Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

The Democrats' rhetoric then and now is to "follow the rules". That's pretty clear.

The question I have, for them, and the posters here: is it a good idea for a justice to be nominated in an election year, or not. If you could tear up the rules, and start again - if you could give Nancy Pelosi the power to write the precedent, instead of the GOP, what would you like to see her do?

MM never should have had the power to do what he did in 2016.

Whether the SML and President are of different parties, should not be relevant. Let the Senate vote, and represent the states that voted them in. As for the timing of the nomination, that should not be relevant either (unless it's during the 10 weeks between election night and inauguration day, in which case nominations should wait for the new president & congress).

But ultimately, if a party sets a precedent, under no circumstances should they be allowed to break it (unless there's some sort of extreme unforeseen circumstance that requires it).

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by DownInFlames

Ok...

Nope. Look up. I said when the vacancy occurred in an election year. My original post was unclear but my clarification wasn't.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

MM never should have had the power to do what he did in 2016.

You mean he shouldn't have won the election?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I tink the vacancy occurred in early 1987 if memory serves. Election was in 88.

Nomination was submitted on November 30, 1987. Election was November 3, 1988. So still within an election year.

In any event, you posted this:

It's very uncommon for a senate to confirm the nomination when the president is from another party. I think the last time was in the 19th century or something like that. Obama was playing a political game with the nomination, just like the GOP played a game by ignoring it.

Even accepting your clarification, you clearly had no basis to post that Obama was "playing games". It is obviously "uncommon for a senate to confirm the nomination when the president is from another party in an election year" because those circumstances have only arisen maybe once or twice in the entire history of the United States.

Also, neither you nor the Republican Party have offered any sort of principled argument why the rules/norms should be different during an election year when the Senate and Presidency are controlled by different parties? As we've seen, a Senate controlled by an opposition party has routinely confirmed Supreme Court nominees.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You mean he shouldn't have won the election?

TF are you talking about? You literally asked me what the rule should be if it was up to me to determine it. No, the SML should not have the power to block the Senate from voting on a SC nominee (unless said SML himself already did block the vote 4 years prior, and is now flip-flopping based on political convenience).

FTR - I also say the House should be able to veto SC nominations, and SC term limits should be in place.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

No precedent. What McConnell did was unheard of.



It’s not a “concept”. In one case we were 9 months from an election. Nine. Months. That’s a long goddamn time to go without a SCOTUS pick, let alone for Moscow Mitch to delay even longer.

In 2020 we’re talking 47 days. That’s 1.5 months. That would be, correct me if I’m wrong New Era, the shortest time for confirmation in the nations history.

See Bo, 47 days is approximately 223 days less than 270 days. That’s because they represent different periods of time. 47 days very short time for SCOTUS pick. 270 days very long time for SCOTUS pick. Clear yeah?

You continually refusing to acknowledge that 47 days is much, much less time than 270 days makes you obtuse, a troll or a massive ####ing idiot who can’t do basic math or comprehend a concept that even my four year old nephew can figure out.

Is it really the goal to have a new judge nominated AND confirmed before the election?

If so, that is scary. If there was ever an opportunity to ram someone through, this is it.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Is it really the goal to have a new judge nominated AND confirmed before the election?

If so, that is scary. If there was ever an opportunity to ram someone through, this is it.

Not sure if nominee will be confirmed but since technically president sits until January, confirmation could take place afterwards. Either way confirming a candidate between Nov-Jan that was nominated just weeks before the election would be bonkers.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

TF are you talking about? You literally asked me what the rule should be if it was up to me to determine it. No, the SML should not have the power to block the Senate from voting on a SC nominee (unless said SML himself already did block the vote 4 years prior, and is now flip-flopping based on political convenience).

FTR - I also say the House should be able to veto SC nominations, and SC term limits should be in place.

Ah, I didn't realize you were answering my question directly... Sorry about that.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Is it really the goal to have a new judge nominated AND confirmed before the election?

If so, that is scary. If there was ever an opportunity to ram someone through, this is it.

Absolutely. This is what the GOP lives for.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Not sure if nominee will be confirmed but since technically president sits until January, confirmation could take place afterwards. Either way confirming a candidate between Nov-Jan that was nominated just weeks before the election would be bonkers.

Doubly bonkers if Trump loses the election.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Doubly bonkers if Trump loses the election.

More bonkers is that Senators who may have lost their seats can still vote.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Not sure if nominee will be confirmed but since technically president sits until January, confirmation could take place afterwards. Either way confirming a candidate between Nov-Jan that was nominated just weeks before the election would be bonkers.

I think Jimmy carter did it with an appellate court nomination after he LOST the election.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I think Jimmy carter did it with an appellate court nomination after he LOST the election.

Please stop posting talking points you read on Breitbart or r/conservative and passing it off as fact.

You’ve established you have zero credibility.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

In 2020 we’re talking 47 days. That’s 1.5 months. That would be, correct me if I’m wrong New Era, the shortest time for confirmation in the nations history.

According to Senate records, Justices Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens, and Sandra Day O’Connor were all confirmed in a short period of time. Stevens’s confirmation in 1975 took 19 days, O’Connor’s confirmation in 1981 took 33 days, and Ginsburg’s confirmation in 1993 took 42 days.

Stevens was nominated by Ricard Nixon/Gerald Ford. He was confirmed 98-0 by a Democrat controlled Senate.

O'Connor was nominated by Ronald Reagan. She was confirmed 99-0 by a Democrat controlled Senate.

Ginsberg was nominated by Bill Clinton. She was confirmed 96-3 by a a Democrat controlled Senate.

Stephen Breyer was nominated by Bill Clinton. He was confirmed 73 days by a 87-9 vote by a Democrat controlled Senate.

John Roberts was nominated by George W. Bush. His confirmation was altered 49 days later to that of Chief Justice after the death of William Rehnquist. 15 days later (64 total) Roberts was confirmed to the bench by a 78-22 vote by a Republican controlled Senate.

Samuel Alito was nominated to the bench by George W. Bush and was confirmed 93 days later in a close 58-42 vote by a Republican controlled Senate.

Sonia Sotmayer was nominated by Barack Obama and was confirmed to the bench 73 days later in a 68-31 vote by a Democrat controlled Senate.

Elena Kagan was nominated by Barack Obama and was confirmed to the bench 88 days later in a 68-31 vote by a Democrat controlled Senate.

Neil Gorsuch was nominated by Donald Trump and was confirmed to the bench 67 days later in a 54-45 vote in a Republican controlled Senate after invoking the nuclear option to force a vote.

Brett Kavanaugh was nominated by Donald Trump and was confirmed to the bench 90 days later in a 50-48 vote in a Republican controlled Senate after again exercising the nuclear option to force a vote.

See Bo, 47 days is approximately 223 days less than 270 days. That’s because they represent different periods of time. 47 days very short time for SCOTUS pick. 270 days very long time for SCOTUS pick. Clear yeah?

You continually refusing to acknowledge that 47 days is much, much less time than 270 days makes you obtuse, a troll or a massive ####ing idiot who can’t do basic math or comprehend a concept that even my four year old nephew can figure out.

The current process takes 70-80 days to get a confirmation process completed. 43 days is no where near enough and would be an example of over-reach. The Republicans continue to abuse the norms of confirmation, forcing votes and making rule changes to suit their whims. Again, we're getting trolled by someone who knows better and just playing stupid.

BTW... see the trend in voting behaviors and outcomes when the Republicans control the Senate? No, nothing sketch going on there.

[calgarybornnraised]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It's a virtual certainty that Trump will nominate a woman for SCOTUS.

That makes everything all better. Thank you.

[GirlySports]

It would be interesting if it took 90 days into January. Must see tv.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by New Era

The current process takes 70-80 days to get a confirmation process completed. 43 days is no where near enough and would be an example of over-reach. The Republicans continue to abuse the norms of confirmation, forcing votes and making rule changes to suit their whims. Again, we're getting trolled by someone who knows better and just playing stupid.

When was the last time a justice died with a few weeks before the election? (honest question, I don't know). The post you quoted and your response indicate that the RBG death creates and unprecedented situation. Maybe that justifies the GOP abandoning precedent, maybe it doesn't.

My point isn't that Trump should nominate, or not. My point is that 2020 Democrats disagree with 2016 Democrats on whether a vacancy created in an election year should move forward or not. That's it.

[edslunch]

The senate Republicans couldn’t be bothered to skip recess to deal with covid benefits expiring for a huge portion of the population but you can be sure they will work overtime, evenings and weekends to push the SC nomination forward. Probably skip Christmas if it drags on that long.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

When was the last time a justice died with a few weeks before the election? (honest question, I don't know). The post you quoted and your response indicate that the RBG death creates and unprecedented situation. Maybe that justifies the GOP abandoning precedent, maybe it doesn't.

I don't even understand what you are saying here. When you say "GOP abandoning precedent", are you referring to the new-as-of-2016 precedent that the Senate won't confirm nominees in an election year? And if so, are you suggesting that somehow the closer to the election, the LESS applicable that principle should be? Because that sounds crazy.

[Ryan Coke]

While to a certain extent the Democrats have flipped on what they believed in 2016, in this case it is justifiably in response to the extreme double standard and hypocrisy of the Republicans.

If the situation was different would the Dems be the ones blatantly going against their previously stated belief? Maybe, but that isn’t the case here. McConnell and Graham extolled their mental gymnastics and justification for blocking Obamas pick, but are now shamelessly flipping around to the opposite viewpoint to once again justify their actions. Actually, their isn’t even much justifying, just they are doing it because they can.

Any reasonable person or group would want some level of consistency and fairness...if the Democrats were prevented their Supreme Court pick 4 years ago, then the same rules should apply now.

One would normally hope that this brazen and self serving change of stance would punish the Republicans at the polls, and maybe it still will. But we are back at how it seems for Trumps hardcore supporters, nothing seems to matter.