Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

Dems better grow some fucking balls and punish the shit out of them.

SC to 13, DC and PR statehood, expand the house so we can get true representation from our representatives, change the senate to the rule of 100 proposal, eliminate the EC.

And then push through all of the healthcare, education, police reforms they want.

 

[Chuckie Finster 22600]

So, uh, what's the list of current Republican senators that would temporarily be replaced with a Democrat should *something* happen to them?  I fear that if Republicans make this a race against time, the general public may try and find ways to run out the clock...

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

1 minute ago, Chuckie Finster said:

So, uh, what's the list of current Republican senators that would temporarily be replaced with a Democrat should *something* happen to them?  I fear that if Republicans make this a race against time, the general public may try and find ways to run out the clock...

That and there's always the chance that someone Pelican Briefs Trump's 3 justices after the election.

The constant stoking of violence is not going to end well I fear.

[Jive Turkey 12568]

Mittens didn’t want Trump to be mean to him on Twitter anymore. 

 

Edited September 22, 2020 by Jive Turkey

[Gap03 3287]

2 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

That and there's always the chance that someone Pelican Briefs Trump's 3 justices after the election.

The constant stoking of violence is not going to end well I fear.

If I were a SC justice, I'd be asking for a bit of extra security these days.  Shit is crazy right now, and while the Dems don't have the sheer number of loons that the Rs have, it doesn't take an army.  Shit, I wouldn't put it past Putin to put a false flag "Dem assassination attempt" in place to dial the madness up to 13.  Can you imagine the Fox / OAN coverage?  

/Tin foil hat off/

[Biff Tannen 45499]

7 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Mittens didn’t want Trump to be mean to him on Twitter anymore. 

 

Fucking pussy.  Fuck em all.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

5 minutes ago, Jive Turkey said:

Mittens didn’t want Trump to be mean to him on Twitter anymore. 

 

Nah.  Even if things weren't as toxic and hypocritical as they are, no GOP is going to be able to resist a Supreme Court appointment.  And he has the convenience of not having run his diarrhea mouth in 2016, or even being present for the occurrence.

[softlynow 1783]

12 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

So, uh, what's the list of current Republican senators that would temporarily be replaced with a Democrat should *something* happen to them?  I fear that if Republicans make this a race against time, the general public may try and find ways to run out the clock...

 

9 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

That and there's always the chance that someone Pelican Briefs Trump's 3 justices after the election.

The constant stoking of violence is not going to end well I fear.

Y'all are gonna scare the DT crowd to death. They're only into tacticool cosplay, not the real thing.

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

Well in retrospect all the bitching and moaning I did the night RBG passed...was spot on.  I said getting 3 to flip would blow my mind and 4 was a pipe dream.  I wish I was wrong, but here we are.  Buckle up, gloves off at this point.  I like the way wildcat talks.  No more traditional soft ass policies/pushback.  Play for keeps.  

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

Just now, softlynow said:

 

Y'all are gonna scare the DT crowd to death. They're only into tacticool cosplay, not the real thing.

I stop visiting there because my brain can only handle so much stupidity. However, I imagine there are more than a few of them that think Kyle Rittenhouse did the right thing.

[Zonahorn 8079]

Spineless cocksucker 

[wildcat09 29258]

10 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

I stop visiting there because my brain can only handle so much stupidity. However, I imagine there are more than a few of them that think Kyle Rittenhouse did the right thing.

Half that board is six months away from hopping in pickups and running Isis-style armed convoys into liberal neighborhoods. They’ll start burning synagogues while crying about how violent BLM protesters drove them to do it in self defense.

[SquishMitten 10401]

Romney will vote based on “precedent”??? What kind of pretzel logic he using there? That Garland was never actually brought to the floor?

[StruggleBus 3922]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Half that board is six months away from hopping in pickups and running Isis-style armed convoys into liberal neighborhoods. They’ll start burning synagogues while crying about how violent BLM protesters drove them to do it in self defense.

I want some of what you're smoking

[CowboyFred 1151]

9 hours ago, Bash Riprock said:

The CR. Safe haven, because if anyone , lol, ANYONE disagrees with you they are the ENEMY.  

You Karen's need to RISE AGAINST this. The Karen's the ones with balls, need to.

its pretty well established that if you disagree AND don't bring anything to back it up well then yea you're going to get shit on.  and trolls fuck trolls

nice try on the troll attempt tho

[StassneyHorn 6540]

Democrats should just appoint 10 justices if they get complete control. If Republicans every get complete control again they can go with 10 more. I want the Supreme Court to have so many judges they have to pick a random, arbitrary number of 9 to hear a case, so that there is no guarantee beforehand of how it will go. I want there to be so many that none of them are deified and put on a pedestal for each party to worship or hope die.

And those are my not thought out all the way thoughts.

Edited September 22, 2020 by StassneyHorn

[hobbes2702 12846]

47 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

This is insane. Roberts struck down the voting rights act. 

No shit. What the fuck

[SquishMitten 10401]

Well in retrospect all the bitching and moaning I did the night RBG passed...was spot on.  I said getting 3 to flip would blow my mind and 4 was a pipe dream.  I wish I was wrong, but here we are.  Buckle up, gloves off at this point.  I like the way wildcat talks.  No more traditional soft ass policies/pushback.  Play for keeps.  

I was right there with you. The only other thing I thought was that they might use it as an opportunity to increase R turnout. But anybody paying attention to the polls probably wasn’t willing to take the risk of Trump losing and the shit storm they’d cause by cramming someone through in the lame duck period after having just touted the seat as a referendum on Trump.

I was initially onboard with 2 new seats, but the more I think about it, I’m coming around to 4. We can’t really stick with fairness and precedent anymore, because the other side doesn’t give a shit about that when it’s their turn. We have to make sure the punishment is so severe that they either a) never get a chance to fuck the country over again, or b) never again risk incurring the wrath that is about to be brought down upon them.

[Horn Dog 9674]

14 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

Spineless cocksucker 

Well Mitt, the constitution gives congress and the president the power to increase the number of SC justices, grant statehood, and expand the HOR rep number.   Since this constitutional power is indisputable, it should not be a question of "fairness" of whether it is applied.  I look forward to your complete and utter silence when this constitution authority is proposed and executed. 

[wildcat09 29258]

3 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I was right there with you. The only other thing I thought was that they might use it as an opportunity to increase R turnout. But anybody paying attention to the polls probably wasn’t willing to take the risk of Trump losing and the shit storm they’d cause by cramming someone through in the lame duck period after having just touted the seat as a referendum on Trump.

I was initially onboard with 2 new seats, but the more I think about it, I’m coming around to 4. We can’t really stick with fairness and precedent anymore, because the other side doesn’t give a shit about that when it’s their turn. We have to make sure the punishment is so severe that they either a) never get a chance to fuck the country over again, or b) never again risk incurring the wrath that is about to be brought down upon them.

The thing is, this is why 4 new seats isn't enough. 4 new seats just gets us to the same 1-seat advantage we'd have if they hadn't stolen the election with help from Russia. That's not really punishment.

Adding six seats and reorganizing the lower courts to stick all of Trump's worst appointees in a black hole somewhere is a good start. Neomi Rao can enjoy being a federal judge on a court with no jurisdiction over anything in bumfuck Alaska or something.

 

[Gatorubet 30115]

Romney was never going to give up the chance to try to cement the corporate personhood caselaw.  He and his PE buddies need to be able to buy political influence for all time.  

LDS Quorum if the Twelve Apostles not gonna pass on abortion overthrow. Church members lose membership if they aid, encourage, submit to, pay for, or perform an abortion.

Never was a shot at him missing this chance, imo

[jimmyjazz 45560]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The thing is, this is why 4 new seats isn't enough. 4 new seats just gets us to the same 1-seat advantage we'd have if they hadn't stolen the election with help from Russia.

Doesn't this assume Kennedy would have retired when he did?  He might have gone full Ginsburg and tried to hold on until Jan 2021.  That said, he did help reinforce Roe V Wade in some rulings, so it's not a simple black and white argument.

[ChiTownDoc 21102]

18 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

I was right there with you. The only other thing I thought was that they might use it as an opportunity to increase R turnout. But anybody paying attention to the polls probably wasn’t willing to take the risk of Trump losing and the shit storm they’d cause by cramming someone through in the lame duck period after having just touted the seat as a referendum on Trump.

I was initially onboard with 2 new seats, but the more I think about it, I’m coming around to 4. We can’t really stick with fairness and precedent anymore, because the other side doesn’t give a shit about that when it’s their turn. We have to make sure the punishment is so severe that they either a) never get a chance to fuck the country over again, or b) never again risk incurring the wrath that is about to be brought down upon them.

Soon the Supreme Court will barely fit into JerryWorld.  The Dems didn’t start it but they should end it by going batshit crazy in the other direction and put MoscowMitch 6 feet under.  

[GRHorn 105]

31 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

Romney will vote based on “precedent”??? What kind of pretzel logic he using there? That Garland was never actually brought to the floor?

The argument is it’s divided government 2016 (Pres and Senate) Vs the same party 2020, thus proceed. 

[GRHorn 105]

50 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Well in retrospect all the bitching and moaning I did the night RBG passed...was spot on.  I said getting 3 to flip would blow my mind and 4 was a pipe dream.  I wish I was wrong, but here we are.  Buckle up, gloves off at this point.  I like the way wildcat talks.  No more traditional soft ass policies/pushback.  Play for keeps.  

There was no other way for it to go. 
 

Let’s say Rs had decided to hold off. Would they have gotten any credit in the media or from the Biden campaign? No freaking way. They still would’ve gone with the massive scare campaign about look how close this came to happening!  They’re coming after your reproductive rights!  
 

Plus Democratic leadership has already threatened to pack the court.  That’s not new. 

Edited September 22, 2020 by GRHorn

[kevwun 15653]

The argument is that Republicans will do whatever the fuck they think is in their best interests.  They'll find a way to justify anything.

Edited September 22, 2020 by kevwun

[wildcat09 29258]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Doesn't this assume Kennedy would have retired when he did?  He might have gone full Ginsburg and tried to hold on until Jan 2021.  That said, he did help reinforce Roe V Wade in some rulings, so it's not a simple black and white argument.

No, it assumes he would’ve stayed on the court. We should’ve replaced Scalia’s seat with a liberal, giving us a 5-4 majority. Then Kennedy would’ve stayed and we would’ve replaced RBG with a liberal in 2017.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

7 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

The argument is it’s divided government 2016 (Pres and Senate) Vs the same party 2020, thus proceed. 

Which is purely an argument of convenience, as it was in no way used in 2016 as justification for holding up Garland's hearings.  It doesn't surprise me that Trump's ass-kissing foot soldiers believe it, though.

[wildcat09 29258]

5 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

There was no other way for it to go. 
 

Let’s say Rs had decided to hold off. Would they have gotten any credit in the media or from the Biden campaign? No freaking way. They still would’ve gone with the massive scare campaign about look how close this came to happening!  They’re coming after your reproductive rights!  
 

Plus Democratic leadership has already threatened to pack the court.  That’s not new. 

This is a lie.

[Zonahorn 8079]

Time for Guam, Samoa, D.C, and Puerto Rico to be states.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

No, it assumes he would’ve stayed on the court. We should’ve replaced Scalia’s seat with a liberal, giving us a 5-4 majority. Then Kennedy would’ve stayed and we would’ve replaced RBG with a liberal in 2017.

OK, I messed up the numbers.

[USMCHorn 1369]

9 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

The argument is it’s divided government 2016 (Pres and Senate) Vs the same party 2020, thus proceed. 

None of this was said in 2016. Nothing is done in good faith anymore and the Dems are just going to bend over and take it.

[Brisketexan 104628]

18 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

The argument is it’s divided government 2016 (Pres and Senate) Vs the same party 2020, thus proceed. 

There is ALWAYS an "upcoming election" whenever there is a divided government.  So, the standard really is.....if the Senate is controlled by the opposition party, no SCOTUS justice can be appointed unless and until the president's party retakes the Senate in the next election.

That's the rule.  It's winner-take-all.  Knowing the rule now, the Dems need to follow it:

1 -- win both the White House and Senate

2 -- take everything you want.  Everything.  All of it.

[Gap03 3287]

22 minutes ago, ChiTownDoc said:

Soon the Supreme Court will barely fit into JerryWorld.  The Dems didn’t start it but they should end it by going batshit crazy in the other direction and put MoscowMitch 6 feet under.  

Until the Rs prove that they can behave like grown-ups, I'm fine with going scorched earth.  Maybe there is a fallback to a Buttigieg-style reform (5 Ds, 5 Rs, 5 appointed by sitting members) in an effort to unify the country at some point, but a point needs to be made now.  The Rs have been fucking around for far too long, and now it's time for them to find out. 

#FAFO2021

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

13 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Doesn't this assume Kennedy would have retired when he did?  He might have gone full Ginsburg and tried to hold on until Jan 2021.  That said, he did help reinforce Roe V Wade in some rulings, so it's not a simple black and white argument.

I still maintain there was something regarding Kennedy's son, Justin, regarding the elder Kennedy's retirement. He worked in the real estate sector at Deutsche Bank from 1997-2009. During those years, Trump was busy with Miss Universe, The Apprentice, as well as undergoing two bankruptcies, and acquiring golf courses etc. Given Deutsche Bank's legal and criminal woes of late, it doesn't take too much of a tin foil hat to believe that Kennedy (at age 82) was leaning toward stepping down but that someone within the GOP or Trump himself provided some "encouragement" in the form of damaging information and the deal was done. The simplest reasoning is usually the best (stepping down due to age and to aid the GOP to have a nominee) but Trump never ever resists an opportunity to have a hold over someone.

[4th&Five 41461]

 

[Horn Dog 9674]

27 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

The argument is it’s divided government 2016 (Pres and Senate) Vs the same party 2020, thus proceed. 

Q:  What do Clarence Thomas, William Rehnquist, Anthony Kennedy and Lewis Powell ll have in common?

A:  Nominated by Repub Prs and confirmed by Dem Senate. 

 

Precedent does NOT support holding off nomination simply because the other party holds the Senate.  In fact, back when both parties treated the other with respect, most nominees were confirmed by huge bipartisan majorities.   And before you bring up Bork, who was simply a terrible candidate, what was the vote count for the Reagan nominee who replaced Bork

 

23 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

There was no other way for it to go. 
 

Let’s say Rs had decided to hold off. Would they have gotten any credit in the media or from the Biden campaign? No freaking way. They still would’ve gone with the massive scare campaign about look how close this came to happening!  They’re coming after your reproductive rights!  
 

Plus Democratic leadership has already threatened to pack the court.  That’s not new. 

Bullshit.   The Repubs would absolutely get credit from the huge majority of the population if they stood down and followed their principles.   Most importantly, they would justify Biden's desire to work across the aisle and make it very difficult for that approach not to be attempted.  Also, yes  there were fringe elements in the far left wing talking about packing the court before but there were plenty of mopderate Dems saying no to this.  Now, it is becoming a mainstream concept and that is a direct result of this.

[Reynolds Woodcock 4669]

Expanding the court by itself is a temporary bandaid unless we fix the underlying problem of the inherent tilt in favor of the rural/“conservative” class. First step is to add DC/PR (assuming PR would accept) and expanding the number of reps (including giving reps to the other US territories not large enough to be states). Step 2 is expanding the court to 13. Step 3 is killing the filibuster. Step 4 is passing a new voting rights act. The EC obviously also needs to be killed, but that will require more votes.

As has been mentioned, we cannot allow ourselves to continue to be ruled by a minority of the population grasping for power.

 

 

[tokamak 6352]

Romney seals it.

We're fully in a "might makes right" situation from now on, and there's no going back. The party in power will do everything it can to run roughshod over the minority, assuming this inspires the Democrats to grow a spine. It's been brewing for a long time, but history should make no mistake about which party put the final nails in the coffin. Helluva way to run a democracy.

What sucks is that the math is so bad for the Democrats in the Senate. The absolute best they can hope for is something right around 50/50, so they're not going to get a whole lot of chances to push through their shit.

[sasquatch69 583]

It was blatantly obvious this was coming.  They're going to railroad this through, despite all the hopes/prayers/dreams otherwise.

And honestly, if the whole situation were reversed - a conservative judge dying, but with Dems having the majority in the Senate as well as the presidency (but with pres running behind in polls against a strong R challenger) - they'd probably do the exact same thing.  

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." - Plato

 

[Zonahorn 8079]

4 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

Expanding the court by itself is a temporary bandaid unless we fix the underlying problem of the inherent tilt in favor of the rural/“conservative” class. First step is to add DC/PR (assuming PR would accept) and expanding the number of reps (including giving reps to the other US territories not large enough to be states). Step 2 is expanding the court to 13. Step 3 is killing the filibuster. Step 4 is passing a new voting rights act. The EC obviously also needs to be killed, but that will require more votes.

As has been mentioned, we cannot allow ourselves to continue to be ruled by a minority of the population grasping for power.

 

 

I like the sound of Guam and Samoa being states

[Gatorubet 30115]

This is a lie.

GRhorn gonna Roosevelt era court packing on you.Like modern Dems responsible for Dixiecrat behavior when the GOP is that guy today.

[Brisketexan 104628]

3 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

Expanding the court by itself is a temporary bandaid unless we fix the underlying problem of the inherent tilt in favor of the rural/“conservative” class. First step is to add DC/PR (assuming PR would accept) and expanding the number of reps (including giving reps to the other US territories not large enough to be states). Step 2 is expanding the court to 13. Step 3 is killing the filibuster. Step 4 is passing a new voting rights act. The EC obviously also needs to be killed, but that will require more votes.

As has been mentioned, we cannot allow ourselves to continue to be ruled by a minority of the population grasping for power.

 

 

Don't forget expanding the HOR.  Want to fix the Electoral college?  Start having the number of electors more accurately reflect the number of voters in each state.  In presidential voting (electoral votes), the vote of a person in Wyoming for president has a lot more power than the vote of a person in California, for example.  Expanding the HOR will help ameliorate that problem.

1 minute ago, tokamak said:

Romney seals it.

We're fully in a "might makes right" situation from now on, and there's no going back. The party in power will do everything it can to run roughshod over the minority, assuming this inspires the Democrats to grow a spine. It's been brewing for a long time, but history should make no mistake about which party put the final nails in the coffin. Helluva way to run a democracy.

What sucks is that the math is so bad for the Democrats in the Senate. The absolute best they can hope for is something right around 50/50, so they're not going to get a whole lot of chances to push through their shit.

Might makes right.  It's the only rule now.  Winner take all.  Win, and do whatever you want, with zero regard for the other party.  Them's the rules now.  Time to play by them.  Win.  Then do whatever you want.  It's that fucking simple, Dems -- don't overthink it.

[TwiceHorn 31283]

45 minutes ago, GRHorn said:

The argument is it’s divided government 2016 (Pres and Senate) Vs the same party 2020, thus proceed. 

That argument is complete fucking horseshit.

Any argument at all is based on the proximity of the nomination to an election, in which all prior electoral preferences may change.  Who is in power prior to that election is irrelevant.  Either the election matters or it does not.

Historically, the upcoming election never mattered.  There's always an upcoming election, as brisket notes.

The only time we've deviated from that is 2016.

It's disingenuous horseshit to justify deviating from other disingenuous horseshit.

Edited September 22, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[UpperWestside 6136]

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There is ALWAYS an "upcoming election" whenever there is a divided government.  So, the standard really is.....if the Senate is controlled by the opposition party, no SCOTUS justice can be appointed unless and until the president's party retakes the Senate in the next election.

That's the rule.  It's winner-take-all.  Knowing the rule now, the Dems need to follow it:

1 -- win both the White House and Senate

2 -- take everything you want.  Everything.  All of it.

And by everything I am okay with that including states who give far more to the federal government than they receive back currently in monetary terms to rectify that. There will be some red states that benefit from this such as Texas, but the big blue states will benefit as well. Kentucky and every other chronic welfare state can collapse under this scenario. I do not care. It is time to let these constant takers, these “Taking federal dollars from wealthier states to own the libs” people to have it all finally come home to roost. Let them see what selfishness looks like from the opposite point of view and when they complain just remind them of the havoc they inflicted upon our country by supporting a narcissistic cult leader. There has to be a price to pay for their behavior and a monetary one is the hardest to deal with. 

[Dnaguy 11777]

11 minutes ago, Reynolds Woodcock said:

Expanding the court by itself is a temporary bandaid unless we fix the underlying problem of the inherent tilt in favor of the rural/“conservative” class. First step is to add DC/PR (assuming PR would accept) and expanding the number of reps (including giving reps to the other US territories not large enough to be states). Step 2 is expanding the court to 13. Step 3 is killing the filibuster. Step 4 is passing a new voting rights act. The EC obviously also needs to be killed, but that will require more votes.

As has been mentioned, we cannot allow ourselves to continue to be ruled by a minority of the population grasping for power.

 

 

Step 1 would have to be eliminating the filibuster to achieve any of the other goals

Step 2 - Add DC and PR so that you can add reliable Dem Senators which would increase the majority

Step 3 - Add the justices w/ the newly democratic majority of Senators

Step 4 - Expand the House via the Wyoming rule which should dilute the power of rural areas / rural states... but I don't really agree with your giving territories reps. That would require a constitutional amendment (if I'm not mistaken but I could be wrong) which would have no chance of passing and would take too much political bandwidth

Step 5 - With the larger Dem majorities in house and senate, the new voting rigjhts act sails through congress.

Edited September 22, 2020 by Dnaguy

[Michael Knight 12898]

[jimmyjazz 45560]

While we're fixing things, let's take another look at the Fairness Doctrine and Citizens United.  You know, if we're making a list and all.

[David Dennison 18660]

1 minute ago, Dnaguy said:

Step 1 would have to be eliminating the filibuster to achieve any of the other goals

Step 2 - Add DC and PR so that you can add reliable Dem Senators which would increase the majority

Step 3 - Expand the House via the Wyoming rule which should dilute the power of rural areas / rural states... but I don't really agree with your giving territories reps. That would require a constitutional amendment (if I'm not mistaken but I could be wrong) which would have no chance of passing and would take too much political bandwidth

Step 4 - With the larger Dem majorities in house and senate, the new voting rigjhts act sails through congress.

I'd like to think that Chuck Schumer could whip the votes to kill the filibuster, but after reading Diane Feinstein's comments, I'm not so sure. Something tells me she's not the only recalcitrant Democrat on the subject.

And that's why we can't have nice things.

[jimmyjazz 45560]

Color me shocked that Diane Feinstein might not act in the best interest of her party or her constituents.