Author Topic: Will Trump be able to get a justice to replace RBG before the next inaguaration?  (Read 3282 times)

writingprof

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
This analysis relieves me, for I, too, am most interested in a repeat performance of the Kavanaugh hearings, for pure entertainment value, of course.

Yes.  And may I request in advance that whoever makes the rape allegation this time have that same creepy-hilarious Christine Blasey Ford voice?  Best-case scenario: A tearful Amy Coney Barrett fends off assault charges made by Minnie Mouse.

mahagonny

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1473
To the contrary, the Constitution doesn't list ANY qualifications. Not even citizenship.

Harriet Miers?

Abortion becomes illegal and the black population grows proportionately?
« Last Edit: September 19, 2020, 04:49:38 PM by mahagonny »
'I'm not talking. It just don't pay.' - Mose Allison

(note to self - delete signature line)

writingprof

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
Abortion becomes illegal and the black population grows proportionately?

Well, it would, so there's that. 

Indeed, one of noted eugenicist RBG's most ridiculous moments was making that exact connection as part of a defense of Roe!  "Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe vs. Wade] was decided . . . there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of." 

Ah, yes, let's support abortion because it kills the poor, a disproportionate number of which are "B"lack.  That's what I call progressive.

mahagonny

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1473
Abortion becomes illegal and the black population grows proportionately?

Well, it would, so there's that. 

Indeed, one of noted eugenicist RBG's most ridiculous moments was making that exact connection as part of a defense of Roe!  "Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe vs. Wade] was decided . . . there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of." 

Ah, yes, let's support abortion because it kills the poor, a disproportionate number of which are "B"lack.  That's what I call progressive.

When i was a kid the population explosion was in so many discussions.
'I'm not talking. It just don't pay.' - Mose Allison

(note to self - delete signature line)

dismalist

  • Hardly a
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Often wrong, never in doubt.
  • CHE Posts: 1513
Just to put some perspective on the so-called population explosion: If every four people on the planet, mimicking a family of four, were allocated a quarter acre, mimicking a decent US suburban homestead, we would need the area of three Texas'!

There's plenty 'o room, peoples. :-)
We have met the enemy, and they is us.
--Pogo

mahagonny

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1473
Seriously, how many conservatives care about abortion? Don't some of them use the issue to call people immoral, or as leverage to get other things they want? (And I'm not saying abortion isn't immoral) If you were to tell all of them 'OK we're gonna change the law. Abortion will be illegal.' How would people deal with the prospect of that.

Just to put some perspective on the so-called population explosion: If every four people on the planet, mimicking a family of four, were allocated a quarter acre, mimicking a decent US suburban homestead, we would need the area of three Texas'!

There's plenty 'o room, peoples. :-)

But isn't it a local issue? Like say in Haiti where the whole ecosystem is a mess because of too many people and no good ways to cope with so many living in such limited space and bad conditions?
'I'm not talking. It just don't pay.' - Mose Allison

(note to self - delete signature line)

ciao_yall

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 851
Seriously, how many conservatives care about abortion? Don't some of them use the issue to call people immoral, or as leverage to get other things they want? (And I'm not saying abortion isn't immoral) If you were to tell all of them 'OK we're gonna change the law. Abortion will be illegal.' How would people deal with the prospect of that.

They don't because they know they can get one any time they want. Everyone in a certain social class knows a doctor with some special equipment.

dismalist

  • Hardly a
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Often wrong, never in doubt.
  • CHE Posts: 1513
Seriously, how many conservatives care about abortion? Don't some of them use the issue to call people immoral, or as leverage to get other things they want? (And I'm not saying abortion isn't immoral) If you were to tell all of them 'OK we're gonna change the law. Abortion will be illegal.' How would people deal with the prospect of that.

Just to put some perspective on the so-called population explosion: If every four people on the planet, mimicking a family of four, were allocated a quarter acre, mimicking a decent US suburban homestead, we would need the area of three Texas'!

There's plenty 'o room, peoples. :-)

But isn't it a local issue? Like say in Haiti where the whole ecosystem is a mess because of too many people and no good ways to cope with so many living in such limited space and bad conditions?

Haiti has the same population density as The Netherlands. There are many problems, but population or population density, even locally, is not one of them.

A rule of thumb about facts may help: High density places can be rich or poor. Low density places are poor.
We have met the enemy, and they is us.
--Pogo

mahagonny

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1473
Seriously, how many conservatives care about abortion? Don't some of them use the issue to call people immoral, or as leverage to get other things they want? (And I'm not saying abortion isn't immoral) If you were to tell all of them 'OK we're gonna change the law. Abortion will be illegal.' How would people deal with the prospect of that.

