Do you feel it's important to follow Ruth Bader Ginsberg's wishes?

I think the GOP doesn't care about any principles or ethics at all, their protests to the contrary are crocodile tears that they will turn their backs on whenever it is convenient to do so, and will at least try to gain additional power by going back on their previously stated principles and her wishes.

There's no use asking whether they should or shouldn't. They will because they can.

@mattbbpl: Well that's a non-answer if I ever heard one. Might be a good definitional example of "whataboutism" though.

This isn't about GOP policy. We know they're cutthroats, hypocrites, and liars. This is about what you think is good practice concerning following the unofficial wishes of appointed political figures after they're dead.

Personally, I think it sets a ridiculous and horrible precedent to place importance on the unofficial wishes of a political figure, especially a non-elected one. Treating it as a policy point is likely just self-serving political posturing.

@AfterShafter: I think her request is irrelevant. Ethics and consistency should be, but won't be.

Sorry, I'm not American. I can't not "let Trump have another justice" - if I did anything to affect that change, it would be interference in American politics. If I did it for the wrong side I'd probably get slagged as trying to interfere in an election.

And what's it with the "whataboutism" here? Do you people have trouble just stating clearly a "yes" or a "no" on whether we should place weight on this appointed official's wishes? Are they important to follow, or no? Come on people, enough with the "BUT TRUUMMMMPPPP!". Let us all know in clear and certain terms whether you think Americans should be treating her wishes as decisive for policy decisions. Frankly, for some reason, it seems like you don't want to give a straight answer and want to keep your position on this unclear. I suppose that does let you cherry pick which of her stances you think should be treated as political gospel...

Thank you. I agree - we should ignore her wishes.

I believe ethical integrity is hopeless in politics as long as we don't hold our own team accountable by being willing to not vote for them in the face of the bogeyman they create to make it seem like it's do or die, but it's still important. If we're more scared of the bad guy than our own people being scumbags, they really have no reason to be anything but scumbags. Votes cast for bad people out of fear for the other team are the biggest enemy of ethical integrity in modern democracies as it gives politicians an easy way to avoid consequences for bad behaviour.

What I'm finding interesting is that I'm seeing 3 to 1 so far for people who will (doubtlessly) be against court packing if the Democrats decide to do it. People care to identify how they're voting? So far I'm the only one who has voted "no."

Packing the court is just another escalation in the fight over control of the court, so yeah I think it is a bad idea regardless of what RBG said.

The court looks partisan not because of the court itself, but because the nomination process is hopelessly flawed to begin with.

But I think the primary reason we are here is because of the Merrick Garland nomination. That's what set this whole thing going. Tradition only goes so far, and it is going to go less far from here on out.

Justices should be limited to something like 12 years, and nominations should require a vote by the Senate within a time limit, otherwise the nomination becomes final.

@MK245: What’s wrong with the process?

Oh, you gave an answer I missed? Awesome! Let's go back up and see what it was...

Wait, there's no answer in here. First paragraph - attack on me. Second paragraph, whining about Trump, attack on me. Third, musings on elected VS appointed and then you say the courts shouldn't be stacked but you haven't actually said what you think about the importance of her wishes. In fact, the start of that paragraph VS the end makes it quite a confused statement.

Nope, still no clear answer. Feel free to give one any time. Or just complain about me some more. Whatever floats your boat.

So, what banned poster are you? What got you banned?

Yes, and no

Yes, because she was progressive in the best way possible. I don't think people really realize just how much she moved society forward, especially for women (prior to RBG's decisions and efforts, women were essentially half-citizens....couldn't get a loan, couldn't buy a house, etc).

No, because she is dead, and we are alive. No disrespect intended, but if we honored the wishes of the dead unconditionally, we would be going forward. Honoring the wishes of the dead, specifically the founding fathers, in a literal sense is what is holding back a lot of progress in this country.

Not a bad answer at all. I am a bit curious - what types of wishes are you referring to here? Their wishes as in their stated wishes in an unofficial capacity, or their wishes as in the governing documents they produced?

"On February 23, the 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee signed a letter to Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell stating their unprecedented intention to withhold consent on any nominee made by President Obama, and that no hearings would occur until after January 20, 2017, when the next president took office.”

That's what is wrong with the process. It should have to go to a Senate vote or the nomination becomes final.

I am referring specifically to literalists.

