What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Ruth Bader Ginsburg RIP (1 Viewer)

What a disaster.

RIP RGB.

A true American hero and role model to young girls nationwide.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Love
Reactions: JAA
Ilov80s said:
Yes but shouldn’t be. We knew she was on her way out and Mitch already set the precedent for how to handle this in an election year. 
Click to expand...


I mean......that SHOULD be the precedent.........

But if Trump doesn't publicly announce the name of his nominee and push for a confirmation hearing by this time next week, I'll be SHOCKED.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Sad
Reactions: JAA
Ilov80s said:
Yes but shouldn’t be. We knew she was on her way out and Mitch already set the precedent for how to handle this in an election year. 
Click to expand...
He doesn’t care about anything more than installing judges. He’ll do it even if 150 million people show up at his house.

 
TLEF316 said:
aaaaand THAT will be the argument that the republicans make.....probably by 10 AM on Monday.
Click to expand...
I think Mitch said earlier this year that the 2016 precedent only applied where the President and majority of the Senate were of different parties. 

 
Is there any political tactic in play that would enable the house from prolonging the confirmation?

 
TheMagus said:
Is there something in the Constitution about the President losing his USSC nomination powers in the last year of his term?
Click to expand...
Nope. But there is something in the constitution  that says the senate confirms appointees. Since the senate was republicans controlled when Obama was president, garland wasn’t going to be confirmed, so they saved themselves time by not voting. Elections have consequences, if I recall correctly

 
whoknew said:
Then they will confirm the next S.Ct. justice on 1/10/21.
Click to expand...
My question was directed toward the distinction being that Obama was a lame duck and that justified refusing to hold hearings on his nominee. If Trump loses the election he will be a lame duck.

 
I-ROK said:
Nope. But there is something in the constitution  that says the senate confirms appointees. Since the senate was republicans controlled when Obama was president, garland wasn’t going to be confirmed, so they saved themselves time by not voting. Elections have consequences, if I recall correctly
Click to expand...
So you support not filling vacant Supreme Court seats if the president and senate majority are from different political parties?

 
Sad, for sure, but my money is that she died about 3 weeks ago and they are just reporting it now.  I mean, this had Weekend at Ginsburg's written all over it for a while.

 
I always liked Ruth in interviews and she seemed to have a great sense of humor. That doesn’t change the fact she did decades of irreversible damage to this country. RIP.

 
  • Sad
Reactions: JAA
Is there even time and enough votes to get it done before the election? Look how long it took to get Kavanaugh through.

 
The Z Machine said:
So you support not filling vacant Supreme Court seats if the president and senate majority are from different political parties?
Click to expand...
I say take a vote regardless. I think McConnell should have taken a vote and denied Garland as we all expect they would have. The outcome was essentially the same as it would have been anyways, but that’s my position 

 
BladeRunner said:
I don't think there is any time limits at all.  They could nominate and vote in a week if they wanted too.
Click to expand...
Yes but that’s never how it actually plays out. It’s typically been pretty messy. Kavanaugh barely got through.Senate goes to recess Oct 9 until after the election. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ilov80s said:
Yes but that’s never how it actually plays out. It’s typically been pretty messy. Kavanaugh barely got through. I think the Senate goes on recess in a week or so.
Click to expand...
Great. Let’s nominate and confirm in a week or so

 
-jb- said:
Is there any political tactic in play that would enable the house from prolonging the confirmation?
Click to expand...
Someone on twitter noted that impeachment trials are privileged over judicial nominations in Senate proceedings. That’s a pretty extreme measure and probably wouldn’t even work, but that’s about all the House can do.

 
Ilov80s said:
Is there even time and enough votes to get it done before the election? Look how long it took to get Kavanaugh through.
Click to expand...
The senate could adopt Nancy Pelosi’s proxy rule. Allow senators to vote for up to 11 of their peers. Only 5 would need to be present. Liberals don’t seem to have a problem with that rule. Should allow Senators to go home and vote by proxy

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I-ROK said:
The senate could adopt Nancy Pelosi’s proxy rule. Allow senators to vote for up to 11 of their peers. Only 5 would need to be present. 
Click to expand...
But do they have the votes? Again Kavanaugh was a tough sell and with the election right here, some of the GOP Senators in danger might not be so quick to jump on board.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
2K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner
Joe Bryant
Justice Ginsburg And Different Opinions
Replies
16
Views
612
Shutout
Shutout
timschochet
RBG is cancer free!
Replies
20
Views
798
bagger
bagger

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top