They don't because they know they can get one any time they want. Everyone in a certain social class knows a doctor with some special equipment.

But I think some do on principle. I know a Catholic woman who had a child she had not planned to have. Some people cannot stand to do abortion.
'I'm not talking. It just don't pay.' - Mose Allison

(note to self - delete signature line)

jimbogumbo

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 244
Seriously, how many conservatives care about abortion? Don't some of them use the issue to call people immoral, or as leverage to get other things they want? (And I'm not saying abortion isn't immoral) If you were to tell all of them 'OK we're gonna change the law. Abortion will be illegal.' How would people deal with the prospect of that.

Just to put some perspective on the so-called population explosion: If every four people on the planet, mimicking a family of four, were allocated a quarter acre, mimicking a decent US suburban homestead, we would need the area of three Texas'!

There's plenty 'o room, peoples. :-)

But isn't it a local issue? Like say in Haiti where the whole ecosystem is a mess because of too many people and no good ways to cope with so many living in such limited space and bad conditions?

Haiti has the same population density as The Netherlands. There are many problems, but population or population density, even locally, is not one of them.

A rule of thumb about facts may help: High density places can be rich or poor. Low density places are poor.

Low density like the USA?

dismalist

  • Hardly a
  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 452
  • Often wrong, never in doubt.
  • CHE Posts: 1513
Nah, more disaggregated, and world-wide. There's lots of other stuff to be held constant, such as natural resources, and so on.

We have met the enemy, and they is us.
--Pogo

mythbuster

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 257
Mr. Buster's hypothesis is they nominate but wait till after the election to confirm. This allows the senators in tight election races some cover, then they can vote without fear of repercussions during the lame duck session. This works especially well if the senate vote comes before the national election results are confirmed. The wrench in the works for this plan is the seat in AZ, which is really a special election. If Mark Kelly wins, he could be seated by December 1.

writingprof

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 459
Mr. Buster's hypothesis is they nominate but wait till after the election to confirm. This allows the senators in tight election races some cover, then they can vote without fear of repercussions during the lame duck session. This works especially well if the senate vote comes before the national election results are confirmed.

I like it!

The wrench in the works for this plan is the seat in AZ, which is really a special election. If Mark Kelly wins, he could be seated by December 1.

I like it less.

mahagonny

  • Distinguished Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1473
Mr. Buster's hypothesis is they nominate but wait till after the election to confirm. This allows the senators in tight election races some cover, then they can vote without fear of repercussions during the lame duck session. This works especially well if the senate vote comes before the national election results are confirmed.

I like it!

The wrench in the works for this plan is the seat in AZ, which is really a special election. If Mark Kelly wins, he could be seated by December 1.

I like it less.

But how could Mitch McConnell accept that kind of scheming when he believes it's the people who should get the Supreme Court Justice they want?

"Feb. 16, 2016: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, write an opinion piece in the Washington Post, saying the nation has a "unique opportunity" to make an impact on the court by filling it along with the timeline of voting for a new president, "as they decide who they trust to both lead the country and nominate the next Supreme Court justice."

"(Democrats would) rather the Senate simply push through yet another lifetime appointment by a president on his way out the door," they write.

"Given that we are in the midst of the presidential election process, we believe that the American people should seize the opportunity to weigh in on whom they trust to nominate the next person for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court," they conclude. "It is today the American people, rather than a lame-duck president whose priorities and policies they just rejected in the most-recent national election, who should be afforded the opportunity to replace Justice Scalia."  -  McConnell, a few short years ago. Source: USA Today

But wait, you say, Trump is not a lame duck president. But then there is this:
"Roughly half of U.S. adults (51%) say the outcome of the Senate trial should be Trump’s removal from office, while 46% say the result should lead to Trump remaining in office."  - Pew Research Center

So we don't have the president we want, today. We have the one the republican senate wants.

'I'm not talking. It just don't pay.' - Mose Allison

(note to self - delete signature line)

Cheerful

  • Senior Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
Part of McConnell's RBG statement on Friday:

"In the last midterm election before Justice Scalia’s death in 2016, Americans elected a Republican Senate majority because we pledged to check and balance the last days of a lame-duck president’s second term. We kept our promise. Since the 1880s, no Senate has confirmed an opposite-party president’s Supreme Court nominee in a presidential election year.

By contrast, Americans reelected our majority in 2016 and expanded it in 2018 because we pledged to work with President Trump and support his agenda, particularly his outstanding appointments to the federal judiciary. Once again, we will keep our promise.

President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate."

https://www.republicanleader.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/mcconnell-statement-on-the-passing-of-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg