Ruth Bader Ginsburg dead

What does this mean for the future of the SCOTUS? Do you think Trump will appoint another judge before reelection; and if so, will the Democrats stall the proceedings like they did for Kavanaugh? Wouldn't mind seeing Tom Cotton in there ngl

 
Controversial

Time to get someone who actually respects the constitution in there.  Hopefully they push through Amy Coney Barrett or Allison Jones Rushing.

 

Time to get someone who actually respects the constitution in there.  

It is a terrible thing to imply that RBG did not respect the constitution and on the day that she died!  My guess is that she respected the constitution and the law much more than you do.  

 

Took comment down. Wasn’t appropriate in light of the situation. Maybe I’ll put it back up with more distance and time.

 
Most Helpful

EDIT: It’s been a day. Again RIP RBG. She was a legal titan and an inspiration.

Republicans should absolutely fill the seat.

For many Republican voters, this was the primary reason they elected these officials to their posts in the first place. This is arguably the most important vote of their tenures.

And to the Democrats who are complaining about Merrick Garland and how this is unfair — I couldn’t care less. The Republicans controlled the Senate in 2016 and blocked his nomination. The Republicans control the Presidency and the Senate in 2020. They have the political power and authority to nominate and appoint a Justice to the bench.

Not to mention 2018 when the Democrats called Brett Kavanaugh a “serial gang rapist” and impeached the President in an election year. Anyone complaining “muh, Republicans aren’t fair to Democrats” is kidding themselves and needs to gain some perspective — your party would do the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot. And they’ve done WORSE in 1991 with Thomas and 2018 in Kavanaugh.

 

I mean, seeing how Democrats acted when Scalia passed why should this be any different? Or do we seriously have to keep holding ourselves to some self-perceived higher standard whilst we're constantly slandered by mainstream media?

Personally, I'm glad conservatives won't have to worry about Gorsuch flip-flopping when it counts anymore (assuming a new justice is forced through before the election). 2nd amendment secured and Roe vs Wade is numbered.

 

I mean, seeing how Democrats acted when Scalia passed why should this be any different? 

This is how you start a childish fight. It's sad to see our politicians acting like bunch of unruly children every chance they get. Now it seems people can't understand basic decency. Now we're no different than bunch of chimpanzees.

Mom: "Andrew, you should be nice to your older brother!"

Andrew: "But Johnny hit me first. Weh weh!"

Also did you know that RBG and Scalia were best friends? You're making a mockery out of both with this comment. Very disrespectful if you ask me.

 

She's literally just passed away a few hours ago. Parties aside, she was a member of the Supreme Court and deserves our respect. Like the poster above said, today is definitely not the day to speculate on the future, but the day to commemorate her past.

 

Trump 2020 incoming, show me Amy Coney Barrett! It's sad that RBG passed, she's an absolute legend who paved the way for women in law, but as a pro-lifer & hoosier my fingers are crossed.

 

I am gong to be brave and comment on this (and under my own user name).  I have never used the anonymous feature.  I say brave because MS will likely come my way.  It is a sad day for America, as Ginsburg was a great legal mind and an important part of American history. She paved the way for women to be treated fairly in the work place and was a role model for many younger women, including my wife who is an attorney. She was nearly in tears when we heard the news and so were many of her friends. I also have the Brooklyn connection as I grew up on this borough.  

Regarding the supreme court vacancy, it is what is it is and it is not going to be pretty.  Dems are still bitter about the Garland situation when the senate leader refused give him a chance, claiming it would be inappropriate with an election coming up in about a year.  Now, we are about 45 days until the election and it seems like the senate leader has changed his mind: shocking!   It is going to be ugly.

To honor Justice Ginsburg, I am happy to take the dissenting opinion.  I do not think a vote should be held for a new Justice until a new POTUS is sworn into office.  Having a vote now would serve to make the divide in the United States even worse.  It is an unwritten rule in baseball that if you are winning by a lot of runs, late in the game, you do not steal bases to run up the score.  You should show some respect for the opposition.

 

Don't you realize that part of the Kavanaugh issue stems from the refusal to give Garland a chance, even though the election was not for about a year.  If I were the dems, I would threaten to cancel the POTUS debates. The Dems do not need the debates, anyway.  

 

financeabc

I am gong to be brave and comment on this (and under my own user name).  I have never used the anonymous feature.  I say brave because MS will likely come my way.  It is a sad day for America, as Ginsburg was a great legal mind and an important part of American history. She paved the way for women to be treated fairly in the work place and was a role model for many younger women, including my wife who is an attorney. She was nearly in tears when we heard the news and so were many of her friends. I also have the Brooklyn connection as I grew up on this borough.  

