OT RBG dead at 87 (1 Viewer)

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
"President Trump’s top aides decided not to alert him of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death while he was onstage at a Minnesota rally because they feared that his crowd would cheer about her passing"

Even Trump's team thinks his supporters are deplorable.

barfo
 
Ted Cruz blocked a Senate resolution to honor RBG.
 
crandc said:
Ted Cruz blocked a Senate resolution to honor RBG.
Click to expand...
I can't figure out if I hate him more because he resembles Grayson Allen, and I mean, more than what I normally hate him for, or if I hate Grayson Allen more because he resembles Ted Cruz. More than I normally hate him for. ANyways, fuck them both. Cruz way more though.
 
crandc said:
Ted Cruz blocked a Senate resolution to honor RBG.
Click to expand...

I guess the Dems tried to add an ammendment saying based on the dying wish of RBG, her successor should be chosen after the election, by the winning candidate based on the voice of the voters.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.texastribune.org/2020/09/22/ted-cruz-supreme-court/amp/

"WASHINGTON — A ceremonial resolution honoring the life of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg failed in the Senate on Tuesday after U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz objected to language his Democratic counterparts added noting her dying wish that a successor not be chosen until after the presidential inauguration early next year.

The war of words on the Senate floor is likely a preamble to a coming brawl to replace Ginsburg. The liberal justice died Friday, leaving a vacancy that, if filled by a conservative, could have sweeping ramifications on several American policies and civil liberties.

"Unfortunately, the Democratic leader has put forth an amendment to turn that bipartisan resolution into a partisan resolution," Cruz said in his floor remarks, referring to U.S. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer.

Specifically, the Democratic leader wants to add a statement that Justice Ginsburg's position should not be filled until a new president is installed, purportedly based on a comment Justice Ginsburg made to family members shortly before she passed.

"That, of course, is not the standard," he added. "Under the Constitution, members of the judiciary do not appoint their own successors."

Schumer took to the floor immediately after Cruz spoke, stating that he believed "Justice Ginsburg would easily see through the legal sophistry" of Cruz's argument. He said Cruz turned the late justice's "dying words" against her, which Schumer said is "so, so beneath the dignity of this body. I do not modify."

Cruz then objected to the resolution, and it did not pass.

Capitol Hill observers are bracing for the nastiest fight in at least a generation in the Senate over Ginsburg's successor. President Donald Trump is expected to announce his nominee late this week, and Cruz is urging his colleagues to confirm that person before the November election.

This is a change in sentiment from four years ago. When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, Cruz and other Republicans successfully blocked then-President Barack Obama's appointee, Judge Merrick Garland, from serving on the court. They argued at the time that it is inappropriate for a Supreme Court nomination to move forward so close to a presidential election."
 
Chris Craig said:
I guess the Dems tried to add an ammendment saying based on the dying wish of RBG, her successor should be chosen after the election, by the winning candidate based on the voice of the voters.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.texastribune.org/2020/09/22/ted-cruz-supreme-court/amp/

"WASHINGTON — A ceremonial resolution honoring the life of the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg failed in the Senate on Tuesday after U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz objected to language his Democratic counterparts added noting her dying wish that a successor not be chosen until after the presidential inauguration early next year.

The war of words on the Senate floor is likely a preamble to a coming brawl to replace Ginsburg. The liberal justice died Friday, leaving a vacancy that, if filled by a conservative, could have sweeping ramifications on several American policies and civil liberties.

"Unfortunately, the Democratic leader has put forth an amendment to turn that bipartisan resolution into a partisan resolution," Cruz said in his floor remarks, referring to U.S. Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer.

Specifically, the Democratic leader wants to add a statement that Justice Ginsburg's position should not be filled until a new president is installed, purportedly based on a comment Justice Ginsburg made to family members shortly before she passed.

"That, of course, is not the standard," he added. "Under the Constitution, members of the judiciary do not appoint their own successors."

Schumer took to the floor immediately after Cruz spoke, stating that he believed "Justice Ginsburg would easily see through the legal sophistry" of Cruz's argument. He said Cruz turned the late justice's "dying words" against her, which Schumer said is "so, so beneath the dignity of this body. I do not modify."

Cruz then objected to the resolution, and it did not pass.

Capitol Hill observers are bracing for the nastiest fight in at least a generation in the Senate over Ginsburg's successor. President Donald Trump is expected to announce his nominee late this week, and Cruz is urging his colleagues to confirm that person before the November election.

This is a change in sentiment from four years ago. When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016, Cruz and other Republicans successfully blocked then-President Barack Obama's appointee, Judge Merrick Garland, from serving on the court. They argued at the time that it is inappropriate for a Supreme Court nomination to move forward so close to a presidential election."
Click to expand...
All about power of radicals now, no consideration for moderate politics anymore. Take no prisoners win at all cost.
 
You can't even honor a dead person without it having to be politicized. You have to add resolutions to honor someone?
(Maybe I'm misreading, if it was just adding her dying wish, never mind, if it was trying to enforce that by adding that language?)
Man fuck this country
 
Hoopguru said:
All about power of radicals now, no consideration to moderate politics anymore. Take no prisoners win at all cost.
Click to expand...

