Your daily reminder that it’s never okay for a friend or family member to be allowed to vote Republican. The stakes are eternal. The threat is ever present.
RichVR
4629
Can we ever break the curse of the republicans? Please, Great One, tell me. Are we well and truly fucked?
Ginsburg was begged by some colleagues to retire in 2013. She opted not to.
Her death before her successor could be appointed by a Democratic president – should that happen – is likely to forever mar her legacy.
There will always be shitty people. Constant vigilance against the backward slide of humanity.
Enidigm
4632
Interesting. This is… worrying under the radar news. She should have retired i suppose.
It’s speculation on my part but there will never be a liberal Supreme Court again, and so not worth worrying over it too much. I mean in practice not fact. Because the next time there is a Supreme Court that is liberal the GOP will declare that its power is unconstitutional anyway and refuse to accept its judgements. So whatever solutions liberal minded people think is going to happen should they gain the SC again will never happen anyway through the courts, because the GOP will argue that Marbury v Madison went too far or whatever works for the sound bytes. So they’ll ignore liberal judgements and dare Democrats to enforce them.
Alstein
4633
This would almost force the Dems to court stack at least the first chance they get, or for a Dem president to defy the Courts and dare the Senate to impeach them.
That said, Ginsberg is supposed to be released tomorrow
Yep, but what’s worrying mostly is that it’s the second time she’s been down with an illness in the past couple of weeks.
When you think of “liberal Supreme Court” I suspect you think of the Warren court. With that in mind, a liberal Supreme Court was an aberration.
Enidigm
4636
Sure but
…we have GOP members at the highest level of government rejecting the legitimacy of their political opponents. They’re refusing subpoenas, refusing even to speak with members of the media unless it is blatantly partisan on their side. This leadership by example is going to open the floodgates of “refusal politics” - Republicans simply refusing to accept the legitimacy or decisions of Democratic governments.
Not to say we shouldn’t desperately want the center to hold here, which in some ways Ginsburg represents, but even a victory in the seating of the Supreme Court is very rapidly - in a matter if not years then months - not going matter as they will consider any opinion they dislike to be illegitimate.
This whole aside is just trying to tell not to despair if Ginsburg passes away before a Democratic President can take office - because we’re past the point where this is going to matter. If Democrats pack the court, the GOP will reject the court’s legitimacy. If the Democrats nominate someone to take Ginsburg’s place, the GOP will never allow a vote in the Senate, day 1.
Funny. The only guy in power who has ever threatened to take their precious guns is DJT. Before he was talked out of it.
They copied the Sanctuary City movement.
Menzo
4639
Please cite the specific law that sanctuary cities are breaking.
Menzo
4641
Unsettled as a matter of law, at best. So it’s a little different.
Timex
4643
Local jurisdictions are not legally required to enforce Federal law. That’s not their job.
That’s why we have Federal agencies that do that.
Assisting Federal agencies is purely a voluntary thing. If it weren’t, then it would essentially allow the federal government to create entirely unfunded legal mandates, and push the responsibility and cost of enforcement onto local municipalities.
Menzo
4644
So, just to be clear:
The Right: Sanctuary Cities are despicable and MUST BE ABOLISHED!
Also The Right: We’re just doing what you guys are doing. (they aren’t, but whatever).
The Right: ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES, LIBTARDS!
Also The Right: We refuse to acknowledge that elections have consequences. We only meant that when we win.
The Right: We are a nation of laws. Asylum seekers are breaking the law and must be punished to the fullest extent of the law. No exceptions!
Also The Right: We’re free to break whatever laws we think aren’t fair.
The Right: No morals. No limits to our hypocrisy. All ID.
We’re free to break whatever laws we think aren’t fair.
The intellectual argument for gun sanctuaries, is that the gun control laws they’re objecting to are unconstitutional.
If you look at the gun sanctuary resolutions though, and I’m thinking specifically of what you’ve seen in Virginia, they’re toothless. And if they have value, it’s simply for rallying supporters around the flag.
I do think the left has been short sighted though. Look at Harry Reid’s filibuster reform. McConnell warned him it was a bad idea, reminding him that majorities are always flipping back and forth.
It’s worth thinking about the precedent you set, and how it can be used against you.
Menzo
4646
So we’re cool with citizens deciding for themselves what laws are and are not constitutional? I could swear there was a process for figuring this out…
And I guess all these nincompoops would be cool with abortion providers blatantly ignoring actually unconstitutional heartbeat laws before they’re overturned in the Supreme Court.
Matt_W
4647
Agreed. Eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees but not legislation is exactly the opposite what should have been done. Legislation shouldn’t be subject to minority veto. Appointees should need overwhelming support for confirmation. Crucially legislation is a bicameral process. Confirmations aren’t.
