RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Discussion
DeWar said:
Trump’s ego will not allow him to pursue this strategy, but it would seem that proclaiming he will not be nominating a replacement for RBG until after he is re-elected is a sound way of strengthening his campaign.
The premise goes something like “you might not like me and you might not agree with everything I’ve done but if you vote for me I will ensure an overwhelming conservative SCOTUS majority for a generation”. Conversely if he were able to rush an appointment through before the election then the motivating driver for a substantial portion of his support to go out to vote for him disappears overnight.
Too much wishful thinking.The premise goes something like “you might not like me and you might not agree with everything I’ve done but if you vote for me I will ensure an overwhelming conservative SCOTUS majority for a generation”. Conversely if he were able to rush an appointment through before the election then the motivating driver for a substantial portion of his support to go out to vote for him disappears overnight.
This coming election may not produce a clear winner and may go down to the supreme court to decide.
If he can ram his choice through, he will.
If he cant, he'll spin it as his decision.
If people riot, thats a gain for Trump too.
If i was a betting man, I'd bet on Trump winning the presidency whilst losing the popular vote.
Biden is toxic to middle America, this is where the majority of military are recruited from and Trump has not been starting wars, he's been bringing the troops home. These same people suffered under NAFTA and the shift to China. All these areas do damage to Biden.
The debates could bury Biden, it will be a major win if he doesn't look flustered.
RGB was a great woman but she put herself before the best interests of her cause, her dying words dont matter when the stakes are so high.
Clinton H made the same error, she was toxic to the people that turn elections and should have recognised that, the way the Dems let her play the martyr post election has led them to make the same stupid error with Biden.
More on RBG and her friendship with Antonin Scalia:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2020/...
Breadvan72 said:
jsf said:
As expected Trump has said this morning he wants the new SCJ in place before election.
Trump Tweeted in April 2016 that if Obama did that he ought to be fired. There is always a Tweet!It's USA politics, they will do whatever it takes, only a fool would expect anything else, especially from Trump.
kowalski655 said:
MC Bodge said:
Are Iran and the US really that different?
Seen pictures of ISIS & MAGA truck convoys, only difference is the flags!
I guess you missed the decapitated heads.Honestly, the USA has it's issues, but to consider the regime in Iran or ISIS as the same as a MAGA rally in a democracy such as the USA is rather daft.
surveyor_101 said:
La Liga said:
The submitted a report and that was end of the matter.
Kavanaugh has and is subject to background checks for his roles and previous so are you suggesting the FBI are flawed in any case?
surveyor_101 said:
So the FBI didn't say there was a no case.
I asked where did the FBI say that. Don't try and worm out of it with a 'are you suggesting?' strawman.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 22 September 01:33
pilotoscot said:
Breadvan72 said:
That is an utterly specious argument. The blocking of Garland was unprecedented, and had nothing to do with Constitutional propriety.
No. It really isn’t. And your emotions don’t trump the facts. Garland would have been blocked anyway. The Rep. held the senate. Whether that was ethical or not is another matter. It was precedented. I’ve provided you with precedents. If you don’t like them or think they are wrongheaded, fair enough. But they exist and constitutionally, you are simply incorrect.
Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 22 September 06:00
vetrof said:
Breadvan72 said:
That is an utterly specious argument. The blocking of Garland was unprecedented, and had nothing to do with Constitutional propriety.
So the Democrats were correct at the time and the nomination should have taken place?Edited by vetrof on Monday 21st September 20:05
Either the President is President until he leaves office (or at least until the election), or he isn't. Thus strictly speaking Trump is entitled to suggest a candidate now and if the Senate will confirm that candidate before the election, then fair dos. The Senate might not do so because there may be enough swing votes to block the appointment. There is a legitimate case for saying that a President who has not been re elected should not nominate a Justice to the Court between November and January, but the Reps had no legitimate case for blocking Obama before November 2016, and people like Graham have eaten theirs words from that year.
Breadvan72 said:
Yes. That would have been the normal course. Antonin Scalia died in February 2016. The Republicans in effect created a new rule that there should be no confirmation procedure in an election year. They did so for purely partisan reasons. Now they wish to revert to the old procedure. This shows their hypocrisy, and again their purely partisan approach to matters that affect the integrity of the Republic.
Either the President is President until he leaves office (or at least until the election), or he isn't. Thus strictly speaking Trump is entitled to suggest a candidate now and if the Senate will confirm that candidate before the election, then fair dos. The Senate might not do so because there may be enough swing votes to block the appointment. There is a legitimate case for saying that a President who has not been re elected should not nominate a Justice to the Court between November and January, but the Reps had no legitimate case for blocking Obama before November 2016, and people like Graham have eaten theirs words from that year.
These rules you speak of dont exist. They were political positions taken to further their cause at the time.Either the President is President until he leaves office (or at least until the election), or he isn't. Thus strictly speaking Trump is entitled to suggest a candidate now and if the Senate will confirm that candidate before the election, then fair dos. The Senate might not do so because there may be enough swing votes to block the appointment. There is a legitimate case for saying that a President who has not been re elected should not nominate a Justice to the Court between November and January, but the Reps had no legitimate case for blocking Obama before November 2016, and people like Graham have eaten theirs words from that year.
