?

For whom will/would you vote?

Poll closed Nov 4, 2020.
  1. Donald Trump and Mike Pence (Republican Party)

    33.1%
  2. Joe Biden and Kamala Harris (Democratic Party)

    52.6%
  3. Jo Jorgensen and Spike Cohen (Libertarian Party)

    2.5%
  4. Howie Hawkins and Angela Walker (Green Party)

    3.9%
  5. Other

    7.9%
  6. 646 voter(s)
  1. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer
    Reporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    31,928
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Might want to explain that one as not everybody will know what goes there.

    RBG = Ruth Bader Ginsburg, long time justice on the US supreme court and nominally aligned with the democrats. Alignment and reality is a tricky thing -- you make it to the supreme court and you are probably pretty good at this law lark so tend to not always keep to the party line, see if nothing else the voting record of Brett Kavanaugh (who Trump appointed), and it is for life/until you choose to retire so are generally above the petty whims of the party even if professional conduct and impartiality in it is not your thing.
    In dying she then vacated her position and thus the president gets to appoint another (with some yes/no from other parts of government but it is usually a forgone conclusion).

    There are various unofficial codes of conduct on when they can be appointed vis a vis last years in office but they are generally unofficial (Obama faced a similar problem) so eh. If he gets back in though then free reign.

    Anyway with this vacancy then the balance of judges on the supreme court will be shifted to the Republican appointed ones, and if he plays the game even vaguely well he will probably find some nice veteran 50 or so year old to go in and at current makeup if they all live to push 80 then that means for the next few decades the US supreme court (something of a big deal*) will be more than half republican appointees (usually heard in a phrase like "lose the supreme court for a generation").

    *what they do depends upon your side in an argument most of the time (see supreme court is not supposed to make law type stuff with gay marriage a few years back, even if it was not actually what was done there, and in reality they can also seek out and change quite a bit, or undo previous rulings**). They are however the last court of appeals, they decide a lot of important rulings in interesting legal cases, uncover aspects of law, and their rulings make and break companies, avenues of law and much more besides. At this point in time a lot of the stuff they do is very fiddly and specific (100 odd years back things were still being hammered out so you tend to find rulings from them and don't hear so much about new ones more than a few months after they were delivered).

    **one of the big ones people look at is Roe v Wade. The ruling that legalised abortion throughout the US. If the supreme court repeals that then it will be back to state level, which presumably means overnight much of the US south will either ban it or make it incredibly hard to get (even more so than it already is). At the same time Ginsburg was also viewed as one of the bigger anti gun types which means various challenges to that might be easier heard, and her stuff on intellectual property was always an interesting interpretation whenever I read things (often agreed with the majority but the reasoning provided for it differed at times). Indeed most would probably play to the judges themselves and their particular whims and argument styles they like rather than simple who appointed whom, to say nothing of if you are on there for decades then the party that appointed you might look very different by then.

    What young Lacius then presumably fears from those voting other is a spoiler effect either in general, at electoral college level, or within states which then feed the electoral college (different states do all sorts of different things here including winner take all for a few of them). I am not sure progressivism (assuming you care to be tarred with such a brush) is inherently tied to voting for the US Democrats, though there is a strong correlation.
     
    CORE likes this.
  2. Lacius

    OP Lacius GBAtemp Legend
    Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    14,214
    Country:
    United States
    There's nothing stopping the Republicans from appointing RBG's replacement between now and January, other than the electoral consequences that come with hypocrisy. If Biden wins in November, there's an extremely good chance the Republicans will appoint their pick to the Supreme Court before Biden's inauguration.

    I know progressives don't all necessarily vote Democratic (although they should). That was my point in calling them out.
     
  3. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    26,544
    Country:
    Poland
    They'll fill it, McConnell said as much earlier this year, and even earlier in 2019.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ing-supreme-court-vacancies-an-election-year/

    His contention during the Obama years was that customarily, if the seat needs to be filled and the Senate is controlled by the opposition party, the seat stays empty. This is not the case here - there's a Republican Senate and a Republican President.

    Edit: Relevant snippet for those who can't see past the pay wall:
     
    Iamapirate and gregory-samba like this.
  4. gregory-samba

    gregory-samba GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2020
    Messages:
    520
    Country:
    United States
    I'm sorry to hear about Ruth Ginsburgs passing. Even though I didn't agree with her politics she did seem like a nice lady. I saw commercials for a movie about her some time ago. I think I might watch it to see how her life in politics started. I'm also glad that we'll more than likely see another Republican replace her in the Supreme Court. Modern day Liberal Democrats are very radical compared to Mrs. Ginsburg and they are the last thing we need serving in the most powerful court in the USA. I hope Trump fast tracks whomever he'll nominate for the position. My condolences go out for anyone personally effected by her death and for the pain Liberals must be facing now that they've lost a seat on the Supreme Court that they'll likely not get back.
     
  5. omgcat

    omgcat GBAtemp Advanced Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2009
    Messages:
    590
    Country:
    United States
    it's a tricky thing, by rushing in a new SC justice, a lot of republican senate seats that are fairly safe might end up in jeopardy because of democrats getting riled up. if the republicans are smart, they won't try to force through a SC justice right now. if they do, and it flips the senate blue, along with a Biden win, Biden could pack the SC up to 13 justices and it would be popular. the smart move would be wait to see if trump wins, then fill the vacancy. if trump does not win, and the appointment is not forced, then the democrats would look extremely bad if they tried to increase the SC justice count past 9.

    in summary, if trump and the GOP wait to appoint, at worst they get a moderate SC justice replacing a liberal one, and at best they get a conservative justice.

    if they force it through, at best they get a conservative SC justice, and at worst the democrats gain 4 SC justices.

    the republicans are painfully aware of how forcing through SC appointments can hurt them, with the fallout of Kavanaugh and Gorsuch appointments. Susan Collins and some others got fucked for that vote.
     
    Last edited by omgcat, Sep 19, 2020
  6. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    26,544
    Country:
    Poland
    It's an extremely risky gamble. On one hand you have a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land at the cost of serious repercussions in an election year, on the other you have an uncertain future, but no uproar. Apparently they will hold a vote, but my crystal ball tells me that the seat won't get the chance to cool down.
     
  7. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Psycho!
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,201
    Country:
    United States

    Also distinguishable because in 2016 with the Garland nomination, Obama was a 2nd term lame duck (with an opposing majority in the Senate). Trump may or may not be re-elected, but he is not a lame duck.

    I think Trump will nominate someone. He should. He's supposed to. But the chances of confirmation before the election are very very low. Astronomically low. Just more for the right and left to scream at each other about for the next 6 weeks (or more), but in the end the election will determine who fills the seat.

    RIP, Justice Ginsburg
     
    Last edited by Hanafuda, Sep 19, 2020
    gregory-samba likes this.
  8. Iamapirate

    Iamapirate GBAtemp Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2013
    Messages:
    332
    Country:
    I imagine President Trump will have to go with a woman, since the last time he nominated a man they tried to destroy his life and career with flimsy sexual assault allegations.
     
  9. FAST6191

    FAST6191 Techromancer
    Reporter

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    31,928
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    Stalling tactics, threats of stalling tactics, smears and fun seems to be the way politics is played these days. Pity really but it is what it is.

    To that end to that end selecting someone with tits might appease a few that think such things matter (I want someone that knows the law, having tits does not seem to make it so and does not preclude it either) and possibly forestall the "she touched me while I was drunk" (she did it to me by the way, 10 years before I was born) set they will likely turn around and do a "well on this one issue she voted this way" (this way likely being what the constitution says should happen) or "when she was a judge/DA she prosecuted someone harshly who had tits and is therefore not a feminist" (never mind if said person burned down an orphanage and got the same sentence as with the opposite flavour of wobbly bits) or private practice she defended blah who was a bastard (generally thought that is what you did as a defence lawyer but hey).
     
    Iamapirate likes this.
  10. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    26,544
    Country:
    Poland
    Let's not pretend that either side of the aisle is consistent when it comes to charges of sexual assault or rape either. The Republicans caught Clinton in a perjury trap over getting a blowie in the Oval Office, the Democrats trodded out a line of victims to stop Kavanaugh's nomination. I'm old enough to remember Harris saying that "she believes" Biden's "victims" when she was running against him, but has nothing but praise for him now that she's running with him. Nobody cares, this is all about power.
     
  11. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Psycho!
    Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2005
    Messages:
    3,201
    Country:
    United States
    Two words we're very likely to hear soon are "unprecedented" and "rushed." Neither will be accurate and those pushing these words will not be sincere.

    Historically, many precedents.

    As for "rushed", John Paul Stevens went from nominated to confirmed in 19 days. That was in the mid-70's, so not exactly ancient history.


    [​IMG]
     
    Iamapirate and gregory-samba like this.
  12. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    26,544
    Country:
    Poland
    Honestly, even if history *wasn't* on their side it would be foolish not to seize this opportunity - this nomination will stack the SC in favour of Republicans for years to come, we're talking about a lifetime seat. Trump will be president for 4 more years if he's elected, the SC will affect American policy for decades. If they can score these two birds in 2020 then the game's over.
     
    Iamapirate likes this.
  13. callmebob

    callmebob The Grandpa of Awe!
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2007
    Messages:
    705
    Country:
    Germany
    Mitch can try and push his shit through. If the dems take the senate we´ll have 3 or 5 more supreme court members to even out this unjustice.
     
    IncredulousP likes this.
  14. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    26,544
    Country:
    Poland
    Adding more seats to the SC would, arguably, be more egregious than filling the seat last minute. The law is on their side, the rules are clearly laid out and they have the authority to confirm a new judge.
     
  15. callmebob

    callmebob The Grandpa of Awe!
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2007
    Messages:
    705
    Country:
    Germany
    Oh, they will. 2 weeks latest. But when they lose everything November the new congress/pres. will have no other alternative than to add seats to the supreme court. Guess how those new seats will be filled.
     
  16. Foxi4

    Foxi4 Cynical Absurdist
    Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    26,544
    Country:
    Poland
    What you're basically saying is that the very moment they lose the upper hand they will resort to tyranny in order to get their way in the end - that's not a good look.

    "Elections have consequences. (...) I won." - Barack Obama

    "You'll regret this, and you may regret this a lot sooner than you think." - Mitch McConnell

    The chickens have come to roost, turns out elections do have consequences, and what goes around comes around. This isn't an injustice, this is just deserts.
     
    Hanafuda likes this.
  17. monkeyman4412

    monkeyman4412 Gbatemp's moronic trash
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Messages:
    2,005
    Country:
    United States
    Am I the only one who remembered that Obama's appointment was stalled out, and kept vacant until Trump came into office?
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-blocks-obama-laughs_n_5df32430e4b0deb78b517322
    Am I the only one who remembers that?
    or have I just gone insane?
     
    IncredulousP likes this.
  18. Lacius

    OP Lacius GBAtemp Legend
    Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    14,214
    Country:
    United States
    McConnell's hypocrisy is comparable to court-packing by adding seats. I see very little difference between the two.
     
    IncredulousP likes this.
  19. monkeyman4412

    monkeyman4412 Gbatemp's moronic trash
    Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2016
    Messages:
    2,005
    Country:
    United States
    Yeah I agree, it's also really hard to believe he is going to take some moral high ground here and actually not go add an appointy last second. When the guy ignored another president for 2 years straight. And then when the president switches parties, be all happy to help
    (as in a new president who is the party mitch opposes if for whatever reason my wording seems confusing)
     
    Last edited by monkeyman4412, Sep 19, 2020
  20. Lacius

    OP Lacius GBAtemp Legend
    Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Messages:
    14,214
    Country:
    United States
    If the Republicans push through a justice before the next inauguration, Biden (or whoever the next Democratic president is) should pack the court. I say this as someone who opposes court packing.
     
    IncredulousP likes this.
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...

Hide similar threads Similar threads with keywords - Presidential, Election, [POLL]