Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 3:21:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 16:01:03 GMT
 "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died a week ago, has become the first woman in US history to lie in state at the US Capitol in Washington DC.
The liberal icon died from pancreatic cancer after 27 years on the nation's top court. Thousands have been paying their respects as she lay in repose outside the Supreme Court building this week. Ginsburg, who died aged 87, was an outspoken advocate for gender equality and civil rights. She has been mythologised by liberals and feminists as a barrier-breaking leader. Dubbed by her fans as the Notorious RBG, she also became the first justice to have two days of viewing at the Supreme Court. Given the sheer number of visitors coming to pay their respects, organisers determined one day would not be enough." www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54289609Ginsburg is lying in state in Statuary Hall, rather than the Capitol Rotunda. As a practical matter, it's the House that has jurisdiction over Statuary Hall, whereas a joint resolution from both houses of Congress would be required for an individual to lie in state in the rotunda. If Ginsburg's casket were in the rotunda, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would be a co-host and would be speaking at the ceremony. By moving the proceedings to Statuary Hall, Pelosi controls the ceremony. McConnell sent his regrets and did not attend. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy was also not present.
www.cbsnews.com/news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-lie-in-state-capitol-rotunda-watch-live-stream-today-2020-09-25/ |
|
Anita
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,703 
Location: Kansas City -ish
|
Post by Anita on Sept 25, 2020 16:02:49 GMT
Of course they didn't. They can't retract their lips from Trump's ass long enough to attend.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 3:21:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 16:05:08 GMT
Of course they didn't. They can't retract their lips from Trump's ass long enough to attend. Not to mention the rank stinking hypocrisy of denying Obama his nomination of Garland 8 MONTHS before the election while speed-racing Trump's nom through the Senate 50 days before elections. Times like this I wish there was a hell so they could roast in it. It's all a game to the GOP. There are no rules. There is just power. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Sept 25, 2020 16:14:12 GMT
She is also the first Jewish person to lie in state.
I hate Mitch McConnell as much as Trump. He is a deplorable waste or air.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 3:21:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 18:21:43 GMT
Of course they didn't. They can't retract their lips from Trump's ass long enough to attend. Not to mention the rank stinking hypocrisy of denying Obama his nomination of Garland 8 MONTHS before the election while speed-racing Trump's nom through the Senate 50 days before elections. Wasn't it because Obama was a lame duck while Trump is not? |
|
|
|
Post by nlwilkins on Sept 25, 2020 18:25:27 GMT
a lame duck is an elected official that lost the election for the next term, but has to serve out the last part of the current term. A lame duck label does not occur until after an election for the next term. President Obama was not technically a lame duck as he was not voted out of office but has reached the limits of what is was allowed to serve.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 3:21:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 18:26:41 GMT
Not to mention the rank stinking hypocrisy of denying Obama his nomination of Garland 8 MONTHS before the election while speed-racing Trump's nom through the Senate 50 days before elections. Wasn't it because Obama was a lame duck while Trump is not? It's bulls#($*. It's made up rules to justify complete power grabs. Where in the Constitution does it say that a 'lame duck' President is not President and/or doesn't get to appoint justices or do anything else for the last year (2 years? 4 years?) of his second term?!? |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 3:21:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 18:55:36 GMT
Maybe Dems should make up buillshit rules too, like Presidents who don't win the popular vote don't get to have their nominations voted on.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 3:21:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 19:03:07 GMT
a lame duck is an elected official that lost the election for the next term, but has to serve out the last part of the current term. A lame duck label does not occur until after an election for the next term. President Obama was not technically a lame duck as he was not voted out of office but has reached the limits of what is was allowed to serve. Where are you getting that incorrect definition? A lame duck is an official whose successor has already or will be elected/selected and who will not be serving again. Any President or other official who has termed out most definitely is a lame duck because they by default have a successor. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 3:21:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 21:15:13 GMT
a lame duck is an elected official that lost the election for the next term, but has to serve out the last part of the current term. A lame duck label does not occur until after an election for the next term. President Obama was not technically a lame duck as he was not voted out of office but has reached the limits of what is was allowed to serve. Where are you getting that incorrect definition? A lame duck is an official whose successor has already or will be elected/selected and who will not be serving again. Any President or other official who has termed out most definitely is a lame duck because they by default have a successor. None of that was true in MARCH 2016! The definition from @niwilkins is correct. But in ANY case there is no bullshit provision in the Constitution about not being able to having a SCOTUS nomination CONSIDERED at any time during the PRESIDENT'S PRESIDENCY! |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 3:21:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 21:19:56 GMT
Where are you getting that incorrect definition? A lame duck is an official whose successor has already or will be elected/selected and who will not be serving again. Any President or other official who has termed out most definitely is a lame duck because they by default have a successor. None of that was true in MARCH 2016! The definition from @niwilkins is correct. But in ANY case there is no bullshit provision in the Constitution about not being able to having a SCOTUS nomination CONSIDERED at any time during the PRESIDENT'S PRESIDENCY! Calm the fuck down. I never said there was. But it was true in March 2016. Obama was a lame duck president the same as any president in their 2nd term. They cannot be elected again. They are a lame duck from the very first day of their 2nd term. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 3:21:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 22:00:30 GMT
