Will Trump be able to get a justice to replace RBG before the next inaguaration?

[Parasaurolophus]

Just to be picky (I agree all are a problem), only the house effect is due to "gerrymandering" (and then only partly, since 7 states have only 1 representative, and some more of this effect is due to where people  live rather than where district lines are drawn), unless you count state lines as a gerrymander. The deeper problem (or feature, depending on your values and goals) is that low-population states are over-represented.

Thanks for the correction!

[mamselle]

Let's not forget that this "compact between the States" means that the country is not a true democracy, meaning a country in which every vote has equal weight.

I thank God for it.  May He bless the memory of the brilliant slaveholders who made it so.

Also, it now appears that Romney is backing the vote, which means the vote will succeed barring disaster.  Get your rape allegations ready.  My prediction is that Trump nominates Barbara Lagoa, and she turns out to be David Souter 2.0.

Please stop bantering this phrase about as if it were a casual reference.

For those of us who have had personal experience of rape, and/or know others who have, it's truly upsetting.

Find another meme by which to represent your derogation of those who oppose your political and social viewpoints.

Please.

M.

[financeguy]

The degree to which something is "upsetting" is not a measure of accuracy. Many of us are quite upset to see people railroaded with no due process as people actively say "believe all women."  That's the price of ignoring due process and constantly using these accusations as a weapon at the 11th hour.

[writingprof]

The degree to which something is "upsetting" is not a measure of accuracy. Many of us are quite upset to see people railroaded with no due process as people actively say "believe all women."  That's the price of ignoring due process and constantly using these accusations as a weapon at the 11th hour.

Indeed.  However, I shall try to remember to go with "r-pe" in the future.

[jimbogumbo]

The degree to which something is "upsetting" is not a measure of accuracy. Many of us are quite upset to see people railroaded with no due process as people actively say "believe all women."  That's the price of ignoring due process and constantly using these accusations as a weapon at the 11th hour.

Indeed.  However, I shall try to remember to go with "r-pe" in the future.

Again, why? So you two are "upset". I'm upset about soldiers suffering from PTSD, but I'm confident that is nothing as to how they feel. The two of you have interesting perspectives, but you are also behaving like asses.

[writingprof]

The degree to which something is "upsetting" is not a measure of accuracy. Many of us are quite upset to see people railroaded with no due process as people actively say "believe all women."  That's the price of ignoring due process and constantly using these accusations as a weapon at the 11th hour.

Indeed.  However, I shall try to remember to go with "r-pe" in the future.

Again, why? So you two are "upset". I'm upset about soldiers suffering from PTSD, but I'm confident that is nothing as to how they feel. The two of you have interesting perspectives, but you are also behaving like asses.

Why what?  I want to understand your comment but cannot.

[jimbogumbo]

The degree to which something is "upsetting" is not a measure of accuracy. Many of us are quite upset to see people railroaded with no due process as people actively say "believe all women."  That's the price of ignoring due process and constantly using these accusations as a weapon at the 11th hour.

Indeed.  However, I shall try to remember to go with "r-pe" in the future.

Why do you go (in my opinion of course) out of your way with comments like r-ape to be offensive? Why do you call Ginsburg a eugenicist when she clearly wasn't, and so soon after her death? I know you are smart, have interesting perspective even when I don't agree with them, but insist on making borderline trollish statements?

Being a eugenicist is not equal to believing abortion is lawful. We both know that, but you imply it.

And, anyone who has been paying attention knows that neither party in Congress has been especially consistent over the years, especially when it come to the Supreme Court.

Again, why? So you two are "upset". I'm upset about soldiers suffering from PTSD, but I'm confident that is nothing as to how they feel. The two of you have interesting perspectives, but you are also behaving like asses.

Why what?  I want to understand your comment but cannot.

[financeguy]

jim, if you believe that those of us who think accusations are accusations until they are proven are "behaving like asses" you obviously value the feelings of one person over the rights of another. To me it's easy to decide which one of those is more important. Some people may be uncomfortable but that's a result of the fact that there is uncertainty in the world rather than the degree to which I may or may not be agreeable.

[kaysixteen]

WRT the Canadian SC, I see that the PM has sole appt power, but 1) are such seats term-limited 2) mandatory retirement?

Also, I read yesterday, in an op-ed piece by a law professor-type, a Democrat, who was arguing that the Democratic congress should use a long-disused Constitutional authority to limit SCOTUS' ability to rule on certain issues, that the Canadian Charter has something called a 'notwithstanding clause', which allows not only the Federal Parliament but even the provincial parliaments to disregard the Canadian SC's rulings?  Is this accurate?

[marshwiggle]

WRT the Canadian SC, I see that the PM has sole appt power, but 1) are such seats term-limited 2) mandatory retirement?

Also, I read yesterday, in an op-ed piece by a law professor-type, a Democrat, who was arguing that the Democratic congress should use a long-disused Constitutional authority to limit SCOTUS' ability to rule on certain issues, that the Canadian Charter has something called a 'notwithstanding clause', which allows not only the Federal Parliament but even the provincial parliaments to disregard the Canadian SC's rulings?  Is this accurate?

Retirement from the Supreme Court is at 75, as I recall. The "notwithstanding clause" recognizes that there are times when restrictions on individual rights are needed for the good of society. It has been rarely used, and I believe there is a 5-year limit for the federal government, so the issue would have to come back before parliament after 5 years.

Others here can correct any errors in my understanding.
 

[writingprof]

jim, if you believe that those of us who think accusations are accusations until they are proven are "behaving like asses" you obviously value the feelings of one person over the rights of another. To me it's easy to decide which one of those is more important. Some people may be uncomfortable but that's a result of the fact that there is uncertainty in the world rather than the degree to which I may or may not be agreeable.

This is correct.  The idea that Mamselle (or anyone) must be kept "safe" from references to rape on a political discussion thread, in a nation where rape accusations are used as a political weapon, is absurd.  It's a free forum; those who are triggered so easily needn't visit.  Furthermore, can we please not operate under the assumption that the whole "triggering" thing is, you know, true?  In actuality, it is yet another political weapon in which the currency of victimhood is used to silence one's opponents.

[little bongo]

Being concerned for the rights of the accused is not an "ass" position, by any means.

"Get your rape allegations ready" is an ass thing to say.

"I shall try to remember to go with 'r-pe' in the future" is an ass thing to say.

Mocking anyone's genuine distress over a too-flippant reference to rape and sexual assault is an ass thing to do.

It's a bit like lighting a bag of sh-t, throwing it on my porch, and then mocking me when I object to it: "It's absurd for you to be upset about sh-t, because there is sh-t in the world."

Clear?

[jimbogumbo]

jim, if you believe that those of us who think accusations are accusations until they are proven are "behaving like asses" you obviously value the feelings of one person over the rights of another. To me it's easy to decide which one of those is more important. Some people may be uncomfortable but that's a result of the fact that there is uncertainty in the world rather than the degree to which I may or may not be agreeable.

Being concerned for the rights of the accused is absolutely not being an ass, and I in no way believe that. I also don't think I said it.

What I'm taking issue with is the idea that my being concerned about it in any way equates with the experience and after effects of people who have experienced rape, or the situations in combat that lead to PTSD. I am indeed concerned and upset by those things, as well as for those who have been wrongly accused or convicted. I apologize if I made that point badly.

[mythbuster]

New question. Anyone think it's possible that Trump might get turned down by some on his preferred list? Being the nominee would cause upheaval and be a huge security concern for that person's entire family. I'm not saying he won't find someone. I'm just wondering if some might take a pass to avoid the constant harassment that could result for years to come.

[clean]

No. 
If asked, the reason to turn it down would not be security.  It would be the 'Borking' that would make the job not worth it, i would think.