Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies At 87

Grimscale · Sep 19, 2020

Here's the thing...
If Trump DOESN'T nominate, I will see it as a political ploy to try to garner votes. I'm tired of these political games.

I want to see a nomination before the end of this coming week.

Then McConnell needs to fast-track the vote.

This will actually HELP Trump, since it will clearly demonstrate the lengths the Democrats will go toward rigging the election. They will want Biden in there so they can "pack the Court".
And such attempts to cheat the election and, if they steal it, pack the Court will be further evidence of the breakdown of Society.

At that point... Civil War. It will push the otherwise law-abiding Conservatives over the edge.

Drinkthekoolaid · Sep 19, 2020

Dr. Evil said:
Nothing personal but fuck her "Dying 'Instructions'." What does that have to do with the price of butter in India? Again, liberals operate on NOTHING but emotion.

I don't care about an entitled activist judge idealogues wishes.

I care about the constitution and following it.

Calculon · Sep 19, 2020

Let’s get this party started one way or another. Nominate.

Dr. Evil · Sep 19, 2020

Lets not forget- you just don't suddenly die of Metastatic Pancreatic cancer. She has been in hospice for at least a few months, refusing to resign and give time for Trump to nominate a successor. This is not an example of an impartial jurist, these are the actions of a politician.

Dr. Evil · Sep 19, 2020

spat · Sep 19, 2020

Jchrisls said:
Just read that the average number of days from nomination to appointment puts any possible new SCOTUS candidate past the election date. Can't remember exactly how many days, but all well past 40 days. I wonder how this plays out overall. Some here could help educate ( knowledgeable in process) -
If the nomination confirming process begins before the election, Republicans would obviously choose a conservative justice.
Process underway. Currently Republicans hold the Senate (obviously).
Election day happens.
Devil's advocate scenario.
Republicans lose control of the Senate ( a distinct possibility)
Democrats take control of the Senate.
Original Scotus nominee rejected .

Is this a potentially real scenario?
If so, this could go soooooo many different ways dependent the presidential election.

Looking for an honest answer, factually speaking.

Even if they don’t get it done by the election, power doesn’t change hands in November. They still have plenty of time.

Dr. Evil · Sep 19, 2020

livingston said:
Obama Statement on Ginsburg Demands GOP Senate Honors Her Dying ‘Instructions’ and Put Off Vote on Supreme Court Nominee Until New President Sworn In
Former President Barack Obama issued a statement late Friday night on the passing of Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The statement was posted to the online site Medium.

In the statement, Obama demanded the Republican controlled Senate not vote on any replacement for Ginsburg until a new president is sworn following the November presidential election. Obama cited his failed 2016 nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to back up his support for Ginsburg’s reported dying “instructions” that her replacement be nominated by a new president (“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”)

Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.

A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process.

Post from a friend of mine:

Her dying wish means NOTHING to the court of law and it doesn't go by that. What about the DYING wish of all the babies aborted? What about their dying wish? Want to go there I can come up with a lot of people that had dying wishes that I bet would not be something that they want to honor... Benghazi anyone?

Briwesk85 · Sep 19, 2020

Cooolone said:
Schumer is such a schmuck!!!

The American people so have a voice, and there is a currently established Senate representing that voice! But see, politicians talking out of the side of their mouths... What he really means to say is, we want what is expected to be a democratic party nomination yo select the next justice following the November election and those senators then taking their positions.

Sorry Charlie, it's not really up to you now is it? Go play in traffic blindfolded already...

Schmuck!

I think that is the exact quote that Mitch said back in 2016 when Obama wanted to appoint a new justice, but the republicans pushed and said no vote if Obama did. Mitch set up a precedence that’s going to look bad for himself and the Republican Party.

dsdmmat · Sep 19, 2020

Briwesk85 said:
I think that is the exact quote that Mitch said back in 2016 when Obama wanted to appoint a new justice, but the republicans pushed and said no vote if Obama did. Mitch set up a precedence that’s going to look bad for himself and the Republican Party.

