As if we needed further proof of indecency, McConnell said Trump's nominee to replace Justice Ginsburg will receive a vote on the Senate floor. Could he maybe wait until she's buried?
You know Moscow mitch and the orange buffoon have been hoping for this.
Of course they have & Trump has a list of 30 names at the ready, but did McConnell have to publicly announce his intentions w/in a few hours?
I mourn the passing of Justice Ginsberg. Her life and service were an inspiration and a milestone.
Having said that, I really wish that she had retired during the Obama administration so that she could've been replaced with a like-minded judge. I said this at the time.
As much as I don't care for Trump, I must say that politics is politics. If a conservative judge were to pass near the end of a Democrat president's term, I'm sure they'd put a rush on to fill the seat with one of their own. I just hope that whoever gets the seat will be able to set their political differences aside and serve all.
No only is it disrespectful, but hypocrisy at it’s worst. Moscow Mitch refused to bring Obama’s last nominee to the Senate floor citing an upcoming election six months away....But now he'll rush Trumps nominee to the floor in mere weeks.
Mitch and the Republicans should tread lightly as should the Dems take the White House and Senate there’s nothing to stop them from changing the law and appointing whatever number of Justices to the Supreme Court they wish.
Remember the Constitution says nothing about the number of Justices who serve on the court and it has changed over time by passing laws in the Congress.
This is such a mess McConnell made. Merrick Garland should be on the court, and Trump should be nominating a Justice. The idea that a sitting President loses the power to nominate a Justice was un-Constitutional. The Senate should never have declined a vote on a President's nomination as outlined in the Constitution. It's arbitrary - at what point during a President's term does he/she lose nomination power? But it set a precedent that the Senate should now abide by. Mitch made his bed. We will see if Lindsay Graham keeps his word. And the worst part of this is rather than honor the legacies of Scalia and RBG, McConnell turned their passing into petty politics.
RIP RGB. She was a titan.
No only is it disrespectful, but hypocrisy at it’s worst. Moscow Mitch refused to bring Obama’s last nominee to the Senate floor citing an upcoming election six months away....But now he'll rush Trumps nominee to the floor in mere weeks.
Mitch and the Republicans should tread lightly as should the Dems take the White House and Senate there’s nothing to stop them from changing the law and appointing whatever number of Justices to the Supreme Court they wish.
Remember the Constitution says nothing about the number of Justices who serve on the court and it has changed over time by passing laws in the Congress.
Didn't Scalia die in Feb of that year? I'm guessing Obama would have had more than 6 months to have a pick prior to the election????
The lines then by hypocrites like Mitch and Graham then should remain consistent, but we all know they will speak out of the other sides of their mouths to bow to Trump, who "out of his deep religious and conservative morals & values" wants to appoint another conservative judge.
If they go through with this less than 2 months before an election, I only hope the GOP loses the Senate and Graham is ousted in South Carolina. He currently is in a very tight race for his Senate seat in deep red SC.
Didn't Scalia die in Feb of that year? I'm guessing Obama would have had more than 6 months to have a pick prior to the election????
That's correct, Obama had almost 25% of his term remaining and the GOP hadn't even picked a nominee. It was a Hail Mary by McConnell at the time, blatant obstruction and the court went a year with 8 Justices.
If McConnell and Trump are successful in putting a replacement on the bench, the Democrats should increase the size of the Supreme Court by two justices should they win congress and the presidency. They should also add Washington DC and Puerto Rico as states. If the GOP wants to play dirty politics, they shouldn't be the only ones. Hopefully at least 4 of the Republican senators who said they wouldn't confirm a justice in the exact situation have the integrity to follow through on their promise.
RIP RBG
Justices are appointed for life & they should stay for life unless there is a medical reason that makes them unable to continue. They function as the third branch of government - independent of politics, parties, & presidents - in order to ensure that justice is served. Ginsburg & Scalia understood this & conducted themselves ably & admirably.
This idea of retiring so a particular president can appoint someone he guesses will serve "his" goals isn't a completely new construct, but it's a bastardization of the constitutional purpose of the judiciary. It's also ineffective. Presidents have been surprised that "their" appointee actually did the job appropriately by looking not just to precedent, but also to legislative intent and context with a keen awareness of what is appropriate for a court to decide & what is to be done by the legislature. It's legislative laziness, overstepping, & ineptitude that most infuriates SCOTUS. Chief Justice Roberts has recently proved himself to be anything but a Republican puppet.
If a justice retires, s/he should remain silent. The worst offender in modern times was Powell who blabbed that he made mistakes in at least 2 important cases - siding w/anti-sodomy laws that had to be struck down before gay marriage could move forward and voting to uphold the death penalty even though it was being administered according to the race of the victim when he believed the death penalty should be abolished. He managed to condone racism and capital punishment by that "mistake."
McConnell is not only a stupid and cruel man, he doesn't have an iota of decency in not missing a beat before announcing his political strategy.
Doesn’t fully sit well, the early announcement of her successor being female - didn’t the VP pick either - but these are different times - I understand
whoever she might be
*am sure she’ll be well qualified
*there will be howls of protest
*& she’ll have to be ready for each & every aspect of her life picked through by a media in search of mud
meantime the debate is a week from today, shortly on the heels of the announcement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s successor
RIP Ms. Ginsburg - they had an outdoor remembrance of her over the weekend up here - likely elsewhere to in tribute to this fine woman
If they go through with this less than 2 months before an election...
And?....Is the president elected for a 4 year term or a 3 year term?.....It's politics, it is within the law and it is not unconstitutional.
If they go through with this less than 2 months before an election...
And?....Is the president elected for a 4 year term or a 3 year term?.....It's politics, it is within the law and it is not unconstitutional.
Funny how it was a different story 4 years ago when they wouldn't even hold hearings for Obama's pick 10 months before an election.
Of course expanding the size of the supreme court to 15 justices isn't unconstitutional either, so no whining from you if the Democrats decide to do that. This different rules for each party is ridiculous. At least if the court is expanded we won't have to deal with single issue voters during each election anymore.
so no whining from you if the Democrats decide to do that.
"If"....Kind of dependent on "can"...
IMO - should Biden win, Stephen Breyer (82 years old) should consider retirement. I believe that if Biden wins, he will also be a one-termer. Breyer will be 86 by the end of Biden's (first?) term.
Far from grieving or paying respects, some used the occasion to boo & jeer the president as he arrived at Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s funeral
Staining w/politics, a memorial service
THAT is what I call “No Respect for RBG”
His nominee to succeed her, ACB, “is under scrutiny for her affiliation w/a Charismatic Christian community called People of Praise” reports ABC
floodgates are open
Far from grieving or paying respects, some used the occasion to boo & jeer the president as he arrived at Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s funeral...THAT is what I call “No Respect for RBG."
Justice Ginsburg lay in repose at the top of the steps of the Supreme Court building Wednesday & Thursday. On Friday, she was moved to the Capitol where she was both the first woman & first Jew to lie in state.
When Trump & the First Lady paid their respects on Thursday, there was disrespectful political jeering. I find that appalling. For once, Trump wore a mask, remained silent, and when asked if he heard the jeers, said no. That may have been the best 2 minutes of his presidency.
If they go through with this less than 2 months before an election...
And?....Is the president elected for a 4 year term or a 3 year term?.....It's politics, it is within the law and it is not unconstitutional.
Funny how it was a different story 4 years ago when they wouldn't even hold hearings for Obama's pick 10 months before an election.
Of course expanding the size of the supreme court to 15 justices isn't unconstitutional either, so no whining from you if the Democrats decide to do that. This different rules for each party is ridiculous. At least if the court is expanded we won't have to deal with single issue voters during each election anymore.
Beyond single issue voters, expansion of the court, if done in a particular manner, depoliticizes the appointment process even further by removing some of the uncertainty of when a particular justice may retire, leave the court, etc...
Frankly I've always been curious as to why we ever allowed life time terms for justices anyway. And I get the whole concept that lifetime terms was an attempt to avoid the politicization of the court, but surely those who implemented such rules must have realized there were better ways to achieve this.
The Court wasn't as politicized until that past few decades, probably from the Bork nomination on. SCOTUS nominations could still be polarizing, but the wheels still turned. McConnell's refusal to even review the Garland nomination in 2016, leaving the seat open for over a year and obstructing basic checks and balances, was unprecedented. It wasn't un-Constitutional in the letter but in the spirit because no one had ever thought to disregard the process entirely. And the reason they cited was empty - voters had spoken and Obama nominated Garland.
