Paying My Respects to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Page 13 - 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.
#15122794
Doug64 wrote:Got it, you believe that Article V of the Constitution is so much pointless verbiage, because whenever some particular requirement or restriction becomes inconvenient we can just get a judge--or ultimately five out of nine justices--to "interpret" the inconvenience out of existence.

Trump won majorities in thirty out of fifty states, giving him 304 electoral votes. I'd call that a decisive majority.

Then you don't know what "majority" means.

I'd call that a pretty decisive 'victory'.

However, Trump did NOT get a majority of the voters to vote for him.
or even a plurality. actually.
And, the voters are not enough so that we can say that no President has ever gotten a majority of adult citizens, or adult men, before 1920, to vote for him.
I had said "a vast majority of Americans", your disagreement does not change the truth of my statement.
.
#15122797
Steve_American wrote:Then you don't know what "majority" means.

I'd call that a pretty decisive 'victory'.

However, Trump did NOT get a majority of the voters to vote for him.

Trump got majorities in two ways, of the states and of the electoral votes, both decisively--and the last is what really matters. Insisting that the fact that Trump didn't get an outright majority of the entire national population, or even a plurality, means that he didn't legitimately win is like insisting that the Yankees should have won the 1960 World Series because they had 55 total runs for the season to the Pirates' 27, even though the Pirates won four out of seven games.

Considering the number of US citizens that can't vote for one reason or another, I'd say that no president has ever gotten the "vast majority of Americans."
#15122836
Julian658 wrote:This is why RBG was so popular among all, including conservatives like Judge Scalia:
RBG hated BLM, she was simply too smart to fall for the commies of BLM.

Indeed. She was confirmed 96-3. In fact, it was Republican Senator Orrin Hatch that recommended her to President Clinton. That is why the Democrats suddenly acting all partisan is ridiculous on its face.

Julian658 wrote:I also, think that a majority agree that the Constitution should evolve, that it is a living document.

It isn't. We have provisions for constitutional amendments for a reason.

Saeko wrote:She died at a VERY convenient time for Trump, just like Epstein.

She was on the way out for a long time. She just miscalculated, like so many others, thinking she would be replaced by Hillary Clinton. I was predicting this almost two years ago:

RUTH BADER GINSBERG FALLS AND BREAKS 3 RIBS--PICK NUMBER 3 COMING SOON???

A little ahead of my time, but there you go.
#15122878
Leaving aside the question of which side is the most hypocritical about confirming Supreme Court justices during election years, there’s the question of what the norm has been. And there, as Michael Barone points out, history is clearly on the side of the Republicans.

For those that don’t want to bother reading the entire column, the numbers for nominees during presidential election years are:

  • Senate and President of the same party: 19 nominees, 17 confirmations, 1 rejection by bipartisan filibuster
  • Senate and President of different parties: 10 vacancies, 6 nominations, 1 confirmation

Who's Violating Norms These Days?

    Norms, we are told, matter. Violating norms, recklessly disregarding norms -- these are charges on which President Donald Trump is often arraigned in the court of public opinion.

    The indictment starts with his annoying habit of inventing insulting nicknames for his opponents and critics. You can add to the list as you will and perhaps come up with enough names for a 700-plus-word newspaper column.

    But Trump hasn't been the only one disregarding norms of late. Consider the question of whether and when the president and Senate should fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    The historic precedent is clear, as set out by National Review's Dan McLaughlin. When a vacancy occurs in a presidential year and the opposition party has a majority in the Senate, the president can nominate, but the nominee almost always isn't confirmed.

    There have been 10 such vacancies in the history of the republic. Presidents made pre-Election Day nominations in six cases, but only one nominee was confirmed before the election. That was back in 1888.

    Presidents whose parties had Senate majorities selected nominees in election years 19 times, and 17 of those nominees were confirmed. One of the two rejections came in 1968, when President Lyndon Johnson's nominee for chief justice, Abe Fortas, was blocked by a bipartisan filibuster.

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell thus was following precedent when he blocked consideration of Barack Obama's nominee to fill Antonin Scalia's seat; he is also following precedent by promising a floor vote on Trump's nominee to fill Ginsburg's.

    It is Democrats who are inconsistent here. If you think a president's nominee is entitled to a vote from an opposition Senate, then, a fortiori, you think she's entitled to a vote from his own party's Senate.

    You may not think such flip-flopping violates a norm. But Democrats' threats to pack the Supreme Court with additional justices if they win the presidency and a Senate majority certainly does.

