Justice Ginsburg died today

[Pb]

Well this is certainly interesting...

Nancy Pelosi is threatening to bring an impeachment action against President Trump...

As a move to stop the Supreme Court nomination process.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dems-impeachment-supreme-court

WT Flying F???

Is she stupid enough to do this?  I hope so!   

[Ben]

Well this is certainly interesting...

Nancy Pelosi is threatening to bring an impeachment action against President Trump...

As a move to stop the Supreme Court nomination process.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dems-impeachment-supreme-court

WT Flying F???

With the preface that I obviously will prefer a Trump nominee to a Biden nominee, I can't help but shake my head at both parties and how they conveniently embrace the constitution, or disregard the constitution, to suit themselves.

While yes, an R admin and R senate are different than a D admin and R senate, the Rs were still pushing against an Obama nominee in his last year while fighting for a Trump nominee in his last few months (of this term). And of course the dems are also flip flopping in the opposite direction.

Hopefully I'm not making a liar out of myself, but I'm pretty sure that my view during Garland was that Obama should be able to nominate him, and the R majority senate then had the ability to say no. I don't think I was in favor of the "Obama will be out of office next year" argument.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg actually said it best in 2016: "A President serves four years, not three." A President should be able to execute the role of his office until his last day in office.

[makattak]

With the preface that I obviously will prefer a Trump nominee to a Biden nominee, I can't help but shake my head at both parties and how they conveniently embrace the constitution, or disregard the constitution, to suit themselves.

While yes, an R admin and R senate are different than a D admin and R senate, the Rs were still pushing against an Obama nominee in his last year while fighting for a Trump nominee in his last few months (of this term). And of course the dems are also flip flopping in the opposite direction.

Hopefully I'm not making a liar out of myself, but I'm pretty sure that my view during Garland was that Obama should be able to nominate him, and the R majority senate then had the ability to say no. I don't think I was in favor of the "Obama will be out of office next year" argument.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg actually said it best in 2016: "A President serves four years, not three." A President should be able to execute the role of his office until his last day in office.

All the cries of hypocrisy are hollow. It's all politics and anyone who is even the slightest bit aware knows it's all politics.

I don't want the Supreme Court having the kind of power it wields, but it does. As a result, I want to make sure people who don't hate me or at least don't want me dead are the ones controlling it.

[Pb]

All the cries of hypocrisy are hollow. It's all politics and anyone who is even the slightest bit aware knows it's all politics.

I don't want the Supreme Court having the kind of power it wields, but it does. As a result, I want to make sure people who don't hate me or at least don't want me dead are the ones controlling it.

Yes.

[Perd Hapley]

With the preface that I obviously will prefer a Trump nominee to a Biden nominee, I can't help but shake my head at both parties and how they conveniently embrace the constitution, or disregard the constitution, to suit themselves.

While yes, an R admin and R senate are different than a D admin and R senate, the Rs were still pushing against an Obama nominee in his last year while fighting for a Trump nominee in his last few months (of this term). And of course the dems are also flip flopping in the opposite direction.

Hopefully I'm not making a liar out of myself, but I'm pretty sure that my view during Garland was that Obama should be able to nominate him, and the R majority senate then had the ability to say no. I don't think I was in favor of the "Obama will be out of office next year" argument.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg actually said it best in 2016: "A President serves four years, not three." A President should be able to execute the role of his office until his last day in office.

Huh? Obama did nominate him. The Senate declined to consent.

[Ben]

Huh? Obama did nominate him. The Senate declined to consent.

I know, but "decline to consent" is kinda wishy washy. Hold the hearings then take a vote. Which is what most here at APS want done right now for their guy (gal). Unless everybody here would be cool with "decline to consent" if the current senate had a D majority.

[Ron]

Im fine with the rejection of a hearing for Garland.

I'm fine with ramming an originalst conservative judge through before the election.

The leftists are not fine people we just disagree with.

