The Passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[RiverDog]

I can't tell you how humbled I am regarding the plight of this woman. I hit the rocking chair at age 63 and I'm living a life of no alarm clocks and forgetting what day of the week it is. The thought of continuing to slave away at my former occupation has long since left my psyche. I don't even dream about work anymore. RBG worked in a stressful, high profile environment until she died at age 87, not missing a single court session for over 25 years as she battled various health issues. I'd have to work another 24 years, or 60% of my 40 year career, to match her work record. She sacrificed her life for what she felt was the best interests of her country.

The opening on SCOTUS has thrown a monkey wrench into the election, mostly in favor of the Chief Buffoon. The upcoming appointment takes the focus off the coronavirus, which is Trump's Achilles heel. Biden and the Dems had in recent days been able to return the focus to Trump's titanic bumbling of the crisis after revelations disclosed in Bob Woodward's new book. Trump is behind, and a SCOTUS nomination could be his Hail Mary. It's one of the reasons why Biden has been laying low and not commenting about the upcoming SCOTUS nomination process or justices he might nominate if he were making the call. However, it's a double edged sword for both parties, and thus the Dem and R leaderships have advised their members to avoid commenting. They don't know which way this issue is going to break, especially for the Senate, the body tasked with holding hearings and approving or disapproving the nomination.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McDonnell has already kicked up a firestorm by saying that the Senate will take up a Trump nomination before the election. It's not an unprecedented situation to take up deliberations during an election year, but it put McConnell in a hypocritical position. He gave a convoluted explanation as to how this election differs from 2016 when he kept a SCOTUS seat open for 10 months until after Trump was inaugurated, arguing then that the voters should have a say in the process. Now he wants to hold a vote within the next 45 days. It's unclear if McConnell has the votes to force Senators to take a position on a nominee prior to the election. He can't afford to lose more than 4 R Senators. Susan Collins has already said that they shouldn't be voting on a nominee before the election.

Secondly, it hurts Dem Senatorial candidates in red states, places like Alabama where Democratic Senator Doug Jones is in a tough re-election campaign and Montana where a former D governor is trying to unseat the incumbent R. It forces those Dem candidates in conservative states into a no win scenario by having to openly oppose or support a nominee. a stand they wouldn't have otherwise have had to make. It's just my humble opinion, but this could very well cause a lot of the evangelist that might have forgotten about the role the Senate plays in SCOTUS confirmations and drive them back to the Republicans. It could torpedo Dem efforts to retake the Senate.

To say the least, it's a potentially explosive development in what has already become the most contentious, weirdest election years in recent memory.

[Aseahawkfan]

Should be another interesting factor to track.

We already know why McConnell held off last election. His stated reason would only be believed by idiots. He held off to prevent Obama from getting a judge on the S.C.O.T.U.S. Period. Anyone who didn't know this deserves to be called an idiot and laughed out of the classroom. His motivation is no different now. He wants a judge known to support a conservative agendas with legal arguments because our laws are apparently very malleable to political leanings.

Seems this will once again likely focus on abortion versus anti-abortion like Kavanaugh. Hopefully if a woman is nominated as is predicted, we won't see the sexual assault charge angle again.

[RiverDog]

Should be another interesting factor to track.

We already know why McConnell held off last election. His stated reason would only be believed by idiots. He held off to prevent Obama from getting a judge on the S.C.O.T.U.S. Period. Anyone who didn't know this deserves to be called an idiot and laughed out of the classroom. His motivation is no different now. He wants a judge known to support a conservative agendas with legal arguments because our laws are apparently very malleable to political leanings.

Seems this will once again likely focus on abortion versus anti-abortion like Kavanaugh. Hopefully if a woman is nominated as is predicted, we won't see the sexual assault charge angle again.

Yeah, the excuses the Republicans are coming up with are laughable. It's not as if they need any as there's been occasions in the past when the Senate has held up a nomination until after an election and when they've confirmed justices during an election year, but their explanations are convoluted and hypocritical.

There's two women judges most often mentioned that Trump is considering: Amy Coney Barrett and Barbara Lagoa. A third female justice, Joan Larsen, has also been mentioned. Lagoa and Larson are both from battleground states, Lagoa from Michigan and Larson from Florida. Barrett is the darling of conservatives, was a clerk for Antonin Scalia, is a Catholic that graduated and taught at Notre Dame, so there's a good chance that she's anti abortion. Supposedly Trump was going to name Barrett the last time around when he wound up nominating Kavanaugh but wanted to save Barrett for when Ginsburg retired. Trump says he'll make his choice by the end of the week.

It's unclear if McConnell has enough votes to hold hearings. He's already lost two R Senators, Collins and Murkowski, that have come out against holding hearings before the election. Sen. Romney, a frequent Trump antagonist, hasn't said which way he'll vote yet. McConnell can't afford to lose more than 3 R Senators.