Regarding the supreme court vacancy, it is what is it is and it is not going to be pretty.  Dems are still bitter about the Garland situation when the senate leader refused give him a chance, claiming it would be inappropriate with an election coming up in about a year.  Now, we are about 45 days until the election and it seems like the senate leader has changed his mind: shocking!   It is going to be ugly.

To honor Justice Ginsburg, I am happy to take the dissenting opinion.  I do not think a vote should be held for a new Justice until a new POTUS is sworn into office.  Having a vote now would serve to make the divide in the United States even worse.  It is an unwritten rule in baseball that if you are winning by a lot of runs, late in the game, you do not steal bases to run up the score.  You should show some respect for the opposition.

So stunning and brave, and utterly lacking any sort of supporting argument for why the confirmation shouldn't be held ASAP aside from honoring the deceased. Baseball is a game. This isn't about "keeping score," it's politics and there is no "mercy rule." This is about deciding the fate of a nation and how the Constitution will be upheld for the foreseeable future. Seeing how Joe & Kamala have been talking about all these lovely policies they plan to put in place that directly violate it and how Democrat led states & cities have been fairing so far this year, it would be irresponsible for the Republicans NOT to pull out every stop.

The reason Senate delayed under Obama was because we had a split President vs Senate. This makes the argument that the country is split ideologically enough for it to be reflected in it's representation and is literally entire point of the checks and balances built into the Executive vs Legislative branches. Since politics typically swing on a pendulum, who's to say in 2024 it's not the Democrats who have the Presidency & Senate? This would make it even more important that SCOTUS can act as an ultimate check to both of them.

Right now we have same party in office/majority for both. There's no chance in hell the Democrats wouldn't hold off if they had the Senate majority right now, and even less of a chance they wouldn't move to confirm if the situations were reversed. For the argument of precedence in terms of the short time frame and the fact it's an election year:

On top of that, we're about to head into one of the most hotly contested elections in history with both sides indicating that they will likely challenge if they lose the nomination. You have Democrats changing the rules across the board for the first time ever with this mass mail-in voting push which will delay results for who knows how long while compromising security. Some states going as far as to remove the ability to reject mail-in ballots over signature verification requirements.

Opening the opportunity for a deadlock with an 8 Justice bench is an absurdly irresponsible move just begging for a constitutional crisis. Look at the rhetoric on social media, you have members of the House literally calling for their base to be radicalized by this event and other prominent Democrats publicly calling for people to "burn it all down" should the Republicans try to fill the seat. This is America. We don't negotiate with threats of violence. Democrat leaders have already shown they have no problem looking the other way while allowing people to loot and burn cities in the name of their own political causes, while simultaneously criticizing President Trump for somehow causing the riots and when the federal government steps in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I hope they nominate Amy Coney Barrett. I think it's only right to fill RBG's shoes with another woman, she'd be the first nominated to the court not from an Ivy League (just something I find interesting), and is known for letting previous court precedence stand.

"The obedient always think of themselves as virtuous rather than cowardly" - Robert A. Wilson | "If you don't have any enemies in life you have never stood up for anything" - Winston Churchill | "It's a testament to the sheer belligerence of the profession that people would rather argue about the 'risk-adjusted returns' of using inferior tooth cleaning methods." - kellycriterion
 

I think you need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills, as not once did I say we should delay the confirmation to honor the deceased.  You might want to think twice about criticizing the democrat led states.  Without the dem led states, technology would be in toilet and so would the financial services industry.   Also, a few years ago, your friend Kermit along a long list of his buddies raised concerns about confirming a justice in a year of an election.

 

She was a very impressive person and obviously was inspirational to tons of people.

With that being said and with all due respect, she was obviously barely able to perform her role and should have retired some time earlier due to her health. I don’t think they should wait to replace her until 2021 because she reasonably should have retired months ago. Just because she hated Trump and Republicans isn’t a fair reason not to replace her now IMO. I hope they replace her ASAP during this term.

 

Lot of people out there are crocodile tears over what mcconnell did to obama - not letting him get a vote on the floor of the senate for SCOTUS.  They are saying it is hypocritical....  All I'll say is, don't hate the player, hate the game.  Sucks for you dems that Trumpman got another bounce in his direction.  OF COURSE HE IS GOING TO GET ANOTHER PICK!  Why wouldn't he?  You think he will hold off? If yeah, where the hell have you been the last 4 years, this guy wouldn't pull a punch of pelosi's denture was about to cut his hand off.  

Also, REPUBS need a SCOTUS justice in there before election day.  Dems are going to try to steal this election with bullshit.  Its going to be crazy what they try.  Trump needs another justice in there to have the majority and continue uphold law in the US. 

Also, that last part about continuing to uphold law is going to trigger libs.  Just save it for november I don't want to hear your moronic whining on this site.

