• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ruth Bader Ginsburg misses court due to illness

rjay said:
Is it this applying the constitution as plainly written law the way money became speech and corporations became people?
Click to expand...

If you can't offer more than this worn-out and thought dead juvenile cliché as a'intellectual" fodder, don't bother.
 
Moot said:
Totally agree and it's a very good reason not to allow Trump to appoint a new judge. But alas, I doubt there's a rule or a law against it so the opposition against any nominee would have to come from the public.

Republicans denied Obama his constitutional right because he only had a year left in office....so the same rule should apply to Trump since he only has a year left in office, too.
Click to expand...

I will enjoy when a RGB announces retirement Nov 2020 after we have a Dem President Elect.

Hang in there Ruthie, one more year!!
 
jnug said:
I don't think a stomach virus is going to knock her out for too long.
Click to expand...

She is 86 and been through 3 bouts of cancer that has taken a toll on her.
this is just another thing in a list of health problems that she has had.
 
ludin said:
She is 86 and been through 3 bouts of cancer that has taken a toll on her.
this is just another thing in a list of health problems that she has had.
Click to expand...

She is tough as nails. No one can deny that
 
iguanaman said:
Sorry but Moscow Mitch has ruled that it is too close to an election to choose a justice. Believe me he will stick to that policy or else.
Click to expand...

I hope he does. if she retires mid election next year i hope they stick to the same thing they held obama too. no nomination till after the election.
and if he doesn't then well not much anyone can do about it.

actually he hasn't ruled that because they are not in an election year yet. the election year would start next year not this year.
 
rwee2000 said:
Let's assume she has to quit before the election, I wonder how many Democrats will start saying we need to wait until after the election to appoint a new member? Just like the Republicans did.

Yes, given the past we should wait until after the election, but I'm betting the Democrats will scream wait and the Republicans will say we should do it now.
Click to expand...

if it is in an election year i agree we should.
yes i bet that is going to happen and there is little
that democrats can do to stop it however i think it would
look bad on the republican party if they did that.
 
maxparrish said:
The "McConnell rule" is not a "rule", its an option. A party in control of the Senate has the choice of granting or not granting consent to a nominee. Period.
Click to expand...

Oh, rules are optional? I'll inform my students. :roll:
 
ludin said:
did you say something? i don't seem to see any substance here.
Click to expand...
There was substance in noting the absentee record of one out of nine justices in the Supreme Court? Or was there substance in noting that if she dies, she will have to be replaced? Or is there substance to noting that the current President may be the one to do it?

Where was the substance?
 
CaughtInThe said:
What's really funny is Republicans are acting like getting one (or even two) more Supreme Court Justices is some kind of long term solution. At best it's a few justices for 30-40 years.
Click to expand...

30-40 is a long time. Just look how much damage was done in this country since the "great society" to the present time. An entire generation indoctrinated to believe they are OWED everything from the government (taxpayers) from cradle to grave.

CaughtInThe said:
Hell, we had pro slavery and anti women voting justices that we eventually purged. So this whole Trump/SC thing is a temporary thing that they think is HUGE.
Click to expand...

I believe if you ask most people who call themselves "conservatives" if they believe that the later SCOTUS appointees since Scalia and Thomas are what they consider reliable conservative votes, you will be surprised by their opinions. And even before Scalia and Thomas there were Republican appointed justices like O'Connor and Kennedy who were anything but classic conservative votes.

I'll remind you that it was chief Justice and Republican appointed justice Roberts who sided with the Obama administration to allow for Obamacare to become law.

Personally I don't see this vast right wing SCOTUS conspiracy you are claiming. If history proves anything these life long appointed people have a tendency to NOT follow a path you may always expect.
 
Barnacle said:
Probably overdid her strenuous daily workout routine ...
Click to expand...

There is a you tube video of George Burns doing his daily workout routine when he was in his 90's.

He didn't even seem winded afterwards.
 
btthegreat said:
There was substance in noting the absentee record of one out of nine justices in the Supreme Court? Or was there substance in noting that if she dies, she will have to be replaced? Or is there substance to noting that the current President may be the one to do it?

Where was the substance?
Click to expand...

Well her retiring from the supreme court would be huge news. it also is an important thing if she is getting ready to retire would you not think?
it is a pretty good discussion.

you should try to join in.
 
Geoist said:
Oh, rules are optional? I'll inform my students. :roll:
Click to expand...

wow if what you are teaching your student is to be dishonest in what people say then i feel for them.

There is no such thing as the McConnell rule. there is no rule at all. There has been a past precedent of not electing
a supreme court judge in the middle of an election year but it is not a rule nor is it anything official.
 
Regardless of her being scotus, my heartfelt prayers are going her way.
 
She should have retired a long time ago. There is simply no reason to keep a few people in a limited position for so long, such that they die in office. More people need to take part in holding such high offices, not less.

Plus, shes 86! Why they **** would anyone want to spend the last years of their life dealing with politics? Go live your life.
 
jonny5 said:
She should have retired a long time ago. There is simply no reason to keep a few people in a limited position for so long, such that they die in office. More people need to take part in holding such high offices, not less.

Plus, shes 86! Why they **** would anyone want to spend the last years of their life dealing with politics? Go live your life.
Click to expand...

