nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Danzy wrote: »

RBG was an activist Judge, she brought her politics, her views, her life experience in to how she interpreted the law. To a degree that stood out over the last few decades.

Everyone will to some degree.

ALL of the SC judges bring their political views. It's why they are appointed.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

If they support BLM then they must accept all that goes with supporting BLM. They can’t cherry pick which aspects of BLM they support.

Em, no... That's not how it works. Thinking you have to accept verything without question is dumb. And that's not how politics works. And it certainly should not be the attitude of an SC judge, because it renders debate pointless.

Ultimately, the only problem you have with the democrats is that they support racial equality.

Pelezico

Liberal icon. Always beware icons.

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A quite normal thing to say?

I think no matter what the man did some people would find fault with it.

Normal reaction: “I’m sad to hear that”
Trump reaction: “I’m actually sad to hear that”

You don’t see how weird the 2nd one is?

Rodney Bathgate

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Hey - I simply asked you what you meant by 'We have seen that the Democrats will embrace any crazy idea'.

And you have side stepped and muddied the waters so much im pretty sure you have no idea what you mean.

I never expressed support for anything - that was your assumption in order to hide this.

And as you have repeatly failed to suggest such, I'm concluding with the evidence that your posts are ill informed bull**** not even you can explain. And I don't have to explain them, so I've no idea why you're even asking me to. I'm done here - I've proven my point.

I’m not going to waste my day on this. I was asked why I wanted an appointment made before the election. You have no point, you just want to argue in bad faith.

Faugheen

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

I’m not going to waste my day on this. I was asked why I wanted an appointment made before the election. You have no point, you just want to argue in bad faith.

Oh the irony is strong in this one.

Outlaw Pete

Brian? wrote: »

Let’s be clear, what I really take issue with is you using this as an example of how genuine Trump is. Even if he said one genuinely nice thing, it doesn’t off set the thousands of horrible things he says.

Oh please - 'thousands of horrible things' - it was quite clear he was genuinely saddened by Ginsburg's death, a political rival whose death is somewhat advantageous for his party and him, let's not forget, and on hearing of her death he immediately had empathy for her and paid her respect on how she conducted her life. You can pick holes in that if you wish but sometimes it's not always about what someone says, but the manner in which they say it, and it was clear from how Trump reacted to the news of her death that he is ultimately a genuinely decent human being despite how the media and liberals like to portray him, which is generally that he is the devil incarnate and a narcissistic one at that.

Pelezico

She absolutely blew it for the pinkos, by gambling on Hillary Clinton being elected.

I ask myself..how can Hillary Clinton accumulate vast wealth for a life in public service?

Little wonder Trump election was embraced by conservatives.

Rodney Bathgate

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What happemed in my head?

The entirety of that post is factaul?

Sure thing. See Father Dougal Dreams vs Reality.

Pelezico

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.

The arrogance of the lady and her supporters. It is not within their gift to nominate a successor.

The pathos. As her strength waned. Hilarious

Brian?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh please - 'thousands of horrible things' - it was quite clear he was genuinely saddened by Ginsburg's death, a political rival whose death is somewhat advantageous for his party and him, let's not forget, and on hearing of her death he immediately had empathy for her and paid her respect on how she conducted her life. You can pick holes in that if you wish but sometimes it's not always about what someone says, but the manner in which they say it, and it was clear from how Trump reacted to the news of her death that he is ultimately a genuinely decent human being despite how the media and liberals like to portray him, which is generally that he is the devil incarnate and a narcissistic one at that.

It wasn’t at all clear actually. The stupid music track didn’t help obviously.

I don’t believe he’s the devil incarnate. I know he’s a horrible human being.

Girly Gal

Why are the judges appointed for life, surely it would make more sense if it was for a fixed term, even if it was a long fixed term of 10-15 years or more, at least that way new blood would be guaranteed ever few years rather than waiting on someone to die.

namloc1980

Girly Gal wrote: »

Why are the judges appointed for life, surely it would make more sense if it was for a fixed term, even if it was a long fixed term of 10-15 years or more, at least that way new blood would be guaranteed ever few years rather than waiting on someone to die.

The US Constitution says that judges "shall hold their offices during good behaviour" which is interpreted as meaning they hold the office for life unless they are removed for impeachable behaviour or they resign.

Girly Gal

namloc1980 wrote: »

The US Constitution says that judges "shall hold their offices during good behaviour" which is interpreted as meaning they hold the office for life unless they are removed for impeachable behaviour or they resign.

Very few in history have been impeached or forced to resign

Manic Moran

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, Roberts does throw the odd curveball.

He’s not alone. Gorsuch and Kavanagh may both use conservative (small c) judicial technique, but so far they seem to be voting whichever way their analysis leads them. Of pairs of judges appointed by the same president, they are the least likely pair to vote with each other (meaning, obviously, that one has gone to the other side) in decades.

Melanchthon wrote: »

From my limited understanding though doesn't the Irish supreme court tend to apply the thinking conservative US supreme court members do.

That the constitution should be interpreted as written at the time, specifically this is the case with the Irish supreme court holding a referendum about Gay marriage when potentially there was a argument to just legislate AFAIK that's the US conservative view but no one calls the Ireland a sh-thole because of those decisions.

Part of the appeal of the “living document” idea in the US is that amending the US Constitution is so hard to achieve in practice, it becomes the way of keeping the document relevant to modern times. Amendments in Ireland are much easier to get through the system, the courts can thus apply greater deference to the word as intended at the time.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

OK, maybe not the zombies

MY point was : Americans generally do not feel Safe. If they did, they wouldn't feel the need to keep guns.

