RBG Politcal Discussion

[Anonymous]

I wish RBG had stepped down and allowed Obama to appoint someone. The Democrats seem to scared to expand the court or take any action to balance the court.

Total republicans victory. This court will make Dred Scott v. Sanford seem very reasonable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish RBG had stepped down and allowed Obama to appoint someone. The Democrats seem to scared to expand the court or take any action to balance the court.

Total republicans victory. This court will make Dred Scott v. Sanford seem very reasonable.

Total and complete victory. Her decision to not retire during Obama’s administration was pure hubris and it will lead to GOP control of the judiciary for a GENERATION. You’ll be an elderly person the next time the Dems take over the court, if ever given the long term skew of the senate to the GOP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court is totally and shamelessly political. The only people who do not know this are Democratic Senators and the media.

Of course they know it. But they claim that when SCOTUS rules their way it isn’t “political.” Instead, they view their own political views as the ONLY acceptable views. That’s why it’s not “political.” It’s like being in communist China: there is only one acceptable way to think.

I would love to see the court expanded to like 45 and have random 9 judge panels decide cases. It would total change the cases brought to the court if you did not know who the judges were before hand. You could also hear a lot more cases. The Supreme Court does not hear many cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney just announced he’s a yes. What a hypocrite.

So they only have 2 defections right now. I can’t see where the other two would come from.

Say goodbye to Roe, and much more.

Romney isn't a hypocrite. He wasn't a Senator in 2016. He is right to agree to vote on a nominee. The problem is that McConnell was 100% wrong in 2016.

No, he’s not right. The GOP is making up rules as they go along. It would’ve been one thing if they had agreed to vote on the nominee in 2016, but they didn’t, citing the fact that it was an election year. They even said they wouldn’t vote on a nominee if this exact situation came up in 2020. But now we’re in that situation, and they’re claiming the Dems are playing dirty tricks (per McConnell’s speech)?

The GOP rule is that they will do whatever is within their power to shape the courts to their own ideological preferences. Democrats should start realizing that is the rule, and follow it themselves. It means court packing is fine. It means adding DC and Puerto Rico as states is fine. It means refusing to confirm any judicial nominees by a republican president is fine.

Why stop there? How about secession and civil war? There’s stronger precedent for that than for court packing.

Because succession and civil war are not within the rules. All of the options I listed are completely legal if the Democrats win the Senate, House and Presidency. That's the McConnell rule. Precedent does not matter. Good faith does not matter. Compromise does not matter. Prior promises or statements do not matter. Anything legal is fair game.

But SCOTUS has been fabricating “the rules” for about 90 years now. Sorry you can have your activist, anti-democratic SCOTUS to dictate new laws to the country any more. Actually, now that the left has tread the path of SCOTUS issuing new laws via dictat, I bet the new conservative SCOTUS will do the same but from the right. Enjoy SCOTUS announcing an affirmative action ban, an abortion ban, gun regulation ban, gay marriage ban, religious freedom directives, a crackdown on biased social media, a ban on companies intimidating conservative employees, etc. All based on unwritten “penumbras” that SCOTUS will “discover” in the constitution. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

What planet do you live on? SCOTUS has been majority GOP since 1969.

LOL. Yes Justice Berger was such a conservative when he drafted Roe v. Wade.

Burger did not draft Roe. You really need to work on your history. You're making yourself look really stupid.

Blackmun wrote it and Burger joined. Two “republicans” according to your feeble mind.

Roe was 7-2. Four of the justices in the majority were appointed by Republican presidents (Blackmun, Burger, Brennan, and Powell). The fact that you think that Roe is such obvious evidence of liberalism just shows how far to the right the Republican party has gone.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish RBG had stepped down and allowed Obama to appoint someone. The Democrats seem to scared to expand the court or take any action to balance the court.

Total republicans victory. This court will make Dred Scott v. Sanford seem very reasonable.

Total and complete victory. Her decision to not retire during Obama’s administration was pure hubris and it will lead to GOP control of the judiciary for a GENERATION. You’ll be an elderly person the next time the Dems take over the court, if ever given the long term skew of the senate to the GOP.

How would Obama appointed her replacement? He couldn't even appoint Scalia's replacement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish RBG had stepped down and allowed Obama to appoint someone. The Democrats seem to scared to expand the court or take any action to balance the court.

Total republicans victory. This court will make Dred Scott v. Sanford seem very reasonable.

Total and complete victory. Her decision to not retire during Obama’s administration was pure hubris and it will lead to GOP control of the judiciary for a GENERATION. You’ll be an elderly person the next time the Dems take over the court, if ever given the long term skew of the senate to the GOP.

How would Obama appointed her replacement? He couldn't even appoint Scalia's replacement.

She would have had to retire during his first term. Under the McConnell rule, he wasn't allowed to appoint anyone once the GOP got control of Senate in 2012.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish RBG had stepped down and allowed Obama to appoint someone. The Democrats seem to scared to expand the court or take any action to balance the court.

Total republicans victory. This court will make Dred Scott v. Sanford seem very reasonable.

Total and complete victory. Her decision to not retire during Obama’s administration was pure hubris and it will lead to GOP control of the judiciary for a GENERATION. You’ll be an elderly person the next time the Dems take over the court, if ever given the long term skew of the senate to the GOP.

How would Obama appointed her replacement? He couldn't even appoint Scalia's replacement.

She would have had to retire during his first term. Under the McConnell rule, he wasn't allowed to appoint anyone once the GOP got control of Senate in 2012.

Exactly. She had no idea that McConnell was going to put party before country. It's not her fault. It's McConnell's fault.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court is totally and shamelessly political. The only people who do not know this are Democratic Senators and the media.

Of course they know it. But they claim that when SCOTUS rules their way it isn’t “political.” Instead, they view their own political views as the ONLY acceptable views. That’s why it’s not “political.” It’s like being in communist China: there is only one acceptable way to think.

Plenty of people say they want "originalist" judges not realizing that that is in fact political. I don't want originalist judges. They are always conservatives. I want judges who understand legislative intent, stare decisis, and the awesome power they have under English Common Law. Some are conservative, like Anthony Kennedy, and some are not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish RBG had stepped down and allowed Obama to appoint someone. The Democrats seem to scared to expand the court or take any action to balance the court.

Total republicans victory. This court will make Dred Scott v. Sanford seem very reasonable.

Total and complete victory. Her decision to not retire during Obama’s administration was pure hubris and it will lead to GOP control of the judiciary for a GENERATION. You’ll be an elderly person the next time the Dems take over the court, if ever given the long term skew of the senate to the GOP.

How would Obama appointed her replacement? He couldn't even appoint Scalia's replacement.

She would have had to retire during his first term. Under the McConnell rule, he wasn't allowed to appoint anyone once the GOP got control of Senate in 2012.

Republicans didn’t win the Senate back until 2014. She should have stepped down in 2013 or 2014.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish RBG had stepped down and allowed Obama to appoint someone. The Democrats seem to scared to expand the court or take any action to balance the court.

Total republicans victory. This court will make Dred Scott v. Sanford seem very reasonable.

Total and complete victory. Her decision to not retire during Obama’s administration was pure hubris and it will lead to GOP control of the judiciary for a GENERATION. You’ll be an elderly person the next time the Dems take over the court, if ever given the long term skew of the senate to the GOP.

How would Obama appointed her replacement? He couldn't even appoint Scalia's replacement.

She would have had to retire during his first term. Under the McConnell rule, he wasn't allowed to appoint anyone once the GOP got control of Senate in 2012.

Republicans didn’t win the Senate back until 2014. She should have stepped down in 2013 or 2014.

Translation: She should have been psychic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish RBG had stepped down and allowed Obama to appoint someone. The Democrats seem to scared to expand the court or take any action to balance the court.

Total republicans victory. This court will make Dred Scott v. Sanford seem very reasonable.

Total and complete victory. Her decision to not retire during Obama’s administration was pure hubris and it will lead to GOP control of the judiciary for a GENERATION. You’ll be an elderly person the next time the Dems take over the court, if ever given the long term skew of the senate to the GOP.

How would Obama appointed her replacement? He couldn't even appoint Scalia's replacement.

She would have had to retire during his first term. Under the McConnell rule, he wasn't allowed to appoint anyone once the GOP got control of Senate in 2012.

Republicans didn’t win the Senate back until 2014. She should have stepped down in 2013 or 2014.

Translation: She should have been psychic.

Maybe retire at 80? One has to ask what is more important her doing the work or the work she was doing? If the work is the most important thing you make sure someone is there to continue it. Lots of Democrats talked to her and asked her to retire. She said no. I know best. Now it looks likes everything she did will be wiped away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wish RBG had stepped down and allowed Obama to appoint someone. The Democrats seem to scared to expand the court or take any action to balance the court.

Total republicans victory. This court will make Dred Scott v. Sanford seem very reasonable.

I’m one hundred percent certain they will not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is abortion a litmus test, aren't their more important issues?

White male control over women is a feature not a bug.

Yes, because men of other races don’t seek control over women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Romney just announced he’s a yes. What a hypocrite.

So they only have 2 defections right now. I can’t see where the other two would come from.

Say goodbye to Roe, and much more.

Romney isn't a hypocrite. He wasn't a Senator in 2016. He is right to agree to vote on a nominee. The problem is that McConnell was 100% wrong in 2016.

No, he’s not right. The GOP is making up rules as they go along. It would’ve been one thing if they had agreed to vote on the nominee in 2016, but they didn’t, citing the fact that it was an election year. They even said they wouldn’t vote on a nominee if this exact situation came up in 2020. But now we’re in that situation, and they’re claiming the Dems are playing dirty tricks (per McConnell’s speech)?

The GOP rule is that they will do whatever is within their power to shape the courts to their own ideological preferences. Democrats should start realizing that is the rule, and follow it themselves. It means court packing is fine. It means adding DC and Puerto Rico as states is fine. It means refusing to confirm any judicial nominees by a republican president is fine.

Why stop there? How about secession and civil war? There’s stronger precedent for that than for court packing.

Because succession and civil war are not within the rules. All of the options I listed are completely legal if the Democrats win the Senate, House and Presidency. That's the McConnell rule. Precedent does not matter. Good faith does not matter. Compromise does not matter. Prior promises or statements do not matter. Anything legal is fair game.

But SCOTUS has been fabricating “the rules” for about 90 years now. Sorry you can have your activist, anti-democratic SCOTUS to dictate new laws to the country any more. Actually, now that the left has tread the path of SCOTUS issuing new laws via dictat, I bet the new conservative SCOTUS will do the same but from the right. Enjoy SCOTUS announcing an affirmative action ban, an abortion ban, gun regulation ban, gay marriage ban, religious freedom directives, a crackdown on biased social media, a ban on companies intimidating conservative employees, etc. All based on unwritten “penumbras” that SCOTUS will “discover” in the constitution. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

What planet do you live on? SCOTUS has been majority GOP since 1969.

Nominally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wish RBG had stepped down and allowed Obama to appoint someone. The Democrats seem to scared to expand the court or take any action to balance the court.

Total republicans victory. This court will make Dred Scott v. Sanford seem very reasonable.

Total and complete victory. Her decision to not retire during Obama’s administration was pure hubris and it will lead to GOP control of the judiciary for a GENERATION. You’ll be an elderly person the next time the Dems take over the court, if ever given the long term skew of the senate to the GOP.

How would Obama appointed her replacement? He couldn't even appoint Scalia's replacement.

She would have had to retire during his first term. Under the McConnell rule, he wasn't allowed to appoint anyone once the GOP got control of Senate in 2012.

Republicans didn’t win the Senate back until 2014. She should have stepped down in 2013 or 2014.

Translation: She should have been psychic.

Maybe retire at 80? One has to ask what is more important her doing the work or the work she was doing? If the work is the most important thing you make sure someone is there to continue it. Lots of Democrats talked to her and asked her to retire. She said no. I know best. Now it looks likes everything she did will be wiped away.

Why didn't the right insist that Scalia lose weight so that he would live another year or two and we wouldn't be having this problem now? It's not like he thought he was smarter than everyone and wouldn't have listened.