The fight to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg megathread

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

https://twitter.com/IanSams/status/1309586996952813570
There goes the ACA.

This goes in every ad. Every single one.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://twitter.com/IanSams/status/1309586996952813570
There goes the ACA.

This goes in every ad. Every single one.

[Attorney General & LGC Deputy Dwarven Dragon]

https://twitter.com/IanSams/status/1309586996952813570
There goes the ACA.

This goes in every ad. Every single one.

[SnowLabrador]

https://twitter.com/IanSams/status/1309586996952813570
There goes the ACA.

This goes in every ad. Every single one.

It had better, but the Democrats suck at politics.

[Vosem]

Elections fought on health-care this decade have generally been Republican victories, so I don't know if that's the angle I'd go with if I were in charge of the Democratic campaign. Especially since they're winning -- why change anything?

[soundchaser]

Elections fought on health-care this decade have generally been Republican victories, so I don't know if that's the angle I'd go with if I were in charge of the Democratic campaign. Especially since they're winning -- why change anything?

I know you said “generally,” so you may have had this in mind, but 2018 is pretty strong evidence to the contrary. People have gotten a lot more invested in the ACA in the last four years.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

https://twitter.com/IanSams/status/1309586996952813570
There goes the ACA.

This doesn't tell us much.   Kennedy agreed with that assessment, and I can't imagine him striking down the ACA on the case that is coming before the Court.

[Pericles]

Elections fought on health-care this decade have generally been Republican victories, so I don't know if that's the angle I'd go with if I were in charge of the Democratic campaign. Especially since they're winning -- why change anything?

Uh, 2018 was literally a D+8.6% year. The ACA is popular now, people have come around and realised it benefits them.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's true that Schumer would have blocked a bush appointment in 2008, It's true that if Romney won the presidential election in 2012, dems would have blocked a nominee from him in 2016, and it's true that dems would be appointing a judge right now if we had President Hillary Clinton and Ginsburg somehow didn't retire right away in 2017.

Any evidence whatsoever behind any of those claims?

 Seriously dude, both sides ism is the most intellectually lazy form of argument if you can't back it up with specifics.

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

I see little reason to believe Schumer would have had a sudden change of heart in 2016 or 2020 if power was his.

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Wait both parties are hypocritical and keep switching their position except the GOP got lucky with the timing?

Keep telling yourself that. Whatever you have to do to get you through the night and be able to look at yourself in the mirror the next morning and tell yourself you're not behind and amoral hypocritical power grab because your side can't win the popular vote anymore.

Were the courts from the 1940s-early 1970s packed in favor of the liberals , as for much of the period you had 6-3 or 7-2 courts in favor of liberals

[WD]

It's true that Schumer would have blocked a bush appointment in 2008, It's true that if Romney won the presidential election in 2012, dems would have blocked a nominee from him in 2016, and it's true that dems would be appointing a judge right now if we had President Hillary Clinton and Ginsburg somehow didn't retire right away in 2017.

Any evidence whatsoever behind any of those claims?

 Seriously dude, both sides ism is the most intellectually lazy form of argument if you can't back it up with specifics.

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

I see little reason to believe Schumer would have had a sudden change of heart in 2016 or 2020 if power was his.

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Wait both parties are hypocritical and keep switching their position except the GOP got lucky with the timing?

Keep telling yourself that. Whatever you have to do to get you through the night and be able to look at yourself in the mirror the next morning and tell yourself you're not behind and amoral hypocritical power grab because your side can't win the popular vote anymore.

Were the courts from the 1940s-early 1970s packed in favor of the liberals , as for much of the period you had 6-3 or 7-2 courts in favor of liberals

No, because the Senate during that time never held a seat open out of spite against the incumbent President. The Democrats held the Senate for Decades, from the 50s the 80s, and they never denied a GOP President from filling a seat. Nor did they hold it open, until a Democrat won.