None of that was true in MARCH 2016! The definition from @niwilkins is correct. But in ANY case there is no bullshit provision in the Constitution about not being able to having a SCOTUS nomination CONSIDERED at any time during the PRESIDENT'S PRESIDENCY! Calm the fuck down. I never said there was. But it was true in March 2016. Obama was a lame duck president the same as any president in their 2nd term. They cannot be elected again. They are a lame duck from the very first day of their 2nd term. That is the stupidest thing I've read on the board for a LONG time. Obama could never be elected again the day after the election in 2012. Does that mean his last 4 years as President were "lame duck". You're talking out of your a@(@ "In U.S. politics, the period between (presidential and congressional) elections in November and the inauguration of officials early in the following year is commonly called the "lame duck period". A president is a lame duck after a successor has been elected, during which time the outgoing president and president-elect usually embark on a transition of power. " - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics)#United_StatesEven under your bogus definition of "A lame duck is an official whose successor has already or will be elected/selected and who will not be serving again.", Obama's successor had not been elected in MARCH 2016. So HIS nomination of Merrick Garland SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORTH TO CONSIDERATION AND A VOTE! |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 3:21:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 22:19:50 GMT
Calm the fuck down. I never said there was. But it was true in March 2016. Obama was a lame duck president the same as any president in their 2nd term. They cannot be elected again. They are a lame duck from the very first day of their 2nd term. That is the stupidest thing I've read on the board for a LONG time. Obama could never be elected again the day after the election in 2012. Does that mean his last 4 years as President were "lame duck". You're talking out of your a@(@ "In U.S. politics, the period between (presidential and congressional) elections in November and the inauguration of officials early in the following year is commonly called the "lame duck period". A president is a lame duck after a successor has been elected, during which time the outgoing president and president-elect usually embark on a transition of power. " - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics)#United_StatesEven under your bogus definition of "A lame duck is an official whose successor has already or will be elected/selected and who will not be serving again.", Obama's successor had not been elected in MARCH 2016. So HIS nomination of Merrick Garland SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORTH TO CONSIDERATION AND A VOTE! Stop with the rabid caps. I get it. You think Garland should have been brought forth for a vote. So did Justice Ginsburg. Just like one should be brought forth now. As she said the President's power is the same in the 4th year as it is in the 3rd. I'm just discussing what a lame duck is. Tell me at what point after Obama was elected a 2nd time that he was eligible to be elected again? He wasn't. He was a lame duck - an official whose successor has already or will be elected. Obama wasn't eligible. He was going to be succeeded by someone else. |
|
|
|
Post by gardengoddess on Sept 25, 2020 22:29:56 GMT
I got to watch a bit of it this morning and hoping to find the eulogies I missed online. I can't believe it's taken this long for a woman to have that honor, although as misogynistic our society still is, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.
I'm completely okay with expanding the court once Biden/Harris win and we have both houses. Fuck them. The Dems need to play hard ball with no regrets. They would win more often.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 3:21:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 22:34:36 GMT
That is the stupidest thing I've read on the board for a LONG time. Obama could never be elected again the day after the election in 2012. Does that mean his last 4 years as President were "lame duck". You're talking out of your a@(@ "In U.S. politics, the period between (presidential and congressional) elections in November and the inauguration of officials early in the following year is commonly called the "lame duck period". A president is a lame duck after a successor has been elected, during which time the outgoing president and president-elect usually embark on a transition of power. " - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lame_duck_(politics)#United_StatesEven under your bogus definition of "A lame duck is an official whose successor has already or will be elected/selected and who will not be serving again.", Obama's successor had not been elected in MARCH 2016. So HIS nomination of Merrick Garland SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT FORTH TO CONSIDERATION AND A VOTE! Stop with the rabid caps. I get it. You think Garland should have been brought forth for a vote. So did Justice Ginsburg. Just like one should be brought forth now. As she said the President's power is the same in the 4th year as it is in the 3rd. I'm just discussing what a lame duck is. Tell me at what point after Obama was elected a 2nd time that he was eligible to be elected again? He wasn't. He was a lame duck - an official whose successor has already or will be elected. Obama wasn't eligible. He was going to be succeeded by someone else. I will type as I please. You do the same. So, in your stunted calculus. If the entire 2nd term is "lame duck" what does that mean about what the President IS and IS NOT able to do - and please quote your sources from the Constitution and/or Case Law. |
|
TheOtherMeg
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,541
Jun 25, 2014 20:58:14 GMT
|
Post by TheOtherMeg on Sept 25, 2020 22:42:25 GMT
Of course they didn't. They can't retract their lips from Trump's ass long enough to attend. Not to mention the rank stinking hypocrisy of denying Obama his nomination of Garland 8 MONTHS before the election while speed-racing Trump's nom through the Senate 50 days before elections. Times like this I wish there was a hell so they could roast in it. It's all a game to the GOP. There are no rules. There is just power. It's actually worse than that. It's not 8 months v 50 days.
The election -- early voting -- had started in over a half dozen states on the day RBG died. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 7, 2024 3:21:50 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2020 23:27:14 GMT
Her trainer doing three pushups in front of the casket had me 😢. Perfect goodbye!
|
|
|
|
Post by aj2hall on Sept 26, 2020 1:12:58 GMT
a lame duck is an elected official that lost the election for the next term, but has to serve out the last part of the current term. A lame duck label does not occur until after an election for the next term. President Obama was not technically a lame duck as he was not voted out of office but has reached the limits of what is was allowed to serve. Where are you getting that incorrect definition? A lame duck is an official whose successor has already or will be elected/selected and who will not be serving again. Any President or other official who has termed out most definitely is a lame duck because they by default have a successor. Actually, I think her definition is correct and yours is wrong. www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/lame%20duck: an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor |
|
