ForumGarden

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87

I certainly hope that President Trump moves quickly to nominate her replacement and her replacement takes a seat before January 20, 2001.

tude dog wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:33 pm Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87

I certainly hope that President Trump moves quickly to nominate her replacement and her replacement takes a seat before January 20, 2001.

This is what spot was asking a few days ago, how long does it take to install a new member of the Supreme Court if each party acts according to party interests?

tude dog wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:33 pm Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87

I certainly hope that President Trump moves quickly to nominate her replacement and her replacement takes a seat before January 20, 2001.

With the names that he has bandied about, I cannot agree with you.

One could hope the discussion would at least await her funeral.

spot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:27 am One could hope the discussion would at least await her funeral.

One could hope, but that ship has sailed, already.

Bryn Mawr wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:23 am

tude dog wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:33 pm Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87

I certainly hope that President Trump moves quickly to nominate her replacement and her replacement takes a seat before January 20, 2001.

This is what spot was asking a few days ago, how long does it take to install a new member of the Supreme Court if each party acts according to party interests?

Open warfare began the BORK nomination where the term BORKED has applied to every nomination since. Well that policy reached comical proportions with the nominaon of Brett Kavanaugh.

A schouched earth policy to any center right nomination by a Republican.

LarsMac wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:24 am

tude dog wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:33 pm Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87

I certainly hope that President Trump moves quickly to nominate her replacement and her replacement takes a seat before January 20, 2001.

With the names that he has bandied about, I cannot agree with you.

Just out of interest - I've seen no list - is he considering a woman? Because that would actually be quite clever of him.

spot wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:49 am

LarsMac wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:24 am

tude dog wrote: ↑Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:33 pm Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87

I certainly hope that President Trump moves quickly to nominate her replacement and her replacement takes a seat before January 20, 2001.

With the names that he has bandied about, I cannot agree with you.

Just out of interest - I've seen no list - is he considering a woman? Because that would actually be quite clever of him.

I was just watching (Not on purpose) a rally he was holding where he said that he thinks the next Justice should be a woman.

I started mentally listing the women who might be on his list, and became very frightened.

There's a famously ferocious Christian evangelist among them. I suspect I saw the Washington Post before I went to bed and she was mentioned there, let me check.

Here it is - this bit:

But maybe the X-Factor with her is this: the feelings she might engender on the left. When Barrett was first confirmed to the federal court in 2017, her past comments about the role of religion in her life and the law drew derision from some top Democrats. Barrett had told Notre Dame graduates in 2006 that “your legal career is but a means to an end, and . . . that end is building the kingdom of God.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) at the time took issue with Barrett’s comments on Christianity and Islam. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told her, “The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.” Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) had concerns as well.

Trump loves stoking culture wars, and what better way to create one for his all-important evangelical Christian base than tempt Democrats to make an issue of Barrett’s religiosity?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... placement/

If I were President Trump, I think I'd prefer to have my effort to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice thwarted before the election so that I could get every single Republican-leaning voter to the polls, demanding that the appointment gets made next term by a Republican president rather than a left-wing liberal slime-ball. But I obviously couldn't actually say so or admit it.

There is now a fairly sizeable list of Rethuglican Senators who claim that they will not vote for a SC candidate before the election.
But, then, most of them also said that they were not inclined to vote for Kavenaugh, too.
We saw how THAT turned out.

I'm very impressed by Bob Woodward's "Rage", if you'd like a recommendation. Vivid stuff.

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:07 am I'm very impressed by Bob Woodward's "Rage", if you'd like a recommendation. Vivid stuff.

I did buy Woodward's book FEAR. Half way through it I could not suffer anymore.

I wonder how many books Woordward sells because of his celebrity of him and Carl Bernstein.

tude dog wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:35 am

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:07 am I'm very impressed by Bob Woodward's "Rage", if you'd like a recommendation. Vivid stuff.

I did buy Woodward's book FEAR. Half way through it I could not suffer anymore.

I wonder how many books Woordward sells because of his celebrity of him and Carl Bernstein.

Most, I would have thought. It's not many reporters have brought down a President.

I'm not sure what you disliked about Fear. It was accurate, it was factual, it didn't carry any lies. If it had, it would have been attacked with factual corrections.

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:56 amI'm not sure what you disliked about Fear. It was accurate, it was factual, it didn't carry any lies. If it had, it would have been attacked with factual corrections.

It was short on anything I needed to know.

tude dog wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:31 am

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:56 amI'm not sure what you disliked about Fear. It was accurate, it was factual, it didn't carry any lies. If it had, it would have been attacked with factual corrections.

It was short on anything I needed to know.

Ah. Yes. The ostrich head in the sand manoeuvre.

