R.I.P. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away today from complications of pancreatic cancer.

Ginsburg had experienced a series of health issues. In July she disclosed she had a recurrence of cancer after bouts with pancreatic cancer in 2019 and 2009. She also survived bouts with lung cancer in 2018 and colon cancer in 1999.

Tonight is the beginning of Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. According to Jewish wisdom (called Midrash), a person who dies on Rosh Hashanah is a tzaddik, a person of great righteousness and justice.

when a tzaddik departs, then the "glory (hod), splendor (ziv), and beauty (hadar)" that infuse his being accompany him as he moves on. There is a profound feeling of gratitude for the gifts the tzaddik bestowed upon the community while he was present. At the same time, there is an unavoidable and genuine sense of loss that marks his departure.

The politics of replacement have already begun. But for today, let us all remember she was indeed a Champion of Justice. May she rest in peace.

< Giuliani's Golfer Son Wants to Run for Mayor of New York | Breonna Taylor Grand Jury Protests >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    RBG (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 19, 2020 at 07:46:58 AM EST
    definitely was a giant in a court of many small people. My condolences are with her family at this time.

    A very great lady has passed. (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Sep 19, 2020 at 08:21:23 PM EST
    זכר צדיק לברכה. Zekher tzadik livrakha. May the memory of the righteous be a blessing.

    Fake Final requests (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by CaptHowdy on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 11:33:10 AM EST
    "I don't know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff and Schumer and Pelosi. I would be more inclined to the second... But that sounds like a Schumer deal or maybe a Pelosi or Shifty Schiff."

    What disgrace this person is


    Trump is one of those (none / 0) (#48)
    by leap on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 12:42:49 PM EST
    disgusting people with whom he doesn't want to shake hands.

    Trump and the Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 05:12:59 PM EST
    seem determined to undermine the credibility of yet another institution, the Supreme Court. But, such blatant action is not without the risk of undesired consequences.

     A Court widely viewed as driven by right-wing extremists who are unimpeded in the implementation of their positions (e.g. Judge Amy Coney Barrett-- who believe that paper money, West Virginia, Social Security and Medicare may be unconstitutional or are dead set on reversing popular positions--legal abortion, health care, marriage equality)is one that invites reform and restoration.

    Jurisdiction stripping that insulates statutes from judicial review or transfer of authority to state jurisdictions are possibilities.

     Article III states "the judicial power of the US shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as congress may from time to time ordained and establish."

     While cases that fall under the Court's original jurisdiction (cases heard for the first time) are the purview of the Supreme Court, Congress can limit appellate jurisdiction at its discretion.  The Supreme Court would wind up with not much to do, if that were to be the case.

    And, too, the number of Supreme Court justices could be increased, say to 15 from the present 9, along with an increase in Circuit Courts---moving current judges around and adding more, thereby diluting out some of the young right wing judges put in place by Trump and Mitch.

    Some suggest term limits, say of 18 years, but that seems, in my reading, to require a Constitutional Amendment.

    The Republicans, ironically, are looking to the Courts to do their legislating, since they realize that their minority is unlikely to continue to be able to govern a democracy.  Their alternative, is to jettisons notions of a democracy.

    The legitimacy of the courts (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 05:45:50 PM EST
    is at stake and I think it gives Biden a very strong argument for adding 6 justices.

    I don't understand how six could be justified (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 05:49:56 PM EST
    Adding four negates the two stolen seats. And even that is a tough sell.

    Yes, it would (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by KeysDan on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 09:25:40 PM EST
    be a hard sell.  At this point, some Democrats, such as Senator. Feinstein, have not warmed to the idea of Court reform.  However, that may change after the election.

    The Supreme Court has been nine-membered since 1869 with more and less members prior to that time.  And, the population of the country in 1869 was about 39 million across 33 states it is now about 328 million. FDR allowed the number of six additional members to arise in his attempt to enlarge the Court.   The appellate courts could be increased to match the suggested increase in the number of SC members, 15

    I think these statistics, along with the diversity of the population and societal complexities readily rationalize an increase of six justices.


    I prefer to cross that particular bridge ... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 25, 2020 at 04:02:24 PM EST
    ... when we actually get there. Right now, we have an election to win and win big. Because if we don't, any further such discussion is rendered moot.

    Agreed. (none / 0) (#93)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 01:27:41 PM EST
    Winning the election big is fundamental.  However, winning and discussion, at this point of possible correctives  for Trump's naked packing of the Supreme Court may not be unrelated.

    This is great (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 25, 2020 at 10:30:14 AM EST
    One man walked up to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's casket in the U.S. Capitol and started doing push-ups as he paid his respects.

    It was her trainer, Bryant Johnson, the New York Times reports.


    that is so beautiful (none / 0) (#88)
    by leap on Fri Sep 25, 2020 at 01:04:33 PM EST
    Thank you.

    Not convinced this is anything but a wash (2.33 / 3) (#11)
    by ragebot on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 11:13:21 AM EST
    I agree with Capt that ACB is the most likely choice but there are others in consideration.  It would not shock me if Bridget Bade is the nomination.  She is a solid conservative who got a 78-21 vote to the 9th Circuit.  It is not easy for all the senators who voted for her to justify changing their minds.

    While there are certainly downsides for the pubs there are downsides for the dems as well.  Well before he was elected Trump released his list of potential nominations for the SC while Biden still has not.  Trump benefited from releasing the list because the names were very popular with his base.  The problem for Biden is if he does release a list if there are too many moderates on it the AOC fanboys will be unhappy and if he placates the AOC fanboys the moderate swing voters will be unhappy.

    Since Harris will be a questioner when/if there are hearings she can't come across as too mean to avoid making the moderate swing voters unhappy but she can't come across as to namby pamby or the AOC crowd won't be happy.

    Already high profile dems are floating the idea that if they win packing the court and impeaching Trump's two successful nominations to the SC will be on the agenda; not to mention the crazy crowd that has publicly threatened to burn it down.

    Maybe the biggest downside for the dems is Biden will be pressured to answer questions about it and no doubt Trump will press him about his list in the first debate.  So far Biden has basically only been asked softball questions by the press and at times has seemed out of it.  Another embarrassing question for Biden will be court packing; something he will no doubt be asked about.  While both Biden and Harris have disavowed what ever the current term is for "fiery but peaceful protests" if the crazy crowd has more of the fiery but peaceful protest both will be grilled again about disavowing them.

    The bottom line for me is that Trump was already being bashed for SC nominations so the recent stuff is somewhat akin to piling on. I am not sure how many minds his trying to replace Ginsburg will change.  There are already talking heads saying a 6-3 conservative SC is worth losing the senate and presidency.

    In any case my prediction is that the confirmation vote will be after the election but before Kelly is sworn in with a lame duck Collins voting to confirm.

    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 12:11:29 PM EST
    The major downside is for the GOP especially because they look like idiots 4 short years ago saying they couldn't even vote on Garland.

    The GOP promised them in 2016 they would get everything they wanted if they voted GOP and they got 2 judges and yet they got very little judicially they wanted. For the Dems there is no downside simply because if this person gets on the court, Biden will promptly add a number of liberal judges and what the GOP is promising that judges are going to deliver is only supported by 1/3 of the country. Latest polling has 9% of Americans having confidence in Trump.  

    And in the Kavanaugh hearings it was Kavanaugh that had the drunken meltdown not Harris or any of the senators. They were calmly questioning an apparently mentally unstable candidate. But at least we finally know why he had the meltdown from Woodward. LOL.


    "AOC" on the brain (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 09:47:21 PM EST
    It is fascinating to see the Republicans' obsession with "AOC."  

     They do love acronyms, and love to hate women politicians, let alone a woman of color.  

    Riddle me this, batman:  Why do they not hate/fear Bernie as much as "AOC?"  Is he not as progressive or Left?

    Why, I think we all know the answer.



    Bernie is the past (none / 0) (#40)
    by ragebot on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 10:12:24 PM EST
    AOC is the present and future.  

    Not as of the start of this year (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 10:16:18 PM EST
    Your obsession with her began before then.

    Ted Yoho (none / 0) (#42)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 10:36:44 PM EST
    just had to try to bully "AOC."



