RBG dead at 87

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Power!!!

Whites have 0.35 Senators per million people, while Blacks have 0.26, Asian-Americans 0.25, and Latinos just 0.19.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/14/opinion/dc-puerto-rico-statehood-senate.html

Holy cow, did that become about racism real quick.  I somehow doubt when the system was set up a couple hundred years ago they even considered silly things like blacks and women voting...

 

[QV]

I feel like may people here could benefit from Scott Adam’s explanation of the McConnell Rule to Dale the Democrat at 11:40 of podcast #1129.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>What does it all mean???!!!

The point, which may have been too subtle, is that it's somewhere on the foolish-stupid spectrum to play games examining senatorial representation along arbitrary cleavages of home address, race, gender, skin colour, sexual preference, length of hair, kind of dog fancied, etc that have nothing to do with what the institution was designed to accomplish.

The Senate gets to do "advice and consent", of which the latter is the important part now (as it was in 2016).  Although it's common to believe the advice has to come after the proposal, that's not a rule.  Nothing hinders a president from going to the Senate before a formal nomination to find out which items on a list are acceptable and which are DRT.  A president facing a problematic Senate would be wise to pre-clear the "most ideologically desirable but Senatorially-appointable candidate" to ensure his nomination passes rather than risk losing it.  In Trump's case, that might mean reducing the short list to a shorter list that can pass muster with the sticky Republican Senators in the middle.

 

[mariomike]

The Senate was not designed to benefit white voters - almost all voters were white when the Constitution went into effect .

Without arguing data versus feelings any further, readers may, or may not, wish to consult this Data for Progress analysis of the topic,
https://www.dataforprogress.org/memos/the-senate-is-an-irredeemable-institution?rq=senate

http://filesforprogress.org/memos/the-senate-is-an-irredeemable-institution.pdf

 

[Donald H]

So the Scotus is about to contain 6 of one political bent and 3 of the other!
Woe be to any nation's court which members can be easily tagged as being politically biased on coming to decisions!

But a reality is about due to overtake the politics of the Scotus. That is, the large majority of Americans are out of sync with their supreme court's politics, especially on abortion rights for women.

America's system isn't working and it's largely because of compromises having been needed to keep the country together.

 

[Donald H]

The Senate was not designed to benefit white voters - almost all voters were white when the Constitution went into effect - but it has had that effect.

Without arguing data versus feelings any further, readers may, or may not, wish to consult this Data for Progress analysis of the topic,
https://www.dataforprogress.org/memos/the-senate-is-an-irredeemable-institution?rq=senate

Absolutely yes to that link. It was a workabl solution at the time and even made more workable by awarding some minority factions a portion of a vote. How can that possibly continue in the 21st. century?

:cheers:

 

[FSTO]

America is going to do what America is going to do. Us NA attic dwellers can only watch with a mixture of horror/glee/amazement/wonder as the Excited States work themselves into a frenzy as it tries to deal with Pandemic/Massive Forest Fires/Hurricane Season/Supreme Court Appointment/ Racial Unrest/Presidential Election with an absolute lunatic at the helm.

STAFF EDIT:  this is the kind of stuff the site is trying to stay away from.  Just a verbal for now....

 

[mariomike]

America is going to do what America is going to do. Us NA attic dwellers can only watch with a mixture of horror/glee/amazement/wonder as the Excited States work themselves into a frenzy as it tries to deal with Pandemic/Massive Forest Fires/Hurricane Season/Supreme Court Appointment/ Racial Unrest/Presidential Election < snip >

The late Robin Williams put it this way, “You are like a really nice apartment over a meth lab.” 

 

[QV]

with an absolute lunatic at the helm.

Almost all of the crazies are reacting to Trump, they are opposed to Trump. Imagine if they or those they support were in charge?

My initial thought was Trump could reach across the isle by delaying the appointment until after the election.  Settle things down a little.  Then I saw the crazy town reaction.  That, and after learning a little more history on Supreme Court appointments in the US, I now believe he should ram this through as quick as possible. RBG would have agreed, at one point.

 

[brihard]

That, and after learning a little more history on Supreme Court appointments in the US, I now believe he should ram this through as quick as possible. RBG would have agreed, at one point.

