never have been an ACA.
I believe modern conservatives are overall much closer to the classical liberal mindset than the modern liberal could ever be. That's why I prefer to refer to you guys as progressives since the term liberal doesn't seem to apply no matter how successful you've been at usurping the name.
early morning
9-22-20, 5:53pm
... the term liberal doesn't seem to apply no matter how successful you've been at usurping the name. How funny; I've always considered myself a progressive - seems to me the term "liberal" has been usurped by CONSERVATIVES, to be used as a pejorative for anyone in disagreement with their fossilized viewpoints. Like Rush et-al calling Hillary a "liberal" - that always gives me a chuckle.
I enjoy this guy's website and take on things - of course YMMV.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-05-22/what-is-a-liberal/
ApatheticNoMore
9-22-20, 6:25pm
It's the year 2020, almost the only people besides conservatives that even ever use the term liberal prefix a neo in front of it at all times, and they don't like it.
In my experience conservatives are big on putting labels on others but progressives or liberals or whatever they want to be called are big on only using the labels that others would like to have used. While labels are useful for helping to understand others (contrary to the view of some here that we need to view everyone as 330 million different people with no commonalities that can be identified) I personally tend to feel that they should only be applied by people to themselves, not applied by others.
In my experience conservatives are big on putting labels on others but progressives or liberals or whatever they want to be called are big on only using the labels that others would like to have used.
I'd like to be labeled as 'reasonable', and will look forward to seeing it in your future posts. :thankyou:
In my experience conservatives are big on putting labels on others but progressives or liberals or whatever they want to be called are big on only using the labels that others would like to have used.
Who wants to be called “deplorable”, “fascist” or “bitter clinger”?
How intoxicated does one have to be with self-righteousness to believe that was the case? That we only attach labels the target requests, but suffer In turn from those dreadful people calling us all sorts of dreadful names.
Teacher Terry
9-23-20, 11:32am
Fortunately my Republican husband has seen the light and is voting for Biden. We don’t discuss politics and I was surprised but neither of us vote a straight party ticket. He doesn’t pay a lot of attention to politics but is thoroughly disgusted with his administration.
Fortunately my Republican husband has seen the light and is voting for Biden. Are you sure he's not just afraid to tell you otherwise?
In my experience conservatives are big on putting labels on others but progressives or liberals or whatever they want to be called are big on only using the labels that others would like to have used.
Labels like:
- racist
- fascist
- white male
- right wing extremist
- colonizer
- The 1%
- deplorable
- sexist
- homophobic
- Islamophobic
- xenophobic
- capitalist oppressor
- and so on...
Teacher Terry
9-23-20, 12:14pm
No Alan because first of all I never ask him and he told me he voted for Trump the first time. We lived together for 2 years before we ever talked politics. Mostly he doesn’t pay much attention but lately he is yelling at the tv when Trump talks. I also have a great friend for the past 51 years who votes for him as well as my best friend’s mom who I adore. I may rant on forums but in person I would never presume to tell people what to do. My ex is also happily married to a Republican and the only thing my ex and I could agree on was politics. His wife is a good person and couldn’t stomach voting for him last time. We don’t usually discuss politics with them but she volunteered the information.
Labels like:
- racist
- fascist
- white male
- right wing extremist
- colonizer
- The 1%
- deplorable
- sexist
- homophobic
- Islamophobic
- xenophobic
- capitalist oppressor
- and so on...
We do seem to be producing more highly specialized insults. TERF, snowflake, gammon, Karen, white savior, melt. And we repurpose more neutral terms like hipster or breeder into pejoratives. It’s a very creative age in that sense.
frugal-one
9-23-20, 5:15pm
I'd like to be labeled as 'reasonable', and will look forward to seeing it in your future posts. :thankyou:
We will if you are.
iris lilies
9-23-20, 5:50pm
We will if you are.
Ha, good rejoinder! Even though I always think Alan is reasonable
We do seem to be producing more highly specialized insults. TERF, snowflake, gammon, Karen, white savior, melt. And we repurpose more neutral terms like hipster or breeder into pejoratives. It’s a very creative age in that sense.
Is there some reputable online players’ guide to help keep up with them all? You had a couple in there that were new to me.
Is there some reputable online players’ guide to help keep up with them all? You had a couple in there that were new to me.
I just pick it up from my fourteen year old kid.
frugal-one
9-24-20, 8:49pm
Wow... just watched the news where trump was at RBG funeral to pay his respects and was BOOED and chants of VOTE HIM OUT erupted!
News showed trump talking about not accepting and saying there will not be a smooth transition if he loses. Saying the election is rigged. Even Republicans are bulking up at that. Showed how PA may have up to 100,000 ballots invalidated if voters did not include a second envelope. trump won by 44,000 votes in 2016. DH said he saw trump saying he plans on sending 50,000 armed guards to polling sites (not sure where he said) to be sure it is done properly. Voter intimidation anyone? Illegal?
