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

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

If you guys are going to keep feeding the troll can the mods at least change his name? Everytime i see his posts I think of of our allstar QB and it's killing his image on here.

How about TomBrayBray? He sounds like a Tom Braybray.

When I see his name, I just think he's probably had a few too many concussions in his lifetime.

[troutman]

Amy Coney Barrett has an impressive resume so it is hard to say she is unqualified. First in her class at Notre Dame Law. Editor of Notre Dame Law Review. Clerked with Scalia. Law Professor. All this while raising seven children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

She is only 48, and has only been a Judge for three years. She is an Originalist - ie. all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified. She belongs to People of Praise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Praise

Each member has someone called a "head", who acts as a personal adviser. In general, heads give encouragement, correction, and help in decision-making. Men have other men as their heads. Married women are headed by their husbands. The highest office a woman can hold in the community is "woman leader" (formerly "handmaid"). Women leaders "teach women on womanly affairs, give advice, help in troubled situations" and lead specialized women's activities.The term handmaiden was chosen in 1971 as a reference to Mary, the mother of Jesus, who in the Bible described herself as a "handmaid of the Lord" or a woman who is close to God. The community teaches that husbands are the head of the household as well as the spiritual head of their wives. While it emphasizes traditional gender roles, the organization encourages women to pursue higher education and employment.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...g-b512741.html

Ms Feinstein told the 48-year-old: “I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the Dogma lives loudly within you.“And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have thought for, for years in this country.”

In response to the California senator’s remarks, Ms Barrett claimed that she would be able to keep her professional and religious beliefs separate.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

That’s some selective quotation there Mr Trout.

From the same article

However, despite this claim, she has previously argued that US judges should not be forced to uphold the Roe vs Wade ruling, according to The Washington Post.

Additionally, in 2012, the mother to seven children told a class at the University of Notre Dame that it is always good to remember that a “legal career is but a means to an end…and that end is building the Kingdom of God.”

[TorqueDog]

Yeah, that is pretty terrifying stuff.

Seven kids, that house must be a f--king nightmare.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by troutman

Amy Coney Barrett has an impressive resume so it is hard to say she is unqualified. First in her class at Notre Dame Law. Editor of Notre Dame Law Review. Clerked with Scalia. Law Professor. All this while raising seven children.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Coney_Barrett

She is only 48, and has only been a Judge for three years. She is an Originalist - ie. all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified. She belongs to People of Praise:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Praise

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...g-b512741.html

It's clear that she is intended to assuage the anger of the evangelicals, who didn't quite get what they paid for with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Then again, all bets are off when the head of the National Institutes of Health is Francis Collins, a guy who became a devout christian after god came to him under a frozen waterfall.

[Wastedyouth]

I am not sure you can get upset with the moderators? What is BoLevi doing other than stating his sometimes ignorant and silly opinions.

It is not a moderators job to silence or quash those opinions unless they cross the line of personal attacks, bigotry, racism, etc etc.

You don't like what he is saying, don't reply to him. Don't engage. It is literally that easy. Don't get upset with the discussion or the moderators because YOU can't control your own reactions to someone being a dip####.

PS, this is direct at no one in particular. But a comment on the general complaints about BoLevi and various other posters (probably myself included).

[Brad Marsh]

Quite the thread - I guess that's politics these days!

So I don't really follow US Supreme Court activity very closely at all, and so I wasn't very familiar with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her work, but the more I read about her the more impressed I am with the impact and influence she's had, no doubt about that.

But I'm surprised that there is so much controversy over filling the vacancy created by her passing.

I do get the frustration of the democrats here given that the republican-controlled senate denied Obama's attempt to name a replacement in his final year. But I don't think the republican-controlled senate is breaking their own precedent - didn't the democratic-controlled senate do the exact same thing to George HW Bush in 1992? Is there any precedent at all for this situation, where the majority controlled senate would reject a nominee from their own president? I don't think so. Can't really use 2016 as the precedent because the circumstances now aren't the same at all - republicans control the senate and have the president.

Here's what it comes down to for me:

• The Constitution does allow a sitting president to put forward a nominee
• The senate has the legal right to appoint (or not) that nominee
• The senate is elected by a democratic vote

So I get that the democrats don't like what's happening here, as there is no doubt that this will push the supreme court to the "right".......but what the republicans are doing is most certainly within their legal and constitutional rights, and it most certainly qualifies as democratic.

If the US public doesn't agree with what the republicans are doing, they need to elect more democrats to the senate. But they haven't done that (at least not yet), and until they do, there shouldn't be any surprise (or even controversy really) that Trump will nominate a replacement and the senate will confirm that nominee.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Brad Marsh

So I get that the democrats don't like what's happening here, as there is no doubt that this will push the supreme court to the "right".......but what the republicans are doing is most certainly within their legal and constitutional rights, and it most certainly qualifies as democratic.

Is it democratic that the party that has only won the popular vote once in the last seven elections will have a 6-3 edge on the Supreme Court (lifetime appointments)? The large majority of Americans being polled now say the appointment should wait until after the election. (citation needed).

The Republicans may be arguably within the rules to attempt this. The undemocratic part relates to larger problems with the Electoral College, and small states having equal representation in the Senate.

[GirlySports]

The controversy is more that the Republicans will confirm a nomination they dont even know yet. There is no room for hearing or debate even. It's a sham.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Brad Marsh

But I don't think the republican-controlled senate is breaking their own precedent - didn't the democratic-controlled senate do the exact same thing to George HW Bush in 1992?

... No? What SCOTUS nominee did they reject in 1992? All that happened was Joe Biden made a speech in which he said that, as a general rule, no one should be nominated the summer before an election so that the nominee didn't become a political football. It wasn't said in the context of an actual vacancy on the Court. There was no actual action taken.

I agree that it's clearly within their legal right to do, in fact, it's actually their obligation. But having ignored that obligation four years ago based on a rationale that is even more applicable today given the relative proximity to the election, the response, "sure, you can do this, but given what you did last time, you absolutely shouldn't" is completely fair.

The Republicans are, and I think it's perfectly fair to say this without partisanship, brazen cheaters. They'll do whatever they can do to rig the game to get the outcomes they want. They'll push things as far as they possibly can. The Democrats are sometimes also cheaters, but usually, they're simply not willing to go nearly as far as the Republicans, and in other cases they just aren't as competent at cheating. If, as a result, they continue to get the rug pulled out from under them, those realities will no doubt change.

If it gets to a point where the side that holds power is just the side that's better at breaking the rules and circumventing the system, then the rules and the system become meaningless, and you might as well just be shooting at each other. I was exaggerating to make a point when I said someone should simply assassinate Mitch McConnell because the rules don't matter, but it's really not that far from the path things are heading down right now.

[Brad Marsh]

Originally Posted by troutman

Is it democratic that the party that has only won the popular vote once in the last seven elections will have a 6-3 edge on the Supreme Court (lifetime appointments)? The large majority of Americans being polled now say the appointment should wait until after the election. (citation needed).

The Republicans may be arguably within the rules to attempt this. The undemocratic part relates to larger problems with the Electoral College, and small states having equal representation in the Senate.

I don't disagree at all with your comments about the shortcomings of the electoral college and that entire model. I also appreciate your insight into how those short-comings have impacted that 6-3 edge on the supreme court.

Thank you.

Originally Posted by GirlySports

The controversy is more that the Republicans will confirm a nomination they dont even know yet. There is no room for hearing or debate even. It's a sham.

Yeah....I do get what you're saying. If the president right now was Hillary Clinton, and she was at risk of losing the upcoming election, and the democrats controlled the senate, would there be any difference in how this was playing out?

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

... No? What SCOTUS nominee did they reject in 1992? All that happened was Joe Biden made a speech in which he said that, as a general rule, no one should be nominated the summer before an election so that the nominee didn't become a political football. It wasn't said in the context of an actual vacancy on the Court. There was no actual action taken.

I agree that it's clearly within their legal right to do, in fact, it's actually their obligation. But having ignored that obligation four years ago based on a rationale that is even more applicable today given the relative proximity to the election, the response, "sure, you can do this, but given what you did last time, you absolutely shouldn't" is completely fair.

The Republicans are, and I think it's perfectly fair to say this without partisanship, brazen cheaters. They'll do whatever they can do to rig the game to get the outcomes they want. They'll push things as far as they possibly can. The Democrats are sometimes also cheaters, but usually, they're simply not willing to go nearly as far as the Republicans, and in other cases they just aren't as competent at cheating. If, as a result, they continue to get the rug pulled out from under them, those realities will no doubt change.

If it gets to a point where the side that holds power is just the side that's better at breaking the rules and circumventing the system, then the rules and the system become meaningless, and you might as well just be shooting at each other. I was exaggerating to make a point when I said someone should simply assassinate Mitch McConnell because the rules don't matter, but it's really not that far from the path things are heading down right now.

Thanks for setting me straight on the 1992 part......I had obviously mis-understood that.

I also agree with you about the path politics is heading down in general, and it's extremely unfortunate. And while I don't disagree that the republicans are pushing wherever they can to their advantage, I would have a difficult time accepting that the democrats wouldn't be doing the exact same thing in this situation.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Incidentally, while there's no credible evidence I'm aware of of the Democrats doing anything to attempt to steal the election, if you want to see some left-wing musing about blowing up a system that isn't giving them the outcomes they want, check this #### out.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org...supreme-court/

I don’t have a problem necessarily with abolishing constitutional review, but court-packing is a strange and very complicated way to do it. If you want to get rid of constitutional review, that can be done unilaterally by the president. All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power. You don’t need a constitutional amendment. You don’t need to pass a law. And you don’t need to appoint any judges. This is a completely reasonable position that also reflects the kind of power top courts have in other countries.

This article has been making the rounds as a discussion topic on a few talk shows and in left-wing publications for the past couple of days. To be clear, the author is suggesting that the President just announce unilaterally, "I have decided that I don't think the Supreme Court has the power to overturn laws on the basis that they're unconstitutional. I will henceforth simply be ignoring any of their pronouncements." And this is, apparently, viewed by some as a reasonable way for Democrats to proceed if they get the White House back.

BONKERS.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Brad Marsh

Yeah....I do get what you're saying. If the president right now was Hillary Clinton, and she was at risk of losing the upcoming election, and the democrats controlled the senate, would there be any difference in how this was playing out?

I don't think the Democrats would push through like this because they don't view the Supreme Court like the Republicans do and their voter base would not allow it. The progressive wing would be all over it and the liberal media would be as well. Sure any party would pick your judge that sides with your beliefs, but there has to be debate within that 'list of judges' and also the opposition.

The Republicans are appointing a judge next week.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Incidentally, while there's no credible evidence I'm aware of of the Democrats doing anything to attempt to steal the election, if you want to see some left-wing musing about blowing up a system that isn't giving them the outcomes they want, check this #### out.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org...supreme-court/


This article has been making the rounds as a discussion topic on a few talk shows and in left-wing publications for the past couple of days. To be clear, the author is suggesting that the President just announce unilaterally, "I have decided that I don't think the Supreme Court has the power to overturn laws on the basis that they're unconstitutional. I will henceforth simply be ignoring any of their pronouncements." And this is, apparently, viewed by some as a reasonable way for Democrats to proceed if they get the White House back.

BONKERS.

Interesting that the Democrats are proposing a solution that involves the oval office and the executive branch exerting much more power.

What could possibly go wrong when a Republican president gets back in power?

Also, Roe v Wade was won on the basis that the texas law was unconstitutional, so....

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Brad Marsh

Quite the thread - I guess that's politics these days!