I am not inherently anti-gun, but the Second Amendment is a good example of taking what dead people said and holding on to it for dear life. Bill of Rights says A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed and so people think it is applicable to today, when the fact is a.) we just fought a war for freedom back then, b.) the average firearm was a musket that shot about three times a minute (if you were good), and c.) there was still a lot of frontier left and citizens needed protection from bear attacks, hostile American Indians, and also to hunt for food.

None of that is either true today or applies to today. And when you argue against it, people don't want to think of reason or facts or truth, they think of the founding fathers and warp it into an emotional issue or they argue the slippery slope and say "Oh well why don't we just change all the Amendments" which is a.) also emotional (fear) and b.) sort of the point of an Amendment....they can be amended.

It's ironic, because the founding fathers were very smart and they intended for the Bill of Rights to be future proof by allowing for the Amendments to be amended but here we have people saying we need to keep things the same as they were 200+ years ago.

I'd say most Americans wouldn't want to pack the courts in either direction.

@AfterShafter:

Try a little better. I called out your hypocrisy and intentions while answering your question. You attacked me and called me alt. Don’t worry, I deleted the comments that hurt you.

Continue to ignore that I answered your question. Unlike what you did in my thread, where you derailed it.

It is every bit as applicable today as it was before. The founding fathers knew what they were doing, and that is also why instead of putting in rules or limits on the 2A, they explicitly wrote that it shall not be infringed. It explicitly covers military weapons, whatever era that may be from. The founding fathers were even asked by citizens if it meant they could even own artillery. You can read many of their quotes in the link below. I am not even sure why you are bringing this up in a thread about the Supreme Court, since it's not their job to pick and choose which laws they feel should exist or think are outdated, that's what activists like RBG would do. As long as the 2A is in the constitution, then it's their job to make sure it's not violated when a law is created in an attempt to do so.

https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers

@eoten: They also wanted it to be reworked every 25 years. The constitution is a living document. You update it fairly as need be.

The interpretations and protections of the constitution never change. You cannot decide to redefine what was written and why in hopes of legislating from the bench. It doesn't work that way. There is a process to editing the constitution, and the courts have nothing to do with that.

"RBG told Senate in 2016 to do ‘their job,’ replace Scalia before election"

oops.'

This is the bind I think a lot of people will find themselves in, and I'm (frankly) making fun of with this thread. If you want to take the stance of "We need to respect what that legendary civil right's activist RBG wanted" then you'll find yourself in a host of conflicted positions. For one, she has presented the contradictory position you're pointing at ("it's the president's job" vs "I don't want my seat filled"). She has also made a statement (quoted in the OP) undercutting the Dem's next power play, which I'm sure they'll want to play off on moral grounds. Many people were likely getting all prepped up to say "I respect RBG's wishes - unlike the Republicans!" but old Ruth already crapped in that pool.

How many very left leaning posters came in here thinking "Well we obviously have to respect her request to not be replaced until after the election!" only to actually have to stop and think about it when they saw the included quote?

If Republican hypocrisy bothers you and you answer it "Well, it's important to listen to RBG's wishes - but we're not going to and we're going to stack the court" then you're precisely what you hate. If dirty, hypocritical politics is part of the problem, RBG's various statements are going to make a lot of people who like to preach from the pulpit about ethics and consistency part of that problem as they cherry pick statements to honour.

But let's be honest - none of this is about respecting wishes. It's all about getting what you want. For both sides. Nobody is clean in this game. The ironic thing is that in a league of swamp monsters, the only one that everyone admits is dirty is Trump. Except him, that is... You have to laugh at what an audacious con man the guy is. (that's his "trusty Bible," by the way)

@AfterShafter: Oh, make no mistake. If Republicans move forward with confirming this seat, than I absolutely think stacking the court is fair game.

Well this didn't age well for the Democrats!

Honestly, I agree. The problem I'm pointing out is that if you want to "respect RBG's wishes" then you're a hypocrite if you hold this position, or you'll be doing Lindsey Graham style mental gymnastics. Not suggesting that's you - actually, there are a lot of thoughtful and earnest responses in this thread - but those people are out there.

This is power politics. Pretending like there is a politics of respect/civility in the U.S. at this point is usually a thinly veiled attempt to turn the idea of a politics of civility/respect into a bludgeon to club your political opponents until they do what you want. The last four years (possibly 12) have made this lack of civility/respect abundantly clear.

If people want to end that, they need to stop rewarding skeezy behaviour with votes. It's obvious that the Republican voters aren't doing it. What's less obvious, but just as true, is that Democrat voters aren't doing it either. As long as the below is the standard we hold our own political parties to on the issue of rewarding them with our votes, there is zero incentive for them to be civil, honest, consistent, or even decent:


(picture above - I really hate this forum's formatting)

@eoten: Not shocking you missed the point entirely. Like it or not, it is a living document that needs to constantly perfected and defined. Without this black people would still be slaves, women wouldn’t have the right to vote and gay would still be illegal. You can’t stop these challenges because you say so.

Wow. Crap like this is why the people voting Democrat need to wake up when they throw the term "hypocrite" around to refer to the other side. If consistency is a value you hold, you voting Democrat as they are rampant hypocrites only rewards them for being hypocrites and reinforces the behaviour. All the social media/Gamespot forum protestations about how much you dislike hypocrisy in politics is worth less than nothing in the face of a vote that rewards it.

It's a lot easier here in Canada. I can vote NDP if I don't like what the Liberals are doing and still be supporting a left leaning party. Doesn't matter that it's a binary choice in the US (though it likely wouldn't be if people just voted their conscience) though. You either vote to support bad behaviour masquerading as good behaviour, or you don't. Most of you who hold your noses and vote Dem are precisely the reason the party is full of cutthroats and liars.

All of this is true of Republicans too, but I think a vote for Trump was a pretty clear statement of "Yeah, moral character isn't something that I'm too concerned with." Democrat voters need to either own up to that themselves, or actually vote for character/consistency/honesty rather than rewarding these cynical political actors for pissing down their back and telling them it's raining.

@AfterShafter:

There's both a time difference and sequence of events difference there. but I agree with

your end conclusion: There is no political civility and decorum remaining. All that remains is power politics.

You're not wrong to point out that details do matter. The Republican official response to Garland's nomination (what I'm assuming you're pointing at) was undeniably bad faith power politics, abusing a technicality for political advancement.

The conundrum is, if the Republicans crapped in the pool, do voters reward the Dems for doing something similar based on technicalities? The proper assessment of the situation is that all moral high ground is illusory, and civility/respect is dead in American politics. It's a show people put on to cast shade on the opposition. It's up to the voters holding politicians accountable to give it another shot at life. Politicians will abuse their voters the same way they abuse the system if they know their voters are too scared to vote against them.

It is all power politic in America now. Hell even Pelosi has come out and said she will try and impeach the president again if it stalls out the SCOTUS selection until next year. Seriously both parties are bat shit crazy and I find it hilarious that any American trust either side at this point. Hell Biden can't even get to a speech without screwing up. I mean how the hell do you screw up the pledge of allegiance?

I am seriously worried about this guy, his mind is not in good shape.

Courts have absolutely nothing to do with changes in the constitution. Their role is to enforce it when laws are made that violate it.

@eoten: And woosh. Learn your history, learn about Supreme Court cases that reinterpret the meaning as previous ones were deemed incorrect.

Stop being disagreeable and stop trying to change the intention of an entire wing of government to suit your needs.

That'll only result in more dems losing their seats, and the republicans that replace them doing the same. Republicans have every right to nominate and confirm a new judge for the Supreme Court. That's what the left gets for failure.

Applicable, yes. But not to be applied unconditionally and without moderation. And the whole problem with quoting the founding fathers is that it removes context from the discussion, so essentially you just go "No, doesn't matter, founding fathers said it, so it is gospel LA LA LA LA CAN"T HEAR YOU!"

As for why I am bringing this up, we are talking about listening to the wishes of dead people; that is the topic of the thread.

*sigh* Long read below, but whatever it's COVID not like most of us have anything better to do than write essays...

-------------------------------------------------

Concerning the quotes (Funny how most of these quotes are Thomas Jefferson. America's first gun nut, perhaps?):

"A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..."

- George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790

Disciplined is what we lack as a nation. The whole reason for the second amendment was to establish an organized and trained militia. None of that is done. Most "militias" are essentially clubs for white supremacist's and anti-government nut jobs.

As for discipline? HAHAHAHHAHAHAHA. Does a nation well-known for school shootings appear disciplined? Mass shootings? Frequent accidental shootings? Individuals owning like 30 guns?

We are as disciplined with our firearms here in the US as a fat man would be disciplined with a free Doordash-for-life card, a chronic drunk driver with a stable of fast cars and infinite booze, and so on....we are not disciplined, we are gluttonous with our guns.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."

- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776

I never said we should be, nor do pretty much most of the people when they speak of gun reform. Unfortunately the media, as usual, tends to cover either the gun nuts or the anti-gun nuts.

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

Of course he would say such a dramatic statement, the man owned 600+ slaves! If slavery is an every-day fact of life for you, then naturally your beliefs would be slavery-centric. But that simply doesn't apply to most people.

If I was shot, of course I'd say people should be armed to protect against being shot. But most people are not shot.

I would prefer we take the middle ground of freedom and peace. Peace doesn't need to cost us what it does, and freedom doesn't need to include what we don't need.

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."

- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

Again, different times. The nation had literally just fought a war for independence, so naturally the feeling at the time was "hold on to your guns, the Brits just might come back".

Of course the irony here in the present day is that people are protesting mostly peacefully against government wrongdoings, but then when the occasional violence occurs you folks on the right/conservative-side of things are quick to condemn violence.

....and yet when it comes to guns, you run back to this sentimentality about needing them to protect us against the government.

So...which is it? We can use violence against the government or we can't?

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Thankfully we have police presence pretty much everywhere now, so the above is moot. Also he is quoting someone from the early 18th century, I don't think much from then applies to now. They didn't have surveillance, quick response times, modern medicine...basically they had to watch their own ass back then, nowadays we do not.

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785

lol what? Guns as exercise? And it gives....boldness?

This just might be the first quote giving notion to the idea of the gun as an extension of the dick, and to empower the unsure, unconfident, and meek with false bravery.

Thomas Jefferson, you slave-banging gun-loving nut....crazy bastard.

....there's like a million other quotes from Jefferson that essentially boil down to "Guns are good, keep them on you at all times, the government is coming to get you, freedom freedom freedom blah blah blah" so I will quote some other important people.

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

This is literally in reference to a tax dispute, it has NOTHING to do with firearms. Remember, we are taking things literally here, so if it's not about guns it's not about guns :P

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them."

- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788

Again, very few people are talking about disarming. Most just want sensible gun laws.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

Back then? No one. So they had to do it themselves.

Now? The Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, National Guard/s, Coast Guard, and so on....not to mention local law enforcement. So in that respect, people don't really need to be armed.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

1. I never said they should be infringed.

2. We are not a well-regulated anything.

3. We are not trained to arms

4. And none of this is done in the natural defense of the country, if anything it is done to harm the country.

-------------------------------------

It all comes down to context in the end.

I agree with the overall sentiment of the second amendment. If kids in the US had to do some form of public service for three years when they graduated high school--join the military, a public works organization, or something else along those lines--then I would be totally fine with the second amendment. We could be like some European countries where just about every household has a trained citizen with a machine gun.

But we are not. We are undisciplined. Untrained. We take things for granted and abuse some rights while denying them to others.

We have abused and squandered this right and until we get it in order I think we need to take steps to curtail it. People need to appreciate it, not spoil it.

The very example right here, where I literally said I am not anti-gun, I am pro-2nd Amendment, and yet you felt the need to come in here and lecture me about gun rights, is a good example of the extremism people take things to in this country.

No room for moderates and common sense, apparently...

@mrbojangles25: - informative and thought provoking. Thanks for the read.

@eoten: So Republicans can violate the law and their own opinions just to piss off liberals?

You ignore quotes from the founders, then attempt to take what they said out of context to suit a narrative. That's exactly why the US needs judges on the Supreme Court to stick to what the laws intended and accomplished, not attempt to redefine them. Disciplined means trained, and without weapons, you cannot train with them. This is why the 2A is worded as it is.

And before anyone says so, no, the militia isn't the national guard, and "well regulated" does not mean with lots of rules and restrictions. How do we know this? Simple, by reading the quotes and publications of those who wrote it.

Oh, a political arms race, you say?

****ing bring it. The alternative is the GOP continuing to engage in one while the Dems insist on taking the high road.

The dems have NEVER taken the high road. They've only ever called for compromise and working together when they lack power. And the moment they get any power, they change the rules. Or did you forget about that whole "back of the bus" crap? How ACA was passed, or Republicans being denied their rights as members of the intelligence and judicial committees to interview the alleged whistleblower? There was never any high road. They can get pissy and whine about it, but there's a reason they don't hold the power to do much of anything. The American people just don't want them to.

How was the ACA passed?

means nothing, she could say whatever she wants, doesnt change the legal system or the process. Senate votes on it

If the GOP pushes through a candidate? F*ck it, load the courts up. The dems should use legal tools at their dispoal to win. The GOP has been using sh*t tactics for years to game the system in their favor, join them in their own game.

@HoolaHoopMan: yes join them in playing the legal process lol

Last wishes are not in the Constitution. Supreme court seats are decided with the advice and consent of Congress, not by the final wishes of the previous seat holder.

Let's not pretend even for a second that if the tables were turned (Democratic president and a Democratic majority in the Senate) people would give a crap about so-called last wishes if it was Clarence Thomas that died.

What a silly question. No where in the constitution does it say anything about a judge’s death bed wishes must be reconnized.

It does say it’s the sitting president’s duty to fill the spot upon approval from the senate.

Something can be legal but against precedent (and also immoral). These two are not mutually exclusive. Stacking the court is certainly legal but it will most certainly put forth a precedent which may get very ugly. The same could be said about Jerry Mandering, filibustering, voter disenfranchisement, etc.

shh.. you're not allowed to say that.

the system is 100% and has always been and will always be. if you believe otherwise, you're an america-hating pig


wanting to improve our country and our government is now anti-americanism.

go figure.

What is hilarious is the democrats saying they will try and impeach Trump again if he tries to get a justice confirmed. Holy shit everyone is losing their damn minds. Just try and impeach someone from doing something they have every right to do. 2020 can't get any damn weirder I guess.

I think if the Democrats pulled something like this it would only help Trump in the election. This will not be a good look for the Democrats, but the drunk Pelosi doesn't seem to care.

@Xabiss: It wouldn't be impeachment for this, it would be for impeachable actions he's committed but used as a procedural move to block the nomination since those take precedence.

Isn't the reasoning behind it that it will basically tie up the Senate and prevent the proceedings for the SCOTUS pick? If they had a good reason for impeachment, they should be impeaching - bar none. Now the plan is to basically use it as a political ploy? In an interview with Sefanopolous (or whatever it is), he said:

"“Some have mentioned the possibility if they try to push through a nominee in a lame-duck session that you and the House can move to impeach President Trump or Attorney General Barr as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting on this nomination,”"

Her response was something about all the arrows being in the quiver or some such.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/nancy-pelosi-wont-rule-out-impeachment-to-block-trump-scotus-pick

You hear Ocasio Cortez echoing this in the little press deal with Schumer.

AOC echoed the possibility of pursuing impeachment charges Sunday saying there has been 'an enormous amount of lawbreaking' under Trump's watch and branding Barr 'unfit for office'.

'I believe that certainly there has been an enormous amount of lawbreaking in the Trump administration,' she said, when asked about impeachment.

'I believe Attorney General Bill Barr is unfit for office and that he has pursued potentially law-breaking behaviors.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8754265/AOC-Schumer-say-options-table-stall-Trumps-nomination-including-impeachment.html

If these people are such law breakers, why aren't impeachments being pursued right bloody now? Of course, after how the last BS impeachment went, I can see how they're leery of basically making one up.

The Democrats have come pretty close to admitting that impeachment is on the table as a political tool for them. Doesn't even need a good reason - not one they're willing to pursue on its own merits - just something to use to try and run out the clock on something which Trump and the Senate are entirely within their rights to do.

They pull crap like this, they're just going to bump Trump's numbers up... Like they did during the last farce of an impeachment:

"Trump approval rating hits new high in Gallup poll, despite impeachment trial"

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/02/04/trump-approval-hits-new-high-in-gallup-poll-despite-impeachment.html

Yes, the last impeachment was such a blatant political ploy that it actually generated sympathy for Mr. "Grab 'em by the ****sy." That's how much like scummy career politicians the Democrats looked trying to impeach the guy.

It's pretty clear that Trump has been a borderline crook for most of his career and has the ethical character of a prostitute who needs money, but he doesn't rely on appearing to be the moral one (evidently) to win. The Dems are. They'd better not pull back the curtain on that whole act on that before the election.