Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

I'll tune in to Fox News for the first time in forever come February when President Joe Biden nominates Hillary Clinton for the first of four new Supreme Court seats.

[Fozzz 152]

1 hour ago, Bojack said:

Fozzzz, you should start a thread entitled Fozzz's Manifesto where you lay out your beliefs.  At best, you come across as all over the place. Mostly what I see from you amounts to LOL, Dems suck.  LoL, the fascists are winning but it's ok cause the dems are actually worse.  

 

Some poster:  Fuck you, Fozzz.  You sound like a trumpkin dumb shit.

Fozzz:  Nope. Never voted Republican.  You'll never guess what I believe.  Here's another clue for you all:  RBG was the real fascist and the Walrus was Paul.   

 

You act like you don't care about the negs but you're awfully close to getting banned from a site where you've made more than 6000 posts.  Anyone that posts that much cares somewhat.  Waka Waka.  

There are no fascists, Bojack. 

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

 

[bad_teammate 13479]

11 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Well. Just helped organize a protest/pussy hat sit in to take place next week at all of Senator Richard Shelby’s Alabama offices.

We already have over 6,500 RSVPs to the Facebook group in just over 24 hours.

This is the good shit.

This right here is the good shit.

awwwww yesssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

[tantric superman 4668]

I don't want any dumb shits who don't have any knowledge of constitutional law on the court.  This court has one job, and that is to interpret the constitution. 

Like everything else, if you can get some diversity, great. 

[bad_teammate 13479]

*guy who spent late-2003 arguing that Fallujah actually deserved it*

"Look, Fozzz, what you don't understand about progressive politics ..."

[G650 14421]

6 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

*guy who spent late-2003 arguing that Fallujah actually deserved it*

"Look, Fozzz, what you don't understand about progressive politics ..."

But Iraq!

 

 

[Biff Tannen 46061]

2 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

This is all the GOP is about these days.  Good job “conservatives”!

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/politics/ginsburg-voter-reactions.html?referringSource=articleShare
 

“We might as well just add this to the list of things that make them cry and whine and make snowflake tears fall,” he said of Democrats. “We might as well try to get a justice in there to give us a little more advantage.”
 

“Absolutely, it’s hypocritical,” he said. “But it will be good for the Republican Party and good for America.”

This is what Dems have to understand and act on.  The rules are gone.  If you continue to pretend there are rules, you will lose.  You have to play this dirty game.  There is no getting around it without losing.  Bill Maher has been saying this for years and it turns out he is 100% right.  It doesn't feel good, but it's the only way forward.  Destroy them.  Destroy them all.

[Tom 2960]

8 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

*guy who spent late-2003 arguing that Fallujah actually deserved it*

"Look, Fozzz, what you don't understand about progressive politics ..."

 

Are you talking about someone in particular or making blanket assumptions?

 

Fozzz is a terrible poster regardless of his political beliefs, which we don't know because he's never made a single post arguing for what he believes in, just 6,000+ vague posts shitting on others.

[totallynotabuttpirate 5477]

7 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

This is what Dems have to understand and act on.  The rules are gone.  If you continue to pretend there are rules, you will lose.  You have to play this dirty game.  There is no getting around it without losing.  Bill Maher has been saying this for years and it turns out he is 100% right.  It doesn't feel good, but it's the only way forward.  Destroy them.  Destroy them all.

Yea, and what the fuck have they got to lose?

"Oh noes, the republicans will expand the court when they get power." 

Republicans have stacked the courts for 50+ years, so there would be no change in that regard. The big difference would be the Democrats can now do something about it when they're in power. 

Plus add 2 senators for DC, expand the house, and it's very unlikely the reps will have the senate and house for at least a decade. 

[Neonmoon 38130]

Problem is there is a 50% chance Democrat’s puss out next year when it comes to expanding court

[totallynotabuttpirate 5477]

I would put that chance higher than 50%. They might be more comfortable doing it after the 2022 midterms when they hopefully pick up more seats. It would also give more time for the conservative court to fuck more people and sway public opinion. 

They better do away with the filibuster right away though. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by totallynotabuttpirate

[Red Five 41596]

It was explained to me this morning on Meet the Press, by some (R) whose name I've already forgotten, that if a Supreme Court justice dies in an election year and the president and the senate majority are the same party (like, say, in 2020) then they get to choose the replacement. However, if they are of different parties (like, say, in 2016), then we must wait until after the upcoming election. 

Golly, I wasn't aware of these oddly specific rules and traditions. 

