Paying My Respects to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Page 9 - 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.
#15121609
Wulfschilde wrote:It's an anime/manga that is really good half the time and really cringe the other half of the time. Glad you are chilling out.

I am not done making fun of the meltdowns yet though. Like, this was originally directed at you but I'm not stopping just because you are more chill now, I already wrote it out and everything.

"Okay so I have never read an opinion by RBG but we need to BURN THIS MOTHERFUCKER DOWN if we don't get what we want!"

"She surely wouldn't have wanted you to do that but more tacitly, you already burned all of your shit down."

"Come at me bro, come at me!"

"That's not how this works."

Related:
Image

https://dailycaller.com/2020/09/19/ruth ... pick-2016/

In 2016 RGB said that the President doesn't stop being the President in his last year and that a new judge should be appointed.

Try this game. It is a good game, and chalk full of politics. I'll spoil the opening scene and nothing else. You wake up in a dodgy hotel room, you are an alcoholic drug addict cop, and you have amnesia. And you have to solve a serious murder mystery. I recommend this game. I played it through 3 times, lol.

#15121617
Politics_Observer wrote:Well the Democrats are warning Republicans of retaliation if they fill Ruth's seat on the Supreme Court by expanding the size of the court if they win these upcoming elections.

Whereby giving Republicans permission to do the same as soon as they again take complete control of the presidency and Congress. And don't think that it won't happen sooner or later, possibly in as little as four years (if Biden wins, I don't expect the country to react well to the results of complete Democratic control of the federal government). I don't know if Democrats are bluffing, if they're still in denial over their own responsibility for starting the end of the use of the filibuster for judicial appointments, or are just that desperate to hold on to power. Of course, to make that work they have to eliminate the filibuster for all legislation and not just judicial appointments. That hasn't worked out so well for them so far.
#15121621
Doug64 wrote:You mean like Biden, who claimed in 2016 that there was no such thing as a "Biden Rule," and that Garland's Supreme Court nomination should proceed even though the presidency and Senate were held by different parties? Or like McConnell, who always predicated the refusal to confirm Garland on exactly the point that the Senate and presidency were held by different parties, as he pointed out during an interview on CBS News' "Face the Nation": "You have to go back to 1880 to find the last time a Senate controlled by a different party from the president confirmed a Supreme Court justice to a vacancy created in the middle of a presidential election." So according to Biden the "Biden Rule" doesn't exist, and according to McConnell it doesn't apply to the current situation. Either way, there's no hypocrisy involved in moving forward--naked partisan politics, perhaps, but not hypocrisy.


What the fuck are you on about!!!

This is an attempt of a whataboutism and a piss poor one at that.

The hypocracy, as if you cannot see it, is that in 2016 McConnell said it is the people who should decide who should sit on the Supreme Justice and in 2020 it is the president. So democracy only applies when it is convenient. And as it happens, the court should be above politics in any case and that it also should be consistent and objective.

America has become a Tinpot state now the rule of law is decided by politics and not justice.
Last edited by B0ycey on 20 Sep 2020 07:47, edited 1 time in total.
#15121625
B0ycey wrote:The hypocracy, as if you cannot see it, is that in 2016 McConnell said it is the people who should decide who should sit on the Supreme Justice and in 2020 it is the president. So democracy only applies when it is convenient. And as it happens, the court should be above politics in any case and that it also should be consistent and objective.

Apparently, you didn't actually read my post.
#15121626
Doug64 wrote:Apparently, you didn't actually read my post.


Of course I did dumbass. I said it was a whataboutism and a piss poor one at that. :roll:

Biden playing politics is to be expected from a politician. But a judge should be objective to the law and most definitely consistent. So even if Biden was a hypocrite (which he isn't) it wouldn't stop McConnell being a hypocrite in any case.
Last edited by B0ycey on 20 Sep 2020 07:19, edited 1 time in total.
#15121630
@Doug64

Whereby giving Republicans permission to do the same as soon as they again take complete control of the presidency and Congress. And don't think that it won't happen sooner or later, possibly in as little as four years (if Biden wins, I don't expect the country to react well to the results of complete Democratic control of the federal government). I don't know if Democrats are bluffing, if they're still in denial over their own responsibility for starting the end of the use of the filibuster for judicial appointments, or are just that desperate to hold on to power. Of course, to make that work they have to eliminate the filibuster for all legislation and not just judicial appointments. That hasn't worked out so well for them so far.


Then that means the Democrats will have to retaliate once again to even the score and bring things back into balance. The Republicans, not the Democrats are the ones who started this by breaking their own precedent of not appointing a Supreme Court judge so close to an election like they insisted with Obama when it came to the Obama administration wanting to get a vote for Garland. If Republicans don't want a fight then don't start one. I don't think the Democrats are bluffing. I think there will be an answer from the Democrats if Mitch moves forward with a vote on the Senate floor.
#15121632
Crantag wrote:Try this game. It is a good game, and chalk full of politics. I'll spoil the opening scene and nothing else. You wake up in a dodgy hotel room, you are an alcoholic drug addict cop, and you have amnesia. And you have to solve a serious murder mystery. I recommend this game. I played it through 3 times, lol.



Disco Elysium is fucking genius and legit one of the funniest games I have ever played.

I like how if you choose fascism as your ideology you lose morale points every time you express a fascist thought. But alcohol gives you extra strength.
#15121641
Sivad wrote:I never would have guessed...


I don't even get what point you're making, but I'm sure you had a nice giggle while you typed this out.

Also @doug64 my mistake on saying you were the one who called the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to report an own on whatever the 911 equivalent in Canada is. That was a dipshit named Buzz62, who acted like he believed the Charlottesville rightwing fash protestors just really, really believed in free speech. My apologies for that, but given the similarity between the two names I hope you'll understand why I made that mistake.

I'm sure people are curious, so here is the story: Buzz62 bragged about having a hot daughter who worked in modeling, which is a normal thing for fathers to do, and also said Heather Heyer deserved to be run down by convicted felon and murderer James Fields' car. I said that the way he described Heather Heyer's death would be no different from me saying his daughter deserved to be raped for dressing sexily.

This pissed off Buzz62 so bad that he had Dudley Dooright show up to his home and look at his computer screen, which prompted only a polite, "We'll note it in a file" before the officer left to tell all his buddies at the station that some idiot reported an own on the internet from someone outside of their jurisdiction.

The moral of the story is that I have literally owned rightwing idiots so hard on this forum that they have called the police to report a brutal owning.
Last edited by SpecialOlympian on 20 Sep 2020 09:03, edited 3 times in total.
#15121645
Yes it's normal to giggle at your own thoughts that other people are unable to comprehend. Unless the point is that I have an obvious and vocal history of shitting on fascists? Like, either you're mentally unwell or you're Captain Obvious, but for some reason you think shitting on fascism is bad?

You're not very good at whatever you're trying to do.
#15121652
This pissed off Buzz62 so bad that he had Dudley Dooright show up to his home and look at his computer screen, which prompted only a polite, "We'll note it in a file" before the officer left to tell all his buddies at the station that some idiot reported an own on the internet from someone outside of their jurisdiction.


How did you find out about Buzz62s snitching? Did an authority contact you or something? This story is totally bizarre.
#15121655
Politics_Observer wrote:@Doug64



Then that means the Democrats will have to retaliate once again to even the score and bring things back into balance. The Republicans, not the Democrats are the ones who started this by breaking their own precedent of not appointing a Supreme Court judge so close to an election like they insisted with Obama when it came to the Obama administration wanting to get a vote for Garland. If Republicans don't want a fight then don't start one. I don't think the Democrats are bluffing. I think there will be an answer from the Democrats if Mitch moves forward with a vote on the Senate floor.

Since Democrats lowered the vote count to 51, they're going to have to give themselves some political payback somehow.

Kind of disturbing that SO can't even keep poster's identities straight while finding things to seethe at them for. Take a break guy.

Trump has released his picks for RGB's former seat:
Image

Oh God those women are hot. Especially the one in the middle. Oh God, Oh God, I've been reading politics for too long, I think I'm going to honk.

Image
#15121658
SpecialOlympian wrote:He told me he did it. He bragged about calling the police to look at his old ass cathode ray tube monitor and making them look at my posts where I owned him.

He was such an authoratian shithead that he thought the police existed to help him. That's how stupid he was.



I see :eh:

I reckon he was full of shit SO; trying to get a reaction from you. He had no reason to brag. Any sane person would be embarrassed with the outcome.
#15121666
Crantag wrote:I am ready for the war that the Trump Death Cultists like to claim the Left wants. Fuck all of you. Come at me, bros. I'm prepared, but you probably have to run to your dialysis appointment and are probably too obese to walk far out the door. Fuck you, cult members. Come at me bros.

:lol: You really are a pathetic individual aren't you. This is a debating forum not the school play ground. You freely admit or rather claim to being a violent bully, who likes to punch people when you disagree with them. Whether you're really a successful violent bully or just an internet wannabe we do not know. But perhaps in the playground you were one of the tough kids who could hit and bully the other kids when they said something you didn't like.

However this is a debating forum, where people come to debate. Its the nature of debating forums that you will find people who disagree with you. Its not the sole purpose of a forum like this, but giving people an opportunity to express different views is perhaps its main purpose. If you don't read posts, I can't quite see what your purpose is here. Its like going to a restaurant and refusing to eat, or going to a football match and closing your eyes and saying, "nah,nah, naha, nah I'm not going to watch you.
#15121680
Thinking about this as a republican.

I do not think it is reasonable to expect the republican party to wait. Though I admit that there is very little evidence of any moral base in the party these days, to the extent there is one they have to act to preserve whatever values they claim to embrace. Appointing an originalist like Barrett is reasonable. I would certainly not object to her. Buckley said: "A conservative stands athwart history yelling STOP." Speaking of Barrett, I commend to anyone interested a look into her judicial philosophy. It is not what knee-jerk democrats might think.

Judge Lagoa is another choice that would not be bad. She has said, "judges should say what the law IS not......" She is Hispanic. She is from Florida. She has a deep legal background.

Judge Rushing is far too off the charts to be considered. So it is clear that Trump will nominate her just to be mean. (Mean is what he mistakes for being decisive.) She would seriously throw quite a few Republican senators seeking reelection under the bus and probably send millions of women into the streets just before the election. She actually belongs to an organization that the SPLC calls a hate group. She has spoken out against LGBTQ (whatever) rights and would no doubt strike down Roe V. Wade. If there is an appointment that would cause the democrats to expand the court, it would be her (or someone like her). Perhaps Trump will realize that this is not the kind of scandal that benefits him. All noise is not good noise. She would likely give the senate to the democrats and that would not be good for Trump on a personal level not to mention a political one.

I think also that too much is made of the idea that judges appointed by one party automatically vote the interests of that party. Clearly Roberts has not done this and I could find a contrarian opinion from every justice. (Except Thomas, who no one seems to be willing to awaken to ask his opinion.)

So though I would prefer to wait until the next president is sworn in (and it very well be Trump) to make the decision I do not believe it is reasonable to expect the republicans to do it. And if it is Barrett or Langoa the opposition from democrats will not be nearly as politically charged. Trump gets his victory in the court without losing the election to do it.

@Doug64 said: I don't know if Democrats are bluffing, if they're still in denial over their own responsibility for starting the end of the use of the filibuster for judicial appointments, or are just that desperate to hold on to power.