They fundamentally oppose the United States as it stands and are actively working to supplant the majority heritage population.

This is blood sport and being nice will get you nothing but the destruction of the American way.

[MillCreek]

They fundamentally oppose the United States as it stands and are actively working to supplant the majority heritage population.

Is this your code for 'America is for Anglo-Saxon whites only'?  It certainly comes across that way.

[Ron]

Is this your code for 'America is for Anglo-Saxon whites only'?  It certainly comes across that way.

It's pragmatism MillCreek.

If you continue to flood the country with foreigners you will have a permanent Democrat majority.

There is not one single group of immigrants that doesn't vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, NOT ONE. Even several generations later their voting patterns are Democrat. I'm pretty sure even the Irish, Italians and Poles are still majority Democrat.

Massive immigration is the way empires are destroyed and collapse.

We may not want to be tribalistic but we are increasingly surrounded by those who are, wake up.

[Perd Hapley]

I know, but "decline to consent" is kinda wishy washy. Hold the hearings then take a vote. Which is what most here at APS want done right now for their guy (gal). Unless everybody here would be cool with "decline to consent" if the current senate had a D majority.

I'm pretty sure a refusal to even hold a vote is the farthest thing from wishy-washy. It's a very firm no. Also, you make a distinction without a difference, especially where the constitution is concerned. Goodness knows I could be wrong, but I don't think there's any rule stating the Senate must hold hearings. It says the President "shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court..." Barack Obama nominated a candidate which failed to receive "the Consent of the Senate." He could have nominated someone further to the right than Garland, but he thought he'd be better off trying to pressure the Senate into caving. He chose poorly.

[Ben]

I used to respect Jonah Goldberg's opinion on stuff, but he has become just one example of Republican TDS. This is not the first I have read over the last few days of people you would have considered "staunch republicans" that would now rather have a left wing justice chosen by Biden instead of a conservative justice they would otherwise sing the praises of, except that Trump appointed them. Talk about "shoot yourself in the foot" syndrome.

https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2020/09/21/jonah-goldberg-proposes-a-deal-democrats-could-make-to-prevent-rbgs-replacement-before-the-election/

[sumpnz]

And note that Obama failed to make the nomination based the advice of the Senate.  

The refusal to give a committee hearing or floor vote is pretty clear advice they won't consent to the nomination.

[WLJ]

 

Ninth Circuit Court Overturns Death Of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
https://babylonbee.com/news/ninth-circuit-court-overturns-death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg

Genius Trump Nominates Joe Biden To Supreme Court Forcing Dems To Accuse Him Of Sexual Assault
https://babylonbee.com/news/genius-trump-nominates-joe-biden-to-supreme-court

[Andiron]

Is this your code for 'America is for Anglo-Saxon whites only'?  It certainly comes across that way.

Call it what they do.  White.  Which is what this country was, prior to opening the floodgates of immigration to the 3rd world.

The majority of the legal and illegal immigrants swamping our country are not compatible with our native, Western society.  It's time to stop pretending that "diversity" in the way the left couches it is a good thing.

The old staggered approach to immigration worked. Allow a set number in,  close the doors,  allow those to assimilate.  Repeat every couple of decades.

[Ron]

Is this your code for 'America is for Anglo-Saxon whites only'?  It certainly comes across that way.

Not to mention the left has made it abundantly clear that demographically changing the USA is part of their plan.

Every year we get stories on the news about what year the white Americans will finally become a minority majority in the country. They can't wait.

They are telling us the plan and yet here we are, arguing about whether flooding your country with not-Americans who oppose it's ideals and founding principles is a good idea or not.

 

[Perd Hapley]

Is this your code for 'America is for Anglo-Saxon whites only'?  It certainly comes across that way.

I don't care, and neither should you. We should stop behaving as if white racism is a significant problem in this country. It's not. We should stop caring whether someone on our side says something that sounds racisty. We're all racists so far as the other side is concerned, so why worry?

Hey, it's not easy for me to stop caring, either. But I plan to.

[sumpnz]

I don't care, and neither should you. We should stop behaving as if white racism is a significant problem in this country. It's not. We should stop caring whether someone on our side says something that sounds racisty. We're all racists so far as the other side is concerned, so why worry?

Hey, it's not easy for me to stop caring, either. But I plan to.

[Ron]

We don't have to beat the immigration issue and Ron is a white supremacist issue to death in this thread about The Notorious RGB. We all know I believe western civilization is superior to our other options. We also know western civilization has been primarily a white man project so ipso facto Ron is a white supremacist. It's a neat rhetorical trick, I'm sure if I looked into it there is a name for the fallacy in the formulation. I'm not going to devote the time to thinking it through because I just don't care. 

There is a reason I left the quotes I have in my signature there for so many years.

We all live in various states of cog dis about many things in our lives. The facts are right there in front of our faces but we don't want to believe it is true. Or we reject out of hand a presupposition because we know the natural outworking of that presupposition will be uncomfortable for us and require a change.

If somebody can convince me I'm wrong about the goals of the leftists and the end result of unfettered immigration please start a thread and enlighten me. Same goes with for the tribal nature of groups (ethnicity,race,ideology). I would love to be wrong but from my observations I'm sadly seeing things as they really are, not as I wish them to be.

[WLJ]

Been protests at Mitch McConnell's house here in town.

[Ben]

I just heard it on the radio, but I'm sure it's over the interwebz by now, but I heard a clip of Mitt Romney, who has (surprisingly to me) said that he will absolutely vote on a nominee because Trump is following the Constitution.

[K Frame]

I just heard it on the radio, but I'm sure it's over the interwebz by now, but I heard a clip of Mitt Romney, who has (surprisingly to me) said that he will absolutely vote on a nominee because Trump is following the Constitution.

Crap, I just posted that in a separate thread. Should have put it here. It came through my Fox app on my phone, but I can't find it yet on Foxnews.com

[RocketMan]

Yes, Mitt Romney will vote on a nominee, but he will vote against.  He's playing the issue both ways.

[MechAg94]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_0qMu8b8hQ
McConnell TORCHES Dems For Threatening to Destroy the Country to Stop Next SCOTUS Confirmation

The main thing to remember is that when the Senate majority and the President are not from the same party, rejecting a late term nominee is typical.  When they are both the same party, approving a late term nominee is also typical.  The traditional thing to do was to reject Garland.  The traditional thing to do is approve Trump's nominee now.  

[DittoHead]

The traditional thing to do was to reject Garland.  The traditional thing to do is approve Trump's nominee now.  

The tradition is window dressing, cover to hide behind for politicians who are too scared to admit they are using the power of their majority to do what they want.
It can (and will) be discarded when convenient.

All the cries of hypocrisy are hollow. It's all politics and anyone who is even the slightest bit aware knows it's all politics.

[makattak]

The tradition is window dressing, cover to hide behind for politicians who are too scared to admit they are using the power of their majority to do what they want.
It can (and will) be discarded when convenient.

At one point, there were traditions and deference that governed our institutions.

Even while the left was shredding them, the right still observed them. Look at the battles over Judge Bork and Justice Thomas. Look, shortly afterward at the votes over Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer. (Also note that I didn't characterize them as "battles". And there's a reason for that.)

The right TRIED to continue the tradition of deference to the executive and a simple requirement of the appointee being qualified. They EVEN PURSUED the tack of forgiving the first breakS from tradition instead of an immediate Tit for Tat strategy.

What did the left do? Took that as weakness and forged further ahead. Now we have idiots OSTENSIBLY on the right, like that moron David French, pulling "BOTH SIDES!!1!!1!1eleventy!!!" crap.

No. One side tried to pursue tradition and comity in the face of the other breaking them. You want the old order back? The AGGRESSORS (the left) have to fall back and give up ground that they have taken. Otherwise, there is absolutely no reason to trust the left.