[Hawktawk]

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 837543002/

If I'm any Senate democrat in a competitive race these statements by Graham and McConnell in 2016 would be airing every hour on the hour.Its all on videotape .There's plenty more republicans that didn't even give Merrick Garland a vote. Not even a vote...

Then I would vote my conscience and let the voters decide. I suppose this could energize Trump's base somewhat but this isn't going to change anyone's mind who has made it up and polls show there are very few undecideds.Any independent backing Biden or dissafected republican like me understands the next POTUS will pick several justices. An incumbent sitting at 42% where he's been for 4 years, lawless toxic president has no place to be dragging the legacy of Ginsberg through the mud like this. It would be reprehensible but it would be the zillionth reprehensible indefensible thing Trump and his useful idiots in the senate have done with no shame.

I'm sure there will be polls about how voters see this. Trump came out today and said RBGs dying wish not to have her seat filled before the election was written by nancy pelosi, Chuck Schumer and "Shifty Schiff". I just dont see this helping him at all the way he's going to be in everyone's face gloating over a dead icon who did more for her country by accident than Trump ever could on purpose. It wont poll well.

[RiverDog]

If I'm any Senate democrat in a competitive race these statements by Graham and McConnell in 2016 would be airing every hour on the hour.Its all on videotape .There's plenty more republicans that didn't even give Merrick Garland a vote. Not even a vote...

Yes, it's hypocritical as all get out. Par for the course in the world of politics. Rest assured that if the shoe were on the other foot, that the Dems would be doing the same damn thing. No one has a moral compass anymore. It's all about advancing their agenda. Nothing else matters.

Then I would vote my conscience and let the voters decide. I suppose this could energize Trump's base somewhat but this isn't going to change anyone's mind who has made it up and polls show there are very few undecideds.Any independent backing Biden or dissafected republican like me understands the next POTUS will pick several justices. An incumbent sitting at 42% where he's been for 4 years, lawless toxic president has no place to be dragging the legacy of Ginsberg through the mud like this. It would be reprehensible but it would be the zillionth reprehensible indefensible thing Trump and his useful idiots in the senate have done with no shame.

The oldest SCOTUS justice is Stephen Breyer at age 82, the next oldest Clarence Thomas at 72. Although no one can predict when any of them will hang it up or kick the bucket, the court has gotten younger over the past few years so it's quite possible that the next POTUS won't have a single appointment during their term. In any event, neither of us can say with any kind of certainty that the next POTUS will or won't pick several SCOTUS justices.

Hypocrisy and rationalizations aside, it is possible to get a SCOTUS appointment confirmed and still do a good job of vetting them. All of the the judges on federal courts have already been through FBI background checks and many of the potential nominees are already known by Senators on the judiciary committee. Additionally, it's likely that the interviews and public hearings will be done remotely during the pandemic anyway so Senators don't have to be in the Capitol to perform their duties. Besides, the last hearing was such a ridiculous kangaroo court that it wouldn't hurt my feelings to truncate it.

I'm sure there will be polls about how voters see this. Trump came out today and said RBGs dying wish not to have her seat filled before the election was written by nancy pelosi, Chuck Schumer and "Shifty Schiff". I just dont see this helping him at all the way he's going to be in everyone's face gloating over a dead icon who did more for her country by accident than Trump ever could on purpose. It wont poll well.

We all know that you don't see anything that Trump says or does as helping him, but that's not necessarily how those voters that will determine the outcome of the election will see it. There's a significant portion of the electorate that view judicial appointments as their top or one of their top criteria in voting for a POTUS, and this will shake up that constituency. The hearings, if they occur, could motivate either candidate's base.

IMO this thing could go either way. Trump is behind and the polls haven't moved more than a few percentage points one way or another for months, the election is only 6 weeks away, and voting has already started in some areas, so Trump has nothing to lose by trying to railroad this appointment. It's his Hail Mary, his last best chance to narrow the gap.

[Hawktawk]

The first debate is his hail mary.Trump has to crush Biden, confuse him, shout him down. If Biden clearly wins or even its a tie Trump is losing minus a complete meltdown of the USPS and electoral system or foreign interference on a scale unseen in american history.

This rushed appointment with people having ALREADY VOTED is going to kill him in the suburbs. This will not help with independents. 538 has his popularity ticking back down towards 40% after having pushed 44 in an average of polls in the last few weeks and of course 49% at the beginning of this pandemic.Any incumbent this unpopular historically this late in the contest is facing a tough fight.

Democrats are raking in massive hauls of money following Ginsberg's death and Trump is cash poor after blowing money with no effect on the polls. These are canary in a coal mine events.His big fat cat donors are all that's carrying him right now. His favorite channel Faux is actually holding his feet to the fire a little bit as opposed to the 2 billion in free advertising last time around . His former buddy Matt Drudge is going all out to stop him linking brutal takedowns of him from all ideological angles.Meanwhile Bloomberg just paid off 30K felons fines in Florida so they could vote.Ingenius. It's how he became a billionaire. All the stops are out to defeat the guy.

