Home · Maps · About
Home > OTChat

[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]

[1 2]

 

Page 1 of 2

Next Page >  

(1588680)

view threaded

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by Train Dude on Tue Jan 8 02:39:28 2019

Says that her former colleague, John Paul Stevens retired at age 90 so she figures that she has 5 more years to serve. Sadly, higher powers may rule against her in the near future - presenting President Trump with a unique circumstance or unique problems to deal with. Who would be his 3rd Supreme Court nomination?

Choice A) He chooses a very qualified conservative candidate and with a strong majority in the senate, he both creates a 6-3 conservative court while pissing on resisters like Pelosi and schumer.

Choice B) He chooses a liberal like Garland. Bites the anger from his base but appeases the left to the extent that government becomes functional again and softens the resistance to his leadership.

Of course, this all could take place during 2020, making the election even more polarized. What would he do. I might opt for choice A and fuck the liberals into the ground with their "resist campaign". I don't see liberalism becoming even mildly pragmatic about leadership. To them, is an all or nothing game.

Post a New Response

(1588691)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by mtk52983 on Tue Jan 8 07:02:36 2019, in response to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by Train Dude on Tue Jan 8 02:39:28 2019.

If Antonin Scalia is any precedent, if she stays alive 13 more months then the Senate won’t have time to confirm a successor and should wait for the results of the 2020 election.

The problem with A is that you risk the Supreme Court masquerading political opinion as Constitutional Law and you get a backlash like what happened most recently against the Warren Court. Sure you will have short term gains, but over the long haul 5-4 Courts tend to be more stable especially when there is a legitimate swing voter as the 9th vote. Closely divided SCOTUS ends up being more faithful to Constitution and keeping decisions to the case at bar rather than making sweeping proclamations that may only tangentially relate because the majority is tenuous so they need to make sure that the 5th vote isn’t lost.

I also think you are overstating how far to the left you have to go with Option B in order to turn enough Senators around that Democrats are put between a rock and a hard place. Judge Amy St. Eve of the 7th Circuit is a Trump appointee to that position. She was voted out of committee 21-0 and confirmed by the Senate 91-0. At 53 she is still plenty young enough to be on the Supreme Court for a long time. Even though the Democrats will try to obstruct, it will be easy for the Trump Administration to call them out on it. She also has the appropriate bona fides within the Republican Party who might wish to primary Trump because of her work in the Whitewater Independent Counsel’s office and nomination to Northern District of Illinois by George W. Bush. Most importantly she is a woman. Among female swing voters I think there might be some concern if Ruth Bader Ginsburg is replaced with a white Man.

Post a New Response

(1588706)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 08:49:23 2019, in response to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by Train Dude on Tue Jan 8 02:39:28 2019.

If it takes place in 2020, mccconell will HAVE to act according to his own precedent, and not bring any nomination to the floor. If he doesn't there will be a wave unlike any tsunami ever seen. The end result would be the nation's first SCOTUS impeachment’s (keganaugh) and/or expansion to 11 Justices.

I wouldn't call trump a leader of anything beyond bankruptcy quantity.

Post a New Response

(1588707)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 08:54:29 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by mtk52983 on Tue Jan 8 07:02:36 2019.

A conservative female would not cut it. No more appointees for trump cuts it. As it stands, sexual predators are now way over represented.

Post a New Response

(1588708)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 8 09:05:48 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 08:49:23 2019.

LOL!

Post a New Response

(1588711)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Jan 8 09:14:20 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 08:54:29 2019.

Your scenario is not realistic.

Post a New Response

(1588713)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Jan 8 09:18:11 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 08:49:23 2019.

I thought I was bad with stirring the pot by saying ridiculous things, but THAT just took the cake!

Post a New Response

(1588714)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by AlM on Tue Jan 8 09:19:40 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 08:54:29 2019.

No more appointees for trump cuts it.

That's an excellent wish on your part but none of us have the power to make that happen. If Ginsburg dies before approximately October 2020, Trump (or else Pence) will get another shot and none of us can stop him.

Post a New Response

(1588716)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 09:46:46 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by AlM on Tue Jan 8 09:19:40 2019.

I sincerely doubt that will happen.

Post a New Response

(1588717)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 09:48:36 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Jan 8 09:14:20 2019.

It's incredibly so. Plus, what about McConnell’s "if it’s close to the election the voters should have their say? “. Or does that only apply to Democratic administrations?

Post a New Response

(1588718)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 09:49:05 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 09:46:46 2019.

And BMW will never build automobiles in South Carolina. You are doing it again, bangy.

Post a New Response

(1588719)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 09:50:42 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 08:49:23 2019.

BMW & Boeing?

Post a New Response

(1588731)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by chicagomotorman on Tue Jan 8 10:04:10 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 08:54:29 2019.

Misogynist.

Post a New Response

(1588734)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by MorningsideHeightsM100 on Tue Jan 8 10:06:52 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 08:49:23 2019.

Not to mention being the leader in the quantity of number of days having the government shut down.


I don't think even Bill Clinton's shut downs lasted this long, all together.

Post a New Response

(1588736)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 10:16:15 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by MorningsideHeightsM100 on Tue Jan 8 10:06:52 2019.

We just eclipsed then Carter shutdown while the Clinton's shutdown lasted 23 days. End is in sight, though. Democrats refuse to negotiate. They just say no. Trump acts unilaterally soon and stalemate ends. Socialist Democraps will stamp their feet and we get another mega-thread here. The world keeps spinning.

Post a New Response

(1588737)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Jan 8 10:17:45 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 09:48:36 2019.

I will now take you back to reality. By the time his tenure as president of the United States of America is done, Donald Trump would have appointed one or two more justices to the Supreme Court.

Post a New Response

(1588742)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 10:20:12 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Jan 8 10:17:45 2019.

Most likely. MKTs sense of consequence might be slightly overstated. I hate Chuck and Nancy. Love to see then powerless.

Post a New Response

(1588751)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by mtk52983 on Tue Jan 8 10:31:42 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 10:20:12 2019.

I don't like to see anyone powerless because lack of checks and balances leads to government overreach. The goal should not be making anyone's head explode, but making sure things are done within the parameters of the Constitution. I do think that there are names that would put the Democrats between a rock and a hard place if nominated to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I just used Judge St. Eve as one example. Former Nevada Governor Brian Sandoval is another. He was formerly a District Court Judge and he has experience with the political process which I think is sorely missing from the Supreme Court. It is easy to spout theory and legalese, but having someone who has actual experience governing is useful when you are looking at interpreting statutes that might have more than one plausible meaning.

Post a New Response

(1588755)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 10:46:02 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Jan 8 10:17:45 2019.

Nope. For one, the chances of his re-election are slim at best. (Link to source is within the linked article)

So he ought to be focusing on surviving through 2020. That depends on the Mueller report. Which won't be out until the fall as it’s looking now at the earliest. And it means that the chance of another appointment is similar to that of his re-election.

Post a New Response

(1588757)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 8 10:51:56 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 10:46:02 2019.

Just like his chances of election in the first place were slim at best.

Post a New Response

(1588758)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 10:52:31 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by mtk52983 on Tue Jan 8 10:31:42 2019.

And I admit freely that I am largey naive about the subject so I must speculatively. Perhaps I should be more like the bingbongs and make shit up but I prefer enlightened views

Post a New Response

(1588775)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jan 8 12:14:17 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Jan 8 10:17:45 2019.

Will have.

Post a New Response

(1588776)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jan 8 12:15:59 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by mtk52983 on Tue Jan 8 10:31:42 2019.

I don't like to see anyone powerless because lack of checks and balances leads to government overreach

You just hurled an accusation without proof. There has been no overreach by Trump over the past two years. And allowing anti-Constitution politicians into the mix is not "checks and balances" but an attempt at coup d'état.

Post a New Response

(1588779)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jan 8 12:23:06 2019, in response to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by Train Dude on Tue Jan 8 02:39:28 2019.

Someone like Garland will never be the choice. Remember the big smile on Schumer's face when that last spending bill was signed? It'll be a conservative so that the rabid media can burn up resources covering the hearings again.

Post a New Response

(1588780)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jan 8 12:24:22 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by MorningsideHeightsM100 on Tue Jan 8 10:06:52 2019.

Shutdown's proving good for the country.

Post a New Response

(1588782)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jan 8 12:28:39 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by mtk52983 on Tue Jan 8 07:02:36 2019.

The problem with A is that you risk the Supreme Court masquerading political opinion as Constitutional Law

Wrong. That's the problem with B.

Post a New Response

(1588786)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by Jimmymc25 on Tue Jan 8 12:55:01 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jan 8 12:24:22 2019.

Wow

Post a New Response

(1588787)

view threaded

Re: Roger Simon is an idiot Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by chicagomotorman on Tue Jan 8 13:05:32 2019, in response to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by Train Dude on Tue Jan 8 02:39:28 2019.

. And anyone who agrees with what he said is a bigger idiot.

Post a New Response

(1588788)

view threaded

Re: Roger Simon is an idiot Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 8 13:11:55 2019, in response to Re: Roger Simon is an idiot Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by chicagomotorman on Tue Jan 8 13:05:32 2019.

It's actually a great thought experiment because it shows just how fucked up the whole thing is. SCOTUS needs a mandatory retirement age.

