RBG dead

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

esquared

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 8, 2000
23,789
4,966
146
I now agree they should pack the courts. If ginsburg gets replaced, I would add 3 justices in total, 2 to replace the stolen (garland, ginsburg), and one for good measure.
Always have to add an even number to ensure the majority.
9+2 for 11
9+4 for 13
 

esquared

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 8, 2000
23,789
4,966
146
5 conservatives + 1 = 6
Only 3 liberals on bench atm (breyer, sotomayor and kagan)

That's why I said if you want to win 7-6 you have to pack the current 3 with 4 more.

And also there is really no way that Trump and the GOP misses that slam dunk of 6 justice unless there's divine intervention and 7 GOP senators get hit by lightning and can't vote for the next 4 months.

What worries me most is with 6 justices.. Trump appeals his loss to SCOTUS. What then? Even with John Roberts siding with the 3 pragmatists.. the 5 others would overrule him 5-4.
Trump now has 6 justices while dems have 3.
Assuming the seat is filled.

So need 4 more just to have a stalemate of 6-6. Actually need 5 more for 7-6 majority.
No, 3 would be a stalemate. 4 more if you're thinking majority not 5

And if Sotomayor croaks.. need 7 more for a 8-7 majority.
If she passed, God forbid, we would have 2 liberal justices left. No need for 7.

Plus we don't need 7 senators from GOP to pass on this, only 4. The R's have a 53-47 advantage. We need just 4 of them
to pass on the hearings.
 

esquared

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 8, 2000
23,789
4,966
146
+2 doesn't get us anywhere.. that'll be 6-5 loss everytime. It has to be +4.
I was only pointing out that additions need to be even numbers to ensure majorities with no ties.
I wasn't referring any specific case.
 

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,513
4,607
136
What I don't understand is everyone acting like he is breaking the law by appointing a SCOTUS Justice under these circumstances. He isn't. Appointing a justice is perfectly legal, not matter how distasteful you may find it. I have also heard that a few presidents even nominated a SCOTUS Justice after losing the election.

I too think he should wait until after the election to allow the people to elect the president that will fill the seat.

Looking at the news today and online it appears that the Democrats are losing their minds about the possibility.
 

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,997
20,236
136
What I don't understand is everyone acting like he is breaking the law by appointing a SCOTUS Justice under these circumstances. He isn't. Appointing a justice is perfectly legal, not matter how distasteful you may find it. I have also heard that a few presidents even nominated a SCOTUS Justice after losing the election.

I too think he should wait until after the election to allow the people to elect the president that will fill the seat.

Looking at the news today and online it appears that the Democrats are losing their minds about the possibility.

It's called ethics. Mitch, via the Legislative brach, prevented the Executive Branch from fulfilling it's obligation to appoint a justice to the highest court in the Judicial branch. While he made it up, he in essence created an ethical precedent. It's just showing he has no ethics and thinks these Democratic institutions are a joke. A lot of things have been legal throughout history, didn't make them right either.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
What I don't understand is everyone acting like he is breaking the law by appointing a SCOTUS Justice under these circumstances. He isn't. Appointing a justice is perfectly legal, not matter how distasteful you may find it. I have also heard that a few presidents even nominated a SCOTUS Justice after losing the election.

I too think he should wait until after the election to allow the people to elect the president that will fill the seat.

Looking at the news today and online it appears that the Democrats are losing their minds about the possibility.

Dems wouldn't have anything to complain about had McConnell not stuffed Garland's nomination. Right now, "Fill that seat!" is Trump's new battle cry & I'm sure Mitch will oblige.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

pcgeek11

Lifer
Jun 12, 2005
21,513
4,607
136
Dems wouldn't have anything to complain about had McConnell not stuffed Garland's nomination. Right now, "Fill that seat!" is Trump's new battle cry & I'm sure Mitch will oblige.


Unfortunately it appears that you are correct.
 

Stryke1983

Member
Jan 1, 2016
176
268
136
What I don't understand is everyone acting like he is breaking the law by appointing a SCOTUS Justice under these circumstances. He isn't. Appointing a justice is perfectly legal, not matter how distasteful you may find it. I have also heard that a few presidents even nominated a SCOTUS Justice after losing the election.