"Fear" is what we in the trade call "history".

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:03 am If I were President Trump, I think I'd prefer to have my effort to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice thwarted before the election so that I could get every single Republican-leaning voter to the polls, demanding that the appointment gets made next term by a Republican president rather than a left-wing liberal slime-ball. But I obviously couldn't actually say so or admit it.

Looks like it’s going to be forced through :-

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54254141

Bryn Mawr wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:46 pm

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:03 am If I were President Trump, I think I'd prefer to have my effort to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice thwarted before the election so that I could get every single Republican-leaning voter to the polls, demanding that the appointment gets made next term by a Republican president rather than a left-wing liberal slime-ball. But I obviously couldn't actually say so or admit it.

Looks like it’s going to be forced through :-

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54254141

Our local Senator has already pledged to approve the nomination, before the nomination has even been presented.

LarsMac wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:55 am

Bryn Mawr wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:46 pm

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:03 am If I were President Trump, I think I'd prefer to have my effort to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice thwarted before the election so that I could get every single Republican-leaning voter to the polls, demanding that the appointment gets made next term by a Republican president rather than a left-wing liberal slime-ball. But I obviously couldn't actually say so or admit it.

Looks like it’s going to be forced through :-

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54254141

Our local Senator has already pledged to approve the nomination, before the nomination has even been presented.

He’s doing his job conscientiously then, no hand up his ****

spot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:50 pm

tude dog wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:31 am

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:56 amI'm not sure what you disliked about Fear. It was accurate, it was factual, it didn't carry any lies. If it had, it would have been attacked with factual corrections.

It was short on anything I needed to know.

Ah. Yes. The ostrich head in the sand manoeuvre.

"Fear" is what we in the trade call "history".

History? So is MMEIN KAMPF

What interests me is how you are so self assured to make such a claim as

Fear. It was accurate, it was factual, it didn't carry any lies. If it had, it would have been attacked with factual corrections.

OK

Bryn Mawr wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:46 pm

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:03 am If I were President Trump, I think I'd prefer to have my effort to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice thwarted before the election so that I could get every single Republican-leaning voter to the polls, demanding that the appointment gets made next term by a Republican president rather than a left-wing liberal slime-ball. But I obviously couldn't actually say so or admit it.

Looks like it’s going to be forced through :-

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54254141

FORCED?

How's that?

tude dog wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:12 pm

spot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:50 pm

tude dog wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:31 am

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:56 amI'm not sure what you disliked about Fear. It was accurate, it was factual, it didn't carry any lies. If it had, it would have been attacked with factual corrections.

It was short on anything I needed to know.

Ah. Yes. The ostrich head in the sand manoeuvre.

"Fear" is what we in the trade call "history".

History? So is MMEIN KAMPF

What interests me is how you are so self assured to make such a claim as

Fear. It was accurate, it was factual, it didn't carry any lies. If it had, it would have been attacked with factual corrections.

OK

You've never red Mein Kampf? It's a primary source.

So, as far as my claim, it's very simple to test. Very easy to discover whether I have a legitimate basis for saying "Fear. It was accurate, it was factual, it didn't carry any lies. If it had, it would have been attacked with factual corrections". All you need do is quote anything at all from it which you think is unjustified by reality, and I'll show you a respectable source confirming the information. Then you can repeat and repeat and repeat with different quotes, and if I keep on bouncing back confirmation after confirmation I'll be able to build your trust in Bob Woodward's journalistic integrity. Does that sound like a fair test?

If it doesn't, by all means suggest an alternative.

LarsMac wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 8:55 am

Bryn Mawr wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:46 pm

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 12:03 am If I were President Trump, I think I'd prefer to have my effort to appoint a new Supreme Court Justice thwarted before the election so that I could get every single Republican-leaning voter to the polls, demanding that the appointment gets made next term by a Republican president rather than a left-wing liberal slime-ball. But I obviously couldn't actually say so or admit it.

Looks like it’s going to be forced through :-

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54254141

Our local Senator has already pledged to approve the nomination, before the nomination has even been presented.

I have and will continue to support judicial nominees who will protect our Constitution, not legislate from the bench, and uphold the law. Should a qualified nominee who fits this criteria be put forward, I will vote to confirm."

Not yet a defineate vote for WHOM?

spot wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:23 pm

tude dog wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:12 pm

spot wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 1:50 pm

tude dog wrote: ↑Tue Sep 22, 2020 9:31 am

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 11:56 amI'm not sure what you disliked about Fear. It was accurate, it was factual, it didn't carry any lies. If it had, it would have been attacked with factual corrections.

It was short on anything I needed to know.

Ah. Yes. The ostrich head in the sand manoeuvre.

"Fear" is what we in the trade call "history".

History? So is MMEIN KAMPF

What interests me is how you are so self assured to make such a claim as

Fear. It was accurate, it was factual, it didn't carry any lies. If it had, it would have been attacked with factual corrections.

OK

You've never red Mein Kampf? It's a primary source.

So, as far as my claim, it's very simple to test. Very easy to discover whether I have a legitimate basis for saying "Fear. It was accurate, it was factual, it didn't carry any lies. If it had, it would have been attacked with factual corrections". All you need do is quote anything at all from it which you think is unjustified by reality, and I'll show you a respectable source confirming the information. Then you can repeat and repeat and repeat with different quotes, and if I keep on bouncing back confirmation after confirmation I'll be able to build your trust in Bob Woodward's journalistic integrity. Does that sound like a fair test?

If it doesn't, by all means suggest an alternative.

First of all I never said anything is not up to snuf. You are the one making a claim without support.

All I said in answer as why, when asked why I didn't finish reading there book, It was short on anything I needed to know.

tude dog wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 5:57 pm
All I said in answer as why, when asked why I didn't finish reading there book, It was short on anything I needed to know.

Yes, we dealt with that earlier as "The ostrich head in the sand manoeuvre".

I see this evening that Judge Barrett's name has finally been mentioned aloud by the White House.

Gotta give Trump credit for his choice which seems to be exactly what he promised.

Got the popcorn ready waiting for another democratic clown show.

I think the Democrats would be very sensible to discontinue the primaries altogether, they've been entirely self-destructive for far too many years now. Send the delegates to the convention and made some genuine drama for the week.

spot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:28 am I think the Democrats would be very sensible to discontinue the primaries altogether, they've been entirely self-destructive for far too many years now. Send the delegates to the convention and made some genuine drama for the week.

No it isn't. It should be the job of the other party to demean and belittle the eventual candidate, not the job of all the other Democratic contenders who then have to unconvincingly back-pedal and say they were clearly mistaken in their mud-flinging. I think my suggestion is in fact a very sensible one. The national conventions were never intended to be a crowning ceremony for a pre-chosen winner. What insanity would that have been. It's just what they turned into recently because of television.

The original purpose of the national conventions was to negotiate who would be the party's candidate for the Presidency, the power of selection being with representatives from every state, and the party in each state deciding what instructions their delegates were given. None of that involved different candidates from the same party slagging each other off in a negative fashion, it involved platforms being discussed.

I would, as usual, be interested to know your reason for thinking this suggestion is batshit crazy. What part of my explanation is inadequate?

spot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 10:28 am I think the Democrats would be very sensible to discontinue the primaries altogether, they've been entirely self-destructive for far too many years now. Send the delegates to the convention and made some genuine drama for the week.

The Primaries are a fossil of the 20th century, and should be discarded by the parties. same with those miserable excuses for debates the parties put up.
It's time to come up with a new process for weeding out the hopefuls.

Something like the TV show, Survivor comes to mind. But the tests and contests the candidates must face should be more focused on their knowledge of constitutional Law, and interpersonal interactions with other humans. Maybe borrow some of the exercises from The Amazing Race, another ridiculous game show of the last century to test out how the solve puzzles to accomplish an assigned task.

I also think that each state should be required to send up an equal number of senators a representatives from each party, and rather that push the party line the they must use the powers of persuasion to form a majority decision regardless of party affiliation.
As long as the "Two-Party System" remains, Neither party should be allowed to have a majority.

spot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:01 pmI would, as usual, be interested to know your reason for thinking this suggestion is batshit crazy. What part of my explanation is inadequate?

So I gotta explain it to you?

How would you explain to the American People the rational for stopping an elcectin already in progress?

Votes have been cast.

We don't need the cluster fuck you suggest.

LarsMac wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 2:57 pmI also think that each state should be required to send up an equal number of senators a representatives from each party, and rather that push the party line the they must use the powers of persuasion to form a majority decision regardless of party affiliation.
As long as the "Two-Party System" remains, Neither party should be allowed to have a majority.

You and spot are having fun.

tude dog wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 11:46 am

spot wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:01 pmI would, as usual, be interested to know your reason for thinking this suggestion is batshit crazy. What part of my explanation is inadequate?

So I gotta explain it to you?

How would you explain to the American People the rational for stopping an elcectin already in progress?

Votes have been cast.

We don't need the cluster fuck you suggest.

ALL I suggested was that the NEXT democratic party primaries be cancelled, for the very good reasons I gave! What on EARTH has your pretence of a criticism to do with what I wrote?

You deflect the way your current President deflects, with irrelevant invented inaccuracies. You've given no explanation at all why my actual suggestion might be "batshit crazy", all you've done is lazily mocked as usual, with stolen words as usual, with no excuse as usual.

