Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by Fnord666 on Sunday September 27 2020, @05:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the hypocrisy dept.

Amy Coney Barrett: Who is Trump's Supreme Court pick?:

Amy Coney Barrett's nomination to the US Supreme Court comes as little surprise.

[...] Donald Trump - who as sitting president gets to select nominees - reportedly once said he was "saving her" for this moment: when elderly Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died and a vacancy on the nine-member court arose.

It took the president just over a week to fast-track the 48-year-old conservative intellectual into the wings. This is his chance to tip the court make-up even further to the right ahead of the presidential election, when he could lose power.

Barrett's record on gun rights and immigration cases imply she would be as reliable a vote on the right of the court, as Ginsburg was on the left, according to Jonathan Turley, a professor of law at George Washington University.

"Ginsburg maintained one of the most consistent liberal voting records in the history of the court. Barrett has the same consistency and commitment," he adds. "She is not a work-in-progress like some nominees. She is the ultimate 'deliverable' for conservative votes."

And her vote, alongside a conservative majority, could make the difference for decades ahead, especially on divisive issues such as abortion rights and the Affordable Care Act (the Obama-era health insurance provider).

Barrett's legal opinions and remarks on abortion and gay marriage have made her popular with the religious right, but earned vehement opposition from liberals.

But as a devout Catholic, she has repeatedly insisted her faith does not compromise her work.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) is facing considerable controversy about his plans to move the nomination forward quickly:

"President Trump could not have made a better decision," Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., the majority leader, said in a statement. "Judge Amy Coney Barrett is an exceptionally impressive jurist and an exceedingly well-qualified nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States."

He added: "First, Judge Barrett built a reputation as a brilliant scholar at the forefront of the legal academy. Then she answered the call to public service. For three years on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, she has demonstrated exactly the independence, impartiality, and fidelity to our laws and Constitution that Americans need and deserve on their highest Court... As I have stated, this nomination will receive a vote on the Senate floor in the weeks ahead, following the work of the Judiciary Committee supervised by Chairman Graham."

This is in sharp contrast to McConnell's actions following US Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's passing away on February 13, 2016. McConnell waited less than 2 hours to make the first of 5 statements to urging delay in nominating a new Supreme Court justice:

The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president

That statement was made with 342 days (over 11 months) remaining in Obama's term as President. There are 124 days (just over 4 months) remaining before the end of Trump's term.

President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland to fill the vacancy. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) followed McConnell's lead and never allowed the confirmation process to begin. Thus, no nomination was ever brought to the Senate floor and thereby leaving the vacancy open.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2 3
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @05:55PM (141 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 27 2020, @05:55PM (#1057705) Journal

    President Obama made a nomination that was rejected by a hostile Senate.

    President Trump made a nomination that may be accepted by a friendly (or not hostile) Senate.

    The reasons given for rejection were all rhetorical bullshit. The reasons given for acceptance is also rhetorical bullshit. It all comes down to POWER. The democrat president lacked the power to force his choice through. The republican president has the power to see his choice pushed through.

    And Democrats are livid.

    Politics as usual, people. You may talk yourself hoarse, but it all comes down to power.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:06PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:06PM (#1057709)

      What a comforting thought. Take whatever you can get, suckers.

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:08PM (29 children)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:08PM (#1057711) Journal

      The circumstances were different, and the old tweets and soundbites can be easily weaponized against the Democrats.

      If you're against this nomination, prepare for disappointment. This is the result of losing two elections (counting 2018 Senate results). Although if 4 Republican Senators can be flipped and the other 47 don't break ranks, then the nomination could be defeated.

      I'm not sure we'll see court packing [thehill.com] after this, but there definitely needs to be term limits, even if it's something like 20-30 years. Otherwise you will see 40 to 50 year olds being nominated and fed anti-aging drugs so they can remain on SCOTUS even at age 150.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:10PM (8 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:10PM (#1057714)

        If anyone thinks SC justices are doing their best work into their 80s and die on the job, well let me offer you my grandparent's computer trouble-shooting advice for cheap.

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:43PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:43PM (#1057795)

          Look at the public reports of what medications are getting filled by the federal government for the 3 branches of government. A number of our top leaders are getting drugs for dementia and Alzheimer's, anti-psychotics, a surprising amount opiates, and other psychotropics. Now, I'm not saying that those should necessarily disqualify anyone from office because people can function just fine when managing their condition. However, people can also be in really bad shape and drugged up enough to appear functional. But thanks to almost zero transparency, we will never actually know which we have.

          Another thing about the geriatric deaths you mentioned, about a year to six months before that happens, there is usually a large and quite noticeable decline in patients. This includes their mental function and it can be quite obvious to everyone but said patient. The problem with politicians and judges is how insulated and protected they are, which means the normal ability to detect this decline is hidden from the public.

          • (Score: 2) by driverless on Monday September 28 2020, @12:43AM

            by driverless (4770) on Monday September 28 2020, @12:43AM (#1057939)

            Look at the public reports of what medications are getting filled by the federal government for the 3 branches of government. A number of our top leaders are getting drugs for dementia and Alzheimer's, anti-psychotics, a surprising amount opiates, and other psychotropics. Now, I'm not saying that those should necessarily disqualify anyone from office because people can function just fine when managing their condition. However, people can also be in really bad shape and drugged up enough to appear functional.

            Well I don't know, Hitler was pumped full of drugs [theguardian.com] in the same manner as he got older, and I'm pretty sure things worked out just fine for him, he died peacefully in his sleep while awaiting Russian guests.

        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:44PM (5 children)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:44PM (#1057825) Journal

          well let me offer you my grandparent's computer trouble-shooting advice for cheap.

          Hell, on that metric, we have to nominate six year olds. They'll do it for free, and your computer will run better than new

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:47PM (4 children)

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:47PM (#1057826) Journal

            The dog ate my "quote" tag

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
            • (Score: 5, Funny) by sjames on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:37PM (1 child)

              by sjames (2882) on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:37PM (#1057844) Journal

              Should have had a six year old look it over before submitting.

              • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:45PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:45PM (#1057851)

                Dog years, on the internet nobody knows.

            • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:34PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:34PM (#1057886)

              > The dog ate my "quote" tag

              And now you look like the kind of dipshit that needs my grandad's help.

              • (Score: 2, Funny) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:57PM

                by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:57PM (#1057914) Journal

                Thanks for the offer, but I can still shake it myself

                --
                La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:12PM (11 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:12PM (#1057715) Journal

        I have little problem with term limits. But, I would want to see those term limits apply to ALL BRANCHES AND ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. Start with the House and Senate - 12 years in office is long enough. If we get that, I'll go along with the proposal of limiting justices to 18 years as the Dems are talking about.

        Literally NOBODY should be in politics for 30 years. That starts with and includes city councils, right on up to the president. Thirty years, and you're out, you can never hold another office. No matter how long you have held other offices, you cannot sit in the House or Senate for more than 12 years.

        • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:54PM (8 children)

          by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:54PM (#1057830) Journal

          Nope, we already have term limits for all elected offices.

          --
          La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:02PM (7 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:02PM (#1057836) Journal

            Oh, really? What, exactly, is the term limit for congress critters?

            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:28PM (2 children)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:28PM (#1057841) Journal

              Whatever the voters want it to be. What could be more obvious?

              --
              La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:36PM (1 child)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:36PM (#1057843) Journal

                Unlike the President, who is limited to two 4-year terms. A VP who completed a president's term might get two additional 4-year terms, but that is it.

                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:49PM

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:49PM (#1057857) Journal

                  In congress you do term limits with your vote. Term limits does nothing about the incumbent party that just rotates in another clown, as the presidency clearly illustrates.

                  --
                  La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:31PM (3 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:31PM (#1057842) Journal
              You can stay in office till you lose an election. It's a pretty solid term limit.
              • (Score: 3, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:38PM (2 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:38PM (#1057846) Journal

                So, no limit, as long as you can still raise the money to buy your seat.

                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:53PM

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:53PM (#1057859) Journal

                  Oh that's bullshit! You have to buy votes! If you have a complaint, take it up with the people that sell their votes to their favorite sugar daddy. The system is a mirror, the people are the lamp

                  --
                  La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 28 2020, @12:15AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 28 2020, @12:15AM (#1057924) Journal
                  And people continue to vote for you. The catch is that you're not the only one who can raise the money to buy your seat. And if you're really unpopular, it's not going to take a lot of money.
        • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:13PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:13PM (#1057873)

          If only there were term limits for right-wing nut-job redneck hillbilly trolls on SoylentNews!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:37PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:37PM (#1057893)

            1000 post limits. Then you have to create a new sock. Yeah validate that email again bitches.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by jon3k on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:27PM (3 children)

        by jon3k (3718) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:27PM (#1057753)

        but there definitely needs to be term limits, even if it's something like 20-30 years.

