RIP Ruth Ginsburg............... prepare for dems going even further nuts
Thanks mcfarm,
Tremendous integrity and intelligence.
Dubbed the "Notorious R.B.G.," the sharp-tongued Ginsburg was as much a trailblazer as she was brash.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg
Ruth Bader Ginsburg (/ˈbeɪdərˈɡɪnzbɜːrɡ/; born Joan Ruth Bader, March 15, 1933 – September 18, 2020)[2] was an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. She was nominated by President Bill Clinton on June 14, 1993, and had served since August 10, 1993. Ginsburg became the second of four female justices to be confirmed to the Court after Sandra Day O'Connor, the two others being Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, both of whom are still serving in 2020. Following O'Connor's retirement in 2006 and until Sotomayor joined the Court in 2009, she was the only female justice on the Supreme Court. During that time, Ginsburg became more forceful with her dissents, which were noted by legal observers and in popular culture. She is generally viewed as belonging to the liberal wing of the Court. Ginsburg has authored notable majority opinions, including United States v. Virginia (1996), Olmstead v. L.C. (1999), and Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc. (2000).
Ginsburg was born in Brooklyn, New York. Her older sister died when she was a baby, and her mother, one of her biggest sources of encouragement, died shortly before Ginsburg graduated from high school. She then earned her bachelor's degree at Cornell University, and became a wife and mother before starting law school at Harvard, where she was one of the few women in her class. Ginsburg transferred to Columbia Law School, where she graduated tied for first in her class. Following law school, Ginsburg entered into academia. She was a professor at Rutgers Law School and Columbia Law School, teaching civil procedure as one of the few women in her field.
Ginsburg spent a considerable part of her legal career as an advocate for the advancement of gender equality and women's rights, winning multiple arguments before the Supreme Court.
| Signature | |
|---|---|
| Personal details | |
| Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit | |
| Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States | |
| The Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg | |
 Official portrait, 2016 | |
| In office August 10, 1993 – September 18, 2020 | |
| Nominated by | Bill Clinton |
| Preceded by | Byron White |
| Succeeded by | Vacant |
| In office June 30, 1980 – August 9, 1993 | |
| Nominated by | Jimmy Carter |
| Preceded by | Harold Leventhal |
| Succeeded by | David Tatel |
| Born | Joan Ruth Bader March 15, 1933 Brooklyn, New York City, U.S. |
| Died | September 18, 2020 (aged 87)[1] Washington, D.C., U.S. |
| Cause of death | Complications from Pancreatic cancer |
| Spouse(s) | Martin Ginsburg (m. 1954; died 2010) |
| Children | |
| Education | Cornell University (BA) Columbia University (LLB) |
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/416004-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies
Seen as a moderate when President Bill Clinton nominated her to the bench in 1993, Ginsburg went on to leave a lasting mark in the realm of gender equality, civil liberties and pay equity, and grew to achieve improbable late-in-life recognition as a pop culture icon and hero of the progressive movement.
Her first major opinion as a justice came in 1996 when she wrote the majority decision in United States v. Virginia. The ruling struck down the Virginia Military Institute’s 157-year-old policy of male-only admissions as unconstitutional, and set a stricter legal standard for government action that treats men and women differently.
"Women seeking and fit for a VMI-quality education cannot be offered anything less under the state's obligation to afford them genuinely equal protection," Ginsburg wrote in the 7-1 decision.
Ginsburg also gained renown for her cogent and sharply worded dissents.
According to Linda Greenhouse, a longtime Supreme Court reporter and analyst for The New York Times, it was through Ginsburg’s dissenting opinions during the mid-2000s that she “found her voice, and used it.”
Though Ginsburg became the high court’s leading liberal, she was best friends with its leading conservative. The late Justice Antonin Scalia and Ginsburg were an unusual pair — he a gregarious conservative, she a soft-spoken, self-described “flaming feminist litigator” — but they bonded over their love of the opera.
Scalia considered Ginsburg the Thurgood Marshall of women’s rights, a reference to the legendary civil rights lawyer who helped end racial segregation before becoming the nation’s first African American Supreme Court justice.
Similarly, Ginsburg spent the early part of her career as a legal pioneer in her own right, embarking on a ground-shifting legal crusade in the 1970s for gender equality under the law as an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union that included successfully arguing several cases before the Supreme Court.
At the tail end of her career, the octogenarian Ginsburg became a pop culture sensation. She captivated millennials, who affectionately dubbed her the “Notorious R.B.G,” a nickname inspired loosely by the late rapper Notorious B.I.G.
Ginsburg was the subject of a documentary, a feature film starring actor Felicity Jones, memes, merchandise and several books, including one on her exercise routine at age 85: pushups, planks and squats.
At speaking engagements, Ginsburg was often asked how she balanced her judicial career with her family. That was when she spoke fondly about her husband.
