Sadly, even if Biden wins election and even if RBG lasts till then, Biden is just going to replace her with a socially minded corporatist, further solidifying corporate control over the supreme court.
It's better than what Trump and the Pubs would put up there, but it's still bad.
Also $5 says Trump and his cronies start pushing a "Ginsberg should retire" narrative and starts trotting out potential replacements. Hell, is there actually a rule that says a seat needs to be empty before they confirm the next judge?
+5
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
Sadly, even if Biden wins election and even if RBG lasts till then, Biden is just going to replace her with a socially minded corporatist, further solidifying corporate control over the supreme court.
It's better than what Trump and the Pubs would put up there, but it's still bad.
Also $5 says Trump and his cronies start pushing a "Ginsberg should retire" narrative and starts trotting out potential replacements. Hell, is there actually a rule that says a seat needs to be empty before they confirm the next judge?
Sadly, even if Biden wins election and even if RBG lasts till then, Biden is just going to replace her with a socially minded corporatist, further solidifying corporate control over the supreme court.
It's better than what Trump and the Pubs would put up there, but it's still bad.
Also $5 says Trump and his cronies start pushing a "Ginsberg should retire" narrative and starts trotting out potential replacements. Hell, is there actually a rule that says a seat needs to be empty before they confirm the next judge?
I mean the response to that last paragraph would just be RGB giving them the finger for the rest of her existence.
You could replace a judge early but it takes massive shenanigans they need the house for.
I dunno... I think the long-term ramifications of a lame duck SCOTUS appointment might be enough to give enough Senate Republicans pause that it wouldn't happen. It would all but guarantee court packing if they ever lost their Senate majority and they don't need Ginsburg's seat for a conservative majority on the Court.
At least some of them seem to be somewhat aware that they won't be in power forever (note that they've only weakened - and not outright abolished - the filibuster and other minority perks).
0
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Never assume the GOP have anything approaching shame.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
+50
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
Oh no. If anyone, ANYONE on the court steps down for any reason (voluntary or otherwise), you will see a SCOTUS confirmation at a speed that nothing else in government can match. Republicans will not waste their chance to cement ultimate power for decades to come, and literally nothing in our democracy will stop them.
I dunno... I think the long-term ramifications of a lame duck SCOTUS appointment might be enough to give enough Senate Republicans pause that it wouldn't happen. It would all but guarantee court packing if they ever lost their Senate majority and they don't need Ginsburg's seat for a conservative majority on the Court.
At least some of them seem to be somewhat aware that they won't be in power forever (note that they've only weakened - and not outright abolished - the filibuster and other minority perks).
Their plan is to rig the system so that they are in power forever. They would absolutely pull a lame duck appointment as that would greatly further that goal.
+32
Options
TetraNitroCubaneThe DjinneratorAt the bottom of a bottleRegistered Userregular
It will come down to a select few Republicans who are "very concerned" about the appointment, and also "very concerned" about Trump's behavior.
They will continue to be "very concerned" right up until they vote to confirm whatever miserable insipid compost heap was nominated.
And the new court will then gladly uphold any election fuckery.
Sadly, even if Biden wins election and even if RBG lasts till then, Biden is just going to replace her with a socially minded corporatist, further solidifying corporate control over the supreme court.
It's better than what Trump and the Pubs would put up there, but it's still bad.
Also $5 says Trump and his cronies start pushing a "Ginsberg should retire" narrative and starts trotting out potential replacements. Hell, is there actually a rule that says a seat needs to be empty before they confirm the next judge?
We need to plaster everywhere with McConnel's line from 2015: "Let the people decide". So close to an election and there is precedence now for this sort of behavior. Throw their bad behavior back in their faces.
We need to plaster everywhere with McConnel's line from 2015: "Let the people decide". So close to an election and there is precedence now for this sort of behavior. Throw their bad behavior back in their faces.
They will nod their heads and ram their pick through anyway. They do not give a shit.
+54
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
We need to plaster everywhere with McConnel's line from 2015: "Let the people decide". So close to an election and there is precedence now for this sort of behavior. Throw their bad behavior back in their faces.
Yeah, because that’s a thing that has worked on them.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
It’s not a time for alarm yet. My aunt is RBGs age and she’s in the hospital every month for one thing or another. And has been doing it for 3 years it’s a downside of age, but my aunt is still kicking and I think RBG will be as well. And she doesn’t even need to show up to work. She can call in sick for 6 months.
Sadly, even if Biden wins election and even if RBG lasts till then, Biden is just going to replace her with a socially minded corporatist, further solidifying corporate control over the supreme court.
It's better than what Trump and the Pubs would put up there, but it's still bad.
Also $5 says Trump and his cronies start pushing a "Ginsberg should retire" narrative and starts trotting out potential replacements. Hell, is there actually a rule that says a seat needs to be empty before they confirm the next judge?
Why would you assume that?
I wouldn't call it an absolute given but it's highly plausible given (what I know of) Biden's overall political career.
+1
Options
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
We need to stop treating republicans like Pokémon whose moves are super effective against their type..
They’re not Ghosts, they’re Poison.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
We need to stop treating republicans like Pokémon whose moves are super effective against their type..
They’re not Ghosts, they’re Poison.
The point of throwing their bullshit in their face isn't to shame them into action- though that very occasionally works- so much as to piss people off to throw them out. Which does work.
+4
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
To be fair, I don't think he said he would ignore that when asked the question, I think he laughed. Like, literally, I think he just laughed in their face.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+11
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
It will come down to a select few Republicans who are "very concerned" about the appointment, and also "very concerned" about Trump's behavior.
They will continue to be "very concerned" right up until they vote to confirm whatever miserable insipid compost heap was nominated.
And the new court will then gladly uphold any election fuckery.
There's what, 53 Republicans in the Senate?
The will be two people who are allowed to be Very Concerned enough to not vote to confirm. Pretty sure Mitt would be one of them. "Moderate" Republicans will draw straws to see who gets to be number two.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Sadly, even if Biden wins election and even if RBG lasts till then, Biden is just going to replace her with a socially minded corporatist, further solidifying corporate control over the supreme court.
It's better than what Trump and the Pubs would put up there, but it's still bad.
Also $5 says Trump and his cronies start pushing a "Ginsberg should retire" narrative and starts trotting out potential replacements. Hell, is there actually a rule that says a seat needs to be empty before they confirm the next judge?
Why would you assume that?
I wouldn't call it an absolute given but it's highly plausible given (what I know of) Biden's overall political career.
I don't see how that tracks at all. Like, you can look at his platform right now.
The absolute worst you would get from Biden is probably like a Merrick Garland.
Sadly, even if Biden wins election and even if RBG lasts till then, Biden is just going to replace her with a socially minded corporatist, further solidifying corporate control over the supreme court.
It's better than what Trump and the Pubs would put up there, but it's still bad.
Also $5 says Trump and his cronies start pushing a "Ginsberg should retire" narrative and starts trotting out potential replacements. Hell, is there actually a rule that says a seat needs to be empty before they confirm the next judge?
Why would you assume that?
It's probably a safe assumption for damn near any president, because that's a safe option that isn't going to rattle too many cages and keeps the status quo, while also protecting the admin from a bruising confirmation process. However, and especially if democrats control congress, there'd be no reason not try for someone a little more progressive.
Sadly, even if Biden wins election and even if RBG lasts till then, Biden is just going to replace her with a socially minded corporatist, further solidifying corporate control over the supreme court.
It's better than what Trump and the Pubs would put up there, but it's still bad.
Also $5 says Trump and his cronies start pushing a "Ginsberg should retire" narrative and starts trotting out potential replacements. Hell, is there actually a rule that says a seat needs to be empty before they confirm the next judge?
Why would you assume that?
It's probably a safe assumption for damn near any president, because that's a safe option that isn't going to rattle too many cages and keeps the status quo, while also protecting the admin from a bruising confirmation process. However, and especially if democrats control congress, there'd be no reason not try from someone a little more progressive.
Pick the public defender under 50 with the most years of experience. Then start looking at the various legal advocacy groups.
It will come down to a select few Republicans who are "very concerned" about the appointment, and also "very concerned" about Trump's behavior.
They will continue to be "very concerned" right up until they vote to confirm whatever miserable insipid compost heap was nominated.
And the new court will then gladly uphold any election fuckery.
There's what, 53 Republicans in the Senate?
The will be two people who are allowed to be Very Concerned enough to not vote to confirm. Pretty sure Mitt would be one of them. "Moderate" Republicans will draw straws to see who gets to be number two.
I could see Romney, Murkowski, and Collins balking at it. Which means the appointment goes through with Pence anyway.
Sadly, even if Biden wins election and even if RBG lasts till then, Biden is just going to replace her with a socially minded corporatist, further solidifying corporate control over the supreme court.
It's better than what Trump and the Pubs would put up there, but it's still bad.
Also $5 says Trump and his cronies start pushing a "Ginsberg should retire" narrative and starts trotting out potential replacements. Hell, is there actually a rule that says a seat needs to be empty before they confirm the next judge?
Why would you assume that?
It's probably a safe assumption for damn near any president, because that's a safe option that isn't going to rattle too many cages and keeps the status quo, while also protecting the admin from a bruising confirmation process. However, and especially if democrats control congress, there'd be no reason not try from someone a little more progressive.
Pick the public defender under 50 with the most years of experience. Then start looking at the various legal advocacy groups.
No judges. No prosecutors. Period.
Oh god yeah, this. Get some people on that court that haven't been living in a bubble their entire professional life. Maybe then we could get some decisions that don't literally tell people its only bribery if you trade a big bag of money with a dollar sign on it. Or that racism is totally over in regards to states fucking over minorities from voting.
Jane Kelly is a former public defender who was floated alongside Merrick Garland as a possible Obama pick back in 2015, but she's white so that disqualifies her as a Biden pick using that criteria.
On the other hand, more Sotomayors would be good. And your most likely Biden nominations are probably people like her.
EDIT: Though I think he's promised the first seat goes to a black woman, so start your research there.
Michelle Obama, just for the troll factor.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I dunno... I think the long-term ramifications of a lame duck SCOTUS appointment might be enough to give enough Senate Republicans pause that it wouldn't happen. It would all but guarantee court packing if they ever lost their Senate majority and they don't need Ginsburg's seat for a conservative majority on the Court.
At least some of them seem to be somewhat aware that they won't be in power forever (note that they've only weakened - and not outright abolished - the filibuster and other minority perks).
Their plan is to rig the system so that they are in power forever. They would absolutely pull a lame duck appointment as that would greatly further that goal.
Got to admit, I do consider this to be pretty much a "game over" scenario. But since there's absolutely nothing I can do about it, I'm going to file it in the same box as "asteroid strike" or "Yellowstone eruption" and try not to worry.
Only thing that would give the rat fucker party pause if we had a vacancy during the lame duck session; especially, if it was RBG's seat is if they had lost the Senate. They wouldn't fill the seat because of shame. They'd avoid doing it because they'd hope that would be an olive branch to trick democrats into letting bygones be bygones. They know full well that speed running a confirmation under the worst fucking POTUS in history during a lame duck in a desperate attempt to cling to power, would likely result in the democrats expanding the court and packing it as a hardy fuck you.
Pretty much if democrats don't secure a trifecta, they'll fill that seat with worst fucker they can. Hell, even if democrats do get a trifecta, they might still fill or try filling in that seat without shame, thinking the democrats won't pack the court. By all rights the democrats should pack the court and then push for an amendment or a few to really shut down some of the GOP's bullshit with the judicial branch.
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Kamala Harris scares all the right people but i think she’s got her sights set on the White
House first
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
+3
Options
WACriminalDying Is Easy, Young ManLiving Is HarderRegistered Userregular
The real problem is that we're too large a country for a 9-person chief judiciary. My plan is simple:
1) Admit DC as a state.
2) Restructure the court so that it must always contain exactly one representative justice from each state, who hear cases in groups of 9 (overlap allowed between groups). The chief justice delegates the groups, subject to approval by the entire 51-justice body, and within each group the most senior justice serves the role of chief during proceedings.
3) Kick Roberts, keep Sotomayor or Kagan as New York's rep. Let RBG retire already, goddamn.
4) Appoint young progressives from all the currently unrepresented states.
Yes it's a bad idea. But it would be a little funny.
The real problem is that we're too large a country for a 9-person chief judiciary. My plan is simple:
1) Admit DC as a state.
2) Restructure the court so that it must always contain exactly one representative justice from each state, who hear cases in groups of 9 (overlap allowed between groups). The chief justice delegates the groups, subject to approval by the entire 51-justice body, and within each group the most senior justice serves the role of chief during proceedings.
3) Kick Roberts, keep Sotomayor or Kagan as New York's rep. Let RBG retire already, goddamn.
4) Appoint young progressives from all the currently unrepresented states.
Yes it's a bad idea. But it would be a little funny.
This is easily the worst idea I've read in a long time.
Lets give rural states even MORE comparative power. Let's have California have a single Justice, and Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississipi, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana all have their own, despite having a smaller population in total.
I know it was a throwaway joke, and I don't actually mind the idea of a rotational grouping (though that does raise risks of inconsistency, especially if two "courts" rule differently on similar matters, ie, anti-gay baker in a heavy conservative grouping and anti-gay caterer in a heavy liberal grouping, both heard simultaneously).
But the only way I'd see "state representation" being even close to reasonable, is if you amalgamated states and split states, like you do Congressional districts, and as that's NEVER going to happen, the idea that states get equal representation when states don't have close to equal population, just needs to die. It's bad enough re: Senators.
Posts
Christ, that sounds bad. And being in the hospital right now is double bad.
This is really the worst fucking timeline.
It's better than what Trump and the Pubs would put up there, but it's still bad.
Also $5 says Trump and his cronies start pushing a "Ginsberg should retire" narrative and starts trotting out potential replacements. Hell, is there actually a rule that says a seat needs to be empty before they confirm the next judge?
Holy shit, don't give them ideas.
I mean the response to that last paragraph would just be RGB giving them the finger for the rest of her existence.
You could replace a judge early but it takes massive shenanigans they need the house for.
What people? Democrats? What would they do about it? Republicans would be partying in the streets that got one last over before they left.
At least some of them seem to be somewhat aware that they won't be in power forever (note that they've only weakened - and not outright abolished - the filibuster and other minority perks).
Their plan is to rig the system so that they are in power forever. They would absolutely pull a lame duck appointment as that would greatly further that goal.
They will continue to be "very concerned" right up until they vote to confirm whatever miserable insipid compost heap was nominated.
And the new court will then gladly uphold any election fuckery.
Why would you assume that?
They will nod their heads and ram their pick through anyway. They do not give a shit.
Yeah, because that’s a thing that has worked on them.
I wouldn't call it an absolute given but it's highly plausible given (what I know of) Biden's overall political career.
They’re not Ghosts, they’re Poison.
Omg
The point of throwing their bullshit in their face isn't to shame them into action- though that very occasionally works- so much as to piss people off to throw them out. Which does work.
To be fair, I don't think he said he would ignore that when asked the question, I think he laughed. Like, literally, I think he just laughed in their face.
There's what, 53 Republicans in the Senate?
The will be two people who are allowed to be Very Concerned enough to not vote to confirm. Pretty sure Mitt would be one of them. "Moderate" Republicans will draw straws to see who gets to be number two.
I don't see how that tracks at all. Like, you can look at his platform right now.
The absolute worst you would get from Biden is probably like a Merrick Garland.
It's probably a safe assumption for damn near any president, because that's a safe option that isn't going to rattle too many cages and keeps the status quo, while also protecting the admin from a bruising confirmation process. However, and especially if democrats control congress, there'd be no reason not try for someone a little more progressive.
Pick the public defender under 50 with the most years of experience. Then start looking at the various legal advocacy groups.
No judges. No prosecutors. Period.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I could see Romney, Murkowski, and Collins balking at it. Which means the appointment goes through with Pence anyway.
Oh god yeah, this. Get some people on that court that haven't been living in a bubble their entire professional life. Maybe then we could get some decisions that don't literally tell people its only bribery if you trade a big bag of money with a dollar sign on it. Or that racism is totally over in regards to states fucking over minorities from voting.
EDIT: Though I think he's promised the first seat goes to a black woman, so start your research there.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Michelle Obama, just for the troll factor.
Got to admit, I do consider this to be pretty much a "game over" scenario. But since there's absolutely nothing I can do about it, I'm going to file it in the same box as "asteroid strike" or "Yellowstone eruption" and try not to worry.
Pretty much if democrats don't secure a trifecta, they'll fill that seat with worst fucker they can. Hell, even if democrats do get a trifecta, they might still fill or try filling in that seat without shame, thinking the democrats won't pack the court. By all rights the democrats should pack the court and then push for an amendment or a few to really shut down some of the GOP's bullshit with the judicial branch.
House first
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
1) Admit DC as a state.
2) Restructure the court so that it must always contain exactly one representative justice from each state, who hear cases in groups of 9 (overlap allowed between groups). The chief justice delegates the groups, subject to approval by the entire 51-justice body, and within each group the most senior justice serves the role of chief during proceedings.
3) Kick Roberts, keep Sotomayor or Kagan as New York's rep. Let RBG retire already, goddamn.
4) Appoint young progressives from all the currently unrepresented states.
This is easily the worst idea I've read in a long time.
Lets give rural states even MORE comparative power. Let's have California have a single Justice, and Wyoming, North Dakota, Alaska, South Dakota, Idaho, Nebraska, West Virginia, Utah, Kansas, Arkansas, Mississipi, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana all have their own, despite having a smaller population in total.
I know it was a throwaway joke, and I don't actually mind the idea of a rotational grouping (though that does raise risks of inconsistency, especially if two "courts" rule differently on similar matters, ie, anti-gay baker in a heavy conservative grouping and anti-gay caterer in a heavy liberal grouping, both heard simultaneously).
But the only way I'd see "state representation" being even close to reasonable, is if you amalgamated states and split states, like you do Congressional districts, and as that's NEVER going to happen, the idea that states get equal representation when states don't have close to equal population, just needs to die. It's bad enough re: Senators.