    The Supreme Court has had nine justices since 1869. After his landslide reelection, President Franklin Roosevelt tried to add up to six more in 1937. That was soundly rejected, even though his Democrats had a 76-16 majority in the Senate and a 334-88 majority in the House.

    Another assault on institutional norms is Democrats' proposal to admit Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico as new states, though neither meets long-established requirements for new statehood, as I argued in The Washington Examiner last week.

    A third is to somehow abolish the Electoral College on the grounds that it and the Senate are unfairly tilted in favor of Republicans. But, currently, each party holds 10 of the 20 Senate seats in the 10 largest-population states and 10 of the 20 Senate seats in the 10 smallest-population states. Not much of a tilt!

    Similarly, any Electoral College tilt to Republicans is of short duration. In both 2004 and 2012, incumbent presidents were reelected with 51% of the popular vote. But that netted Democrat Barack Obama some 332 electoral votes and Republican George W. Bush only 286.

    Hillary Clinton's edge in popular votes came from California. That's because, since 2000, for the first time since 1820, our largest-population state is voting far out of line with the national average.

    That puts the party favored there at a disadvantage, just as a party whose votes are heavily clustered in relatively few congressional or legislative districts is at a disadvantage compared with a party whose votes are more evenly spread around.

    Democrats can try to compensate for this by changing or evading the Constitution, but amendments must be approved by 38 state legislatures -- and 50 if they eliminate states' equal representation in the Senate.

    A more practical and speedy response, and one that doesn't violate norms, is to modify your political positions and rhetoric. It may satisfy liberals' pride to pile up votes in California and the coastal Northeast by denouncing deplorables in the flyover states. But it's also feasible to win more votes there.

    It was done in the 1990s. Bill Clinton twice carried nine of the 10 states touching on the Mississippi River, carrying their electoral votes 95-7. In 2016, Hillary Clinton lost eight of 10, 65-30.

    Meanwhile, Brookings scholar Shadi Hamid in The Atlantic forecasts that if Trump wins, Democrats "will be unwilling, even unable, to accept the result ... resulting in more of the social unrest and street battles that cities including Portland, Oregon, and Seattle have seen in recent months." Doesn't post-election violence violate norms?
#15122891
It is Awesome that President Trump is bringing actual centrists into America's courts. Sure the Leftist Democrats will label them as conservatives, but anyone with a brain can see how far Left the wacky Democrats have gone. Pure communism is the goal for the Leftist Democrats. America is blessed that the flying monkeys will now have to find a new witch. Maybe it will be Pelosi, Hillary, or AOC. All never Trumpers are either ignorant fools or commie pinko turds. Commie Bernie should have been splattered with rotten vegetables. What is mentally wrong with the American citizens that could ever support communism. If George Washington was alive he would force the Democrat Party shoot Crooked Hillary, AOC and squad, the Biden family, Kamalla, and Crazy Bernie. God granted Ginsburg's wish. She did not get to see President Trump's 2nd term as President of the United States of America. Never Vote for an Antifa Loving, BLM Supporting, Police Defunding, Leftist, Communist Democrat this Century. God Bless America
#15122894
Chad wrote:It is Awesome that President Trump is bringing actual centrists into America's courts. Sure the Leftist Democrats will label them as conservatives, but anyone with a brain can see how far Left the wacky Democrats have gone. Pure communism is the goal for the Leftist Democrats. America is blessed that the flying monkeys will now have to find a new witch. Maybe it will be Pelosi, Hillary, or AOC. All never Trumpers are either ignorant fools or commie pinko turds. Commie Bernie should have been splattered with rotten vegetables. What is mentally wrong with the American citizens that could ever support communism. If George Washington was alive he would force the Democrat Party shoot Crooked Hillary, AOC and squad, the Biden family, Kamalla, and Crazy Bernie. God granted Ginsburg's wish. She did not get to see President Trump's 2nd term as President of the United States of America. Never Vote for an Antifa Loving, BLM Supporting, Police Defunding, Leftist, Communist Democrat this Century. God Bless America


I will say that many judges nominated by Republicans sometimes vote with the left. You will never see a left leaning judge vote with the right.
#15122896
@Julian658, actually, there have been a number of 6-3 and 7-2 decisions where the Originalists were the majority of the winning vote. And of course, there’s the occasional 9-0 vote, though I suppose those don’t count since those are a 4 Originalist / 4 Perfectionist tie.
#15122897
Chad wrote:It is Awesome that President Trump is bringing actual centrists into America's courts.


