Paying My Respects to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Page 11 - 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.
#15121994
ness31 wrote:How did you find out about Buzz62s snitching? Did an authority contact you or something? This story is totally bizarre.


He told me. And he was very serious. Like, he thought I was threatening to rape his daughter when I was just mocking him for saying Heather Heyer deserved to be run down by convicted felon and murderer James Fields.

He was very insistent that yes, he had called the police to report an own, and he was dumb enough that I believe it could have happened.
#15121999
@Drlee ;


Not a bad choice. Certainly not one that should scare Democrats too much. Two reasons:

She is a self styled originalist. She like Scalia's philosophy. She has written that she did not think that Roe V. Wade should be overthrown but rather that the question really is who pays for abortions. That is the first thing.


I'm pro-life and I want abortion made illegal ideally speaking. As I've said to you before, a more just system takes care of everybody-although Socialist countries failed in this specific area generally speaking. But what is most reprehensible is violating a Christian's conscience and making them foot the bill for what they consider a manifest evil. It may even have to be tolerated, but it doesn't make it right.

The second reason that she should not scare democrats is that nothing serves to energize their base like a threat to Roe V. Wade.


It would throw it back to the individual States, is all.

A smart republican would not want Trump to appoint someone before the election just for this reason. Sadly there aren't any smart republicans to speak of and Trump sees everything in the light of his poll numbers with his base.


Robert Viguerie proposed the same idea.

It is time for the democrats to realize that the US is essentially a conservative country and will be for about another 25 years or so. They need to stop the barn burning and go at republicans on two fronts; integrity and white middle class values. They won't to their peril.


You have to start with the idea that truth and integrity are absolutes to begin with. Neither side seems to get that much, ironically except for Trump's targeted voters; working class/middle class people, the ''deplorables'' that are ''clinging to their bibles and their guns''. Like they are sub-human and hated (which many on the fake ''left'' absolutely do).
#15122001
Image

Probably not a huge surprise, but another Republican Senator currently in a tight election races has put down his marker:

Cory Gardner says he will vote for 'qualified nominee' to fill Supreme Court vacancy

    Sen. Cory Gardner, Colorado Republican, said Monday he would vote to confirm a “qualified nominee” for the Supreme Court who upholds the Constitution, giving Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell another vote in favor of filling the vacancy.

    “When a President exercises constitutional authority to nominate a judge for the Supreme Court vacancy, the Senate must decide how to best fulfill its constitutional duty of advice and consent,” said Mr. Gardner in a statement. “I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who meets this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm.”

    Mr. Gardner, locked in a tight reelection bid against former Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper, represents a critical vote in the GOP push to approve a nominee to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died Friday at 87 of pancreatic cancer.

    Democrats have called for Mr. McConnell to wait until after the presidential inauguration, when the White House and Senate could change hands, to hold a vote on the next justice.

    Sen. Tom Cotton, Arkansas Republican, said Mr. Gardner’s decision was “not surprising to me at all.”

    “I believe that once we get the nominee, that nominee will be highly capable,” said Mr. Cotton on Fox News. “The Senate will be thorough and careful. We won’t cut corners, we won’t skip steps, but there is more than enough time to confirm the president’s nominee, perhaps before the election, certainly by the end of the year.”

    In 2016, Mr. Gardner supported Mr. McConnell’s decision not to hold a vote on President Barack Obama’s nominee Merrick Garland, saying in a press release that the “next president of the United States should have an opportunity to fill the vacancy on the Supreme Court,” according to the Denver Post.

    Mr. McConnell would need 50 of the Senate’s 53 Republicans, with Vice President Mike Pence as a tie-breaker, to vote for President Trump’s nominee to the high court. Mr. Trump is expected to name his pick by the end of the week.

    So far only two Republican senators, Connecticut’s Susan Collins and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, have said they will not vote to confirm a nominee before the Nov. 3 election.
#15122021
I don't know why even the most ardent GOP supporter thinks that whatever Heritage Foundation freak they find to replace Ginsberg will ever rule in favor of them on anything outside abortion. Like, you're going to get the most wide eyed Christian sociopath who genuinely believes Jesus was a libertarian.

The abortion shit is dumb pablum for idiots who want to feel compassionate without actually caring about living people. The rest will be about restoring American labor law to Victorian/Gilded Era standards and privatizing whatever is left of the government. But I guess it owns the libs, and when your worldview precludes the idea that anything can ever be better that's all you can strive for.
#15122057
Actual news on the nomination front is likely to be sparse until the weekend, thanks to President Trump’s announcement that he’ll hold off on nominating a successor until then out of respect for the three days RGB will lie in state at the Supreme Court and US Capitol, but others aren’t as patient (or respectful):

Sen. Lindsey Graham: GOP has the votes to confirm Supreme Court nominee before the election

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said Monday evening that Republicans have the votes to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee before the November election.

    “We’ve got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg’s replacement before the election,” the South Carolina Republican said on Fox News regarding Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who died Friday of pancreatic cancer. “We’re going to move forward in the committee.”

    Mr. Graham had said in 2016 to “use my words against me” when he supported delaying the process for Judge Merrick Garland, former President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court in March 2016.

    He said Monday that the contentious confirmation process of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in 2018 changed his thinking.

    “After Kavanaugh, everything changed with me. They’re not going to intimidate me, Mitch McConnell or anybody else,” he said.

    He also pleaded with the TV audience to contribute to his campaign, saying he’s getting outraised 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 by Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison.

    “Five or 10 bucks from half your audience would fill in the gap that I’m facing,” he told host Sean Hannity.

    Mr. Trump says he will name a replacement for Justice Ginsburg later this week.
    The president says his preference would be for the Senate to vote on the nomination before Election Day, Nov. 3.

    Democrats, as well as GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, say any vote should wait until after the election.

    But a number of Republican senators in tough reelection fights, including Cory Gardner of Colorado, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Martha McSally of Arizona, have indicated they’ll support moving quickly to fill the vacancy.

    Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah has not yet made his intentions known, but the GOP can afford three defections in a chamber where they have a 53-47 majority.
#15122132
@Doug64

Well, it looks like Mitch will have the votes to get a Supreme Court judge confirmed to replace Ruth:

Chris Cillizza wrote:We won't even know who President Donald Trump's pick to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court will be until late this week, but we know now for (almost) certain that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) has the votes to confirm the pick to the court.

The last 72 hours have made that much clear. On Tuesday morning, Utah Sen. Mitt Romney announced that he supports a vote on Trump's nominee. "I intend to follow the Constitution and precedent in considering the President's nominee," he said in a statement. "If the nominee reaches the Senate floor, I intend to vote based upon their qualifications.

Romney's decision comes two days after retiring Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander announced that he supported a vote on Trump's eventual nominee before the election, eliminating perhaps the single most likely GOPer to join Sens. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine in opposition to confirming a Supreme Court justice this close to a presidential election.

Then, on Monday, Colorado Sen. Cory Gardner, who is an underdog for a second term this November, said that he too backed a vote before the election. As did Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa who had, in the past, expressed significant reservations about trying to confirm a justice in the waning days of an election.

And with those critical dominoes, any experienced vote-counter can see the writing on the wall: This nomination is going to go through -- and McConnell is going to win."



https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/22/politics ... index.html
#15122151
@Politics_Observer, that’ll make things slightly less messy after the election. Whatever the Supreme Court ends up deciding, at least it wouldn’t be a 4-4 split.
#15122154
@Doug64

I agree with you on that. I would rather have a Supreme Court that is not evenly split even that means it favors the other party. What's far more important to me is the best interests of the U.S. rather than the best interests of my own party. I am willing to set aside the best interests of my party and sometimes my own best interests for the best interests of the country. First and foremost, for me, it is about the best interests of the country before the best interests of my party and at times my own best interests.
#15122246
Unthinking Majority wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ldb-Om07_k

"You only had to make it to 2021 reeeeee". Cringe...

Imagine if only people who have read a Ginsburg opinion were allowed to be mad. All of these people are angry because they were told to be angry and it was a wamen on the court and she was old, so they were buttering AntiFA up for the freakout because she was most statistically the most likely one pass away on the bench.
#15122247
Doug64 wrote:Actual news on the nomination front is likely to be sparse until the weekend, thanks to President Trump’s announcement that he’ll hold off on nominating a successor until then out of respect for the three days RGB will lie in state at the Supreme Court and US Capitol, but others aren’t as patient (or respectful):

Sen. Lindsey Graham: GOP has the votes to confirm Supreme Court nominee before the election

    Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham said Monday evening that Republicans have the votes to confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee before the November election.

    “We’ve got the votes to confirm Justice Ginsburg’s replacement before the election,” the South Carolina Republican said on Fox News regarding Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who died Friday of pancreatic cancer. “We’re going to move forward in the committee.”

    Mr. Graham had said in 2016 to “use my words against me” when he supported delaying the process for Judge Merrick Garland, former President Barack Obama’s nominee for the Supreme Court in March 2016.

    He said Monday that the contentious confirmation process of Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh in 2018 changed his thinking.

    “After Kavanaugh, everything changed with me. They’re not going to intimidate me, Mitch McConnell or anybody else,” he said.

    He also pleaded with the TV audience to contribute to his campaign, saying he’s getting outraised 3-to-1 or 4-to-1 by Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison.

    “Five or 10 bucks from half your audience would fill in the gap that I’m facing,” he told host Sean Hannity.

    Mr. Trump says he will name a replacement for Justice Ginsburg later this week.
    The president says his preference would be for the Senate to vote on the nomination before Election Day, Nov. 3.

    Democrats, as well as GOP Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, say any vote should wait until after the election.

    But a number of Republican senators in tough reelection fights, including Cory Gardner of Colorado, Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Martha McSally of Arizona, have indicated they’ll support moving quickly to fill the vacancy.

    Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah has not yet made his intentions known, but the GOP can afford three defections in a chamber where they have a 53-47 majority.

Almost surely going to be ACB. He met with her at the White House recently and "may" meet with Lagoa on the campaign trail. A third woman who was mentioned, no talk of him meeting with her.
#15122264
I'll try again to get some good ideas before the American people.
1] Yes, the Dems need to increase the size of the USSC.
2] But, how many more justices should be added and what sort should they be?
3] I suggest that if we agree that after Trump there will be 6 solid rightwing justices, then adding 6 more seems like a good number.
. . a] So, there will be 6 solid right wing justices.
. . b] So, we can add 3 solid left wing justices, to then total 6 solid left leaning justices.
. . c] And then we can try very hard to find and to add 3 swing or moderate justices.
4] Then we sell this to the American people, not as "packing the court", but as "moderating" the court.
5] It also gets us past the 'unlucky' number of 13 justices.
6] We could even compromise at 10 more justices to have 19, with 6 right leaning, 6 left leaning, and 7 we try very hard to actually have turn out to be moderates.
I have suggested this before and it didn't catch on. Maybe this time it will.
#15122299
Steve_American wrote:I'll try again to get some good ideas before the American people.
1] Yes, the Dems need to increase the size of the USSC.
2] But, how many more justices should be added and what sort should they be?
3] I suggest that if we agree that after Trump there will be 6 solid rightwing justices, then adding 6 more seems like a good number.
. . a] So, there will be 6 solid right wing justices.
. . b] So, we can add 3 solid left wing justices, to then total 6 solid left leaning justices.
. . c] And then we can try very hard to find and to add 3 swing or moderate justices.
4] Then we sell this to the American people, not as "packing the court", but as "moderating" the court.
5] It also gets us past the 'unlucky' number of 13 justices.
6] We could even compromise at 10 more justices to have 19, with 6 right leaning, 6 left leaning, and 7 we try very hard to actually have turn out to be moderates.
I have suggested this before and it didn't catch on. Maybe this time it will.

So whenever the Supreme Court could lean conservative, the reaction of some people, including yourself, is to expand the Court and nominate more left-leaning and even moderate judges?

I've never heard of anything less democratic.

Can you imagine if Obama nominated a new judge and the court now leaned left, and then Trump came in and expanded the SCOTUS by adding 6 more judges, and nominated more right-leaning judges and NO left-leaning ones.
#15122385
Rugoz wrote:Can't believe some Dems proposed to pack the court. Are they mad?

Trump is gonna pick up on this idea, I can already see it coming. :lol:


Well, the man actually fights them, and is playing for keeps just as they are (for the most part). This is the primary reason why they hate him and his supporters so much; he fights.
#15122386
America is in the midst of several disasters

1. The pandemic. And Americans are racking up the great number of deaths per million in the world. We don't know yet what sort of effects after the ill get better will affect them, yet President Trump wants to kill the affordable health act

2. The south is under water. The west is ablaze. And President Trump is against climate change.

I hate to see what would happen in another Gores v Bush decision.
  • 1
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 24
Marxism is Oligarch Astroturf

I suspect the last article shared is simply a des[…]

If my government had an agency that was abusing ou[…]

Election 2020

https://www.9news.com.au/world/us-announces-planne[…]

Campaign Kanye

This is a witty take on Clinton's former birthday[…]