RBG dead

[DisarmedDespot]

Apparently the average time from nomination to confirmation for a supreme court justice is 71 days. Kavanaugh took over 80 days and even the less-insane appointment Gorsuch took two months. I'm not sure how they expect to ram a nominee through before the election, or why they would even try. If Trump wins, then there was no need to rush it in the first place. If Trump loses, then they either drop it or get to smear themselves with a lame duck appointment and then give the Dems more than enough excuse to pack the court.

 

[K1052]

RIP to a transformation person who served SCOTUS with distinction.
Trumps pick will be on the SC - these are republicans we're talking about.
That will also nullify congress' ability to expand the SC (as with FDR, it will come before the court, and, ha ha, be rejected).
This fight, although there will be much more wind and flames to come, is over.
The only thing you can trust about the GOP is that you can't trust the GOP.

FDR’s packing bill was never passed.

 

[Ajay]

FDR’s packing bill was never passed.

Eh, that what I get for listening to 'analysis' on CNN.

 

[Wreckem]

RIP to a transformation person who served SCOTUS with distinction.
Trumps pick will be on the SC - these are republicans we're talking about.
That will also nullify congress' ability to expand the SC (as with FDR, it will come before the court, and, ha ha, be rejected).
This fight, although there will be much more wind and flames to come, is over.
The only thing you can trust about the GOP is that you can't trust the GOP.

FDRs plan never made it out committee as his own party was against the plan. The make up the Supreme Court and ALL federal courts are at the whims of Congressional Legislation. The Supreme Court can not overturn a constitutionally granted legislative power.

Even if they did erroneously some how issue An opinion blocking It, the executive branch is respsonible for enforcing it. That’s why we have checks and balances.

 

[Zivic]

How is it a different situation? A justice died right before an election.

in 2016 there was a pretty decent chance (hindsight 100% chance) that the president was no longer going to be a democrat.

In 2020, there is a pretty decent chance Trump will be reelected.

I'd say that is a different situation

 

[RamIt]

RIP RBG.
You were a huge positive influence on my two daughters.
You will be missed.

 

[Wreckem]

in 2016 there was a pretty decent chance (hindsight 100% chance) that the president was no longer going to be a democrat.

In 2020, there is a pretty decent chance Trump will be reelected.

I'd say that is a different situation

Only if you believe in mental gymnastics.

 

[zinfamous]

in 2016 there was a pretty decent chance (hindsight 100% chance) that the president was no longer going to be a democrat.

In 2020, there is a pretty decent chance Trump will be reelected.

I'd say that is a different situation

not really. (also: "hindsight = 100% chance" doesn't mean anything. You can't just change the odds to 100% after the results are known. that's....ridiculous, lol)

Anyway, the best model anywhere, 538, gave Trump a chance of ~32% of winning. A barely-zero % chance of winning the popular vote, and an indeterminant chance of winning the EC, which put him in that ~32% range. In fact, his win proved to be even narrower that, with about 77,000 votes total across 3 close states determining the entire election. 77,000 votes. ...that barely figures into the margin of error. We maybe need a new word to describe how bizarre that was.

Now, he's projected at an even lower chance, for now, than in 2016, especially as those 3 states don't look to be nearly as unpredictable as they were then. Also, 2018 was a pretty clear indication that this country doesn't want anything more to do with Orange Julius and the GOP. Everything leading up to now is very much different than it was in 2016. 2018 was a very historic midterm election: IIRC, turnout was higher than it was in the 2016 presidential election, which I think is the first time a midterm has shown larger turnout than a presidential election?

To ignore the actual reality on the ground while you pull "things feel this way to way to me" arguments from your bunghole, is not a good idea.

 

[pmv]

This is probably my fault - I was thinking "surely there's no way this year can get any worse" - which clearly angered the Gods.

in 2016 there was a pretty decent chance (hindsight 100% chance) that the president was no longer going to be a democrat.

In 2020, there is a pretty decent chance Trump will be reelected.

I'd say that is a different situation

Sounds like the same situation described in different ways.

Could just as well say:

In 2016 there was a pretty decent chance that the President would be a Democrat.
In 2020 there is a pretty decent chance Trump will lose.

 

[Zivic]

not really. (also: "hindsight = 100% chance" doesn't mean anything. You can't just change the odds to 100% after the results are known. that's....ridiculous, lol)

Anyway, the best model anywhere, 538, gave Trump a chance of ~32% of winning. A barely-zero % chance of winning the popular vote, and an indeterminant chance of winning the EC, which put him in that ~32% range. In fact, his win proved to be even narrower that, with about 77,000 votes total across 3 close states determining the entire election. 77,000 votes. ...that barely figures into the margin of error. We maybe need a new word to describe how bizarre that was.

Now, he's projected at an even lower chance, for now, than in 2016, especially as those 3 states don't look to be nearly as unpredictable as they were then. Also, 2018 was a pretty clear indication that this country doesn't want anything more to do with Orange Julius and the GOP. Everything leading up to now is very much different than it was in 2016. 2018 was a very historic midterm election: IIRC, turnout was higher than it was in the 2016 presidential election, which I think is the first time a midterm has shown larger turnout than a presidential election?

To ignore the actual reality on the ground while you pull "things feel this way to way to me" arguments from your bunghole, is not a good idea.

there was a zero percent chance obama was being reelected in 2016

This forum is about as left swinging as there is. people here do not have a grasp on reality. Its a huge echo chamber that bashes trump and props up anything that opposes him. If you don't think Trump is likely to win reelection, you have your head in the sand.

 

[Sunburn74]

in 2016 there was a pretty decent chance (hindsight 100% chance) that the president was no longer going to be a democrat.

In 2020, there is a pretty decent chance Trump will be reelected.

I'd say that is a different situation

Hmm...polls and betting markets favored clinton in 2016. 538.com got flak for estimating a 30% win probability for Trump and most others had it under 5%. There was even famously a princeton professor who had to eat a bug on TV I think because he was wrong.

Polls and betting markers favor biden in 2020. The current estimated win probability for trump is also about 30% based on today's polls.

Say what you want about bias on this forum. Betting markets (particularly betting markets overseas) don't lie. They don't care who wins. They care about making money with the right betting line.

 

[Jhhnn]

RIP to a transformation person who served SCOTUS with distinction.
Trumps pick will be on the SC - these are republicans we're talking about.
That will also nullify congress' ability to expand the SC (as with FDR, it will come before the court, and, ha ha, be rejected).
This fight, although there will be much more wind and flames to come, is over.
The only thing you can trust about the GOP is that you can't trust the GOP.

That's not what happened with FDR. His threat to expand the court induced the justices to endorse the Wagner Act rather than have that happen. Congress & the Executive together have the constitutional power to determine the number of justices, which has varied at points in the past. If they decree 11 members there will be 11 members. They could even reduce the number & achieve it by natural attrition. That's very much settled law.

 

[BUTCH1]

He already did. After Kavanaugh, everything has changed according to him.

Ahh, I knew it, punk is the master of saying what makes him look solid at the moment knowing full well he'll
just bail out later on when needed. Remember him saying Trump was a cancer that will ruin the Republican party?,
now he's so far up Trump's ass only the sole of his shoes are visible. Who knows though, RBG had a lot of respect from both sides, her dying wish was related to wait till this election was over until a new justice is nominated, with this wish
apparently going by the wayside ANY woman regardless of party should be profoundly insulted, perhaps they will extract
revenge in secret at the ballot box.

 

[Grey_Beard]

there was a zero percent chance obama was being reelected in 2016

This forum is about as left swinging as there is. people here do not have a grasp on reality. Its a huge echo chamber that bashes trump and props up anything that opposes him. If you don't think Trump is likely to win reelection, you have your head in the sand.

So your stance is that because my team won in the last game, even though we are down again, we’ll win. If you have a team that in every game has a 30% chance at victory, your record will most-likely not be 2-0. Yes it could be. If you take statistics if the chance to win twice when you have a 30% probability to win twice, I would think that number is very, very low, less than 10%. It could happen yes, but none of that has anything to do with how this forum leans. If it is such an eco chamber, why are you here expressing your opinion? Is there not another eco chamber where you can see your like opinions?

 

[Zivic]

So your stance is that because my team won in the last game, even though we are down again, we’ll win. If you have a team that in every game has a 30% chance at victory, your record will most-likely not be 2-0. Yes it could be. If you take statistics if the chance to win twice when you have a 30% probability to win twice, I would think that number is very, very low, less than 10%. It could happen yes, but none of that has anything to do with how this forum leans. If it is such an eco chamber, why are you here expressing your opinion? Is there not another eco chamber where you can see your like opinions?

I'm here to balance myself out. I come to this forum when things like this happen to see what the left has to say.

This forum leans to Trump being bad 365 days a yr.

I can tell by your spelling of echo "eco" that you're leaning pretty hard left

 

[woolfe9998]

So your stance is that because my team won in the last game, even though we are down again, we’ll win. If you have a team that in every game has a 30% chance at victory, your record will most-likely not be 2-0. Yes it could be. If you take statistics if the chance to win twice when you have a 30% probability to win twice, I would think that number is very, very low, less than 10%. It could happen yes, but none of that has anything to do with how this forum leans. If it is such an eco chamber, why are you here expressing your opinion? Is there not another eco chamber where you can see your like opinions?

Yes, his stance is because his candidate beat the odds once, anyone who thinks he is unlikely to do it again has his head in the sand. He thinks if you flip the coin tails once, you are more likely to flip it tails the second time, regardless of the mathematical odds. Logic and critical thinking are unknown to this one.

He also clearly hasn't spent much time here. Many, many democrats here are convinced that Trump will win. Sportage has even predicted a landslide. General polling also shows that nearly 50% of dems think Trump is more likely than not to win.

 

[woolfe9998]

Apparently the average time from nomination to confirmation for a supreme court justice is 71 days. Kavanaugh took over 80 days and even the less-insane appointment Gorsuch took two months. I'm not sure how they expect to ram a nominee through before the election, or why they would even try. If Trump wins, then there was no need to rush it in the first place. If Trump loses, then they either drop it or get to smear themselves with a lame duck appointment and then give the Dems more than enough excuse to pack the court.

They don't need to complete it before the election. They need to complete it before 1/20, assuming Trump loses. While the Senate is not in session during the month of January, it is during the months of November and December. If Trump announces in one week, which is likely, that gives them about 94 days between then and 12/31 when the Senate closes. That is sufficient time.

 

[zinfamous]

there was a zero percent chance obama was being reelected in 2016

This forum is about as left swinging as there is. people here do not have a grasp on reality. Its a huge echo chamber that bashes trump and props up anything that opposes him. If you don't think Trump is likely to win reelection, you have your head in the sand.

So you just went from "0% chance Obama would be elected" to mean that very good chance it would be Trump, of all people. That doesn't make any fucking sense. Again, you using feels and not data or logic.

That's your problem, it's not the liberals' problem for preferring logic and data over baseless feels. Again, you misread what the polls said in 2016. Trump was never given a likely chance to win. Never. The best chance he got, with 538, was about 30%...that's still really fricking good considering it's Donald Fucking Trump. You are trying to inject meaning into the math that simply isn't there. Again, your problem, not some "liberal bubble problem." Math is math. You don't get to make the rules, dingus.

No one is saying Trump doesn't have a chance this year. It is just that his chances are less likely than in 2016. That's all. Doesn't mean he can't win, and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone that isn't concerned about that. You see, the difference is that we actually have memories.

 

[Indus]

there was a zero percent chance obama was being reelected in 2016

This forum is about as left swinging as there is. people here do not have a grasp on reality. Its a huge echo chamber that bashes trump and props up anything that opposes him. If you don't think Trump is likely to win reelection, you have your head in the sand.

