Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87

[Shady]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Democrat Barack Obama also appointed a Catholic...Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

It’s funny to listen to Argus complain about a judge that if she were being sworn in on the Canadian Supreme Court, he’d love.  But because TDS makes one oppose anything Trump, you get this nonsense.

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Well, unlike the Trump cult I haven't been following any of the senate hearings or the news about them. But now that you ask I would say that what people say in an unguarded moment is generally more truthful than what they say when people are calling them to account.

You're not following it because CBC, CTV and CNN have no sexy sound bytes for you.

If there was a Berkeley alum blowing snot bubbles and making a vague accusation of possibly attempted rape that's all you'd be talking about right now.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

You're not following it because CBC, CTV and CNN have no sexy sound bytes for you.

If there was a Berkeley alum blowing snot bubbles and making a vague accusation of possibly attempted rape that's all you'd be talking about right now.

On the contrary, I had nothing to say on the Kavanaugh nomination precisely because it was a he said/she said situation.

UNTIL his angry outbursts showed that he didn't have the temperament to be a judge. You can check. It's still all there.

[Argus]

36 minutes ago, Shady said:

It’s funny to listen to Argus complain about a judge that if she were being sworn in on the Canadian Supreme Court, he’d love.  But because TDS makes one oppose anything Trump, you get this nonsense.

No, I would not love her being sworn in here. As I've already said, I'm not comfortable with extremely religious people being judges. Or extreme ideologues, for that matter. I don't think you should sit on the Supreme Court if law isn't the focus of your life. And if it is you don't really have a lot of time to be an activist or or ideologue or religious fundamentalist.

[WestCanMan]

Just now, Argus said:

On the contrary, I had nothing to say on the Kavanaugh nomination precisely because it was a he said/she said situation.

UNTIL his angry outbursts showed that he didn't have the temperament to be a judge. You can check. It's still all there.

Yeah, I'll give you credit because you weren't all-in like some others.

Kavanaugh had no choice though. Bork played it cool and his name is an adverb now. 

[Argus]

1 hour ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Democrat Barack Obama also appointed a Catholic...Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

There's nothing wrong with appointing Catholics. There's something very odd about ONLY appointing Catholics in a country which is by far majority protestant.

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

There's nothing wrong with appointing Catholics. There's something very odd about ONLY appointing Catholics in a country which is by far majority protestant.

Are there no atheists in the USA? WTF?

I don't feel like a minority in Canada as an atheist but globally I think I'm a 1%er.

[bush_cheney2004]

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

There's nothing wrong with appointing Catholics. There's something very odd about ONLY appointing Catholics in a country which is by far majority protestant.

 

So now it is just Catholics you find "odd" and not the Republicans appointing Catholics ?

I find it odd that several Canadian provinces still have constitutional preferences for....Catholics.

[Argus]

1 minute ago, WestCanMan said:

Are there no atheists in the USA? WTF?

I don't feel like a minority in Canada as an atheist but globally I think I'm a 1%er.

A quarter of Americans said 'none' when asked their religion on the last census (according to Bill Maher). He was bitching about how there's all these Catholics and no Athiests on the SC. But given the way things are down south, no one is going to appoint an atheist to the SC, or to any other important position. But you'd think there'd at least be lots of protestants.

[Argus]

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

So now it is just Catholics you find "odd" and not the Republicans appointing Catholics ?

I find it odd how so much of your politics has been fixated on minor issues like abortion and gun control for the last thirty years.

3 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

I find it odd that several Canadian provinces still have constitutional preferences for....Catholics.

Holdovers from the BNA Act.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

I find it odd how so much of your politics has been fixated on minor issues like abortion and gun control for the last thirty years.

Holdovers from the BNA Act.

 

The majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices have not been Catholic...not even close.   The political power of the religious right has succeeded in getting more Catholics on the court.  "Elections have consequences"

https://www.infoplease.com/biographies/government-politics/supreme-court

I can't seem to easily find the religions of Canada's SC justices....no big surprise.

Edited October 20, 2020 by bush_cheney2004

[Cannucklehead]

2 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The majority of U.S. Supreme Court justices have not been Catholic...not even close.   The political power of the religious right has succeeded in getting more Catholics on the court.  "Elections have consequences"

https://www.infoplease.com/biographies/government-politics/supreme-court

I can't seem to easily fine the religions of Canada's SC justices....no big surprise.

https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2018/07/18/why-do-catholics-make-majority-supreme-court

 

Before the death of Justice Ginsburg at age 87, the Supreme Court included five Catholic justices (Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor and Brett Kavanaugh) and three Jewish justices (Ms. Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan). The ninth justice, Neil Gorsuch, was raised Catholic but reportedly attends an Episcopal church.

 

https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2358&context=ohlj

 

Page 75, 36% of ours are catholic.  

[Infidel Dog]

So that was a storm in a teacup. A lot of whining and wimpering ending in what must have been the lamest attempt at a filibuster on record, but ultimately this:

Senate confirms Amy Coney Barrett to Supreme Court, cements 6-3 conservative majority

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Infidel Dog

[Argus]

What none of the Trump cult is thinking about, because tiny minds don't have room for many thoughts, is how this has all damaged the supreme court and its aura of neutrality in the eyes of so many people. Back before McConnell removed the requirement for compromise - ie, the need for 60 votes in favor - people like her would never have even been nominated and people like Kavanaugh would never have won a vote. After a series of pro Republican votes on election issues, and if that continues, they will more and more be seen as mere extensions of the Republican, ie, Trump Party. This will lead to less respect for their decisions - and them. And when people and groups stop respecting the supreme court as neutral arbiters of law they will start to ignore their decisions. When people lack respect for the fairness or neutrality of law they tend to get violent. And I foresee a huge surge of political violence on the horizon in the  US.

I'm willing to be that, unlike in previous years SC judges, particularly ones like Kavanaugh and Barrett, will not be able to go anywhere without a squad of bodyguards around them. They will be seen as extreme partisans and will be despised by half the country.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

And I foresee a huge surge of political violence on the horizon in the  US.

 

Ooooh...scary.   "Political violence" (against your empire) is how the U.S. got started in the first place.

The U.S. Supreme Court's history is hardly pure and apolitical, so why expect that now ?

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Ooooh...scary.   "Political violence" (against your empire) is how the U.S. got started in the first place.

The U.S. Supreme Court's history is hardly pure and apolitical, so why expect that now ?

That's why I don't think it should come as any kind of surprise if Biden adds a few if he has the power come 2021.

Half a dozen should just about do it.

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That's why I don't think it should come as any kind of surprise if Biden adds a few if he has the power come 2021.

Half a dozen should just about do it.

 

Civil War results in many of these revenge scenarios...I'm guessing.

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That's why I don't think it should come as any kind of surprise if Biden adds a few if he has the power come 2021.

Half a dozen should just about do it.

It would depend on how the new SC acts. If they act like trained seals, taking their orders from Trump, and start ruling against Democratic legislation on things like health care - because Republicans believe health care is only for rich people - then I think Biden would be justified in appointing more judges. This assumes the new Republican SC doesn't find some excuse to keep Trump in power if the election is close. I mean, I think Kavanaugh, in particular, has made it fairly clear he despises Democrats and will always rule in favour of the Republican party.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

That's why I don't think it should come as any kind of surprise if Biden adds a few if he has the power come 2021.

Half a dozen should just about do it.

 

Old news...and a failed strategy.  FDR tried to do that too because the Supreme Court was throwing too much shade on his fascist agenda.

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Civil War results in many of these revenge scenarios...I'm guessing.

I suspect that's coming anyway. The two Americas are now moving further and further away from each other. They don't watch the same TV shows, don't get their news from the same sources, don't read the same newspapers, and, increasingly, don't live in the same places. Growing numbers of them don't want to hire, work with, date, befriend, or be around people of the other political persuasion. A Republican is getting an entirely different picture of what is happening and why than a Democrat. And those news sources are increasingly biased against the other side. Both sources are wrong, too, and care a lot less for truth and accuracy than in pushing their own political and ideological views. They've also found there's money to be made in making those views more extreme and hostile. And their impact can't be denied.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Argus

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Civil War results in many of these revenge scenarios...I'm guessing.

I think it might happen anyway.  People seem to be gearing up for a violent response to the election regardless of who wins, or looks like winning.

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Old news...and a failed strategy.  FDR tried to do that too because the Supreme Court was throwing too much shade on his fascist agenda.

Term limits and age limits too.

[DogOnPorch]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I think it might happen anyway.  People seem to be gearing up for a violent response to the election regardless of who wins, or looks like winning.

 

Gonna have to learn the hard way, eh? Perhaps true...

WW1 seemed like a party at first...as did the original US Civil War. After a few years and piles of dead...less so.

[DogOnPorch]

26 minutes ago, Argus said:

I suspect that's coming anyway. 

 

This is where Democrats find-out if they're as well armed as the Republicans.

I doubt it...but give it a shot.

[DogOnPorch]

35 minutes ago, Argus said:

I mean, I think Kavanaugh, in particular, has made it fairly clear he despises Democrats and will always rule in favour of the Republican party.

 

Gosh...I wonder why?