    Scott Perry (none / 0) (#43)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 08:00:17 AM EST
    here in the PA 10th has been running ads against AOC. I didn't know she was running  here.

    Did you miss the latest redistricting, ChuckO? (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by Peter G on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 09:07:00 AM EST
    South-Central PA is now part of the Bronx.

    Oh Peter if that were only true. (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by Chuck0 on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 09:26:38 AM EST
    Then maybe I could get a decent bagel or slice of pizza.

    Hold (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by FlJoe on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 10:31:57 AM EST
    the anarchys please
    New York City is one of three places that "have permitted violence and destruction of property to persist and have refused to undertake reasonable measures to counteract criminal activities," leading to its designation as an "anarchist jurisdiction," the Justice Department said Monday.

    Hmm, I could actually believe (none / 0) (#69)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 06:54:48 PM EST
    that not knowing all that much about the East Coast....

    Biden's Vulnerability (2.00 / 3) (#53)
    by RickyJim on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 10:57:58 AM EST
    Every time he opens his mouth and sputters nonsense, he loses part of his case against Trump.  Yes, I know Trump does it far more but such a subtlety may be lost on many voters.

    Biden's vulnerability (1.67 / 3) (#54)
    by ragebot on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 12:02:55 PM EST
    is the lack of substance.  He just refused to release his list of SC nominees; something Trump did greatly to his benefit.

    The problem for Biden is that he is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea.  If his list, or his position on SC packing, or fracking/green new deal, or a host of other issues is too conservative it will anger the AOC faction and if it is too liberal it will destroy his claim that he is a moderate Democrat.  Does anyone think AOC's Green New Deal would allow any fracking in PA; something that Biden says is OK with him.  Splits like this are not a good sign.

    So far every Biden speech or commercial I have seen is long on pie in the sky promises and short on substance designed to not make anyone unhappy.  But once he starts getting grilled for details he will lose votes on one side or the other.

    Riddle me this; how does AOC's Green New Deal allow Biden to allow fracking in PA.


    Biden (5.00 / 7) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 01:38:39 PM EST
    is running against someone who committed negligent homicide against Americans. Someone who has embezzled a ton of money from the tax payers. The only people voting for Trump are white supremacists.

    Substance? Seriously? The guy who keeps saying he is going to have better health insurance but can't ever manage to come up with anything? I could go on but you know what the deal is.  


    Wow (1.33 / 3) (#56)
    by ragebot on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 02:30:20 PM EST
    "committed negligent homicide" and "embezzled a ton of money" are criminal yet I am not aware of any criminal charges.

    Can you prove any of that in court?

    "only people voting for Trump are white supremacists" just seems silly.  I am sure there are plenty of Trump voters who are not white supremacists.


    Something being true (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 02:55:58 PM EST
    and provable in court are two very different things. For context, see Simpson, Orenthal James.

    Are you not (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 03:03:57 PM EST
    aware of the criminal charges awaiting Trump when he leaves office for campaign finance fraud? Why do you think the flop sweat is coming of his and Barr's brow every day? The evidence of negligent homicide are the Woodward tapes. The evidence of embezzling is in the invoices he has been sending the tax payers for his golf courses. Nobody is going to charge him until he leaves office. This is another reason why he is so desperate to put someone on the court. Like all good mafioso's he believes in buying judges.

    "Oh gee, I am not a white supremacist but ... (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Erehwon on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 11:56:08 AM EST
    I'll vote for one all the time. No sir, I am not a white supremacist. My best friend is not even white."

    Haven't we heard that sort of thing before?


    I am generally reluctant to go throwing around (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 01:56:06 PM EST
    the epithets "racist" and "white supremacist."  But what else can you say about someone who exhorts a nearly all-white crowd in Minnesota about their "good genes" and "bloodlines," and says the same about himself with specific reference to his "German" ancestry? And who questions, in that same context, the Americanism of a U.S. Congresswoman whose family immigrated from Somalia? And yes, I could provide the links, but I don't feel like having to look at those recent news stories again ....

    his "aides" are aware (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by leap on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 03:25:21 PM EST
    There's this:
    Sept. 22, 2020

    WASHINGTON -- When news broke on Friday that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died, President Trump was just five minutes into a campaign rally in Minnesota and aides opted not to pass word to him onstage. If he announced the death of the liberal justice from the lectern, they feared the crowd would cheer.