I would still be interested to know your reason for thinking this suggestion is batshit crazy. What part of my explanation is inadequate?

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:51 pmALL I suggested was that the NEXT democratic party primaries be canceled, for the very good reasons I gave! What on EARTH has your pretence of a criticism to do with what I wrote?

Oh my mistake for not reading carefully.

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:51 pmYou deflect the way your current President deflects, with irrelevant invented inaccuracies.s You've given no explanation at all why my actual suggestion might be "batshit crazy", all you've done is lazily mocked as usual, with stolen words as usual, with no excuse as usual.

OK, so I admit my mistake in that in not only changing the TOPIC of this thread you are in essence suggesting another subject which may be worthy of another thread. But that is up to you.

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:51 pmI would still be interested to know your reason for thinking this suggestion is batshit crazy. What part of my explanation is inadequate?

I was answering a different subject, not one four years or longer from now.

tude dog wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:41 pm

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:51 pmALL I suggested was that the NEXT democratic party primaries be canceled, for the very good reasons I gave! What on EARTH has your pretence of a criticism to do with what I wrote?

Oh my mistake for not reading carefully.

If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles.

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:15 pm

tude dog wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 1:41 pm

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 12:51 pmALL I suggested was that the NEXT democratic party primaries be canceled, for the very good reasons I gave! What on EARTH has your pretence of a criticism to do with what I wrote?

Oh my mistake for not reading carefully.

If people concentrated on the really important things in life, there'd be a shortage of fishing poles.

You are still off topic.

tude dog wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 3:28 pm You are still off topic.

Go back and check. The thread went off topic when you wrote "I wonder how many books Woordward sells because of his celebrity of him and Carl Bernstein."

spot wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 9:07 am I'm very impressed by Bob Woodward's "Rage", if you'd like a recommendation. Vivid stuff.

I did answer to that.

Here's AMY

Precisely what America has been asking for. The world can now sit back and watch the birth of a new fundamentalist theocracy.

spot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 3:46 pm Precisely what America has been asking for. The world can now sit back and watch the birth of a new fundamentalist theocracy.

Just think you are the new Prophet to announce this to the world.

All I'm doing is humming what's on the hymn-sheet, I wouldn't dream of inventing any of this. Your new Justice is the latest addition to God's righteous toolbox.

spot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:14 pm All I'm doing is humming what's on the hymn-sheet, I wouldn't dream of inventing any of this. Your new Justice is the latest addition to God's righteous toolbox.

OK

Let's put it this way, I reckon it's as likely America will have a Muslim Supreme Court Justice as that Iran will have a Christian on its Supreme Council. Both countries are equally paralysed when it comes to free choice, neither political system can tolerate opposition.

Unless you think you've already had a Muslim President, of course. Jester was convinced of that one.

We are even worse in the UK. All twelve of our Supreme Court Justices are extremely white, and only two of them are women. I would be surprised to discover any of the twelve weren't Church of England, Methodist or Protestant though none of them have been invited to attest to that in public. The law prohibiting Catholics from such appointments was scrapped a while ago but it doesn't mean we'd appoint one even now.

spot wrote: ↑Sat Oct 17, 2020 5:49 pm Let's put it this way, I reckon it's as likely America will have a Muslim Supreme Court Justice as that Iran will have a Christian on its Supreme Council. Both countries are equally paralysed when it comes to free choice, neither political system can tolerate opposition.

Unless you think you've already had a Muslim President, of course. Jester was convinced of that one.

We are even worse in the UK. All twelve of our Supreme Court Justices are extremely white, and only two of them are women. I would be surprised to discover any of the twelve weren't Church of England, Methodist or Protestant though none of them have been invited to attest to that in public. The law prohibiting Catholics from such appointments was scrapped a while ago but it doesn't mean we'd appoint one even now.

OK
Thanks for that insightful splantion.

That Hirono just outdid herself.

It is a done deal!

Barrett Is Confirmed to Supreme Court

The Senate confirmed Amy Coney Barrett as a Supreme Court justice on Monday, as Republicans overwhelmingly backed President Trump’s nominee eight days before Election Day in the face of Democratic objections.89434 minutes ago

https://www.wsj.com/articles/amy-coney- ... _lead_pos1

I expect there will be three new appointees by next summer, taking the total of Supreme Court Justices to twelve. It's a minor matter but it does rebalance the current bias.

spot wrote: ↑Tue Oct 27, 2020 8:21 am I expect there will be three new appointees by next summer, taking the total of Supreme Court Justices to twelve. It's a minor matter but it does rebalance the current bias.

Current bias?

You want Trump to appoint three more jurors?