Not quite, Mitch also said on the subject, you have to go back to the 1880s to see a justice confirmed when the senate and the Presidency was controlled by different parties. Schumer would have pushed through Obama’s pick had he been in charge.

garyv350 · Sep 19, 2020

Briwesk85 said:
I think that is the exact quote that Mitch said back in 2016 when Obama wanted to appoint a new justice, but the republicans pushed and said no vote if Obama did. Mitch set up a precedence that’s going to look bad for himself and the Republican Party.

Obama was a lame duck. That's why he did what he did.

Cooolone · Sep 19, 2020

Blimey said:
I really want Trump to push a replacement. He is president and has the senate. Get it done.

Totally on point and perfectly explained!

Make it clear, pre or post election, THIS President and THIS Senate is going to place the SCOTUS Justice, period! Like it or not, that's what's happening!

So vote whether you like what's being done, or for retribution of what might be coming with a Democratic POTUS and Congress (both houses)...

But make it clear, this is going to happen! I guess they forget, and it should be said, that VOTERS knew SCOTUS and many Federal judges would be replaced during Trump's administration and this WAS and IS why he received their vote!

Hope these idiots do not waste this opportunity like they did the first 2 years... Fuckers!

Drinkthekoolaid · Sep 19, 2020

garyv350 said:
Obama was a lame duck. That's why he did what he did.

And the left genuinely thought 95% chance it would be Hillary's pick. The wanted the optic of "first female chosen SCOTUS justice to parade around

Blimey · Sep 19, 2020

Drinkthekoolaid said:
And the left genuinely thought 95% chance it would be Hillary's pick. The wanted the optic of "first female chosen SCOTUS justice to parade around

If Harris--I mean Biden wins, they still may get it.

Blimey · Sep 19, 2020

Edwardteach72 said:
How long did the Kavanaugh appointment get dragged out?

But isn't that because the republicans humored them?

I can't find out how quickly the senate actually CAN get this done if they are truly motivated to do it within, say, 30 days.

Cooolone · Sep 19, 2020

70 days has been the typical vetting before the vote! There's 40 between now and election(?)... So it would be unprecedented to get it done! Add to it the Covid hysteria and limitations... I think it's doubtful!

But that said, it doesn't mean it can't be used... Good or bad, it was a very prominent tool smoldering just under the surface in the 16' election to those of us voters who understood the gravity of the election beyond the surface glimmer and glitz!

Blimey · Sep 19, 2020

Drinkthekoolaid said:
I don't care about an entitled activist judge idealogues wishes.

I care about the constitution and following it.

You mean you don't think literally a country's supreme court should be put on hold (no tie-breaker) because of somebody's dying wishes?

Dr. Evil said:
Lets not forget- you just don't suddenly die of Metastatic Pancreatic cancer. She has been in hospice for at least a few months, refusing to resign and give time for Trump to nominate a successor. This is not an example of an impartial jurist, these are the actions of a politician.

Forgot about that. She knew back in 2015 she was unhealthy, but she's really been dragging it out something fierce lately, desperately trying to hold on until January 2021. Fuck that.

Cooolone · Sep 19, 2020

Blimey said:
You mean you don't think literally a country's supreme court should be put on hold (no tie-breaker) because of somebody's dying wishes?
Forgot about that. She knew back in 2015 she was unhealthy, but she's really been dragging it out something fierce lately, desperately trying to hold on until January 2021. Fuck that.

There is precedent for 6 justices as it is what the court had at one time... Just saying! Lol. Decisions would still require a majority (4-2) vote to change anything. And I'm not totally enamored with the thought process of contemporary Judicial Politics that it's the "one" vote that makes the decision on things. But regardless, I think it's important to get it done, and get it done before the election if not then, end of this year (or Jan. 20, 2021).

BuffNiag · Sep 19, 2020

Cooolone said:
70 days has been the typical vetting before the vote! There's 40 between now and election(?)... So it would be unprecedented to get it done! Add to it the Covid hysteria and limitations... I think it's doubtful!

But that said, it doesn't mean it can't be used... Good or bad, it was a very prominent tool smoldering just under the surface in the 16' election to those of us voters who understood the gravity of the election beyond the surface glimmer and glitz!

That's the average time. It's been done in far less time.