RBG excelled at making her opinion on subjects known, so can you back that assertion up with reference to something she actually wrote or said?

 

[kkwd]

RBG excelled at making her opinion on subjects known, so can you back that assertion up with reference to something she actually wrote or said?

Her opinion in 2016 was documented by WaPo.

“I do think cooler heads will prevail, I hope sooner rather than later,” Ginsburg said. “The president is elected for four years not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four.”

“Maybe members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/ginsburg-suggests-senate-should-act-on-garland-nomination-but-says-it-cannot-be-forced-to/2016/09/07/0f10b7b6-754c-11e6-b786-19d0cb1ed06c_story.html

 

[suffolkowner]

March 16 2016 President Obama nominated Merrick Garland versus September ?? 2020 President Trump nominates ??. If the Senate couldn't approve a nomination in 8 months seems like they'll be hard pressed in one month. Thank God we haven't degenerated into this nonsense up here yet

 

[Remius]

That’s the hypocrisy of the the likes of Mitch McConnell, Lyndsey Graham and many Fox pundits who justified not appointing the year of the last election. 

Right now I am of the opinion that the POTUS has a duty to appoint a SC justice as soon as he can.  If he feasibly has time then he should do so.  The Senate should indeed make this as smooth as possible.

But given what the Republicans did last time, it is no wonder that the democrats will do whatever they can to stall or stop it from happening.

The GOP reaping what it sowed.

Their lame excuse about how it’s different is BS.  I’d respect them more if they just flat out admitted it for what it is and was.

Guaranteed if they rush this though the Dems will push to “stack” the SC if they get the chance.

An overall interesting turn of events in what is already a goat rodeo campaign.

Edit: grammar

 

[Stoker]

So RBG had something like 4 bouts with cancer, so why didn't she hang up the robes years ago under a democratic president and ensure a democratic leaning justice was appointed. This would had avoided all this drama to come.

 

[Remius]

So RBG had something like 4 bouts with cancer, so why didn't she hang up the robes years ago under a democratic president and ensure a democratic leaning justice was appointed. This would had avoided all this drama to come.

Ah so it’s her fault?

 

[mariomike]

, so why didn't she hang up the robes years ago under a democratic president and ensure a democratic leaning justice was appointed.

With Mitch as Senate Majority Leader, do you think that was likely?

Remember how Mitch handled Merrick Garland?

 

[Remius]

With Mitch as Senate Majority Leader, do you think that was likely?

Not a chance.  Which is why she was hanging on as long as she could.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Ah so it’s her fault?

No, but like I tell some of the dinosaurs at work, hang 'em up so someone younger can have a shot at something also.  87 and working in a wanted job is selfish, IMO of course.

 

[suffolkowner]

ego/vanity is the likely reason she didn't retire during either of President Obama's two terms. But perhaps she just wasn't as invested in the political process as so many people like to attribute to the Supreme Court justices/nominees

 

[QV]

That’s the hypocrisy of the the likes of Mitch McConnell, Lyndsey Graham and many Fox pundits who justified not appointing the year of the last election. 

Right now I am of the opinion that the POTUS has a duty to appoint a SC justice as soon as he can.  If he feasibly has time then he should do so.  The Senate should indeed make this as smooth as possible.

But given what the Republicans did last time, it is no wonder that the democrats will do whatever they can to stall or stop it from happening.

The GOP reaping what it sowed.

Their lame excuse about how it’s different is BS.  I’d respect them more if they just flat out admitted it for what it is and was.

Guaranteed if they rush this though the Dems will push to “stack” the SC if they get the chance.

An overall interesting turn of events in what is already a goat rodeo campaign.

Edit: grammar

With respect Remius, if you think the GOP is reaping what it sow or there is hypocrisy here then you do not have any understanding of the process or it’s history. I urge you to hear Scott Adam’s explanation. 

Simple version: if presidency and senate are same party then nominate and confirm, if presidency and senate not the same party then don’t. 

McConnel is on the record warning the Democrats about changing the process to a simple majority from two thirds and that they’d regret that, but the Democrats changed it anyway.

Now the Republicans are going to take advantage of the new rules and they are somehow wrong and hypocrites?