        Already in the works [nationalreview.com].

        • (Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:56PM (2 children)

          by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:56PM (#1057764) Journal

          The bill would also cap the number of justices a president could nominate to two per term. It would also not apply to current Supreme Court justices.

          I don't think that bill is going anywhere. But if it does, "current Supreme Court justices" is a major loophole. The ~3 Trump has gotten can last for a lot longer than 18 years. Life extension could be on the table, especially for a 48-year-old Justice.

          --
          [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
          • (Score: 2) by legont on Monday September 28 2020, @01:15AM (1 child)

            by legont (4179) on Monday September 28 2020, @01:15AM (#1057956)

            Chances are, she will live forever. Singularity, remember?

            --
            "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:41AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:41AM (#1057974)

              > Chances are, she will live forever. SingularityRevelation, remember?

              FTFY

      • (Score: 2) by knarf on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:21PM

        by knarf (2042) on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:21PM (#1057877)

        Those age limits are there for a reason, so that retired judges can not be rewarded for their 'services' by giving them cushy positions in whatever next 'job' they may aspire. Were those anti-ageing drugs ever come to pass those 'donors' will simply find ways to 'convince' sitting judges to switch sides by carrot or stick.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @12:19AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @12:19AM (#1057925)

        Not true. The Republicans didn't even give Garland any hearings. There was no guarantee that the nominee would get through, but it was without precedence for the Senate to refuse to even go through the process of having the necessary meetings prior to declining to confirm the nominee. What's more, the Republicans were lying about precedence, the last time that a Supreme Court vacancy occurred during an election year was in the late 19th century. And it certainly was not allowed to go unfilled for nearly a year without even having hearings on nominees. That's something that the GOP made up because they didn't want to do their jobs.

        The fact of the matter is that if they had any integrity at all they would hold the same position they had when it was a Democrat in the White House.

        That being said, regardless of which party did the nominating, you can be sure they'd be terrible on elections, business and anything that the donors have an opinion on. The main difference is a few social issues that have been chosen to make it look like we have more than one party.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:43AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:43AM (#1057976)

          This came on the back of literally 100 bills to repeal Obamacare. Craven abdication of duty.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @11:06AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @11:06AM (#1058108)

          if they had any integrity at all

          Hell would have to freeze over first.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by looorg on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:39PM (67 children)

      by looorg (578) on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:39PM (#1057730)

      So they pretty much hate her cause Trump, and the Reps, likes her then? If the situation had been the reverse and there had been a Dem president and he had suggest the new Ginsburg clone they would all have loved her on that side of the aisle. Guess you can never place everyone. Sucks to be them but it's the system that is in place. If they could have done it last time they would have done it.

      They have not really talked that much about her over here but they seem to focus on that she is a devout catholic and have seven children. But apparently she was a brilliant student and became a brilliant and liked professor so she shouldn't be completely bat-shit-insane.

      If anything I find it interesting that they talk about it at all over here, after all most people here can't name a single person that sits on our own Supreme court -- but apparently it's super important to have an opinion about what Trump does and what happens in America.

      Not sure if it would be better if Trump would have put her in there after he wins re-election. I guess they would have been doubly mad then to cause it would have been two things that went against them.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @06:47PM (#1057736)

        But apparently she was a brilliant student and became a brilliant and liked professor so she shouldn't be completely bat-shit-insane.

        Intelligence has nothing to do with being bat-shit-insane.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:04PM (65 children)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:04PM (#1057741) Journal

        Barrett is obviously qualified for the job. To attack her nomination and most others, you have to admit that the Supreme Court is about politics, not law.

        Requiring a Senate supermajority to confirm judicial nominees could put a band-aid on this problem, forcing (perceived) moderates to be appointed even if the Presidency and Senate are controlled by the same party.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:32PM (50 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:32PM (#1057755)

          I find it always strange how these things run in the USA, as if trias politica isn't executed in a proper manner. If it would, there would be no reason to politicise the Supreme Court. Judges (including the Surpreme Court) should only judge based on what the law says and it is up to the law-making body to make sure new laws are in line with existing laws. Having done those things properly, there should be very little room for a judge's personal opinion to have influence on an outcome.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:13PM (28 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:13PM (#1057774)

            You'd think so, but in the USA judging based on what the law says is widely regarded as a dangerous right-wing fringe extremist approach, exemplified by freaks like Scalia and Thomas.

            Judging based on what the law might have been presumed to say with the benefit of hindsight and shifts in popular language and culture is regarded as the high-minded, flexible, progressive approach as exemplified by the late RBG.

            I don't know where you're from, but publically expressing those views in much of the USA is likely to get you pegged as a fascist.

            • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:03PM (21 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:03PM (#1057804)

              Not even Scalia and Thomas judge based on what the law says. Scalia, for example, said the interpretation of law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text. Hence his famous use of historical dictionaries. And Thomas interprets it based on what he thinks the drafters meant when they wrote it. Both of those can mean subtly or radically different things than what it says on its face, especially to a modern reader.

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:28PM (19 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:28PM (#1057881)

                You end up with the quandary: do you try to interpret the past intent, as of the time of writing the law, or re-interpret it based on the shifting sands of language?

                Crazy rightwingnut fascists like Thomas and Scalia go for past intent. Regardless of how they seek to achieve that, this is what they're doing. Obviously (it's been over two centuries since the constitution was drafted) that is different from today's language.

                RBG & co. are more interested in what we'd think it would mean today. That's the whole "living document thing".

                Thus, as the G-GPP suggested, judging what the law says depends very much on whether you're a retrograde, radical reactionary fascist (i.e. trying to interpret the intent of the authors) or, y'know, not.

                • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Monday September 28 2020, @12:32AM (14 children)

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 28 2020, @12:32AM (#1057934) Journal

                  RBG & co. are more interested in what we'd think it would mean today. That's the whole "living document thing".

                  Sounds like someone needed to read some 1984. If you can control the language, you then can control a living document.

                  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday September 28 2020, @12:56AM (1 child)

                    by hemocyanin (186) on Monday September 28 2020, @12:56AM (#1057944) Journal

                    This is fair.

                    It is a problem that the court is taking sides on political issues. The big one, abortion, would be better handled by Congress for a couple reasons. First, Congress better represents the constituents but even more, it would take this partisan focus off the court where justices have to be selected by ideology rather than skill. It is the latter side effect of an activist court that is so poisonous to our political system and it comes up every year -- "you have to vote for this bloodthirsty wall street whore (yes, talking about HRC) because SCOTUS!!!" Yeah fuck that -- wouldn't it be better if SCOTUS wasn't legislating from the bench and Congress did the legislating? But as usual, Congress is content to let the Executive usurp war powers and SCOTUS usurp legislative powers because they individual congresspeople don't want to be held accountable for their votes.

                    Anyway, the side effect of activist courts is playing out in a very toxic manner right now and that should itself be seen as a reason why judicial activism is to be avoided.

                    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 28 2020, @01:19AM

                      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 28 2020, @01:19AM (#1057957) Journal

                      It's a full time job to chase the pork, and sell your influence to the highest bidders. There's not much time left over to actually legislate. In fact, some of that legislation requires research and no congress critter has that much time!

                  • (Score: 2) by dry on Monday September 28 2020, @02:21AM (11 children)

                    by dry (223) on Monday September 28 2020, @02:21AM (#1057996) Journal

                    Things change. Like what is cruel and unusual punishment. Does speech include all expressions. Does papers include emails.
                    Ideally the Constitution would be updated periodically but Americans treat it like a holy document with the priests being the Supreme Court Justices.
                    In Canada, we had a case back in the '20's where the question came up whether a woman could be a Senator. Constitution said only persons could be a Senator and described a person as male. It went to the House of Lords in the UK before it was ruled that the Constitution was a living document and now a woman is also a person.
                    Now we get our Supreme Court doing things like striking down 3 strike laws that would put a shoplifter in prison for life due to our right not to have cruel and unusual punishments.

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 28 2020, @01:36PM (10 children)

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 28 2020, @01:36PM (#1058140) Journal

                      Things change. Like what is cruel and unusual punishment. Does speech include all expressions. Does papers include emails.