I too think he should wait until after the election to allow the people to elect the president that will fill the seat.

Looking at the news today and online it appears that the Democrats are losing their minds about the possibility.

It's because the Republicans now have a policy of only allowing Republican presidents to appoint judges. I wouldn't have an issue with Trump appointing a replacement, despite how terrible his decisions usually are, if it wasn't for the fact that the Republicans have openly corrupted the process in order to pervert the process as it was intended and as it should work. They not only perverted the system for their own power, but also lied about it and are damaging the entire judicial system in the process.

It's difficult to not become angry when the minority political view repeatedly manages to hold the majority of the power due to ploys like this. Especially when it's in addition to Republicans being overwhelmingly responsible for most of the election fraud, gerrymandering and general corruption in this country. If this one goes through that means seven of the nine justices appointed this century were appointed by the minority political power. With two of those seven appointed in a way that directly violated the legitimate process. They already have a structural advantage in this political system due to the way political power is distributed, but that just isn't enough for them. That's why people 'lose their minds'. One side refuses to play by the rules. So the other side is left with the unpleasant choice of being deprived of a fair say in their own government or retaliating.

Can you really blame Democrats if they tried to pack the Supreme Court now? The last Democrat administration had their legitimate decision on a justice taken away. Based on the new rules put in place by McConnell, he's now attempting to take away the legitimate power of the next likely Democrat administration as well. At this point I'd just say fuck 'em. They'll keep abusing power until it's taken away from them.
 

PlanetJosh

Golden Member
May 6, 2013
1,815
143
106
I wonder if Scotus justices ever vote against what they really believe in order to get more famous. So they can be more remembered in history. Not so much for a book or movie deal after they retire although that may be a secondary reason.

I'm glad that one or two conservative justices voted against Trump's policies in a couple rulings in the last year or two. I hope that's the way they really thought and that they didn't vote against their beliefs in an attempt to get more publicity. Would be nice if the replacement justice for RBG did that a few times. Sorry if it sounds like a conspiracy theory.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,291
8,208
136
I wonder if Scotus justices ever vote against what they really believe in order to get more famous. So they can be more remembered in history. Not so much for a book or movie deal after they retire although that may be a secondary reason.

I'm glad that one or two conservative justices voted against Trump's policies in a couple rulings in the last year or two. I hope that's the way they really thought and that they didn't vote against their beliefs in an attempt to get more publicity. Would be nice if the replacement justice for RBG did that a few times. Sorry if it sounds like a conspiracy theory.

I don't think that's the case. I think it's more that "what they believe" can sometimes be a little more complex than a simple left-right dichotomy. There may be some intellectual vanity involved in holding to a 'complex' position on questions, of course.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,291
8,208
136
It's because the Republicans now have a policy of only allowing Republican presidents to appoint judges. I wouldn't have an issue with Trump appointing a replacement, despite how terrible his decisions usually are, if it wasn't for the fact that the Republicans have openly corrupted the process in order to pervert the process as it was intended and as it should work. They not only perverted the system for their own power, but also lied about it and are damaging the entire judicial system in the process.

It's difficult to not become angry when the minority political view repeatedly manages to hold the majority of the power due to ploys like this. Especially when it's in addition to Republicans being overwhelmingly responsible for most of the election fraud, gerrymandering and general corruption in this country. If this one goes through that means seven of the nine justices appointed this century were appointed by the minority political power. With two of those seven appointed in a way that directly violated the legitimate process. They already have a structural advantage in this political system due to the way political power is distributed, but that just isn't enough for them. That's why people 'lose their minds'. One side refuses to play by the rules. So the other side is left with the unpleasant choice of being deprived of a fair say in their own government or retaliating.

Can you really blame Democrats if they tried to pack the Supreme Court now? The last Democrat administration had their legitimate decision on a justice taken away. Based on the new rules put in place by McConnell, he's now attempting to take away the legitimate power of the next likely Democrat administration as well. At this point I'd just say fuck 'em. They'll keep abusing power until it's taken away from them.

The republicans are just single-mindedly pursuing their ideological objectives. They are implicitly acknowledging the fact that the Supreme Court is just another fully-political and partisan part of government, and dropping the convention that says you have to pretend that it's something else.
 

Muse

Lifer
Jul 11, 2001
37,848
8,311
136
Repost from a listserve I'm on:
- - - -
September 18, 2020


Tonight, flowers are strewn on the steps of the Supreme Court, where “Equal
Justice Under Law” is carved in stone. More than a thousand people gathered
there tonight to mourn the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died
today from cancer at age 87.

Justice Ginsburg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on March 15, 1933, in an
era when laws, as well as the customs they protected, treated women
differently than men. Ginsburg would grow up to challenge the laws that
barred women from jobs and denied them rights, eventually setting the
country on a path to extend equal justice under law to women and LGBTQ
Americans.

Joan Ruth Bader, who went by her middle name, was the second daughter in a
middle-class family. She went to public schools, where she excelled, and
won a full scholarship to Cornell. There, she met Martin Ginsburg, and they
married after she graduated. "What made Marty so overwhelmingly attractive
to me was that he cared that I had a brain," she later explained.
Relocating to Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, for her husband’s army service, Ginsburg
scored high on the civil service exam but could find work only as a typist.
When she got pregnant with their daughter Jane, she lost her job.

Two years later, the couple moved back east where Marty had been admitted
to Harvard Law School. Ginsburg was admitted the next year, one of 9 women
in her class of more than 500 students; a dean asked her why she was
“taking the place of a man.” She excelled, becoming the first woman on the
prestigious Harvard Law Review. When her husband underwent surgery and
radiation treatments for testicular cancer, she cared for him and their
daughter, while managing her studies and helping Marty with his. She rarely
slept.

After he graduated, Martin Ginsburg got a job in New York, and Ginsburg
transferred to Columbia Law School, where she graduated at the top of her
class. But in 1959, law firms weren’t hiring women, and judges didn’t want
women—especially mothers, who might be distracted by their “familial
obligations”-- as clerks. Finally, her mentor, law professor Gerald
Gunther, got her a clerkship by threatening Judge Edmund Palmieri that if
he did not take her, Gunther would never send him a clerk again.

After her clerkship and two years in Sweden, where laws about gender
equality were far more advanced than in America, Ginsburg became one of
America’s first female law professors. She worked first at Rutgers
University-- where she hid her pregnancy with her second child, James,
until her contract was renewed—and then at Columbia Law School, where she
was the first woman the school tenured.

At Rutgers, she began her bid to level the legal playing field between men
and women, extending equal protection under the law to include gender.
Knowing she had to appeal to male judges, she often picked male plaintiffs
to establish the principle of gender equality. In 1971, she wrote the brief
for Sally Reed in the case of *Reed vs. Reed*, when the Supreme Court
decided that an Idaho law specifying that “males must be preferred to
females” in appointing administrators of estates was unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Warren Burger, who had been appointed by Richard Nixon,
wrote: “To give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over
members of the other… is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative
choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment” to the Constitution.

In 1972, Ginsburg won the case of *Moritz v. Commissioner*. She argued that
a law preventing a bachelor, Charles Moritz, from claiming a tax deduction
for the care of his aged mother because the deduction could be claimed only
by women, or by widowed or divorced men, was discriminatory. The United
States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed, citing *Reed v. Reed*
when it decided that discrimination on the basis of sex violated the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

In that year, Ginsburg founded the Women’s Rights Project at the American
Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Between 1973 and 1976, she argued six gender
discrimination cases before the Supreme Court. She won five. The first time
she appeared before the court, she quoted nineteenth-century abolitionist
and women’s rights activist Sarah Grimke: “I ask no favor for my sex. All I
ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.”

Nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1993, she was confirmed
by a vote of 96 to 3. Clinton called her “the Thurgood Marshall of
gender-equality law.”

