[pilowsky]

JUSTICE GINSBURG HAS DIED

[Vampyr]

Yes, we all know, and mourn both her death and that of democracy in America.

[barmar]

Even if we manage to vote Trump out of office in November, the mark he's left from all his judicial appointments will endure for decades. It's horrible that he'll be allowed to fill another position on the highest court. The stupidest President of the modern era will have appointed 1/3 of the Justices.

[pilowsky]

Something to remember her by
https://www.youtube....h?v=AmDcliAQQKA
and
https://www.youtube....h?v=luk85AVuHCg

[hrothgar]

barmar, on 2020-September-18, 22:58, said:

Even if we manage to vote Trump out of office in November, the mark he's left from all his judicial appointments will endure for decades. It's horrible that he'll be allowed to fill another position on the highest court. The stupidest President of the modern era will have appointed 1/3 of the Justices.

If Trump loses and McConnell rams through a Supreme Court appointment during the lame duck, you're going to see 11+ Supreme Court Justices in 2011

[Winstonm]

hrothgar, on 2020-September-19, 07:22, said:

If Trump loses and McConnell rams through a Supreme Court appointment during the lame duck, you're going to see 11+ Supreme Court Justices in 2011

If the vacancy is not filled by Trump, I would prefer a Democratic senate to reduce the number of justices by seniority from 9 to 7. This would take Gorsuch and Kavenaugh off the bench and leave the Rep/Dem slpit at 3-3 until Ginsberg's vacancy is filled.

[johnu]

I greatly admire Justice Ginsburg, but I felt that she should have retired during Obama's second term. Nobody lives forever and she was already in her 80's with a number of serious health problems in the past. Nobody could predict what would happen in the 2016 election but if a Republican won, it was 100% certain that another right wing conservative would be appointed.

If the Imperial Wizard in Chief successfully appoints a new justice as a lame duck president (or the unthinkable, as a reelected president), Ginsburg's legacy will be certainly tarnished. It's not as if another progressive Obama appointee wouldn't have continued in her trail.

I also thought the same thing about Justice Breyer who is also aging, and wish him the best of health.

[johnu]

hrothgar, on 2020-September-19, 07:22, said:

If Trump loses and McConnell rams through a Supreme Court appointment during the lame duck, you're going to see 11+ Supreme Court Justices in 2011

And the next time Republicans control the House, Senate and Oval Office the number would go up to 13. I'm not sure where that will end.

[johnu]

Winstonm, on 2020-September-19, 08:43, said:

If the vacancy is not filled by Trump, I would prefer a Democratic senate to reduce the number of justices by seniority from 9 to 7. This would take Gorsuch and Kavenaugh off the bench and leave the Rep/Dem slpit at 3-3 until Ginsberg's vacancy is filled.

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. Could the last 2 justices appointed be removed although they were appointed for life? There was the Judiciary Act of 1801 that reduced the number of justices from 6 to 5 but I couldn't find out if the reduction took place, or how.

[Vampyr]

Lindsey Graham is a stinking pile of vomit. Who even remembers way back when, when he was a severe critic of Donald Trump?

[pilowsky]

Vampyr, on 2020-September-19, 21:48, said:

Lindsey Graham is a stinking pile of vomit. Who even remembers way back when, when he was a severe critic of Donald Trump?

I wish I was religious. Then I would at least have the comfort of knowing that certain people would end up in a certain place for all the terrible things they've done.

[Winstonm]

johnu, on 2020-September-19, 18:52, said:

Supreme Court justices are appointed for life. Could the last 2 justices appointed be removed although they were appointed for life? There was the Judiciary Act of 1801 that reduced the number of justices from 6 to 5 but I couldn't find out if the reduction took place, or how.

Having a SCOTUS is a constitutional requirement. The makeup of the court is left to Congress. It requires an act, which means it would only happen if the senate and president flip blue.

[hrothgar]

johnu, on 2020-September-19, 18:41, said:

And the next time Republicans control the House, Senate and Oval Office the number would go up to 13. I'm not sure where that will end.

Hopefully, with a more reasonable system like 21 supreme court justices, each appointed for 18 years some such, with staggered start times

[kenberg]

My view of reality:

I think Ginsburg was confirmed by something like 97-3. That will not be happening, whether the position is filled this year or next.

It is said that the appointment should not be political. It will be.

There are people. I don't know how many but more than a few, who agree that Trump is pretty awful but who also really like having him make the appointments to the Supreme Court.

Trump has promised to submit a name very soon, McConnell has said it will go to a vote, this will happen, and it's very likely the person will be confirmed. Yes, it will depend on who the nominee is, or at least I hope it will depend on who the nominee is, but I expect confirmation.

What to do about this? Not much. A president was elected who was expected to nominate conservatives to the court, senators were elected who could be expected to support such a nomination, it's hard to see how this will go off the rails. Perhaps so, but I doubt it.

One more thing. Promising to later pack the court would be a really good way to lose an election.

[Winstonm]

kenberg, on 2020-September-20, 08:00, said:

My view of reality:

I think Ginsburg was confirmed by something like 97-3. That will not be happening, whether the position is filled this year or next.

It is said that the appointment should not be political. It will be.

There are people. I don't know how many but more than a few, who agree that Trump is pretty awful but who also really like having him make the appointments to the Supreme Court.

Trump has promised to submit a name very soon, McConnell has said it will go to a vote, this will happen, and it's very likely the person will be confirmed. Yes, it will depend on who the nominee is, or at least I hope it will depend on who the nominee is, but I expect confirmation.