I truly can’t wait to see him gone. Then, maybe, the constant drama will cease!
Trump is such a traitor. The idea that a president, with no evidence, would be whipping up his deplorable supporters to reject the potential election results like this was unthinkable before this shitstain of a human took that office. I struggle to imagine anyone who is a worse American than him. But, yeah, Carter offered a few opinions after he left office so I guess some people think lots of presidents are awful humans.
President Carter has always been a gentleman who only rarely weighed in, unlike the fool currently in power.
iris lilies
9-26-20, 11:34am
Trump is such a traitor. The idea that a president, with no evidence, would be whipping up his deplorable supporters to reject the potential election results like this was unthinkable before this shitstain of a human took that office. I struggle to imagine anyone who is a worse American than him. But, yeah, Carter offered a few opinions after he left office so I guess some people think lots of presidents are awful humans.
I listened to a bit of NPR the other day when the tossed Republican ballots in PA were discussed. “But that’s only 9 ballots, isn’t it?” Said the NPR voice with more than a hint of scorn.
Yeah lady, that is the incident I KNOW about. Like there can’t be others?
It is not the lack of substantive data that bugs me, it is the distain for ANY facts supporting mailed- in ballot malfeasance that bugs me, this as perfect example from mainstream media source rated by many to be unbiased.
Honey,
I voted in a special election not all that long ago that was held to correct paper ballot malfeasance. Ask Rob’s radical leftie friend, Bruce Franks, about paper ballot games.
Jane v2.0
9-26-20, 12:22pm
The mystery of the discarded ballots is being investigated, and I hope it will be solved soon. I don't believe for a minute that it's part of a nefarious plot, but we'll see.
Perhaps after the election we'll also have an investigation into why the hell a press release was put out mid-investigation. And also into how and why the investigators knew who the votes had been cast for. Something about that whole story didn't really pass the smell test.
iris lilies
9-26-20, 1:08pm
The mystery of the discarded ballots is being investigated, and I hope it will be solved soon. I don't believe for a minute that it's part of a nefarious plot, but we'll see.
oh I think it is unlikely it is a plot by anti-Trump peeps. But I’m surprised you don’t think it is a plot, by the Russians or Trumpian counter-espionage or whatever.
Weird how we've managed to vote exclusively by mail in Washington State for all these years without some sort of disaster...
iris lilies
9-26-20, 1:38pm
Weird how we've managed to vote exclusively by mail in Washington State for all these years without some sort of disaster...
The systems have to be in place for vote by mail.
My state doesn’t have much of a system in place for it. It will have trouble handling all the absentee ballots from special Covid provisions That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t ever vote by mail, it means that we have to slowly and carefully put into place accurate systems that support by mail activity. I can assure you that the city of St. Louis doesn’t have that.
One personal instance of malfeasance in is this: DH went to his polling place at 6 AM in the morning as required By his job as election judge. All of the paper ballots had been stolen.
Of course it has nothing to do with mail in ballots, but an instance where things just go bad from the very beginning to the very end of the process. Running a democracy and having each eligible voter vote once and only once person yet allowing everyone who is eligible to vote, is a messy process.
I see some Democrats are now floating an idea I remember reading about many years ago in the conservative press: term limits for the SCOTUS. I think that’s a much better plan than ridiculous court-packing schemes. It would also cut down on melodrama like dying justices clinging to office hoping for a more congenial President. And the people who view the court as a legislative body in judicial drag might be less exercised over every new appointment if the court’s composition reflected election results, even if on a lagging basis.
Federal Reserve Governors serve 14 years with a new appointment (baring deaths or resignations) every other year. You seldom see much by way of hysteria over them.
frugal-one
9-26-20, 2:27pm
I see some Democrats are now floating an idea I remember reading about many years ago in the conservative press: term limits for the SCOTUS. I think that’s a much better plan than ridiculous court-packing schemes. It would also cut down on melodrama like dying justices clinging to office hoping for a more congenial President. And the people who view the court as a legislative body in judicial drag might be less exercised over every new appointment if the court’s composition reflected election results, even if on a lagging basis.
Federal Reserve Governors serve 14 years with a new appointment (baring deaths or resignations) every other year. You seldom see much by way of hysteria over them.
I agree. A term for life is excessive.
One reason I did not like Bullock when I heard him was he advocated court packing.
oh I think it is unlikely it is a plot by anti-Trump peeps. But I’m surprised you don’t think it is a plot, by the Russians or Trumpian counter-espionage or whatever.
I wouldn't put suspicion of some kind of plot out there if there weren't evidence. The CIA, FBI, and DHS have all gone on record to say the Russians are interfering in our election. Trump and his henchmen do a lot of their evil deeds right out in the open. Witness DeJoy and his tampering with the USPS and recently, Trump admitting that he wouldn't go quietly if the election didn't fall his way.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.