The Supreme Court

[Peter]

So long Justice Ginsburg. She was friendly with conservatives raspy Scalia and quiet Thomas, on the court. She had been battling cancer for almost twenty years. In the last two weeks I have seen two articles predicting her death and wondering who President Trump will pick to replace her. Unfortunately I don’t think there is time for a “quick pick” because of the looming election. So the incumbent or incoming President Biden with have the honor.    

[Peter]

Welcome to Van who recently joined.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Over the long haul, I have had it all.”

NBC. McConnell: I will fill Ginsburg's seat with Trump's nominee. Schumer says don't dare.

Chicago Sun Times. McConnell: U.S. Senate will vote on Trump Supreme Court pick/ Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says the Senate will vote on President Donald Trump’s pick to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, even though it’s an election year. By Associated Press. Updated Sep 18, 2020, 8:26pm CDT

[Jules Troy]

Well if they wanted a dem judge she should have stepped down and retired while obummer was in office.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think the music in the clip below was not added in the edit.

I think it was playing as President Trump learned of Justice Ginsburg's passing.

President Trump is a decent warm human being.

I feel very sad with her passing.

I'll deal with the politics later.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Statement from the President.

Michael

[Peter]

1 hour ago, Jules Troy said:

Well if they wanted a dem judge she should have stepped down and retired while obummer was in office.

If Hillary Clinton had been elected, Ginsburgh said she would have retired then. So now, she was hoping to last as long as a Biden win to poison the well of America.

[Peter]

Mitch McConnell said he hopes to have a list of nominees by Tuesday September 22, 2020 and others like Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio may have had the same sentiments. And then they will vote in the senate. I suppose some republicans might want to discuss the list but I don't think this will be a long drawn out process. And certainly their will be no long speeches or filibustering in the Senate. This must be done before the November vote is finalized, per Mitch. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since so many liberals are cussing Justice Ginsburg for not stepping down at a better time before she died, I feel I have given my moment of silence for her.

So, politically, look at the video below. I like this guy's interpretation. 

Dr. Steve Turley said the Democrats' entire plan to steal the election was predicated on the decision going to the Supreme Court where they could pressure Justice John Roberts to vote their way for a 5 to 4 decision in their favor.

Now that possibility has been shot to pieces with Justice Ginsburg's death.

He explains it well and he also reads some messages from liberals furious with her.

Due to the propensity of liberal judges to legislate from the bench, I support the idea of President Trump replacing her with a conservative judge even before the election.

The radical Dems are going to riot no matter what happens, so I believe the Republican majority Senate should just go ahead and do its thing.

But according to Dr. Turley, that will not make much of a difference on whether President Trump will get elected. The biggest obstacle was just removed from his path and now the Dems will have to get actual votes in order to win, not fake ones. And they don't have enough actual votes to pull it off, especially since they have scared their own electorate into staying home and voting by mail to give a smokescreen to their intended massive main-in vote fraud. With only three liberal Justices, there is no way the Supreme Court will grant credibility to iffy questions of fraud--and there should be plenty of such questions that reach the Supreme Court in this election.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And there's this.

According to Mitch McConnell, if President Trump submits a nominee, there will be a vote in the Senate.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

According to former President Obama, she left instructions.

I read his statement. He didn't mention such instructions, much less elaborate on them.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And a blast from the past:

Michael

[Peter]

Interesting. Five women suggested for the next Justice of the Supreme Court and one man. As mentioned previously by Michael? we may know by Tuesday who the lucky winner is! Here is something about the long-shot guy. Peter

From USA Today. Who might succeed Justice Ginsburg? Trump's short list begins with these five women (and one man) Richard Wolf, USA TODAY  25 mins ago  . . . . Amul Thapar. When Trump embarked in 2017 on what would become the nomination and confirmation of more than 200 federal judges, Gorsuch came first. Then came Thapar. A Kentucky protégé of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Thapar (pronounced uh-MALL Thuh-PAR), 51, would be the first Indian American  to reach the nation's highest court. He was confirmed to his current post on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit by a 52-44 vote in May 2017. A former Kentucky judge and U.S. attorney with vast trial court experience – a rarity on the Supreme Court – Thapar was born in Detroit to Indian immigrants and grew up in Toledo, Ohio with his maternal grandfather, who fought with Mahatma Ghandi for India’s independence.

Thapar’s father, Raj, has said the family urged Amul to become a physician but he had only one dream – to become a justice on the Supreme Court. He studied economics and philosophy at Boston College before earning his law degree at the University of California-Berkeley. He converted to Catholicism upon getting married and has three children. On the appeals court, Thapar has voted to uphold Ohio's method of lethal injection for executions, as well as a Michigan county's practice of opening government meetings with Christian prayers.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For those who want to destroy President Trump's presidency, read it and weep.

First, a big thank you to Harry Reid.

And next, the plan.

That's about as unambiguous as it gets.

So how are President Trump's enemies going to counter? Maybe if they do more riots or something...

 

Oh, wait. That's not a quip.

 

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

52 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

For those who want to destroy President Trump's presidency, read it and weep.

First, a big thank you to Harry Reid.

And next, the plan.

That's about as unambiguous as it gets.

So how are President Trump's enemies going to counter? Maybe if they do more riots or something...

 

Oh, wait. That's not a quip.

 

 

Michael

Don't these fools understand that when their usefulness has dissipated they will be dissipated? The law will crush them or the incoming rulers will.

--Brant

[Peter]

How many Senators are there? 100. What would a majority be to pass a nominee? 51, THANKS TO THE DEMOCRATS! See the above. Peter

Notes. From Todays, New York Times. How Mitch McConnell Can Quickly Push Through Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee. The rules and partisan breakdown of the Senate make it possible for Republicans to swiftly confirm President Trump’s Supreme Court nominee. Here’s how. WASHINGTON — Hours after the Supreme Court announced the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, vowed that the Senate would vote on a replacement named by President Trump, setting up what is all but guaranteed to be a heated fight over the nation’s highest court that carries heavy political consequences.

That statement answered the question of whether Mr. McConnell, who in 2016 blocked President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee because it was an election year, would dare try to confirm one named by Mr. Trump so close to an election. He would. Now the question is, can Mr. McConnell pull it off?

The process is likely to be ugly, but it can be done. Here’s how it works.

Can Democrats block President Trump’s nominee through a filibuster? No.

Democrats eliminated the 60-vote threshold for most judicial nominees in 2013, frustrated by Republicans’ use of the filibuster to slow and impede Mr. Obama’s agenda. In turn, angered by resistance to the nomination of Justice Neil M. Gorsuch in 2017, Republicans abolished the limitation on Supreme Court nominees, further whittling down the scope of the filibuster.

As a result, Mr. McConnell could bring the nomination to the Senate floor and approve it with a simple majority vote. Mr. Trump signaled on Saturday that he would formally name someone to fill the vacancy in the near future.

[Peter]

Brant wrote: Don't these fools understand that when their usefulness has dissipated they will be dissipated? The law will crush them or the incoming rulers. end quote

Incoming? Why wait. I think there is sufficient proof to call the “on and on and on” rioters terrorists. Burning houses or businesses down for political reasons turns arson into terrorism, and any deaths or injuries incurred add to the felonies. Peaceful protest is always allowed even with bullhorns and a lot of yelling. But I am sick of the terrorism. I want to see it stop, President Trump. Will it stop if Biden is elected? I doubt it.  

I hope a lot of discussion about SCOTUS is going on behind closed doors. Throw out some names Mr. President. Make it public Monday or Tuesday Senator Mitch McConnell. Give it a couple of weeks for political reasons and discussion. Vote for confirmation in the Senate before Wednesday September 30^th, 2020, is my sage (or nutmeg?) advice.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

First there was this a few years ago with Lindsay Graham.

He has principles over party.

And Dems can use his words against him.

But then RBG passed away.

So... What then?

Will Lindsay keep to what he said? Is he a man of his word?

Well, he did say this:

Oh...

But wait a minute...

What the hell does that mean?

Will he vote for President Trump's nominee or not?

Talk about double-speak mealy-mouthed crap.

What's going on here?

But then, this happened.

Ahhhh...

Thank God he's a politician...

Michael

[tmj]

RIP RBG
I admire RBG for her accomplishments, though I will admit that my admiration comes especially  with the public/press lauding of her career.Eg  rising from a non-elitist backround to a seat on the Supreme Court, being regarded as an intellectual with a particular tenacity in defending her principles,the oft told stories of her friendships with and respect of her   fellow justices.

But, but I feel her tenure on the court was used as ideologic blugeon to further identarian politics. That her activism from the bench worked against  the government's role of protecting individual rights, though I will further admit that opinion is also heavily colored by descriptions and commentary coming from more conservative sources, I have never read any of her opinions or 'famous' dissents.

That being said, is it fair to view her as an ideologue whose only major barrier to furthering her political gains was her mortality? Is there a point when one should view the machinations of a functioning republic as more important than one's own machinations in the republic?

My impression is that she used her position especially in the end as nothing more than a partisan thumb in the eye. Perhaps her station in life, seemingly well deserved, allowed her that peragotive , but it feels like perhaps it didn't.

Apparently her own nomination took 42 days, I hope Mitch orchestrates a fitting tribute and rides through a 42 day nomination and appointment. The hand writing on the wall points to a  very real possibility of a contested election result a la Bush v Gore to the nth degree.

As partisan a battle/outcome it may be, it seems less frightening than a possible interim Pelosi presidency. And RGB's tenacity seems to have helped bring the situation to our doorstep , consciously. Thanks Ruth.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

6 hours ago, tmj said:

But, but I feel her tenure on the court was used as ideologic blugeon to further identarian politics. That her activism from the bench worked against  the government's role of protecting individual rights, though I will further admit that opinion is also heavily colored by descriptions and commentary coming from more conservative sources, I have never read any of her opinions or 'famous' dissents.

That being said, is it fair to view her as an ideologue whose only major barrier to furthering her political gains was her mortality? Is there a point when one should view the machinations of a functioning republic as more important than one's own machinations in the republic?

T,

On the positive side, RBG was a lot more nuanced than any version you will get from the media these days.

Her version of the Constitution was informed by being a woman, though. As written, the Constitution didn't even allow her to vote. But it was amended. This is why I believe she considered the Constitution a "living document" that could be changed at will rather than a document based on universal human principles. In other words, she saw the initial context as a betrayal of those principles since it didn't include women, blacks, Indians and so on, so she preferred to replace the principles with ones that would "evolve" as society evolved.

This is a different view than originalists who view the principles as universal (and even sacred). And over time, adherence to these principles burned off the bad behavior of people, including the people who wrote the original document, and even to the point of causing the Civil War.

This comes from a difference in philosophy, but I don't know enough of RBG's writings to know if she was a strong proponent of one side of this difference. I believe she did from what I know, though. In essence, the utopic side (the liberals) believe that humans are perfectible and it is up to them to find (or dream up) and implement a top-down solution to perfecting all of mankind. The freedom side believes man is not perfectible, so laws exist to protect each individual in a manner he or she can deal with their issues (and their dreams) by their own individual choice.

Apropos, Rand made a middle point by claiming humans are morally perfectible and reality was the judge. But, regardless of what she claimed otherwise, embedded in this was her--Rand--being the one to give the blueprint. Utopia thinkers always need a person at the top. 

In her version, there is a critical difference. Perfection does not come from the government or social engineering. Each individual has to choose perfection (i.e., agree with her) over [insert ugly image  ]. This, to me, is one of the iffy points with her thinking. In my way of thinking, one does not move toward a perfect city, but one can move toward--and arrive at--a city that exists with good and bad in it. One can improve a city, but never perfect it. However, one can move toward a perfect horizon, which is always there and is always fundamentally the same--humans cannot change it. But the rub is one never arrives. The horizon always recedes the more one travels toward it. What a great metaphor for growth, too. This, in my way of thinking, comes from existence being bigger and more primary than humans.

At any rate, RBG chose her principles and thought them through with her first-rate mind. She infuriated both liberals and conservatives because she adhered to what she thought and believed, including what she thought and believed about the Constitution and the law, not what others thought she should think and believe. (In my view, this integrity was the root of her strong friendship with Justice Scalia.) But, since she thought on the liberal side on several issues the liberals hold dear (like abortion), they tended, and still tend, to deify her.