    Deplorable is a polite way to describe the cult.


    Problem with your analysis (1.00 / 3) (#79)
    by ragebot on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 03:32:39 PM EST
    is lots of polls are showing Trump now has more support from blacks and much more support from latinos now than in 2016.

    Trump is not the first person to claim Germans have good genes.  


    Even if true, that would not suggest (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by Peter G on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 06:01:01 PM EST
    any "problem" with my "analysis." I stated a blunt and painful fact about Tr*mp's explicitly (not even impliedly) racist rhetoric at the rally in Minnesota. The facts I stated were accurate, and my understanding of them was not illogical or ignorant. It was hardly even something you could call "analysis." What does any sort of political popularity poll have to do with that? If a statistically significant number of Black voters was confronted with Tr*mp's words and responded that they did not find them to be racist, I'd be willing to consider the possibility that I had misconstrued them. Otherwise, your "refutation" totally missed the mark.

    Truth be told (1.00 / 5) (#86)
    by ragebot on Thu Sep 24, 2020 at 05:12:39 PM EST
    I find the most objectional thing about Trump is how he treats women; but it is not the only thing about Trump I object to.  Thing is I find Biden way more objectional.

    Point is that both blacks and hispanics seem to prefer Trump now more than they did in 2016.  His criminal justice reform and improved economic conditions for the low income workers.  This may explain why his supposed 'racist' position may be overlooked.  I suggest things like Hershel Walker's strong endorsement may outweigh your claim that Trump is a racist.


    I don't know (none / 0) (#80)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 04:45:01 PM EST
    what polls you are looking at but polling shows Biden getting more white voters. So essentially even if Biden loses a small amount of POC he's getting like 6 more points with white voters.

    Trump wouldn't be pushing Kanye West unless he thought Biden needed to lose African American support.


    Huh? (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by Chuck0 on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 02:53:16 PM EST
    What. Planet. Are. You. On?

    I live in PA. Which is inundated with nonstop political advertising. The only advert I have seen mentioned the Green New Deal is one full of lies (it was even debunked by a local newscast) by Scott Perry, the GOPer running for re-election in the PA-10.

    Not once, even in ads run by 3rd party PACs has there been a mention of the Green New Deal. Joe Biden and support of the Green New Deal is a lie perpetuated by trolls such yourself.

    Additionally, EXACTLY, what the are the "pie in the sky" promises being put forth by Joe Biden? I haven't seen or heard any. By and large, the advertising in PA is generally that of a middle of the road, barely left of center Democrat who actually is concerned with the fate of his fellow Americans.


    Same here in (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 03:06:26 PM EST
    GA. The only person that mentions the Green New Deal is the Qanon idiot Marjorie Taylor Greene. She probably doesn't even know what it is and since she won't let the press ask her any questions, she just spews nonsense on YouTube.

    The telling thing for me is (1.00 / 2) (#65)
    by ragebot on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 06:09:04 PM EST
    both Harris and Biden have refused to answer any questions about expanding the court or who might be on Biden's list of potential SC nominees.  CNN is reporting the first debate will focus on the SC.

    Like I posted earlier Trump's release of his list of SC nominees helped him by all accounts and Biden's release of a list would only hurt him.

    Biden Should Say (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by RickyJim on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 06:21:34 PM EST
    I'll release my list of Supreme Court nominees as soon as Trump releases his tax returns.  There is a long precedent for candidates for office releasing their tax returns but the kind of list that TRump released is unprecedented, AFAIK.

    Where is the (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 06:46:06 PM EST
    evidence that Trump's list helped him? I'm sure it made the 40% happy but there's a lot more people in this country than Trumpers, in fact the majority is not Trumpers.

