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

[GirlySports]

Breyer is 81 years old so that's not good either.

[Lanny_McDonald]

The larger issue with the judiciary is that under Trump it has become highly politicized. Trump has packed the lower courts with young politically minded "judges" who will have a greater impact on cases making their way to the high court. The supreme court is a big issue, but the systemic issue is a larger problem. Trump appointees now account for 28% of all judges in the appellate division. The similar numbers exist in the districts. Trump and McConnell have reshaped the court into a political mechanism. The judiciary was supposed to be neutral on all issues and provide interpretation of law based on the constitution and precedence. The judiciary was to be blind and provide balance. Trump has established a judiciary with their right eye uncovered and a thumb on the scales.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

Finally the Supreme Court definitely needs an overhaul the positions have become far too powerful/political. And lifetime appointments make the appointment of younger justices far too influential. I like the idea of Presidential nomination and Senate Confirmation but something needs to change whether increasing the number of justices so just 1 appointment is not so important, or a mandatory retirement age, or just a limited term (10-15 years).

I've been thinking a lot about term limits lately, too. Kinda feeling that 60 should be the cutoff. If you can get elected into office at 59 years and 364 days old, no problem. Do your whole term. But you can't be re-elected.

That'd be for any and all elected offices. And a 'lifetime appointment' would end on the day you turned 70.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by New Era

The larger issue with the judiciary is that under Trump it has become highly politicized. Trump has packed the lower courts with young politically minded "judges" who will have a greater impact on cases making their way to the high court. The supreme court is a big issue, but the systemic issue is a larger problem. Trump appointees now account for 28% of all judges in the appellate division. The similar numbers exist in the districts. Trump and McConnell have reshaped the court into a political mechanism. The judiciary was supposed to be neutral on all issues and provide interpretation of law based on the constitution and precedence. The judiciary was to be blind and provide balance. Trump has established a judiciary with their right eye uncovered and a thumb on the scales.

This was the threat in 2016 with Trump winning. But the Democrats never view the courts as important as the Republicans do. The Democrats view the court as a higher, impartial body, the Republicans view the courts as a tool to do their duty work.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

you asked what rule is being broken. look man, if you want to be a greasy weasel and pretend this isn't dangerous hypocrisy go ahead. but dont give me this both sides, many sides, bull####. Obama had every right to nominate a Judge in 2016, and McConnell set a precedent he wants to walk back 4 years later. I know you think liberals are all butt hurts whiners, but you need to understand that this will create real issues. This isn't just typical/standard politics of liars. This is the kind of two faced political manipulation and lying that can lead to blood shed. The Supreme Court isn't a ####ing mayors race.

"The one thing I think is important to dispel is any notion that somehow that this is some well established tradition, or some constitutional principle, that a president in his last year in office cannot fill a Supreme Court vacancy. It’s not in the text of the constitution, and ironically these are Republicans who say they believe in reading the text of the constitution and focusing on the intent of the constitution. None of the founding fathers thought that when it comes to the president carrying out his duties, he can do it for three years and then on the last year stop doing it."

- Barrack Obama on Merrick Garland

(Also, when people say "both sides, many side...rheeee", I just assume they have exhausted any good arguments.)

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

This conveniently ignores WHY American politics has become more polarized. When Newt Gingrich, in 1994, as the leader of the GOP enacted the new policy of going against the Democrats on almost all issues, even if they were conservative. He used demonizing, combative language and rejected any form of compromise. He essentially kicked-off the hyper-partisanship that is now commonplace in the US and is, of course, drifting north. That has become the defacto mantra of the GOP ever since including during the Obama Presidency where the GOP became the 'Party of No' by opposing every measure by the Democrats even if it was originally a Republican idea.

Generally this idea of 'both sides are doing it' is really naive. Yes, there is hypocrisy on both sides. That's normal for politics. However, only one side believes in science and that something should be done to avoid a climate catastrophe; only one side believes in equality and human rights for all; only one side believes that everyone should have the right to vote...and so on. The Dems aren't perfect by a long shot, including Biden, but to equate them with the GOP, particularly since 1994 when Gingrich became Speaker, is either naive or intentionally misleading.

I think polarizing behaviour and language has come from both sides. If the polarizing policies and rhetoric on the left is not apparent to you, then I would attribute that to you simply choosing to be in an echo chamber. Which, I would say, is the phenomenon most responsible for the polarization that we are seeing and is shown in that pew poll.

People have abandoned not only their search for objectivity, but their desire for objectivity.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I think polarizing behaviour and language has come from both sides. If the polarizing policies and rhetoric on the left is not apparent to you, then I would attribute that to you simply choosing to be in an echo chamber. Which, I would say, is the phenomenon most responsible for the polarization that we are seeing and is shown in that pew poll.

People have abandoned not only their search for objectivity, but their desire for objectivity.

both sides, many side...rheeee

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by New Era

snip

I'm sure your response is nuanced, scathing, and insightful.

Unfortunately, I simply don't read long multi-quotes which parse individual posts. It's a boring way to communicate. TL;DR if you feel so inclined. Or don't - up to you.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

"The one thing I think is important to dispel is any notion that somehow that this is some well established tradition, or some constitutional principle, that a president in his last year in office cannot fill a Supreme Court vacancy. It’s not in the text of the constitution, and ironically these are Republicans who say they believe in reading the text of the constitution and focusing on the intent of the constitution. None of the founding fathers thought that when it comes to the president carrying out his duties, he can do it for three years and then on the last year stop doing it."

- Barrack Obama on Merrick Garland

(Also, when people say "both sides, many side...rheeee", I just assume they have exhausted any good arguments.)

Yes, because that is the way it was always done... up until 2016 when the Republicans blocked Obama from doing it.

The statement was correct at the time Obama made it, and the Dems are correct right now for trying to hold Republicans to the standard that they themselves set.

Sure you can see why one is hypocrisy and the other isn't.

Of course politics is full of hypocrisy on both sides, but this is not an example of "both sides doing the same things".

[JohnnyB]

Hearing and reading about the democrats saying they will possibly expand the supreme court if they win the presidency and the Senate makes me worried that both Trump and Republican senators are going to have a great fear-driven narrative to motivate their voters to come out, and to convince many voters who don't like Trump but care a lot about the courts to get behind Trump and GOP senators. It makes a vote for Biden not just a vote to get Trump out, but a vote to make the supreme court less conservative for decades. That will make temporarily switching teams much less palatable for a lot of conservatives who dislike Trump.

Worst of all, if the only outcome that doesn't end up with half the country feeling the supreme court has been fundamentally corrupted is the instance where Trump gets reelected in a landslide, which isn't happening without a corrupted election. Public trust in their most fundamental institutions are just collapsing.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm sure your response is nuanced, scathing, and insightful.

Unfortunately, I simply don't read long multi-quotes which parse individual posts. It's a boring way to communicate. TL;DR if you feel so inclined. Or don't - up to you.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yes, because that is the way it was always done... up until 2016 when the Republicans blocked Obama from doing it.

The statement was correct at the time Obama made it, and the Dems are correct right now for trying to hold Republicans to the standard that they themselves set.

Sure you can see why one is hypocrisy and the other isn't.

Of course politics is full of hypocrisy on both sides, but this is not an example of "both sides doing the same things".

I think it demonstrates cynicism on both sides - a completely unsurprising result. None of these politicians are taking a moral stand here, they are just trying to get as much power as they can. They don't care at all about tradition or convention, or right or wrong. That's just kabuki theater for suckers.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Hearing and reading about the democrats saying they will possibly expand the supreme court if they win the presidency and the Senate makes me worried that both Trump and Republican senators are going to have a great fear-driven narrative to motivate their voters to come out, and to convince many voters who don't like Trump but care a lot about the courts to get behind Trump and GOP senators. It makes a vote for Biden not just a vote to get Trump out, but a vote to make the supreme court less conservative for decades. That will make temporarily switching teams much less palatable for a lot of conservatives who dislike Trump.

Worst of all, if the only outcome that doesn't end up with half the country feeling the supreme court has been fundamentally corrupted is the instance where Trump gets reelected in a landslide, which isn't happening without a corrupted election. Public trust in their most fundamental institutions are just collapsing.

That was one of the things that got Trump elected in 2016. The religious right jumped on board because they thought Trump would put in justices that would be socially conservative. The problem is the justices didn't play ball.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm sure your response is nuanced, scathing, and insightful.