So I don't really follow US Supreme Court activity very closely at all, and so I wasn't very familiar with Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her work, but the more I read about her the more impressed I am with the impact and influence she's had, no doubt about that.

But I'm surprised that there is so much controversy over filling the vacancy created by her passing.

I do get the frustration of the democrats here given that the republican-controlled senate denied Obama's attempt to name a replacement in his final year. But I don't think the republican-controlled senate is breaking their own precedent - didn't the democratic-controlled senate do the exact same thing to George HW Bush in 1992? Is there any precedent at all for this situation, where the majority controlled senate would reject a nominee from their own president? I don't think so. Can't really use 2016 as the precedent because the circumstances now aren't the same at all - republicans control the senate and have the president.

Here's what it comes down to for me:

• The Constitution does allow a sitting president to put forward a nominee
• The senate has the legal right to appoint (or not) that nominee
• The senate is elected by a democratic vote

So I get that the democrats don't like what's happening here, as there is no doubt that this will push the supreme court to the "right".......but what the republicans are doing is most certainly within their legal and constitutional rights, and it most certainly qualifies as democratic.

If the US public doesn't agree with what the republicans are doing, they need to elect more democrats to the senate. But they haven't done that (at least not yet), and until they do, there shouldn't be any surprise (or even controversy really) that Trump will nominate a replacement and the senate will confirm that nominee.

This is exactly the situation. The Republicans imagined a condition in 2016 and the Democrats are imagining a condition now. In all cases it's self serving.

Other than that, it's really just sour grapes by the Democrats.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Interesting that the Democrats are proposing a solution that involves the oval office and the executive branch exerting much more power.

What could possibly go wrong when a Republican president gets back in power?

Also, Roe v Wade was won on the basis that the texas law was unconstitutional, so....

If by "the Democrats" you mean Matt Bruenig, a lawyer and blogger unaffiliated with anyone within the Democratic Party, then sure, "the Democrats" are proposing a solution that involves the Oval Office and the Executive Branch exerting much more power. Is there any evidence that anyone in any real position of power, up to and including Joe Biden, is taking this suggestion from a random internet political commentator seriously?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Incidentally, while there's no credible evidence I'm aware of of the Democrats doing anything to attempt to steal the election, if you want to see some left-wing musing about blowing up a system that isn't giving them the outcomes they want, check this #### out.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org...supreme-court/


This article has been making the rounds as a discussion topic on a few talk shows and in left-wing publications for the past couple of days. To be clear, the author is suggesting that the President just announce unilaterally, "I have decided that I don't think the Supreme Court has the power to overturn laws on the basis that they're unconstitutional. I will henceforth simply be ignoring any of their pronouncements." And this is, apparently, viewed by some as a reasonable way for Democrats to proceed if they get the White House back.

BONKERS.

Interesting. Haven't seen this anywhere before. The only thing I have seen and heard discussed is the idea of expanding the SCOTUS. Trump has already sort of done this, ignoring the demands for his financials and tax returns in on-going investigations, sothis is the next logical step. This is the problem with politics. When one party thumbs their nose at the rules and gets away with it, it establishes a new norm from which everyone then gets to play with. It's the most despicable part of politics IMO. Has to stop.

[Manhattanboy]

I will be interested to hear their thoughts on the nominee from Chucky, Louie, Rocky, Robbie, Paulie, Frankie and Sluggo.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by troutman

Is it democratic that the party that has only won the popular vote once in the last seven elections will have a 6-3 edge on the Supreme Court (lifetime appointments)? The large majority of Americans being polled now say the appointment should wait until after the election. (citation needed).

The Republicans may be arguably within the rules to attempt this. The undemocratic part relates to larger problems with the Electoral College, and small states having equal representation in the Senate.

It seems like either the EC or the Senate would be ok on it's own, and serve a purpose to give smaller states a voice. Together they are a problem, and give smaller states way too much power.

[Manhattanboy]

Seems to be back in the 30s, FDR's new deal program was at risk of being blocked by the USSC and there was talk of expanding the Court: "Switch in time to save nine".....