Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fractures 3 ribs in fall

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

It would also be nice if we would all take a deep breath and let our sense of humor out a bit.  No one here is wishing for Ruth's demise, it is just funny how the media jumps on it in sort of a RBG death watch.  This is what I am laughing at, the actions of the media, not RBG's misfortune.

 

 

   There's no reason any one should hope for any vacancies on the supreme court in the next two years, since Trump has already had his 2 appointments. I believe it was just a short time ago that the Republicans were inherently (and adamantly) against any president having more than that. One would certainly not hope to see the Republican controlled senate backed into such a position of absolute hypocrisy. Again.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, yuna628 said:

Nobody cares about their elders? Not surprising. I rather find NB's tick-tocking distasteful. One day you'll all be old, if you aren't already.

 

   Somebody mentioned her "death watch" in another thread. As much as I was put off by Scalia's dogmatic and often uncompromising approach to many issues, I would never have wished anything bad to happen to him. Or any of them. Sad to see so many people in this country going off the deep end.

[Dashinka 23,237]

4 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   There's no reason any one should hope for any vacancies on the supreme court in the next two years, since Trump has already had his 2 appointments. I believe it was just a short time ago that the Republicans were inherently (and adamantly) against any president having more than that. One would certainly not hope to see the Republican controlled senate backed into such a position of absolute hypocrisy. Again.

I don't recall the GOP putting a quantity limit on the number of appointments, so if you have proof, please share a link.  Sure they used the Biden Rule to let Garland's nomination whither on the vine, but I don't remember a quantity target ever being given.

 

Regardless, I wish RBG well and I do hope she keeps her sense of humor.

[Ban Hammer 12,835]

i'm sure kavenaugh pushed her.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

Just now, Bill & Katya said:

I don't recall the GOP putting a quantity limit on the number of appointments, so if you have proof, please share a link.  Sure they used the Biden Rule to let Garland's nomination whither on the vine, but I don't remember a quantity target ever being given.

 

Regardless, I wish RBG well and I do hope she keeps her sense of humor.

 

   Scalia's seat was vacant for 400 days. That is not the "Biden Rule". 

   

[Dashinka 23,237]

1 minute ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Scalia's seat was vacant for 400 days. That is not the "Biden Rule". 

   

Garland was nominated by President Obama March 16th, 2016, well within his last year in the WH.  Biden Rule.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Garland was nominated by President Obama March 16th, 2016, well within his last year in the WH.  Biden Rule.

 

   McConnell announced the day after Scalia died (Feb 13 2016) that they would not consider any nominee until the new president took office (January 20 2019). The "Biden Rule" was that president bush should wait if a vacancy opened in the Summer of the election year or he should alternatively appoint a moderate candidate who was acceptable to both parties. Biden made this speech in June of the election year and at no point did he say that they wouldn't consider any nominee.

 

  We should also acknowledge there was no SC vacancy the year Biden made his speech, thus there was no "rule", just an opinion. 

[yuna628 9,528]

26 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Somebody mentioned her "death watch" in another thread. As much as I was put off by Scalia's dogmatic and often uncompromising approach to many issues, I would never have wished anything bad to happen to him. Or any of them. Sad to see so many people in this country going off the deep end.

Agreed.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   There's no reason any one should hope for any vacancies on the supreme court in the next two years, since Trump has already had his 2 appointments. I believe it was just a short time ago that the Republicans were inherently (and adamantly) against any president having more than that. One would certainly not hope to see the Republican controlled senate backed into such a position of absolute hypocrisy. Again.

Ahh his two are up already. I think that is the 12th and half amendment 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 minutes ago, Marty Byrde said:

Ahh his two are up already. I think that is the 12th and half amendment 

 

  It's the McConnell rule. I imagine it's a soft rule though, subject to change or flip-flop as the occassion requires.

[Dashinka 23,237]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   McConnell announced the day after Scalia died (Feb 13 2016) that they would not consider any nominee until the new president took office (January 20 2019). The "Biden Rule" was that president bush should wait if a vacancy opened in the Summer of the election year or he should alternatively appoint a moderate candidate who was acceptable to both parties. Biden made this speech in June of the election year and at no point did he say that they wouldn't consider any nominee.

 

  We should also acknowledge there was no SC vacancy the year Biden made his speech, thus there was no "rule", just an opinion. 

So the vacancy opened up with less than a year left in President Obama's final term.  Sure Biden only issued an opinion and McConnell put it in action.  Just like Harry Reid's nuclear option.  Biden didn't specifically say with six months left in a president's term, the inference was that with little time left with a president's final term, any SCOTUS vacancy should be left up to the next president.  At the time of Scalia's death, most thought If the Senate was going to pass on Garland, Hillary would get the next pick.  It was really a gamble on McConnell's part, but it does fit within the so called Biden rule.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

15 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So the vacancy opened up with less than a year left in President Obama's final term.  Sure Biden only issued an opinion and McConnell put it in action.  Just like Harry Reid's nuclear option.  Biden didn't specifically say with six months left in a president's term, the inference was that with little time left with a president's final term, any SCOTUS vacancy should be left up to the next president.  At the time of Scalia's death, most thought If the Senate was going to pass on Garland, Hillary would get the next pick.  It was really a gamble on McConnell's part, but it does fit within the so called Biden rule.

 

   Biden said in June that if a vacancy opened in summer or later, it should not be filled or it should be a moderate.

 

    Again, McConnell is the only one who ever did this in practice, so he should own it. I'm not sure why he would try to use Biden's opinion to justify his own decision. They are both wrong.

 

  For the record, there's no convincing reason to leave a supreme court justice vacant any longer than the time required to fill the position. It's a political move, as you said, that could backfire in several ways. Biden was wrong when he said it, and McConnell was wrong when he did it.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

15 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Biden said in June that if a vacancy opened in summer or later, it should not be filled or it should be a moderate.

 

    Again, McConnell is the only one who ever did this in practice, so he should own it. I'm not sure why he would try to use Biden's opinion to justify his own decision. They are both wrong.

 

  For the record, there's no convincing reason to leave a supreme court justice vacant any longer than the time required to fill the position. It's a political move, as you said, that could backfire in several ways. Biden was wrong when he said it, and McConnell was wrong when he did it.

From what I am reading, even if RBG became incapacitated she would still have to retire or be impeached

[Boiler 43,429]

Obama had one, Trump has probably 6.

[Dashinka 23,237]

29 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   Biden said in June that if a vacancy opened in summer or later, it should not be filled or it should be a moderate.

 

    Again, McConnell is the only one who ever did this in practice, so he should own it. I'm not sure why he would try to use Biden's opinion to justify his own decision. They are both wrong.

 

  For the record, there's no convincing reason to leave a supreme court justice vacant any longer than the time required to fill the position. It's a political move, as you said, that could backfire in several ways. Biden was wrong when he said it, and McConnell was wrong when he did it.

There is no convincing reason?  Did SCOTUS fail to function with only eight justices?  Why is nine the magic number?  Didn’t FDR want more?  Sure what McConnell did was a political stunt, and if the situation was reversed, I am sure the Dems would have done the same thing, but it is well within the Senate’s prerogative under our system of checks and balances.  SCOTUS operates just fine with eight or less justices which I believe happens often when a justice recuse themselves for whatever reason.  Heck, Ruth Bader Ginsberg should recuse herself on any case involving Trump given her public statements against the president.