advertisement


RBG RIP

****ing hell. A right wing wet dream. That's America ****ed for a generation.

And apart from the disastrous politics, a loss of a great American.
 
She will mourned greatly.

If Mcconnell moves to replace her now, the Democratic rage will result in a historic election win.

Once that is done, we will increase the number of justices on the SC...at least to offset the two seats brazenly stolen.
 
RIP To a great justice and incredible person.

McConnel and Trump will replace her and there’s nothing the Democrats can do to stop it. Maybe there will be rage - maybe more democrats will go vote, but with the SC on his side Trump will be very dangerous. He could suspend the counting of postal votes and declare himself the winner. Huge danger of full on US fascism in the very near future.
 
sean99 said:
RIP To a great justice and incredible person.

McConnel and Trump will replace her and there’s nothing the Democrats can do to stop it. Maybe there will be rage - maybe more democrats will go vote, but with the SC on his side Trump will be very dangerous. He could suspend the counting of postal votes and declare himself the winner. Huge danger of full on US fascism in the very near future.
Click to expand...
All true.

But if we win decisively on Nov. 3, we WILL add two more members to the SC and fill those vacancies. SC membership is controlled by statute.

There will be nothing Mcconnell could do to stop that either.

Next move is his.
 
Trump's been talking about the Supreme Court for the past couple of weeks, he had to have a good idea this was coming sooner rather than later. I imagine Mitch is fully prepared as well.
 
"We mourn the loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a trailblazing jurist and crusader for women's rights and equal protection for all under the Constitution, whose jurisprudence will impact as well as inform our democracy for generations to come."

Gurbir Grewal
 
DimitryZ said:
If he does that, Supreme Court will number 11 justices in 2021, instead of the current 9.
Click to expand...
I think they should but:

1. Are they committed to it?
2. Can they do it?
3. Are there any downsides (long-term)?

I seem to remember the issue coming up early in Trump's reign, and it was not straightforward.
 
mykel said:
Hypocrite Moscow Mitch is at it again.

Obama could not have a SC nom because his last year, but now, well anybody Trump comes up with will be considered...

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/...ill-hold-vote-on-ginsburgs-replacement-418021
Click to expand...

Don't forget that in the event of a contested election result (which seems likely from both sides) the Supreme Court would only have 8 members, setting the stage for a 4/4 Trump/Biden result and unprecedented political deadlock. Perhaps it’s best to have a new member before the election to avoid that kind of scenario?
 
Each day something comes along in news about America that makes me despise its "government" and electorate of hillbilly deplorables more even than I had thought to be the maximum possible only the day before... So now there will be another fascist on the SC... What does it take for the civilised world to bring them down? Banning abortion? Banning gay marriage? Making it illegal to be gay? Building concentration camps for black people in Alabama? My guess is that even if they did all that then UK, Germany, France, Australia, Japan etc etc would continue to do business with them. Iran, get those centrifuges spinning!
 
RBG's death is very sad news, but obviously not unexpected. It's a shame that her life and accomplishments may now get overshadowed by the politics (and potential constitutional crisis) that may ensue as McConnell attempts to replace her with a Trump appointee. Recall that in 2017, McConnell changed the Senate rule from 60 votes to a simple majority in order to get Gorsuch's nomination approved. Later, of course, he successfully blocked Obama's appointment of Garland by inventing a "no appointees during an election year" policy.

With a new President, and with a simple majority in both houses, the Dems could introduce legislation to increase the number of Supreme Court seats. They could also introduce term limits. Hell, they can even move to impeach specific judges. But to do any of this, they would first have to vote to eliminate the filibuster. These are radical moves, but no less so than what McConnell and the GOP have done over the the last four years.

When, moments after RBG's death, McConnell announced his intent to fill her seat, all of these possible reactions became real options.
 
matthewr said:
There is no way Susan Collins will allow this to proceed!
Click to expand...

I don't know what prompts you to write this, unless it's sarcasm. Collins may feel she has more to gain by backing Trump/McConnel than by siding with the democrats. Getting four republicans to vote against seems like an impossible task to me, even though at least that many GOP senators are vulnerable. I don't see that "doing the right thing" will help vulnerable GOP senators keep their seats.

More likely I think is that all GOP senators, maybe with the exception of Mitt Romney, vote to confirm Trump's appointment, figuring that if the election comes down to a SC decision (which is quite likely) they want that SC to be on their side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top