Unfortunately, I simply don't read long multi-quotes which parse individual posts. It's a boring way to communicate. TL;DR if you feel so inclined. Or don't - up to you.

Providing that TLDR for you.

Originally Posted by New Era

Troll-a-lol...

You're comments on moderates are ridiculous...

This isn't accurate at all....

This is more bull####....

Therein lays the problem....

The controversy is in you trying to twist this around and make it something it is not....

[Ryan Coke]

Can we stop using the term “Troll” just for someone you disagree with? This has become too common on this board, that “troll” gets thrown out to stifle a differing opinion. So simple minded.

There are tons of stupid opinions on here, most of them aren’t trolling.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

"The one thing I think is important to dispel is any notion that somehow that this is some well established tradition, or some constitutional principle, that a president in his last year in office cannot fill a Supreme Court vacancy. It’s not in the text of the constitution, and ironically these are Republicans who say they believe in reading the text of the constitution and focusing on the intent of the constitution. None of the founding fathers thought that when it comes to the president carrying out his duties, he can do it for three years and then on the last year stop doing it."

- Barrack Obama on Merrick Garland

(Also, when people say "both sides, many side...rheeee", I just assume they have exhausted any good arguments.)

Dear alt-right poster boy. Obama's comments were in response to Mitch McConnell's and Chuck Grassley's op-ed in the Washington Post earlier that morning where they told the voters they were taking away the constitutional right of the sitting President to nominate his supreme court pick. This is a condemnation of the Republicans doing something unconstitutional. Obama's comments are probably too long and nuanced for you, so maybe a translation in Trumpelstilskinian will help you better understand the issue?

"Moscow" Mitch McConnell and Chuck "Gassy" Grassley are bitter losers and don't believe the rules apply to them. There's no way this should happen. I am prepared to make a tremendous pick for the court. This could be the greatest pick in the history of picks. But crybaby Mitch is taking his ball and going home with it, breaking the system."

There, now do you understand alt-right poster boy?

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm sure your response is nuanced, scathing, and insightful.

Unfortunately, I simply don't read long multi-quotes which parse individual posts. It's a boring way to communicate. TL;DR if you feel so inclined. Or don't - up to you.

Google translator: Alt-right = English

You just crushed what little argument I had and pantsed me so badly that I have no retort. But if I throw out a TL;DR I don't come off looking like the ####tard I just proved myself to be. Just assume I have exhausted any good arguments. rheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! Back to 4chan.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Can we stop using the term “Troll” just for someone you disagree with? This has become too common on this board, that “troll” gets thrown out to stifle a differing opinion. So simple minded.

There are tons of stupid opinions on here, most of them aren’t trolling.

The forum rules don’t allow calling people stupid. Troll is the next best option.

Also, Bo Levi coming in here and dropping truth bombs and then bragging that he’s unwilling to bother even reading responses makes him a troll. That’s pretty much the definition of trolling.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Can we stop using the term “Troll” just for someone you disagree with? This has become too common on this board, that “troll” gets thrown out to stifle a differing opinion. So simple minded.

There are tons of stupid opinions on here, most of them aren’t trolling.

If “troll” was reserved for simply for people you disagree with, it would be used constantly at all times. People disagree with each here dozens of times a day, and very very few are called trolls... because it’s reserved for trolls. Someone feigning objectivity while consistently acting in a completely subjective and biased manner, refusing to read responses or use google (except when it benefits their argument) is trolling.

[Ryan Coke]

Sure, let’s just change the accepted definition of troll since some people don’t have the ability handle a viewpoint they disagree with. It’s awesome because being able to call someone a name when you disagree with them is so much fun. It really shows off your superior intellect and moral perspective. And if anyone questions it just call them a name too. Stupid, or troll, whatever.

Basically it’s saying you can’t engage in vigorous debate without calling someone a derogatory slur, and you need to justify whatever you like to use.

It’s frustrating because there are times when the differing thoughts and perspectives on here can really be thought provoking. Other times it seems like I’m just reading school aged bickering and name calling.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by New Era

constitutional right of the sitting President to nominate his supreme court pick.

So in 2016, the Democrats felt it was a constitutional right, and now they think it isn't?

Okay.

Also: name calling is unnecessary. And pointless.