Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Ruth Bader Ginsberg
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 25 (882430)
09-23-2020 11:48 AM


Lame Duck
It is highly unlikely that RBG could be replaced before the election on account that it would go down as a lame duck session

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by AZPaul3, posted 09-23-2020 1:15 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 25 (882439)
09-23-2020 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by AZPaul3
09-23-2020 1:15 PM


Re: Lame Duck
"Lame duck session" means nothing. It is a social construct without any Constitutional meaning or affect. The Senate can meet and conduct business all it wants until noon January 3rd when the Constitution requires the next elected congress be seated. There are no bars to its legal actions during any part of its legal session whether before or after the election.
Confirming before or after the election means nothing since lame duck means nothing.
Its a long process to include lengthy confirmation hearings. Yes, its theoretically possible to ram it through but I'm sure the Democrats are smart enough to know how to stonewall it. As Pelosi stated, they have arrows in their quiver

"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by AZPaul3, posted 09-23-2020 1:15 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by AZPaul3, posted 09-23-2020 2:05 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 25 (882441)
09-23-2020 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by AZPaul3
09-23-2020 2:05 PM


Re: Lame Duck
But remember who is in charge. The Republicans can change and set ANY rules they so desire any time. Their confirmation hearings DO NOT have to be long or even be at all. The constitution does NOT require hearings, lengthy or otherwise. The Republicans can short circuit the processes in any way they desire and the Democrats have no power to stop them.
So let's suppose you are correct and Trump does appoint a nominee. In years past some Justices have been every bit the nightmare that the opposition believed them to be. Some, like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy, have become moderate, swing votes who don't seem to explicitly pander to any particular partisan view... which is ideally what the law proscribes.
There are reasons to think that the following list are front-runners. Of this group, rank from the least bad to absolute nightmare scenario.
  • Thomas Hardiman
  • William Pryor
  • Diane Sykes
  • Amul Thapar
  • Don Willett
  • Raymond Kethledge
  • Amy Coney-Barrett
  • Barbara Lagoa
    Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

    "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 16 by AZPaul3, posted 09-23-2020 2:05 PM AZPaul3 has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 18 by AZPaul3, posted 09-23-2020 6:37 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024