I could be wrong but I think this appointment under 50 days from an election , all the quotes on tape is really Trump and his parties waterloo. Itrs a huge trap. I hope it catches them all.

[I-5]

I don't think there is even a remote chance Trump can crush anyone because A) no audience to pander to B) unlike 2016, he now has a track record, and he has to defend it. His lies play well to only one group - his true believers. Even regular republicans don't believe what he's saying, even if they support his policies. His last 2 big interviews and the town hall he did (basically any non-friendly environment) show that he looks bad trying to spin his version of the 'truth'.

I think the takeaway from what McConnell and the rest of the senate GOP is doing with the SCOTUS vacancy now is that politics has ALWAYS been about playing hardball, no matter what niceties get said....the Democrats will need to remember that when the shoe is on the other foot, as it always inevitably does. 'Family values' and talking about deficits are long, long, gone. Maybe that's a good thing.

[RiverDog]

I don't think there is even a remote chance Trump can crush anyone because A) no audience to pander to B) unlike 2016, he now has a track record, and he has to defend it. His lies play well to only one group - his true believers. Even regular republicans don't believe what he's saying, even if they support his policies. His last 2 big interviews and the town hall he did (basically any non-friendly environment) show that he looks bad trying to spin his version of the 'truth'.

As far as the debates go, the problem isn't with Trump so much as it is Sleepy Joe. Biden has said that he's going to be an on the floor fact checker, and with him, that is a recipe for disaster. Biden could screw up something as simple as the Pledge of Allegiance which would give Trump and the R's tangible evidence of Biden's declining mental acuity.

I think the takeaway from what McConnell and the rest of the senate GOP is doing with the SCOTUS vacancy now is that politics has ALWAYS been about playing hardball, no matter what niceties get said....the Democrats will need to remember that when the shoe is on the other foot, as it always inevitably does. 'Family values' and talking about deficits are long, long, gone. Maybe that's a good thing.

Yeah, well the Dems showed that during the Kavanaugh hearings, that it's ALWAYS about playing hardball. Politics trumps fairness.

I hear now that the Dems are whispering about their own nuclear option, that if they control Congress and the Presidency that they'll attempt a Roosevelt-style court packing scheme, adding as many as 5 justices to SCOTUS that a President Biden would appoint so as to negate the conservative advantage. Hardball, indeed!

[I-5]

Yeah, well the Dems showed that during the Kavanaugh hearings, that it's ALWAYS about playing hardball. Politics trumps fairness.

As I said, it's ALWAYS been about hardball, so I don't disagree. The niceties I'm talking about is the logic of 'let the people decide' in 2016. That was never the real issue.

Regarding Kavanaugh, sexual assault is difficult to prove, especially after a long time....but are you saying that the multiple women who came forward about him were lying? Why would they risk personal harassment and death threats to score political points? I just don't see this as a partisan issue, just like I believe the allegations against Bill Clinton, too. Just because Lindsay Graham uses Kavanaugh as his excuse for breaking his word, doesn't make it legitimate. Just be honest and say 2016 and 2020 are different because of who the incumbent is in the White House. Using Kavanaugh is simply a red herring, but par for Graham.

[RiverDog]

Regarding Kavanaugh, sexual assault is difficult to prove, especially after a long time....but are you saying that the multiple women who came forward about him were lying? Why would they risk personal harassment and death threats to score political points? I just don't see this as a partisan issue, just like I believe the allegations against Bill Clinton, too. Just because Lindsay Graham uses Kavanaugh as his excuse for breaking his word, doesn't make it legitimate. Just be honest and say 2016 and 2020 are different because of who the incumbent is in the White House. Using Kavanaugh is simply a red herring, but par for Graham.

First of all, let's agree on what the Kavanaugh accusations were. It was that he engaged in unwanted sexual advances, ie groping with clothes on, pressing his body against hers, etc. That's not normally considered sexual assault, more like sexual misconduct and almost certainly not criminal. What Creepy Joe Biden was accused of was much more serious, ie penetrating a woman's vagina. If true, he could have gone to prison for it.

Secondly, it's not that I think that anyone was lying. Their version of events could not be corroborated and there was no evidence other than 37 year old personal recollections to go on. I've seen too many occasions where people's stories change dramatically with the passage of time and their mind's exposure to environmental conditions. They're not necessarily lying about them.

To give you an example, I've read a lot about the JFK assassination, and there's a number of eye witnesses, including some well respected doctors that changed their stories, likely due to the scores of conspiracy theories they were exposed to, from what the initially saw in the ER on 11/22/63, only to have to change them again once they'd seen hard evidence like xrays and autopsy photographs. That's one of the reasons why most crimes have a statute of limitations.

Clinton's issue didn't involve personal recollections, it involved testimony taken under oath that was later to be proven false by hard evidence, ie the semen stained blue dress with his DNA on it. And it was A LOT more recent, within months, not decades.

Lindsey Graham is Donald Trump's whore. He'll say or do anything he tells him to. If not for the fact that I don't want to see a Dem Senate, I'd love to see his arse shellacked in the upcoming election.

[c_hawkbob]

unwanted sexual advances, ie groping with clothes on, pressing his body against hers, etc. That's not normally considered sexual assault

Yes it is.

Carry on.

[RiverDog]

unwanted sexual advances, ie groping with clothes on, pressing his body against hers, etc. That's not normally considered sexual assault

Yes it is.

Carry on.

The definitions vary widely and either one of us can pick and choose our own to suit our argument. Here's one that I found:

Generally, sexual assault falls into one of three categories. Jennifer Gentile Long, the chief executive officer of AEquitas: The Prosecutors' Resource on Violence Against Women, a global project she co-founded in April 2009, tells SELF those include:

1. Penetration crimes. Of a body part by another body part (i.e., penal penetration of mouth, anus, vagina)
Of a body part by an object

2. Contact with genitalia, breast, buttocks, or other intimate body parts

3. Exposure of genitalia, breast, buttocks or other intimate body parts

And here's another one, this from Texas penal code:

Sec. 22.011
Sexual Assault
(a)A person commits an offense if:

(1)the person intentionally or knowingly:
(A)causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person’s consent;
(B)causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that person’s consent; or
(C)causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person’s consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor;

https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._ ... ion_22.011

I'm pretty comfortable arguing that what Kavanaugh was accused of would not be considered sexual assault in a court of law. If I were a member of a jury, I certainly wouldn't throw a person in prison for the activities described in what Kavanaugh was accused of doing. If you could get tossed in the slam for that, there's no reason why you couldn't get thrown in prison for slapping a girl on her hip pockets.

[Aseahawkfan]

The definitions vary widely and either one of us can pick and choose our own to suit our argument. Here's one that I found:

Generally, sexual assault falls into one of three categories. Jennifer Gentile Long, the chief executive officer of AEquitas: The Prosecutors' Resource on Violence Against Women, a global project she co-founded in April 2009, tells SELF those include:

1. Penetration crimes. Of a body part by another body part (i.e., penal penetration of mouth, anus, vagina)
Of a body part by an object

2. Contact with genitalia, breast, buttocks, or other intimate body parts

3. Exposure of genitalia, breast, buttocks or other intimate body parts

And here's another one, this from Texas penal code:

Sec. 22.011
Sexual Assault
(a)A person commits an offense if:

(1)the person intentionally or knowingly:
(A)causes the penetration of the anus or sexual organ of another person by any means, without that person’s consent;
(B)causes the penetration of the mouth of another person by the sexual organ of the actor, without that person’s consent; or
(C)causes the sexual organ of another person, without that person’s consent, to contact or penetrate the mouth, anus, or sexual organ of another person, including the actor;

https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._ ... ion_22.011

I'm pretty comfortable arguing that what Kavanaugh was accused of would not be considered sexual assault in a court of law. If I were a member of a jury, I certainly wouldn't throw a person in prison for the activities described in what Kavanaugh was accused of doing. If you could get tossed in the slam for that, there's no reason why you couldn't get thrown in prison for slapping a girl on her hip pockets.

The accusations were from 30 years ago at a drunken party and some drunken college party. Recollections from those situations are about as right as a drunk or stoned person recounting a 30 year old experience.

Kavanaugh had plenty of character witnesses on his behalf over his adult life. It was petty, political, and vindictive to smear Kavanaugh for some accusations from 30 years ago when they had no recent, not even in the past two decades of him doing anything similar. In fact, he had a clear record of treating women well and encouraging them to advance in the legal world.

But hey, this is partisan politics. Pick your side and smear the other regardless of the truth or anything resembling it. Just more example of how America is pretty far from an honest or moral nation. Just a nation of raging jackasses yelling over each other with no empathy for one another looking to cancel each other for any perceived past wrongs, even if you've overall been a good or decent person who has earned their success. But hey, that's where we're at in 2020. A country of idiots drunk on partisan politics being manipulated by two corrupt parties who will say and do anything to hold power and push their agenda whether or not it is good for the nation.

Man, when did America become a place run by such terrible idiots. It's a downhill slide from here it seems.

[curmudgeon]

Rotten to the core. The Durham report will produce a huge nothing burger. Why? The corruption is rampant in DC and all parties/agencies are intertwined in the slime. Nothing but reality TV. Too corrupt to fail.......

[RiverDog]

The accusations were from 30 years ago at a drunken party and some drunken college party. Recollections from those situations are about as right as a drunk or stoned person recounting a 30 year old experience.

A couple of corrections. It was 37 years ago, not 30. Kavanaugh was 17 and at the end of his junior year in high school, not college. Ford, his accuser, was 15 and at the end of her sophomore year in high school. Neither were adults. Man, I'm sure glad no one remembers the crap I did when I was in high school.

After so many years, Ford said, she does not remember some key details of the incident. She said she believes it occurred in the summer of 1982, when she was 15, around the end of her sophomore year at the all-girls Holton-Arms School in Bethesda. Kavanaugh would have been 17 at the end of his junior year at Georgetown Prep.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investig ... story.html

But hey, this is partisan politics. Pick your side and smear the other regardless of the truth or anything resembling it. Just more example of how America is pretty far from an honest or moral nation. Just a nation of raging jackasses yelling over each other with no empathy for one another looking to cancel each other for any perceived past wrongs, even if you've overall been a good or decent person who has earned their success. But hey, that's where we're at in 2020. A country of idiots drunk on partisan politics being manipulated by two corrupt parties who will say and do anything to hold power and push their agenda whether or not it is good for the nation.

Man, when did America become a place run by such terrible idiots. It's a downhill slide from here it seems.

Couldn't agree more. For all the advances we've made in race relations and gender equality since the end of the war, the gulf between the political right and left sure seems one helluva lot wider than it ever used to be.

[RiverDog]

Back to the OP.

Trump is supposed to announce his pick tomorrow, the day after RBG's funeral. Rumor has it that he has decided on Amy Comey Barrett, who was a finalist in the Kavanaugh selection and a favorite of conservatives. If Trump wants to make a selection that plays well to his base, she's it.

A lot of Trump's advisors are pushing him to nominate Barbara Lagoa of Florida. Lagoa is a Miami born Latina whose parents fled Fidel Castro's regime. Florida is a key battleground state and selecting her could swing the state to his column in November. Both Trump and Biden are fighting for the Cuban vote, and Florida is a must win state for Trump. The problem with Lagoa is that she does not have the conservative credentials that Barrett has. She could end up being another David Souter, ie a stealth judge.

Ironically, a Barrett nomination could backfire on Trump. She is a devout Catholic who probably won't influence any undecided or Biden voters to vote for Trump but who could create a backlash of young women of whom abortion is a hot button issue and increase their likelihood to vote.

[Hawktawk]

Oh we are going back into the Kavanaugh hearings. The guy was a drunk who liked molesting girls and exposing himself to them when he was younger. Christine Blasi Ford was the one who was outed by the democrats as she had expressly not wanted to go public but rather have senators consider her experience with Kavanaugh In their deliberations . I believe Feinstein was the one who basically leaked her story and made her experience public.She was believable on the stand, even Trump said so initially even though the republicans had attorneys do their questioning for them.There was also another woman,Flores I believe who gave an account of having Kavanaugh whip it out and put in in her face at a drunken frat party in college.A woman who said he pushed her up against a wall and groped her after a night on the town. The FBI was limited by the White house counsel to less than 10 interviews. None was under oath. 50 of cavanaugh's acquaintances and friends from that time period contacted the FBI to offer accounts verifying Blasiford and Ramires events OF A STAGGERING DRUNK WHO HAD HIS WAY WITH WOMEN but were ignored. Kavanaugh huddled with the WH legal team for 3 days before saying anything, did a powder puff interview with Faux and his doting wife by his side saying he was a virgin till he got married which drew more accounts from people who could verify that to be false. At a minimum the man perjured himself in front of the Congress regarding his alcohol use and IMO if you're going to make rules for me until I'm dead and gone it's important the the person of the highest integrity is selected.

Trump was warned by McConnell among others to not pick him. He was not nearly the best choice but he wrote legal opinions stating presidents are immune from prosecution. That's why he was selected.
Christine Blasi Ford passed a polygraph administered by a retired FBI agent. Kavanaugh who had written a majority opinion stating that polygraphs should be legal for law enforcement to use in investigating and charging decisions denigrated polygraphs from the stand and declined to take one when asked by Kamala Harris. If it were I you couldn't have been able to get me in the polygraph chair any quicker. hearing over. polygraphs are legit. His words not mine.

So lets update. We have Neil Gorsuch who in a normal political climate would have been easily confirmed at 60 votes as he is an excellent jurist and far above reproach as the democrats did not accuse him of being a drunk rapist because he wasn't. After the un american actions of Moscow Mitch not even allowing Garland A VOTE in 9 months the well was poisoned forever. Moscow Mitch changed the rules to allow a simple majority to confirm a SCOTUS. That's the only way the Drunk Rapist would have been confirmed at any time in US history but in this perfect storm he was so women like Blasi Ford and Ramirez And probably many more who are afraid have to look at their rapist on the supreme court. Now we have by all accounts a decent right wing woman who will be appointed. Her appearance is IMO why Trump picked her as she is attractive. Hopefully he won't perv out on her as she will be confirmed .

We will have the most far right court since 1950, far right of the american mainstream.Aparteid. America held hostage by Donald Trump long after his stink bloated orange carcass rots which the sooner the better.
But polls i've seen show 57% of americans think the next SCOTUS should be picked after the election with a significand minority in favor which is the bedrock deplorable base. This is not gonna help republicans one bit.https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/mo ... p-approval

[RiverDog]

Oh we are going back into the Kavanaugh hearings.

No, we are going back to the OP, which is the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You, me, and several others have gone over the Kavanaugh hearings many, many times and neither of us are changing our POV's. I simply corrected a few minor points that ASF had mentioned regarding the Dems digging back over 3 decades into the past in order to smear an individual they disagreed with politically, explained to I-5 why it was I didn't view the testimony against Kavanaugh as being credible, and discussed some definitions of sexual assault with I-5 and Cbob. If you'd like to talk about Kavanaugh, please start another thread and I'll participate, not that it will do us any good.

Trump should be making his selection public within hours. It will be interesting to see if he chooses to put on the court a pick that will appeal to his broader political base, ie chooses Barrett, or if he makes a decision designed to help his struggling campaign, ie chooses Lagoa. It seems like everyone is expecting him to pick Barrett.

[RiverDog]

This whole matter of SCOTUS nominations has gotten to the point where it's a national embarrassment. It started with Harry Reid using the nuclear option not to require a 60% super majority, ie overcome a filibuster, for confirming federal judges. Predictably, the R's responded by extending that decision to include SCOTUS nominations once they regained power. Then the R's decided to hold open a SCOTUS nomination for over a year under the ruse that they wanted the American people to decide via the Presidential election. Now we have a SCOTUS opening 45 days before an election that they're going to railroad through.

The Dems have talked openly about packing the court with as many as 4 additional SCOTUS jurists that they would appoint and confirm should they gain control of both the White House and the Senate in order to move the court back to the left. Now I read where they want Trump's nominee to promise to recuse themselves in any case involving the outcome of the election due to concerns about Trump contesting an election in which he loses.

I'm not sure if anything can be done to restore some sense of sanity to the process short of a Constitutional amendment, but the process is most definitely broken.

[Hawktawk]

America is broken. Its humpty dumpty right now too. Not sure Biden can put it back together but he's the only chance. Dems have the moral high ground on this latest appointment and they are debating not going full tinfoil hat over this appointment and tearing into Barrett. Sacrifice the court pick they cant stop and let the Repubs sink themselves shoving this through.

I'm just afraid america will never be able to go back to "normal" after this fascist ate 60 million brains. These idiots aren't going away if Biden is actually declared the winner and actually takes office.

[RiverDog]

America is broken. Its humpty dumpty right now too. Not sure Biden can put it back together but he's the only chance. Dems have the moral high ground on this latest appointment and they are debating not going full tinfoil hat over this appointment and tearing into Barrett. Sacrifice the court pick they cant stop and let the Repubs sink themselves shoving this through.

I'm just afraid america will never be able to go back to "normal" after this fascist ate 60 million brains. These idiots aren't going away if Biden is actually declared the winner and actually takes office.

I'm more of an optimist. Creepy/Sleepy Joe isn't the greatest healer or savior, but he should be able to get us back to at least to what we were pre-Trump. But I do think that you're right, that the divide isn't going to heal overnight, but hopefully, without a trash talking professional wrestler in the Oval Office, we'll be able to talk to each other with some degree of respect.

The Dems could take the moral high ground in the SCOTUS nomination, but we'll see. They can't go into overdrive on a Barrett appointment (if Trump indeed nominates her) like they did with Kavanaugh. She's a female and a devout Catholic and they don't want to upset the suburban white females they're going to need to defeat Trump and take back the Senate. If they play their cards right, they could turn this nomination into a plus for them as it's likely not going to influence anyone to vote for Trump that wasn't going to vote for him anyway and could serve to motivate the young liberal females concerned about Roe v Wade to get their fannies to the polls.

[RiverDog]

It's official now. Trump has nominated Judge Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Barret has stated previously that Roe Vs Wade is already decided. The issue she believes is to be decided is public or privately funded abortions. I don’t think anyone has to worry about Roe v Wade being overturned.

[RiverDog]

Barret has stated previously that Roe Vs Wade is already decided. The issue she believes is to be decided is public or privately funded abortions. I don’t think anyone has to worry about Roe v Wade being overturned.

I don't think it's that clear. She's issued some opinions that would indicate that she'd be OK with placing restrictions on abortions that would essentially do the same thing:

The federal judge has referred to abortion as "always immoral" and offers something a former top candidate, Barbara Lagoa, doesn't: A clear anti-abortion rights judicial record. During her three years on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, she has already ruled on two abortion-related cases, both times favoring restrictions on access to abortion.

In any event, we can expect the Dems to go hard at her on the issue of abortion. It's a political winner for them as over 60% of the public feel that abortion should be legal in all or most cases. If you want to see Trump lose the election, this is the perfect nomination.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

Not sure exactly which two you are referring but one that I saw was against late term and the other against allowing minors to make the decision for abortion without parental consent. I hardly consider that on par with pulling the teeth out of Roe Vs Wade.

I really don’t believe this is going to be as bad as others think. This is not the death of nor the end of progressive legislation.

[RiverDog]

Not sure exactly which two you are referring but one that I saw was against late term and the other against allowing minors to make the decision for abortion without parental consent. I hardly consider that on par with pulling the teeth out of Roe Vs Wade.

I really don’t believe this is going to be as bad as others think. This is not the death of nor the end of progressive legislation.

That's not very comforting for abortion rights advocates. Here's what they're afraid of:

Meanwhile, some believe that Chief Justice John Roberts may be more amenable to a direct challenge to Roe than to the kinds of incremental clinic restrictions that were at issue in the recent June Medical Services v. Russo, in which he voted to strike down a Louisiana abortion law.

Should such an opportunity present itself (for the court to re-visit Roe v Wade), Barrett has made clear that judicial precedent wouldn’t necessarily be an obstacle for her. The judge has said she believes the Supreme Court has the responsibility to revisit and potentially overturn old rulings that its current members feel conflict with the Constitution.

“I tend to agree with those who say that a justice’s duty is to the Constitution and that is thus more legitimate for her to enforce her best understanding of the Constitution rather than a precedent she thinks is clearly in conflict with it,” Barrett wrote in 2013.

Despite her past votes and writings, no one knows for sure how Barrett would rule in a Supreme Court abortion case until and unless she gets to consider one. But one thing is clear — Barrett has no particular allegiance to Roe v. Wade, or to Supreme Court precedent more generally. And if she was given the opportunity to overturn the 1973 decision, nothing in her record suggests she wouldn’t take it.

https://www.vox.com/21456044/amy-coney- ... e-abortion

She's also made comments that there is no right to an abortion granted in the Constitution and that the people are free to pass an amendment if they want one. Couple that statement with the ones above plus the fact that she's a devout Catholic, a religion that opposes all forms of abortion, and you can see why she's the darling of the right to life crowd.

I'm not voicing my support or opposition to Judge Barrett. Abortion is not the litmus test for me as it is for others. I'm pointing out that abortion rights advocates have plenty to worry about with Barrett sitting on the bench. She's their worst nightmare.

[MackStrongIsMyHero]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opin ... roe-v-wade

Here she’s saying it isn’t likely to be overturned. I don’t know man, even Kavanaugh hasn’t moved on this. Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t think abortion is going away in the US and I don’t think that it should. I won’t use this forum to state my views on abortion, but, to the OT, I reiterate that I don’t believe this is the Armageddon progressives think it will be.

[RiverDog]

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/conservatives-cant-rely-on-amy-coney-barrett-to-overturn-roe-v-wade

Here she’s saying it isn’t likely to be overturned. I don’t know man, even Kavanaugh hasn’t moved on this. Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t think abortion is going away in the US and I don’t think that it should. I won’t use this forum to state my views on abortion, but, to the OT, I reiterate that I don’t believe this is the Armageddon progressives think it will be.

That's her opinion on whether or not the court will overturn Roe v. Wade. It is not necessarily indicative of her view on the merits of the decision. It's entirely possible that by saying it's unlikely to be overturned that she believes that there are not enough votes on the court to overturn R v W or that the issue will never come before the court. It does not necessarily indicate a personal belief that the court should allow it to stand.

I don't think the nomination is an Armageddon for progressives, either. If anything, recent decisions by Chief Justice Roberts and the two Trump appointees should give progressives some comfort in that the court, despite having been driven to the right, will judge issues on their merits rather than simply following a conservative hard line. But for those single issue voters that are adamantly pro choice, in particular young females of child bearing age, Trump couldn't have made a worse pick.

[Hawktawk]

scotus judges are unpredictable . I found it quite hilarious the court ruled 7-2 the president must turn over his taxes to the NY prosecutor with Gorsach writing the opinion and Kavanaugh voting with the majority .

[NorthHawk]

Any public in a liberal democracy has to hope the gravitas of the decisions will mitigate extremes even for SC judges on the far ends of the
political spectrum. It's especially true when a Supreme Court is thought to be unbalanced and when it's most important for the
pressure of making the right decisions comes into play regardless of religious or political views. It doesn't mean those views aren't
considered, rather that the extremes are limited.

[RiverDog]

scotus judges are unpredictable . I found it quite hilarious the court ruled 7-2 the president must turn over his taxes to the NY prosecutor with Gorsach writing the opinion and Kavanaugh voting with the majority .

