• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

when will Ruth Ginsburg be off the court?

  • she will leave in Trumps first term

    Votes: 2 11.8%

  • she will leave regardless of who is president during the next term

    Votes: 15 88.2%
  • Total voters
    17
  • Poll closed .
I'm not wishing her any I'll will but she may not make it through his first term either.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 

thanks, thats a well formed opinion
 
If Ginsburg checked out tomorrow, Debate Politics would be even more entertaining than it already is over the next few months.
 
Linc said:
trump won’t serve through 2020. Numerous gop posters on this board openly wish for the death of RBG. Thats a fact. That’s just another example of what the gop has become, the party of Charlottesville.
Click to expand...

:lamo...now this is something one can laugh about!
 
Yup its possible trump will get to replace both of them which will be a nuclear level meltdown on the left.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
I don't think Kenedy would of stepped down if trump had not put gorsuch on the bench.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
Yup its possible trump will get to replace both of them which will be a nuclear level meltdown on the left.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

well thats a very good assessment.

i think the right would be very disappointed if they don't get to replace her but nothing on the scale of an outrage.
 
Master PO said:
not really , poll question :will she go now or later.. ............ and how will the media and left and right respond
Click to expand...
I get it but it really depends on who controls the Senate and who is nominated. It may also depend if trump it happens after trump has won his second term. There's lots of things to consider

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I get it but it really depends on who controls the Senate and who is nominated. It may also depend if trump it happens after trump has won his second term. There's lots of things to consider

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

well i dont see her around to 2024, and when she goes i see a firestorm from the left and a disappointment from the right.
 
Master PO said:
well thats a very good assessment.

i think the right would be very disappointed if they don't get to replace her but nothing on the scale of an outrage.
Click to expand...
The right was very uneasy about it when scalia passed. It's an important issue

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
Ruth Ginsburg already looks dead to me.She just hasn't got into the casket yet.
 
trouble13 said:
The right was very uneasy about it when scalia passed. It's an important issue

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

True and then they came up with the novel idea of not confirming nominations from democratic presidents. McConnell is on the record that Garland's seat would be kept open for four years if Clinton won in 2016.
Subverting the Constitution and the rule of law and precedent of 250 years is nothing to the right it seems. But I guess it's OK since they were "uneasy"
 

Hang in there, Ruthie! You're the only thing standing between Trump and the transitioning of this nation into a real-life "Handmaid's Tale"!
 

If they do, be ready to return to “ traditional conservative American values”, like trial by ordeal and burning witches at the stake again! MAGA!
 

She'll keep on even if they have to prop her up and move her lips. She is a feisty one and will stay out of spite.
 

The idea was voiced by McCain as well. The notion that Democratic Presidents just wouldn't be allowed to appoint Supreme Court Justices at all anymore was sold as a way to placate Republicans who believed they'd have no choice but to vote for Trump just because of the SCOTUS issue. It was Plan B in case McConnell's Plan A didn't work.

And there's absolutely zero reason to think it wouldn't have gone down exact like that. Trump is already conditioning his base to believe that Russian interference was a good thing because it helped prevent a Clinton Presidency, and therefore a Clinton SC appointment. We've already seen that argument multiple times on this forum, and as Russian interference and hacking finally becomes undeniable even by Trump's most ardent supporters, that argument will become mainstream on the Right.

Republicans would be happy to nuke every city in the country if it meant they'd control the Supreme Court.
 

1. The irony of a rabid Trump supporter complaining about a perceived lack of humility on the part of a Supreme Court Justice.

2. Every single judge is biased. Every single judge on the court legislates from the bench. Every single judge on the court is an activist. All of them are at times. There is both liberal and conservative activism by different justices on the court and always has been.

You want her to resign because you want a liberal activist judge replaced by a conservative activist judge.
 
It cuts both ways

I certainly didn't hear anyone on the left voicing concerns about the balance of the court when they were trying to replace scalable with a left leaning justice.

I didn't hear any complaints from the left when Reid got rid of the long standing filibuster rule for circuit judges.

I also don't believe trump will get any of his nominees up for a vote if he gets any more and the Democrats control the Senate,

Funny how it's only an issue for people when it works to their disadvantage but when it favors them we get crickets.

Neither side has room to complain.

I'll prefer to see judges appointed who show no ideological preferences. It's their job to call balls and strikes not decide which laws they like and don't.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I467 using Tapatalk
 
ataraxia said:
If they do, be ready to return to “ traditional conservative American values”, like trial by ordeal and burning witches at the stake again! MAGA!
Click to expand...

One only has to look at the fact that it was just 2003 when sodomy laws were finally struck down by SCOTUS, and the right wing's two model justices, Thomas and Scalia, dissented.
 

How do you rate Clarence Thomas' proclivity to warp Laws?

I rate it much higher than Ginsburg.
 

Just FYI.... Scalia's confirmation was unanimous. Ginsberg was 96 -3. Roberts 78 -22. There was a time that the Senate did their job. Advise and consent.

It might help to remember that Thurgood Marshall, a uniquely liberal justice was replaced by Clarence Thomas by HW Bush. It is not unique to Scalia's replacement that he would be replaced by a president from an opposite party.

It obvious that this new game being played by the right is going to be defended by gun enthusiasts, religious zealots and various others. But this is not how it's always been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…