Ginsburg Dead

[goldfly]

It actually prevents violence.

lol

[goldfly]

stand your ground

no doubt

i love seeing a self described constitutionalist try to argue the 2nd amendment isn't about violence lol

i needed that laugh.

i almost laughed more about this than the falcons game lol

[57Brave]

As a historical fact, it's worth noting:

Sen. McConnell changed the number of working justices on The Supreme Court from 9 to 8, for well over a year.

[sturg33]

no doubt

i love seeing a self described constitutionalist try to argue the 2nd amendment isn't about violence lol

i needed that laugh.

i almost laughed more about this than the falcons game lol

will you ever address my direct questions to you?

I miss the days you weren't so stupid

[goldfly]

holy **** man

shut the **** up

[goldfly]

[sturg33]

holy **** man

shut the **** up

Hell of an argument.

You ok fella?

[sturg33]

Why shouldn't the reps fill the seat, goldy?

(This is, yet another, direct question)

[goldfly]

i guess that somehow wasn't blunt enough for ya

this is yet again, me telling you to shut the **** up you insufferable prick.

it that direct enough for ya?

[Runnin]

OO is going to cause such chaos during the election that it will have to be settled by the Supreme Court and this as his chance to rig the system for him.

We are witnessing the beginning of all out civil war between the two parties and have been for a while. The Trump Hypocrisy party has long since stopped playing by the rules and the Dems need to realize it. I think they are starting to.

[striker42]

I've had the weekend to consider my thoughts on Ginsburg and here they are.

Ginsburg was a great advocate, an amazing attorney, an inspirational figure, and a terrible judge.

The thing that many, many people don't realize is that what makes a great judge is not reaching the result you think they should reach. So many liberal leaning individuals think Ginsburg was the most amazing justice ever because she was a staunch defender of liberal ideas. She never wavered and could always be counted on to vote for the liberal result. That actually makes her an awful judge.

Ginsburg was a bad judge for the same reason Scalia was a bad judge, they decided cases based on partisanship, not an objective analysis of the law. With those two you knew how they were going to vote on a major case before the first brief was filed. The legal argument didn't matter, only the result did. They treated their job as if it was a super legislator, not a servant of the law.

I see many people praising Ginsburg for protecting the rights of women and minorities. What they don't realize is you can say nothing more damning for a judge than that. If Ginsburg's decision protected minorities and women, then the ones getting the praise should be the ones who wrote the laws upon which she's basing her decision. If she's defining a constitutional right, the writers of Constitution should get the credit. If she's interpreting a statute, Congress should be praised. To credit Ginsburg is to recognize that she was creating (or trying to create when dissenting) law out of thin air,

But it's hard to blame Ginsburg, Scalia, or most of the current court for their failures as judges. The system is set up to select people just like them. Presidents want to name judges who will predictably vote their way. So instead of the most objective and reasonable jurists they can find, Presidents pick the most partisan jurists they can find. So we end up with Ginsburgs and Scalias who vote for a result and not the best interpretation of the law. Unfortunately I don't see this changing anytime soon.

[sturg33]

OO is going to cause such chaos during the election that it will have to be settled by the Supreme Court and this as his chance to rig the system for him.

We are witnessing the beginning of all out civil war between the two parties and have been for a while. The Trump Hypocrisy party has long since stopped playing by the rules and the Dems need to realize it. I think they are starting to.

It was Harry Reid who changed the rules...

[sturg33]

i guess that somehow wasn't blunt enough for ya

this is yet again, me telling you to shut the **** up you insufferable prick.

it that direct enough for ya?

Aww whats a matter fella?

Cant answer the question?

[striker42]

As for confirming a new judge before the next presidential term starts, I would find the antics hysterical if not for the fact that they threaten to drag the SCOTUS down into the muck in which Congress operates.

Hypocrisy in politics is a given. It's one thing you can count on. The only thing that matters is political expediency in the current moment.

Four years ago the most reliably conservative vote on the Court died just before an election. Democrats were crying that a President constitutionally has the right to nominate a SCOTUS justice until they're no longer President and the Senate should respect that. Republicans were crying that Americans should get a say and the new President should name the next Justice.

Now we have the most reliably liberal vote on the court die just before an election. You have Republicans screaming that the President is still President and so has the constitutional right to nominate a justice. You have Democrats screaming that we should wait for the election and let Americans have their say.

Even Ginsburg got in on this. Four years ago she famously said that the President doesn't stop being the President in an election year. Then reports are her final wish was that the winner of the presidential election name her replacement.

You can think your favored side has the moral high ground. You can complain about the Kavanaugh hearings or how Republicans changed the paradigm four years ago but I'll break it to you, your favored party does not have the moral high ground.

If you reverse the situation and four years ago you have Trump at the end of his second term with a Democrat Senate and Ginsburg died, would the Democrats in the Senate have let Trump name her successor? If that had happened and four years later you have President Hillary naming the successor for Scalia with a Democrat Senate, do the Democrats say "Fair is fair, we'll wait and let the winner of the Presidential election decide"? Of course not. If the Democrats were sitting in the Republicans position with the situations reversed, they act EXACTLY how the Republicans act and the Republicans would be crying foul the same as the Democrats are now.

I sincerely hope that no matter what happens the Democrats don't resort to court packing. That will destroy the SCOTUS as a functioning body. No matter what happens there needs to be the knowledge that as long as the game continues, the pendulum will eventually swing back. Breaking the game just because the pendulum is swinging away from you is irresponsible. And with Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, the pendulum isn't swinging far right.

[sturg33]

As for confirming a new judge before the next presidential term starts, I would find the antics hysterical if not for the fact that they threaten to drag the SCOTUS down into the muck in which Congress operates.

Hypocrisy in politics is a given. It's one thing you can count on. The only thing that matters is political expediency in the current moment.

Four years ago the most reliably conservative vote on the Court died just before an election. Democrats were crying that a President constitutionally has the right to nominate a SCOTUS justice until they're no longer President and the Senate should respect that. Republicans were crying that Americans should get a say and the new President should name the next Justice.

Now we have the most reliably liberal vote on the court die just before an election. You have Republicans screaming that the President is still President and so has the constitutional right to nominate a justice. You have Democrats screaming that we should wait for the election and let Americans have their say.

Even Ginsburg got in on this. Four years ago she famously said that the President doesn't stop being the President in an election year. Then reports are her final wish was that the winner of the presidential election name her replacement.

You can think your favored side has the moral high ground. You can complain about the Kavanaugh hearings or how Republicans changed the paradigm four years ago but I'll break it to you, your favored party does not have the moral high ground.

If you reverse the situation and four years ago you have Trump at the end of his second term with a Democrat Senate and Ginsburg died, would the Democrats in the Senate have let Trump name her successor? If that had happened and four years later you have President Hillary naming the successor for Scalia with a Democrat Senate, do the Democrats say "Fair is fair, we'll wait and let the winner of the Presidential election decide"? Of course not. If the Democrats were sitting in the Republicans position with the situations reversed, they act EXACTLY how the Republicans act and the Republicans would be crying foul the same as the Democrats are now.

I sincerely hope that no matter what happens the Democrats don't resort to court packing. That will destroy the SCOTUS as a functioning body. No matter what happens there needs to be the knowledge that as long as the game continues, the pendulum will eventually swing back. Breaking the game just because the pendulum is swinging away from you is irresponsible. And with Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, the pendulum isn't swinging far right.

Dems don't win so they aim to change the rules.

Its all they know how

[striker42]

Dems don't win so they aim to change the rules.

Its all they know how

It's the cycle both sides are locked in. Whenever one side gains control they one up the other.

[The Chosen One]

Trump now saying her dying wish was written by Pelosi/Schumer.

Any sense of grace he had on that air runway when he talked about Ginsburg and just found out about her death, was just shown to be nothing more than his true colors coming out now. Just an awful man.

[sturg33]

Trump now saying her dying wish was written by Pelosi/Schumer.

Any sense of grace he had on that air runway when he talked about Ginsburg and just found out about her death, was just shown to be nothing more than his true colors coming out now. Just an awful man.

Agreed that Trump can't help but make himself the bad guy with that comment.

But also, hey dying wish is quite irrelevant to the situation and the press and left should stop acting like it does

[striker42]

I was probably off base when I said earlier that Ginsburg was getting in on the flip flopping with her stating the President was still the President in an election year and it being her dying wish to wait for the next election to be replaced. I have a suspicion that the "dying wish" thing is a bit distorted. Ginsburg knew how the law worked and knew how politics worked. Imagining her on her death bed gasping out that someone make known her wish for the winner of the election to replace her is pretty far fetched.

However, I can see a Ginsburg knowing she's not going to last until January complaining to others that she wont last for a new president to replace her and that morphing into it being her dying wish to have a new president replace her.

That being said, Trump should have just ignored the dying wish thing.

[goldfly]

Dems don't win so they aim to change the rules.

if only there was a word in the english language to describe the utter bull**** this statement is


if there was

i bet it would start with a "G" though