In her 27 years on the Supreme Court, Ginsburg championed equal rights both
from the majority and in dissent (which she would mark by wearing a
sequined collar), including her angry dissent in 2006 in *Ledbetter v.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber* when the plaintiff, Lilly Ledbetter, was denied
decades of missing wages because the statute of limitations had already
passed when she discovered she had been paid far less than the men with
whom she worked. “The court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the
insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination,”
Ginsburg wrote. Congress went on to change the law, and the first bill
President Barack Obama signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

In 2013, Ginsburg famously dissented from the majority in *Shelby County v.
Holder*, the case that gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The majority
decided to remove the provision of the law that required states with
histories of voter suppression to get federal approval before changing
election laws, arguing that such preclearance was no longer necessary.
Ginsburg wrote: “[t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is
continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away
your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” As she
predicted, after the decision, many states immediately began to restrict
voting.

Her dissent made her a cultural icon. Admirers called her “The Notorious
R.B.G.” after the rapper The Notorious B.I.G., wore clothing with her image
on it, dressed as her for Halloween, and bought RBG dolls and coloring
books. In 2018, the hit documentary "RBG" told the story of her life, and
as she aged, she became a fitness influencer for her relentless
strength-training regimen. She was also known for her plain speaking. When
asked how many women on the Supreme Court would be enough, for example, she
answered “nine.”

Ginsburg’s death has brought widespread mourning among those who saw her as
a champion for equal rights for women, LGBTQ Americans, minorities, and
those who believe the role of the government is to make sure that all
Americans enjoy equal justice under law. Upon her passing, former Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton tweeted: “Justice Ginsburg paved the way for so
many women, including me. There will never be another like her. Thank you
RBG.”

For many, she seemed to be the last defender of an equality they fear is
slipping away. Robyn Walsh, a University of Miami religion professor,
watched the outpouring of grief after Ginsburg’s death and wrote “It says a
lot about us that the loss of one voice leaves women and their allies
feeling so helpless. I am grateful for RBG, her advocacy, and her strength.
I'm enraged that we find ourselves here.”

That rage, prompted by the prospect of a Trump appointee in Ginsburg’s
seat, led donors to pour money into Democratic coffers tonight. Democratic
donors gave more than $12.5 million in two hours to the ActBlue donation
processing site, a rate of more than $100,000 a minute. The effect of the
loss of her voice and vote on the court will become clear quickly. On
November 10, just a week after the upcoming presidential election, the
court is scheduled to hear a Republican challenge to the Affordable Care
Act, also known as Obamacare. In 2012, the court upheld the law by a 5-4
vote.

Ginsburg often quoted Justice Louis Brandeis’s famous line: “The greatest
menace to freedom is an inert people,” and she advised people “to fight for
the things you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join
you.” Setting an example for how to advance the principle of equality, she
told the directors of the documentary “RBG” that she wanted to be
remembered “Just as someone who did whatever she could, with whatever
limited talent she had, to move society along in the direction I would like
it to be for my children and grandchildren.”

Upon hearing of Ginsburg's death, former U.S. Attorney and law professor
Joyce Vance tweeted, “We should honor the life of RBG, American hero, by
refusing to give in, refusing to back down, fighting for the civil rights
of all people & demanding our leaders honor the rule of law. This is our
fight now.”

Rest in power, Justice Ginsburg.

May her memory be a blessing.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,289
28,144
136
What I don't understand is everyone acting like he is breaking the law by appointing a SCOTUS Justice under these circumstances. He isn't. Appointing a justice is perfectly legal, not matter how distasteful you may find it. I have also heard that a few presidents even nominated a SCOTUS Justice after losing the election.

I too think he should wait until after the election to allow the people to elect the president that will fill the seat.

Looking at the news today and online it appears that the Democrats are losing their minds about the possibility
You do understand. Willful ignorance is showing again or am I being generous with "willful"?

Stolen seat...Merrick Garland...follow the bouncing ball. So I guess if Mitch held up Hillary's picks for 4 years as he said he would do that would have been legal as well?
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,881
34,834
136
What I don't understand is everyone acting like he is breaking the law by appointing a SCOTUS Justice under these circumstances. He isn't. Appointing a justice is perfectly legal, not matter how distasteful you may find it. I have also heard that a few presidents even nominated a SCOTUS Justice after losing the election.