This is correct. Like it or not, this is a situation that lies squarely at the feet of Reed and the democrats. As to whether there is anything "desperate" about it, I would suspect not much. As I said, there is nothing "desperate" about fulfilling your mandate when elected. Republicans like to remind everyone that "elections have consequences" then recoil when democrats win and try to act. Both parties do. That is what they are there for...To represent the folks who put them in office. Though it is far from clear that the republicans would not have done the same thing and stopped the filibuster, given the situation now, we all would have been far better off if the filibuster was still in place. It was the last bastion for compromise in our government. In fact, without it, we have been on this inexorable move to tribalism that has us on the brink of civil war. And we are on the brink of civil war. Or at least the break up of the union as we see it now.
#15121690
@SpecialOlympian, not a problem, with so many posts flying around across so many threads it’s easy to get confused. It’s certainly happened to me.

B0ycey wrote:Of course I did dumbass. I said it was a whataboutism and a piss poor one at that. :roll:

Biden playing politics is to be expected from a politician. But a judge should be objective to the law and most definitely consistent. So even if Biden was a hypocrite (which he isn't) it wouldn't stop McConnell being a hypocrite in any case.

You are aware that McConnell is the Senate Majority Leader and so a politician like Biden and not a judge, right? And as I pointed out, going by past statements neither were hypocrites because neither are contradicting their previous statements. Actually Biden is, with his call for the Senate to hold off on the nomination until next year since his previous statement only called for holding off on the nomination until after the election (and therefore during a lame duck session), but considering that Biden’s original statement was in 1992 I think we can give him a pass on that one. I really think past statements by politicians should have unofficial expiration dates.

Politics_Observer wrote:@Doug64
Then that means the Democrats will have to retaliate once again to even the score and bring things back into balance. The Republicans, not the Democrats are the ones who started this by breaking their own precedent of not appointing a Supreme Court judge so close to an election like they insisted with Obama when it came to the Obama administration wanting to get a vote for Garland. If Republicans don't want a fight then don't start one. I don't think the Democrats are bluffing. I think there will be an answer from the Democrats if Mitch moves forward with a vote on the Senate floor.

Actually, the Democrats started it when they chose to abolish the filibuster for all judges below the level of the Supreme Court, even though they were warned at the time that there was no way it was going to stop there. If they hadn’t done that, it is unlikely that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would be on the SC right now. Why would the Democrats think if they choose to abolish the filibuster entirely so they can pack the court that it’ll stop there?

And since we’re talking about the Senate they can’t try to maintain their hold by gerrymandering after this year’s census. They can try to maintain the House that way, though, and if the Senate does choose to abolish the filibuster then maintaining control of the House becomes absolutely vital for the Democrats as the Senate naturally leans Conservative. Just consider this years electoral environment—as the stats I’ve posted in the Election 2020 thread show, this is about as favorable an environment for Senate elections as Democrats can imagine and they might take control by two or three votes.

The sad thing is that things are looking more and more like they did before the American Civil War, and if Democrats are unwilling to accept their defeat here and count on the court of public opinion to salvage much of their court-driven agenda, in a decade we could find ourselves facing the same choices as 1861—with either party being the one driving the secession movement, depending on how that decade works out.

Doug64 wrote:giving Republicans permission to...

ingliz wrote:...manipulate the court’s composition to generate specific political outcomes.

What makes you think the Republicans need permission to do that?

So far, the Republicans’ “manipulation of the court’s composition” has consisted of filling empty seats in the prescribed manner and taking the Democrats’ own manipulation to its logical conclusion, as they warned would happen when then-Senate Majority Leader Reid chose to start that ball rolling. I suspect that there are a lot of Democrats cursing Reid’s name in private, whatever they might say in public.
  • 1
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 25
Election 2020

The methodology is not sound. You don't have on[…]

That's not an anti-vaxxer view but part of common[…]

Right decision. Give birth to a cripple damages th[…]

EU-BREXIT

I hope the Brits will vote again in 6-7 Years, com[…]