Cooolone · Sep 19, 2020

BuffNiag said:
That's the average time. It's been done in far less time.

I did say "typical" should have said "average"? Semantics ... pOtatoe, potAtoe... Lmao

Interestingly, RGB was the shortest vote with it being done in just 42 days... So that should be emphasized, lol, that it would be appropriate to replace her in the same manner in which she was placed upon the court!

Dr. Evil · Sep 19, 2020

Blimey said:
If Harris--I mean Biden wins, they still may get it.

Back to not like. :banghead:

Cooolone · Sep 19, 2020

Dr. Evil said:
Back to not like.

Lol...

Elwood · Sep 19, 2020

MikeyCNY said:
View attachment 88093

The best one, when you zoom in is,
“Will someone please invade us “ :ROFL:

spat · Sep 19, 2020

Cooolone said:
There is precedent for 6 justices as it is what the court had at one time... Just saying! Lol. Decisions would still require a majority (4-2) vote to change anything. And I'm not totally enamored with the thought process of contemporary Judicial Politics that it's the "one" vote that makes the decision on things. But regardless, I think it's important to get it done, and get it done before the election if not then, end of this year (or Jan. 20, 2021).

With a 3-5 vote required to overturn a lower court ruling, we would have the lower courts deciding the election.

What is the makeup of the federal courts presiding over the major swing states ?

That would also lead to possibly divergent rulings for different states.

Celt · Sep 19, 2020

Briwesk85 said:
I think that is the exact quote that Mitch said back in 2016 when Obama wanted to appoint a new justice, but the republicans pushed and said no vote if Obama did. Mitch set up a precedence that’s going to look bad for himself and the Republican Party.

Youre misunderstanding the situation. I posted an article on page 9 that covers that.

The senate hasnt confirmed a nominee of the opposite party since the 1880s, that is different that confirming a nominee of the same party. He didnt set any precedent in 2016.

kev74 · Sep 19, 2020

The President has to nominate someone for appointment. The Senate has to confirm the nomination.

There is no reason this process has to take 3 months. If McConnell can do his job and get this on the floor for a vote in a timely fashion -without all the nonsense and foot-dragging he permitted during Gorsuch and Kavanaugh's hearings, our biggest concern will be the flood of liberal tears that will follow.

livingston · Sep 19, 2020

GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski announces she will NOT vote to replace RBG on SCOTUS until after Election Day, saying, "fair is fair."
— Stephanie Myers (@_StephanieMyers) September 19, 2020

Fair is not in a liberals vocabulary .... Why the hell are we worried about it on such an important issue. Fair.. they tried to overthrow the president... Half of them should be hung for sedition .

dwa12479 · Sep 19, 2020

Chevusa said:
Trump can fire another one in now, he has the Senate, but cities will burn if he tries.

Cities are already burning, what's a few more fires?

ArmedCorgi · Sep 19, 2020

livingston said:
GOP Senator Lisa Murkowski announces she will NOT vote to replace RBG on SCOTUS until after Election Day, saying, "fair is fair."
— Stephanie Myers (@_StephanieMyers) September 19, 2020

Fair is not in a liberals vocabulary .... Why the hell are we worried about it on such an important issue. Fair.. they tried to overthrow the president... Half of them should be hung for sedition .

She needs to be replaced.

pjzwtl · Sep 19, 2020

One thing is for sure, win or loose the rino senators pulling back over a tight election will be free after 11/3 win or loose my $ is on Trump filling the seat... win or loose himself

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies At 87

.338 Win Mag

.475 A&M Magnum

.308 Win

20×102mm Vulcan

20×102mm Vulcan

.700 Nitro Express

20×102mm Vulcan

.40 S&W

Donut Master

.357 mag

.338 Win Mag

.475 A&M Magnum

.475 A&M Magnum

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.338 Win Mag

.450/400 Nitro Ex

.338 Win Mag

6.5 Creedmoor

.338 Win Mag

20×102mm Vulcan

.338 Win Mag

.223 Rem

.700 Nitro Express

.338 Win Mag

20×102mm Vulcan

20×102mm Vulcan

.338 Win Mag

.475 A&M Magnum

.308 Win