    There is no evidence that Biden's list would hurt him. There's really no reason for Biden to release a list. Trump is the one in electoral trouble.


    well (1.20 / 5) (#73)
    by ragebot on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 07:43:18 PM EST
    You're (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 23, 2020 at 06:08:44 AM EST
    just proving my point. I said the only people Trump's list helped him with minority of people in this country.

    77K votes in 3 states is all that is needed for Biden to win. According to polling Biden has that. The over importance of small white states is the white supremacist argument.

    And everybody is onto the Russian disinformation campaign this time. Putin is not going to be able to help you like he did in 2014 and 2016.


    Don't trolls get limited (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 06:51:03 PM EST
    to the number of posts they can make?

    Jeralyn used (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 07:00:02 PM EST
    to do it. He seems to think he can gaslight us into believing his BS. But he knows it is over. Moscow Mitch is pretty much doing everything but coming out and saying it.

    Baruch Dayan HaEmet (none / 0) (#2)
    by smott on Sat Sep 19, 2020 at 07:52:15 AM EST
    Blessed is the true Judge

    Someone commented (none / 0) (#3)
    by CaptHowdy on Sat Sep 19, 2020 at 02:49:42 PM EST
    That this year liberals are finally going to understand the importance of voting to protect the courts.  After decades of right wing turnout for that reason.  Resulting in the situation we find ourselves in with a packed federal court system.

    This year might be the first time more, or at least as many, liberals vote on the court and that could end up being an important part of her legacy.  

    Starting to look like there will be a vote (none / 0) (#5)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 07:34:42 AM EST
    before the election.  With McConnell letting up to three endangered senators vote against.

    I heard something from a conservative pundit yesterday that almost made sense
    She said that if you believe there will be a vote before the inauguration the vote should be taken and decided  by people who are running for office.  Not by people who might have already lost and can not be held accountable for the vote.

    I think that makes a kind of sense.

    Obviously there should be no vote.  But there will be.  There is no possible world where republicans let this opportunity go if they have a choice.

    There are many ways this blow up (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 09:19:36 AM EST
    In their face.  There is the election.  Ignoring her dying wish will not set well with many.   If they thought it would work they would use it to win the election by putting the vote after the election and making it the central issue.  They know they would lose.  So it will be before almost certainly.  To grab the last bit of power possible on the way out.

    But the election is not the last thing that could go badly for them.

    By making their hypocrisy and their power grab so blatant they are literally giving democrats the perfect excuse to do whatever they want from killing the filibuster to expanding the court.

    Many right wingers are very worried about these things.

    Tv liberals are just laughable saying the solution is to talk about the hypocrisy of McConnell or Graham.  Seriously?
    I wonder what planet they have lived of the last couple of decades.


    When things (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 10:04:36 AM EST
    seem so glum, we can always take solace in Trump's incompetence.  While the nominee and the senate hearings will be a  distraction from Trump's pandemic malfeasance, it will not be of a good kind, other than for the deplorables long ago sewn up.

    And, the power play makes it glaringly apparent even to the most ardent bipartisan nostalgist that Republicans are not a credible or legitimate partner in the governance of a democracy.  The Democrats need to move ahead so as to assure the public welfare, including reforms to the Supreme Court.


    I think the republicans (none / 0) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 11:37:05 AM EST
    as they so often have are relying on democrats being spineless doormats.  Not a bad bet all things considered.  But I think it is misjudging the country.  Democrats, Schumer etc, have not changed much but the country has.  And it is pi$$ed.  The base is going to demand they f'ing do something.

    And I think they will.  

    I agree with one thing in the comment below.  I also don't think this will change the election that much in the end.  Trump was losing and he will still lose.  They were losing the senate and they still will.  

    As far as "being willing to lose the White House and the senate". BS.  it's lost and they know it.  They will do this because it is the last gasp.  Or maybe the last grasp.


    One thing it could change (none / 0) (#17)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 11:49:31 AM EST
    Is it would be a 6/3 court with three Trump appointees who slap down his attempt to illegally stay in office.

    I actually think that could make it even more likely outcome because Roberts I think is concerned about the appearance and the future of the court.


    Trump (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 12:20:30 PM EST
    has completely trashed the supreme court just like he trashes everything he touches. But having his appointees slap down his own legislation might have currency with some.

