Ruth Bader Ginsburg hospitalized after falling at her office

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
69,814
49,819
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#63
Exactly, it’s not a rule of Congress.
"The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election."

It's not a rule, it's politics. If the occasion had presented itself I have no doubt that Biden would have delayed confirmation until after the election, and if the election had gone to a Democrat then until after inauguration.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,556
18,181
1,743
#64
"The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election."

It's not a rule, it's politics. If the occasion had presented itself I have no doubt that Biden would have delayed confirmation until after the election, and if the election had gone to a Democrat then until after inauguration.
See post 46.
 

Pokey

Territorial Marshal
Sep 13, 2013
5,177
1,171
743
Left field
#65
"The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election."

It's not a rule, it's politics. If the occasion had presented itself I have no doubt that Biden would have delayed confirmation until after the election, and if the election had gone to a Democrat then until after inauguration.
Do you have a degree in mind reading. How confidently you imagine what other think or would do.
 
Mar 9, 2004
788
281
1,613
Edmond, OK
#66
"The Senate never took a vote to adopt a rule to delay consideration of a nominee until after the election."

It's not a rule, it's politics. If the occasion had presented itself I have no doubt that Biden would have delayed confirmation until after the election, and if the election had gone to a Democrat then until after inauguration.
We all know it was just politics, but McConnell and Graham called it a rule so that's why I call it a "rule".

Perhaps democrats would have done the same, but we'll never know. If they did, I'd be just as annoyed. Why not do your constitutional duty and bring the nomination to committee for consideration, even if it is rejected there? Maybe it's just too much to ask for Congress to grow a pair and do their friggin job.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
69,814
49,819
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#67
We all know it was just politics, but McConnell and Graham called it a rule so that's why I call it a "rule".

Perhaps democrats would have done the same, but we'll never know. If they did, I'd be just as annoyed. Why not do your constitutional duty and bring the nomination to committee for consideration, even if it is rejected there? Maybe it's just too much to ask for Congress to grow a pair and do their friggin job.
If it's a "rule" it's a political one and not a Senate one. It was snark on McConnell's part.

See, that's where you're mistaken. The Senate did it's job. It turned down a candidate that it did not want. It just did it by a procedure that you did not like. The effect was exactly the same as if they had voted him down only with a lot less BS. It was also easier on Garland, put him through less crap.
 
Mar 9, 2004
788
281
1,613
Edmond, OK
#73
We all know it was just politics, but McConnell and Graham called it a rule so that's why I call it a "rule".

Perhaps democrats would have done the same, but we'll never know. If they did, I'd be just as annoyed. Why not do your constitutional duty and bring the nomination to committee for consideration, even if it is rejected there? Maybe it's just too much to ask for Congress to grow a pair and do their friggin job.
If it's a "rule" it's a political one and not a Senate one. It was snark on McConnell's part.

See, that's where you're mistaken. The Senate did it's job. It turned down a candidate that it did not want. It just did it by a procedure that you did not like. The effect was exactly the same as if they had voted him down only with a lot less BS. It was also easier on Garland, put him through less crap.
I'd say it was mostly easier for the senators who avoided having to argue against Garland on his merits. They know there was really no reason to vote against him other than he doesn't lean right. Sort of like the Democrats with Kavanaugh who just created some BS to try to block it.

I remember a time when SCOTUS confirmation votes weren't strictly along party lines. *sigh*

Sent from my LG-G710 using Tapatalk
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
69,814
49,819
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
#74
I'd say it was mostly easier for the senators who avoided having to argue against Garland on his merits. They know there was really no reason to vote against him other than he doesn't lean right. Sort of like the Democrats with Kavanaugh who just created some BS to try to block it.

I remember a time when SCOTUS confirmation votes weren't strictly along party lines. *sigh*

Sent from my LG-G710 using Tapatalk
They don't have to argue against him on his merits. They could hold all the hearings and then still vote against him, which they would have done.

The last unopposed confirmation was Kennedy, appointed by Reagan. The politicization started with the nomination and opposition to Bork and then Thomas. But still, Breyer and Ginsburg were confirmed without much opposition. If you don't like the politicization of the SCOTUS nomination process, blame the Democrats and "Borking".
 

steross

Bookface/Instagran legend
A/V Subscriber
Mar 31, 2004
26,287
31,829
1,743
oklahoma city
#79
Conservatives don't want her to die, they just want her to retire because they feel the SC would be better off without her. I agree with that sentiment.

I want a SC that respects the constitution, and views it as the supreme law of the land. I don't want anyone that would tear it up and rewrite it if they could.

View attachment 65989
View attachment 65990
Whether you like her or not, this quote is like most partisan BS just a small fragment of what she said that completely changed the meaning. She was actually being asked the question in Egypt as they were writing a constitution. And, because our constitution is so old when it was written women and native Americans did not have equal rights (and don't forget slavery was allowed!) so she was saying that would not be a perfect model in the modern day (Egypt, remember, the rights of women are not a given.)

And Jefferson never even said that. Saying she would tear up our constitution is just pure stupid. She has just been saying how amazing it is as the oldest constitution still in use if you had bothered to look at the actual quote.
 
Oct 30, 2007
3,290
2,947
1,743
#80
Whether you like her or not, this quote is like most partisan BS just a small fragment of what she said that completely changed the meaning. She was actually being asked the question in Egypt as they were writing a constitution. And, because our constitution is so old when it was written women and native Americans did not have equal rights (and don't forget slavery was allowed!) so she was saying that would not be a perfect model in the modern day (Egypt, remember, the rights of women are not a given.)

And Jefferson never even said that. Saying she would tear up our constitution is just pure stupid. She has just been saying how amazing it is as the oldest constitution still in use if you had bothered to look at the actual quote.
Oh snap, the internet betrays me once again. I like the quote even if Jefferson didn't say it. ;)

I did know the point of reference of the RBG quote, but I still disagree with her. The bill of rights has served as an incredible foundation throughout the years to ensure our freedom. I would advise any country drafting a constitution to look first at the bill of rights and expand from there.

Do you really believe that she wouldn't remove the 2nd amendment from the constitution if she could?