• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

RBG dead at 87

Bruce Monkhouse

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
116
Points
780
mariomike said:
Power!!!

Whites have 0.35 Senators per million people, while Blacks have 0.26, Asian-Americans 0.25, and Latinos just 0.19.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/14/opinion/dc-puerto-rico-statehood-senate.html

Holy cow, did that become about racism real quick.  I somehow doubt when the system was set up a couple hundred years ago they even considered silly things like blacks and women voting...
 

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
I feel like may people here could benefit from Scott Adam’s explanation of the McConnell Rule to Dale the Democrat at 11:40 of podcast #1129.

 

Brad Sallows

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
48
Points
530
>What does it all mean???!!!

The point, which may have been too subtle, is that it's somewhere on the foolish-stupid spectrum to play games examining senatorial representation along arbitrary cleavages of home address, race, gender, skin colour, sexual preference, length of hair, kind of dog fancied, etc that have nothing to do with what the institution was designed to accomplish.

The Senate gets to do "advice and consent", of which the latter is the important part now (as it was in 2016).  Although it's common to believe the advice has to come after the proposal, that's not a rule.  Nothing hinders a president from going to the Senate before a formal nomination to find out which items on a list are acceptable and which are DRT.  A president facing a problematic Senate would be wise to pre-clear the "most ideologically desirable but Senatorially-appointable candidate" to ensure his nomination passes rather than risk losing it.  In Trump's case, that might mean reducing the short list to a shorter list that can pass muster with the sticky Republican Senators in the middle.
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
72
Points
630
The Senate was not designed to benefit white voters - almost all voters were white when the Constitution went into effect .

Without arguing data versus feelings any further, readers may, or may not, wish to consult this Data for Progress analysis of the topic,
https://www.dataforprogress.org/memos/the-senate-is-an-irredeemable-institution?rq=senate

http://filesforprogress.org/memos/the-senate-is-an-irredeemable-institution.pdf
 

Donald H

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So the Scotus is about to contain 6 of one political bent and 3 of the other!
Woe be to any nation's court which members can be easily tagged as being politically biased on coming to decisions!

But a reality is about due to overtake the politics of the Scotus. That is, the large majority of Americans are out of sync with their supreme court's politics, especially on abortion rights for women.

America's system isn't working and it's largely because of compromises having been needed to keep the country together.
 

Donald H

Banned
Banned
Reaction score
0
Points
0
mariomike said:
The Senate was not designed to benefit white voters - almost all voters were white when the Constitution went into effect - but it has had that effect.

Without arguing data versus feelings any further, readers may, or may not, wish to consult this Data for Progress analysis of the topic,
https://www.dataforprogress.org/memos/the-senate-is-an-irredeemable-institution?rq=senate

Absolutely yes to that link. It was a workabl solution at the time and even made more workable by awarding some minority factions a portion of a vote. How can that possibly continue in the 21st. century?

:cheers:
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
41
Points
580
America is going to do what America is going to do. Us NA attic dwellers can only watch with a mixture of horror/glee/amazement/wonder as the Excited States work themselves into a frenzy as it tries to deal with Pandemic/Massive Forest Fires/Hurricane Season/Supreme Court Appointment/ Racial Unrest/Presidential Election with an absolute lunatic at the helm.

STAFF EDIT:  this is the kind of stuff the site is trying to stay away from.  Just a verbal for now....



 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
72
Points
630
FSTO said:
America is going to do what America is going to do. Us NA attic dwellers can only watch with a mixture of horror/glee/amazement/wonder as the Excited States work themselves into a frenzy as it tries to deal with Pandemic/Massive Forest Fires/Hurricane Season/Supreme Court Appointment/ Racial Unrest/Presidential Election < snip >

The late Robin Williams put it this way, “You are like a really nice apartment over a meth lab.”  :)

 

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
FSTO said:
with an absolute lunatic at the helm.

Almost all of the crazies are reacting to Trump, they are opposed to Trump. Imagine if they or those they support were in charge?

My initial thought was Trump could reach across the isle by delaying the appointment until after the election.  Settle things down a little.  Then I saw the crazy town reaction.  That, and after learning a little more history on Supreme Court appointments in the US, I now believe he should ram this through as quick as possible. RBG would have agreed, at one point.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
332
Points
830
QV said:
That, and after learning a little more history on Supreme Court appointments in the US, I now believe he should ram this through as quick as possible. RBG would have agreed, at one point.