“He’s the only boy I’ve ever known who cared I had a brain,” she said while speaking at Georgetown Law in 2018.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/09/19/trump-reaction-rbg-death-collins-ac360-sot-vpx.cnn
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-death-supreme-court-seat-senate-political-fight/
"Mr. Trump earlier this month announced his list of possible Supreme Court nominees, should he have the occasion to nominate more justices either in his current term or the next one. Those names include current judges and even senators such as Senator Ted Cruz and Senator Tom Cotton. Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, is considered a top contender for the nomination. "
I truly hope the pubs don't ignore the protocol they've established and try to get her replacement in pre-election. In a world where integrity is hanging by a thread, they don't need a pair of scissors.
I don't see this happening because it too close to the election.
2016 set a precedent that the republicans should use as a guideline when they used a similar situation and reasoning that it was too close to the election and they turned back Obama's nominee for Supreme Court Justice.
The other thing is that there is not enough time between now and the election to get it done, so we will know who the next president is before a vote on confirmation would take place. If it's Biden, no way will we get enough republicans in the senate to confirm Trumps nomination. We know all the dems will vote against it, no matter what but almost all the republicans must vote for the person.
There will be at least several that break ranks, which will cause the vote to fall short of nominating Trumps judge.
I think that even before the election he will not have the votes and trying to do this and failing, which seems inevitable will only hurt him. Don't spin your wheels and dig a hole at the same time.
Nominating somebody and trying to push them thru is a losing position. After this doesn't work, it makes those trying to do it look bad. They must know this. It ends up being counterproductive. He will get bashed with gusto for trying to do this.
Not officially nominating somebody but announcing who he will nominate if elected in November is THE winning position. It's also the right thing to do. Nobody can bash this. It gives Americans another reason to consider when voting and empowers them more.
Personally, I will likely be more in favor of the Trump judge vs the Biden judge but that doesn't matter.
Let the person elected in November pick the judge.
What do you guys think?
people from the Left are already telling us what will happen.. it will have to be democrati replacement or else!
Trump is likely to nominate a conservative woman and the left already has several rape victims lined up to testify.
of course the msm and the dems will make it very difficult for the repubs to go forward. Problem is we need a new justice. Protocol dictates the President nominate and the senate to confirm. Just do their duty and get their job done. Sooner the better. Less talk more action. More backbone and less spaghetti spines. More common sense and less emotion. More adults and a lot less children.
Good one Tim!
The fireworks have already started.
Though Cruz makes a good point on needing a full Supreme Court to make a potentially important decision about the 2020 election, the same point was NOT made by that side in 2016.
It's clear hypocrisy to apply a political standard completely different this time vs 2016...........based on which one favors your party.
My personal feeling is that trying to push this thru under these circumstances could backfire badly for the Pubs.
I think they will lose for one thing and then, people not only are left with the fact that you had the hypocritical position, your loss makes it double damaging with no benefits.
If you take the high road (which we know the Dems would not do in this situation) and tell us that its up to the voters in November, you win with the public and can't be criticized or have this used against you by the MSM and dems.
I will wild guess that they will poll every senator before going ahead and if they are several votes short, will do the smart thing and instead of telling us they are not going ahead because they will fail but they aren't going ahead for the right reasons.
Fox News’s Chris Wallace pressed Sen. Tom Cotton on Sunday on whether there is “any hypocrisy” between the Arkansas Republican's 2016 comments to avoid a Supreme Court justice confirmation ahead of an election and his current call to “move forward without delay.”
Cotton told “Fox News Sunday” that the GOP-led Senate has a “mandate to perform our constitutional duty” and fill the Supreme Court vacancy after Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death on Friday.
Wallace then replayed Cotton’s remarks on the Senate floor in 2016 in which the Arkansas senator asked, “Why would we squelch the voice of the people? Why would we deny the voters a chance to weigh in on the makeup of the Supreme Court?”
The senator made the comments after Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia died in February 2016 and then-President Obama nominated Merrick Garland nine months before the presidential election.
“You don’t see any hypocrisy between that position then and this position now?” Wallace asked.
“Chris, the Senate majority is performing our constitutional duty and fulfilling the mandate that the voters gave us in 2016 and especially in 2018,” he said, referring to the midterm elections after Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings.
Wallace also asked Cotton if he would “still think it would be proper” for the Senate to confirm President Trump's nominee to the court if the 2020 election resulted in a new president and a Democratic majority in the upper chamber.
“Chris, as I said, we are going to move forward without delay, and there will be a vote on this nominee,” the senator said.
“But, to the point, Donald Trump’s gonna win reelection, and I believe the Senate Republicans will win our majority back because the American people know that Donald Trump is going to put nominees up for the federal courts who will apply the law, not make the law,” he added."'
metmike: I don't think that most Americans would support this and I'm betting they won't have the votes when Republicans see this.
Pelosi is somebody with zero credibility for me but on this issue and on health care(I'm for socialized medicine) I agree with her.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on Sunday the House had its “options” when asked about the possibility of impeaching President Trump and Attorney General William Barr should the White House and Senate Republicans jam a Supreme Court nominee through the process during a lame duck session after Election Day.
“We have our options, we have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now,” Pelosi told George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.” "But the fact is, we have a big challenge in our country. This president has threatened to not even accept the results of the election with statements that he and his henchmen have made. So right now, our main goal… would be to protect the integrity of the election as we protect the American people from the coronavirus.”
When Stephanopoulos pressed again about whether the House wouldn’t “rule anything out,” Pelosi pivoted toward the responsibilities of elected lawmakers.
“We have a responsibility, we take an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people. When we weigh the equities of protecting our democracy, requires us to use every arrow in our quiver,” Pelosi responded without going into detail of what option are on the table.
The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday has thrown a new wrench into the 2020 presidential election, opening up the possibility that Trump would push a nominee through while he still had a GOP-led Senate until January.
When Stephanopoulos asked Pelosi if Democrats, should they win the majority in November, would expand the court in retaliation, Pelosi referred to a court battle over the Affordable Care Act.
"Let's just win the election. Let's hope the president will see the light," Pelosi said. "This is about the people. It's about their health, their economic well being, the health of our democracy. We have a great deal at stake here."
OK,
I am not so sure now after seeing and hearing what all the democrats said in 2016....Obama, Biden, Clinton. They all insisted the president should be able to do what Trump wants to do right now............nominate a replacement towards the end of their term.
Clearly, the only reason Obama and the Dems did not get a new justice in his waning months is that the senate had a majority of republicans that could stop it.
If the senate had a majority of democrats, then Obama would definitely have picked that justice.
With that being the case, it looks like whoever controls the senate holds the cards.
If they are of a different party than the president, then they can stop his choice near an election. If they are of the same party as the president, they can approve his choice.
Regardless of how you want to spin it, those are the rules and both parties clearly are going to use written rules to their advantage and not be nice to the other party and ignore their right to use the rules for their advantage.
This sums it up:
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/picking-rbgs-successor-who-when
Obama in 2016: "I'm going to do my job. I'm going to nominate somebody... It's not as if the Senate calendar is so full that we do not have time to get this done."
Which is also what former vice president Joe Biden demanded in an NYTimes op-ed in 2016:
In my 36-year tenure in the United States Senate — nearly half of it as chairman or ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee — I presided or helped preside over nine nominees to the Supreme Court, from both Republican and Democratic presidents. That’s more than anyone else alive today.
In every instance we adhered to the process explicitly laid out in the Constitution: The president has the constitutional duty to nominate; the Senate has the constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent. It is written plainly in the Constitution that both presidents and senators swear an oath to uphold and defend.
That’s why I was so surprised and saddened to see Republican leaders tell President Obama and me that they would not even consider a Supreme Court nominee this year.
@JoeBiden in 2016: “I would go forward with a confirmation process as chairman, even a few months before a presidential election, if the nominee were chosen with the advice, and not merely the consent, of the Senate, just as the Constitution requires.”
metmike: So the situation is reversed and the positions have reversed.
After seeing this new information and those statements above, I am adjusting my first thoughts opinion on this. This is could be a bigger battle than any of them yet!
major, major difference between now and the last election that we will need the full court for MM......millions and millions of fraudulent mail in votes
Biased as I am, I can't support pubs rushing to an appointment. It's political suicide. Pelosi saying the house will do everything they can to stop it is illegal. The house has no legal arrows in SCOTUS appointments. All they have is illegal obstruction. Ginsberg's dying wish of having the next president appointing her replacement is an argument that she does not understand the constitution. The Supreme Court is apolitical by design. Their job is to interpret the constitution, and Ginsberg failed to do that throughout her career, so I am not surprised,,
But in the final.. If the pubs push through the appointment, it will cost them crucial votes. AT this point, Trump has a better than even chance. This will cost him, possibly more than he can afford. In the court of public opinion, they don't have time to make valid arguments.
Just my two cents.
do not believe it to be rushed Tim. This Barret women has already had her FBI investigation and will only need an update. I think this will be a tool for Trump to get all the repubs and all the rinos in line and realize just how dirty the dems will fight...and have fought. Can you say Kavanaugh? There is no other way except to do their duty and shut the hell up. Why do we need everybodys opinion in public now? We do not, do your job and shut up.
Tim could be right.
I think that the dems and MSM could spin this to make Trump and the Republicans look bad.
In that case it could cost votes in November. You want to be peaking, not dipping on Election Day.
It’s crazy that a Supreme Court judge would make an anti Constitutional request to not fill her seat until after the new president is elected but she did and this lady is seen a great person, probably with higher approval ratings than any politicians right now.
All they need to do is to keep repeating this last request that she had before she passed away and the people who go against this will be seen as dishonoring her and as the bands guys.
They have the actions from 2016 to add more ammo and the battle to win the public’s approval seems like it could go one way.
If they did manage to get another conservative judge nominated and it looked like she was going to be confirmed, I think more democrats would be motivated to go to the polls.
If the new judge totally depends on the election, I would think more conservatives that dislike trump would be inclined to hold their nose and vote for him ....at least it gives them another reason.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/517380-ginsburg-to-lie-in-repose-at-supreme-court
"The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg will lie in repose this week at the Supreme Court before her burial next week at Arlington National Cemetery, a court spokesperson said.
Ginsburg, who died Friday from cancer, will lie in repose Wednesday and Thursday at the top of the court’s front steps following a private ceremony inside the Supreme Court’s main corridor.
The arrangement allows for public viewing outdoors. A spokesperson for the court said the public is invited to pay respects in front of the court from 11 a.m. until 10 p.m. on Wednesday and from 9 a.m. until 10 p.m. on Thursday.
Former law clerks of Ginsburg, who for years led the court’s liberal wing, and Supreme Court police officers will serve as pallbearers.
“The justices will remain inside the Great Hall where the casket will be placed on the Lincoln Catafalque, which has been loaned to the Court by the U.S. Congress for the ceremony,” a court spokesperson said. “A 2016 portrait of Justice Ginsburg by Constance P. Beaty will be on display in the Great Hall.”
A private interment service will be held next week at Arlington National Cemetery, the court said.
The Supreme Court has draped a black wool crepe over the entrance to the courtroom and the place on the bench formerly occupied by Ginsburg, a court tradition dating to at least 1873.
The flags on the court's front plaza will also be flown at half-staff for 30 days in honor of Ginsburg.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) also announced on Monday that Ginsburg will lie in state in the Capitol’s National Statuary Hall on Friday."
metmike: Not so funny thing...........when I saw the word "lie" in the headline, for an initial split second, I thought, wait a second, this lady is dead, how can she lie.
Sign of the times.
President Trump plans to announce his nominee to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court on Friday or Saturday, he said in an interview on “Fox & Friends” Monday morning.
“I think it'll be on Friday or Saturday,” Trump said when asked when he would announce his decision, adding that he wanted to “pay respect” to Ginsburg, who died Friday due to complications from pancreatic cancer, by waiting until after her funeral services.
Trump also said that he had narrowed his list down to five potential nominees. Trump has already committed to choosing a woman to replace Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
Judges Amy Coney Barrett, Barbara Lagoa and Allison Jones Rushing are among the individuals Trump is weighing as potential nominees. Barrett and Lagoa are said to be top contenders for the role.
Trump on Monday did not specifically name the individuals whom he is considering to replace Ginsburg, but he described them all as “highly qualified” and “very smart.” At one point, he also appeared to reference Rushing, saying that one of the potential nominees is 38 years old — Rushing's age.
“It could be any one of them — they’ll all be great,” Trump told the Fox News hosts.
Trump also said during the phone interview that he would prefer a nomination vote be taken before Election Day on Nov. 3, saying that there would be "plenty of time" for his choice to move through the process.
"I think it should go very quickly. We have a lot of time," Trump said. "Especially if the people we’re talking about, most of them are young and they’ve gone through the process pretty recently."
metmike: That might be a bad idea and it may fail.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/politics/mitch-mcconnell-trump-supreme-court.html
No.
Democrats eliminated the 60-vote threshold for most judicial nominees in 2013, frustrated by Republicans’ use of the filibuster to slow and impede Mr. Obama’s agenda. In turn, angered by resistance to the nomination of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch in 2017, Republicans abolished the limitation on Supreme Court nominees, further whittling down the scope of the filibuster.
As a result, Mr. McConnell could bring the nomination to the Senate floor and approve it with a simple majority vote. Mr. Trump signaled on Saturday that he would formally name someone to fill the vacancy in the near future.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kw8SSQHQitg
https://dcist.com/story/20/09/21/no-confirmation-before-inauguration/
Updated on Sept. 21 at 3:14 p.m.
Dozens of people demonstrated outside the D.C. home of Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) early Monday morning over Republican efforts to fill the Supreme Court vacancy following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. They urged Graham, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, not to hold confirmation hearings for a Supreme Court justice nominee until after the presidential inauguration in January.
“No confirmation before inauguration,” activists chanted as they marched from Graham’s home to the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Within hours, Graham tweeted footage from a Fox News report of the demonstration repurposed as part of an apparent fundraising appeal for his re-election campaign.
Ginsburg died Friday at 87 after a long bout with pancreatic c