Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

[Steve]

She was 87.

 

It’s going to be an interesting time for the next few weeks.

[Beast]

7 minutes ago, Steve said:

It’s going to be an interesting time for the next few weeks.

Only if the senate allows hearing to be done to confirm this close to the election or if Trump looses the election

[Lord Liaden]

Mitch McConnell is going to try to ram through another conservative justice confirmation before the election, in complete repudiation of his stand during President Obama's last year. Because principles aren't even a pretense any more.

[Ternaugh]

Oddly enough, I found out about RBG when talking with my congresswoman as we were in line at the grocery store.

[Pariah]

 This is undoubtedly in poor taste, but I can think of any number of people in Washington who deserved this fate long before Justice Ginsburg did.

 

Rest in power, Justice Ginsberg.

[Sveta8]

It will be a curious few weeks, that's for sure.

 

[King Red]

I agree that the new few weeks will probably be interesting; however, I have already my fill of interesting times. Times of contentment and normality sounds much more appealing.

[Sveta8]

23 minutes ago, King Red said:

I agree that the new few weeks will probably be interesting; however, I have already my fill of interesting times. Times of contentment and normality sounds much more appealing.

 

Appealing? For certain. One should never stop hoping and wanting for times that are more peaceful, passable, and comfortable. They are the times that make many of the more... arduous moments more worthwhile.

 

However, that is not on the horizons. Nor the forecast. Nor the projected future. Placidity left too long and developing a foul stinking rot of stillness, and only now coming up in need of cleaning. So effort must be made for these "interesting" times. To overcome the patient passivity of letting what is ride simply for a wont for normality.

 

Pardon, that's a statement I've heard too often. I'll leave it at that. These will be curious and interesting weeks. 

[unclevlad]

5 hours ago, Beast said:

Only if the senate allows hearing to be done to confirm this close to the election or if Trump looses the election

 

You are joking, right?

 

Make it "only until" because there is NO WAY this isn't gonna be done before the election.   The confirmation hearings will be pro forma.  This is McConnell;  due diligence?  Advise and consent?  Not.

 

Also remember that Trump was talking about prospective nominees for the next term, so the names are quite likely lined up.

 

The only doubt I'd have is if the Democrats can manage to filibuster under the existing rules.

 

[Bazza]

Being an Aussie, I don’t know Justice Ginsberg very well but applaud her service to her country. 

 

I would also suggest that any speculation about her replacement be confined to the politics thread, and have this one as a celebration of her life and achievements. 

[Old Man]

49 minutes ago, unclevlad said:

 

The only doubt I'd have is if the Democrats can manage to filibuster under the existing rules.

 

They cannot; the Senate GOP eliminated the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations in 2017, to appoint Gorsuch. 

[tombrown803]

RIP

[Pariah]

8 hours ago, Bazza said:

I would also suggest that any speculation about her replacement be confined to the politics thread, and have this one as a celebration of her life and achievements. 

 

Sadly, the greatest testament to her life and achievements is the speed with which her political adversaries wish to replace her.

 

 

[DShomshak]

10 hours ago, Bazza said:

Being an Aussie, I don’t know Justice Ginsberg very well but applaud her service to her country. 

 

I would also suggest that any speculation about her replacement be confined to the politics thread, and have this one as a celebration of her life and achievements. 

A fair point.

 

When Ruth Bader Ginsburg began her legal career, women were legally barred from many areas of American life and work. She decided to change ythat, and did. Of the six cases she argued before the Supreme Court, she won five. In brief, she argued that when the 14th Amendment speaks of laws applying equally to all persons, it means persons, not men.  Eventually she was made a judge, then a SC justice, where she piled up more achievements.

 

All the SCOTUS justices have had distinguished legal and judicial careers. Despite attempts by a few presidents, there are no outright dumb-ass political hacks on the court. But Ginsburg is in the much smaller set of whom it can be said that they changed the country, and for the better.

 

Dean Shomshak

[Steve]

17 hours ago, Lord Liaden said:

Mitch McConnell is going to try to ram through another conservative justice confirmation before the election, in complete repudiation of his stand during President Obama's last year. Because principles aren't even a pretense any more.

 

If you’re talking about the “McConnell Rule” or the “”Biden Rule” before it, they only apply when the Senate and Presidency are controlled by different parties. That doesn’t apply here.

 

Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and John Paul Stevens were each confirmed in less than forty days, so there’s also precedent for quick confirmations.

[Steve]

One other thing to consider is that her seat must be filled quickly. There are cases that will probably go to the Supreme Court concerning the upcoming presidential election.

 

You can’t have a 4-4 split in those cases.

[Sveta8]

2 hours ago, DShomshak said:

All the SCOTUS justices have had distinguished legal and judicial careers. Despite attempts by a few presidents, there are no outright dumb-ass political hacks on the court. But Ginsburg is in the much smaller set of whom it can be said that they changed the country, and for the better.

 

More than that, she was known to fight for what she felt was right. In my college class, only maybe a handful in the thirty or so there can tell you the governing representatives of our own state. But I would say at least half know of, if not about Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I don't know how to impart on you how difficult that is, for some post highschool kids to be able to know and talk about a legal representative of the highest court in the land, and know, broadly, what she is standing for. She was prolific. Because of more than what she argued about, but because she would do what she felt was the right thing to do. Always.

I don't know how hard it is to let you know, but... If the average twenty year old knows of a Supreme Court Justice, their general stance, and what they are known for off the top of their head... That doesn't happen. People don't pay that much attention unless it is about something they care about. But from most I've heard and spoken with? She breached that. That is Astonishing. Even if they don't know them, they know of them and what they represent.

And another thing there. What she Represented? That didn't change. She did not become a Justice and suddenly sway with party lines from what I know of. She stayed true to what she felt she had to. And People knew that. You know how hard it is to find a political activist in power that stays true to character? That doesn't balk and go with what is wanted? She wanted to see the world a better place for everyone and did everything in her power to do so. That's commendable on it's own. The fact she often succeeded? Awe inspiring.

[archer]

2 hours ago, Steve said:

One other thing to consider is that her seat must be filled quickly. There are cases that will probably go to the Supreme Court concerning the upcoming presidential election.

 

You can’t have a 4-4 split in those cases.

 

Sure you can have a 4-4 split in those cases. 

 

When the Supreme Court can't come to a ruling in a case, the lower court ruling stands.

 

On the other hand, if the SC decides to look at an original case (without an election controversy going through a lower court), but the Supreme Court can't come to a decision, you revert to the Constitution.

 

The Constitutional procedure is that the old president is out and the next president has to be sworn in on a certain date. If the states (or Congress as the case may be) cannot decide on who should be the next president, the person who is the Speaker of the House gets sworn in to be the president since that is the person who is next in the line of succession when there is no president or vice president. That's why the new Congress gets sworn in before the President does.

 

At this point it looks like the current Speaker will win re-election in November and would also win in Congress in January when they vote on who should be the next Speaker.

[Badger]

15 hours ago, unclevlad said:

 

You are joking, right?

 

Make it "only until" because there is NO WAY this isn't gonna be done before the election.   The confirmation hearings will be pro forma.  This is McConnell;  due diligence?  Advise and consent?  Not.

 

Also remember that Trump was talking about prospective nominees for the next term, so the names are quite likely lined up.

 

The only doubt I'd have is if the Democrats can manage to filibuster under the existing rules.

 

Ironically, the filibuster as it is now, was largely thanks to Harry Reid.

14 hours ago, Old Man said:

They cannot; the Senate GOP eliminated the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations in 2017, to appoint Gorsuch. 

Did forget that. Though Reid still paved the way.

[archer]

15 hours ago, Old Man said:

They cannot; the Senate GOP eliminated the filibuster for SCOTUS nominations in 2017, to appoint Gorsuch. 

 

The Senate these days have a virtual filibuster (where someone threatens to filibuster so the legislation is never brought to the floor in the first place). They do those so that the whole Senate never grinds to a complete halt. That one thing might be stalled, but the rest of the Senate can function.

 

However, they can still do a real filibuster for anything except for SCOTUS nominations and budget reconciliations. A Senator who takes the floor can stall the whole Senate from moving forward with ANY business as long as he keeps talking and stays on the Senate floor. And he can keep talking about any topic he wants (so if the topic is trade relations, for example, the Senator can talk about SCOTUS nominations).

 

So if they let any Senate Democrat speak from the floor on any other topic, he can just keep going as long as he can. 

 

There's been four filibusters in history which have lasted over 20 hours, with the longest one being over 24 hours.

 

Obviously that wouldn't permanently stop a SCOTUS nomination from going forward unless the Republican leadership is dumb enough to try to keep bringing up other business and allow Democrats to step forward one after another to filibuster. But the attention media attention given to even one filibuster might be enough to embarrass some Republicans from going forward with a SCOTUS nomination under these circumstances.

 

If nothing else, the person doing the filibuster could read off the public statements of each Republican Senator in 2016 who claimed that 11 months until the next president was due to be sworn in didn't give enough time for the Senate to adequately evaluate a SCOTUS nominee.