                      My take is that those terms are intentionally broad, precisely to allow such latitude. Exacting definitions allow for lots of exceptions.

                      Ideally the Constitution would be updated periodically but Americans treat it like a holy document with the priests being the Supreme Court Justices.

                      But what really needs to be updated? You mention a few definitions which haven't really changed.

                      In Canada, we had a case back in the '20's where the question came up whether a woman could be a Senator. Constitution said only persons could be a Senator and described a person as male. It went to the House of Lords in the UK before it was ruled that the Constitution was a living document and now a woman is also a person.

                      Should have been done via amendment. Because tomorrow, "persons" may be redefined yet again.

                      Bad definitions aren't improved by letting them linger. Here, persons never meant "male". It was a legal context that needed to be removed, not ignored.

                      • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday September 29 2020, @01:57AM (9 children)

                        by dry (223) on Tuesday September 29 2020, @01:57AM (#1058444) Journal

                        Well, just a couple of years back, some originalist on your court made a ruling based on how cruel and unusual punishment had to be taken in an 18th century context. Forget if it was about torturing a person to death or excessive solitary. A century ago, rulings were made about telephone conversations not being covered by the 4th as there were no telephones in the 18th century. That ruling was eventually overthrown by a living document type Judge.
                        The point of that ruling was that that part of the Constitution didn't actually specify sex, just qualified persons and that in 1867 it was considered that only males were persons (I misremembered) and that was how the originalist Supreme Court ruled.
                        As at the time only the UK Parliament could amend that part of the Constitution, a court case going all the way to the Privy Council was one way to change things. Lobbying the UK Parliament also may have worked as this was after the Balfour Declaration but really it would have had to be the government lobbying for the change whereas our Constitution allows a group of 5 to petition to have standing to ask the Supreme Court to rule on a Constitutional issue.
                        Interesting parts of the ruling,

                        Lord Sankey, who delivered the judgement on behalf of the Privy Council, also remarked that the “exclusion of women from all public offices is a relic of days more barbarous than ours […] and to those who ask why the word [persons] should include females, the obvious answer is why should it not.”

                        Furthermore,

                        their Lordships do not think it right to apply rigidly to Canada of to-day the decisions and the reasonings therefor which commended themselves […] to those who had to apply the law in different circumstances, in different centuries, to countries in different stages of development.

                        From https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/persons-case [thecanadianencyclopedia.ca]

                        Canada has always had problems with amending the Constitution, took us over 50 years just to repatriate it after the UK encouraged us to. Trudeau finally forced it through in 1982 with the Constitution Act 1982, passed by the UK and Canadian Parliaments. Even now it is a can of worms to try to amend it, what with Quebec never signing on and our nature of 2 nations.

                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 29 2020, @01:05PM (8 children)

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 29 2020, @01:05PM (#1058565) Journal

                          Well, just a couple of years back, some originalist on your court made a ruling based on how cruel and unusual punishment had to be taken in an 18th century context. Forget if it was about torturing a person to death or excessive solitary. A century ago, rulings were made about telephone conversations not being covered by the 4th as there were no telephones in the 18th century. That ruling was eventually overthrown by a living document type Judge.

                          Doesn't sound like much of a problem to me, especially given the many abuses of the living document interpretation. For example, the hubbub over the Second Amendment, undermining of the Tenth Amendment (deciding that the federal government suddenly has more powers), or the development of a pretty unqualified qualified immunity. You can think of cases where originalism doesn't work? I can think of cases where living document doesn't work.

                          Canada has always had problems with amending the Constitution, took us over 50 years just to repatriate it after the UK encouraged us to. Trudeau finally forced it through in 1982 with the Constitution Act 1982, passed by the UK and Canadian Parliaments. Even now it is a can of worms to try to amend it, what with Quebec never signing on and our nature of 2 nations.

                          So amendments are hard? That's the point. I was reading about Austria's government, which has a pretty lax process for amendment in comparison. They already had one serious failure - the takeover of Austria in 1933 by Fascists.

                          • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday October 02 2020, @04:29AM (7 children)

                            by dry (223) on Friday October 02 2020, @04:29AM (#1059704) Journal

                            Those aren't examples of a living document, rather examples of totally changing the Constitution. Living document might give the argument that nukes aren't arms, or more likely that the right includes women, or people that aren't qualified for the militia, but the 2nd has been totally perverted.
                            I also note that the originalists have no problem with changing " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." to " the right of some of the people to keep and bear some Arms in certain places, shall not be infringed."
                            The changes that the 10th should have stopped, I guess are mostly a result of your civil war. Civil war is always a fuck up. Funny enough Canada was a result of your civil war, created with a strong central government, and since the courts have consistently given the Provinces more power based on a couple of interpretations of things like civil rights and property rights management.

                            Some amendments are hard, others are easy. Newfoundland had no problem getting the Constitution amended to become Newfoundland and Labrador", just took the agreement of 2 legislatures. One difference here is our Constitution is spread across various documents and partially unwritten. The point I was making was why the UK was in charge of amending our Constitution for about half a century too long, namely no agreement about how. Now it varies from really easy like a name change to a little harder like a Provincial boundary change to hard (7/50 rule, 7/10ths of Provinces with 50% of population) like changing rights, to really hard (100%) to change the fundamental government or a Province to secede.
                            You're right that fundamental changes should be hard. Otherwise you get like Brexit where the vote was statistically a tie.

                            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 02 2020, @12:37PM (6 children)

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 02 2020, @12:37PM (#1059846) Journal

                              Those aren't examples of a living document, rather examples of totally changing the Constitution.

                              Saying it doesn't make it so. To the contrary these are examples. That's what a living document interpretation does. It changes the constitution. Whether the pretext for that change is to adapt to a present situation or reality, is merely a matter of spin.

                              There's no criteria other than highly subjective ones for what is a living document interpretation.

                              • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday October 03 2020, @03:44AM (5 children)

                                by dry (223) on Saturday October 03 2020, @03:44AM (#1060237) Journal

                                So you are saying that when society now considers a woman a person, the Constitution can't be interpreted that way?
                                Or in the case of the 2nd, when poison gas was oulawed by treaty, the right of the people to possess poison gas should have remained?

                                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 03 2020, @04:34AM (4 children)

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday October 03 2020, @04:34AM (#1060251) Journal

                                  So you are saying that when society now considers a woman a person, the Constitution can't be interpreted that way?

                                  Society considered a woman a person back then too.

                                  • (Score: 2) by dry on Saturday October 03 2020, @03:44PM (3 children)

                                    by dry (223) on Saturday October 03 2020, @03:44PM (#1060367) Journal

                                    No it didn't, women had restricted rights compared to a full person, with first their father then their husband responsible for the woman instead of her being responsible for herself. Legally they were not full persons but rather similar to a child, with restricted rights.

                                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday October 04 2020, @01:28PM (2 children)

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 04 2020, @01:28PM (#1060656) Journal
                                      "full person". I see the backtracking has already begun. Sorry"person" is gender neutral and has always been that.
                                      • (Score: 2) by dry on Sunday October 04 2020, @04:52PM (1 child)

                                        by dry (223) on Sunday October 04 2020, @04:52PM (#1060688) Journal

                                        Well, we can call a dog a person, it doesn't mean that they have the rights that go with being a person.

                                        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 05 2020, @01:12AM

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday October 05 2020, @01:12AM (#1060833) Journal

                                          Well, we can call a dog a person

                                          Sure, we can call a dog a person, but we don't.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @07:48PM (3 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @07:48PM (#1058265)

                  what a stupid fuck. of course you base the interpretation on what it meant in the beginning. otherwise, you might as well ignore it altogether. ridiculous logic.

                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2020, @05:55AM (2 children)

                    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2020, @05:55AM (#1058499)

                    Then your phone calls can be recorded by the government at will because they aren't your "persons, houses, papers, and effects."

                    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 29 2020, @01:11PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 29 2020, @01:11PM (#1058566) Journal

                      because they aren't your "persons, houses, papers, and effects."

                      What is the reason that a "living document" judge would rule the above way? Originalist arguments are limited by what the laws actually say. They could have instead ruled that phone communications (and indeed all communication) was legal to monitor without warrant because that's the new norms of the land. That sort of nebulous reasoning is a serious problem in today's world.

                    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2020, @06:28PM

                      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2020, @06:28PM (#1058709)

                      i said "what it ****meant****"! not what exact words were used for what specific examples of the concept were in question when it was written. They made a long fucking list of stuff for a fucking reason. To get the goddamn point across. Now people want to act like they don't understand the point because $new_thing is not on the list. It's transparent bullshit. This whole subject is completely obvious, yet some people can't be honest about anything.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @08:09PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @08:09PM (#1058273)

                "And Thomas interprets it based on what he thinks the drafters meant when they wrote it. Both of those can mean subtly or radically different things than what it says on its face, especially to a modern reader."

                Except of course the meaning of "people" in "we the people". In which case they are more than happy to defer to a magic eight ball.

            • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:44AM (5 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:44AM (#1057977)

              And yet, it was the right that gave us corporate personhood in spite of people behind the 14th amendment stating that it there was no intent to give personhood to corporations. In fact, it was just a clerk who claimed to be present during the debates on the 14th amendment stating that the original intent was corporate personhood. But, all the right-wing judges since pretend that it is precedent.

              The right gave us money = speech. No precedent led to this decision, just a bunch of far right activist judges deciding that they wanted an oligarchy and not a democracy.

              The right gave us the Dredd Scott decision in which African Americans were decided to not be human.

              The right interfered in an election, stopped the vote count (without any valid legal justification) and gave the election victory to one of their own in Bush v Gore.

              You should notice a trend. Right = racist, pro-rich, pro-corporate, anti-democratic and corrupt

              Also, that the right wing judges are very activist, and use their positions to create racist, pro-rich, pro-corporate and anti-democratic law without regard to things like constitutionality.
               

              • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @03:00AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @03:00AM (#1058016)

                Did you actuallly follow the Florida count? There was a very clear legal justification:

                The law on voting in Florida covered conditions for recounts, limits on the number of recounts and so on. It wasn't a legal black hole; it was a clearly set forth law.

                A judge in Florida decided to tear that up because the Gore campaign went judge-shopping, and he was on their side.

                The supremes looked at it and said: "This is bullshit, the law means what it says, judges don't get to make it up. You've had your counts, we're done here."

                I know it's all warm and fuzzy like an old wool blanket to feel that you're crucified next to baby Jesus and the weight of the world is on you because you're such a martyr and everybody should totally agree with you because your feelings are so hurt, but you spoil it when you wreck your credibility with fairytales like that.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @07:52PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @07:52PM (#1058266)

                the Dredd Scott ruling didn't even address the classification of Africans in america at the time. SJWs always lie.

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @08:02PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @08:02PM (#1058270)

                Race is just an extension of your family and we have been separated by *nature* and *evolution* for many thousands of years. It's only due to the Jews that White preservation is called Racism and White nations must be invaded by darker breeds of human, likely different subspecies of homo sapien.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 29 2020, @01:22PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 29 2020, @01:22PM (#1058571) Journal

                You should notice a trend. Right = racist, pro-rich, pro-corporate, anti-democratic and corrupt

                Well, then it'll be interesting to see if you are "Right" under this definition. I guess we can rule out pro-corporate, but the rest seem up in the air.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2020, @02:38PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2020, @02:38PM (#1058607)

                And yet, it was the right that gave us corporate personhood

                It was the Romans who invented the idea of a "corporation" by which the law could consider a group of people as one person. "Personhood" is what "Corporation" means. So it's no surprise that a clerk stated as much, it's probably what he learned in law school.

                The right gave us money = speech

                1. people with money can pay other people to say something

                2. interference with these payments is interference with speech

                That's not exactly a right-wing interpretation.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:58PM (16 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:58PM (#1057864) Journal

            I find it always strange how these things run in the USA, as if trias politica isn't executed in a proper manner.

            Well, how can you execute separation of powers better?

            If it would, there would be no reason to politicise the Supreme Court.

            Interpretation of law is inherently political. You can't ignore the political element.

            Having done those things properly, there should be very little room for a judge's personal opinion to have influence on an outcome.

            Maybe those things can't be done properly?

            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday September 28 2020, @12:06AM (7 children)

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday September 28 2020, @12:06AM (#1057919) Journal

              Maybe those things can't be done properly?

              Always the defeatist. With nothing but the simple desire, anything can be done properly.

              --
              La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 28 2020, @03:18AM (6 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 28 2020, @03:18AM (#1058026) Journal
                Unless, of course, it can't. Then it can't, simple desire or not. My take here is that the earlier poster wanted a very strong separation of power. But I see that as likely impossible, if only because balance of power shifts over time and various parties have the means to whittle down such divisions.
                • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday September 28 2020, @04:52AM (2 children)

                  by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday September 28 2020, @04:52AM (#1058055) Journal

                  Unless, of course, it can't.

                  Simply not possible. There is nothing but us to prevent it. With sufficient demand we can and will have a very strong separation of power. We have the power to ignore the parties and form our own, just takes desire and initiative.

                  --
                  La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 28 2020, @10:10AM (1 child)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 28 2020, @10:10AM (#1058105) Journal
                    Unless of course, it's not possible.
                    • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday September 28 2020, @03:39PM

                      by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday September 28 2020, @03:39PM (#1058163) Journal

                      The only thing that is not possible is impossibility. When you say "not possible", what you really mean is you don't know. And many things that people don't want to do are declared "not possible" for the obvious reason. All the trivial things you declare as "not possible" can be traced to lack of personal will or outright antagonism.

                      --
                      La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @07:48AM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @07:48AM (#1058090)

                  Earlier poster here. There are plenty of countries that just do fine without all those politics.

                  I've read to more parts in the discussion that I started here and there seem to be a few things going on:

                  1) Seperation of power. Having the president appointing a person for life should not be a problem if the judge has to follow the writings of the law to the letter.
                  2) Interpertation of the law. Task for the house and senate to make sure there is no room for "interpretation" or "maybe the person who wrote the law intended this". If there is discussion about this, stick to the letter in how it is written down. If house or senate start to complain, let them make a new law that invalidates the flawed one.
                  The Surpreme Court could even have a duty to check those new laws that they are executable and in line with existing laws.
                  3) Allow laws to be replaced by a new law, even the constitution. My country (in Europe) is older than the USA, but the constitution is from early 1900. Even now sometimes we want to make changes to it, which requires new elections for the house and a 2/3 voting majority.

                  However, I'm aware that these things would be basically undoable to implement in the USA (at least in its current state of distrust).

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 28 2020, @10:09AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 28 2020, @10:09AM (#1058104) Journal
                    The US already has all of those.

                    1) You can't make the letter of the law sufficiently unambiguous.

                    2) The House and Senate are already so tasked, but they've ignored that for a couple of centuries.

                    3) Already done. Nobody has come up with a sufficient reason, much less the needed majorities to replace the Constitution.

                    I simply don't buy that your country does this any better. Glancing through Wikipedia, it sounds like Austria might be the country in question with their constitution established in 1920. They have an insanely easy process for modifying their constitution, it just takes a 2/3 supermajority of the National Council (which sounds like the "house" in question), which is way too easy. And their constitution broke down prior to their annexation by Nazi Germany. That's a pretty serious failure.
                  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @03:50PM

                    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @03:50PM (#1058165)

                    The Surpreme Court could even have a duty to check those new laws that they are executable and in line with existing laws.

                    We already have this. It's called judicial review and it's been around from the beginning of the Republic. See Marbury v. Madison [wikipedia.org] for further info.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @12:55AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @12:55AM (#1057942)

              I find it always strange how these things run in the USA, as if trias politica isn't executed in a proper manner.

              Well, how can you execute separation of powers better?

              Have you guys tried AK-47?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @03:54PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @03:54PM (#1058168)

                Have you guys tried AK-47?

                So, the only way you have of solving your problems is with a gun? Is there really no other way with you guys?

            • (Score: 3, Funny) by driverless on Monday September 28 2020, @12:56AM (4 children)

              by driverless (4770) on Monday September 28 2020, @12:56AM (#1057943)

              Here the highest-court judges are appointed, not elected, after extensive consultation among the legal profession and other bodies. Although the party in power makes the appointment, it's the legal profession, covering all political viewpoints, that selects who they consider the most suitable candidate. And that's not just in theory, that's how it actually works in practice. We have a pretty independent judiciary that doesn't take any crap from the government, the near-universal response to a new appointment is typically "yep, that was a good choice" no matter where on the political spectrum you are.

              So in the US perhaps the ABA and other bodies could select the candidate?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @02:22AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @02:22AM (#1057999)

                lol Harriet Myers

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 28 2020, @03:27AM (2 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 28 2020, @03:27AM (#1058030) Journal

                Here the highest-court judges are appointed, not elected, after extensive consultation among the legal profession and other bodies.

                Much like how it's done with the US Supreme Court, I see. Also, be aware that there's a large conflict of interest between those legal professional bodies and the interpretation of law. There are many ways to generate business from the rulings of a court.

                So in the US perhaps the ABA and other bodies could select the candidate?

                Hell no. Only if we get to elect the membership of the ABA would it even start to make sense.

                • (Score: 2) by driverless on Monday September 28 2020, @03:33AM (1 child)

                  by driverless (4770) on Monday September 28 2020, @03:33AM (#1058035)

                  Here the highest-court judges are appointed, not elected, after extensive consultation among the legal profession and other bodies.

                  Much like how it's done with the US Supreme Court, I see.

                  Unless I'm missing something, it's more or less the opposite of how it's done in the US. Here, it's the consensus of the legal community and other groups that makes the choice. In the US it's the President.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 28 2020, @09:49AM

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 28 2020, @09:49AM (#1058099) Journal
                    Sounds like you're missing something. In the US, the President appoints, the Senate approves. The candidate usually needs a lot more going for them than that they merely have the right politics. That "more" often involves consensus from special interest groups like what you mention or a solid judicial career.
            • (Score: 3, Informative) by dry on Monday September 28 2020, @02:28AM

              by dry (223) on Monday September 28 2020, @02:28AM (#1058002) Journal

              Canada does it pretty well by only appointing Judges based on qualifications though there is a tendency to try to represent all regions. There's almost never any controversy over appointments though the last Conservative PM tried to appoint someone who wasn't qualified, by the qualifications listed in the Constitution, and ended up in a battle with the Chief Justice.

          • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @12:23AM (2 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @12:23AM (#1057928)

            The reason why the court has been politicized is mainly because they're appointed for life and the politicians in the House and Senate are cowards. Rather than handling the public policy matters that they're supposed to handle, they kick things to the court to rule on as the justices can't removed except in extremely limited circumstances.

            The problem that the GOP has started to recognize is that once on the court, there's not much that can be done to ensure that they will rule the way that the President and Senators expect. These are people who are on the court for decades in some cases and their views can evolve as they see the consequences of their past decisions come back to haunt them. They can also rule differently when the people vetting them don't care or they have a limited area where they do care.

            Unfortunately, they nominees tend to be selected for being selectively incompetent on business issues. There's no basis in the constitution for constitution-free zones or for corporate personhood, but it would be tough getting nominated or confirmed if you aren't going to toe the line on those issues.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday September 28 2020, @03:30AM (1 child)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 28 2020, @03:30AM (#1058033) Journal
              The main reason the US Supreme Court has been politicized is that its decisions can have huge political importance. That's it. Sure, even if the court had zero political relevance and was merely some minor sinecure, it'd still have politics. But toss in the ability to instantly overturn law and you have a huge political football every time a vacancy opens up.
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:48PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:48PM (#1058144)

                The Supreme Court, POLITICIZED?
                It's only the third branch of GOVERNMENT. (snicker)

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @11:16AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @11:16AM (#1058111)

            as if trias politica isn't executed in a proper manner [..] Judges should only judge based on what the law says

            It's one of the bugs of the common law system: the law itself is only a pencil sketch, the judges get to do all the coloring.

            In a proper system, ambiguous laws get sent back to the legislative branch for updates and clarifications. Judges don't get to reinterpret the laws-as-written for their own benefit. It's also why there's usually two houses: one to draft the legislation, and one to do QA. But hey, it's tradition [despair.com].

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:36PM (8 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:36PM (#1057821)

          It, in fact, did used to require more than a simple majority. 60 votes, in fact. Harry Reid (D-NV) eliminated that requirement to push through some federal judge appointments for Obama. Subsequently, Mitch McConnell (R-KY) extended that to Supreme Court.

          Dems never seem to think ahead about what violating norms does. Game theory tit-for-tat would have made that progression of events obvious to predict (in fact, it was widely predicted when Reid made use of his nuclear option). They always seem to think they're on the verge of being the single party in a single party state, and are ensconced firmly in a bubble that reinforces that belief.

          That's why I have no trouble expecting that the Dems will follow through on the court packing threats. Not necessarily soon, but in the mid-term it's bound to happen. The problem will be what happens after that. The Repubs will follow suit as soon as they get the opportunity to, and no one will trust the court anymore, undermining about the only part of the federal government that's still widely respected.

          And before I get accused of TDS, I should point out I only vote third party.

          • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:59PM (5 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:59PM (#1057833)

            I only vote third party.

            To the democrats, that is a traitorous vote for Trump. This is why why they make so many enemies. They are like the Islamists in their demand for absolute fidelity

            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:37PM (2 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:37PM (#1057845)

              Republicans are now White ISIS, Y'all Qaeda, the Western version of religious extremists happy to subvert democracy and violently force their religious viewpoints upon others.

              They are the white terrorists, a danger to freedom everywhere.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @12:11AM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @12:11AM (#1057923)

                Yeah, and despite all that, why isn't anybody pulling out way ahead? What the fuck is up with that?!

                • (Score: 2) by driverless on Monday September 28 2020, @01:00AM

                  by driverless (4770) on Monday September 28 2020, @01:00AM (#1057947)

                  It's all a vast conspiracy, but it's a really badly run conspiracy with everyone conspiring together to do different things.

                  Uhh, hang on a minute, there's something not quite right there...

            • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @06:46PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @06:46PM (#1058250)

              Tired propaganda. Projection as usual from conservative nutters who squeal with glee about insing tyranny just so they can pwn da libs. Has to be the most pathetic political display in history.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 03 2020, @12:56AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 03 2020, @12:56AM (#1060199)

                conservative nutters

                Yeah! the ones that run the democrat party!

          • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @02:25AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @02:25AM (#1058001)

            You forget this was after years of the Senate refusing to let any judges through, saving them up for the next Republican president.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2020, @06:36PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2020, @06:36PM (#1058712)

              But THAT was only because more people vote Democrat which is just soooo unfair! /s

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:56PM (4 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:56PM (#1057862)

          Oh sure she's competent, it's her ability to remain impartial and follow the law that's at question. Her writings and her record as a judge suggest she can't, which is exactly why the right loves her so much. The last thing they want is someone who is both impartial and competent.

          If this goes through, the only remedy will be to take the senate, presidency, and keep the house. Once all three are in Democratic hands, it's time to go beyond nuclear into antimatter-warhead territory: nuke the filibuster, add 4 seats to the supreme court, admit DC as a state and possibly Puerto Rico. Hell, if Guam leans left, offer them statehood too. Consider expanding the size of the house just enough that tiny conservative states like Wyoming and the Dakotas still only have one rep while California and New York gain a lot more.

          The whole problem is right now the Republican Party is a tyranny of the minority. They are not at all representative of the portion of the demographic who votes for them, they have far too much power than they should have. The reason for this is all the large states with tiny populations that tend to vote for them. Because of how the electoral collage works, voters in those states have a higher proportion of political power than the large states when it comes to picking the president and controlling the senate. Everyone is supposed to be equal, and the constitutions was designed to defend AGAINST a tyranny of the majority, not ENABLE a tyranny of the minority. The measures I mentioned will also overbalance things to a point where depending on democratic cohesion and if they get pulled as far to the left as republicans have to the right, we MIGHT end up with a tyranny of the majority. What I think will happen tho is once these measures are in place, democrats will lose that cohesion because they just don't have the same inherent aptitude for unity that the republicans do. Right now Democrats are pissed off and rightly so. There have been multiple elections in recent memory where their candidate won the popular vote but lost the electoral vote, and the same is true in the senate.

          Republicans are god at exactly one thing: holding themselves in power. They are incompetent when it comes to governing. They say they want a government that's small but they want to control the reproductive freedoms of women, tell gays they cant be together in marriage, force trans people to live against their own identity, and keep racial disparity going. They say they want fiscal responsibility, but then they add tons and tons more to the defense budget while cutting things that the future of the country depends on like education and health care. What they really want is a government that's small.... if you're rich as hell. Their tax policies going back decades evidence this. Ever seen the hockey stick graph? Take the incomes of average people vs rich people and graph them. From the mid 20th century until Reagan's term, both were going up proportionally. Everyone was getting richer. After that? The line for average people flattens, while the line for the rich curves sharply upwards like a hockey stick. The relative income of average people has remained the same since the 80s while prices keep going up. And it's thanks to bullshit economics that Republicans parrot because they serve the rich exclusively.

          None of this is to say Democrats are going to be very good for this country either. Some of the far lefts policies are needed, such as education and healthcare being treated as rights instead of things only the rich can properly afford. Other things that could have very dramatic consequences they don't seem to concerned about. The China problem for instance. That one is, in fact, better addressed by China Hawks on the right and is a growing threat to democracy in general. It's worrying, but I have to believe that EVENTUALLY the Democrats will pay attention to it...right?

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:16PM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 27 2020, @11:16PM (#1057874) Journal

            Oh sure she's competent, it's her ability to remain impartial and follow the law that's at question. Her writings and her record as a judge suggest she can't

            If that's so, I'd like to hear about it instead of more talk about how you don't like the Electoral College.

            She seems to have some libertarian cheerleaders (I lean that way). For example, Reason.com has posted several mostly favorable stories on her (here [reason.com], here [reason.com], here [reason.com], and here. The TL;DR is that she's voiced concern about due process in college sexual assault cases, shot down a pretty bogus claim to qualified immunity by a police detective framing a suspect, and opposes blanket firearm bans for felons (though not a qualified ban, if I understand correctly). The last article voices concern that she'll continue to support deference to some iffy law (here, assuming in law and regulation of commercial transactions that the legislature and Executive Branch knowledgeably passed it in good faith, when they wouldn't do the same for laws or regulation that challenge higher priority rights like speech or due process).

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @12:27AM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @12:27AM (#1057931)

              Different AC here, but if she were competent, the GOP wouldn't have her on the list of potential nominees. A competent judge on the court would rule time and time against the projects that the GOP has been engaged in. They'd rule against the gerrymandering and the repeal of voter's rights as well as against corporate personhood. Sadly, the Democrats aren't much better in terms of their nominees these days.

              • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @03:04AM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @03:04AM (#1058021)

                Why the hell is this partisan wishlist redefinition as competence being marked as insightful?

                Let's just wrap this up: Parent poster thinks that judges aren't supposed to have opinions that make the parent poster cry in evening time milk.

                Thank you for clarifying your position, now go back to the little table while the grown-ups chat.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @09:05PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @09:05PM (#1058297)

            It isn't an RNC v. DNC thing.

            From the very beginning the southern states said "well, that whole people thing, doesn't really mean certain people". We fought a war over it. Then ten years later they passed the dictionary act, which essentially said that all people weren't really people, they were just one player in a system split between corporations and biological persons.

            The thing is, in 1789 the founders would have been acutely aware of corporate corruption. They had just fought a war over it. The revolutionary war wasn't about "taxation without representation", it was about corrupt trade regulations. John Hancock tarred an exchequer (starting the whole thing) not because they strolled up and levied a a tax. He tarred the guy because he was siezing cargo on behalf of a private international corporation with the kings blessing.

            The current problems dates back to the late 1800s, just like the problems in the middle 1800's dated back to well before 1776. First because the dictionary act is an undeniably bizarre interpretation of the preamble. Second because the weight of bench law behind that one line of code, has become so onerous that is as powerful as a constitutional amendment. And because only congress can pass an amendment, that bench law is therefore extra-jurisdictional. So SCOTUS's house has been out of order for a long long time.

            This should have been corrected by congress, but the American people haven't given them an adequate reason to rat on each other yet. Nore will they anytime soon, if you consider that BLM was a state managed controlled-release. The one thing you can say about racism, is that it generally isn't blamed on congressmen. Well at least not in states above the mason dixon. So who gained from those riots? Well of course the people who would have otherwise been targets of public ire! Racism isn't the biggest civil rights issue in the U.S. anymore. We've got bigger fish to fry. Oh, you thought that whole thing was genuine?

            I think the other big question is whether SCOTUS has been doing due dilligence in vetting its own cases. If they had been checking for collusion they should have caught somebody by now, and locked them up. So there is some question as to whether SCOTUS is a rubber stamp mill for corporate enterprise at this point.

            The movement towards fascism in this country derives from the judiciary. I'd like to blame it on congress, but SCOTUS has been covering their butts for a long long time.

            In short, the judiciary ignores its own rules. Which means there are no rules. If you think the debate here is RNC v. DNC, you're wrong. DNC v. RNC is a question that never escaped the matrix.

            The only people voting in a two party system in this country, are those voting for third parties.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:01PM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:01PM (#1057740)

      Dem's just need to be as directly scumfuck as the GOP is rather than covertly. There's no point putting up the illusion your propaganda machine is fair and rational if the other side tacitly supports conspiracies of you of being extra dimensional Satan spawn. The hesitancy of liberals and the left to go on the attack to dominate the conversation is their greatest weakness.

      Or maybe there's a compromise with a functional healthcare system that does not bankrupt so many, non-stagnant income for most of the citizenry AND cool guns. Not a chance in hell of that, though.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday September 28 2020, @01:04AM (10 children)

        by hemocyanin (186) on Monday September 28 2020, @01:04AM (#1057949) Journal

        The hesitancy of liberals and the left to go on the attack to dominate the conversation is their greatest weakness.

        It must have been nice, tuning out the legacy media for the last four years.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by dry on Monday September 28 2020, @02:56AM (9 children)

          by dry (223) on Monday September 28 2020, @02:56AM (#1058014) Journal

          The ones who gave Trump billions in publicity? If the mainstream media doesn't like someone, they ignore them, like when Ron Paul came in third in the primary and the mainstream media only mentioned the 1st, 2nd and 4th placers.
          The mainstream media is interested in one thing, making money and Trump has been great for that, which is why they decided to make him President.

          • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday September 28 2020, @05:33AM (8 children)

            by hemocyanin (186) on Monday September 28 2020, @05:33AM (#1058061) Journal

            It's barely worth even saying, but I didn't vote for Trump yet the relentless negativity at everything "waaah he isn't invading Syria" -- "waaah peace deal in the middle east means some sacred cow gets gored" - waah wahh wahh. Constant non-stop negativity. Obama creates death squads to kill American citizens via star chamber process? Let's kiss his fucking feet. Whatever. You will either pick up on our propaganda system or you won't, but there comes a time for many people when they accidentally decide to look deeper into anything that's published and realize it's 100% snow job. Fuck propaganda.

            • (Score: 2) by dry on Monday September 28 2020, @06:32AM (7 children)

              by dry (223) on Monday September 28 2020, @06:32AM (#1058072) Journal

              I don't pay attention to American media, are they actually saying "waaah he isn't invading Syria" -- "waaah peace deal in the middle east means some sacred cow gets gored"? I mean from the outside looking in, it was kind of shitty abandoning the Kurds to be killed by the Turks, but that's America, and here you are, complaining about Obama killing Americans instead of complaining about his extra-judiciary killing people.
              As for Trump, his goal seems to be divide America even more, doesn't seem to give a shit about 200,000 Americans dying on his watch and frankly, doesn't seem to care about anything except himself and it's looking like before winter, he's going to get a lot more Americans killed.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @08:07PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @08:07PM (#1058272)

                "doesn't seem to give a shit about 200,000 Americans dying on his watch"

                oh, stfu, you retarded tv watcher.

              • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Monday September 28 2020, @08:54PM (5 children)

                by hemocyanin (186) on Monday September 28 2020, @08:54PM (#1058294) Journal

                For background: https://theintercept.com/2019/01/11/as-democratic-elites-reunite-with-neocons-the-partys-voters-are-becoming-far-more-militaristic-and-pro-war-than-republicans/ [theintercept.com]

                The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in 2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent.

                A similar gap is seen among those who voted Democrat in the 2018 midterm elections (28 percent support withdrawal while 54 percent oppose it), as opposed to the widespread support for withdrawal among 2018 GOP voters: 74 percent to 18 percent.

                That's a year and half old. Democrats have upped the ante by promising to step in if Trump tries to end any wars. https://theintercept.com/2020/07/02/house-democrats-working-with-liz-cheney-restrict-trumps-planned-withdrawal-of-troops-from-afghanistan-and-germany/ [theintercept.com]

                Democrats trade on their peace sign buttons and rainbows, but if you care to look, it's chock full of evil murderous bastards. People don't care to look though.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @10:32PM (1 child)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @10:32PM (#1058317)

                  You make such a big stink about Democrats and never mention the higher % of Republican warmongers. They both suck, but you only blame one side. Plenty of Democrats want an end to our occupations. Maybe once Putin's puppet is out of office we can do so in a better fashion.