RBG excelled at making her opinion on subjects known, so can you back that assertion up with reference to something she actually wrote or said?
 

kkwd

Sr. Member
Reaction score
4
Points
230
Brihard said:
RBG excelled at making her opinion on subjects known, so can you back that assertion up with reference to something she actually wrote or said?
Her opinion in 2016 was documented by WaPo.

“I do think cooler heads will prevail, I hope sooner rather than later,” Ginsburg said. “The president is elected for four years not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four.”

“Maybe members of the Senate will wake up and appreciate that that’s how it should be.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/ginsburg-suggests-senate-should-act-on-garland-nomination-but-says-it-cannot-be-forced-to/2016/09/07/0f10b7b6-754c-11e6-b786-19d0cb1ed06c_story.html
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
March 16 2016 President Obama nominated Merrick Garland versus September ?? 2020 President Trump nominates ??. If the Senate couldn't approve a nomination in 8 months seems like they'll be hard pressed in one month. Thank God we haven't degenerated into this nonsense up here yet
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
103
Points
630
That’s the hypocrisy of the the likes of Mitch McConnell, Lyndsey Graham and many Fox pundits who justified not appointing the year of the last election. 

Right now I am of the opinion that the POTUS has a duty to appoint a SC justice as soon as he can.  If he feasibly has time then he should do so.  The Senate should indeed make this as smooth as possible.

But given what the Republicans did last time, it is no wonder that the democrats will do whatever they can to stall or stop it from happening.

The GOP reaping what it sowed.

Their lame excuse about how it’s different is BS.  I’d respect them more if they just flat out admitted it for what it is and was.

Guaranteed if they rush this though the Dems will push to “stack” the SC if they get the chance.

An overall interesting turn of events in what is already a goat rodeo campaign.

Edit: grammar

 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
52
Points
530
So RBG had something like 4 bouts with cancer, so why didn't she hang up the robes years ago under a democratic president and ensure a democratic leaning justice was appointed. This would had avoided all this drama to come.
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
103
Points
630
Chief Engineer said:
So RBG had something like 4 bouts with cancer, so why didn't she hang up the robes years ago under a democratic president and ensure a democratic leaning justice was appointed. This would had avoided all this drama to come.

Ah so it’s her fault?
 

mariomike

Army.ca Legend
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
72
Points
630
Chief Engineer said:
, so why didn't she hang up the robes years ago under a democratic president and ensure a democratic leaning justice was appointed.

With Mitch as Senate Majority Leader, do you think that was likely?

Remember how Mitch handled Merrick Garland?
 

Remius

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
103
Points
630
mariomike said:
With Mitch as Senate Majority Leader, do you think that was likely?

Not a chance.  Which is why she was hanging on as long as she could.
 

Bruce Monkhouse

Army.ca Myth
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
116
Points
780
Remius said:
Ah so it’s her fault?

No, but like I tell some of the dinosaurs at work, hang 'em up so someone younger can have a shot at something also.  87 and working in a wanted job is selfish, IMO of course.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
ego/vanity is the likely reason she didn't retire during either of President Obama's two terms. But perhaps she just wasn't as invested in the political process as so many people like to attribute to the Supreme Court justices/nominees
 

QV

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
210
Remius said:
That’s the hypocrisy of the the likes of Mitch McConnell, Lyndsey Graham and many Fox pundits who justified not appointing the year of the last election. 

Right now I am of the opinion that the POTUS has a duty to appoint a SC justice as soon as he can.  If he feasibly has time then he should do so.  The Senate should indeed make this as smooth as possible.

But given what the Republicans did last time, it is no wonder that the democrats will do whatever they can to stall or stop it from happening.

The GOP reaping what it sowed.

Their lame excuse about how it’s different is BS.  I’d respect them more if they just flat out admitted it for what it is and was.

Guaranteed if they rush this though the Dems will push to “stack” the SC if they get the chance.

An overall interesting turn of events in what is already a goat rodeo campaign.

Edit: grammar

With respect Remius, if you think the GOP is reaping what it sow or there is hypocrisy here then you do not have any understanding of the process or it’s history. I urge you to hear Scott Adam’s explanation. 

Simple version: if presidency and senate are same party then nominate and confirm, if presidency and senate not the same party then don’t. 

McConnel is on the record warning the Democrats about changing the process to a simple majority from two thirds and that they’d regret that, but the Democrats changed it anyway.

Now the Republicans are going to take advantage of the new rules and they are somehow wrong and hypocrites?
 
Top