The founding fathers were afraid of this


“The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.” - George Washington
 
Chris Craig said:
The founding fathers were afraid of this


“The common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.” - George Washington
Click to expand...
yep, GW's worries were right on target!
 
In 1975 Ginsburg successfully argued before the Supreme Court to extend Social security survivor benefits to men. Social security administration assumed only men were breadwinners. A woman received survivor benefits if her husband died but a man received no benefits if his wife died.

In 1971 she was preparing to argue another case before the Supreme Court. The Air Force at that time required all female personnel who became pregnant to get abortions or leave the service. Ironically abortion was illegal in much of the country for women who wanted one. However, at the last minute the Pentagon backed down and removed the rule. They thought it was bad PR.
 
The scenario I am hoping for here is that they cannot get through the nomination process and vote to confirm her before the election. That probably is not going to happen but if they can just slow it down enough until after the election they might have a chance if the Democrats win the senate and the presidency. Thinking here is a lame duck president and a lame duck senate should not confirm a judge.
 
kjironman1 said:
The scenario I am hoping for here is that they cannot get through the nomination process and vote to confirm her before the election. That probably is not going to happen but if they can just slow it down enough until after the election they might have a chance if the Democrats win the senate and the presidency. Thinking here is a lame duck president and a lame duck senate should not confirm a judge.
Click to expand...

They will confirm the nomination. The Dems will have to remove the filibuster and add more judges when they gain control of the senate
 
Chris Craig said:
They will confirm the nomination. The Dems will have to remove the filibuster and add more judges when they gain control of the senate
Click to expand...
I hope they add 20 more justices, all under the age of 40. Remove the filibuster, remove the electoral college. Maybe remove the senate for good measure. And then sneer back, if you don't like it, you can leave.

Sigh. This fucking place.
 
If the nomination goes through, any and all attempts to wrestle us back from the brink will go through the supreme court. It's now or never.
 
kjironman1 said:
The scenario I am hoping for here is that they cannot get through the nomination process and vote to confirm her before the election. That probably is not going to happen but if they can just slow it down enough until after the election they might have a chance if the Democrats win the senate and the presidency. Thinking here is a lame duck president and a lame duck senate should not confirm a judge.
Click to expand...
It's grasping at straws but I'm just desperate enough to go for it.
 
Biden needs to stop fucking around and pack the shit out of that court and set enough precedence to make it impossible for this shit to happen again. Own it. Dems need to stop pussyfooting around this.

Absolutely enraged with how this bullshit confirmation is happening. This lady answered NOTHING about her feelings and opinions. What a shitshow.
 
illmatic99 said:
Biden needs to stop fucking around and pack the shit out of that court and set enough precedence to make it impossible for this shit to happen again. Own it. Dems need to stop pussyfooting around this.

Absolutely enraged with how this bullshit confirmation is happening. This lady answered NOTHING about her feelings and opinions. What a shitshow.
Click to expand...

She is going to go in and undo everything RBG has done. Gay rights (rights of LGTBQ community) are gone, women's rights are gone, religious places will have the right to discriminate, civil rights progress will be turned back decades.

But, hey conservatives are happy
 
No one in the GOP has a single ounce of respect for their positions and their responsibility. All they care about is their own re-elections.

Selfish bastards. Hope they ALL get voted out and thrown in jail.
 
I'm worried about the election. They are going to contest, and this dumbass justice will not recuse herself. We are fucked, aren't we?
 
illmatic99 said:
I'm worried about the election. They are going to contest, and this dumbass justice will not recuse herself. We are fucked, aren't we?
Click to expand...
It’s very possible. We *could* be on the verge of the single biggest scandal and abuse of power the country has ever seen. There is almost no chance election night comes, votes are counted, we have a winner and we move forward. Ain’t happening.
 
calvin natt said:
It’s very possible. We *could* be on the verge of the single biggest scandal and abuse of power the country has ever seen. There is almost no chance election night comes, votes are counted, we have a winner and we move forward. Ain’t happening.
Click to expand...
Getting Texas blue would go a LONG way in trying to make this happen.
 
What is funny is that if Biden wins, and the D's keep the house and win the senate, it gives them the opportunity to impeach the newest justice. The house would pass the resolution and the senate would need a 2/3rds majority.

And I would think that if Trumpster is out of office, he won't have his weird hold over the R's anymore.
 
julius said:
What is funny is that if Biden wins, and the D's keep the house and win the senate, it gives them the opportunity to impeach the newest justice. The house would pass the resolution and the senate would need a 2/3rds majority.

And I would think that if Trumpster is out of office, he won't have his weird hold over the R's anymore.
Click to expand...


need more of this energy
 
Democrats totally would have taken the high road in this scenario and waited until AFTER the election to elect a justice. You know, the same Democrats currently screaming bloody murder and demanding we shit all over 200+ years of law and pack the Supreme Court. Yeah, they would’ve waited.

This thread is gold.

Sorry about your luck, guys.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top