Post a New Response

(1588792)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jan 8 13:21:36 2019, in response to Re: Roger Simon is an idiot Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by chicagomotorman on Tue Jan 8 13:05:32 2019.

Why are you reading the Inquisitr and believing it?

The context is distorted by their reporter. There have been several celebrities who said they'd donate organs to save RBG.

Post a New Response

(1588795)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 13:28:41 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jan 8 12:23:06 2019.

I love it when a plan comes together

Post a New Response

(1588796)

view threaded

Re: Roger Simon is an idiot Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 13:30:37 2019, in response to Re: Roger Simon is an idiot Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 8 13:11:55 2019.

It also needs 6 more members -at least.

Post a New Response

(1588800)

view threaded

Re: Roger Simon is an idiot Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 8 13:43:28 2019, in response to Re: Roger Simon is an idiot Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 13:30:37 2019.

Of course you would want them appointed now, by the orange tan.

Post a New Response

(1588811)

view threaded

Re: Roger Simon is an idiot Ruth Bader Gootinsburg

Posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 14:16:52 2019, in response to Re: Roger Simon is an idiot Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 8 13:43:28 2019.

No! On the contrary. When I proposed this several months ago I suggested 2 per the next 3 presidents.

Post a New Response

(1588814)

view threaded

Re: Roger Simon is an idiot Ruth Bader Gootinsburg

Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 8 14:39:42 2019, in response to Re: Roger Simon is an idiot Ruth Bader Gootinsburg, posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 14:16:52 2019.

My apologies.

Post a New Response

(1588815)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 14:48:22 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 8 10:51:56 2019.

I'm just the messenger. He won't likely have as much Russian support, people will be watchful regarding same, he's widely unpopular. With the economic instability, his second chance for support erodes withevery single wild day on the trading floor. His base is thinning. He got into fixed on slim majorities n a few states, all of which show no signs of a retreat performance.

So, it may not be impossible, two years is a long time in that business, but right now a second term looks highly unlikely.

Post a New Response

(1588817)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 8 15:10:55 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jan 8 10:51:56 2019.

She still doesn't get it.

Post a New Response

(1588818)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 8 15:11:21 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 14:48:22 2019.

You have not been very good with predictions. Dismal at best.

Post a New Response

(1588819)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 8 15:13:18 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Jan 8 09:18:11 2019.

At least she is always good for comedy.

Post a New Response

(1588820)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 8 15:14:48 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 09:46:46 2019.

LOL!!!

Post a New Response

(1588826)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jan 8 16:21:51 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 8 15:10:55 2019.

Don't let CCCPig troll you.

Hit your macros.

Post a New Response

(1588852)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Jan 8 17:13:08 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 10:46:02 2019.

Sit back and watch! It's going to happen just as I said it would.

Post a New Response

(1588853)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Jan 8 17:14:29 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 8 15:11:21 2019.

Exactly. She's no seer, that's for sure.

Post a New Response

(1588856)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by mtk52983 on Tue Jan 8 17:25:01 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Jan 8 17:13:08 2019.

Just like you predicted the Republicans would keep the House.

Post a New Response

(1588857)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Jan 8 17:26:35 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by mtk52983 on Tue Jan 8 17:25:01 2019.

Like I told Alm, try to find the thread and then go back and read what I actually wrote.

Post a New Response

(1588858)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jan 8 17:53:10 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by BILLBKLYN on Tue Jan 8 17:26:35 2019.

Like I told Alm

Um, lo@lm!

Post a New Response

(1588868)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 18:19:39 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Tue Jan 8 15:11:21 2019.

These aren't “my predictions”. I was quite clear about there being a link to the source in my OP, go back, link to the article and it's in the first paragraph. Other than that, if you're going to call them mine, you're lying and thus get relegated to the trollheap with the other liar trolls here.

Post a New Response

(1588870)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 18:29:20 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 10:16:15 2019.

LOL, he tries that "emergency” thing and it's straight to court. Then the Congress passes a resolution (easily in the House, probably less than, but it’ll squeak through the Senate at worst) to undo it. Plus someone's gonna sue, and the court’s will also enjoin (read:stop, that may not be the right legalese to describe,I'm not a lawyer) it.

Post a New Response

(1588873)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 18:32:37 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by bingbong on Tue Jan 8 18:29:20 2019.

That's what you liberal cunts do

Post a New Response

(1588875)

view threaded

Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Posted by LuchAAA on Tue Jan 8 18:51:19 2019, in response to Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, posted by TRAIN DUDE on Tue Jan 8 18:32:37 2019.

good post

Post a New Response

[1 2]

 

Page 1 of 2

Next Page >  


[ Return to the Message Index ]