Paying My Respects to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Page 6 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15121451
SpecialOlympian wrote:Can you call up the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and ask them to send me my file? From the time you called them to report an own on the internet?

For those who are unaware: Doug65 literally called the police on one of my posts and just lmfao at this delicate man.

:eek: What are you talking about? I’ve never talked to the RCMP in my life. Why would I? It’s not like I’ve ever lived in Canada. For that matter, I’ve never called the police of any country about anyone, or anything, my personal life is boring. It sounds like you might have me confused with someone else, I’m Doug64.
#15121453
Rancid wrote:These judges aren't hive minded with their biases. Conservative judges do side with liberal judges, and visa versa. THus, I think if Trump got a judge in, it's likely not the end of the world for liberals.

The problem for the Left is that many of the advances they have managed over the last few generations have been due to Perfectionist judges, and right now the Supreme Court has four Perfectionists, four Originalists, and one Minimalist with Originalist leanings. If we get one more true Originalist on the court, those accomplishments are at risk and they’ll have to depend on convincing legislatures—both federal and state—to preserved those accomplishments. The Left will always prefer to deal with a handful of sympathetic judges than with hundreds of legislators.
#15121457
Pants-of-dog wrote:I note that McConnell has completely changed his position on whether or not the US electorate should have a voice in this selection.


Well I would say it is all about check and balance.

If the replacement of every justice is decided by plebiscite-like process, we risk having every replacement leaned to one side for several good decades -- voter structure is not something easy to change in just few years.

Presidents, however, usually rotate between parties every few years (no more than 20 in most cases).

I think the Democrats are simply unlucky to have a relatively large number of justices dying or leaving during the tenure of someone against them so much.

My take is, either what it is now, or to split the entire Justice panel into parts of three or so, having each of them re-elected among lawyers every 4 years or so. In other words, like the Senate.
#15121464
@Patrickov, no way are the people of the US going to turn over the appointment of the Supreme Court to lawyers—especially considering the clear bias the American Bar Association has demonstrated in its grading of judicial nominees.

Another option than the two you mention is to limit the term of a Supreme Court Justice by age and/or length of service, say the shorter of seventy years old or twenty years. Of course, the first will encourage presidents to select young judges, in order to maximize their influence, and either would require a constitutional amendment.

A side note, Pants-of-dog’s assertion that McConnell has changed his position is wrong, since during the Garland situation McConnell made it clear that he was talking about a case where we have a Senate of one party and a President of the other. You can even argue that he was speaking of a case where the Senate flips to the opposite party after the President was elected. Now, if McConnell decides to hold the confirmation vote during a lame-duck session after the election, especially if the Democrats win control of the Senate in November, that’s another matter and an argument for him to decide to hold the vote before the election while he still has his figleaf.
#15121468
Rancid wrote:These judges aren't hive minded with their biases. Conservative judges do side with liberal judges, and visa versa. THus, I think if Trump got a judge in, it's likely not the end of the world for liberals.

Judges never flip from liberal to conservative. It's always the other way around.

Doug64 wrote:The problem for the Left is that many of the advances they have managed over the last few generations have been due to Perfectionist judges, and right now the Supreme Court has four Perfectionists, four Originalists, and one Minimalist with Originalist leanings. If we get one more true Originalist on the court, those accomplishments are at risk and they’ll have to depend on convincing legislatures—both federal and state—to preserved those accomplishments. The Left will always prefer to deal with a handful of sympathetic judges than with hundreds of legislators.

Frankly, I think RBG was a danger to the constitution and to freedom generally. In the Obamacare decisions, she voted for Robert's ruling and then dissented against her own vote, arguing on behalf of a Federal general police power which clearly didn't exist in the constitution.

Doug64 wrote:A side note, Pants-of-dog’s assertion that McConnell has changed his position is wrong, since during the Garland situation McConnell made it clear that he was talking about a case where we have a Senate of one party and a President of the other.

And Obama was in his last year in office. The last time an appointment like that got through was 1880. So it's actually quite rare.

Doug64 wrote:Now, if McConnell decides to hold the confirmation vote during a lame-duck session after the election, especially if the Democrats win control of the Senate in November, that’s another matter and an argument for him to decide to hold the vote before the election while he still has his figleaf.

Indeed. Also going into an election where the Democrats have decided already to engage in lawfare, we need to have the seat filled to prevent a 4-4 decision that leaves the country in limbo and on the brink of civil war.
#15121471
Rancid wrote:These judges aren't hive minded with their biases. Conservative judges do side with liberal judges, and visa versa. THus, I think if Trump got a judge in, it's likely not the end of the world for liberals.

People cried a lot about Roe v. Wade but Kennedy flip flopped on it and kept it in place.

People also cried a lot about how having 5/4 conservative judges would change this or that but Roberts flip flopped on numerous issues to keep the court in the middle.

IMHO intelligent people do not actually want to get rid of Roe v. Wade. It is a huge virtue signal, from the right sometimes as well as from the left who need to LARP about dominionists or whatever in order to spice up their lives and justify abusive behavior.
Last edited by Wulfschilde on 20 Sep 2020 05:01, edited 1 time in total.
#15121473
Doug64 wrote::eek: What are you talking about? I’ve never talked to the RCMP in my life. Why would I? It’s not like I’ve ever lived in Canada. For that matter, I’ve never called the police of any country about anyone, or anything, my personal life is boring. It sounds like you might have me confused with someone else, I’m Doug64.


My mistake. I confuse all avatarless losers to be the same people.
#15121477
SpecialOlympian wrote:The GOP doesn't care. Democracy is an obstacle for them.


Indeed. But I enjoy the contradiction nevertheless. Although the GOP are vocally democratic champions yet they don't actually act on their words. Any other nation would be called a dictatorship if they did this. And now if the people don't vote for their next Supreme Justice, McConnell is basically saying democracy only applies when it is convenient.
#15121480
Two years ago at The Atlantic Festival, Senator Lindsey Graham defended the Republican decision to block President Barack Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland. “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process is started, we’ll wait to the next election,” Graham said.

Now that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died, only a month and a half before the 2020 election, the chance that the senator keeps his word seems infinitesimal. He has already said that after Brett Kavanaugh,...………. “the rules have changed.” What "rule" might that be? That to retain any shred if integrity and self respect one should endeavor to keep one's word and tell the truth?

To justify Graham's puke inducing words please insert examples of communist inspired liberals and Democrats behaving in a similar fashion ….. here:




.
#15121488
Patrickov wrote:Well I would say it is all about check and balance.

I think the Democrats are simply unlucky to have a relatively large number of justices dying or leaving during the tenure of someone against them so much.


It’s really simple the checks and balances in reality are the fact that the Democrats cannot win and have been losing elections for the past 12 years based on their shit policies.

The Democrats have been rejected by the country. So now they want to change the rules.

There’s no dying wish there’s no courtesy calls. Earn the right to pass the policies and appoint people that your constituents want. What would the Democrats do if they were in power? Oh that’s right the Democrats hold the house of representative and what did they do? They staged a fake impeachment and literally accomplished absolutely nothing . What else have they done previously to change the tides? They put up two of the shittiest candidates that anybody could think of, politicians that have done more to enrich their personal lives than help the people . Democrats even know their candidates are shitty because they tried to rig the election and they got weekend at Bernie’s Biden reading teleprompters during interviews.

It’s real simple Democrats need to put up better candidates and they need to stand for better policy. Try not calling call 50% of the country redneck assholes and maybe they might have a chance . Then they can make the rules, until then it’s just great to see all these unhinged salty tears posts.
Last edited by Finfinder on 19 Sep 2020 21:38, edited 1 time in total.
#15121490
Finfinder wrote:The Democrats have been rejected by the country. So now they want to change the rules.


You should look up the popular vote results of the last presidential election.

I am just loving Finfinder turning himself into a victim when his views are unpopular and have been categorically rejected by the majority of the nation. What a fucking, screwed up idiot.
#15121494
SpecialOlympian wrote:You should look up the popular vote results of the last presidential election.


Exactly this why there should a swift appointment of a judge that will follow the constitution. . The left is not hiding the fact they want to end elections per our constitution and the electoral college. They want to have two states run by Democrats, (BTW which are bankrupt and literally burning to the ground rite now) decide elections for the entire country for eternity.
Last edited by Finfinder on 19 Sep 2020 21:40, edited 1 time in total.
#15121495
@SpecialOlympian
The McConnel might want to appoint a judge to the supreme court but I don't think that Trumps team wants to do it. It will further collapse his rating and energize the soft and hard left to vote against him no matter the cost. I don't think that he himself and his team are stupid to not understand this. So it will probably not happen.

McConnel alone won't be able to do it. And Trump has an election to win which he is loosing badly right now. Now i know that you will say that Trump doesn't think etc. He does to a certain degree along with his team.
#15121497
Finfinder wrote:Exactly this why there should a swift appointment of a judge that will follow the constitution. . The left is not hiding the fact they want to end election per our constitution and the electoral college. They want to have two states California and New York run by Democrats (which are bankrupt and literally burning to the ground rite now) decide elections for the entire country and eternity.


What in the fuck are you talking about, you brainwashed fool? Trump is actively sabotaging the USPS and is actively killing people who depend on it for medication, all while spastically trying to delegitimize voting by mail.

How did you end up as the person you are? What is wrong with you?
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 25
Election 2020

Rep. Ilhan Omar underperformed Biden in her dis[…]

@annatar1914 It matters little in any case wh[…]

Neoliberal obesity and coronavirus in Mexico

As you say, this is a choice of the consumer, and[…]

EU-BREXIT

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DTdMH46X[…]