Your use of "in effect" illustrates your spin of this.
You of all people should understand the only thing that matters is the law, Trump can nominate and the Senate can confirm before the election.
jsf said:
Breadvan72 said:
Yes. That would have been the normal course. Antonin Scalia died in February 2016. The Republicans in effect created a new rule that there should be no confirmation procedure in an election year. They did so for purely partisan reasons. Now they wish to revert to the old procedure. This shows their hypocrisy, and again their purely partisan approach to matters that affect the integrity of the Republic.
Either the President is President until he leaves office (or at least until the election), or he isn't. Thus strictly speaking Trump is entitled to suggest a candidate now and if the Senate will confirm that candidate before the election, then fair dos. The Senate might not do so because there may be enough swing votes to block the appointment. There is a legitimate case for saying that a President who has not been re elected should not nominate a Justice to the Court between November and January, but the Reps had no legitimate case for blocking Obama before November 2016, and people like Graham have eaten theirs words from that year.
These rules you speak of dont exist. They were political positions taken to further their cause at the time.Either the President is President until he leaves office (or at least until the election), or he isn't. Thus strictly speaking Trump is entitled to suggest a candidate now and if the Senate will confirm that candidate before the election, then fair dos. The Senate might not do so because there may be enough swing votes to block the appointment. There is a legitimate case for saying that a President who has not been re elected should not nominate a Justice to the Court between November and January, but the Reps had no legitimate case for blocking Obama before November 2016, and people like Graham have eaten theirs words from that year.
Your use of "in effect" illustrates your spin of this.
You of all people should understand the only thing that matters is the law, Trump can nominate and the Senate can confirm before the election.
Breadvan72 said:
jsf said:
Breadvan72 said:
Yes. That would have been the normal course. Antonin Scalia died in February 2016. The Republicans in effect created a new rule that there should be no confirmation procedure in an election year. They did so for purely partisan reasons. Now they wish to revert to the old procedure. This shows their hypocrisy, and again their purely partisan approach to matters that affect the integrity of the Republic.
Either the President is President until he leaves office (or at least until the election), or he isn't. Thus strictly speaking Trump is entitled to suggest a candidate now and if the Senate will confirm that candidate before the election, then fair dos. The Senate might not do so because there may be enough swing votes to block the appointment. There is a legitimate case for saying that a President who has not been re elected should not nominate a Justice to the Court between November and January, but the Reps had no legitimate case for blocking Obama before November 2016, and people like Graham have eaten theirs words from that year.
These rules you speak of dont exist. They were political positions taken to further their cause at the time.Either the President is President until he leaves office (or at least until the election), or he isn't. Thus strictly speaking Trump is entitled to suggest a candidate now and if the Senate will confirm that candidate before the election, then fair dos. The Senate might not do so because there may be enough swing votes to block the appointment. There is a legitimate case for saying that a President who has not been re elected should not nominate a Justice to the Court between November and January, but the Reps had no legitimate case for blocking Obama before November 2016, and people like Graham have eaten theirs words from that year.
Your use of "in effect" illustrates your spin of this.
You of all people should understand the only thing that matters is the law, Trump can nominate and the Senate can confirm before the election.
Why the need to try and deflect by suggesting a state of mind or assuming my allegiance to anything? My viewpoint on Trump, Guns or anything else is not mentioned or in play. It is you that appears to have lost your perspective and are now ignoring the realities. Keep to the subject being discussed, your bulls
t deflections don't work.I read your post, i understood it. It doesn't matter what you think was put into effect by previous statements or actions, and you should know by now, unless you are as naïve as the Dems, the Reps wont play nice when it's in their interests not to.
Trump in the last hour has stated his nominations will be made this Saturday. Onwards it goes.
surveyor_101 said:
Typical left leaning response, I don't debate you I just call you names, imply your not of sound mind and your probably loved trump blindly so blah blah!
The post made no view on liking trump either way and certainly didn't mention a position on guns! LOL
I wasn't aware an ad hominem, what you're accusing him of, was 'typical' of people with left-leaning views. The post made no view on liking trump either way and certainly didn't mention a position on guns! LOL
Have you drawn that conclusion from the same source which you used to state the FBI said there was no case to answer?
Countdown said:
And if the GOP want to play dirty they shouldn't be surprised if the Dems do the same by appointing an extra 2/3/17 liberal judges to the SC
How? This will set the agenda for decades for the SC, playing dirty requires another SCJ to die, even then they need a couple more to pop their cloggs at the right time to turn the tide.
It's an utterly bonkers system, made when people died much younger, it's not fit for purpose now. But the Reps will play the system as it is now and will do everything to get their appointment on board, it's a much bigger issue than looking bad or dirty or even losing Trumps presidency (the Reps wont shed a tear when he's gone, it will be a relief).
For anyone interested in learning more about the force for good that was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the BBC did a good obit piece about her on Radio 4 on 25th September. The weekly obit show also covered the late, great Harold Evans, so you get two giants of decency and progress for the price of one.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff