Ginsburg

fazer said:

...communist liberals...

Click to expand...

Wow, just wow. Had no idea it was this bad.

Happy post-confirmation day. Ginsburg would be proud. SHAME ON the USa.

"I want you to use my words against me. If there's a Republican president in 2016 and a vacancy occurs in the last year of the first term, you can say Lindsey Graham said, 'Let's let the next president, whoever it might be, make that nomination,' " he said in 2016 shortly after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. "And you could use my words against me and you'd be absolutely right."

-Lindsey Graham(2016)

Stand tall, Republicans. If it isn't the racism, hatred and conspiracy theories that you stand by, then it must be this...

Hopefully we can turn up the heat to immediately nominate 4 more justices so the amount of damage she can do can be mitigated.

cyrano said:

Wow, just wow. Had no idea it was this bad.

Click to expand...

Misused words.  Kind of like most of the drama in the political brewery topics.  The deep divides that run in these team politics threads are repulsive and so different from the brewery 10 years ago.  Maybe I was to busy to comment on things back then.  I hope we can heal these wounds and get back to making a living and enjoying this world again. 
I know it must be difficult for some.
It doesn’t have to be the end of the world with this new political religion.      The left needs the right and the right needs the left.  It is the balance of the market.  Opportunity please!  Equal outcomes,  good luck with that.   

The way the process was rushed through is quite a disgrace. Quite disrespectful to Ginsburg. The biggest issue with the nominee and the court going forward is the huge corporate bias. We should be promoting capitalism,  not corporate plutocracy.

I just hate that things like this, which is constitutionally-clear, have been allowed to be politicized by political lawyers as a tactic. How in the world is flip-flopping, blatantly, for politics allowed? Where’s the accountability; the criminal accountability for denying something so clearly written? How have things this black and white and out in the open become so acceptable?

john12ax7 said:

The biggest issue with the nominee and the court going forward is the huge corporate bias. We should be promoting capitalism,  not corporate plutocracy.

Click to expand...

That and - voter disenfranchisement. The GOP in the past 10 year has gone off the rails with intentional actions that should have been curtailed. Instead we've had SCOTUS decisions like Shelby (5-4 by conservatives).
Make no mistake, the conservative majority intends to overrule precedent and continue doing the bidding of the donor class, like Janus (also 5-4).
Time to stop listening to people who will loudly say Democrats shouldn't make any big moves and try to compromise, once again, with Republicans.
Anyone writing that both sides are the same is either ignorant, talking in bad faith, or should get their head examined.
Nothing should be off the table when Democrats have power.
Add states, add judges, investigate and remove current judges, prosecute past crimes.

dmp said:

Instead we've had SCOTUS decisions like Shelby (5-4 by conservatives).
Make no mistake, the conservative majority intends to overrule precedent and continue doing the bidding of the donor class, like Janus (also 5-4).

Click to expand...

To say nothing of Kavanaugh's written concurrence in DNC v. Wisconsin, which was absolutely bonkers...like pants-on-head looney-tunes.

Matador said:

To say nothing of Kavanaugh's written concurrence in DNC v. Wisconsin, which was absolutely bonkers...like pants-on-head looney-tunes.

Click to expand...

I read this as absentee ballots be submitted by Election Day which is the same in 30 other states to allow an ending point to an election as opposed to each state picking different dates after Election Day.  I’m missing something you see Matador.  Help with what is bonkers.  It’s a long written decision and I’m not an attorney.  You see something.

I see the problems with voting rights (Shelby) used as a political tool When leaving it to states individually.

fazer said:

... I hope we can heal these wounds and get back to making a living and enjoying this world again. 

Click to expand...

This is my hope too. 
On November 4th, I want the freedom from worry to shut down the computer for a while and pick up a good book to read instead.

fazer said:

I’m missing something you see Matador.  Help with what is bonkers.  It’s a long written decision and I’m not an attorney.  You see something.

Click to expand...

At a high level:  he's continually mixes up the distinction between a receipt deadline and a submission deadline.  To illustrate: he makes a crazy analogy to the IRS and submitting your taxes, and glosses over the fact that submitting your return to the IRS is a submission deadline, and they will process your return regardless of when it arrives (the very argument he says is wrong in his concurrence).  Later, he uses VT's COVID legislation as proof that he's right, however he gets the details of their new COVID voting laws wrong.

He continually talks about the the election "flipping" as votes are counted after November 3rd, which is bonkers, because counting the votes is precisely what determines who wins.  The whole "flipping" nonsense comes directly from Trump's mouth, and makes zero sense considering for the majority of the time the US has existed, elections were not certified on November 3rd.

The biggest issue: he cites to Bush v Gore, which at it's time caused an uproar (and no concurrences) when Rehnquist upturned the notion of state sovereignty (e.g., the sole arbiter of state constitutions are state supreme courts), and does so by an extremely narrow reading of 'legislature' (which, for over 150 years, means 'the lawmaking and checking apparatus") which he says only means the state's congress can interpret their voting laws, and says state courts cannot judge remedies for state laws (which again, is completely bonkers, and is the entire point of state supreme courts).

To put a cherry on top of the crazy sundae, he sidesteps his own argument in Bush v Gore where he said (to paraphrase) "What trumps everything else are considerations for making sure that every vote is counted".

What became apparent (at least to me), is that "originalism" just continues to be a thin veneer to justify a conservative outcome, regardless of precedent. 

The situation in Wisconsin is that if someone mails their ballot several days before the election it has to ARRIVE on time (nov 3rd). It isn't if it is submitted (mailed and postmarked).
The analogy to taxes is good, your taxes just need to be postmarked by tax day. 
They will literally throw away ballots that were mailed before election day because of this SCOTUS decision.
Add on to this the efforts of Trump & the Republicans to slow down the USPS and it really turns evil.
A principle of the USA is one person, one vote. The disenfranchising of voters by Republicans intentionally is undeniable.

Matador said:

The biggest issue: he cites to Bush v Gore,

Click to expand...

He didn't even cite the main decision of Bush vs Gore (5-4), he cited a concurrence that was only joined by 2 others (3-6).

The Bush vs Gore decision may have been the most activist, partisan, and terrible SCOTUS decision in modern history. The conservative majority had the gall to even include the statement: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."  They will end an election early for their team to win, but allow systematic voter disenfranchisement when it is against the other team.

After the Shelby decision, southern states (Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, etc...) that used to be monitored with the voting rights act rapidly began closing polling places to make it harder for certain segments to vote. These Republican led states were systematically closing polling locations in areas that tend to have non-Republican voters, to disenfranchise voters. 

Final wishes are not covered in the constitution. Even justice Ginsberg was quoted with saying "that senators refusing to vote on President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court should recognize that a president is elected for four years not three." She is right.  So yeah picking a justice now, is within the scope of what is rule of law and the cornerstone that governs our country, the constitution. 
In 2016 when the senate refused to take up business concerning a Scotus nominee, it was partisan politics and it was wrong.  Unfortunately for the dems, they did not have a majority in the senate and there was nothing they could really do on the matter.  Remember the nuclear option the dems put in place in 2013?  partisan politics. It's no different then both chambers refusing to take up a second covid relief bill, the house sent one to the senate in may, the senate sent one to the house in June, they play partisan politics and we suffer.

I have no doubt ACB will do well. I also doubt the Scotus will take up old business which seems to be the big concern from the left.  Remember when the scouts was not an extension of a political arm?  The pendulum will swing back the other way eventually so have no fear.  Be well and be safe guys...

pucho812 said:

So yeah picking a justice now, is within the scope of what is rule of law and the cornerstone that governs our country, the constitution.

Click to expand...

Absolutely! So again, where’s the accountability and ramifications for not following the clear constitutional law that absolutely everyone can read without the need of lawyer interpretation?

If any answer having anything to do with voting, it’d be one of the stupidest things I’ve heard!

Where are the new bi-partisan backed laws and the voting out of anyone who doesn’t back it?

Matador said:

To say nothing of Kavanaugh's written concurrence in DNC v. Wisconsin, which was absolutely bonkers...like pants-on-head looney-tunes.

Click to expand...

I think he was hammered when he wrote that sh!t.  Probably running around the court pantsless, trying to teabag Alito.  Probably doesn't remember a bit of it. 

This article has a good rundown of the latest decision as well as Bush v. Gore:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/amy-coney-barrett-e2-80-99s-first-votes-could-throw-the-election-to-trump/ar-BB1aq0dp

Matador said:

What became apparent (at least to me), is that "originalism" just continues to be a thin veneer to justify a conservative outcome, regardless of precedent.

Click to expand...

Yes. IMO it's blatantly obvious that "staying in power no matter what" has dominated their thinking, at least for a generation.

pucho812 said:

The pendulum will swing back the other way eventually so have no fear. 

Click to expand...

Republicans lost the popular vote in all but on elections in the last 30 years. They have tilted the ground to make the pendulum go back in their direction.

I surely hope that this time it has enough momentum to push through anyway.

And Amy Coney Barret... don't get me started... she will do well pulling the country kicking and screaming into the Dark Ages... unless Democrats put a stop to it.

living sounds said:

And Amy Coney Barret... don't get me started... she will do well pulling the country kicking and screaming into the Dark Ages... unless Democrats put a stop to it.

Click to expand...

I don't see how. But then again the same party spouting that said it was illegitimate.  I don't see that happening but oh well. 

I don't see how you guys think the Dems will do a lot better,  maybe a little,  but for the most part they  have their hands in the same corporate cookie jar.

john12ax7 said:

I don't see how you guys think the Dems will do a lot better,  maybe a little,  but for the most part they  have their hands in the same corporate cookie jar.

Click to expand...

Im in complete agreement.  The Two party’s fight and put out an us them.  But when it comes to making sure there are two instead of 4 parties they are 100% united.  We need a left and a right party to represent the vast differences. And a dem and pub parties represent left center and right center.  It’s an imaginary difference. 

I wish everybody well and choose to view the neighborhood News more than the USA news.  What will be will be.  Politics are not my religion.

I find Joe Rogan, Bret Winestein.  Dave Rubin and others far more interesting than any national news program.  The shows consist of liberal and conservative views and they communicate what we have In common than our differences only. 

I think ACB will be a good juror but I will need to see.  I’m opposed to a packed court and state status to territories.  That makes me conservative .  I think defending the constitution is important and state rights are to be maintained and defended.