[Intell]

Roe v Wade may be saved, the ACA and any other healthcare legislation will be deemed unconstitutional. 

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

We were all devestated when Kennedy retired and things worked out, the South voted R in 2004 when OConnor retired and it voted R in 2016 when Scalia retired, including OH, due to fact guns would be taken away and SSM would be Federalized; consequently, Bill Clinton signed defense of marriage act, but Obama got rid of it, and Hillary supported SSM

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's true that Schumer would have blocked a bush appointment in 2008, It's true that if Romney won the presidential election in 2012, dems would have blocked a nominee from him in 2016, and it's true that dems would be appointing a judge right now if we had President Hillary Clinton and Ginsburg somehow didn't retire right away in 2017.

Any evidence whatsoever behind any of those claims?

 Seriously dude, both sides ism is the most intellectually lazy form of argument if you can't back it up with specifics.

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

I see little reason to believe Schumer would have had a sudden change of heart in 2016 or 2020 if power was his.

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Wait both parties are hypocritical and keep switching their position except the GOP got lucky with the timing?

Keep telling yourself that. Whatever you have to do to get you through the night and be able to look at yourself in the mirror the next morning and tell yourself you're not behind and amoral hypocritical power grab because your side can't win the popular vote anymore.

Were the courts from the 1940s-early 1970s packed in favor of the liberals , as for much of the period you had 6-3 or 7-2 courts in favor of liberals

No, because the Senate during that time never held a seat open out of spite against the incumbent President. The Democrats held the Senate for Decades, from the 50s the 80s, and they never denied a GOP President from filling a seat. Nor did they hold it open, until a Democrat won.

Look What Schumer said in 2007

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

If Stevens retired in 2008 the democrats would have blocked it according to Schumer unless Lieberman used his leverage of switching parties and thus giving the gop the majority, unless of course the nominee was a liberal.

[WD]

It's true that Schumer would have blocked a bush appointment in 2008, It's true that if Romney won the presidential election in 2012, dems would have blocked a nominee from him in 2016, and it's true that dems would be appointing a judge right now if we had President Hillary Clinton and Ginsburg somehow didn't retire right away in 2017.

Any evidence whatsoever behind any of those claims?

 Seriously dude, both sides ism is the most intellectually lazy form of argument if you can't back it up with specifics.

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

I see little reason to believe Schumer would have had a sudden change of heart in 2016 or 2020 if power was his.

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Wait both parties are hypocritical and keep switching their position except the GOP got lucky with the timing?

Keep telling yourself that. Whatever you have to do to get you through the night and be able to look at yourself in the mirror the next morning and tell yourself you're not behind and amoral hypocritical power grab because your side can't win the popular vote anymore.

Were the courts from the 1940s-early 1970s packed in favor of the liberals , as for much of the period you had 6-3 or 7-2 courts in favor of liberals

No, because the Senate during that time never held a seat open out of spite against the incumbent President. The Democrats held the Senate for Decades, from the 50s the 80s, and they never denied a GOP President from filling a seat. Nor did they hold it open, until a Democrat won.

Look What Schumer said in 2007

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

If Stevens retired in 2008 the democrats would have blocked it according to Schumer unless Lieberman used his leverage of switching parties and thus giving the gop the majority, unless of course the nominee was a liberal.

I’m talking about reality, not hypotheticals. Had the Democrats done that, they would only be hypocrites if they went and confirmed one of Obama’s picks in 2012 or so. That’s literally the whole issue we have. Had McConnell allowed Obama to fill the seat in 2016, we wouldn’t be as outraged at this. Sure, we’d be saddened by Ginsburg’s death and the fact that Trump gets another SC appointment, but had they allowed Obama to make his pick you would not see as nearly the same amount of anger as you’re seeing now. The hypocrisy is what we hate.