I too think he should wait until after the election to allow the people to elect the president that will fill the seat.

Looking at the news today and online it appears that the Democrats are losing their minds about the possibility.

I think there is a disconnect about norms and the law. Republicans have routinely shitcanned the norms and are pointing at the law which indeed gives them the ability to confirm a justice rapidly if they so chose. This is 100% accurate that they have the legal ability.

The filibuster is a norm too since it exists in no law only the rules of the Senate which are changeable. Ultimately all the Democratic retaliatory options discussed in this threat are 100% legal even if they break norms. It is legal to add states. It is legal to expand the courts. It is legal to change apportionment and the US House seat cap to favor dense urban metros. The only thing that has prevented this is mutual adherence to a general set of political norms that aren't broken too often and that is going by the wayside.
 

Viper1j

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2018
4,196
3,699
136
Trump now has 6 justices while dems have 3.
Assuming the seat is filled.

So need 4 more just to have a stalemate of 6-6. Actually need 5 more for 7-6 majority.
No, 3 would be a stalemate. 4 more if you're thinking majority not 5

And if Sotomayor croaks.. need 7 more for a 8-7 majority.
If she passed, God forbid, we would have 2 liberal justices left. No need for 7.

Plus we don't need 7 senators from GOP to pass on this, only 4. The R's have a 53-47 advantage. We need just 4 of them
to pass on the hearings.
Exactly what I was thinking!

Moscow Mitch is giving Biden a golden ticket. When Trump and all his bootlickers are gone, Moscow Mitch has shown what scum he is, increase the Supreme Court to 15 Justices to mitigate the damage. And it will be decades before a Republican ever sees the inside of the capital or the White House again.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,590
7,650
136
Are you saying we shouldn't have POTUS term limits?

Maybe it should be a limit of 3-4 terms. No reason to force out good Presidents early. Telling the voters we don't trust them.
We implemented term limits on the President after a very popular FDR got us out of the great depression. As if "how dare he!?"

Look at 2016. It was a hell of a mistake to force out a President who oversaw our economic recovery.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,590
7,650
136
You do understand. Willful ignorance is showing again or am I being generous with "willful"?

Stolen seat...Merrick Garland...follow the bouncing ball. So I guess if Mitch held up Hillary's picks for 4 years as he said he would do that would have been legal as well?

Considering nominations live and die in the Senate, yes. Absolutely intended and legal.

Having a hearing on it is just a formality. Granted - they should probably at least vote on each one - but none of you complained when Harry Reid shelved things. It is just fair turn around in a game of escalating conflict.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
46,881
34,834
136
Goddamn you. Don't say stuff like this.

Now where's my holy water.....?

well probably not if he’s been impeached by the house which is a possible strategy to gum up the works next door
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
84,823
49,521
136
Considering nominations live and die in the Senate, yes. Absolutely intended and legal.

Having a hearing on it is just a formality. Granted - they should probably at least vote on each one - but none of you complained when Harry Reid shelved things. It is just fair turn around in a game of escalating conflict.
This is an important point. What the Republicans have done since around 2006 is entirely legal, it just violated longstanding norms. So really, there is a perfectly valid argument that this is just them exercising the power given to them by the voters in ways authorized by the constitution.

The thing is, if norms aren’t to be followed anymore then this exact same argument applies to adding more justices. If Republicans don’t want that to happen, they better make sure they don’t lose the Senate.

Same goes for adding states, etc. Norms only work if everyone agrees to follow them. One side has decided they no longer matter - maybe they need to be reminded.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
Considering nominations live and die in the Senate, yes. Absolutely intended and legal.

Having a hearing on it is just a formality. Granted - they should probably at least vote on each one - but none of you complained when Harry Reid shelved things. It is just fair turn around in a game of escalating conflict.

Ugh. Harry Reid shelved a lot of dishonest GOP bullshit intended to gum up the works & obstruct the process. He never snubbed a SCOTUS nominee. Meanwhile, McConnell needs a ladder to get to the top of the pile of House passed legislation he's sitting on.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |