Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died
npr.org
npr.org
Rest in peace Ruth. I hope if there's an after you and Antonin are living it up.
Maybe there's some sort of new "non-denominational creed" we could all sign up for.
~" We may not agree but I will always listen to you. I will always consider your opinion with respect and will endeavour to understand your reasoning. My views are not set - my goal is to listen to arguments to come to an informed position, I can honestly take forward "
As I typed that, I could hear the happy-clappy sounds of some mocking-utopia ringing in my ears - but goddamnit, it doesn't sound too hard for us to each put it into action. I'm as guilty as the next person, but I'm going to try going forward.
I thought that was remarkable in a positive sense as well
I'm not going for the nazi reference, he wasn't that evil but Scalia was literally trying to drag the United States back to the 1950s if not even further, decision after decision he never found an expanding right he didn't want to slaughter
That isn't a very fun vision of life on the bench - and any system is imperfect - so I don't really advocate that. But the idea that these people are asserting their preferences over 300 million people and then getting all chummy in their spare time isn't a good thing. It is unavoidable though.
https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/13071014175225610...
Justice Antonin Scalia died in February of 2016, a replacement was nominated in March of 2016, and because Scalia's seat had become vacant during an election year, the Senate would not even consider a nomination from the president [0].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_...
> Asked what he would do in circumstances like these, McConnell said: "Oh, we'd fill it." [the supreme court seat]
This is not a normal government.
I believe the first time a SC nominee was blocked was Roger Taney in 1835. This is politics and happens, as a general principle, regularly by both parties.
Would have played out the exact same way if political tables were turned.
There are no principles, just power struggles.
If HRC was president, McConnell would follow his 2016 policy. With Trump president he'll make a new policy.
There are no repercussions for bringing home the bacon to your constituents at any cost.
Let's say that Biden wins, then Trump runs against him again in 2024. Somebody dies or retires right before the election, do you think the democrats would seriously wait and risk allowing the nomination to be done by Trump?
None of these people are in any way signaling their actual virtues. It's all just slogans. Also: the Democrats didn't grant this to the Republicans over Scalia. The Republicans were in power in the Senate at the time and used this power to their advantage.
Yeah, this is all terrible: this is the world you get when our politics seem to be regulated by twitter. If you want this to change, get rid of cable news talk shows, and get rid of twitter. Until then, this is what you're going to have.
Also what happens if the election is contested and needs to be decided by the Supreme Court? Can't have a Supreme Court without a justice till January 20th.
> History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic.
The linked article actually goes on to describe every situation where there was an election year Supreme Court vacancy. Please read.
If things weren’t so polarized, they absolutely should spare no time in replacing the seat, as is their duty. But we know it’ll be yet another cynical and dishonest process as it was last time.
Let's see just how long it takes him to release a public statement going back on that one...
Edit: Fwiw, the RBG movie about her is on Hulu now.
It's specifically her dying wish. IMO she's giving Senators who still support democracy something they can say to the press when they decline to vote to fill her seat.
Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
Republicans have a majority of the Senate judiciary committee and the Senate. They have it if they want it without involving stimulus or anything to do with Congress.
"So far the following GOP Senators have pledged that they will not consider a Supreme Court appointment until after the next inauguration.
Susan Collins Chuck Grassley Lisa Murkowski"
[0]:https://twitter.com/yashar/status/1307115333669580807
The Senate is currently split 53/47, I don't believe Romney has addressed the issue yet. No one should get too bitter and divisive just yet.
Susan Collins will go on record saying she thinks trump jr is just too good of a candidate to not accept the nomination, and that'll be the end of it
So far, Murkowski is the only confirmed GOP defector, and 4 total defectors are needed to prevent nomination hearings before the election.
Part of that procedure is having your party in charge of the Senate at the time of said nomination. Obama did nominate someone, he simply could not get him confirmed. That's on Obama (and Democrats more generally).
Trump will also nominate someone, and because his party has a majority in the Senate, that nominee will likely be confirmed whether Trump wins the upcoming election or not.
I am 100% certain that if Obama had a Democratic Senate majority when he nominated Merrick Garland, his nominee also would have been confirmed. (As a registered Democrat myself, I would have demanded it.)
There is no other precedent here: you accomplish in office what you can (procedurally) accomplish. Trump lucked out here; Obama didn't.
> "Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell told supporters in Kentucky on Tuesday when asked what he would do if a Supreme Court justice died in 2020 while President Trump was still in office
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fi...
edit: Am I really getting downvoted for pointing out how the current administration already said it would handle this?
edit #2: Individual Republicans are declaring they're against rushing an appointment before the election (https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1307113546136784897).
It’s sad how many justices will be on the court, appointed by men that didn’t win the popular vote
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/oh-wed-fi...
Declaring war? Responding to an attack? Talking to other world leaders? Advocating Congress to act on matters? Signing bills into laws? Naming post offices? Being allowed into the Oval Office?
Independent of this specific situation, there has to be a line drawn somewhere. And that line is Inauguration Day. (A case could be made that some powers cease on Election Day for a lame duck President.)
I believe there is no precedent for the Senate confirming a Supreme Court justice in a lame duck session. If Trump loses to Biden and the Senate then confirms a Trump nominee in a lame duck session, that will probably be the end of the Supreme Court. I’d expect Biden and Harris to just stack the Court, and it to devolve from there.
Remember, there is no law requiring nine justices. Just a handshake agreement and precedent. FDR threatened the stack the Court unless he got his way. And who would ultimately determine the legality of stacking the Court? You guessed it, the Supreme Court.
She will always inspire me, here or not, to fight for justice and what my conscience tells me is right. I have a great deal to say and a great deal to fight for. When it gets tough, she will be there to keep me standing.
Thank you, Ruth, for being such a fully self-actualised individual. You have shown the way. I am forever grateful.
A giant has fallen.
Extremism in any shape breeds further extremism. I hope society is about to do a “big blink”.
It only takes a majority in the senate and house to add a seat to the SCOTUS or a state to the union.
Exactly. If Biden wins and the senate flips, they'll just add two justices (for 11 total) to get a majority. The right will scream bloody murder, but won't be able to do anything about it.
Oh yeah? What does that take the form of? Does it take the form of people who have ideas that you don't like not being there when you open your eyes back up again?
After Bill Clinton seated two liberal justices there has been an unending cry about how liberal the court is.
Her sharing contributed to my befriending a few people with opposite political views, against this nation's tide of increasing polarization and beating opponents without trying to understand (Jonathan Haidt's book The Righteous Mind contributed too). Among the results: less anger, more understanding, more self-awareness, though also more confusion among friends and family to why I would talk to someone who voted that way.
"Q. When the time comes, what would you like to be remembered for?
RBG: Someone who used whatever talent she had to do her work to the very best of her ability, and to help repair tears in her society. ‘To do something,' as my colleague David Souter would say, ‘outside myself.’ Because I’ve gotten much more satisfaction for the things that I’ve done for which I was not paid."
I made this in her honor, https://i.imgur.com/3OlCIum.png
i pray for peace and rest to her and her family, and grace and mercy, wisdom and forebearance for us.
Why not 20 year limits?
The founding fathers thought that the US constitution would look like the UK. President = King, Congress = Parliament. The judiciary was practically an afterthought, and like UK courts, would be subordinate to Congress. “ In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”
Note the “such exceptions and under such regulations”.
As history turned out, Congress has barely used this power to rein in the courts and in the mid-19th century on the courts grew more and more powerful and have become a sort of mini-legislature.
James Madison already recognized this, writing in 1788 that he realized a mistake had been made in the constitution: “ as the Courts are generally the last in making their decision, it results to them, by refusing or not refusing to execute a law, to stamp it with its final character. This makes the Judiciary Dept paramount in fact to the Legislature, which was never intended, and can never be proper ... ” (https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch17s25...)
https://clickamericana.com/topics/health-medicine/us-life-ex... https://www.everydayhealth.com/senior-health/what-life-expec...
Those probably aren't the best places for me to get numbers, but I think they're good enough for a rough example of what I mean.
The idea is similar to tenure. You can do and say what you believe without influence and pressure from either party. It also dodges influence peddling preparing for leaving office. For example, in the defense department, officials will make recommendations and then leave office and profit from those same companies. If you're in office for life, this common (and almost impossible to prevent) kind of corruption becomes basically a non issue.
The federalist papers would shed light on such things, but actually reading them (and the wealth of nations)is likely to turn you into an independent who dislikes both parties.
Both parties are a blight that should never have gotten enshrined the way they are.
The last 4+ justices appointed were in their 50s. Gorsuch was 50. A top name on the short list both times was Amy Coney Barett, 48. They've been grooming a 38 year-old, Justin Walker, for the court. He went from a few months of litigation experience to the federal bench to the DC circuit in a year.
Notice how all these people also look very healthy? They're trying to get people who will last a lot longer than 20 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Justice_of_th...
I'd add the requirement of at least a year of criminal defense experience since this is almost completely lacking currently and it shows in the horrible decisions the court makes.
It also makes sense. Cognitive ability deteriorates with age. And you don't want very old, with illness to rule on important things.
The idea behind no term limits is, the judge can choose to retire doesn't have to.
You have invested a lot of effort in getting a judge to the top as a country. you don't necessarily need a arbitrary date to retire.
Each individual has a capacity to serve upto different age unique to them. Setting a common age for all is not efficient, plenty of judges for example are employed in india post 65, in arbitration and government commissions.
It makes sense not have term limits when the court size is small.
The problem for america is that everything is political: judges and their retirement . In a 2 party first past the post/ winner takes all system that is inevitable.
There are a lot of unplugged holes in the constitution. This is just another issue...
"'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,''
-Senator Mitch McConnell in 2016
His words mean nothing. Unfortunately, he does what he wants, not what he's said. His past proclamations are merely inconvenient distractions.
Because of that, they will get their way.
It's fairly irresponsible to work until the day you die if a sudden death can have absolutely devastating and life changing consequences for a significant number of people.
It shows poor judgement.
I think it shows she was as hungry for power as anyone else.
"In 1999, she underwent major surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation to treat colon cancer. Ten years later, she was diagnosed with early stage pancreatic cancer, for which she also had surgery. In 2014, she went to the hospital after suffering chest pains during one of her famous workouts and discovered she had a blocked artery. [1]
She had been a supreme court justice for almost 20 years by then. Regardless of whether Obama's pick would have been watered down by lack of congressional control, her vanity has made things much worse and tarnishes her entire career.
Edit: So I don’t regret this entirely, she is deserving of great respect even if she made a possibly grave miscalculation.
We do not know the outcome yet, and whether intended or not this could result in something bigger working out in the same way WeWork’s failure could turn out to be a boon to RISC V.
[1] https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/11/what-cult-ruth-...
I weep for those without, you will not have the recourse those of the last half century had.
Edit: Trump's support grew consistently as public support for BLM waned in face of the 'perception of violence' [1] - which Trump's team sees and is why he's pushing a 'law and order' message. The risk of BLM is that 'empathy' will easily be overwhelmed by 'concern' if pictures of violence play out on their TV screens every night. People will always chose public order over almost anything else.
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/02/trump-black-lives-m...
Except it doesn't seem like the violence and rioting so far has actually helped Trump:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/trumps-law-and-order-me...
1627 points and 1263 comments yet no longer on the front page.
A moderator, please explain.
I do think there should be a mandatory retirement age in the Supreme Court.
I also think so for being president or governor.
I think that RBG was laser sharp till the end but I can think of many presidents and wannabes that are and were not.
I don’t want that to devolve into a political debate over specific candidates. It is just a fact that on average health and cognitive abilities and flexibility decline with age. An for one of the most difficult and stressful jobs in the world you need to try and ensure someone who is still on top of their game.
For POTUS we have a law stating the minimum age for the president. Since we already have that imposing a maximum age is reasonable and not ageist
Or I would support doing away with both and define a series of physical, cognitive tests as well as knowledge of the world and general knowledge. All of which would score a candidates suitability for the job. To be administered by a non partisan agency that is aggressively independent from new or old administrations. That would have weeded out some horrific presidents we have had. And will have.
Trump will nominate a successor in the next couple weeks. McConnell will start the process, but delay the vote until after the November election. This way:
If Trump wins, McConnell can say that he was entirely reasonable and consistent, and he waited until after the election to ensure that the people really wanted Trump's SCOTUS nomination to be confirmed.
If Trump loses, McConnell still has the option say hell with it, and ram Trump's nomination through anyway. Any Republican Senators who might be worried about re-election chances will already have kept or lost their seats. I expect election results won't be final enough to call by the end of election day like they usually are, but even if it takes a couple weeks, that still leaves over a month for the Senate to vote on the nomination before their session ends at the beginning of January.
The other possibility is that McConnell will just get it all done immediately. He likely has the numbers now -- I doubt any of the fence-sitting Republican Senators would vote no, even those who are up for re-election this year -- and it's not clear that he actually gives a damn about appearances at this point. Waiting could also have a downside: it's possible that enough Republican Senators who have lost their seats in the election could feel too uncomfortable confirming a nomination of this magnitude during their own lame-duck session. But again, not sure how much these people will care about fairness when the chips are down.
I expect McConnel to just create some reason why things are different this time, or, if he wants to be a troll, to say "I was wrong in 2016" or just to not address the hypocrisy and go right on ahead nominating a new Justice.
The Dems took a huge risk with Kavanaugh going after the way they did (allegations against an 18 year old at a party where technically nothing happened???) but were saved by a a deeply emotive testimony by a woman who pulled a lot of heartstrings and came off credibly.
That was an incredible risk because if that performance was not across the line ... it would have completely backfired.
Also - merely making a nomination makes Trump look strong.
Winning a competition against Dems - which I think he can because he has the votes - looks strong.
I don't see any way for the Dems to win with this unless Trump nominates a total fool.
Trump is flirting with the same poll numbers Hillary had las time and Biden is not a strong candidate ... this is not a good position for the Dems to be in.
Also, why bother? Electoral College means my vote counts for shit and half the Presidents since I’ve been able to vote were elected by losing the popular vote. It’s tyranNy of the minority and it sucks. I still vote, but it feels more and more Sisyphean as time goes on.
> Breaking: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who refused to consider President Obama’s choice months before the 2016 election, said in a statement Friday hours after Ginsburg’s death: “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate.”
I am deeply disappointed at anyone celebrating her loss.
"Take a moment. Breathe.
And then we fight for our country the way she always did for us. Or we will lose everything."
https://twitter.com/MaryLTrump/status/1307109748744114177?s=...
“We don’t inherent the world (our country) from our parents. We have it on loan from our children.”
Time to watch “The Supremes” episode of West Wing and cry.
They do not give a fuck.
That’s not how they see power and it is why they have a far disproportionate share of power/representation than their support across the electorate.
This is about power. In politics, nothing else matters.
Something that the Democrats need to realize is that they (especially Obama) assumed too much good faith in the congressional GOP.
You can stick to your principles while doing it but, when you are against a party who now considers its last nominee (Romney) a radical BLM leftist, when they go low you need to be ready to kick them in the head.
Make it absolutely clear to McConnell and Democratic leaders in the Senate that if McConnell fills this seat in an election year, then the Democrats must increase the size of the SCOTUS.
McConnell needs to fear the reprisal more than he fears the delay. Because you're right, this is about power. Nothing else matters to them. So make them fear this.
Both the democratic party and the republican party only represent a small fraction of the electorate, for your information.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/oct/25/american-pol...
"As they go to the polls in a historic presidential election, more than six in 10 Americans say neither major political party represents their views any longer, a survey has found."
The left has been talking about stacking the supreme court since Kavanaugh. Democratic senators played games with the filibuster. There are plenty of other examples of weaponizing politics that I could cite (from both sides).
I would like to see Senate Republicans show some fair play and wait for after the election, though there is some wisdom in wanting to avoid the possibility of a split decision should this election go to the supreme court.
I saw some interviews with her, pretty amazing lady. Sad to see her go.
Why would they? There are no consequences to bad behavior!
Republicans push tax cuts through for the wealthy, leaving the country deeper in debt. So what do Democrats do when they get back in power? Let those cuts stand!
Imagine, if, for every Republican shenanigan, their price to pay would be much higher than any potential gains. They would think twice about being assholes then. But as things stand, they suffer no consequences! So why would they ever change??
Sounds about right.
> the activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.
Also, the US needs a maximum age limit for SCOTUS justices.
Will they do it? maybe? probably.
Rest in Peace American Republic
The Like count makes people defensive or aggressive especially when they are called out in public leading to never ending reaction and counter reaction cycles.
Without that dumb random signal interfering in conversations all kinds of strange connections are possible.
I see it at work meetings between highly competitive people who dont have anything in common with each other. I see it on whatsapp chat groups.
But I don't see it happening on FB, Twitter and on the News. These mediums favor reaction-counter reaction over solutions.
Connection takes time and the right environment. Anyone who wants connection and solutions to trump reactions, please have those conversation in an environment without random signals interfering with the process.
Things like mods (most people don't have the time commitment), voting (terminally online people will be able to vote earlier and more often, driving the conversation), front page thresholds (a small group of people acting as filters for new submissions), and time limited submissions (the longer you wait to comment the more likely the conversation will have died) just skews things even more.
For all the discussion about the low quality of online conversations, there seems to be very little discussion about the environments we've created and what kind of discussion these environments encourage.
And to disagree with someone, you should have to at least open your mouth. That's a conversation. To just be able to dislike or downvote let alone anonymously is harmful for everyone, even the person downvoting. Instead of exercising speech, it's a slap on the wrist response.
Removing context removes nuance, and removing nuance removes intellect.
[1] - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2020/09/17/hyster...
[2] - https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Your either want the right to your own body, or a crusade to stop the murder of millions of babies.
This drives most other politics.
I come from a large family and we represent the whole spectrum of political beliefs, in a single generation, and all my sibs are equally kind and selfless, regardless of their political affiliation.
The Trump Republicans are far better in terms of war crimes. Not "better in terms of war crimes" is some sort of crowning achievement, but its hard to get much lower than srone striking Americans on foreign soil. To say Trump isn't an improvement over Busch just boggles my mind.
Edit: sorry to all of you Amy Barrett fans out there.
McConnell has certainly laid plans for an attempt to force a crony through as quickly as possible before the election. Hopefully it won't happen before Trump gets flushed.
In some part, it makes it easier to disagree. Some of the arguments have been going on for centuries.
I misread an article; her client was Catholic.
RBC was raised Jewish. Later, after her mother passed, she became non-observant.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg#:~:text=Al....
There was a time in the US that as bitter as partisan politics could be there seemed to be a level of decency on both sides and a higher loyalty to the institutions of our government.
Nixon resigned in disgrace because it became clear even his own party would not support him. I honestly think that if Watergate happened today, the president's party would defend the president regardless of what happened.
You see active and organized voter suppression, politicization of the election process itself and gerrymandering on a massive yet accurate scale.
The attitude seems to have set in that the ends justify the means. "Look at what the other side does." Abortion in particular seems to be one of those issues where self-described moral voters seem to view anything as justified. Like how anyone can justify to thsmselves bombing an abortion clinic or a church is in any way justifiable is beyond me.
The level of GOP obstruction in the Obama era was utterly unprecedented. The filibuster was defended until it was politically expedient to get rid of it. A simple majority for Supreme Court justices is unprecedented, at least in the modern era. Refusing to even hold a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee is unprecedented and everyone knew that too would be abandoned if ever convenient.
Take Kavanaugh's confirmation. Of course a conservative president is going to nominate a conservative justice. Kavanaugh I believe was on the Federalist Society's list of 25 potential nominees where they expressed no preference among the 25.
The hearings produced some pretty serious baggage for Kavanaugh (ie Ford's accusations). He could've had his nomination withdrawn (or he could've withdrawn himself) and been replaced with another conservative justice with no such baggage but that didn't happen.
What you have is privileged white men, in particular Trump and McConnell, who didn't want to lose face by backing down. Arguably they didn't like the idea that Kavanaugh, another white man, would be held accountable for something that he simply wouldn't have been 20 years ago. So getting him confirmed became a way of rubbing this victory in the face of opponents.
This is what I find utterly unfathomable: so much of Trump's support is essentially religious. By any objective measure, Trump is a reprehensible human being. How any "moral voters" can look passed that because abortion I would never have predicted. It's utterly indefensible.
And this is what concerns me the most: it seems like Trump can do nothing that will rock his base. Arguably colluding with foreign governments, his love affair with despots and tyrants, the political scapegoating of the poor and immigrants and the dog-whistle (some would say steam-whistle) politics of white supremacism. It's so depressing.
So yeah, it's weeks until the election and the standard used to stall Merrick Garland's nomination is completely forgotten (of course). That seat will be filled by the election. McConnell has already come up and said Trump's nominee would get a vote on the Senate floor.
Personally I don't generally have an issue with conservative jurisprudence. At its core, it's a belief the the Constitution is literal. It says what it says and it doesn't say what it doesn't say. If you want it to say something else, there's a process for that (ie a constitutional amendment). Personally I find the "living document" interpretation of the Constitution to be nothing more than populism.
This can be taken too far. Constitutional literalism was used in the post-Civil War era (ie the Redeemer era) to dismantle the rights of former slaves.
As you see in this thread, Scalia is scapegoated by some of the Left as a hater but this is (IMHO) an ignorant view. Read the man's opinions.
What does sadden me is the utterly self-serving, completely hypocritical and utterly inconsistent "the ends justify the means", institution-eroding and obstructionist approach that will inevitably lead us there.
All this in an election year where there was hope that maybe Republicans wouldn't have the votes afterwards.
That seems more towards corruption than legal proceedings to me.
Note during the last year of Obama the democrats did not have the majority, so it's not really a fair comparison (what McConnell did would have been impossible otherwise). But still, this is a norm, not a law, in the same way that, with or without another Trump nomination, Biden could legally appoint justices until he has the majority. There's no law unfortunately setting the size to 9.
Also why we need to win the Senate as well.
I'm also curious about how John Roberts is going to react to what comes after her seat's filled.
As a fan of the Supreme Court, I think it's one of our least-political institutions. It's certainly the least political branch of government, especially if you compare it to the Legislature (extremely political) and the President (extremely political). It's the only piece of sanity we have left.
And here you call her selfish for not playing politics. Please, consider the value of having a part of government without politics. Consider how rare it is for someone to put other ideals above their political party!
The majority of American are being held hostage by a minority of voters with a disproportionate amount of political power.
These un-elected presidents have had such incredibly far-reaching influences on the American political landscape, economy, and infrastructure (setting aside the fallout of the neocon's foreign military adventures).
* The House is voted in by the people.
* The Senate is voted in by the states.
* The President is voted in by both.
No one is being held hostage. This system was created purposefully, and has been the same since its inception.
Your opinion on the matter is meaningless.
Neither was Clinton. Sometimes it goes your direction, too.
The American experiment as a free and democratic country is over.
Unless you want to live in a real world version of The Handmaid's Tale, get the fsck out if you still can.
How confident are you in your statement that the “American experiment is over”? Care to bet $10k on there being a free and fair election in 2028? I get “Yes”, you can have “No”.
How would a Supreme Court Justice do this? A third and fourth term would require a constitutional amendment, which requires ratification by 3/4ths of the states.
"If they show that they're unwilling to respect precedent, rules and history, then they can't feign surprise when others talk about using a statutory option that we have that's fully constitutional in our availability," he said. "I don't want to do that. But if they act in such a way, they may push it to an inevitability. So they need to be careful about that."
-- Tim Kaine, D-Va, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/democrats-war...
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are interpreted through the Supreme Court. If you pack the court, you have essentially destroyed the legitimacy of Constitutional government. The consequences of this cannot be overstated.
All Constitutional rights will be up for reinterpretation and elimination. This is a very precarious moment in history. Perhaps the end of American history as we have known it. That's a grandiose statement, but it's not an incorrect one.
Especially funny, considering that Ginsburg was perhaps the most likely to vote based on how she thought the country should operate, and not on stare decisis or leaving issue to congress.
She truly could see beyond politics, and will be missed by both sides of the aisle.
Karanaugh's interesting interpretation of the law is enough to give him a hard pass but he also lied under oath.
You can say that the rape wasn't proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Or that the outbursts were him having a bad day (it's not like SCOTUS is a very exclusive position /s).
But that lie about devil's triangle being a game of quarters is so blatant. It's an incredibly common term that I am sure the average person has heard and can say that was an obvious lie.