    Honestly, while there is no denying that (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 02:36:02 PM EST
    Gorsuch's seat was stolen, Gorsuch himself has proven generally to be a rather independent-minded Justice, particularly on cases of statutory interpretation, but also to some extent on constitutional law.

    In 2016 (none / 0) (#61)
    by itscookin on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 03:28:10 PM EST
    when Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, 60 votes were needed to confirm a justice. The Democrats only had 48. It's delusional to believe Garland had any chance to be confirmed and seated. Perhaps, it might have been better if McConnell had gone through the motions of having hearings and voting Garland down, but the results would have been the same. The people gave the Republicans the majority in the Senate, and the Republican senators did what they were elected to do. Gorsuch's seat wasn't "stolen". It was never going to be his.

    Garland would only have been voted down (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 03:55:27 PM EST
    if the Republicans voted in lockstep to steal the seat from President Obama, since Judge Garland was an eminently well-qualified nominee. Historically, all such nominees, of both parties, have always been confirmed by bipartisan (not unanimous, but bipartisan) vote. (See, e.g., Alito.) The issue is not what the American people empowered their elected Senators to do, but what the American people voted for a President to have authority to do, during the entirety of a four-year term, expecting the Senate to perform its traditional role of blocking only unqualified (e.g., Carswell) and extremist (e.g., Bork) candidates. Until McConnell and today's anti-democratic, purely power-oriented Republican Party.

    Peter you are smart enough (1.67 / 3) (#64)
    by ragebot on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 05:32:51 PM EST
    to realize just as the dems consider Bork extremist the pubs consider RGB extremist.

    I am smart enough (which doesn't take much) (5.00 / 5) (#72)
    by Peter G on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 07:05:18 PM EST
    to know that there is not even a grain of truth in that comparison.

    By his I mean Garland's (none / 0) (#62)
    by itscookin on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 03:31:00 PM EST
    It has been clear for some time (none / 0) (#27)
    by ragebot on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 01:28:06 PM EST
    the dems (and pubs) have been hiring lawyers to contest changes in mail in voting along with other issues related to the election.  I am old enough to remember Bush v Gore and a 5-4 decision along party lines.

    Adding another sure conservative to the SC is a no brainer for the pubs since there will be lots of election related issues the SC will be dealing with.


    Bush v Gore was decided (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 02:05:23 PM EST
    on December 12, 2000. I am dubious that any Tr*mp nominee could be rammed through in under 50 days.

    while it would be historically fast (none / 0) (#34)
    by ragebot on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 03:00:53 PM EST
    there is no legal reason I know of to stop a fast nomination and vote; if the votes are there.

    If Trump puts forth a nomination in a few days and McConnell has the votes it could be done in a week.  As far as I know there is no requirement to even have hearings.

    I still think there may be hearings if someone like Lagoa or Bade is the nomination; but they will be short.


    I really wish (none / 0) (#33)
    by jmacWA on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 02:53:25 PM EST
    Republicans are not a credible or legitimate partner in the governance of a democracy.

    Biden would come out and state this.  I don't want him to say Trump is not a legitimate partner I want to hear him say that the ENTIRE GOP are not legitimate partners


    McConnell (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    has basically conceded the election it seems. All putting a vote to the senate before the election is going to do is make their senate losses larger. It pretty much insures that some of the tighter races like MT will flip D.

    We have the second (none / 0) (#23)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 12:37:08 PM EST
    of the three

    Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) is the second Republican Senator to oppose taking up the a new Supreme Court nomination before the election, the Washington Post reports.

    Maybe at some future point the idiot by bobble heads will and her and Collins if they will take the vote AFTER the election and BEFORE the inauguration.  Because what this means is they won't be held accountable for the vote

    Which is what they want.



    Trump's Smartest Choice (none / 0) (#6)
    by RickyJim on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 09:17:30 AM EST
    I remember reading after the Clarence Thomas nomination,"Bush has checkmated the black community."  Trump might pull off something similar with a conservative, black female.  

    How about a conservative (none / 0) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 09:22:37 AM EST
    Lagoa (2.50 / 2) (#12)
    by ragebot on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 11:19:37 AM EST
    is certainly a realistic possibility.  She is a solid conservative who the senate confirmed 80-15.  Problem for the dems senators who voted for her is to explain why they changed their minds.

    Voting yes or no on a facially qualified candidate (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 11:35:21 AM EST
    for one seat on a 15-member intermediate court of appeals is not at all the same as whether to approve a nominee for the Supreme Court. The considerations are not the same at all.

    I was worried ne'er not if (none / 0) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 11:38:43 AM EST
    you think one of the mentioned women was better or worse than the others.

    ACB seems like the worse to me.


    Yes, Barrett is worse, but not by much. (5.00 / 5) (#18)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 12:06:38 PM EST
    This is a big, diverse country full of supremely (no pun intended) well-qualified jurists or potential jurists. To me, it is a scandal that we already have five Catholics on the Court, at least three one whom (Alito, Thomas (a convert) and Kavanaugh) appear to allow the most reactionary aspects of Catholic religious teachings to influence their legal reasoning. Another of the Catholics does not appear to be religious, but attended parochial schools and has values consistent with Catholic social justice philosophy (Sotomayor), and one is a pretty mainstream conservative (Roberts). Of the remaining Justices, two are secular Jews (Breyer and Kagan) and one is Protestant, but attended Catholic schools (Gorsuch). This is far out of balance with the distribution of high-level legal talent in America. Five of the nine are northeastern Ivy-leaguers. Only one is a southerner, one a mid-westerner, and one from the West (if you count Colorado as such). Another ultra-conservative Catholic, even if she is a non-Ivy midwesterner, is the last thing the Supreme Court needs.

    Jeez, sorry (none / 0) (#16)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 11:39:40 AM EST

    That's hilarious (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by Yman on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 09:13:47 PM EST
    You keep wondering about how Democratic Senators are going to justify "changing their minds.  That's hilarious.   All they have to do is point to the Republicans who set a precedent of not voting to confirm a nominee in an election year.  Wonder why you're not concerned about the Republican hypocracy?

    Just kidding.  Everyone knows why you're ignoring it.


    You seem a little behind the curve (1.00 / 6) (#50)
    by ragebot on Mon Sep 21, 2020 at 11:07:16 PM EST
    so let me help you get up to speed.

    The prez can nominate a candidate for a vacant SC seat.  The senate can choose to hold hearings, or not, and to vote on the candidate.

    What you FAIL to understand is that if the prez is from a different party that has a majority in the senate the senate has no obligation to hold hearings or schedule a vote on the nominee.  You also FAIL to understand that if the prez is from the same party that holds a majority in the senate the chances are much better the senate will hold a vote; with or without hearings.

    You also fail to heed the wise words of some guy who said 'elections have consequences'.


    Desperation (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 08:40:01 AM EST
    does not become you. But you know it's over whether Trump puts someone on the supreme court or not. You know McConnell is admitting to everyone that the senate is lost and Trump is toast in November and there never was much of a chance of the GOP flipping the house.

    Funny you mention a vote. Garland never got a vote or a hearing. This is why the majority of Americans see the GOP as a joke.


    Never got a hearing or vote, (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by KeysDan on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 08:12:11 PM EST
    and Republican senators would not even give Judge Garland the customary courtesy visit in their offices.

    Yes, might makes right (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by MKS on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 06:56:37 PM EST
    If you have the votes, screw principle.

    Pretty clear to almost everybody.


    Funny (none / 0) (#98)
    by Yman on Sun Oct 25, 2020 at 01:13:12 PM EST
    YOU.  Claiming to help your betters get "up to speed" by spouting hypocritical, wingnut garbage.

    That's hilarious.


    ".. change minds" ??? How to explain: (none / 0) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 12:10:12 PM EST
    (1) Barbara Lagoa was not previously considered for confirmation as Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court. (2)There are different voting criteria for confirmation to a federal appellate court than for US Supreme Court, (3)The nominee may seem "green" in terms of elevation to the US Supreme Court.  Ms. Lagoa has been a federal appellate judge for about 10 months; prior to that a Florida Supreme Court judge for 11 months. Her 12 years experience on the Florida 3rd District Court of Appeals may not be entirely persuasive for some "dem senators.", and (4)confirmation of any Trump nominee at this point may not be considered appropriate.  

    FTR (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 09:24:15 AM EST
    I doubt it.  I expect ACB.

    The rabid anti abortionist.


    Yes, Trump (none / 0) (#24)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 12:39:17 PM EST
    probably feels that ACB is the best choice to "own the libs".  And, as a member of the People of Praise (a charismatic Christian group)that swears a lifelong covenant to each other and are assigned a personal advisor..a head for men and a handmaiden for women)she will particularly appeal to Trump's Christofascist supporters.

    This (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 12:41:53 PM EST
    "Furious Democrats are considering total war -- profound changes to two branches of government, and even adding stars to the flag -- if Republicans jam through a Supreme Court nominee then lose control of the Senate," Axios reports.

    "On the table: Adding Supreme Court justices... eliminating the Senate's 60-vote threshold to end filibusters... and statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico."

    "Dems aren't optimistic about blocking the nominee. But they have many ways of retaliating if they win Senate control -- and are licking their chops about real movement on ideas that have been pushed futilely for decades."

    Oh, dear! Imagine that! Radical retaliation!! (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 01:11:38 PM EST
    Actual full citizenship rights for the American people who live in the District of Columbia and in Puerto Rico? What??!! Who would dare to threaten such a crazy thing?

    This is why I totally (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 02:42:53 PM EST
    do not care what crackpot Trump decides to put on the bench. Biden can just add 6 more supreme court justices.

    Yes, Dems, take the wheel (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 09:06:19 PM EST
    and end the filibuster and grant statehood to D.C. and Puerto Rico.....court packing is not the only revenge.

    The basic problem is that the GOP is a dying reactionary party under Trump.  They represent the past and a minority view in this country.  If they gain power through these kinds of machinations, they only postpone paying the piper.  They will ultimately be swept from power.


    link, please (none / 0) (#28)
    by leap on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 01:30:55 PM EST

    I agree that Cap'n once again (none / 0) (#29)
    by Peter G on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 02:01:30 PM EST
    neglected the link where one would be expected, but two seconds on the search bar of Google News produced this Axios article.

    If someone quotes something (none / 0) (#36)
    by leap on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 05:40:07 PM EST
    one should provide a reference. It's inexpert and lazy.

    I would agree (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 09:09:35 PM EST
    but Captain makes up in volume what may be lacking in precision....

    And, I like the info.  Many commentators do not post links.....some good writers....All a matter of style.

    For a very good appellate lawyer, clearly cause of heartburn.

    Just like my view that there is no such thing as "grammar."  It is a fiction.  Doubt me?  Cite, then, the definitive grammar rule book.


    The Writer's Digest Grammar Desk Reference. (none / 0) (#91)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Fri Sep 25, 2020 at 04:36:56 PM EST
    Joe Biden speech (none / 0) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Sun Sep 20, 2020 at 05:35:02 PM EST
    at Constitution Hall, Philadelphia, Sunday, September 20.  A tribute to the late Justice Ginsburg and the road ahead.  

    Romney supports a vote (none / 0) (#52)
    by ragebot on Tue Sep 22, 2020 at 09:32:48 AM EST
    according to Politico.  

    To the surprise of almost no one (none / 0) (#89)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Sep 25, 2020 at 03:26:27 PM EST
    A cult (none / 0) (#92)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri Sep 25, 2020 at 05:12:58 PM EST
    member picked by a cult leader. What could go wrong?

    Handmaiden Rush Job (none / 0) (#94)
    by KeysDan on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 04:03:21 PM EST
    Lindsey says he expects to start hearings on October 12, and a vote on October 26.

    Gorsuch and Kavanaugh had about two months between formal nomination and first day of hearing.


    If it is (none / 0) (#95)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Sep 26, 2020 at 06:03:44 PM EST
    that rushed she may not be able to stay on the court because we all know how not thorough Trump is with nominees.

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#97)
    by jmacWA on Mon Oct 05, 2020 at 04:33:38 AM EST