Do you fear Trump replacing RBG with a Judge off his list? (1 Viewer)

[Tanngrisnir]

OK, you are dismissed. Thanks for trying.

Thanks for proving my point, yet again.

 

[Cassandra]

We cannot have deviated from something that doesn't exist.

Stunning how so many people can fail to understand such a simple concept.

I agree w you- the "originalism" claim is such a fraud.

In fact, R.B.G. is on record for saying that the S.C. should not get ahead of established law. She is really quite reasonable and conservative based on the original meaning of the word, "conservative". In fact, she was not supported by many left leaning women during her nomination. We need more justices like her.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...-ginsburgs-unlikely-path-to-the-supreme-court

"If Struck was Ginsburg’s next, carefully placed stepping stone across a wide river, Roe was a rickety wooden plank thrown down across the water and—Ginsburg thought—likely to rot. In a lecture she delivered in 1984, she noted the political significance of the fact that the Court had treated sex discrimination as a matter of equal protection but reproductive autonomy as a matter of privacy. When the Court overturned laws on the basis of sex discrimination, no great controversy ensued, she observed, but Roe v. Wade remained “a storm center.” She went on, “Roe v. Wade sparked public opposition and academic criticism, in part, I believe, because the Court ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action.”

 

[Harshaw]

If you have any complaints about how I reacted to the death of Scalia you're free to share them.

Irrelevant; you impugned a whole swathe of people, not just an individual. The relevant comparison is how the left - or even anti-Trumpers if you like - treated his death, not you and you alone.

Also, by your own standards by which you contend Renae is "gleeful" about the death of Ginsburg - that standard being not was actually said, but what you choose to assume - it's perfectly fair to assume your "glee" at Scalia's death. That's the standard you set, so that's the standard it's fair to judge you by . . . if one chooses to be as venal as you are about it.

Can you think of a reason why you shouldn't be judged by your own standard?

 

[Tom Horn]

The only thing I fear about RBG is the garlic bag, wooden stake and silver bullet won’t work.

 

[Phys251]

I won't mind that so long as its a constitutionalist that also has a liberal bent. Conservative constitutionalists often won't acknowledge the the Rights that are not explicit in the the BoR's. Such as the Right to Privacy.

Which is odd considering that the Ninth Amendment was designed to account for precisely those sorts of rights.

 

[MovingPictures]

Which is odd considering that the Ninth Amendment was designed to account for precisely those sorts of rights.

Bah, it only counts as a right when a conservative wants it.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Which is odd considering that the Ninth Amendment was designed to account for precisely those sorts of rights.

Agreed. The problem is that recognizing a Right isn't always easy and most conservatives from what I have noticed like things simple and uncomplicated. Liberals on the other hand like things complicated and generally fail to recognize simple things.

At least this is what I have noticed.

 

[Irwin Corey]

At this point I only fear tRump nominating Judge Judy.

 

[Bullseye]

On FB one of my friends said the need to defeat the GOP in 2020 is now more critical than ever because Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ability to make it to 2024 due to age is in high doubt. They are like, in total meltdown mode now. I was curious if others feel that way. Personally I'd love to see her replaced with a more originalist Jurist, obviously.

Assuming she can last to 2020 or beyond. Then, again. Knowing the Dems they'd probably try some kind of "Weekend At Bernie's" scam to keep her on the bench until a Dem Pres could nominate her.

 

[Phys251]

Agreed. The problem is that recognizing a Right isn't always easy and most conservatives from what I have noticed like things simple and uncomplicated. Liberals on the other hand like things complicated and generally fail to recognize simple things.

At least this is what I have noticed.

Interesting. I'm not sure if I entirely agree with that, but it's definitely worth a discussion in its own right.

 

[Kal'Stang]

At this point I only fear tRump nominating Judge Judy.

As much as I find her funny she'd never make it. For multiple reasons but suffice it to say...she's old. That alone would disqualify her in today's atmosphere. There are of course more important reasons that would get her disqualified but this is enough for now.

 

[Bullseye]

I won't mind that so long as its a constitutionalist that also has a liberal bent. Conservative constitutionalists often won't acknowledge the the Rights that are not explicit in the the BoR's. Such as the Right to Privacy.

There's a reason for that. Inventing "rights" just because "it sounds like the thing to do" just leads to more and more goobledegook with what weight of law.

 

[Kal'Stang]

There's a reason for that. Inventing "rights" just because "it sounds like the thing to do" just leads to more and more goobledegook with what weight of law.

There is a difference between acknowledging Rights and inventing them.

For instance: Many disagree that SSM, or marriage period, is a Right. Yet we have DECADES of jurisprudence acknowledging that the Right to Marry is an inherent Right. Acknowledging SSM as being part and parcel to the Right to Marry is just equalizing the acknowledgement just like acknowledging that blacks have a right to be free was just equalizing the acknowledgement.

 

[Bullseye]

There is a difference between acknowledging Rights and inventing them.

a distinction without a difference.

For instance: Many disagree that SSM, or marriage period, is a Right. Yet we have DECADES of jurisprudence acknowledging that the Right to Marry is an inherent Right. Acknowledging SSM as being part and parcel to the Right to Marry is just equalizing the acknowledgement just like acknowledging that blacks have a right to be free was just equalizing the acknowledgement.

Where are these decades of jurisprudence acknowledging SSM as a right? First off, some would argue that marriage is not in the government's bailiwick at all. Of course, in today's complex society marriage carries significant other rights with it, e.g. inheritance, powers of attorney, etc.

 

[JMR]

where were you when left-wingers were calling for Clarence Thomas's wife to feed him stuff that would induce a heart attack or the glee they expressed when Scalia died

Was that "glee expressed" similar to Moslems celebrating 9/11? Lots of myths repeated endlessly around here it seems.

 

[SheWolf]

On FB one of my friends said the need to defeat the GOP in 2020 is now more critical than ever because Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ability to make it to 2024 due to age is in high doubt. They are like, in total meltdown mode now. I was curious if others feel that way. Personally I'd love to see her replaced with a more originalist Jurist, obviously.

Based on your own post, your friend has a right to be concerned

 

[Anarchon]

The very concept of some asshat in a robe thinking they can make decisions about my life is what is wrong. What political label the asshat wears is irrelevant. You people continue to argue about the importance of that label...that's why you'll remain slaves.

 

[calamity]

On FB one of my friends said the need to defeat the GOP in 2020 is now more critical than ever because Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ability to make it to 2024 due to age is in high doubt. They are like, in total meltdown mode now. I was curious if others feel that way. Personally I'd love to see her replaced with a more originalist Jurist, obviously.

I see the black goober dying before Ruth. Ginsburg is fit as a fiddle. Tom not so much.

 

[Kal'Stang]

a distinction without a difference.

Actually there is a difference. An invented Right would be a Right which has never ever been talked about before. An acknowledgement of a Right is realizing that something that had been talked about previously was/is actually should be considered a Right.

Where are these decades of jurisprudence acknowledging SSM as a right? First off, some would argue that marriage is not in the government's bailiwick at all. Of course, in today's complex society marriage carries significant other rights with it, e.g. inheritance, powers of attorney, etc.

Think you need to re-read what I said. I said that we have decades of jurisprudence acknowledging that the Right to Marry is an inherent Right. I did NOT say that we have decades of jurisprudence acknowledging that SSM was an inherent Right.

And yes, I know we have those that would argue that marriage should not be in the governments bailiwick. That however did not start up until miscegenation laws were struck down and after that settled it was raised again against SSM. All the people that argue this point are religious and believe that marriage is a union based around God/Allah etc etc. Each and every single one of them fail to recognize that historically marriage was purely governmental/civil in nature until the Roman Catholic Council of Trent in 1563 started to demand that a priest be involved in weddings. (note: that is after the Americas were discovered)

 

[The Mark]

On FB one of my friends said the need to defeat the GOP in 2020 is now more critical than ever because Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ability to make it to 2024 due to age is in high doubt. They are like, in total meltdown mode now. I was curious if others feel that way. Personally I'd love to see her replaced with a more originalist Jurist, obviously.

I tend to agree with that FB friend.

The republicans must lose control of congress and the executive by 2020.
It will take probably an entire presidential term to even make a dent in repairing the harm the Trump administration will cause in his 4 years (if he makes it the whole term), based on the evidence of what he has managed thus far.
Without complete control of the legislature and executive in 2020 those repairs will be delayed significantly.

I'm thinking Republicans may lose the house in 2018, but not sure.

 

[Harshaw]

The conservative glee at the thought of Ginsburg's death is pretty par for the course for trump supporters.

:roll: Because the death of Scalia was treated with respect...

How timely -- I just now saw this in my Facebook feed:

 

[mike2810]

I tend to agree with that FB friend.

The republicans must lose control of congress and the executive by 2020.
It will take probably an entire presidential term to even make a dent in repairing the harm the Trump administration will cause in his 4 years (if he makes it the whole term), based on the evidence of what he has managed thus far.
Without complete control of the legislature and executive in 2020 those repairs will be delayed significantly.

I'm thinking Republicans may lose the house in 2018, but not sure.

Didn't the Democrats have control of both Houses and the Oval Office for a couple of years under President Obama? I recall that not much if anything got done. What makes you think that will change in 2020?

 

[Renae]

I tend to agree with that FB friend.

The republicans must lose control of congress and the executive by 2020.
It will take probably an entire presidential term to even make a dent in repairing the harm the Trump administration will cause in his 4 years (if he makes it the whole term), based on the evidence of what he has managed thus far.
Without complete control of the legislature and executive in 2020 those repairs will be delayed significantly.

I'm thinking Republicans may lose the house in 2018, but not sure.

What actual damage, aside having a loud mouthed asshat as President?

 

[The Mark]

Didn't the Democrats have control of both Houses and the Oval Office for a couple of years under President Obama? I recall that not much if anything got done. What makes you think that will change in 2020?

Because they won't take power back, not really, unless they're willing to get **** done.

Which is one reason I'm not sure they'll take control in 2018 or 2020 - they aren't willing to do the work for it, they want to take shortcuts and use their old methods.

 

[The Mark]

What actual damage, aside having a loud mouthed asshat as President?

Reduced regulatory protections, for one.

I expect that alone to result in deaths, and because we weren't regulating the waste disposal of industry enough even during Obama presidency.