                  Maybe you should join fustakrkich in his 'both sides' campaign? At least you'll get shit on less than your current partisan hackery deserves.

                  • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday October 01 2020, @08:09PM

                    by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday October 01 2020, @08:09PM (#1059578) Journal

                    Bush started two wars and Obama took the 2 to 7, and at least Trump has not started any new ones. But then again, Trump is the "fuck you" president to both the DNCGOP. Rest assured, if a Democrat or Lincoln Republican/NeverTrumper gets elected, the war machine will fire up just fine. In any event, is somewhat of a conflation to measure Trump against the regular GOP.

                • (Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday September 29 2020, @01:14AM (2 children)

                  by dry (223) on Tuesday September 29 2020, @01:14AM (#1058409) Journal

                  Is that just the difference between how Democrats and Republicans feel about Syria? Wonder what the numbers would be if polling about war with Iran or China. Didn't hear too many Republicans bitching about Trump assassinating that Iranian general either.
                  Seems the last few wars, most Americans were in favour of. The Bush's sure seemed to get a lot of support for their wars.

                  • (Score: 1) by hemocyanin on Thursday October 01 2020, @08:15PM (1 child)

                    by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday October 01 2020, @08:15PM (#1059581) Journal

                    Didn't hear too many Republicans bitching about Trump assassinating that Iranian general either.

                    Then you weren't listening very hard:

                    https://www.bizpacreview.com/2020/01/04/tucker-carlson-blasts-neocons-who-celebrate-strike-on-soleimani-is-it-okay-to-bomb-china-and-mexico-too-871767 [bizpacreview.com]

                    Tucker Carlson of Fox News was not among those celebrating the end of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani’s reign of terror around the globe. On Friday’s show, Carlson blasted Washington “neocons” for wanting to go to war. “Chest beaters like Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska are making the usual warlike noises like they always make,” he said.

                    • (Score: 2) by dry on Friday October 02 2020, @03:53AM

                      by dry (223) on Friday October 02 2020, @03:53AM (#1059697) Journal

                      Good to hear, now if only Americans respected peoples right to associate. How big is the list of companies in various countries that you can't do business with?

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by zocalo on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:06PM (17 children)

      by zocalo (302) on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:06PM (#1057743)
      I agree, but I think it's also a matter of timing and confidence. McConnell is undeniably being hypocritical over his previous statements over why the Senate should not need to approve Merrick Garland, but here's the thing; RBG didn't request that her successor not be named until after this presidential term, she just asked that it not happen until after the election, e.g. November 2020, not January 2021. That means timing; afterall, the Republicans could wait until after the election, respecting her wishes, and then still complete the process before the end of the year? After all, between the election and January, Trump will still be President and the Republicans will still control the Senate, and since they changed the rules to only require a simple majority for approval they could still force through Trump's pick and, with the elections done and dusted, no one would even be considering crossing the aisle to protect their reelection chances.

      That's where the confidence aspect comes in. What it tells me is that McConnell and other Republicans are fully expecting that they are going to lose control of the White House, the Senate, or both, come November, and if/when that happens it's going to make it a *LOT* easier for the Democrats to use McConnell's earlier words against him, and quite likely with a lot of support for their argument from those seeking to curry favour from the new leadership. So, ultimately, it's also all about the power - we have it, we're not confident we're going to keep it, but timing is on our side, and we're absolutely going to use that to our self-serving advantage.

      Of course, the upshot is going to be a strong shift to the right in the SCOTUS, and the Democrats are definitely not above playing the same kind of political BS as the Republicans. Assuming they do gain control of Senate, White House, and potentially retain control of Congress as well come January, then we can probably expect some equally self-serving BS to "level the playing field" in fairly short order - like, say, upping the size of the SCOTUS. After all, it's normally *twelve* people on a jury, right, so why not have that on SCOTUS as well?
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:19PM (#1057748)

        Whatever is possible is fair game when the Dems get control. That has been established. Fuck your high principles.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:27PM (3 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:27PM (#1057752) Journal

        McConnell is undeniably being hypocritical over his previous statements

        Most assuredly. And, if you look around the internet, you will find that virtually all the players from 2016 have flip-flopped on their stances. They're ALL hypocrits. Obama, Clinton, and Biden each has their soundbytes, if you look for them.

        As for timing - mehhh - I'm just not sure of the benefits of waiting. You could be right.

        As for RBG's "final wishes", that is meaningless noise. RBG would have been very much aware that no person's dying wish can be binding on anyone other than the beneficiaries of her will. As in, "Stephanie can have all my jewelry, but only if she apologizes for being a bitch all her life". In such a case, Steph apologizes, or she forfeits the jewelry, as crazy as that may sound.

        • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:34PM

          by krishnoid (1156) on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:34PM (#1057789)

          Make sure you also clarify the legal definition of "apology" and "apologizes". Knowing Stephanie, I bet that bitch [youtube.com] will try to half-ass it.

        • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:52PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:52PM (#1057801)

          Of course RBG's wish isn't legally binding. That's ignores the significance of her words, though.

          RBG knew she was dying. She had nothing personally to gain from anything she said, no political benefits or anything like that. Yet she felt the need to make the request, meaning that she felt strongly about it and that she genuinely believed it was important to wait until after the election to fill the vacancy she leaves on the court.

          RBG was very fair and didn't seem to be blinded by politics. For example, she spoke highly of Brett Kavanaugh. She said he respected the court's decorum. She also spoke highly of him intellectually, saying he was more than qualified to serve on the court and that he took his position very seriously. Her words weren't filtered or influenced by what would be politically beneficial. RBG called it like she saw it.

          That's why her words should matter. We should expect that she thought over the matter carefully and her views weren't based on what was politically beneficial to one side or the other.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:11PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:11PM (#1057807) Journal

            Not worth a belly laugh, but your post merits a chuckle. I think that whatever else she was, or was not, RGB was a lady. She wouldn't have stooped to badmouthing a colleague. Quite the opposite. The more she despised a person, the more flowery her language would be.

            And, yes, her supposed last words were partisan. I suppose that in a more polite age, like maybe Camelot, we would grant her last wish. But, this is 'Murica, in the year 2020.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:29PM (6 children)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:29PM (#1057754) Journal

        RBG didn't request that her successor not be named until after this presidential term, she just asked that it not happen until after the election, e.g. November 2020, not January 2021.

        Who cares what her request was? She should have retired in 2014, back when the Democrats controlled the Senate. She stuck around instead and now the Democrats have been handed a huge L.

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:34PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:34PM (#1057756)

          Losing the popular vote twice (three times soon), taking gerrymandering to ridiculous levels, packing courts is not a recipe for happy country. Crystal ball is cloudy.

          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:50PM (2 children)

            by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday September 27 2020, @07:50PM (#1057763) Journal

            The future is always cloudy. But I predict we will look back on 2020 with fond memories of the pandemic and mild political chaos.

            --
            [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
            • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday September 28 2020, @12:23AM

              by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday September 28 2020, @12:23AM (#1057927) Journal

              fond memories of the pandemic

              Interesting way of putting it

              --
              La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 02 2020, @01:00PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday October 02 2020, @01:00PM (#1059853) Journal
              I think we'll look on it with a feeling of "WTH?" My take is that a lot of the stresses that have led to the last couple of decades for the US are starting to ease up, particularly labor competition with the developing world. We just need to hold our shit together for another twenty years or so, and things will look a lot better.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @07:09PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @07:09PM (#1058259)

          Who cares what her request was?

          Those who respect her and her legacy?

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:40PM (2 children)

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Sunday September 27 2020, @08:40PM (#1057793) Journal

        That's where the confidence aspect comes in. What it tells me is that McConnell and other Republicans are fully expecting that they are going to lose control of the White House, the Senate, or both, come November

        I don't think there's much to that theory. They're moving on it now because they have a window of opportunity to affect the political direction of the court for a generation. So of course they're going to blow right past "Ruth's last wish" and what they said at the end of Obama's term; the Constitution gives them a clear path to do it, so they're going to do it. People on the Left are sad because they had come to view the Supreme Court as theirs, and only theirs, to backstop their policies from the bench.

        There is also a double shot of comeuppance that the Republicans are relishing here: First, Democrat Harry Reid invoked the "nuclear option" to blow past Republican opposition before, because the Democrats had the votes to do it and because the Republicans couldn't stop them; the Republicans predicted that someday the Democrats would regret what Harry Reid did then, and today is that day. Second, the Democrats savaged Cavanaugh with a last minute circus of flimsy character assassination, so the Republicans are going to make sure the Democrats regret that, too, by blowing right past them with ACB.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
        • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:59PM (1 child)

          by zocalo (302) on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:59PM (#1057832)
          Then why not wait until November before starting the confirmation process? Regardless of the election results, they can still force it through before January, and won't have to worry about any of their own Senators crossing the aisle to protect their own seats due to a loss of moderate votes like they do pre-election, so it might be even more likely to be a slam dunk. They'll also have the moral high ground of being able to say that they respected RBG's wishes (even though they didn't have to) not to move on a replacement until after the election, which will likely reduce at least some of the opposition from political moderates. If they were confident they were going to win, they could wait, claim the moral high ground on offer, and then justifiably ram it through because they'd still be in control of Senate and/or White House in 2021.

          But no. Apparently it *has* to be done before the election, and since the only applicable thing that potentially changes between now and November is who will have control over Senate and/or White House come January that means they're most definitely not confident that the status quo is going to be maintained. That's the window of opportunity they're working with; the difference between being hypocrites in some people's opinion (it's not *quite* the same scenario as Garland as the same party currently controls both Houses), and potentially finding themselves in a similar - or worse - position to that Obama was in when he nominated Garland, and confirming they are hypocrites. Basically, do they want to let the Democrats have one or two barrels to fire at them when they inevitably remind the electorate of all this during the next election cycle?

          Sure, they're taking the chance to rub the Democrat's noses in it, but they could do that anyway, and if anything it would sting even more if they did that after losing the Senate and/or White House (which they could), but this is absolutely about trying to justify their actions, and that's definitely a lot easier to do when they're not officially a lame duck.
          --
          UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
          • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday September 28 2020, @12:27AM

            by fustakrakich (6150) on Monday September 28 2020, @12:27AM (#1057932) Journal

            The "hypocrite" thing doesn't work. They don't have to care about that. With a more sympathetic Supreme Court, election challenges will flow much easier.

            --
            La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:47PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 27 2020, @10:47PM (#1057853)

        Assuming they do gain control of Senate, White House, and potentially retain control of Congress as well come January, then we can probably expect some equally self-serving BS to "level the playing field" in fairly short order - like, say, upping the size of the SCOTUS. After all, it's normally *twelve* people on a jury, right, so why not have that on SCOTUS as well?

        Shhhh!!! If Trump gets the idea that Dems are going to do that he might pre-empt them and nominate 3 more SCJ's before the end of his term.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @08:12PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @08:12PM (#1058275)

        Who gives a flying rat's ass what that Jewess wanted? The only reason she stayed in there so long was to hold the seat for the Democrats.

    • (Score: 2, Touché) by SpockLogic on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:30PM (7 children)

      by SpockLogic (2762) on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:30PM (#1057818)

      Just what we need, another right wing religious bigot on the supreme court.

      --
      Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:57PM (6 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Sunday September 27 2020, @09:57PM (#1057831) Journal

        She's actually a liberal in sheep's clothing. Among other things she's likely to vote for, is restoring the Bill of Rights to convicts.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:05AM (5 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @01:05AM (#1057951)

          Among other things she's likely to vote for, is restoring the Bill of Rights to convicts.

          What happened with "Served one's time, paid one's debt to society"?
          Drowned under piles of authoritarian bullshit, once a felon always a felon, I guess.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 28 2020, @01:34AM (4 children)

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 28 2020, @01:34AM (#1057969) Journal

            You could ask Bill Clinton, the Law and Order president who hired an additional 100,000 cops to authoritatively patrol the streets. But, keep in mind, "three strikes and you're out!" Bill can't abide a fool who doesn't learn from his first two mistakes!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @02:00AM (3 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @02:00AM (#1057989)

              Bill Clinton was going after racist white southern voters-- the Republican base. It was also the reason he gutted social safety nets while using dog whistle racist language to describe welfare recipients. And, also why he raced home to ensure a mentally incompetent man would be executed (the man had no idea what was happening, and asked that his jailers save his desert from his final meal, so he could have it later since he was full-- he had the intellect of a very young child and didn't understand why he was getting this treat. But, severely retarded or not, he was a black man, and Bill having the black man killed would improve his image with the racist white southern voters). Clinton was solidly on the right, but the republican party has been steadily marching toward authoritarian fascism, so anybody to the left of Hitler and Franco is a "leftist" now.

              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 28 2020, @02:11AM (2 children)

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 28 2020, @02:11AM (#1057993) Journal

                You're struggling to avoid admitting that Democrats are racists. Republicans don't own the plantations in Chicago, Baltimore, New York, or elsewhere. Bill Clinton is a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat who probably wanted to join the KKK, but avoided it for political purposes. Bill Clinton had no problem with pushing the drugs to black people, which he then used to convict the same blacks for drug crimes.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @02:30AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @02:30AM (#1058005)

                  Like he said, solidly right wing.

                • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @09:36AM

                  by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 28 2020, @09:36AM (#1058097)

                  You're struggling to avoid admitting that Democrats are racists. Republicans don't own the plantations in Chicago, Baltimore, New York, or elsewhere.

                  You know, whoever has any respect for your opinion, it's lost right there in this bullshit from 200 years ago. You are so far bending backwards, it's not even amusing now.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy [wikipedia.org]
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_views_of_Donald_Trump [wikipedia.org]

                  Own your own fucking history as a racist GOP.

    • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Monday September 28 2020, @02:50PM (3 children)

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Monday September 28 2020, @02:50PM (#1058156)

      yes, its 100% about power.

      so lets learn that, realize that and remember that.

      its 100% bullshit that the R's are any kind of party of 'responsibility'. that is direcly known, if it wasn't known before. we have recordings showing the 180 flip and they are entirely without any shame. they fully know they conned the US and they don't care. the very definition of arrogance.

      every time an R is on TV, there should be a crawl on the bottom in red text, "warning, this party is known to lie and cheat and steal, to any degree at all, in order to GET RAW POWER"

      that has to be burned into peoples' brains.

      and no, BSAB is not applicable here and the dems almost always walk away from stealing power. they have a false sense of fairness and you can't win a gun fight with a knife. that's what its come down to.

      I say, take the mitts off entirely (btw, fuck romney, too, that lying sack of shit) and fill the court with progressives, add 2 more states, remove fillibuster, just fuck the R'd as hard as you can over the next 4 years.

      we now live 4 years at a time. we no longer worry about 'what would the other guys do if they get this power?'. R's just grab NOW and think LATER. we need to do the same.

      time to stop taking things calmly and gentlemanly. if it takes lying and cheating and stealing, well, fight fire with fire.

      also: lower the powers of all entities, including AG and president. we should learn our lesson that giving too much power WILL backfire.

      final thought: we need 3 parties, now. we can't get rid of the R's (it seems) but we now need a babysitter party to keep the R's in control. a chaparone party of sorts. one that just exists to slap down the R's when (and we know it constantly happens) they act up and pull this shit again, they need to be smacked down. kept in check.

      instability always happens when that lunatic party gets control. EVERY. FUCKING. TIME.

      sick of this shit.

      if things don't get better soon, we're on the edge of civil war 2. totally not kidding.

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 28 2020, @03:13PM (2 children)

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday September 28 2020, @03:13PM (#1058158) Journal

        final thought: we need 3 parties, now.

        Most assuredly, we do. But you don't seem to grasp why, or even how it works. Maybe some of our members who live with parliamentarian governments can explain that to you.

        also: lower the powers of all entities,

        So, you are agreeing that Barrett is a good SC pick? She, and others like her, would reset the balance of powers to align with the constitution. No more war powers act, etc.

        Most of the rest of that is just silly. The idea that the D party is somehow more honorable than the R party is just laughable.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2020, @06:43PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 29 2020, @06:43PM (#1058715)

          Anyone who pays attention sees that the Ds follow the law and traditions of their various roles. They compromise by working towards bipartisan legislation. The Rs repeatedly lie and go back on their own word in naked power grabs.

          Yes, Democrats are much better than Republicans, thougg too many Ds are corlorate whores who keep selling out the American public. Still not as bad as the pure corruption if the Rs who also destroy any institutions protecting the people if it gets in their way of appripriating funds. Just pathetic you refuse to see the pattern, but you're probably one of the brainwashed people who says REGULATION BAD! GIVERNMENT BAD! TAXES ARE THEFT HERP DERP!!

(1) 2 3