Barrett is a fascist lunatic and Lagoa is mostly a question mark on civil liberties and the administrative state. It doesn't look like any of them would rate very high on a libertarian scorecard which is all I care about. Trump's gonna fuck us on this one and saddle us with some Federalist Society goon that will always side with power rather than We the People. Granted, none of Trump's prospective nominees will be any worse on anything of any real importance than a Biden nominee, but it's still bullshit and Trump shouldn't just be given a partisan pass on whichever shitbird he ends up nominating.
#15122898
Sivad wrote:Barrett is a fascist lunatic and Lagoa is mostly a question mark on civil liberties and the administrative state. It doesn't look like any of them would rate very high on a libertarian scorecard which is all I care about. Trump's gonna fuck us on this one and saddle us with some Federalist Society goon that will always side with power rather than We the People. Granted, none of Trump's prospective nominees will be any worse on anything of any real importance than a Biden nominee, but it's still bullshit and Trump shouldn't just be given a partisan pass on whichever shitbird he ends up nominating.

Barrett is a sweetheart and a true fertile woman. I bet she enjoys sex and been a wife. The world will not end because a woman is feminine.
#15122912
Will RBG meet BIG?

Ginsburg and hip hop legend Christopher Wallace -- aka the original "Notorious BIG" -- shared a Brooklyn-born birthright . . . Shana Knizhik, an NYU law student, gave Justice Ginsburg the moniker "Notorious RBG," popularized through a Tumblr account and a subsequent book co-authored with journalist Irin Carmon.

Apparently, neither Knizhik nor Carmon vetted the Notorious BIG’s lyrics, whose attitude toward women included such phrases as “Call that big butt nurse with the long hair to come suck . . .” and “things for the bitches, who see them rims spin and grin.” Perhaps the Notorious RBG will join the Notorious BIG in the afterlife “with all my niggaz, all my guns, all my women.”

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/24/opinions/ruth-bader-ginsburg-notorious-rbg-deeper-meaning-joseph/index.html

https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/notoriousbig/notoriousbig.html
#15123005
Sounds like the margin to confirm ACB is pretty thin. 0-1 votes again. I wonder, if the far left hadn't been burning, looting and murdering for the past few months, would Democrats have succeeded in peeling the one or two votes they needed for a delay?

In other words, it's quite possible that, due to the very same people who are/will behave themselves badly over this, that it is happening to begin with.

Actually it's even better than that. If Trump had tried to push through a Justice and got repudiated by his own party, it would have given Biden momentum. Instead it'll give Trump momentum and hurt Biden but even that's not the full of extent of it.

I would dare say that the timing of this event, combined with the protests, might give Republicans 2024 too. This is because the Democratic primary will be full of promises of unpopular court packing, along with guaranteeing more violent shenanigans from the far left.
#15123020
Julian658 wrote:RBG hated BLM, she was simply too smart to fall for the commies of BLM.

She doesn't not fall for BLM because she's smart, she doesn't fall for BLM because she's a fascistically minded authoritarian collectivist American nationalist. She's a supreme court judge, what's it to her whether people want to take part in the religious ritual obeisance to the American flag? She doesn't want to arrest them. I'm so impressed (sarcasm warning). This really show you what an incredibly authoritarian collectivistic culture America is. The fact that she even feels she needs to say that she wouldn't arrest them and the fact that people feel she deserves some sort of credit for saying it.
#15123130
Rancid wrote:America will be returning to the way of God.

AMen.

There is a huge difference between a devout Catholic and an Evangelical. The Catholics are way more relaxed and liberal. Teddy Kennedy was a devout catholic. Yep the guy who may be a devout Catholic is the same guy that drinks like a sailor at the local pub. The Catholics do not proselytize------------------ they are Catholics because they like traditions and the sound of the Latin language. Therefore, the fans of RBG are safe! 8)

I must also add; ACB is a man's woman: Pretty, feminine, and smart. And I bet she enjoys sex!
#15123138
Julian658 wrote:I must also add; ACB is a man's woman: Pretty, feminine, and smart. And I bet she enjoys sex!

With seven children I would say so. :D
#15123140
Yep the guy who may be a devout Catholic is the same guy that drinks like a sailor at the local pub
.

Biden is Roman Catholic.

The Catholics do not proselytize------------------ they are Catholics because they like traditions and the sound of the Latin language. Therefore, the fans of RBG are safe!


Whaaat?

Catholics DO proselytize. They converted....oh I don't know.....the world. They, however, do not do any of their services in Latin anymore.

Where do you get this stuff?
  • 1
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 24

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[…]

@ingliz , actually, Illinois might not be the sta[…]