RBG dead at 87

[Remius]

No, but like I tell some of the dinosaurs at work, hang 'em up so someone younger can have a shot at something also.  87 and working in a wanted job is selfish, IMO of course.

What would be the max age? I agree that life terms need to be reviewed.  65?

We have two seniors running for President.  Just saying.  With that logic Trump and Biden should both step aside. 

Tongue and cheek but you know what I mean. 

 

[Brad Sallows]

Both sides are hypocritical.  The Democrats wanted a confirmation when it benefited them and object now that it won't; the Republicans didn't want a confirmation when it didn't benefit them and want one now that it does.

The inescapable difference that cannot be washed away no matter how much table-pounding people want to do is the fact of divided party control then and single party control now.  People talked about the issue long before 2016.

There is a simple explanation for Ginsburg choosing to continue: she was confident she could make a difference in a place where a lot of differences are made.  There is little to be gained trying to game out future election results and nomination choices, versus the certainty of knowing what one is capable of doing.

 

[suffolkowner]

What would be the max age? I agree that life terms need to be reviewed.  65?

We have two seniors running for President.  Just saying.  With that logic Trump and Biden should both step aside. 

Tongue and cheek but you know what I mean.

True but the President is an elected position and at least nominally the capability of the individual is reviewable. I don't think in a normal world that either Presidential candidate would be acceptable. In Canada the age is 75(?). To early a retirement and you run the risk of former justices calling into question the entire process by their after court behaviour

 

[mariomike]

We have two seniors running for President.  Just saying.  With that logic Trump and Biden should both step aside. 

President Eisenhower put it this way,

“The greater likelihood that a man of 70 will break down under a load than a man of 50,”
https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/the-real-presidential-age-question

 

[Donald H]

Or- Trump could push through his nomination during his lame duck session, thereby bringing about the last great insult to America's broken system.

Trump's past practice says that wouldn't be beyond consideration. In fact, if Trump can't get it done before the election and he loses, I would suggest it's a slamdunk certainty.

All of course creating a great learning experience for America.

 

[Donald H]

March 16 2016 President Obama nominated Merrick Garland versus September ?? 2020 President Trump nominates ??. If the Senate couldn't approve a nomination in 8 months seems like they'll be hard pressed in one month. Thank God we haven't degenerated into this nonsense up here yet

Nonsense? Sure, but playing the cards the system has dealt is fair game and almost certainly withini the bounds of the wishes of Trump's supporters. The US senate had the legal power to stop Merrick Garland and they did. It now appears the president and the Senate have the absolute power to push through Trump's nominee, right up until the last day of a lame duck session and it's a good bet they will.

Our system won't allow that kind of 'nonsense', for lack of a better word. If the Canadian people tell Trudeau he's finished, then he's finished (pretty sure about that)

 

[QV]

Both sides are hypocritical.  The Democrats wanted a confirmation when it benefited them and object now that it won't; the Republicans didn't want a confirmation when it didn't benefit them and want one now that it does.

The inescapable difference that cannot be washed away no matter how much table-pounding people want to do is the fact of divided party control then and single party control now.  People talked about the issue long before 2016.

There is a simple explanation for Ginsburg choosing to continue: she was confident she could make a difference in a place where a lot of differences are made.  There is little to be gained trying to game out future election results and nomination choices, versus the certainty of knowing what one is capable of doing.

When the Democrats had control and changed the rules to simple majority instead of requiring 2/3 of the senate vote, they ensured the nominee would forever be partisan.  With 2/3 of the vote to confirm, some bipartisan confirmation was generally required. Republicans were against this change then when it didn’t suit them, should they now change the rules back instead of following them?

I agree there is hypocrisy on both sides, but there are degrees and one side is by far more than the other. One side wants to preserve the Republic, the other wants to dismantle it.

 

[Infanteer]

I agree there is hypocrisy on both sides, but there are degrees and one side is by far more than the other. One side wants to preserve the Republic, the other wants to dismantle it.

:rofl:

Time to get some McCarthyism goin!

 

[observor 69]

I  certainly agree with this part from QV.

"I agree there is hypocrisy on both sides, but there are degrees and one side is by far more than the other."

 

[mariomike]

Wait until after the election when the Republicans might lose control of the Senate so that leaves doing it now , although without some Democrat suppott may not be possible.

Do you think that is likely?

The reason I ask is, today Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, had this to say about the chance of that happening.

Sep. 20, 2020

Nate Silver

The Senate’s Rural Skew Makes It Very Hard For Democrats To Win The Supreme Court
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-senates-rural-skew-makes-it-very-hard-for-democrats-to-win-the-supreme-court/

 

[Donald H]

Do you think that is likely?

The reason I ask is, today Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, had this to say about the chance of "the Dems" flipping the Senate.

It's not so much on which side is right and which side is wrong. It's that they've created a situation in which it's very likely that the Scotus will have a 6/3 political split that is mostly focused on the abortion issue.

And that the 6 is going to stand against the clear majority in the country that understand that abortions must be allowed and will be performed regardless of the law.

Which boils right down to the fact that the Scoutus will be able to decide that some American women will resort to coathangers and knitting needles in back allies.

Is that the best way to take the debate to it's logical conclusion that's satisfactory for both sides?

They'll need to get on with dealing with Roe vs. Wade in the new year.

 

[suffolkowner]

Do you think that is likely?