That’s a bit disingenuous. Its more a fail safe, much like I feel safe in my house but still keep a fire extinguisher,

Girly Gal wrote: »

Why are the judges appointed for life, surely it would make more sense if it was for a fixed term, even if it was a long fixed term of 10-15 years or more, at least that way new blood would be guaranteed ever few years rather than waiting on someone to die.

There have been arguments in that direction, but two of the obvious ones against is that if appointed for life, judges don’t need to worry about keeping their options open for after their term is over, and if things happen on a schedule, the every single election becomes about Supreme Court judges because you know one is coming, instead of the possibility of an appointment.

Pelezico

Has RTE started its gushing valediction yet.

T

Pelezico

Brian? wrote: »

After a rocky start, I’m pleasantly surprised how impartial Gorsuch is. It’s almost as if he’s judging each issue based on case law.....

By pleased, you reckon he is a closet liberal.

The Floyd p

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

he is ultimately a genuinely decent human being

That might be the coldest, worst take in the history of this website. Actually almost impressed.

astrofool

It will be made a big deal of, but the SC generally rules with the law, and goes by previous judgements. The fixation on Roe vs. Wade from 5 decades ago, made in a more conservative era holds back everything.

Billy Mays

A genuinely decent human being ffs :pac: :pac:

Remember that time Donnie bare backed a porn star weeks after his wife gave birth then paid her off a month before the 2016 election to keep her mouh shut???

You can like the dotard's policies all you want but it takes a special kind of delusion to consider him a decent human being

Faugheen

Pelezico wrote: »

By pleased, you reckon he is a closet liberal.

Don’t see the word ‘pleased’ in the post.

You can’t even read properly.

Mr. Karate

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.

While I'm sad that she passed that is some serious arrogance [and delusion] to think she should have a say on when her replacement is filled.

She was unwell for Years so she could have easily have bowed out under Obama [I mean its not like he was President for 8 years or anything] then she thought that only the 1st female President should be able to replace her. This is like quitting your job and making a bunch of stipulations on when and who can replace you. Your former boss would have some very choice words for you.

Manic Moran

astrofool wrote: »

It will be made a big deal of, but the SC generally rules with the law, and goes by previous judgements. The fixation on Roe vs. Wade from 5 decades ago, made in a more conservative era holds back everything.

The other minor point is that despite the publicity given to "conservative/liberal splits", the unanimous rulings alone make up over a third of the decisions. 5-4 happens about one time in 7. "Liberal vs conservative" even less often than that.

dwayneshintzy

Manic Moran wrote: »

The other minor point is that despite the publicity given to "conservative/liberal splits", the unanimous rulings alone make up over a third of the decisions. 5-4 happens about one time in 7. "Liberal vs conservative" even less often than that.

Yes, but some of those splits are high consequential. Citizen United has had a massive effect on American politics and society, Robert splitting from the other conservative justices to uphold the individual mandate of the ACA....

Infini

Pelezico wrote: »

The arrogance of the lady and her supporters. It is not within their gift to nominate a successor.

The pathos. As her strength waned. Hilarious

That's not actually nominating a successor, it's more likey she wished for her replacement to be nominated AFTER the election, in other words let america decide.

Fact is Republicans are utter hypocrites, they blocked One nomimation in an election year then immediately want to nominate their own sucessor as they know theres a good chance they'll lose.

They best just wait, if they try railroading through their own nominee bow then all bets are off expecially if Democrats win. If republicans engage in hypocritical and underhanded tactics they only serve to legitimise them.

MeMen2_MoRi_

Infini wrote: »

That's not actually nominating a successor, it's more likey she wished for her replacement to be nominated AFTER the election, in other words let america decide.

Fact is Republicans are utter hypocrites, they blocked One nomimation in an election year then immediately want to nominate their own sucessor as they know theres a good chance they'll lose.

They best just wait, if they try railroading through their own nominee bow then all bets are off expecially if Democrats win. If republicans engage in hypocritical and underhanded tactics they only serve to legitimise them.

If the GOP go down the road of like you say railroading this through after denying Obama an appointment in his final year.. the Dems if they win the senate they'll go after the fillibuster and then look to expand the bench of SCOTUS..

https://twitter.com/EdMarkey/status/1307122232850870274?s=19

If you set the rules, obey the rules. The hypocrisy again here of the GOP trying to portray themselves as the party of law and order, yet they do everything they can to break rules they themselves create to stop the Dems.

Billy Mays

People don't actually believe that was the first Trump heard of RBG's death, do they?

Brian?

Pelezico wrote: »

By pleased, you reckon he is a closet liberal.

He’s not a closet liberal. He’s an actual conservative.

I actually have respect for real conservatives, there are very few left though.

Sarcozies

[Deleted User] wrote: »

thats the US ****ed

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

I dunno about that, maybe running against the rights of gay people or perhaps running on closing down Guantanamo bay and and pulling out of Afghanistan and Iraq and not doing that might have been a bigger failure? Or maybe all the civilians murdered in his expanded drone warfare policy? Brining in legislation to categorise "all military aged men" as enemy combatants so that a 16 year old boy murdered by a drone that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time didn't have to be labeled a civilian killing also perhaps might be worse?

But maybe you're right and not getting in a judge might be his biggest mistake. I don't know.

Outlaw Pete

Billy Mays wrote: »

People don't actually believe that was the first Trump heard of RBG's death, do they?

You were right, BREAKING NEWS:

"A new White House whistleblower has come forward this morning and informed a journalist at the New York Times that they witnessed the President being told of Ginsburg's death 15 minutes before he proceeded to act as if he did not know whilst speaking with reporters. The latest in a long line of whistleblowers said they've always voted Conservative in the past but felt compelled to come forward today as they had personally witnessed Donald Trump telling a female staff member to "load up that Tiny Dancer song" before then patting her on the behind and making his way to Air Force One".

They have him now.