Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87

Overheal

dark crystal wrote: »

Great time to watch "On the basis of sex", a biopic of RBG starring Felicity Jones and Armie Hammer.

Watched it last year and highly recommended! What a lady...

If Chadwick Boseman’s tragic passing is any indication you won’t need to go looking for tribute movies and documentaries they will he plastered all over your Roku by Sunday

Overheal

From the Washington Post: McConnel can’t keep his excitement in his pants, urges GOP senators in a closed circuit email which was leaked, to “keep their powder dry” on the vacancy. This comes as reports surface that several senators have already made statements in opposition to a confirmation

In a private letter circulated to his GOP colleagues Friday night, McConnell urged Republican senators to avoid locking themselves into a position on whether they would support taking up Ginsburg’s successor during this election year.

In the letter, which was obtained by The Washington Post, McConnell noted that Senate Republicans are going to “come under tremendous pressure from the press” to announce a stance on how to handle the nomination.

“For those of you who are unsure how to answer, or for those inclined to oppose giving a nominee a vote, I urge you all to keep your powder dry,” McConnell told the 52 other GOP senators. “This is not the time to prematurely lock yourselves into a position you may later regret."

He also stressed in the letter that there is sufficient time to fill the vacancy this year, even though it is already mid-September. If Republicans lose control of the Senate in November, they will hold the majority until Jan. 3, when the new senators will be sworn in.

No permalink for this story it’s on their live updates feed.

Sean.3516

8-10 wrote: »

The hypocrisy is that they didn't do that in 2016, which was before Trump even got the Republican nomination.

A) Republicans disapproved of Merrick Garland. They have no obligation to confirm a Justice they don’t approve of.

it was an election year at the end of the 2nd term of a president from the opposing party.

Btw. I think reason is stupid but that was Mitch’s reason. He didn’t really need a reason other than reason A).

8-10 wrote: »

The last point you made is the pertinent one: staffed with Judges who respect the constitution.

It should be the best judges in the country getting onto the SC. It shouldn't matter what President nominates them or what party controls the Senate....because they're literally supposed to be impartial.

The reason it’s a political issue is because there is an actual principled disagreement between the parties over what constitutes good judicial philosophy.

The conservatives think the constitution is a legal document that means what it meant when it was written by the people who wrote it. And it ought to be interpreted on that basis. End of story.

The progressives think that the constitution is an “evolving document” that “changes with the times”. It’s like a poem by W.B Yeats. It’s subject to subjective interpretation. It’s based on this notion of “critical legal theory” that says laws never have any principled basis. It’s all an arbitrary power game. By that philosophy you can end up with some crappy legal decisions.

The document can’t change with the times. But it can be changed by the times. That’s why you have an amendment process. But you can’t just read your own interpretation into the document. That’s what the parties disagree on. That’s why it’s a political issue.

8-10 wrote: »

The problem with America right now is that they've made an impartial powerful position a pawn of their political games when literally the whole system is build on the separation of power to ensure checks and balances.

And the people responsible for that are not the people who decided that the Justices should act as super-legislators and read their own meaning into the Constitution.

When you read early American history you realise that the Supreme Court was never meant to be half as powerful as it is. Because nobody assumed that one side would use it to shoe-horn their own policies into law without bothering to actually legislate.

8-10 wrote: »

The system isn't working. The hypocrisy wasn't that they didn't confirm an Obama nominee, it's that they didn't give him the congressional hearing to determine whether he was fit to serve on the court. They didn't even vote on it which is the mechanism they have for ensuring nobody who doesn't respect the constitution gets on there.

Eh, that’s weak sauce. I mean they could tell exactly what sort of judge he was from looking at his voting record and reading his decisions.

And besides the other side hardly ever abides by the standard you just laid out. When Trump nominated Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, Democrats wasted no time at all attacking them and declaring Republicans were waging a war on women etc.

The American judiciary is polarised and it breaks down pretty neatly along party lines. They all know how this game is played.

8-10 wrote: »

Overall I don't see how one person, the Senate leader, should have as much power as he does (regardless of party).

Well, he was elected to the Senate.
As were his fellow Senators.
They elected him Majority Leader.
The Constitution says the Senate must consent to judicial nominees.
Mitch leads the Senate.
Therefore Mitch calls the shots. Someone has to.

And there’s no guarantee that he’ll be able to get it through though. Certain Republican Senators may get shaky on confirming a Justice right before the election. Especially those in competitive races this November.

This people aren’t untouchable you know. They can be voted in and they can be voted out.

8-10 wrote: »

Any bill from the house should hit the Senate floor. Any presidential nominee should be brought forward to be scrutinised. It's simple. That was the intention. Instead they have a farce over there where a stooge in a position like that can just sit and do nothing when it's something he doesn't like and don't something when he wants to....despite the fact that the majority means overall as a party they can still vote as they like (SC judge is simple majority)

Again, there’s no reason they should have to give a hearing to or confirm someone they don’t want to confirm.

Overheal

A) Republicans disapproved of Merrick Garland. They have no obligation to confirm a Justice they don’t approve of.

“The president told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”

- Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) speaking before Garland was nominated

Sean.3516

Overheal wrote: »

Except he is because at no time in 2016 did he make an opposing parties case. That only came about after Trump won the presidency.

Well, the opposing parties case was kind of assumed. I mean why would any Senate confirm an opposing party’s nominee under ANY circumstances?

And you’re leaving out the fact that Obama was a lame duck (he was in his final term). McConell did actually make that point at the time.

Sean.3516

Overheal wrote: »

“The president told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants.”

- Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) speaking before Garland was nominated

I said Republican(s). Plural.

Meaning most if not all of the Republicans would have had to approve of him in order to confirm. You just quoted one Republican.

There’ll always be one or two moderate Republicans who will go for a Democrat’s nominee. But they’re few. Very few.

Overheal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Well, the opposing parties case was kind of assumed. I mean why would any Senate confirm an opposing party’s nominee under ANY circumstances?

Because that’s how it’s normally been done. Often with 90+ votes in favor.

Implied my foot. It’s a convenient twisty he added because it suited him after gaining seats in the senate.

And you’re leaving out the fact that Obama was a lame duck (he was in his final term). McConell did actually make that point at the time.

Trump is also a lame duck........

Sean.3516

Overheal wrote: »

Many a constitutionalist has weighed in on it since though. Rather than overturn it they have affirmed it and continued to establish decades of law upon it. The only way to overturn it now is to amend the constitution - and you had better believe conservatives want to. The 14th amendment is a thorn in their side from Roe v Wade to birthright citizenship to the census

Why can’t it be overturned by a simply majority decision in a case?

Outlaw Pete

Trump's reaction shows what a genuine man he is and how different he is to how the left would like us all to see him.


https://twitter.com/henryrodgersdc/status/1307128696919203840

Overheal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I said Republican(s). Plural.

Meaning most if not all of the Republicans would have had to approve of him in order to confirm. You just quoted one Republican.

There’ll always be one or two moderate Republicans who will go for a Democrat’s nominee. But they’re few. Very few.

Orrin Hatch was a moderate Republican now? What parallel universe did I step into?

Overheal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Why can’t it be overturned by a simply majority decision in a case?

The SCOTUS is not in the habit of undermining its own precedents. It has chaotic ramifications on jurisprudence.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump's reaction shows what a genuine man he is and how different he is to how the left would like us all to see him.


https://twitter.com/henryrodgersdc/status/1307128696919203840

Probably been practicing that for the last 3 years

Sean.3516

Overheal wrote: »

Because that’s how it’s normally been done. Often with 90+ votes in favor.

Implied my foot. It’s a convenient twisty he added because it suited him after gaining seats in the senate.

Yes. In cases where the vast majority happened to agree with the nomination.

In the current political climate, especially now the filibuster is gone (there’s less of an incentive to compromise. You can thank the Democrats for that.) it would be highly unusual for constitutional conservatives who believe in a textualist interpretation of the document to just vote for nominees who may not share that belief. Nominated by a president who certainly doesn’t.

Overheal wrote: »

Trump is also a lame duck........

How so?

Overheal

Bill Maher and his panel found out in real time (on Real Time..)

https://twitter.com/RealTimers/status/1307125576654675968?s=20

Panelists pegged what would happen within a few minutes from that point: Mitch has no compunctions about this issue.

Overheal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yes. In cases where the vast majority happened to agree with the nomination.

No, now you're making indefensible arguments. Prior to Scalia's vacancy an election year vacancy hadn't happened in 80 years, so what vacancy are you referring to? Name it.

In the current political climate, especially now the filibuster is gone (there’s less of an incentive to compromise. You can thank the Democrats for that.) it would be highly unusual for constitutional conservatives who believe in a textualist interpretation of the document to just vote for nominees who may not share that belief. Nominated by a president who certainly doesn’t.

Why thank the Democrats for the current political climate? Democrats got in in 2008 and wanted bipartisan healthcare reform. Republicans stripped it down and then they refused to cast any votes for it, to beguile the voters into thinking it was one sided, and from there and for a long time since they have been The Party of No. In each Congress since 2008-2010 the Republicans have been in control. They decided to go Nuclear on judges. They decided to filibuster during the 2008-2010 session as well, when they could. They even did it while in the majority. So while I'm happy to hear your argument for that statement I'm not the least convinced this is something to heave on Democrats, especially of all when Republicans have the Senate and the Presidency, with literally hundreds of bills rotting on Mitch's desk.