I think conservatives (or, better, the non-utopic side--and even the Randian side) would do well to admire her good qualities in terms of normal producer values. She had a vision, she fought for it to the best of her thinking and ability, and she attained great heights in implementing it. She did an unbelievable amount of technical donkey work along the way. I can't even imagine some of the issues, but I have seen several people talk about her often ruling against what she preferred because, in her understanding of the law, that's just the way the law worked. So she paid the price in grit and integrity, but, as the song goes, she did it her way.

In fact, RBG did, in her field and for her own principles, what Ayn Rand did. She, as a woman, went to the top of the heap in a man's world. And, just like Rand did not allow a schlock movie of Atlas Shrugged to be made, RBG did not let anyone take what she built from her and step down. (She would not let a man like Obama take her achievement as a woman and do with it what he wanted.) Both RBG and Rand held onto what they created until the nature of life itself took it from their hands.

I, for one, admire that.

Michael

[Peter]

From Bing and other areas of the web. Republicans hold a 53-seat majority in the Senate. Democrats have 45. There are two independents -- Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Sen. Angus King of Maine . . . . Who are the Republican Senators who may not vote for Trump’s pick for Justice? Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah, and Charles E. Grassley of Iowa . . . . If enough Republican senators refuse to vote to confirm a nominee so close to the election, McConnell will not be able to hold a confirmation vote. GOP senators in states with moderate voters may not wish to vote on a Trump nominee weeks from the election. But after the election, even if Republicans lose the majority in the Senate, and Mr. Trump loses his reelection bid, senators could still vote to confirm a nominee during the lame-duck session between the election and the seating of new senators in January. end quotes

Let me see if I have this right. 51 Senators are needed for confirmation. If all four of the Republicans above abstain, it would be 49 for confirmation and 47 voting no. If it is a 50 - 50 tie Vice President Pence will vote to break the ties but unfortunately that is the only time he could vote, even if 49 or 50 Senators vote to confirm.

Weirdly, if three of the Republicans vote no, that would make it a 50 – 50 tie and VP Pence could vote for confirmation. There was some talk about Senator Joe Manchin D – WV voting for confirmation but then the following was printed.

WASHINGTON, DC (WOWK) – West Virginia United States Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) joined other Democrats Monday voicing opposition to a quick replacement for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who died Friday. end quote

If two Republican Senators abstain, the nominee would be confirmed with 51 Senatorial votes Peter   

[Peter]

Both of the following two Supreme Court candidates appear to be “young” and nice looking. Barbara Lagoa could play the “ethnicity card” too. I see President Trump has already met with Judge Barret. Peter

ABC News. President Donald Trump met Monday with Amy Coney Barrett, a conservative federal appeals court judge seen as the top contender to be his choice to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, ABC News has confirmed.

From The BBC. Barbara Lagoa: A Cuban-American born in Miami, she was the first Hispanic judge on the Florida Supreme Court. If nominated and then confirmed by the Senate, she would become the second Hispanic judge to serve at the highest court, after Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Peter said:

Let me see if I have this right. 51 Senators are needed for confirmation.

Peter,

Here ya' go.

Read it and smile.

Senator Lindsey Graham: “We’ve Got the Votes to Confirm the Justice on the Floor of the Senate BEFORE the Election” (VIDEO)

Quote

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) joined Sean Hannity on Monday night.

During their discussion Graham said the Republicans have 50 votes to confirm the next Supreme Court Justice on the floor of the US Senate before the November election!

Senator Cory Gardner (R-CO) announced Monday he would vote for a GOP nominee before the election. Senator Grassley from Iowa also said he would vote for a Trump nominee for the highest court.

Senator Graham: “We’ve got the votes to confirm the Justice on the floor of the Senate BEFORE the election & that’s what is coming.”

My favorite tit-for-tat comment I read somewhere out there went something like this:

If they can impeach a president in an election year, surely the President can appoint a Supreme Court Justice in an election year.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

On 9/19/2020 at 2:20 PM, Peter said:

 

Chuck Grassley supports Trump filling the seat:

And, apparently, Mittens is on board, too:

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, ThatGuy said:

And, apparently, Mittens is on board, too:

TG,

That is until he isn't.

I bet he got a nice backroom payoff, though. So I'm not too worried.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

That is until he isn't.

I bet he got a nice backroom payoff, though. So I'm not too worried.

Michael

Yeah, that's why I put in the "apparently"...we'll see...