It's only relatively recently that nominees have been regularly interviewed by the committee. In 1955 John Harlan's nomination was briefly delayed, and then grilled by Senators opposed to desegregation. But he was still voted on and approved. The wheels turned, Nixon had 2 anti-desegregation jurists rejected by the Senate. Harriet Miers was going to receive a vote in 2006 even though she was woefully unqualified and had never even served as a judge. Meanwhile, Ginsberg was the first nomination by a Democratic President in 30 years, and the court carried on. Republican Senators' attempt to stack the court in a conservative majority shouldn't matter so long as the President is nominating legit jurists. However, Trump has a history of calling judges "his", which should be insulting to anyone sitting on the bench and a red flag for anyone scrutinizing his nominees.
Frankly I've always been curious as to why we ever allowed life time terms for justices anyway. And I get the whole concept that lifetime terms was an attempt to avoid the politicization of the court, but surely those who implemented such rules must have realized there were better ways to achieve thi
The court is the check on the other two branches of government - both of which have the potential to change casts every 2-8 years. Lifetime appointments ensure that it is immune to political influence both self-imposed by a justice to accomplish personal goals by a deadline or theoretical loyalty to their appointer who will be out of office while they remain on the bench.
No one can predict lifespan or mental capacity. The argument that modern longevity is longer than that of the founders is contradicted by the fact that one-third of them lived to be be over 80 w/John Adams dying at age 90.
I understand the underlying concept of lifetime appointments I just think there were possibly better ways to shield the court and by extension the justices themselves from politicization.
For example limited terms staggered to the point that each president is allowed two appointments regardless of whether an appointment dies, retires, etc...
No, you don't understand the reason if you're suggesting that a justice will have a finite period in which to accomplish his/her goals. That turns a justice into a political rather judicial creature. Kudos to you for "knowing better ways" than Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, both Adams, & Jay.
A justice shouldn't have goals. A justice should rule on cases put before them without prejudice or goals.
The LIFETIME appointment of a SCOTUS Judge has always perplexed me. Nobody in any career should expect or even attempt this. Hell, college football coaches have been FORCED to retire (see Vince Dooley). At some point - like/accept it or not - we ALL begin to slip and slide mentally.
Beyond that, it puts ones own political party and ideals in jeopardy. The current makeup of the POTUS is about to take a very hard list to the right if Trump manages to get his nominee. As much as I dislike Trump and his appointee - it seems that he is within his right to do so. Biden, himself acknowledges this in his, "just because you can don't make it right" statement.
Ruth (God bless and rest her soul) should've stepped down during one of Obama's terms - allowing for a replacement with similar sensitivities and fewer birthdays. Should Trump prevail with his nomination - AND get reelected, the court is going to be totally wopsided for the next several decades.
Of the three "liberal" judges remaining, Stephen Breyer is 82. Should Biden win, he really should consider retirement. If Trump wins ...
I give my reasons above why justices are appointed for life as long as there is no medical reason for retirement.
Your idea that justices of the same political party as the president collude w/him to ensure that another member of that party is appointed contradicts the purpose of the judiciary - to be a constant over decades when the other two branches are changing casts every 2-8 years. Realistically, there is nothing to ensure that such collusion would result in your proposed results - Garland is an example of that. There was absolutely no reason he couldn't have had a hearing, approval, and be seated, but the renegade legislative branch didn't let that happen. So, not only is your recommendation unconstitutional, it's ineffective.
The best course now is one justice at a time. Let's get a 9th justice seated. I hold some doubt that it will be Trump's nominee. IMO, she's a joke that Trump is playing - a nominee he's been "saving for Ginsburg." To me, that says 'let me find the farthest person from the brilliant, superbly educated, Jewish intellectual that has elevated the court for decades & see if the senate falls for it.'
No, you don't understand the reason if you're suggesting that a justice will have a finite period in which to accomplish his/her goals. That turns a justice into a political rather judicial creature. Kudos to you for "knowing better ways" than Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Franklin, both Adams, & Jay.
No need to get snotty about it. Just because some of the founding fathers were very smart people doesn’t mean they were infallible and always made the best decisions. It’s merely my opinion that there were/are POSSIBLY better ways to organize the third branch of our federal government.
They may even have agreed with my opinion given they built into the Constitution means by which to change the government into the future. Much has been written by historians and the founders themselves about the difficult and sometimes acrimonious process of creating and ratifying the constitution. For all we really know maybe lifetime terms was a compromise and not the only idea considered.
Now, I’m not a constitutional scholar so if you have more insight into the actual proceedings and debate that led to the lifetime appointment structure and maybe other alternatives considered, I would respectfully like to hear it.
I’m no John Adams after all.. 