This is her life. And it seems she loves it
 
So many fascist dimwits coming out from the gutter....
 
Praxas said:
Yep the right is trying more than ever to undermine the constitution and spit on it while undoing freedom and liberty.
Click to expand...
Thats idiotic. But go ahead and try and make your case.
 
Court Jester said:
30-40 is a long time. Just look how much damage was done in this country since the "great society" to the present time. An entire generation indoctrinated to believe they are OWED everything from the government (taxpayers) from cradle to grave.



I believe if you ask most people who call themselves "conservatives" if they believe that the later SCOTUS appointees since Scalia and Thomas are what they consider reliable conservative votes, you will be surprised by their opinions. And even before Scalia and Thomas there were Republican appointed justices like O'Connor and Kennedy who were anything but classic conservative votes.

I'll remind you that it was chief Justice and Republican appointed justice Roberts who sided with the Obama administration to allow for Obamacare to become law.

Personally I don't see this vast right wing SCOTUS conspiracy you are claiming. If history proves anything these life long appointed people have a tendency to NOT follow a path you may always expect.
Click to expand...

i didn't say a SCJ couldn't do damage. hell, we had a Supreme Court the entire time we had slavery/human trafficking.

it's comical that a ton of Republicans have sold their souls for a short period of a couple Supreme Court Justices.


wait, are you saying that Republicans like Trump for his honesty or things like our national debt??
 
ludin said:
wow if what you are teaching your student is to be dishonest in what people say then i feel for them. There is no such thing as the McConnell rule. there is no rule at all. There has been a past precedent of not electing
a supreme court judge in the middle of an election year but it is not a rule nor is it anything official.
Click to expand...

The McConnell Rule is also known as the Thurmond Rule. It is literally in the name. Typically, I would not have a problem with such a rule if it was fairly applied. Obviously it is not. Just vote 'no' if you don't want the sitting president to put in another justice. How hard is that?
 
maxparrish said:
Perhaps you should first learn what a rule is, and is not, before passing along an ignorance?
Click to expand...

It is literally known, alternatively, as the Thurmond Rule.
 
Geoist said:
The McConnell Rule is also known as the Thurmond Rule. It is literally in the name. Typically, I would not have a problem with such a rule if it was fairly applied. Obviously it is not. Just vote 'no' if you don't want the sitting president to put in another justice. How hard is that?
Click to expand...

It's a "name" used to describe something that does not exist as rule, and barely as an inconsistent and "ex-post" rationale. Wikipedia's entry makes three valid points:

1) It was not a rule or even informal agreement.
2) Both parties invoke the "name" of the rationale when it suits them, and both flip flop when circumstances dictate.
3) The specifics of what happened to Fortas are so vastly different, and the origins of the 'rule' so dubious, as to suggest the rationale (and Thurmond mythology) was invented sometime later (the WP suggest 1980, not 1968).

Yes, the opposite party does tend, but not always, to slow down appointments during a final year before an election. However, the Fortas nomination to Chief Justice was successfully filibustered after his hearing (the cloture vote not close to being achieved) AND the for all the reasons given in both the wiki entries on both Thurmond and Fortas NONE of those reasons included the basis of the later invocation of a Thurmond rule.

The death of a supreme court justice during the year of an election, with different party's controlling the Senate and Administration, was unprecedented in modern S.C. history. (The last case being somewhat similar to vacancy in the 19th century). And to the degree it was similar to any case, it was similar to Eisenhower's appointment, with the permission and support of the Democratic Senate, of a Democrat to the Court.

Had Obama followed this precedent and nominated a Republican to the Senate majority's liking, the "controversy" would have been unnecessary. And, by the way, we would have not had to hear of anther 'rule' you left out - "the Biden rule".
 
Last edited:
maxparrish said:
It's a "name" used to describe something that does not exist as rule, and barely as an inconsistent and "ex-post" rationale. Wikipedia's entry makes three valid points:

1) It was not a rule or even informal agreement.
2) Both parties invoke the "name" of the rationale when it suits them, and both flip flop when circumstances dictate.
3) The specifics of what happened to Fortas are so vastly different, and the origins of the 'rule' so dubious, as to suggest the rationale (and Thurmond mythology) was invented sometime later (the WP suggest 1980, not 1968).

Yes, the opposite party does tend, but not always, to slow down appointments during a final year before an election. However, the Fortas nomination to Chief Justice was successfully filibustered after his hearing (the cloture vote not close to being achieved) AND the for all the reasons given in both the wiki entries on both Thurmond and Fortas NONE of those reasons included the basis of the later invocation of a Thurmond rule.

The death of a supreme court justice during the year of an election, with different party's controlling the Senate and Administration, was unprecedented in modern S.C. history. (The last case being somewhat similar to vacancy in the 19th century). And to the degree it was similar to any case, it was similar to Eisenhower's appointment, with the permission and support of the Democratic Senate, of a Democrat to the Court.

Had Obama followed this precedent and nominated a Republican to the Senate majority's liking, the "controversy" would have been unnecessary. And, by the way, we would have not had to hear of anther 'rule' you left out - "the Biden rule".
Click to expand...
There was no precedent there was no biden rule as mcconnel named it. Piss off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom