Poll of the Day > Ruth Bader Ginsberg dead at 87

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-dead/index.html

more excitement to the election.

Well this is bullshit

Damn...

Fuck dude. That's not good for the country.

RIP

---

We're super fucked

---

If trump tries to appoint another judge I say we tear everything down and just start over, new country

---

That whole situation with Garland had to set presidence though

2020 has no bottom

---

Mead posted...

If trump tries to appoint another judge I say we tear everything down and just start over, new country

I mean, it's going to happen. He has 4 whole months to do it.

Democrats stonewall Trump's pick because republican election year logic.

argonautweakend posted...

Democrats stonewall Trump's pick because republican election year logic.

I'd be shocked if they have the balls to do it

---

IronBornCorps posted...

That whole situation with Garland had to set presidence though

not that they give a fuck, but Im sure the argument will be that obama should not have been able to appoint a judge since it was the last year of his second term but since trump is running for re-election the same rule shouldnt apply

FourthDimension posted...

I mean, it's going to happen. He has 4 whole months to do it.

we should respond in kind. If folks are pissing their pants over riots and fires now, go ahead and try this bullshit and see what effect it has on the public

---

rip

---

They should only because the same shakey logic was applied to Obama's pick in the last election year.

Will they? I dont know. I could see them doing it and Republicans saying its wrong though.

IronBornCorps posted...

That whole situation with Garland had to set presidence though

It shouldn't, because that implies what happened to Garland should be there standard. It should not.

However, letting a confirmation go through now would just reward bad behavior even more, and encourage blatantly lying to gain supreme court seats.

Ideally, the filling of the vacancy would be delayed until post election to 'even the score,' not in a vindictive sense, but in an equilibrating sense. Then to go forward without any BS blocking of nominations just because your party has a Senate majority.

---

FourthDimension posted...

I mean, it's going to happen. He has 4 whole years to do it.

I fixed that for you.
---

Gee, I wonder if the GOP will respect the rule they invented about not nominating new Justices in an election year?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAH

---

IronBornCorps posted...

That whole situation with Garland had to set presidence though

LOL, you think McConnell gives a damn about precedent?

He already said they'd shamelessly fill an open seat if it opened up, no matter how late in Trump's term.

We're fucking fucked. Dems don't have enough Senate seats to stall it till after the election, and McConnell is literally Satan. Abortion is gone. RIP, both RBG and abortion law. You both had a good run.

streamofthesky posted...

LOL, you think McConnell gives a damn about precedent?

He already said they'd shamelessly fill an open seat if it opened up, no matter how late in Trump's term.

We're fucking fucked. Dems don't have enough Senate seats to stall it till after the election, and McConnell is literally Satan. Abortion is gone. RIP, both RBG and abortion law. You both had a good run.

Lol. It has to be voted on. It can't just suddenly be tossed.
---

Can't wait to leave this shithole country

---

Revelation34 posted...

Lol. It has to be voted on. It can't just suddenly be tossed.

Conservative states are already trying to pass laws effectively outlawing abortion even with things as they are, by making severe restrictions and then saying 'lol but it isn't TECHNICALLY banning abortion, you just have to meet these 12 asinine criteria that we know people won't meet.'

If conservative states know (or think) that a conservative majority supreme court would overturn Roe v Wade, then those states would begin with laws or executive orders banning abortion outright. THEN the case would be brought to the supreme court.

Abortion bans come before the supreme court has a case to rule on to decide whether to overturn.

---

civil war inc.

Revelation34 posted...

Lol. It has to be voted on. It can't just suddenly be tossed.

I guess you werent around for Obamas last year in office

---

streamofthesky posted...

LOL, you think McConnell gives a damn about precedent?

He already said they'd shamelessly fill an open seat if it opened up, no matter how late in Trump's term.

We're fucking fucked. Dems don't have enough Senate seats to stall it till after the election, and McConnell is literally Satan. Abortion is gone. RIP, both RBG and abortion law. You both had a good run.

Yep, she could have died one day after Trump lost the election and they would still have done it. As stated technically a president is not out of office the second he loses.

Welp we are very very fucked.

---

jesus she was only 87?

---

https://www.ktoo.org/2020/09/18/alaska-senator-murkowski-said-friday-she-would-not-vote-for-a-justice-ahead-of-election/

Hopefully more Republicans join her

---

PyroBlade1985 posted...

Why is everyone treating this like it's the end of the world?

This is a powder keg in relatively tense political atmosphere. If republicans steal this after what they did to Obama there HAS to be some kind of a response. Republicans have been attacking democratic processes for too long.

PyroBlade1985 posted...

Why is everyone treating this like it's the end of the world?

Because they're going to ram through somebody absolutely horrible like Tom Cotton.

---

PyroBlade1985 posted...

Why is everyone treating this like it's the end of the world?

because the current president is a more successful version of zeus, the potd bigot and cheater, ok?

---

PyroBlade1985 posted...

Why is everyone treating this like it's the end of the world?

Probably because they do not understand how the Supreme Court works, which is likely primarily due to a lack of education and reliance on hysterical and misleading media reporting on the subject (and legal issues generally).

PyroBlade1985 posted...

Why is everyone treating this like it's the end of the world?

because no sane person wants a conservative majority bias in the highest court in the land for the next 30-40 years

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

This is a powder keg in relatively tense political atmosphere. If republicans steal this after what they did to Obama there HAS to be some kind of a response. Republicans have been attacking democratic processes for too long.

If I was Biden, I'd point-blank tell the turtle I'd pack the court immediately after winning if they try to ramrod through a nomination. Dare him to die on that hill.

---

reruns_revenge posted...

Probably because they do not understand how the Supreme Court works, which is likely primarily due to a lack of education and reliance on hysterical and misleading media reporting on the subject (and legal issues generally).

an account from 2004, with no badges and 4 amp, you surely aren't a troll alt, ok? and, i'm being sarcastic, in case you couldn't read that.

---

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/grassley-statement-justice-scalia

The fact of the matter is that its been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year. Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this President, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.

of course that was when Obama was in office

---

McConnel hasn't even waited a DAY before he decides the rule he made up out of thin air during the last year of the Obama presidency doesn't matter and is already going to get a vote on the floor.

several republican senators have said they will not vote for a supreme court justice until after the election, Who knows if the ones saying no will follow through.

Okay, fair. But he isn't wasting any time though.

All over my Youtube Feed.
Will be very interesting to see how the Trump admin deals with this.

---

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/78984871

---

PyroBlade1985 posted...

Why is everyone treating this like it's the end of the world?

liberals aren't everybody

---

JixHedgehog posted...

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/78984871

Whats your point?

just so you know, if someone has you blocked you cant see the topics they make.

Cacciato posted...

Whats your point?

just so you know, if someone has you blocked you cant see the topics they make.

that account is someones burner alt, I forget whos but hes been caught replying to his posts several times when he forgets to change accounts

---

R.I.P. wonderful and tough old lady. Thank you for fighting for us women.

---

2020 isn't over yet.

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

R.I.P. wonderful and tough old lady. Thank you for fighting for us women.

She was pretty damn tough, if not for cancer I bet she would have lived for another 10-15 years or more. I saw the documentary about her that interviews her directly, and she still worked out with a trainer doing exercises during that documentary.

theres some shitheads on reddit talking about how angry they are at her for not stepping down under Obama

---

Mead posted...

theres some shitheads on reddit talking about how angry they are at her for not stepping down under Obama

I'm not going to insult her or blame her for Republicans being evil.
But she really should've retired back then. I distinctly remember back in like 2014-ish, people advising her to do so, and her stubbornly refusing. She must have been suffering a lot in her final months from her illness, but couldn't retire at that point b/c it'd leave the country screwed.
What's happened here isn't some big shock, people were literally calling it half a decade ago. I'm not angry at her, though. I kind of feel sorry she had to go through that at the end, trying to just hold out while forced to keep working. But it was her own stubborn decision.

Reminder that Mitch McConnell is a fucking evil shit head, and actually up for re-election this year.
If you live in Kentucky, apply for your absentee ballot ASAP.
If you know anyone who lives in KY, remind them and urge them to do so.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/19/mitch-mcconnell-vows-us-senate-will-push-on-with-trumps-pick-to-replace-ginsburg

Mitch McConnell, the US senate majority leader, vowed on Friday to move forward quickly with Donald Trumps nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the supreme court, setting the stage for an extraordinary political battle just six weeks before election day.
Shortly after the 87-year-old justices death was announced, the Republican released a statement removing any doubt about his intention to act, though the timeline for doing so remained notably vague.
Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise, McConnell said in a statement. President Trumps nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
The death of one of the most prominent and celebrated supreme court justices in American history has suddenly transformed an already volatile election season into an all-out battle for control of every branch of government. Trump, facing a difficult re-election, has signalled a desire to quickly nominate a third justice.
The decision will likely be met with outrage from Democrats, who are still furious over McConnells refusal to consider Barack Obamas nomination of judge Merrick Garland to replace the conservative justice Antonin Scalia, who died months before the 2016 election. Analysts believe the controversial decision and Trumps commitment to nominating pro-life justices to the court was critical to his surprise presidential victory in 2016.
The confirmation of Trumps supreme court appointees Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh secured a solid conservative majority on the court. If Trump is successful in confirming a third nominee, the conservative bloc would dominate the nations highest court, likely for decades to come.
Earlier this month, Trump unveiled a list of 20 potential nominees to the court. Among a host of judicial conservatives were three Republican senators: Tom Cotton of Arkansas, Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri.

Our only hope at this point is apparently 3 Republicans actually keeping their word (and even then, some were vague about nominating one after the election if Trump loses...)

Senator Susan Collins, one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents, told the New York Times earlier this month that she would not seat a Supreme Court justice in October, arguing that it was too close to the election. Unless Trump was re-elected, she said, she would oppose confirming the presidents nominee in a lame-duck session.
Shortly before Ginsburgs death was announced, Lisa Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, told a state radio station that she would not vote to confirm a new justice before the election. Explaining her rationale, she said it was the same logic McConnell applied to Obamas final supreme court nominee.
That was too close to an election, she said, characterizing McConnells argument.

Senator Lindsey Graham, who is facing an unexpectedly competitive re-election contest in South Carolina, said during an interview in 2018: If an opening comes in the last year of President Trumps term, and the primary process has started, well wait to the next election.
Youre on the record, the interviewer said to Graham, in a video clip that was widely shared online Friday night.
Hold the tape, he replied.

Yeah, we're screwed.