Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 75

Thread: Ginsberg dies

  1. #1
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,261

    Default Ginsberg dies

    Justice Ginsberg has passed away. R.I.P.

    https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ies-87-n670701

    Now the poop is really going to hit the fan! Without question the Dems are going to be furious because the Republicans have vowed to fill the seat. They had argued previously when Obama was president that Obama shouldn't be able to appoint another Justice because it was an election year. They held the Senate and refused to vote in a successor until after the election. That was when Hillary was expected to win.

    The Dems are sure to throw this back in the face of the Pubs.

    This is going to be interesting. When Obama was President the Republicans took the Senate and the power that goes with it. They still hold it. They really didn't need to give an excuse, but they did and now its going to haunt them.

    Personally, I think Trump should go ahead an appoint her successor and let the games begin. He could use the excuse, "why wait and take a chance that someone with dementia might get to appoint some one to a position so important?"

    It's guaranteed that the Dems and the press will howl to high heaven, but Trump will only anchor his base by doing it. He has nothing to lose.

    Many in the press believe that four Republican senators won't vote on it and stand by the 2016 pledge. This is questionable. Will have to wait and see.

    So what do you think? Do you think they should or shouldn't vote in a successor? Bear in mind this will be in the headlines every day until Nov. 3th.
    Last edited by B. W.; September 18, 2020 at 08:29 PM. Reason: forgot to put a link in

  2. #2

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Republicans will likely use it as a carrot for voters as an incentive to vote for Trump in the election, or they will ram it through before the election to highlight Trump's commitment to solidifying the courts.

    Even if Trump loses, they will still be able to vote in November or December before Trump leaves office. Only thing that would stop them is a Romney or someone similar refusing to endorse the vote. I think it is almost certainly going to be filled by Republicans regardless of what happens.

  3. #3
    Nicholas Rush's Avatar point of origin
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    The 9th Chevron
    Posts
    6,581
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    McConnell says any potential appointee was definitive to receive a vote on the floor of the Senate. 2020 keeps getting more and more interesting.



    Neither is this the dawn from the east, nor is a dragon flying above, nor are the gables of this hall aflame. Nay, mortal enemies approach in ready armour. Ravens are calling, wolves are howling, spear clashes and shield answers


  4. #4
    Protector Domesticus
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    4,891

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    I don't see the need to fill it when Republicans already have a majority on the court. If they do, it'll only add fuel to the Democrats' plan to abolish the Supreme Court next year. McConnell will probably hold a vote, though, because he needs Collins and other moderate Republicans to block the nomination. That'll strengthen their standing with independents and help them win reelection. Maintaining control of the Senate is vastly more important than putting yet another conservative justice on the Supreme Court.
    Ignore List (to save time):

    Exarch

  5. #5

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    To make that majority bulletproof. Duh. That way, if another conservative dies or retires during Biden's term, they will still retain a majority. They will count on Democrat and Biden "centrism" to avoid packing the court. Moderate Democrats don't have the stomach for "total war". McConnell will attempt to get this seat filled. Having a 6-3 Court majority is vastly more important than the Senate, that the polls say they will likely lose anyway. It's 53-47 on the Senate at the moment, even if 3 moderates defect (Murkowski, Collins, Romney), Pence can vote to break the tie. McConnell is a fantastic political operator, if anyone can get something like this done, it'll be him, and I have no doubt that all of his efforts will be concentrated on achieving this before the end of the year.

  6. #6

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    I have no doubt that a Trump bootlicker will be on the court before the month is out. His supporters are already drooling at the thought of how many rights they're going to take away from the American people. Abortion will be made illegal in all cases, no exception, and they're already calling for resurrecting the Defense of Marriage Act and reinstating sodomy laws. Not to mention getting rid of Obamacare so they can have the Republican dream of leaving the poor to die in the gutter.

    And when (or now if) the election comes Trump will declare the Biden victory to be fraudulent, order Barr to have Biden, Harris, and top Democrats arrested, and suspend the constitution, all with the blessing of his lackeys in the SC and in congress.

  7. #7
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,915

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Regardless of which side of her politics one falls on, RBG was a towering force of intellect and determination; a true American in every way.

    “Fight for the things that you care about. But do it in a way that will lead others to join you.” - RBG

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  8. #8
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,261

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    And this is why there is a real possibility of a civil insurrection. The logic in this article is sound. A court that has to decide an election ending up in a tie will be disastrous. Of course, the article is biased to the right. The problem is the left is going to go bonkers no matter what. The people on the right have been essentially setting back, but if Trump wins on election day and Biden wins when the ballot harvesting the Dems have been concocting comes to fruition, then both sides are going to go bonkers...just sayn'

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...t_justice.html

  9. #9
    antaeus's Avatar Whataboutery
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    4,190

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    It's a shame that we have to jump straight into this conversation, and we can't just take a moment to eulogize someone who has been a great leader.

    I would have said there should have been a vote on a replacement in 2016, so it would be contradictory of me to suggest anything different this time. Ultimately, with the same Senate leader in place, consistency of process should be paramount, but McConnell will call a vote if he can squeeze the time, because politicians will be politicians and not look a gift horse in the mouth even if it means them contradicting themselves... and who'd want to go against Trump's wishes if he actually does get back in??
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  10. #10
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,261

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    It's a shame that we have to jump straight into this conversation, and we can't just take a moment to eulogize someone who has been a great leader.

    I would have said there should have been a vote on a replacement in 2016, so it would be contradictory of me to suggest anything different this time. Ultimately, with the same Senate leader in place, consistency of process should be paramount, but McConnell will call a vote if he can squeeze the time, because politicians will be politicians and not look a gift horse in the mouth even if it means them contradicting themselves... and who'd want to go against Trump's wishes if he actually does get back in??
    She wasn't a leader. She was a Justice. What's more, she swore an oath to uphold the Constitution when she accepted the SCOTUS position. She did the exact opposite and legislated from the bench. It could be reasonably argued that judges like her are the very reason we are at the precipice right now.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    This will likely goes a storm. A lifetime appointment at such an important role should be decided by an overwhelming majority vote at 75%.

    At least one Republicans stated that she won't vote for it though:

    Alaska Senator Murkowski said Friday she would not vote for a justice ahead of election
    Shortly before the announcement that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had died Friday, Sen. Lisa Murkowski said in an interview that if she was presented with a vacancy on the court, she would not vote to confirm a nominee before the election.
    Need 3 more?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  12. #12

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    She wasn't a leader. She was a Justice. What's more, she swore an oath to uphold the Constitution when she accepted the SCOTUS position. She did the exact opposite and legislated from the bench. It could be reasonably argued that judges like her are the very reason we are at the precipice right now.
    Pretty much. I do dig her, um, convictions in face of lethal disease, but I wouldn't view her as overall positive figure for the exact reason - her actions led to many bad consequences.
    On the other hand, once GOP judge is in, some of such consequences could be replicated. Hopefully it will be a 2A hardliner.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    She wasn't a leader. She was a Justice. What's more, she swore an oath to uphold the Constitution when she accepted the SCOTUS position. She did the exact opposite and legislated from the bench. It could be reasonably argued that judges like her are the very reason we are at the precipice right now.
    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Pretty much. I do dig her, um, convictions in face of lethal disease, but I wouldn't view her as overall positive figure for the exact reason - her actions led to many bad consequences.
    On the other hand, once GOP judge is in, some of such consequences could be replicated. Hopefully it will be a 2A hardliner.
    How about both of you give one example of that?
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  14. #14

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Looks like Democrats hoisted themselves on their own petard when they removed the 60 vote majority requirement, essentially allowing Trump to appoint his pick with no problems before November.

  15. #15
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,261

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post
    How about both of you give one example of that?
    Even the New York Times couldn't put a positive spin on the fact that she used foreign law to interpret the Constitution (a Constitution she swore an oath the uphold):

    https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html

    It shouldn't be too difficult to realize just how dangerous this is. There is a basis to understanding the Constitution and it was laid out to the states when the founders sold them on the idea of establishing a Constitutional Republic, they are called The Federalist Papers. The fact that she reserved the privilege of using foreign law to interpret OUR Constitution should have gotten her kicked off the court a long time ago.

  16. #16

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Quote Originally Posted by Heathen Hammer View Post
    Looks like Democrats hoisted themselves on their own petard when they removed the 60 vote majority requirement, essentially allowing Trump to appoint his pick with no problems before November.
    Except it was Republicans that did that.

    Republicans go ‘nuclear,’ bust through Democratic filibuster on Gorsuch
    Senate Republicans deployed the so-called “nuclear option” Thursday in their drive to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court, dramatically changing the way the Senate does business in order to overcome a Democratic filibuster.

    In a fast-paced chain of events that clears the way for Gorsuch to be confirmed by Friday morning, majority Republicans changed Senate precedent so that a high court nominee can advance to a final vote with a simple majority of 51 senators, as opposed to 60.


    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    Even the New York Times couldn't put a positive spin on the fact that she used foreign law to interpret the Constitution (a Constitution she swore an oath the uphold):

    https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html

    It shouldn't be too difficult to realize just how dangerous this is. There is a basis to understanding the Constitution and it was laid out to the states when the founders sold them on the idea of establishing a Constitutional Republic, they are called The Federalist Papers. The fact that she reserved the privilege of using foreign law to interpret OUR Constitution should have gotten her kicked off the court a long time ago.
    You're trying to make his take on foreign laws something its not which is quite deceptive. From the article:

    Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

    “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.
    American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.” She predicted that “we will go back to where we were in the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts.”
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  17. #17
    B. W.'s Avatar Primicerius
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Bayou country
    Posts
    3,261

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Quote Originally Posted by PointOfViewGun View Post

    You're trying to make his take on foreign laws something its not which is quite deceptive. From the article:
    OMG! As I said, the NYT article put the best possible spin on it and it was apparently good enough to make you believe it was something it wasn't.

    Here's another twist on it:

    http://netrightdaily.com/2012/02/jus...oreign-buffet/

    From your perspective why should we even bother having a Constitution? Just appoint judges and let them pick out whatever foreign law seems appropriate to them. After all, why should a judge have to follow laws that were enacted by people that were elected by the people. Heck, why even have a legislature to enact laws. Lets just appoint judges and let them tell us what the new law will be. Never mind the fact that Ginsberg's idea would let judges select from ANY constitution on the planet that suits them.
    Last edited by alhoon; September 19, 2020 at 11:13 PM. Reason: off topic removed

  18. #18

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Quote Originally Posted by B. W. View Post
    OMG! As I said, the NYT article put the best possible spin on it and it was apparently good enough to make you believe it was something it wasn't.

    Here's another twist on it:

    http://netrightdaily.com/2012/02/jus...oreign-buffet/

    From your perspective why should we even bother having a Constitution? Just appoint judges and let them pick out whatever foreign law seems appropriate to them. After all, why should a judge have to follow laws that were enacted by people that were elected by the people. Heck, why even have a legislature to enact laws. Lets just appoint judges and let them tell us what the new law will be. Never mind the fact that Ginsberg's idea would let judges select from ANY constitution on the planet that suits them.
    I literally only quoted what Ginsburg said. Your pathetic attempt at an attack is a testament of the lack of merit of your position. Here is more on what she's pointing at:

    Supreme Court addresses question of foreign law in US courts
    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for a unanimous court that a “federal court should accord respectful consideration to a foreign government’s submission,” but is not required to treat it as conclusive.


    Given “the world’s many and diverse legal systems and the range of circumstances in which a foreign government’s views may be presented,” there is no single formula on how to treat the information a foreign government provides, Ginsburg wrote.

    Ginsburg said the appropriate weight given to a government’s statement in each case will depend on the circumstances. Among the factors that U.S. courts should weigh in looking at what a foreign government has said about its own law are: the statement’s clarity, thoroughness and support as well as the transparency of the foreign legal system and the role and authority of the statement’s author.
    She also penned a rather long article on her position here: "A decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind": The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication Constitutional Court of South Africa

    As it was pointed out earlier by her, if the court can look at what a law professor wrote, why can't it look at what an other countries' court wrote? Your point applies to both. Yet, one is vilified.
    Last edited by alhoon; September 19, 2020 at 11:14 PM. Reason: continuity
    The Armenian Issue
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930

    "We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."

  19. #19
    Settra's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    14,811

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    I think there should be an enforced retirement age for all appointed justice system roles. No matter how erudite and sharp witted you are, your mental faculties at 70+ are nowhere near what they where at 55 even.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  20. #20
    Legio_Italica's Avatar Lost in Limbo
    Civitate Magistrate Gaming Staff

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,915

    Default Re: Ginsberg dies

    Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

    “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.

    American hostility to the consideration of foreign law, she said, “is a passing phase.” She predicted that “we will go back to where we were in the early 19th century when there was no question that it was appropriate to refer to decisions of other courts.”

    In a videotaped tribute, Chief Justice Roberts described Justice Ginsburg’s work habits — including her “total disregard for the normal day-night work schedule adhered to by everyone else since the beginning of recorded history” — and congratulated her for reaching what he said was the midpoint of her career on the court.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/12/us/12ginsburg.html
    In a recent speech, Justice Ginsburg noted the deep American roots of an internationalist approach in, for example, the writings and pro- nouncements of Professors Roscoe Pound and John Henry Wigmore, as well as President John Adams. She also emphasized the tradition of judicial reference to foreign and international law, stating that “[t]he U.S. judicial system will be the poorer . . . if we do not both share our experience with, and learn from, legal systems with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own.”3 She cited among sev- eral contemporary examples the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in At- 45 kins v. Virginia and Lawrence v. Texas. Justice Ginsburg referenced the U.S. Declaration of Independence and underscored her belief that “the U.S. Supreme Court will continue to accord ‘a decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind’ as a matter of comity and in a spirit of humility.”6 As she has eloquently and succinctly said, “[Y]ou will not be listened to if you don’t listen to others.”7

    http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-conte...r_ginsburg.pdf
    Obiter dictum: A comment, suggestion, or observation made by a judge in an opinion that is not necessary to resolve the case, and as such, it is not legally binding on other courts but may still be cited as persuasive authority in future litigation. Also referred to as dictum, dicta, and judicial dicta. A dissenting opinion is also generally considered obiter dictum.

    The subject matter of obiter dicta varies greatly and can include discussions of hypothetical facts, cases, or laws or even condemnations of other opinions. Legal scholars commonly disagree as to what exactly constitutes dicta as opposed to statements of binding precedent or authority in a given case. In Trump v. Hawaii, for example, Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion included the following statement which betrays ambiguity as to whether it only condemns or actually overturns a prior case:

    “Korematsu was gravely wrong the day it was decided, has been overruled in the court of history, and—to be clear—'has no place in law under the Constitution' 323 U.S., at 248 (Jackson, J., dissenting).”

    Though unnecessary, dicta are still studied and valued for their potential usefulness. Dicta are frequently incorporated in later opinions and sometimes even serve as the basis of those opinions. An example of this is the United States v. Carolene Products case, where Justice Harlan F. Stone suggested in the now-famous Footnote 4 that a legal rule more stringent than the rational basis test be applied in hypothetical, future situations. The language in Footnote 4 eventually served as the basis for the doctrine of strict scrutiny.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/obiter_dictum
    Agree or disagree with Ginsburg’s broad discretion; to insinuate she was disloyal or otherwise unfaithful to her oath as a Justice is too dumb even to be a pathetic political pot shot.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •