Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87

Overheal

She has succumb to complication from her cancer.

https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87/?fbclid=IwAR3Oq5YIyds3qjfJEtz9RkaIA6nwdXV9m1NBDTItVnPtfJGQuslmaGXjGuM

This will have immediate ramifications in all ongoing cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, including an appeal the WH just filed today to try and keep immigrants out of the Census (which is against the 14th amendment as written). Trump has already published a list of potential nominees which includes Ted Cruz. Republicans have previously vowed they would nominate a justice in an election year, despite having previously to that left a vacancy open for nearly a year to prevent President Obama from getting Merrick Garland on the bench, citing refusal to do so in an election year.

bobbyy gee

she tried to survive until trump got voted out of office and worked while fighting cancer

end of the road

yes just heard this via lbc radio.
terbulent times ahead indeed.
rip.

James Brown

Sad day for the U.S.

thats the US ****ed

Obama's greatest failure was not getting two supreme court judges installed in his tenure

Overheal

[Deleted User] wrote: »

thats the US ****ed

Obama's greatest failure was not getting two supreme court judges installed in his tenure

It’s been the GOPs single greatest drive. I broke down the justice appointments over the years, back when Garland was nominated: had Obama confirmed him it would have been the first time in decades conservative justices were not the majority opinion on the court. If the Senate confirms a 3rd one now the ideological balance will be 6-3. They’ve cashed in a lot of dignities to make that happen.

Itssoeasy

Just looking through Twitter on both sides of the political divide in the US and to a person they are praising RBG regardless of politics.

touts

RIP RBG. A true trailblazer and champion of equal rights.



Rudy Giuliani probably fancies the job.

rosser44

Setting up a fresh AC to take the piss out of a dead 87 Yr old woman is pathetic and the actions of a f**king coward.

Overheal

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Just looking through Twitter on both sides of the political divide in the US and to a person they are praising RBG regardless of politics.

Let's check that landscape again in 12 hours.

I think confirming a 6-3 conservative majority on the SCOTUS would be worth it to the GOP to completely blow this election. But the calculus there is if Democrats got a majority of both chambers and the presidency they can sign in a new law to change the size of the bench and then confirm more. They could bet the farm though and bank on there not being enough popular support to increase the size of the court, or bank on Democrats not winning those majorities in this election.

touts

Overheal wrote: »

Let's check that landscape again in 12 hours.

I think confirming a 6-3 conservative majority on the SCOTUS would be worth it to the GOP to completely blow this election. But the calculus there is if Democrats got a majority of both chambers and the presidency they can sign in a new law to change the size of the bench and then confirm more. They could bet the farm though and bank on there not being enough popular support to increase the size of the court, or bank on Democrats not winning those majorities in this election.

How many Republican senators and congressmen do you think are such true believers to the conservative cause that they will lay their seats down just to put a GOP member on the Supreme Court.

Overheal

touts wrote: »

How many Republican senators and congressmen do you think are such true believers to the conservative cause that they will lay their seats down just to put a GOP member on the Supreme Court.

50 of them, at least. 50 of them voted against properly examining and cross-examining evidence and witness at Trump's impeachment trial, under the auspice that, because it's an election year, we shouldn't impeach the President for trying to have a foreign leader interfere in an election on his behalf. Knowing that if they had actually adhered to their own sense of law and order he should be gone, the thinking was: it would be political suicide for them and they would lose their ability to keep the Presidency (no way Pence would win at the head of a ticket) with no certainty that a seat would open up this year. It's always been about the bench, it's what the 2016 election was all about and why they held Scalia's seat open for 11 months. Most conservatives and their voters' agenda, for as long back as I can remember, is to install a majority in the SCOTUS that would align with their agenda, with overturning Roe v Wade at its apex.

touts

Overheal wrote: »

50 of them, at least. 50 of them voted against properly examining and cross-examining evidence and witness at Trump's impeachment trial, under the auspice that, because it's an election year, we shouldn't impeach the President for trying to have a foreign leader interfere in an election on his behalf. Knowing that if they had actually adhered to their own sense of law and order he should be gone, the thinking was: it would be political suicide for them and they would lose their ability to keep the Presidency (no way Pence would win at the head of a ticket) with no certainty that a seat would open up this year. It's always been about the bench, it's what the 2016 election was all about and why they held Scalia's seat open for 11 months. Most conservatives and their voters' agenda, for as long back as I can remember, is to install a majority in the SCOTUS that would align with their agenda, with overturning Roe v Wade at its apex.

Losing a multi-million dollar job tends to focus minds a bit.

Overheal

touts wrote: »

Losing a multi-million dollar job tends to focus minds a bit.

Who had such a job in this scenario?

If you're talking about Trump remember he has made no divestment of his businesses and his children run the show by proxy, flying around the world with the secret service on my dime. So, he still has whatever job he had before he ran for office, in effect.

The most sensible play is for Republicans to wait until November and see what happens with the election. If they lose, they will rush a nominee in and ask Clarence Thomas to also step down for good measure. How they handled the governorship in Wisconsin gave us a hint into that: when they lost the office, they used the lame duck session to rush through laws that usurped power from the office and gave it to the legislature, which they still controlled.

Either way if they try such distasteful maneuvers you can expect more than a million man march on Washington and I suspect it will make the crowds who showed up for BLM look like a family gathering by contrast of scale. I'd think they'd want to treat the vacancy softly to navigate the public reaction.

edit: and if you mean any of the Senators, trust me anyone who has held a seat in Congress is set for life, and will always have offers to sit on the board of such and such company that they've already done countless billions of dollars in legislative favors for.

SchrodingersCat

Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

Let's see how much the GOP respect these wishes.

ceadaoin.

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

Let's see how much the GOP respect these wishes.

They won't. Has trump even said anything yet? I dont think so.

Overheal

ceadaoin. wrote: »

They won't. Has trump even said anything yet? I dont think so.

He's hosting a rally, so I'm not entirely sure he's gotten the news just yet. Which... is kinda bad, thinking your President is one of the last people to find out about something like that.

SchrodingersCat

ceadaoin. wrote: »

They won't. Has trump even said anything yet? I dont think so.

Yes, they won't. The hypocrisy is depressing.

In 2019 Senator McConnell stated that he would confirm a new Supreme Court Justice during an election year. Furthermore, earlier this year Senator McConnell reaffirmed his position that he would confirm a Justice in 2020.[1]

However, in 2016 McConnell vehemently denied President Obama's Supreme Court nominee claiming the Senate couldn't appoint a new Justice during an election year. Senator McConnell later stated that stonewalling President Obama's nominee for many months was one of his proudest moments in his life.

In 2016, he left a vacant Supreme Court seat open until after a Republican won the White House so that his party could fill it. In 2020, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is willing to do the opposite.

"Oh, we’d fill it,” McConnell told supporters in Kentucky on Tuesday when asked what he would do if a Supreme Court justice died in 2020 while President Trump was still in office, as CNN reported.

Overheal

And there's the first shot of the civil war.

The Floyd p

Overheal wrote: »

And there's the first shot of the civil war.

He's an absolute cretin.

rosser44

coinop wrote: »

You scold others posters for rejoicing in this woman's death but how many millions of dead babies is she responsible for? Abortion is murder. NO PEACE FOR THE WICKED. Proverb 11:10 When it goes well with the righteous, the city rejoices; And when the wicked perish, there is jubilation.

"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD." - Leviticus 19:18

Rjd2

Should have been replaced years ago and would not have the upcoming disaster that will be Barrett fight to get on the supreme court.

Overheal

The ghouls can't wait more than 2 hours since her passing to get another shot at Roe v Wade

https://twitter.com/ndrew_lawrence/status/1307109144932102146?s=20

sabat

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

Let's see how much the GOP respect these wishes.

"Respect her wishes" will you give over. It's not like asking for her ashes to be scattered in the ocean.

Spleodar

It’s crazy when you think about it. In Europe we are freaking out because of Poland’s government political interference in the independence of their judiciary. Meanwhile in the “greatest democracy in the world” (if measured by hubris and average waist size) they see stacking the Supreme Court with political stooges assumed to make biased, politically inspired decisions as something that’s just normal. It’s mind boggling and a very low standard.

RIP Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. She seemed like a very decent and intelligent lady with an outstanding career in law and on the bench.

James Brown

coinop wrote: »

One third of this country voted no to abortion. If the same referendum was held today, I'm sure the no vote would be even higher. The public were told it would only be a few hundred abortions per year. Abortion was a last resort. We were duped. 6,666. The devil's number. I have no tears left for Ginsburg. I've cried for too long for the souls who didn't even get a chance at life.

Source.

Its irrelevant how many there are. Are you suggesting its only a good or bad thing based on volume?
Your superstitious 'reasoning' is concerning.
As the man said, when these 'saved' souls are growing up dependent on the state they aren't so precious are they?

coinop

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You're forgetting an important point. Religion is made up nonsense.

Funny how you only say that to Christians but revere Muslims as sophisticated women-stoning, homo-hanging, child-marrying, science-denying intellectuals. Unless you can link to where you've criticized Islam in the past?

Smegging hell

coinop wrote: »

One third of this country voted no to abortion. If the same referendum was held today, I'm sure the no vote would be even higher. The public were told it would only be a few hundred abortions per year. Abortion was a last resort. We were duped. 6,666. The devil's number. I have no tears left for Ginsburg. I've cried for too long for the souls who didn't even get a chance at life.

Source.

It's unfortunate you don't have tears for the soul for St Oscar Romero, when you label a 'hero' a man who gloated about his death at the hands of far-right terrorists.


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=114638515&postcount=23

Overheal

The Floyd p wrote: »

He's an absolute cretin.

Upon seeing that I donated $100 to his opponent. Which frankly is slightly more than I've donated to Biden and Jaime Harrison combined.

The Floyd p

Overheal wrote: »

Upon seeing that I donated $100 to his opponent. Which frankly is slightly more than I've donated to Biden and Jaime Harrison combined.

He's every bit as bad as Trump. I don't want to politicise her death, but it's a shame she didn't make it to past the election. The talk was if her health hadn't gone downhill, the GOP would have put serious pressure on her to retire to clear the space, now they don't even have to.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

And there's the first shot of the civil war.

My level of surprise is somewhere on the approximation of 'zero'.

Not that I think for one moment the Democrats would be any more honorable in this situation. SCOTUS appointments have been political for a a couple of decades now. The days of Clinton getting someone in at 96-3 (Ginsburg) or Bush Senior getting someone in at 90-9 (Souter) are long gone.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

My level of surprise is somewhere on the approximation of 'zero'.

Not that I think for one moment the Democrats would be any more honorable in this situation. SCOTUS appointments have been political for a a couple of decades now. The days of Clinton getting someone in at 96-3 (Ginsburg) or Bush Senior getting someone in at 90-9 (Souter) are long gone.

It's disgusting in either case and a sad indictment on the Republic. How did we get so entrenched? Has it really all just been underpinned by foreign influence? The American Experiment might fail soon if we keep up like this.

Sean.3516

SchrodingersCat wrote: »

Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: "My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

Let's see how much the GOP respect these wishes.

No disrespect to her but why should we care what she wanted?

It’s the President’s job to nominate someone.

It’s the Senate’s job to advise and consent.

Trump should get someone in there ASAP. The amount of pussyfooting around about how “oh it’s an election year, the right thing to do would be to leave it vacant.”

Republicans got the Senate. Republicans got the Presidency. They have a duty to their supporters and to the country to ensure the Court is properly staffed with Justices who respect the Constitution.

dark crystal

https://twitter.com/SenMcSallyAZ/status/1307123253845032960

This idiot is currently behind by 10 points in Arizona (behind Democrat Mark Kelly) and is tweeting rot like this.

Morally bankrupt is the only word. Fortunately, it looks like it has only geed up support for her opponent!

dark crystal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

No disrespect to her but why should we care what she wanted?

It’s the President’s job to nominate someone.

It’s the Senate’s job to advise and consent.

Trump should get someone in there ASAP. The amount of pussyfooting around about how “oh it’s an election year, the right thing to do would be to leave it vacant.”

Republicans got the Senate. Republicans got the Presidency. They have a duty to their supporters and to the country to ensure the Court is properly staffed with Justices who respect the Constitution.

By overturning Roe Vs Wade??

Sean.3516

Overheal wrote: »

And there's the first shot of the civil war.

Sorry but I don’t see the hypocrisy in Cocaine Mitch’s standard.

Why in God’s name should he have cofirmed an opposing party’s nominee in 2016

Why shouldn’t he confirm his own party’s nominee in 2020?

The Democrats didn’t have the Senate in 2016 and in the last two elections, they’ve failed to re-take it. Tough.

Overheal

dark crystal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SenMcSallyAZ/status/1307123253845032960

This idiot is currently behind by 10 points in Arizona (behind Democrat Mark Kelly) and is tweeting rot like this.

Morally bankrupt is the only word. Fortunately, it looks like it has only geed up support for her opponent!

Given my own sentiments tonight I’m curious how other voters will react to the responses from Mitch, Fox and the GOP. You could be looking at record setting single day fundraising. Maybe.

dark crystal

Overheal wrote: »

Given my own sentiments tonight I’m curious how other voters will react to the responses from Mitch, Fox and the GOP. You could be looking at record setting single day fundraising. Maybe.

If you look at the comments underneath, it's quite clear that Mark Kelly may find his election campaign coffers overflowing tomorrow!

I'd be more interested to see what Susan Collins has to say after her support of Brett Kavanaugh. She's also struggling in Maine.

coinop

dark crystal

Overheal wrote: »

Given my own sentiments tonight I’m curious how other voters will react to the responses from Mitch, Fox and the GOP. You could be looking at record setting single day fundraising. Maybe.

https://twitter.com/TVietor08/status/1307129300139864067

Manic Moran

dark crystal wrote: »

https://twitter.com/TVietor08/status/1307129300139864067

What's the chart look like for the other side?

dark crystal

coinop wrote: »

Under his eye.

Tell me how

Manic Moran wrote: »

What's the chart look like for the other side?

https://twitter.com/ZachMontellaro/status/1307126621317541888

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote: »

What's the chart look like for the other side?

Don’t upset me

Overheal

dark crystal wrote: »

Under his eye.

Sidebar: what is the meaning of this meme? Woosh

Rjd2

Manic Moran wrote: »

What's the chart look like for the other side?

Easy to forget ,,a lot of social conservatives right or wrong will be gagging for Barrett.

So 4 Republicans I think for ACB to lose?

Collins, Murwoski and Romney look like hard work for Mitch.

Graham would have voted through ACB normally, but he is in a really tough senate race.

Chatter that Grassley not keen either.

Sean.3516

dark crystal wrote: »

By overturning Roe Vs Wade??

Sorry but Roe Vs Wade is a rubbish legal decision. REGARDLESS of what you think of abortion.

Honest pro choicers will admit this by the way.

What it did was erroneously derive a “right to privacy” from the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment in the US Constitution. The Constitution mentions no “right to privacy”. The court said that since the Due Process Clause provides a right against “unreasonable search and seizure”, this equates to a “right to privacy”. Those are not the same things.

It then concluded from this “right to privacy” a right to abortion. Legally erroneous. Since the operative question regarding the legality of abortion is not privacy rights but the legal status of the foetus. The Roe Vs Wade decision begged this question entirely.

Yet bizarrely, the Court said that the right to abortion had to be balanced with protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. Well this is just inconsistent. The right to against “unreasonable search and seizure” and by extension, the “right to privacy” are rights AGAINST government. Negative rights. They don’t have qualifiers. Either they exist or they don’t.

The Court tried to resolve this “balancing issue” by imposing a series of arbitrary regulations on when states could and could not limit abortion in each trimester.

What does any of this have to do with the Constitution? Absolutely nothing. It’s rubbish. Abortion rights have nothing to do with “privacy”. To say they do presumes that the foetus is not a legal person (which is the very question that determines the legality of abortion).

In no other case would privacy be invoked this way. If you came into my house and I killed you, I wouldn’t be able to cite my right to privacy in my own home as a justification. Because you’re a legal human being. The question is whether a foetus is a legal human being.

So yeah. Roe Vs Wade is a legal travesty and should definitely be overturned.

dark crystal

Overheal wrote: »

Sidebar: what is the meaning of this meme? Woosh

It's a quote taken from 'The Handmaid's Tale'.

An eerily prescient story set in an alternative world about women being used as brood mares for religious right wing nutjobs and having no freedom or say over their own bodies.

If you haven't read the book or seen the film/TV show, you should watch it! It's excellent, but terrifying at the same time.

Overheal

Correction Mitch waited half an hour if I have that right. Half an hour dead to be happy to look forward to her replacement; 11 month vacancy totally fine when the shoe was on the other foot though.

Did the October Surprise come early?

dark crystal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Sorry but Roe Vs Wade is a rubbish legal decision. REGARDLESS of what you think of abortion.

Honest pro choicers will admit this by the way.

What it did was erroneously derive a “right to privacy” from the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment in the US Constitution. The Constitution mentions no “right to privacy”. The court said that since the Due Process Clause provides a right against “unreasonable search and seizure”, this equates to a “right to privacy”. Those are not the same things.

It then concluded from this “right to privacy” a right to abortion. Legally erroneous. Since the operative question regarding the legality of abortion is not privacy rights but the legal status of the foetus. The Roe Vs Wade decision begged this question entirely.

Yet bizarrely, the Court said that the right to abortion had to be balanced with protecting women's health and protecting prenatal life. Well this is just inconsistent. The right to against “unreasonable search and seizure” and by extension, the “right to privacy” are rights AGAINST government. Negative rights. They don’t have qualifiers. Either they exist or they don’t.

The Court tried to resolve this “balancing issue” by imposing a series of arbitrary regulations on when states could and could not limit abortion in each trimester.

What does any of this have to do with the Constitution? Absolutely nothing. It’s rubbish. Abortion rights have nothing to do with “privacy”. To say they do presumes that the foetus is not a legal person (which is the very question that determines the legality of abortion).

In no other case would privacy be invoked this way. If you came into my house and I killed you, I wouldn’t be able to cite my right to privacy in my own home as a justification. Because you’re a legal human being. The question is whether a foetus is a legal human being.

So yeah. Roe Vs Wade is a legal travesty and should definitely be overturned.

What would overturning Roe Vs Wade achieve in your opinion?

Overheal

Graham: if a vacancy opens up in the last year of Trumps term, and the primaries have already started, we will wait until the next election.

https://twitter.com/mmpadellan/status/1307143899425771520?s=21