[Attorney General & LGC Deputy Dwarven Dragon]

It's true that Schumer would have blocked a bush appointment in 2008, It's true that if Romney won the presidential election in 2012, dems would have blocked a nominee from him in 2016, and it's true that dems would be appointing a judge right now if we had President Hillary Clinton and Ginsburg somehow didn't retire right away in 2017.

Any evidence whatsoever behind any of those claims?

 Seriously dude, both sides ism is the most intellectually lazy form of argument if you can't back it up with specifics.

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

I see little reason to believe Schumer would have had a sudden change of heart in 2016 or 2020 if power was his.

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Wait both parties are hypocritical and keep switching their position except the GOP got lucky with the timing?

Keep telling yourself that. Whatever you have to do to get you through the night and be able to look at yourself in the mirror the next morning and tell yourself you're not behind and amoral hypocritical power grab because your side can't win the popular vote anymore.

Were the courts from the 1940s-early 1970s packed in favor of the liberals , as for much of the period you had 6-3 or 7-2 courts in favor of liberals

No, because the Senate during that time never held a seat open out of spite against the incumbent President. The Democrats held the Senate for Decades, from the 50s the 80s, and they never denied a GOP President from filling a seat. Nor did they hold it open, until a Democrat won.

Look What Schumer said in 2007

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

If Stevens retired in 2008 the democrats would have blocked it according to Schumer unless Lieberman used his leverage of switching parties and thus giving the gop the majority, unless of course the nominee was a liberal.

I’m talking about reality, not hypotheticals. Had the Democrats done that, they would only be hypocrites if they went and confirmed one of Obama’s picks in 2012 or so. That’s literally the whole issue we have. Had McConnell allowed Obama to fill the seat in 2016, we wouldn’t be as outraged at this. Sure, we’d be saddened by Ginsburg’s death and the fact that Trump gets another SC appointment, but had they allowed Obama to make his pick you would not see as nearly the same amount of anger as you’re seeing now. The hypocrisy is what we hate.

Actually, had Dems blocked a bush appointee in 2008, their backing of Garland in 2016 would be hypocritical, no further history changing needed.

Of course no such 2008 vacancy occurred but I have no reason to believe Schumer was lying. But let's not pretend either party has any moral high ground here.

[ProudModerate2]

It's true that Schumer would have blocked a bush appointment in 2008, It's true that if Romney won the presidential election in 2012, dems would have blocked a nominee from him in 2016, and it's true that dems would be appointing a judge right now if we had President Hillary Clinton and Ginsburg somehow didn't retire right away in 2017.

Any evidence whatsoever behind any of those claims?

 Seriously dude, both sides ism is the most intellectually lazy form of argument if you can't back it up with specifics.

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

I see little reason to believe Schumer would have had a sudden change of heart in 2016 or 2020 if power was his.

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Wait both parties are hypocritical and keep switching their position except the GOP got lucky with the timing?

Keep telling yourself that. Whatever you have to do to get you through the night and be able to look at yourself in the mirror the next morning and tell yourself you're not behind and amoral hypocritical power grab because your side can't win the popular vote anymore.

Were the courts from the 1940s-early 1970s packed in favor of the liberals , as for much of the period you had 6-3 or 7-2 courts in favor of liberals

No, because the Senate during that time never held a seat open out of spite against the incumbent President. The Democrats held the Senate for Decades, from the 50s the 80s, and they never denied a GOP President from filling a seat. Nor did they hold it open, until a Democrat won.

Look What Schumer said in 2007

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

If Stevens retired in 2008 the democrats would have blocked it according to Schumer unless Lieberman used his leverage of switching parties and thus giving the gop the majority, unless of course the nominee was a liberal.

Worry about what actually happened.
Some Senators publicly state strong opinions/positions.
And what he said does not automatically and defiantly translate to "what Democrats would have" done.

[OSR stands with Israel]

It's true that Schumer would have blocked a bush appointment in 2008, It's true that if Romney won the presidential election in 2012, dems would have blocked a nominee from him in 2016, and it's true that dems would be appointing a judge right now if we had President Hillary Clinton and Ginsburg somehow didn't retire right away in 2017.

