RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain why local judges are forced to retire by age 65 (I think) but we allow cancer stricken 80-somethings on the SC?

State Courts are entirely different and the rules vary by state. Federal Judges are all appointed for life so that they can rule according to the constitution and precedent without the interference of politics or fear of removal. They can be impeached.

[Anonymous]

Democrats should push to delay the appointment. It's a slim hope but their only hope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If they win Democrats must pack the court.

Why can’t Dems play by the rules? The Dems eliminated the filibuster for nominations, then cried when the Republicans benefited from the change.

The law of the land says the President nominates and the Senate confirms. There is nothing in the Constitution about dying wish.

If the roles were reversed, would the Dems wait?

Mitch McConnell set the precedent of waiting when there is a vacancy this close to the election. Lindsey graham personalmt said in 2018 that they wouldn’t fill a vacancy if it was In the presidents last year and the primaries had already started. Completely hypocritical.

If Trump was in his last term, you would be correct. It might not be the Presidents last year, so it’s not the same.

We can wait six short weeks to find out if that’s the case. If Trump wins the election, then his pick can be confirmed after the election. If he loses, then per the McConnell rule, it should wait until after Inauguration Day.

Some of you folks don't even understand the rules.

When POTUS and Senate fall along same party lines, there is no issue at all.

What is the principled basis for that distinction?

I believe it consists of:


The Democrats should pack the court and burn what remains of its status as an institution to the ground.

Missing image:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How do you suggest holding Mitch to his words?

He needs to let the next President decide the nomination. If he doesn't, it will tear this country apart.

Please. Obama said it is the constitutional duty.

Nothing black and white here.

Barrett is a fine successor for RBG; a towering female jurist.

I also think Barrett is fine. That isn't the problem. The problem is the GOP having no principles. They need to show some now.

There are very few elected officials in either major party that have principles. There are some good story tellers that may have convinced you that they are principled. Even Bernie voted with the gun lobby for decades and has like three homes.

Of course politicians can be principled. It sounds like you need to attend Trump's re-education camp. Why are you denigrating our Founding Fathers? Politicians don't have to be saints to do the right thing. It is in everyone's self interest to avoid civil war, is it not?

This. Whenever Democrats say anything negative about America, then they are accused of hating America, wanting to destroy the U.S., abandoning American values. When Republicans say something negative about America, nothing happens. Time for a change.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-white-house-conference-american-history/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should push to delay the appointment. It's a slim hope but their only hope.

Not enough votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should push to delay the appointment. It's a slim hope but their only hope.

This shouldn't be the hope of the Democrats. This should be the hope of everyone in this country:
That words matter.
That our elected leaders abide by their promises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm of the camp who believe she should have retired during the Obama administration. I do not intend to demean her historical contributions to the court, including those during the Obama administration that would not have occurred if she had retired, but she had five cancer diagnoses and said she was going to work until age 90. Last year she responded to critics calling for her retirement essentially saying that Obama could not have gotten as good of a justice confirmed:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/rbg-fires-back-against-critics-who-say-she-should-have-retired-under-obama.html

It's hard to say if it was commitment to the cause, denial about her health problems and longevity, or selfishness. Either way now her entire legacy and all she fought for is it stake.

+ 1

I think it was very selfish

They all assumed that Hillary would win and then and wanted a female president to replace her. It was arrogance not selfishness.

They being one person- RBG.

It was her lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, it was never ours.

Well, technically, a supreme court judge can be impeached as well. She serves the people. Her power was ours. We delegated it to her. Learn your civics, you commie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm of the camp who believe she should have retired during the Obama administration. I do not intend to demean her historical contributions to the court, including those during the Obama administration that would not have occurred if she had retired, but she had five cancer diagnoses and said she was going to work until age 90. Last year she responded to critics calling for her retirement essentially saying that Obama could not have gotten as good of a justice confirmed:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/rbg-fires-back-against-critics-who-say-she-should-have-retired-under-obama.html

It's hard to say if it was commitment to the cause, denial about her health problems and longevity, or selfishness. Either way now her entire legacy and all she fought for is it stake.

+ 1

I think it was very selfish

Why do you think Obama would be able to get his nominee through the senate?

Because he would have been forced to pick a moderate. Now, with the President and Senate in the hands of a single party, the nomination can be practically anyone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should push to delay the appointment. It's a slim hope but their only hope.

They have no levers in the Senate to do that and the Republicans have made it clear they are craven about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm of the camp who believe she should have retired during the Obama administration. I do not intend to demean her historical contributions to the court, including those during the Obama administration that would not have occurred if she had retired, but she had five cancer diagnoses and said she was going to work until age 90. Last year she responded to critics calling for her retirement essentially saying that Obama could not have gotten as good of a justice confirmed:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/rbg-fires-back-against-critics-who-say-she-should-have-retired-under-obama.html

It's hard to say if it was commitment to the cause, denial about her health problems and longevity, or selfishness. Either way now her entire legacy and all she fought for is it stake.

+ 1

I think it was very selfish

They all assumed that Hillary would win and then and wanted a female president to replace her. It was arrogance not selfishness.

They being one person- RBG.

It was her lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, it was never ours.

Well, technically, a supreme court judge can be impeached as well. She serves the people. Her power was ours. We delegated it to her. Learn your civics, you commie.

Voters have the power to impeach? I must have missed that civics lesson, comrade.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Democrats should push to delay the appointment. It's a slim hope but their only hope.

This shouldn't be the hope of the Democrats. This should be the hope of everyone in this country:
That words matter.
That our elected leaders abide by their promises.

Politics is the game of winning by implementing your agenda. Every politician lies, every politician divides. Look what happened after Obama. If you think all faults lie with Republicans, you are going to lose, like you did in 2016.

[Anonymous]

Amy will be great! People need to calm down!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm of the camp who believe she should have retired during the Obama administration. I do not intend to demean her historical contributions to the court, including those during the Obama administration that would not have occurred if she had retired, but she had five cancer diagnoses and said she was going to work until age 90. Last year she responded to critics calling for her retirement essentially saying that Obama could not have gotten as good of a justice confirmed:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/rbg-fires-back-against-critics-who-say-she-should-have-retired-under-obama.html

It's hard to say if it was commitment to the cause, denial about her health problems and longevity, or selfishness. Either way now her entire legacy and all she fought for is it stake.

+ 1

I think it was very selfish

They all assumed that Hillary would win and then and wanted a female president to replace her. It was arrogance not selfishness.

They being one person- RBG.

It was her lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, it was never ours.

Well, technically, a supreme court judge can be impeached as well. She serves the people. Her power was ours. We delegated it to her. Learn your civics, you commie.

Voters have the power to impeach? I must have missed that civics lesson, comrade.

Learn to read English, you Russian commie troll. No one said voters had direct power to impeach. We live in a republic, the voter selected Congress can impeach.

[Anonymous]

I can’t believe that it is just now people are figuring out politicians are opportunists and not to be trusted and politics is the ultimate blood-sport. I hate it too but it’s entirely to be expected.

[Anonymous]

Our diversity is our strength! President Trump will nominate a woman for SCOTUS!