How so?

Because he isn't getting re-elected, obviously. (imho)

Outlaw Pete

Seems some blue ticks have learned nothing from the riots and all the destruction and death they caused as they are on Twitter threatening that they will burn and riot if things don't go the way they want them to .....

Overheal

Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court––which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality––someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.

Over a long career on both sides of the bench––as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist––Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are––and who we can be.

Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.

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.

- President Barack Obama

Sean.3516

Overheal wrote: »

The SCOTUS is not in the habit of undermining its own precedents. It has chaotic ramifications on jurisprudence.

Well it obviously depends on if the current Justices agree with the precedent or not.

Plessy V Ferguson established the “separate but equal” doctrine that allowed legal segregation.

This was overturned in Brown V Board.

You definitely have about 3 votes for overturning Roe V Wade is the currently stands. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.

Kavanugh won’t vote to overturn it. He’s actually kinda squishy.

Overheal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Well it obviously depends on if the current Justices agree with the precedent or not.

Plessy V Ferguson established the “separate but equal” doctrine that allowed legal segregation.

This was overturned in Brown V Board.

You definitely have about 3 votes for overturning Roe V Wade is the currently stands. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch.

Kavanugh won’t vote to overturn it. He’s actually kinda squishy.

Brown v Board overturned that specific measure of Plessy, Plessy still was law, that just got chipped away at with subsequent court battles. The same would happen here it wouldn't be an overnight throwing out with the bath water of Roe. Eg. the court has made modifications to it already, like the trimester metric in favor of viability. The court could in theory go for a heartbeat qualifier but there would equally be a hundred and one challenges to that cutoff for a whole host of reasons already discussed to death in abortion megathreads across the site. The privacy makes sense to me - people really want to fuss about all the reasons a woman may choose (convenience etc) but then it becomes a case of each women being subjected to the spanish inquisition, and where do you codify whether her reason is 'good enough' or too selfish. But I don't want to get into the megathread weeds and get too far away from RBG and the vacancy itself to go extrapolating about future cases yet to materialize.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

This is quite the flash mob in DC tonight

https://twitter.com/abc/status/1307157179133296640?s=21

Meh, a good summation of politics in the US. One side has a lovely feel-good moment that doesn't achieve anything whatsoever, the other side actually get their way.

Sean.3516

Overheal wrote: »

No, now you're making indefensible arguments. Prior to Scalia's vacancy an election year vacancy hadn't happened in 80 years, so what vacancy are you referring to? Name it.

Let’s clarify here.
I said that Supreme Court confirmation votes usually happen along party lines.
You said no there’re have been cases of nominees getting 90+ support in the Senate

I said, yes in cases where the nominee happened to be someone everybody agreed with at the time. But that’s unlikely to be the case in the current political climate. I never mentioned that it had to be an election year. I’ve already stated I believe that was a BS excuse by McConnell.

Overheal wrote: »

Why thank the Democrats for the current political climate?

I wasn’t blaming the Democrats for the current political climate. I was blaming them for getting rid of the flibuster on judicial appointments. The requirement of a two thirds majority in the Senate to confirm a Supreme Court Justice. McConnell’s predecessor Democratic Senator Harry Reid did this when he was Senate Majorty Leader.

Lower the bar for confirming someone to a simple majority vote makes it much more unlikely that you will see compromise and consideration by all parties on this stuff. It’s much more convenient for the majority party to just ram through its nominees ASAP.

Overheal wrote: »

Because he isn't getting re-elected, obviously. (imho)

How do you know?

Sean.3516

Overheal wrote: »

Brown v Board overturned that specific measure of Plessy, Plessy still was law, that just got chipped away at with subsequent court battles. The same would happen here it wouldn't be an overnight throwing out with the bath water of Roe. Eg. the court has made modifications to it already, like the trimester metric in favor of viability. The court could in theory go for a heartbeat qualifier but there would equally be a hundred and one challenges to that cutoff for a whole host of reasons already discussed to death in abortion megathreads across the site. The privacy makes sense to me - people really want to fuss about all the reasons a woman may choose (convenience etc) but then it becomes a case of each women being subjected to the spanish inquisition, and where do you codify whether her reason is 'good enough' or too selfish. But I don't want to get into the megathread weeds and get too far away from RBG and the vacancy itself to go extrapolating about future cases yet to materialize.

Fair enough, if it would be more likely to happen gradually and but the point is that it could absolutely happen.

You’ve got three out of nine (now eight) Justices who would definitely vote to overturn either Roe or Casey if it came up. You just need two more.

Overheal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I wasn’t blaming the Democrats for the current political climate. I was blaming them for getting rid of the flibuster on judicial appointments. The requirement of a two thirds majority in the Senate to confirm a Supreme Court Justice. McConnell’s predecessor Democratic Senator Harry Reid did this when he was Senate Majorty Leader.

At the time, as Minority leader McConnell lead blanket filibusters against even agreeable judicial nominees. Hence: The Party of No. And boy have they ever enjoyed rubberstambing unqualified and controversial picks since.

How do you know?

Because it's my humble opinion, just like I said it was

Overheal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Fair enough, if it would be more likely to happen gradually and but the point is that it could absolutely happen.

You’ve got three out of nine (now eight) Justices who would definitely vote to overturn either Roe or Casey if it came up. You just need two more.

Well they'd all also have to agree on a legal decision that isn't a complete rag. Jiggery Pokery as it were. The courts always have to weigh the scales and that includes what the nation will tolerate. The SCOTUS as an institution must remain trusted and unimpeachable, as a core function of the Republic and it's 3 branches. If they just went in and did a half assed job and overturn it "just because lol" (or the SCOTUS equivalent of 40 pages of meandering fluff based on logical fallacies etc) you'd have nobody accepting of it and I think also they're going to weigh the fact that, abortion is always going to happen and always has happened, it's not a modern invention, and should there be a safe way to access it and when.

3 who would toss it, 3 who would keep it. Trump ostensibly has 1 pick here (assuming he wins, assuming it happens etc.) and in a lame duck could ask Thomas to resign to renew the seat (of course there would be massive uproar but I think tempered by the fact its a conservative seat to begin with; but Thomas still has years in him). Which still leaves it 4-3, 2 moderate

Another scenario which could play out: GOP agrees to wait for the election, on Nov 4 Trump is the presumptive winner; as absentee ballots are being tallied (process could take days, if not weeks) the Senate hurries to confirm, then, lo and behold Biden is declared the winner by the final count an the vacancy has already been filled. The other scenario of course, they lose in November and confirm whoever they want anyway the lot of them, with **** eating grins hoping voters aren't still fuming about this in 2 years when a whole new series of senate seats come up for re-election - that hinges on the landscape for races in 2022, which I have yet to peek at. Of course the other other scenario is Trump actually wins and GOP keeps its senate majority, in which case the whole episode is concluded.

Outlaw Pete

Grief affects us all in different ways I suppose.


https://twitter.com/CHIZMAGA/status/1307183262041661440

Sean.3516

Overheal wrote: »

At the time, as Minority leader McConnell lead blanket filibusters against even agreeable judicial nominees. Hence: The Party of No. And boy have they ever enjoyed rubberstambing unqualified and controversial picks since.

Whatever the reason, they got rid of the filibuster. They gambled on the Republicans not retaking the Senate and using it against them.

They lost.

That’s why they call it “The Nuclear Option”.
Mutually assured destruction.

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Given my own sentiments tonight I’m curious how other voters will react to the responses from Mitch, Fox and the GOP. You could be looking at record setting single day fundraising. Maybe.

I was more correct than I could have anticipated:

Democratic donors gave more money online in the 9 p.m. hour after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died — $6.2 million — than in any other single hour since ActBlue, the donation-processing site, was launched 16 years ago.

Then donors broke the site’s record again in the 10 p.m. hour when donors gave another $6.3 million — more than $100,000 per minute.

The unprecedented outpouring shows the power of a looming Supreme Court confirmation fight to motivate Democratic donors. The previous biggest hour saw $4.3 million in donations processed on Aug. 20, according to an ActBlue spokesperson, the final night of last month’s convention, when Joseph R. Biden Jr. spoke.

Hours after Justice Ginsburg’s death, Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, pledged that whomever President Trump picks to replace her would receive a confirmation vote. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” he said in a statement.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/elections/democrats-shatter-the-actblue-sites-donation-records-in-the-hours-after-ginsburgs-death.html?auth=login-facebook

IIRC, ActBlue's single-day record was $20M (New Years Eve, 2019-2020) and they're already more than halfway there in a matter of hours. Might throw in another fiver...

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Whatever the reason, they got rid of the filibuster. They gambled on the Republicans not retaking the Senate and using it against them.

They lost.

You're not wrong. I'm also just very critical of the fact that some of their rubber stamps have gone to people who are objectively unqualified to be on a bench, people who were blasted by the APA, etc.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Trump's reaction shows what a genuine man he is and how different he is to how the left would like us all to see him.


https://twitter.com/henryrodgersdc/status/1307128696919203840

Unbelievably insincere. The man does not react like a normal human being.

“I’m actually sad to hear that”, what kind of a thing is that to say?

francois

Several Republican senators have stated they will not confirm anyone pre-election.

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

“I’m actually sad to hear that”, what kind of a thing is that to say?

A quite normal thing to say?

I think no matter what the man did some people would find fault with it.