Any evidence whatsoever behind any of those claims?

 Seriously dude, both sides ism is the most intellectually lazy form of argument if you can't back it up with specifics.

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

I see little reason to believe Schumer would have had a sudden change of heart in 2016 or 2020 if power was his.

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

Wait both parties are hypocritical and keep switching their position except the GOP got lucky with the timing?

Keep telling yourself that. Whatever you have to do to get you through the night and be able to look at yourself in the mirror the next morning and tell yourself you're not behind and amoral hypocritical power grab because your side can't win the popular vote anymore.

Were the courts from the 1940s-early 1970s packed in favor of the liberals , as for much of the period you had 6-3 or 7-2 courts in favor of liberals

No, because the Senate during that time never held a seat open out of spite against the incumbent President. The Democrats held the Senate for Decades, from the 50s the 80s, and they never denied a GOP President from filling a seat. Nor did they hold it open, until a Democrat won.

Look What Schumer said in 2007

https://www.politico.com/story/2007/07/schumer-to-fight-new-bush-high-court-picks-005146

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, a powerful member of the Democratic leadership, said Friday the Senate should not confirm another U.S. Supreme Court nominee under President Bush “except in extraordinary circumstances.”

“We should reverse the presumption of confirmation,” Schumer told the American Constitution Society convention in Washington. “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.”

If Stevens retired in 2008 the democrats would have blocked it according to Schumer unless Lieberman used his leverage of switching parties and thus giving the gop the majority, unless of course the nominee was a liberal.

Worry about what actually happened.
Some Senators publicly state strong opinions/positions.
And what he said does not automatically and defiantly translate to "what Democrats would have" done.

Reid was way way more of an obstructionist than Schumer so really unless Lieberman defects no way does Bush get an appointee through in 2008 .

[emailking]

Actually, had Dems blocked a bush appointee in 2008, their backing of Garland in 2016 would be hypocritical, no further history changing needed.

You're assuming they would have supported Garland in 2016, instead of say, taking a consistent position.

[Beet]

The Democrats need to be pulling out every stop in the book to oppose this. No unanimous consent, no approval of other judges, no COVID-19 package, if the confirmation is rammed through.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The Democrats need to be pulling out every stop in the book to oppose this. No unanimous consent, no approval of other judges, no COVID-19 package, if the confirmation is rammed through.

You had me until "no COVID-19 package". People are losing their homes and livelihoods, Beet.

[Beet]

The Democrats need to be pulling out every stop in the book to oppose this. No unanimous consent, no approval of other judges, no COVID-19 package, if the confirmation is rammed through.

You had me until "no COVID-19 package". People are losing their homes and livelihoods, Beet.

And people will lose the same if the right wing takes SCOTUS.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

The Democrats need to be pulling out every stop in the book to oppose this. No unanimous consent, no approval of other judges, no COVID-19 package, if the confirmation is rammed through.

You had me until "no COVID-19 package". People are losing their homes and livelihoods, Beet.

And people will lose the same if the right wing takes SCOTUS.

If Democrats delay COVID packages over SCOTUS, that will be remembered and Democrats are still held to different standards by the media and voting populace.

[acbtrain]

Both the "flight" and the "fight" to replace RBG is OVER!

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SAM722/history/20200926/1722Z/KSBN

"SAM" - Special Air Mission!

[acbtrain]

Both the "flight" and the "fight" to replace RBG is OVER!

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SAM722/history/20200926/1722Z/KSBN

"SAM" - Special Air Mission!

AP - "The angels delivered ACB, accompanied by her husband and seven children, to Washington D.C. today, to be seated with Christ on the SCOTUS, far above all principalities and powers of darkness."

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This will be her legacy, she was a great jurist, but her mentor Thurgood Marshall called it quits when his health was at stake, and she knew her own body and during Obama administration, she should have retired