Ruth Bader Ginsburg Died

[Sour Masher]

yeah, no one on your side cheered when Scalia died, right?

Ah, CBB, I missed your constant justifications of abhorrent behavior on the right by trying to find its equivalent on the left. It's a super, duper way of looking at life. That way no one ever has to be better. We can just all continue to spiral down, pointing at each other all the way as a reason to keep going lower.

If you are looking for a defense from me from abhorrent behavior from "my side" you won't find it. It would be nice if people didn't excuse such behavior based on previous abhorrent behavior from "the other side."

[cardboardbox]

My initial reaction to this story was incredulity, followed immediately, by the feeling that yes, that 100% would have happened, which is depressing. Trump's aides did not tell him RBG died at his rally, because they were worried about the optics of Trump saying it and the crowd cheering: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...Akv?li=BBnbfcL

yeah, no one on your side cheered when Scalia died, right?

[cardboardbox]

Well, in terms of cold political calculus, that's not so clear. Say I'm wrong on Barrett being nominated, and it's Lagoa. Dems voting against a Cubana from Florida? The ads write themselves.

While I don't trust Trump to make those calculations, I'm confident McConnell will. But my earlier point was incomplete, so thanks for pointing it out. He'll move quickly if he has both the votes and his data shows it's of benefit going into the election.

I was hoping for Lagoa for the reasons you stated.

At this point I'm going to take 3 supreme court justices, one of them flipped, and a crapton of other judges as a win and not care as much about the election. The clown car of democrats can run amok for 2 years with total power and then pay the price again in 2022, same as they did in 2010. Breyer will almost surely be replaced before the end of 2022 but my hope is that Thomas and Alito can hold off until 2025 or 2029. Doubt Thomas stays until 2029 though. He's been on the court a long time and has said he doesnt intend to stay until he dies.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Trump met with mocking cheers of "Vote him out!" when he and Melania came to pay respects to RBG.

As well he should be, he has no respect for her nor has he. He doesn't deserve to be in her presence even when she's dead.

[In the Corn]

Trump met with mocking cheers of "Vote him out!" when he and Melania came to pay respects to RBG.

[Sour Masher]

My initial reaction to this story was incredulity, followed immediately, by the feeling that yes, that 100% would have happened, which is depressing. Trump's aides did not tell him RBG died at his rally, because they were worried about the optics of Trump saying it and the crowd cheering: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...Akv?li=BBnbfcL

you could elect 9 conservative supreme court justices and I would be ok with that as long as they weren't toddies and they were qualified. and amazingly it would find a way to eventually balance so-called scales of justice and stuff. and we are going to find out. if that's true.

I think it's pretty straightfwd. GOP should nominate now but confirmed after the election before January. Collins can object but have her objection not matter. and helps her. Collins seems brain damaged btw. Murkowski is just a frigging maverick. she gets to save face too and not affecting the vote. and gets away with it. .. I like Murkowski.

I forgot what I was gonna say next. I am brain damaged too.

oh yeah, it's unfortunately going to really polarize the court.

[chancellor]

Well, it appears McConnell has the votes - Gardner said he'd agree to a vote on the nominee, and Romney even has agreed to do the same:

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/romney-supports-holding-a-vote-on-trumps-scotus-nominee/?utm_source=email&utm_medium=breaking&utm_campaign=newstrack&utm_term=21578312

Now, if McConnell delays, the information he has will almost certainly indicate that it'll hurt GOP Senators.

does anyone else find it ironic that Ginsburg and Scalia died while in office on the court during an election year, were opposites in political opinion but soul mates in life-enduring similar in fate. in the cosmic scheme of things I find that fact comforting.

stacking the court would be a bad idea. and I never knew my senator Markey, but it's a stupid idea. and Reid making confirmation 51 votes was even dumber.

everything finds a balance. the job of SCOTUS is to do what is best for the country. period. 9 people. because everything else is a Lord of the Flies novel. the world is run by a few brilliant ppl. I don't imply it's some secret conspiracy. I mean to say, I am dumb. and we are just all along for the ride. doesn't mean we won't destroy ourselves eventually through climate change or war of both simultaneously-synergically. at least you need one branch of government not doing things based on their own self interest.

[GwynnInTheHall]

[onejayhawk]

That is why they have Harris on the ticket, she's going to eviscerate them

The VP debate on the 7th will be interesting. Harris did not impress in the spring debates, but preparing for a single event may help her.

[GwynnInTheHall]

I think that's a pipe dream, honestly. I don't think the Democrats have the stones to act like McConnell and Co. Maybe they've reached a breaking point, but I feel like the Democrats would have caved on the Garland thing if the shoe was on the other foot. Republicans held fast and they're now reaping the ill-gotten gains.

That is why they have Harris on the ticket, she's going to eviscerate them

[chancellor]

This is, IMO, a no win scenario for the GOP.

Well, in terms of cold political calculus, that's not so clear. Say I'm wrong on Barrett being nominated, and it's Lagoa. Dems voting against a Cubana from Florida? The ads write themselves. Politically, if I'm advising Collins, I tell her to drop her objections and go all Lindsay Graham for Barrett or Lagoa, and hope the enthusiasm gap bridges her difference. She has no other cards to play right now. Many have discussed the enthusiasm gap; will getting a justice approved improve or reduce the conservative enthusiasm gap?

Again, if I'm advising the GOP (which, clearly, I'm not), I'd just start with the acceptance that whether or not they push a justice forward, the Dems will try and pack the court, bring DC in (PR is less sure, I'm not sure which party is in power now; remember that the liberals in PR oppose statehood traditionally) regardless. Both sides are firmly convinced the other side will not accept election results. Both sides are convinced the others will exercise the worst case scenario post-election. Both sides know they must have their base turn out in force to win the Presidency and/or the Senate. So, the cold calculus pretty much says - does pushing the justice through early hurt, help or have no difference? And if so, what are the benefits of having a justice seated by or shortly after the election?

While I don't trust Trump to make those calculations, I'm confident McConnell will. But my earlier point was incomplete, so thanks for pointing it out. He'll move quickly if he has both the votes and his data shows it's of benefit going into the election.

[umjewman]

It is, and that's why the Democrats are going to show no mercy once they regain power.

I think that's a pipe dream, honestly. I don't think the Democrats have the stones to act like McConnell and Co. Maybe they've reached a breaking point, but I feel like the Democrats would have caved on the Garland thing if the shoe was on the other foot. Republicans held fast and they're now reaping the ill-gotten gains.