SHut the fuck up bleach drinking Trumpanzee. Go suck some disinfectant!

 

[DisarmedDespot]

They don't need to complete it before the election. They need to complete it before 1/20, assuming Trump loses. While the Senate is not in session during the month of January, it is during the months of November and December. If Trump announces in one week, which is likely, that gives them about 94 days between then and 12/31 when the Senate closes. That is sufficient time.

Yeah, but then they're doing it in a lame duck session. I guess I shouldn't expect any semblance of decency from the Repugs, but shoving a nominee through during a lame-duck session after a likely Biden win and possibly loss of the senate as well would look so, so bad.

 

[woolfe9998]

Yeah, but then they're doing it in a lame duck session. I guess I shouldn't expect any semblance of decency from the Repugs, but shoving a nominee through during a lame-duck session after a likely Biden win and possibly loss of the senate as well would look so, so bad.

After four years of Trump, these GOP senators couldn't care less how anything looks. How did it look when all but one of them voted to not throw Trump out of office after an amply proven allegation of major corruption? Or perhaps more to the point: how did it look when they refused to hold confirmation hearings on Merrick Garland for a year?

I should amend my prior post, however. Senate is out of session 12/18, not 12/31. So that gives them closer to 80 days.

 

[Grey_Beard]

I'm here to balance myself out. I come to this forum when things like this happen to see what the left has to say.

This forum leans to Trump being bad 365 days a yr.

I can tell by your spelling of echo "eco" that you're leaning pretty hard left

So all you got on my post is “eco” over “echo.” And folks call libruls over sensitive. Maybe you’re a closet librul, which is why you come here to find an echo chamber that helps your closeted beliefs. Kind of like the homophobic, sacred man/woman marriage ranter, bible thumping Republicon that is an actual repressed homosexual and finally gets caught either watching his wife have sex with the pool boy or gets outed with their “secret” boyfriend. Glad to know. You’re accepted here. Welcome to the fold.

 

[Grey_Beard]

After four years of Trump, these GOP senators couldn't care less how anything looks. How did it look when all but one of them voted to not throw Trump out of office after an amply proven allegation of major corruption? Or perhaps more to the point: how did it look when they refused to hold confirmation hearings on Merrick Garland for a year?

I should amend my prior post, however. Senate is out of session 12/18, not 12/31. So that gives them closer to 80 days.

That is a tight time frame. Any hiccups and it does not happen. Any issues with the election, it does not happen. If they then start spending time before the election on this nomination rather than a stimulus bill, the election goes against them. This is a very risky move. It shows desperation. It is like the last move of a wounded giant that is close to death.

 

[BUTCH1]

That is a tight time frame. Any hiccups and it does not happen. Any issues with the election, it does not happen. If they then start spending time before the election on this nomination rather than a stimulus bill, the election goes against them. This is a very risky move. It shows desperation. It is like the last move of a wounded giant that is close to death.

If women who had mad respect for RBG in those close "swing" states would contact their Senator and explain that selecting a new SCOTUS member would be a slap in the face to an epic legend who's last wish was for her successor
to be selected by the POTUS soon to be elected. Perhaps the fear of a female "fuck you" vote in the secrecy of that booth might give pause to those involved. This could easily be the hill the GOP dies on if they are not careful.

 

[woolfe9998]

That is a tight time frame. Any hiccups and it does not happen. Any issues with the election, it does not happen. If they then start spending time before the election on this nomination rather than a stimulus bill, the election goes against them. This is a very risky move. It shows desperation. It is like the last move of a wounded giant that is close to death.

That is all true, in theory. However, given the hyper-partisan atmosphere we're in, I'm not sure if it's going to have that effect. In the past two weeks, we've had one news story where Trump is referring to US soldiers as "suckers and losers" and another where he admits on tape that he intentionally "downplayed" COVID. Polling has narrowed about 1 point in his favor during that time...

I hope you're right but have my doubts.