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.
Sherman Minton retired from the bench on October 15, 1956, just 37 days before the 1956 election. Republican Eisenhower used a recess appointment to fill the seat, with a Republican controlled Senate in place. There was no concern as the bench was considered a non-political appointment.
Anton Scalia's death is what got us here, with Mitch McConnell blocking President Obama's opportunity to appoint his nominee. This was strictly a political move, intended to stack the court and have influence over a branch of government for an extended period of time (20-30 years).
Quote:
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.
Your problem is that what the Democrats wanted to do is secondary. The Republicans are the party that had/have control and then make the decisions on the actions that take place. The Republicans had control over the Senate and elected to institute new rules to forward their political agenda even though it flew in the face of the constitution and governance norms. The Democrats had no power over this decision. The norm had always been to allow the sitting President to nominate a justice, and the Republicans refused to comply with that norm, even though there was 9 months to the election.
In 2020 it is the Republicans wanting to again change the rules that they had established in 2016, again to forward their political agenda. Again, the Democrats are not in a position or authority and are only following the norm established by the Republicans. Now that the "new rules" don't work for their agenda, the "new rules" have to go and we go back to observing the norms established in the past. The only ones that have been flip flopping are the Republicans because they keep changing the rules. You know, like you moving the goalposts with each post you make.
And just for emphasis...
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 09-20-2020 at 09:27 PM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
And we've explained numerous times why that isn't relevant.
Well, none of this discussion is relevant in any practical sense - the only thing that matters is what the US senate does. We're all just discussing various observations about them - mine included.
Remember when somebody said BoLevi was a troll and there was handwringing that it was just because we "don't agree with him"?
We now have like 4 pages of him derailing this thread with the most blatant semantics-based troll job in the world. Can we just ignore him now? He clearly has no desire to have a good faith argument about any of this.
The Following 31 Users Say Thank You to wittynickname For This Useful Post:
Again, the Democrats are not in a position or authority and are only following the norm established by the Republicans.
If the Democrats are not in a position or authority to have their opinions count, then what are they complaining about?
The current GOP senate has pretty much done what ever senate before it has done: whatever it wants to within its power. The only thing that has changed is the rhetoric surrounding that.
The Democrats never had the power (as you rightly pointed out). So the only thing they have done is change THEIR rhetoric. Put another way: they fought against the same rule getting changed. Twice.
The sanctity of conventions, rules, and precedents is an interesting topic. But also an interesting topic: whether or not a nomination should occur close to an election. The Democrats think because they are consistent on the former it forgives the fact that they have not been consistent on the latter.
When asked what the believe on the topic, everyone here just says "RULES". I get the need for the mental gymnastics, but they are still mental gymnastics.
The Following User Says Thank You to BoLevi For This Useful Post:
New Era: is was even before the death of Scalia. Dubya nominating hardliner Sam Alito was the first sign of where the Republicans wanted to go. Democrats were alarmed back then but have never done anything about it. Obama's selections were pretty centrist. The Democrats can increase the Supreme Court to 11 all they want but if they keep putting centrists on the bench, it won't make much difference.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
New Era: is was even before the death of Scalia. Dubya nominating hardliner Sam Alito was the first sign of where the Republicans wanted to go. Democrats were alarmed back then but have never done anything about it. Obama's selections were pretty centrist. The Democrats can increase the Supreme Court to 11 all they want but if they keep putting centrists on the bench, it won't make much difference.
The reality is the bench is supposed to be impartial and non-political. Lady Justice is blind and is holding the scales of of balance. The court is to interpret law based on the constitution and precedence, nothing more. The fact that conservatives are politicizing the bench is not only shameful, but tragic.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
The reality is the bench is supposed to be impartial and non-political. Lady Justice is blind and is holding the scales of of balance. The court is to interpret law based on the constitution and precedence, nothing more. The fact that conservatives are politicizing the bench is not only shameful, but tragic.
Ironic that RBG was one of the most political justices in memory.
The Following User Says Thank You to BoLevi For This Useful Post:
The reality is the bench is supposed to be impartial and non-political. Lady Justice is blind and is holding the scales of of balance. The court is to interpret law based on the constitution and precedence, nothing more. The fact that conservatives are politicizing the bench is not only shameful, but tragic.
Absolutely but it's red meat for their base, "to protect all things sacred that the evil liberals will take away'. Even though it's wrong it's how it's become. Democrats can't combat this by believing that Lady Justice is supposed to be blind. They have to start putting progressive bomb-throwers on the bench, when it's their turn.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
A revered figure at some of the nation’s most elite law schools since her appointment to the court in 1993, Justice Ginsburg, 83, flabbergasted many in the legal community when she called Mr. Trump a “faker,” and said she could not really imagine what it would be like if he became president.
Barry Friedman, a professor of law at New York University who describes himself as a friend of Justice Ginsburg’s, said her comments were a stark example of a breach in the neutrality that justices must adhere to.
“The price you pay for being on the bench is that you withdraw from politics,” Mr. Friedman said. “You need to be extremely circumspect.”
The reality is the bench is supposed to be impartial and non-political. Lady Justice is blind and is holding the scales of of balance. The court is to interpret law based on the constitution and precedence, nothing more. The fact that conservatives are politicizing the bench is not only shameful, but tragic.
This is how conservatives see it as well, or do you not realize that?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ark2 For This Useful Post:
This is how conservatives see it as well, or do you not realize that?
I believe that most conservatives and liberals probably share very similar expectations of the court in this way. Those expectations aren't matched by how the GOP is treating it though. The GOP has politicized the process of putting judges on the bench in such a divisive way that the trust in the impartiality of the court is being hurt.
Whether conservative or liberal, anyone who values the impartiality of the court should be unhappy about what the GOP are doing.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
While they should show restraint, judges are private citizens as well. They have the right to have their feelings and have their own opinions. It is what they do on the bench that matters. It when activist judges do crazy #### that has no merit where the problems come in. So a judge expressing their personal opinion is fine, so long as restraint is maintained. It's when they allow that opinion to cloud their judgement while executing their duties where it becomes problematic. For example the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court made comments about Trump as well after he attacked the court.
As a private citizen outside of their robes they have the freedom of expression. Once the robes go on they are to be the clear arbiters they are charged to be.
What we are concerned about are judges that come to the court and stack rulings in direction because of their political beliefs, see Anton Scalia.
With the addition of more corporation friendly justices, the people's court will be working against them and their rights in favor of big money and corporate power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ark2
This is how conservatives see it as well, or do you not realize that?
I like how you left out the most important part of my quote.
"The reality is the bench is supposed to be impartial and non-political. Lady Justice is blind and is holding the scales of of balance. The court is to interpret law based on the constitution and precedence, nothing more. The fact that conservatives are politicizing the bench is not only shameful, but tragic."
If this is what they believe, they sure have funny ways of selecting their judges and appointing them to the court.
"Trump hasn’t simply given lots of lifetime appointments to lots of lawyers. He’s filled the bench with some of the smartest, and some of the most ideologically reliable, men and women to be found in the conservative movement. Long after Trump leaves office, these judges will shape American law — pushing it further and further to the right even if the voters soundly reject Trumpism in 2020."
Sounds like what they believe is "The reality is the bench is supposed to be impartial and non-political. Lady Justice is blind and is holding the scales of of balance. The court is to interpret law based on the constitution and precedence, nothing more."
As I said, "The fact that conservatives are politicizing the bench is not only shameful, but tragic."
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 09-21-2020 at 07:02 AM.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
...
As I said, "The fact that conservatives are politicizing the bench is not only shameful, but tragic."
I'm not disagreeing with the points you're making generally, but I also think the point Ark raises is most likely true. Most people across the political spectrum have a faith that the court system is and should be apolitical. Identifying the people who are doing all of this damage to the integrity of the court with the broad label of conservative lumps in a bunch of people who actually hold principled beliefs about the impartiality the supreme court should have. There are real political monsters in the GOP who are destroying this. Those monsters and the GOP deserve to be called out by name for how they are destroying America for liberals and conservatives alike. They shouldn't be enabled to hide under cover of a broad term and diverse group.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
I'm not disagreeing with the points you're making generally, but I also think the point Ark raises is most likely true. Most people across the political spectrum have a faith that the court system is and should be apolitical. Identifying the people who are doing all of this damage to the integrity of the court with the broad label of conservative lumps in a bunch of people who actually hold principled beliefs about the impartiality the supreme court should have. There are real political monsters in the GOP who are destroying this. Those monsters and the GOP deserve to be called out by name for how they are destroying America for liberals and conservatives alike. They shouldn't be enabled to hide under cover of a broad term and diverse group.
I'm not sure about this. I believe conservatives (people/voters) in the US also want to the courts to be biased in their favor because again, they believe that otherwise the courts will be biased the other way 'to let the evil liberals destroy the world'. It's easy to say the GOP are manipulating the courts and brainwashing the public but i think it's the opposite, I think the egg came before the chicken. The people keep voting these people in because they are scared and want their reps to put elephants on the their side of the seesaw. Abortion, guns, immigration and healthcare are not really issues we face in Canada. But in the States, if you are conservative, you really feel the sky is falling.
Therefore, if progressives really want to put through their changes, healthcare, climate change, gun control, abortion etc.. they have to put bomb-throwers on their side of the seesaw.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Last edited by GirlySports; 09-21-2020 at 09:27 AM.
I agree that he's trolling, not because of the beliefs he claims to hold but because of how he chooses to engage. Just putting him on ignore doesn't work though, because as long as other people reply to him the thread just keeps filling up with the same junk. Would be great if everyone would stop taking the bait though.
Full credit to Bo Levi on his trolling though. Really does an excellent job of laying bait and drawing people into stupid and lengthy thread derailments.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following User Says Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