The reason I ask is, today Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight, had this to say about the chance of that happening.

from the link

Rural: Less than 25,000 people live within a 5-mile radius of you;
Exurban or small town: Between 25,000 and 100,000 people within a 5-mile radius;
Suburban or small city: Between 100,000 and 250,000 people within a 5-mile radius;
Urban core or large city: More than 250,000 people within a 5-mile radius.

I laughed because 25,000 within a 5 mile radius doesn't seem very rural to me

 

[observor 69]

OK mariomike it's all your fault for getting my hopes up :

Latest news
SEPT. 18, 2020

Joe Biden’s lead in national polls has narrowed to 7 percentage points, but he remains favored to win the election because we have a number of high-quality state polls that contain mostly good news for him. States like Minnesota, Arizona and Wisconsin show particularly strong numbers for Biden; however, don’t count President Trump out. He may be the underdog, but he still has a roughly one-in-four chance of pulling off an upset, and in states like Florida and North Carolina, he’s managed to narrow the gap considerably.

We’ve launched our Senate forecast, and according to our model, Democrats are slight favorites to regain control. Democrats have strong pick-up opportunities in the Arizona special election as well as in the Colorado, North Carolina and Maine races. But remember, taking back the Senate is likely a heavier lift for Democrats than taking back the presidency. That’s because a solid but not overwhelming margin in the presidential race could mean Democrats still come up short. The national environment is good for Democrats this year, but it isn’t on par with what we saw in 2018.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/

 

[mariomike]

I laughed because 25,000 within a 5 mile radius doesn't seem very rural to me

Could have something to do with population density?

United States approximately 93 residents per square mile.

Canada 11 per square mile.

 

[suffolkowner]

Could have something to do with population density?

United States approximately 93 residents per square mile.

Canada 11 per square mile.

And yet the same trends run up here with our rural ridings tending conservative. I wonder what our comparables would be?

 

[Stoker]

With Mitch as Senate Majority Leader, do you think that was likely?

Remember how Mitch handled Merrick Garland?

Who knows guess we'll never know. They had 8 years under Obama, I'm sure they could of gotten a replacement for her in that time. Its sad that she died but even if the Cancer didn't kill her at some point new blood is needed. People need to know when to step down.

 

[Donald H]

It's unfortunate that this thread has become the catch-all for comments on everything to do with the fate of the Scotus and the new member. As that pertains to respect for RBG, but it is and I don't feel it's my place to create a new thread.

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2020/09/20/pelosi-on-using-impeachment-to-stop-scotus-nomination-we-have-arrows-in-our-quiver/

So the question now is, can another impeachment of Trump actually stop him from getting his nomination seated? This vid doesn't answer the question but it's just too interesting to let pass by.

Pelosi speaks her opinion, interspersed with scenes of violent that remind of something on the scale of Kristallnacht or even 911 as the airliners were hitting the twin towers!

Obvious exaggerations in reality but so impressive to see happening!

Is there any legal basis in law that would stop Trump if he was to be impeached again?

Time for everybody to stock up on popcorn.

 

[mariomike]

OK mariomike it's all your fault for getting my hopes up :

Hope this cheers you up, Baden Guy, 

Majority of Americans, Including Many Republicans, Say Wait for Election to Replace Ginsburg - Reuters Poll

https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2020-09-20/majority-of-americans-including-many-republicans-say-wait-for-election-to-replace-ginsburg-reuters-poll

The poll found that 62% of American adults agreed the vacancy should be filled by the winner of the Nov. 3 matchup between Trump and Democratic former Vice President Joe Biden, while 23% disagreed and the rest said they were not sure.

 

[Donald H]

Hope this cheers you up, Baden Guy, 

This could be a much more reliable read of the polls that directly ask the question of which one of them you're going to vote for! The per centages are eerily familiar to Trump's degree of approval.

:cheers:

 

[Remius]

With respect Remius, if you think the GOP is reaping what it sow or there is hypocrisy here then you do not have any understanding of the process or it’s history. I urge you to hear Scott Adam’s explanation. 

Simple version: if presidency and senate are same party then nominate and confirm, if presidency and senate not the same party then don’t. 

McConnel is on the record warning the Democrats about changing the process to a simple majority from two thirds and that they’d regret that, but the Democrats changed it anyway.

Now the Republicans are going to take advantage of the new rules and they are somehow wrong and hypocrites?

Nope.  Sorry QV.  I think in this post you state there is no hypocrisy and the a few posts later you say there is hypocrisy on both sides.  Pick one or the other. Or be consistant with your arguments.

There is hypocrisy, if you can’t see that you are the one with very little understanding with what is going on.

I never once said they were wrong one way or another even back then. Read what actually said.  I support the POTUS and the senate naming a SC seat.  It’s what they are actually supposed to do and they have the conch right now. 

It’s the justification they are using to contradict what they were espousing back then about the American people choosing etc etc.  It was all BS.  Now it’s all about who controls the senate and what and who is president blah blah. 

It’s about control.  They had it then, they have it now.  Stop making excuses for that.  It’s not hard to see it for what it is. 

And yes, they are reaping what they sowed.  They set the precedent for shenanigans back in 2016. 

Remember when you said all indicators show that Trump will win by a landslide?  Hurrying up to get a nominee is hardly an indicator of that.  If anything it’s “we might actually lose so we better get our guy in ASAP”.  It’s an indicator of a much tighter race than you are ready to admit.