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

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Both sides are guilty of the same thing: doing what is in their best interest in the situation. The Dems would (and have) done the reverse of their current claims. So ahve the GOP.

Hypocrisy on both sides

I thanked this because it's so dumb I laughed.

[savemedrzaius]

Is donating to a political party tax deductible in the States?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by AltaGuy

I thanked this because it's so dumb I laughed.

Both Biden and Obama are on the record in 2016 and before saying that a President should confirm a justice before the election. Not sure where the controversy is.

Now they are taking the opposite view.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Both Biden and Obama are on the record in 2016 and before saying that a President should confirm a justice before the election. Not sure where the controversy is.

Now they are taking the opposite view.

Try really hard to think of what the controversy is. Close your eyes and concentrate if need be.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The issue is that the GOP is attempting to have it both ways, and thereby get to appoint two judges. Having set a precedent, to immediately go back on it clearly demonstrates that there was no principle involved and the "let the voters decide" rhetoric was blatant dishonesty. Which is no big surprise, but it's galling how brazen they're being about it.

There is no principle here, just getting what they want by any means necessary, no matter what the circumstances are. If McConnell wants there to simply be no rules or standards, then there's very little reason not to have him assassinated.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The issue is that the GOP is attempting to have it both ways, and thereby get to appoint two judges. Having set a precedent, to immediately go back on it clearly demonstrates that there was no principle involved and the "let the voters decide" rhetoric was blatant dishonesty. Which is no big surprise, but it's galling how brazen they're being about it.

There is no principle here, just getting what they want by any means necessary, no matter what the circumstances are. If McConnell wants there to simply be no rules or standards, then there's very little reason not to have him assassinated.

what rule is being broken?

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The issue is that the GOP is attempting to have it both ways, and thereby get to appoint two judges. Having set a precedent, to immediately go back on it clearly demonstrates that there was no principle involved and the "let the voters decide" rhetoric was blatant dishonesty. Which is no big surprise, but it's galling how brazen they're being about it.

There is no principle here, just getting what they want by any means necessary, no matter what the circumstances are. If McConnell wants there to simply be no rules or standards, then there's very little reason not to have him assassinated.

I have no doubt in my mind if McConnell rams thru a judge in the Senate there will be violence of some sort directed towards him or the senate. The States is a powder keg.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

what rule is being broken?

The rule they claimed existed in 2016?

Do you want quotes? There's lot of those

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by White Out 403

The rule they claimed existed in 2016?

Do you want quotes? There's lot of those

Of course the GOP are being two faced weasels here. The democrats wanted to do the exact same thing in 2016.

That's my point - both sides have just both reversed course and are arguing the opposite point now. Pretty typical.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Of course the GOP are being two faced weasels here. The democrats wanted to do the exact same thing in 2016.

That's my point - both sides have just both reversed course and are arguing the opposite point now. Pretty typical.

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.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The issue is that the GOP is attempting to have it both ways, and thereby get to appoint two judges. Having set a precedent, to immediately go back on it clearly demonstrates that there was no principle involved and the "let the voters decide" rhetoric was blatant dishonesty. Which is no big surprise, but it's galling how brazen they're being about it.

There is no principle here, just getting what they want by any means necessary, no matter what the circumstances are. If McConnell wants there to simply be no rules or standards, then there's very little reason not to have him assassinated.

Reported to the FBI and Secret Service. Have fun in Guantanamo Corsi!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Bring it, chumps.

[fulham]

Not sure about the technicalities. But I remember her being asked to resign by Obama/democrats well before the 2016 election(when she was 80+ and battling cancer). So that the democrats could assign another left leaning judge to the supreme court. I dont really understand why she would of resisted this.

[dino7c]

Dems thought they had the election in the bag and Ruth wanted to serve under the first female president

[Mickey76]

I see several posts where the claim that “democracy is threatened” and democracy is ending” if a Justice is appointed. It took 101 democratic elections to determine the Presidency and the makeup of the US Senate. If you win them both you completely control the Supreme Court nomination process. The Republicans won both. That is democracy. And in the US there is a free vote in both the House and the Senate making it more democratic than in Canada. If this is a horrible decision they only need to convince a few Republicans.

Are they being hypocritical? Of course they are, all politicians are. I can’t believe anyone is surprised by this. This issue is such a big deal to conservatives and especially ultra conservatives/evangelicals. Trump and moderate Republicans need them to get elected and for many of them the only reason they’ll vote for a moderate or someone like Trump is because they care deeply about the Supreme Court. It would political suicide to ignore that.