10-4 on that! Dwight Eisenhower said that appointing Earl Warren to the court was the biggest damn fool thing that he'd ever done. Bush 41 appointed David Souter, who ended up voting with the liberal wing. That's the beauty of a lifetime appointment. They are insulated from political pressure.

[Aseahawkfan]

10-4 on that! Dwight Eisenhower said that appointing Earl Warren to the court was the biggest damn fool thing that he'd ever done. Bush 41 appointed David Souter, who ended up voting with the liberal wing. That's the beauty of a lifetime appointment. They are insulated from political pressure.

That's why I don't know why they cry about it. Look at John Roberts, huge conservative disappointment. The Supreme Court doesn't care. They study the case law, think about what they think should happen, back it up with their reasoning, then it goes. It sets the law of the land. They won't be overturning Roe vs. Wade no matter how many people push that fear-mongering crap.

[I-5]

They won't be overturning Roe vs. Wade no matter how many people push that fear-mongering crap.

We all know why; it's to motivate voter turnout, nothing more nothing less.

[RiverDog]

They won't be overturning Roe vs. Wade no matter how many people push that fear-mongering crap.

We all know why; it's to motivate voter turnout, nothing more nothing less.

Except in this nomination, it could motivate the wrong, or at least, unintended voters, to turn out.

[I-5]

Except in this nomination, it could motivate the wrong, or at least, unintended voters, to turn out.

No one has any way of knowing either way. Both sides have their version of scare tactics.

[RiverDog]

Except in this nomination, it could motivate the wrong, or at least, unintended voters, to turn out.

No one has any way of knowing either way. Both sides have their version of scare tactics.

I didn't say that it would or wouldn't motivate either side. What I said was that it 'could' motivate the wrong or unintended side.

My personal opinion is that this nomination isn't going to add one single voter to Trump's column that wouldn't have been there for him already. But it could damn sure scare the crap out of young females of child bearing age and cause them to get their fannies to the polls.

[Aseahawkfan]

I didn't say that it would or wouldn't motivate either side. What I said was that it 'could' motivate the wrong or unintended side.

My personal opinion is that this nomination isn't going to add one single voter to Trump's column that wouldn't have been there for him already. But it could damn sure scare the crap out of young females of child bearing age and cause them to get their fannies to the polls.

I wonder how many young girls will pull themselves away from their cell phones to vote. If voting were done on the cell phone, females would dominate every election.

[RiverDog]

I wonder how many young girls will pull themselves away from their cell phones to vote. If voting were done on the cell phone, females would dominate every election.

That's my main objection to vote by mail. It makes voting too easy and allows for the casual, inattentive voter to have the same say as someone that feels more passionate, researches the candidates or issues, and endures a modest amount of hardship in order to cast their vote. I have no desire to be led by the ignorant masses that do nothing more than watch a 15 second sound bite to base their decision on.

[I-5]

That's my main objection to vote by mail. It makes voting too easy and allows for the casual, inattentive voter to have the same say as someone that feels more passionate, researches the candidates or issues, and endures a modest amount of hardship in order to cast their vote. I have no desire to be led by the ignorant masses that do nothing more than watch a 15 second sound bite to base their decision on.

Besides this statement being full of preconceptions....what would you suggest if you could control the voting process? For example, I'm in Canada (sending in my ballot tomorrow). My mom is 80, it's safer for her to stay at home.

[RiverDog]

Besides this statement being full of preconceptions....what would you suggest if you could control the voting process? For example, I'm in Canada (sending in my ballot tomorrow). My mom is 80, it's safer for her to stay at home.

Ideally, I would like to see every able bodied voter cast their ballot in person. I fully understand that's not a practical desire, especially this year with the pandemic. But to me, there's something authentic about having to make a small effort by enduring a moderate degree of sacrifice and showing up in person and declaring that you're there to exercise your Constitutional right to cast your ballot. There's been a lot of pain and suffering, particularly over the past 100 years, that many have endured in order for women and minorities to earn their right to vote, and now it seems like everybody takes that right for granted.

Obviously there are those that are, for one reason or another, physically unable, like yourself and your mom, to cast their ballot in person that would include people that are home bound, military personnel stationed overseas, nursing home residents, and many others, that simply can't or shouldn't be casting their votes in person and I fully admit that my preference is more of a romantic wish than it is a practical alternative. But I get upset when I think of how many incompetent, ignorant, and lazy people that we have in our midst that don't have a frigging clue about who or what it is they're voting for that has allowed for someone like Donald Trump to ascend to the highest office in the land.

Like I've said about foreign election interference, it's the stupidity and ignorance of the American public that has given our adversaries the ability to extend their influence to our electoral process. It's by far the biggest weakness of democracy. I've often thought that we should be given some sort of qualifying test before being allowed to vote, something on the order of what we give to immigrants applying for citizenship. I swear that Donald Trump couldn't pass one of those tests.