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

6 minutes ago, Neonmoon said:

Problem is there is a 50% chance Democrat’s puss out next year when it comes to expanding court

Biden is the big worry here.  He'll want to get along with everyone.

[G650 14421]

5 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Biden is the big worry here.  He'll want to get along with everyone.

I wouldn't be so sure

[Pancho 46054]

Ernst a no?

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20835]

Republican Senators on the question of Supreme Court secession in an election year:

 

 

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas): “It has been 80 years since a Supreme Court vacancy was nominated and confirmed in an election year. There is a long tradition that you don’t do this in an election year.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.): “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election”.


Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.): “In this election year, the American people will have an opportunity to have their say in the future direction of our country. For this reason, I believe the vacancy left open by Justice Antonin Scalia should not be filled until there is a new president.”

 

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.): “The Senate should not confirm a new Supreme Court justice until we have a new president.”

 

Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.): “There is 80 years of precedent for not nominating and confirming a new justice of the Supreme Court in the final year of a president’s term so that people can have a say in this very important decision.”

 

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio): “I believe the best thing for the country is to trust the American people to weigh in on who should make a lifetime appointment that could reshape the Supreme Court for generations. . . . It is common practice for the Senate to stop acting on lifetime appointments during the last year of a presidential term, and it’s been nearly 80 years since any president was permitted to immediately fill a vacancy that arose in a presidential election year.”

 

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.): “The campaign is already under way. It is essential to the institution of the Senate and to the very health of our republic to not launch our nation into a partisan, divisive confirmation battle during the very same time the American people are casting their ballots to elect our next president.”

 

Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.): “As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will do everything in my power to encourage the president and Senate leadership not to start this process until we hear from the American people.”

Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.): “The next President must nominate successor that upholds constitution, founding principles.”

 

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.): “I strongly agree that the American people should decide the future direction of the Supreme Court by their votes for president and the majority party in the U.S. Senate.”

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Penn.): “The next Court appointment should be made by the newly-elected president.”

 

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.): “I don’t think we should be moving on a nominee in the last year of this president’s term — I would say that if it was a Republican president .”

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.): “It makes the current presidential election all that more important as not only are the next four years in play, but an entire generation of Americans will be impacted by the balance of the court and its rulings. . . . I will oppose this nomination as I firmly believe we must let the people decide the Supreme Court’s future.”

 

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa): “A lifetime appointment that could dramatically impact individual freedoms and change the direction of the court for at least a generation is too important to get bogged down in politics. The American people shouldn’t be denied a voice.”

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa): “We will see what the people say this fall and our next president, regardless of party, will be making that nomination.”

 

 

 Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Col.): “I think we’re too close to the election. The president who is elected in November should be the one who makes this decision.” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas): “I believe the American people deserve to have a voice in the selection of the next Supreme Court Justice, and the best way to ensure that happens is to have the Senate consider a nomination made by the next President.”
 

[mchookem 16729]

yeah...but those are all quotes from 2016. see, what you have to understand is, they are fucking hypocrits.

[troph 25089]

I don't want any dumb shits who don't have any knowledge of constitutional law on the court.  This court has one job, and that is to interpret the constitution. 
Like everything else, if you can get some diversity, great. 

Ah man why you gotta hate on me like that? Jk

[troph 25089]

Biden is the big worry here.  He'll want to get along with everyone.

I agree and a fear of a backlash even when the demographic changes are clearly in the Dems favor over the mid to long range.

[Horn Dog 10156]

32 minutes ago, totallynotabuttpirate said:

I would put that chance higher than 50%. They might be more comfortable doing it after the 2022 midterms when they hopefully pick up more seats. It would also give more time for the conservative court to fuck more people and sway public opinion. 

They better do away with the filibuster right away though. 

Agree but chances go way up if the pubs force this through, which is why I am all in favor of it.  Also, fuck that wait till next election cycle to do what is needed.  No more waiting.  No more pussy shit from the dems.  Do it immediately.   Make DC and PR states immediately....although who wants to make a bet that the SC somehow rules that it is unconstitutional to expand the court or add states without the consent of  South Dakota.

[David Dennison 19441]

1 hour ago, tantric superman said:

I don't want any dumb shits who don't have any knowledge of constitutional law on the court.  This court has one job, and that is to interpret the constitution. 

Like everything else, if you can get some diversity, great. 

Congress can always take away that job. They have tremendous power when it comes to which cases Article III courts can hear.

[TexArcher 38816]

1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

 

Yeah.  Fuck yeah, this.

[A-Tex Devil 2492]

10 minutes ago, mchookem said:

yeah...but those are all quotes from 2016. see, what you have to understand is, they are fucking hypocrits.

With respect to list of senators quoted above, I will respect (still very little) the approach of  “I know it’s hypocritical, but that’s politics!” More than trying to create distinctions without differences and hem and haw as to how what was done to Merrick Garland was justified and not at all similar to forcing through a nom in the next 6 weeks to 4 months.  

Edited September 20, 2020 by A-Tex Devil

[Burt 4115]

20 hours ago, Longhorn said:

Yep. That’s how it works. Go win something, if you can. That’s what your problem has been.

Stop changing the rules. Dems matriculate the pigskin down the field, but when they get inside the 5 yard line Republicans roll out a small round ball and start hitting it with a bat.

[lemonlime 5503]

35 minutes ago, G650 said:

I wouldn't be so sure

Yeah.  I watched the CNN town hall last week, and Biden was on fire.  I didn't really see it covered, I guess because so much other news (?), but Biden said trump should step down due to his Covid response.  There was some conciliatory talk at the end about working together, but Biden came across as rightfully and extremely pissed.

[Zonahorn 8079]

1 hour ago, Aqua Buddha said:

 

Senator Schatz fucking rules

[Neonmoon 38130]

Collins and Murkowski oppose

Now all you need is Mitt and?

[Teebox 90]

Gardner or Toomey or Grassley or Ernst 

[Planet Houston 4949]

With the potential asterisk of Kelly’s election and filling the seat before December if they wait for post-election lame duck ramming. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Planet Houston

[David Dennison 19441]

It's gonna be a lame duck confirmation, y'all.

[Jive Turkey 12930]

 

[David Dennison 19441]

2 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

 

They. Don't. Care.

[thepop 4418]

fuck all of them

[Aqua Buddha 14782]

I actually think if Mitch believes the Dems are serious about court packing that he'll back off.  Might depend on how he sees his chances with the Senate races.  If he thinks they lose the Senate and they're serious, no way he goes through with this.

[JimmyJames 12271]

2 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I actually think if Mitch believes the Dems are serious about court packing that he'll back off.  Might depend on how he sees his chances with the Senate races.  If he thinks they lose the Senate and they're serious, no way he goes through with this.

Yeah after thinking about it I don’t think they confirm someone before the election. Not because they have any principles, they don’t, but they would worry about the severe backlash at the polls. And for what? To give the dems a rightful excuse to pack the court. 

[Bateshorn 9989]

55 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Agree but chances go way up if the pubs force this through, which is why I am all in favor of it.  Also, fuck that wait till next election cycle to do what is needed.  No more waiting.  No more pussy shit from the dems.  Do it immediately.   Make DC and PR states immediately....although who wants to make a bet that the SC somehow rules that it is unconstitutional to expand the court or add states without the consent of  South Dakota.

This is why you abolish the filibuster, pack the court, then bring in DC and PR.  That way the court has your back. From there you enact your agenda lock stock and barrel.  
 

oh god, I’m going to be so fucking busy under this scenario.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Bateshorn

[David Dennison 19441]

4 hours ago, Mapache said:

 

The Constitution is the problem.

[TwiceHorn 31987]

Here's what the Dems need to do.

HB _____________ ("The Fuck You Mitch Act")

A bill to amend the Judiciary Act, Section 1, Title 28, United States Code, as follows:

The Supreme Court of the United States shall consist of a Chief Justice of the United States and eight ten associate justices, any six seven of whom shall constitute a quorum.

FYMA.  It's perfect.  Pass it now.

Edited September 20, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20835]

Here is why I think pushing for a confirmation vote is bad for Republicans:

1) It strikes almost everyone as not only unfair play given what the Republicans said four years ago.  Murkowski's comment that it is a question of basic fairness and that most Americans see it that way is exactly right 

2) It gives Democrats such an easy opportunity to show Republican hypocrisy on a matter that isn't something like trade with China but on something that even the simplest voter can understand. All you have to do is play a video of Lyndsey Graham saying four years ago "You can hold these words against me if I every change my position on this"  and then video of him with a changed position.  Here's my point: only a few percent of the voting public is undecided at this point and this is something that every one of them can understand. It's not a good look 45 days from the election. 


So I say let them do it. If they somehow succeed they will be massively punished at the polls.  Fortunately, the fact that so many of them four years ago were happy to deny the SC a ninth justice for 10 months and so many of them went on record gives Republican senators like Collins who are in close races and don't want to be identified with Trump and easy, moral out:  "we said four years ago that we were against an election year confirmation and I don't see no reason for us to change our principles now"    etc....   

[Bateshorn 9989]

22 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

I actually think if Mitch believes the Dems are serious about court packing that he'll back off.  Might depend on how he sees his chances with the Senate races.  If he thinks they lose the Senate and they're serious, no way he goes through with this.

This is the actual conversation:  if you do it before the election and you win, then you’ve won the game for years to come, likely for the rest of our lifetimes. Trump will be ensconced as a de facto dictator and you can minimize the House through judicial rulings and executive actions. Eventually he could declare a national emergency and Barr will start arresting political opponents and the Court will look away due to executive deference. 

 

But if you lose,  then the fury of the Democrats is likely to result in a shattering of the post Reagan stasis state and a complete policy realignment.  The dems will go hell’s bells to improve their election chances via voting rights, house expansion, judicial term limits, and redistricting reform.  Just to name a few.

 

Honestly, it’s a Pearl Harbor strategy:  if you can catch the carriers at port, you can see a path to victory.  But if you don’t,  the demographics of the changing nation could result in a wipe out of your party. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Bateshorn

[UpperWestside 6263]

4 hours ago, Bojack said:

Fozzzz, you should start a thread entitled Fozzz's Manifesto where you lay out your beliefs.  At best, you come across as all over the place. Mostly what I see from you amounts to LOL, Dems suck.  LoL, the fascists are winning but it's ok cause the dems are actually worse.  

 

Some poster:  Fuck you, Fozzz.  You sound like a trumpkin dumb shit.

Fozzz:  Nope. Never voted Republican.  You'll never guess what I believe.  Here's another clue for you all:  RBG was the real fascist and the Walrus was Paul.   

 

You act like you don't care about the negs but you're awfully close to getting banned from a site where you've made more than 6000 posts.  Anyone that posts that much cares somewhat.  Waka Waka.  

He should start a thread entitled "Welcome to the American Inquisition 2: All Over the Map Boogaloo."

Edited September 20, 2020 by UpperWestside

[Bateshorn 9989]

Waiting till after the election allows you to decide if the juice is worth the squeeze, but it also violates the bird in hand rule. 

[Bama Chick 28596]

Senator Schatz fucking rules

Did you know his dad was the epidemiologist who was the first to voice public concern about the Tuskegee Syphilis Study a full decade before it was shut down?

He comes from a line of bad asses.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Just an FYI -


If you text RBG to 50409, @resistbot will deliver letters to your senators demanding they wait until after the election to appoint a new justice to SCOTUS. It’s easy and quick.

[G650 14421]

29 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

But if you lose,  then the fury of the Democrats is likely to result in a shattering of the post Reagan stasis state and a complete policy realignment.  The dems will go hell’s bells to improve their election chances via voting rights, house expansion, judicial term limits, and redistricting reform.  Just to name a few.

This is the more likely scenario. And honestly at this point I think the wheels are in motion regardless of what the Republicans do. 60% of Americans are absolutely inconsolably livid right now and Washington is going to reap the whirlwind.

 

 

As far as what Mitch does, there's essentially three scenarios, and two of them have the same result most likely. Scenario 1 is he thinks the Senate can be saved, and punts till lame duck. Scenario 2, he thinks the Senate is lost and pushes it through post haste ( but even this will take time, the record is 42 days. It's not a two week process by any stretch) Scenario 3 is the most complex, he thinks Senate is toast, but can't whip the votes. I think he goes ahead with it so he can say he tried but maybe not

Edited September 20, 2020 by G650
errant punctuation and schpellings

[achooloco 1086]

15 hours ago, thepop said:

Yup this was at 3 million before RBG died. Around 8 million when i donated. Now is going to hit 20 million tonight.

 

16 hours ago, Planet Houston said:

This is what I donated to last night. They strategically allocate your donation to the most important senate races. 

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/getmitch

 

 

15 hours ago, thepop said:

If only we had this energy in 2016.

Never really donated b/c  not shaggy 1%, except for my cousin's judgeship race in Illinois, but I'll be donating weekly now. Fuck trump, we need to save our country.

[Gap03 3374]

This mashup makes me all sorts of ragey.  Fuck every one of these motherfuckers.

 

[Mo Horn 8933]

And I'm going to spend the weekend convincing the Kansas lottery office that I really intended to pick the winning numbers last night, but just didn't get to the store to buy the ticket. 

[ChuckNorrisActionJeans 2692]

I donated to the Get Mitch fund and also to my U.S Congress race.

What's the best way to donate to Biden/Harris? Through Act Blue? Or is that even worth doing? Should I take that money (not a huge amount) and instead give again to one or more Senate races?