What to do about this? Not much. A president was elected who was expected to nominate conservatives to the court, senators were elected who could be expected to support such a nomination, it's hard to see how this will go off the rails. Perhaps so, but I doubt it.

One more thing. Promising to later pack the court would be a really good way to lose an election.

Yes, but people also understand and remember that the Republicans stole a SCOTUS appointment from Obama. To allow that to go unpunished displays the very kind of weakness that is the antithesis of their belief system.

[awm]

kenberg, on 2020-September-20, 08:00, said:

One more thing. Promising to later pack the court would be a really good way to lose an election.

The current system in the US is such that a president elected by a minority of the voters can appoint judges to the high court (approved on a party line vote by senators representing a minority of the population) and these judges will serve for many decades. Note also that the previous president (elected by a majority of voters) could not even get a vote for his nominee.

Aside from a constitutional amendment (which itself requires ratification by a super-majority of states, not people) what do you believe can or should be done about this? Or should we just accept that older rural white voters will have disproportionate power (and an effective veto over major legislation) for the next few decades even if they never win the majority of votes in another national election?

[kenberg]

awm, on 2020-September-20, 08:43, said:

The current system in the US is such that a president elected by a minority of the voters can appoint judges to the high court (approved on a party line vote by senators representing a minority of the population) and these judges will serve for many decades. Note also that the previous president (elected by a majority of voters) could not even get a vote for his nominee.

Aside from a constitutional amendment (which itself requires ratification by a super-majority of states, not people) what do you believe can or should be done about this? Or should we just accept that older rural white voters will have disproportionate power (and an effective veto over major legislation) for the next few decades even if they never win the majority of votes in another national election?

I think that is reality.


Of course not every thing that we learn in school is accurate, but my understanding from my history class is that the Senate and the House were set up to balance off the influence of regions against the influence of nation-wide majorities. Of course things were different. Or maybe not. Connecticut and Georgia thought of themselves as very different, and for that matter so did Maryland and Virginia, but today so do Arizona and New Jersey. One can argue about the wisdom of this. One person one vote seems like the essence of democracy, but then we could imagine that people living in Idaho might not be all that happy about California having control over what happens in Idaho because Californians out number Idahoans. Try a comparison: The votes for Secretary General of the UN are not, or at least I think they are not, based on the population of the various nations. And I imagine small countries would very much object to such a change.


Sure the US is one country, the UN is a group of counties. But for the US I believe the idea was to balance off the influence of population with the influence of states. 200+ years later, this probably is not a great way to do things. I suppose that's an understatement but it is probably true that people from underpopulated areas don't want the large population areas to tell them what to do.

However good or bad this is, it is our system, and it was, I think, intended to be that way. That means it will be difficult to change it. Me, I don't regard myself as a Minnesotan, where I grew up, or as a Marylander, where I have lived most of my adult life, I regard myself as an American. Of course some regard themselves as citizens of the world. Not me, not really. And, at the other extreme, I recall in St. Paul seeing a sign in an auto repair shop saying "I don't give a damn how they do it in Minneapolis".

We need to make the system that we have work better than it is working now. I can imagine change, I would like change, but I don't see foundational change coming any time soon.

The good news is that it really should not be that difficult to convince people, whether they are in Idaho or California, or Arizona or New Jersey, that we need to change some things, starting with the person on the White House.

[Cyberyeti]

Something I've seen that I'd never thought about before.

Various people are saying RIP RBG.

RIP implicitly is rooted in the Christian view of the afterlife, and thus shouldn't be used for RBG who was Jewish.

[kenberg]

I don't believe in an afterlife but if someone says rest in piece at my funeral I promise, if I am mistaken, not to come back and haunt them.

I suppose that's a bit of a smart-A response. I try to respect beliefs. A while back I was to be introduced to a very traditional Jewish family and it was explained that I should not offer my hand to the wife. So I did not offer my hand to the wife. With rip it seems to be one of those expressions that are said w/o any literal intent. But I'll keep it in mind.

[pilowsky]

Cyberyeti, on 2020-September-20, 10:27, said:

Something I've seen that I'd never thought about before.

Various people are saying RIP RBG.

RIP implicitly is rooted in the Christian view of the afterlife, and thus shouldn't be used for RBG who was Jewish.

You are correct and incorrect simultaneously! I used RIP in the headline because I thought it would match RBG's 'notorious RBG' moniker, and because I thought it would appeal to the broadest audience.
My family came from the same area of Eastern Europe as RBG. My father used to say that he was OK with Christianity and the other new-fangled religions as long as they didn't bother us. My mother, when I asked her (I was 11 at the time) said she was an existential humanist.
We never celebrated any religious holidays.
Jews (and Moslems) would wish You 'a long life', perhaps 'bis Hundert Zwanzig'. Because that's how long Moses lived - apparently.
My partner wished me Shana Tova - sweet year.
The bad news arrived on Board 10 in the BIL - it was a Kennedy assassination moment. Time froze.
Opps opened 1NT
I passed
West bid 2♥ - then someone announced to the tournament that Justice Ginsberg had died. Everything stopped for about 15 seconds.
Pass Pass Pass
Many Jews do believe in God in the way that other religions do. I don't that's just me.
I posted the prayer in an earlier post.
The mourning period lasts exactly 1 year. But before that, you are part of her family and religious sit Shiva for a moment and think about her life. Otherwise, you might want to read and recite the Kaddish on youtube. That's what I did.