Kansas Crimson

and, this situation is substantially different than Obama’s (even according to pubs, albeit for different reasons)

at least half the country thinks the nomination should wait. the election has already started, with votes already being cast

2/3 of the country supported Garland getting a hearing and vote back in 2016

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:56 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:54 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:53 am

Are they actually going against norms?

I have heard the line that no President has done it for 80+ years....but isn't it also true that no President passed up the chance to do it either?

Obama didn't pass up his chance. He just didn't have the votes/power to rush his pick thru.

there may be others, but Lincoln chose not to

Did he also control the senate?

This article touches on some of the "norms"...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/ ... y-in-2020/

why should it matter who controls the senate?

obviously, practically it matters, but philosophically? i don’t see any legitimate argument for it mattering

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:41 am https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... 54?cid=apn

Republicans have won power in significant measure through institutions that buffer the influence of national majorities: The Electoral College, the Senate, and, above all, the Supreme Court.

A conservative movement that in youth worked to rein in the Supreme Court’s unelected power in the name of democracy now hopes in old age to harness the Supreme Court’s unelected power to protect it from the hazards of too much democracy.

ugh, I don't even know where to begin

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:01 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:56 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:54 am
there may be others, but Lincoln chose not to

Did he also control the senate?

This article touches on some of the "norms"...

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/08/ ... y-in-2020/

why should it matter who controls the senate?

obviously, practically it matters, but philosophically? i don’t see any legitimate argument for it mattering

I am not saying it "should" matter, just that historically it does matter. No president whose party also controlled the senate has chosen not to make a pick according to that article (that i haven't fact checked fwiw).

Personally i think the senate should be voting solely on if the pick is a worthy candidate for a lifetime appointment and not just voting yes or no based on if the pick was made by a president from the same political party as them.

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:26 am https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN26E1LY

We will see. That is sort of just an opinion piece with no direct evidence of voting history or public comments to back up the claims. It is just "we think" this will happen becuase she is catholic. Even though she has publicly said her personal beliefs don't influence her views on "law".

You slam me whenever i say what i "think" someone would do when they haven't actually done it yet or in the past. She (assuming she actually ends up being who Trump picks) hasn't voted on abortion cases in ways that would indicate she is in favor of overturning Roe v Wade...and neither have many of the other sitting "conservative" justices.

Any country where it would have best represented the will of the people to hide a justice for 60-days after she died has issues with the status quo.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:38 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:26 am https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN26E1LY

We will see. That is sort of just an opinion piece with no direct evidence of voting history or public comments to back up the claims. It is just "we think" this will happen becuase she is catholic. Even though she has publicly said her personal beliefs don't influence her views on "law".

You slam me whenever i say what i "think" someone would do when they haven't actually done it yet or in the past. She (assuming she actually ends up being who Trump picks) hasn't voted on abortion cases in ways that would indicate she is in favor of overturning Roe v Wade...and neither have many of the other sitting "conservative" justices.

Ahem:
https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/09/2 ... he-courts/

that’s fucking scary

It is supposed to be scary (that is the point of the article). You are supposed to be scared of religious people. Well at least the white ones.

They quote her about "building the kingdom of god" and make it seem like she wants to do that thru law...which is a reach imo.

That can mean so many things that have nothing to do with letting her personal beliefs influence her rulings on "law".

i’m scared of any religious person that has a seat of power, and thinks their religion is anything more than a mythology, fable, or story

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:53 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:34 am that’s why “rules” was in quotes

we all know they aren’t breaking any actual rules right now, but they are indeed going against long-standing norms...going all the way back to at least Lincoln

and don’t forget, they absolutely changed the rules previously with the need for super majority vs. simple majority for the pure fact that they knew their side couldn’t garner enough non-pub support

Are they actually going against norms?

I have heard the line that no President has done it for 80+ years....but isn't it also true that no President passed up the chance to do it either?

Obama didn't pass up his chance. He just didn't have the votes/power to rush his pick thru.

Rush his pick through? The seat was open for over a year!

That's the problem here. Axelrod puts it perfectly:

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:03 am i’m scared of any religious person that has a seat of power, and thinks their religion is anything more than a mythology, fable, or story

I think you picked the wrong state to live in...

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:04 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:53 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:34 am that’s why “rules” was in quotes

we all know they aren’t breaking any actual rules right now, but they are indeed going against long-standing norms...going all the way back to at least Lincoln

and don’t forget, they absolutely changed the rules previously with the need for super majority vs. simple majority for the pure fact that they knew their side couldn’t garner enough non-pub support

Are they actually going against norms?

I have heard the line that no President has done it for 80+ years....but isn't it also true that no President passed up the chance to do it either?

Obama didn't pass up his chance. He just didn't have the votes/power to rush his pick thru.

Rush his pick through? The seat was open for over a year!

That's the problem here. Axelrod puts it perfectly:

I am not saying you are wrong or that i disagree that what the republicans did was wrong.

They easily could have (and should have) just voted no. Instead they were petty and spineless and decided to stall and use "let the people decide" as their excuse.

Now the dems don't have the power to stop Trumps pick so they are using "let the people decide" as their excuse for why it shouldn't happen.

This isn't how supreme court justices should be chosen.

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:05 am

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:03 am i’m scared of any religious person that has a seat of power, and thinks their religion is anything more than a mythology, fable, or story

I think you picked the wrong state to live in...

tell me about it

ironically, the LDS church is pretty open and welcoming to folks who don’t think like they do in a lot of cases

SLC, at least a few years ago, had the highest LGBTQ population outside of San Francisco. and, BYU puts a ton of money into the sciences, even disciplines like Evolutionary Biology. the irony is that it appears like it is the LDS folks that are driving the uptick in covid cases, both in rural areas and in the provo/orem area where BYU is

they (mormans) are often supportive of environmental issues as well, fwiw, since their book says they are “stewards” of the earth. but, they’ve still got plenty of problems

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:38 am

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 10:26 am https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKCN26E1LY

We will see. That is sort of just an opinion piece with no direct evidence of voting history or public comments to back up the claims. It is just "we think" this will happen becuase she is catholic. Even though she has publicly said her personal beliefs don't influence her views on "law".

You slam me whenever i say what i "think" someone would do when they haven't actually done it yet or in the past. She (assuming she actually ends up being who Trump picks) hasn't voted on abortion cases in ways that would indicate she is in favor of overturning Roe v Wade...and neither have many of the other sitting "conservative" justices.

As the article I posted highlighted, there are a lot of ways that conservatives can attack abortion without overturning Roe vs. Wade.

It clearly states exactly why they feel it is a possibility that Barrett could rule against abortion rights: "Although she has not yet ruled directly on abortion as a judge, Barrett has twice signaled opposition to rulings that struck down abortion-related restrictions." At no point in the article did it say or imply that she would or may take any action "because she is Catholic". They mentioned that she is a Roman Catholic when they said "Anti-abortion groups are pushing for Trump to pick Barrett, a conservative Roman Catholic who he appointed to the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017." That is the only time that the article mentions that she is Catholic. So your leap of logic appears to be misguided.

I think we both know exactly why the article mentions her religion multiple times. If you choose to pretend that some dems aren't against religious people being on the supreme court feel free. I prefer to be realistic about it. My hope is that nobody would let their personal beliefs such as religion influence how they perform the honorable job of being a supreme court justice.

What were those rulings on abortion related restrictions that she signaled opposition to? Do you even care or is it all about emotion and trigger words? How did she signal that opposition?

Genuinely curious here.

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:07 am

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:04 am

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:53 am

Are they actually going against norms?

I have heard the line that no President has done it for 80+ years....but isn't it also true that no President passed up the chance to do it either?

Obama didn't pass up his chance. He just didn't have the votes/power to rush his pick thru.

Rush his pick through? The seat was open for over a year!

That's the problem here. Axelrod puts it perfectly:

I am not saying you are wrong or that i disagree that what the republicans did was wrong.

They easily could have (and should have) just voted no. Instead they were petty and spineless and decided to stall and use "let the people decide" as their excuse.

Now the dems don't have the power to stop Trumps pick so they are using "let the people decide" as their excuse for why it shouldn't happen.

This isn't how supreme court justices should be chosen.

Exactly. There are lots of things in society held up by norms and traditions, not rules. Like returns of opened products and free condiments like ketchup packets. These are things that they don't have in Russia because people would take advantage of it. And we all win when we follow the norms that enable this, and we all lose when people abuse those things.

The constitution says extremely little about the SC nomination and confirmation process and that's been fine for over 200 years. Now we can't have nice things - actual rules are going to need to be codified.

the federalist society

‘nuf said

TraditionKU wrote: ↑Wed Sep 23, 2020 11:50 am the federalist society

‘nuf said

An evil society of terrible people? Like all of them?