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).

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

This is pew data from 2017, and I suspect if we found a similar poll today, the results would be even more extreme. Both sides think the other side is subhuman trash - because most people are highly susceptible to propaganda about the other side. This is especially true when combined with a general strong confirmation bias present in most people. In short: the average person takes much more extreme positions now than before. One unfortunate effect of this is that the average person in the Red Camp or the Blue Camp now views moderates as extremists because a moderate position is now also distant from their own. This is quite apparent in this thread (and I would say in this forum in general, which is very left/democrat/progressive).

Troll-a-lol. I do find it entertaining that someone who posted a Reason article has the audacity to try and lecture people on confirmation bias.

You're comments on moderates are ridiculous, as is your claims of the spectrum becoming polarized because of both sides shifting further to the polar ends of their spectrum. Your own chart shows that as the right has made a hard shift way to extreme and well beyond the moderate position of what could be construed the median. It is this hard shift to the right that has precipitated the appearance of leftward shift by the Democrats and then barrage of inaccurate propaganda about the leftist tendencies of Democrats.

The political spectrum is one where there is balance. For every extreme on one side of the center line there is a similar extreme position on the other side. Communist=fascist. Socialist=Libertarian. Liberal=conservative. An so on. The centrist position has traditionally been where the fulcrum for the political spectrum resides, to maintain balance within the system. But what has happened since WWII is a slow erosion of the ideological spectrum in the United States and a move further to the right. McCarthy eliminated the communist perspective from our discourse. This was a shift that required the fulcrum to move right to maintain balance. Reagan eliminated the socialist perspective. Another move to the right for the fulcrum to allow the political see saw to find homeostasis. Gingrich began the attack on liberalism and McConnell has continued to try and drive the final stake into the heart of liberalism. Another shift to the right for the fulcrum.

In a healthy spectrum the fulcrum resides in the middle, which is centrism, and a balance of ideas come from all perspectives. But the right's push to a more extreme end of the spectrum, and the attack and elimination of the leftist perspectives, has forced that fulcrum, or the center line, to shift to the right to maintain balance. The center line is now somewhere between conservatism and libertarianism. The Dems were forced to shift right with the elimination of their extremes and maintain the balance within the system. Soas the Republicans have pushed way past the libertarian perspective and more into fascist-tolalitarian territory, the Democrats are now centrist-conservative with a few liberal voices as the extreme.

The Republicans have done a fantastic job developing their propaganda campaign to make the Democrats look extreme. Scary AOC and "the squad" are such extremists - nee four women of color who are willing to stand up for their beliefs. But the reality is that they are four of 232 Democrats in the House, and they are junior members at that. Their sphere if influence is limited, but that does not stop them from being cast as the driver of the party platform, even though it is not even remotely true. But this has been a very effective narrative because four women of color having their voices heard scares the bejesus out of conservatives who embrace the patriarchy, white culture, and see a decline in their position in society. As I mentioned earlier, Dems now own the centrist-conservative position in the spectrum, so voices even cause consternation within the support for their own party.

The political spectrum in the US has shrunk and moved rapidly to the right and dragged the center line with it. Anyone who suggests the left in the United States is extreme has no clue what they are talking about and is just buying into the propaganda. The system is not healthy as a result of being a thin slice of the right end of the spectrum. Balance needs to be restored, but for that to happen the American people need to be re-introduced to the ideals of liberalism, socialism, and communism. Without them, there is no balance in the system.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I don't disagree with the fact that the right has moved more to the right. But the left has moved more to the left.

There is a bigger gap in the middle. And both sides think moderates are "extreme", which of course is a failure.

This isn't accurate at all. It is well documented that the right has made the shift and taken the country along for the ride. The problem we are seeing is the purity expectations are preventing the moderation from having the effect it normally does. Newt Gingrich's enforcement of the the purity pledge as speaker put us on this dangerous course, and now it is enforced by both parties to maintain control. Moderates exist on both sides, but the system is now functioning where moderation is impossible or those members face being primaried.

As for the SCOTUS nomination - Obama and Biden have both wanted to install justices in the final year of a presidency. The hypocrisy goes both ways.

This is more bull####. Obama and Biden have indeed wanted to install justices in their final year, as that is their constitutional right. But Mitch McConnell refused to hear the confirmation, making up new rules as he went along. That is where the issue is here. President's always have the right to forward their nominations, and it is the expectation that the Senate will comply with their constitutional responsibility of vetting the nominee through the hearing process. But Mitch McConnell changed the rules and made it clear that in the final year of a President's term that no nomination should be moved forward, and it should require a vote of the American people to determine the path going forward. McConnell broke with tradition and observing the intent of the constitution, instituting his own rules to forward his own agenda. Now, when the exact same conditions apply (worse actually as Obama had nine months left in his term while Trump has 46 days) McConnell is suggesting they rush the nomination process through and install Trump's selection. That is where the hypocrisy is and the heights to which McConnell is willing to go in this regard is stunning.

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

There is nothing wrong with wanting to fill the seat in an election year, so in isolation, I don't think there is anything wrong with the Republicans wanting to do it right now.

But the same Republicans are the ones who opposed it last time. They set that standard, one that didn't exist before, so it isn't hypocrisy if the Dems now want to hold them to that standard and deny them what they were denied in 2016.

Therein lays the problem. McConnell made new rules and enforced those rules against his constitutional mandate. It was a powerplay, full stop. But now he want's to go back on his word and do just the opposite. Again, another powerplay and hypocritical. This is where conservatives show their true nature. They don't believe in anything except the acquisition of power.

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Both Biden and Obama are on the record in 2016 and before saying that a President should confirm a justice before the election. Not sure where the controversy is.

Now they are taking the opposite view.

The controversy is in you trying to twist this around and make it something it is not. They are on record in saying something in 2016, but something happened after those statements that changed the playing field. McConnell's new rules for confirmation hearings has reset expectations and established the new norm. If Obama was not allowed to nominate his selection within nine months of an election, why should Trump get his with 46 days until an election? Considering the nomination process takes on average 67 days, it would have to be hurried and incomplete for a vetting a voting to take place. That is not taking an opposing view, that is a statement on the rules McConnell put into place and an expectation he comply with the very rules he established.

[Red Slinger]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

This is pew data from 2017, and I suspect if we found a similar poll today, the results would be even more extreme. Both sides think the other side is subhuman trash - because most people are highly susceptible to propaganda about the other side. This is especially true when combined with a general strong confirmation bias present in most people. In short: the average person takes much more extreme positions now than before. One unfortunate effect of this is that the average person in the Red Camp or the Blue Camp now views moderates as extremists because a moderate position is now also distant from their own. This is quite apparent in this thread (and I would say in this forum in general, which is very left/democrat/progressive).

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.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

The biggest change Gingrich made wasn't really a policy-based one; that could easily have been reversed. The biggest change was ensuring that members of congress lived in their home districts and never interacted with opposition politicians outside of work. There can't be any rapport built up, and that makes it nearly impossible to find compromise. It has lasting effects when you only speak to people on your own side, who in turn only speak to people on their own side, ad nauseum for 20 years.

https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/..._economics;The

There are a number of factors, though, making congress less centrist. Gerrymandering of districts to ensure that the only way most members will lose their seat is in a primary battle ensures that nearly everyone has to run to the far flank of their party. That's a major part of it. It's been a bigger issue for the Republicans since the tea party, but it's certainly become more significant for democrats too in recent years.

[2Stonedbirds]

Well that escalated quickly.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by Mickey76

I see several posts where the claim that “democracy is threatened” and democracy is ending” if a Justice is appointed. It took 101 democratic elections to determine the Presidency and the makeup of the US Senate. If you win them both you completely control the Supreme Court nomination process. The Republicans won both. That is democracy. And in the US there is a free vote in both the House and the Senate making it more democratic than in Canada. If this is a horrible decision they only need to convince a few Republicans.

Are they being hypocritical? Of course they are, all politicians are. I can’t believe anyone is surprised by this. This issue is such a big deal to conservatives and especially ultra conservatives/evangelicals. Trump and moderate Republicans need them to get elected and for many of them the only reason they’ll vote for a moderate or someone like Trump is because they care deeply about the Supreme Court. It would political suicide to ignore that.

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 think the 'democracy' concerns have more to do with what happens if we have a repeat of Florida 2000. We'll have guys like this deciding the fate of the country:

Spoiler!

For those like me who don't know a ton about the USSC:

3 Trump (Neil Gorsuch, Brett 'The Spaz' Kavanaugh, and upcoming doofus) - Rep. Senate
2 Obama (Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan) - Dem. Senate
2 GW Bush (Chief John Roberts, Samuel Alito) - Rep. Senate
1 Clinton (Stephen Breyer) - Dem. Senate
1 HW Bush (Clarence Thomas) - Dem. Senate