 

They should have picked someone besides Kavanaugh, but the trump White House is not known for details like vetting.  Kavanaugh proved during testimony that he doesn’t have the ideal measured demeanor to be a Supreme Court Justice.  Also, they didn’t delve into his suspicious finances.  There are plenty of other conservatives they could have chosen.  Anyway, that’s done.

As far as a replacement for RBG, the only thing stopping an appointment is the calculus on how this affects certain senate races ie Collins.

 

I would not trust anything that Collins says.  No dem should be hanging their hat on the Collins vote.  Most of the republicans would vote along party lines.  With the exceptions of possibly Romney and Murkowski, all of the existing republicans are Trump republicans.  The only people who would have considered voting against the republican nominee have left the party.

 

McConnell blocked Garland for political reasons and he might try to ram a conservative SCOTUS nominee through for political reasons. There is no principle at play, it's just a pure power game which is sad to see. Arguments as to why it's OK for him to do it now vs not OK for Garland are just post-hoc rationalization. 

That being said, I don't know who this benefits. One one hand, it may inflame the left and not the part of the left that riots in the street causing backlash. It's the suburban white woman wing of the Dem party. On the other hand, it presents an excellent lib owning opportunity for Trump and may bring back some of the 2016 magic.

Not super up to speed on the timing/strategy. Could ACB be confirmed before November or would it have to be in the lame duck session?  

 

I have to say the Republicans have been much better at being Machiavellian in their ability to obtain and hold power than the Democrats have been. With Electoral College maps, gerrymandering and voter restrictions, the map's been tilted in the Republican Party's favour (with the voting maps giving rural areas almost 2.5x the voting power of big cities), and Democrats usually need about a 2-3% spread in the Electoral College, 4% in the House, and 6-7% in the Senate to achieve a majority. The Republicans could theoretically win a majority in the election every single time, even if they lose the popular vote. For example, in the 2018 Senate races, the Democrats received more votes, but the Republicans gained more seats. In Wisconsin, Democrats captured 53% of the low house votes, but the Republicans captured more than 60% of the seats. At this point, the Democrats are clearly the more popular party in America, but America's political system allows the Republicans to essentially retain minority rule.

Anybody parroting McConnell's talking points about "precedent", "divided White House/Senate", blah blah, is being disingenuous. In a ruthless power move, McConnell created an excuse out of thin air to block Obama's nomination of Garland, and now has backtracked with some BS about how it was only because the WH and Senate were held by different parties. As a former lawyer, every lawyer and political scholar I've spoken to about it recently knows it's total BS and just a thinly-veiled power grab, but the Republicans have the power to stick with it and ram through their nominee before Inauguration Day. I think the scariest thing is how much this could further upend political norms and divide the country even more. For those of you who are saying this is totally fair and there's nothing wrong with McConnell's double-dealing, would you cry foul, or would you accept, if the Democrats capture the White House and a Senate Majority during the next few years, and pursue the "nuclear option", which could include:

-increasing the number of Supreme Court justices and packing it with liberal judges 

-ending the filibuster so a Senate majority can govern

-admitting DC, Puerto Rico, and the US Virgin Islands as US states

-adopting tough legislative curbs on partisan gerrymandering

-expanding the lower courts and packing them with liberal judges

If the Republicans push through Trump's pick before the election or during a lame-duck session, I wouldn't be surprised to see the Dems take the gloves off and resort to at least some of the above. America's treading down the slippery slope of destroying its political and legal norms. American politics seem like a reality show at this point.

 

Molestias veritatis eos cumque sed est. Voluptate consequatur autem debitis voluptas consequatur aut est blanditiis. Consequatur quidem est veritatis aut quidem.

Career Advancement Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Jefferies & Company 02 99.4%
  • Goldman Sachs 19 98.8%
  • Harris Williams & Co. (++) 98.3%
  • Lazard Freres 02 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 03 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Harris Williams & Co. 18 99.4%
  • JPMorgan Chase 10 98.8%
  • Lazard Freres 05 98.3%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.7%
  • William Blair 03 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Lazard Freres 01 99.4%
  • Jefferies & Company 02 98.8%
  • Goldman Sachs 17 98.3%
  • Moelis & Company 07 97.7%
  • JPMorgan Chase 05 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

March 2024 Investment Banking

  • Director/MD (5) $648
  • Vice President (19) $385
  • Associates (86) $261
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (13) $181
  • Intern/Summer Associate (33) $170
  • 2nd Year Analyst (66) $168
  • 1st Year Analyst (202) $159
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (144) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
kanon's picture
kanon
98.9
6
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
7
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
8
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
9
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
10
Jamoldo's picture
Jamoldo
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”