I get it! My plea to have a rational discussion has gone out the door...lol! Since this thread should commemorate RBG, let's be altruistic here and abide by her example.

Maybe that is not possible given these polarizing times? My hope is that rational debates can be possible.

We all need to be able to speak our opinions and not be shut down. Recently, it seems harder and harder to express one's views. Hmmm...not the best of times and my sense is, things will become more polarized and many will be afraid to speak . What a shame! (A US perspective - but perhaps applicable to EF as well!)

Im incendiary? I meant no insult to the poster I quoted. The only incendiary comments have come from you - claiming I don't understand the constitution while offering precisely nothing in terms of a factual rebuttal. But hey no offence taken.

I agree with Terrifisch above - US politics have got so heated that people struggle to see anything in a non partisan light anymore. I feel quite privileged in really disliking both sides as helps keeps ones sanity.

Interesting take.

Another Opinion piece in the NYT, an interesting thought exercise by Steven Calabresi. He is a professor at the Pritzker School of Law at Northwestern - and a self-described libertarian-conservative, who knew and respected both RBG and Scalia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/22/o...firmation.html

Mr Calabresi's take is that the SCOTUS nomination and confirmation process, once generally collegial with an emphasis on legal qualification, has become unworkably political, partisan, and poisonous. Much to the detriment of the country, no matter which side of the aisle you are on.

He posits a remedy: A constitutional amendment to scrap lifelong appointments. Rather introduce a single 18 year term. Stagger the terms so that one seat opens up in the first and third years of every president's four year term.

Now - A constitutional amendment requires a herculean effort, one this divided country teetering on the brink certainly couldn't muster any time soon.

An interesting thought exercise nonetheless.

Ah here it is - the popular support again argument. So if he had 80% like Lukasenko things would be alright then.

More horse dung. You're incendiary, day and night on the EF. Give me a break.

And so is Terrifisch. So these pleas coming from you guys are laughable, really.

Good luck with this ridiculous forum getting any sort of satisfaction. This place is nonsense, thanks to folks like yourself.

Uh, I wasn't the one making claims of a mandate. And, uh, Democracy. Popular support matters.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Will Be the First Woman Ever to Lie In State at the Capitol

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/ruth...192300074.html

Some people seem to haunt the forum purely to exorcise their demons.

Or to exercise their demons! ...as my daughter likes to say.

Those demons sure get a workout!

I actually watched part of the arrival of RBG’s coffin at the Capitol yesterday. While not a fan of lots of this nonsense, it was nice to see some tasteful activity and adult behavior at the capitol.

I've been thinking about the question of timing of a SCOTUS nomination.

Let me first state my biases. I lean towards fiscal moderation in many things but consider myself a socially liberal democrat. (Which would probably make me a centrist with maybe even one toe over the line towards the right in Switzerland. )

The prospect of Amy Coney Barret on the court terrifies me. And I say this as a Catholic woman - so let's dispense with identiy politics.

Coney Barret's memorandum on the death penalty was stunning hypocrisy, and if you don't know her background then research People Of Praise, an organization she is active in and whose principles she embraces. The covenant or personal pledge is highly worrisome given the need for judicial independence.

It should also be noted that the legal basis for Roe v Wade is the right to privacy. Overturning Roe v Wade, the mission of many behind Coney Barret's nomination, might not stop at making abortion illegal. Such a move could have profound legal implications on the notions of personal privacy - something that keeps me up at night under an administration that has demonstrated such nakedly autocratic behavior.

So I hope, and yes, pray, that Coney Barret is not the nominee. And if nominated, not confirmed.

That said:

If we have learned anything in these last almost four years it is that far too much of our governance relies on norms rather than concrete law.

Following norms has worked for most of our history because everyone to agrees to do so. The old 'consent of the governed', if you will. But all it takes is a person of power (Lookin' at you Mitch, Bill Barr, and Donald) to ignore or break those norms for things to fall apart. There are no consequences for norm-breaking because a norm is not law.

What McConnel did to Merrit Garland was shameful - but not illegal. And that is the crux of the problem today.

I am of two minds about the appointment. McConnell's obstructionist denial of a hearing on Garland's nomination in 2016 was wrong morally, normatively, and in light of a more textual interpretation of the constitution - but it did set a new precedent. He and Lindsay Graham said as much. His weasley reversal today is nothing more than rank hipocrisy.

But I'm still uneasy, constitutionally, with a repeat today. Two wrongs, even I support the hoped-for outcome of one of those actions, still do not make a right. That is not the way to govern. But I am not yet convinced, just pondering the constitutional slippery slope.

Which is why I believe we need the SCOTUS nomination process, and so very much more (expecially when it comes to executive power) better codified into hard law. We cannot rely to such an extent on following norms, i,e, civil behavior, anymore because our politics, even our very society, have, sadly, becoming decidedly uncivil.

Reality is that remedies will, unfortunately for all of us, have to wait for a more upright and civil administration. In the meantime, the possibilty of Amy Coney Barret terrifies me.

Rock and a hard place.

Very well stated, and I agree wholeheartedly, in theory. I’m right there with you, and would only add that we leftists have had this levelheaded and reasonable approach for many decades, doing the “go high” thing in response to ever growing cheating from the right, with their immoral “moral mandate from God” excusing the most awful behavior toward their fellow humans. Enough. We must try to have two minds, as you said, but separate them clearly into principle vs action. We must maintain our principles of do no harm and true equality, but we can’t allow that to keep us from getting dead aim on the elements that have allowed the right to cheat, and when we find them, nail them unequivocally to the wall. We’ve always gone soft. No more.

__________________

Exactly this - she terrifies me too.

Project much, robogobo?!? Your recent posting history is chock full of incendiary and accusatory statements. Take a deep breath, man...

You only see my response to the lighted match. I never start the fight, but I'm damned determined to finish it. Big picture, man...

"Barrett identifies as Catholic, but more specifically, she is affiliated with an ecumenical Christian group, the People of Praise."

Quoted from the following article:
https://www.refinery29.com/en-us/202...handmaids-tale

The People of Praise helped inspire Margaret Atwood's brilliant Handmaid's Tale. Besides the novel, I am also a big fan of the series. It is a hard watch since you can't help but mirror the plot to what is happening in our society today. The "aunt's" dialog is eerily familiar to what I had to listen to in my strict Christian school growing up in the Bible belt.

Her potential appointment absolutely terrifies me...

Swiss version of weird processes in picking justices: https://www.republik.ch/2020/09/23/d...-interview-svp It seems to have become hugely political all over the world. Poland is another example.

Actually, no, there are no clearly defined rules stating that a president cannot appoint a Justice during an election year; it's only been a tradition in the past. However, that didn't stop Mitch McConnell and other Republicans from blocking Obama's nomination of Garland in 2016 simply because it was an election year. In fact, they blocked him because he would have given the Supreme Court a Democratic majority, but they said that their justified reason for blocking him was because it was an election year; and again, that was 9 months prior to the actual election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merric...urt_nomination

So now here we are in yet another election year and another open seat in the Supreme Court, but clearly Mitch McConnell and other Republicans now think it's just fine for a president to elect a Justice to the Supreme Count during an election year -- and just weeks before the election, no less -- and when that appointment will give the Supreme Court a Republican advantage and further offset any balance that may have been in place.

If you're not able to see or recognize the hypocrisy there, it's because you are viewing it through the lens of your own bias. Clearly, Republicans think that they are entitled to do something that they demanded Democrats were not entitled to do themselves. And coincidentally, that is one of the signs of being a sociopath.

You started it with me! And with terrifish who didn't even make the mistake of challenging you on points of fact. TBH you come across as a bit of a bully and you seem to think if you shout loud enough it makes you correct. It's very easy to be aggressive on the internet, but it doesn't make it right. I bet you are nice in person.

As explained above - I am entirely able to recognize the hypocrisy. The Republicans will do and say anything. Which is a bit of a joke when they claim to represent some old fashioned moral values. Please, please don't think I am on the side of the Republicans. I'm definitely not. On the type of moral points that are being discussed I am decidedly on the liberal end of the spectrum.

I think we are only disagreeing on the semantics. We both seem to think that the Republicans behaviour is awful but that they de jure have the right to behave in this way.