Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies at 87

Options
12467…18

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    dwayneshintzy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,343 ✭✭✭dwayneshintzy


    francois wrote: »
    Several Republican senators have stated they will not confirm anyone pre-election.
    They've made statements implying that in the past (Murkowski, Grassley and Romney maybe), but I hadn't heard they've actually released statements since Ginsberg's death. Have you a link?


  • Options
    #93
    paw patrol
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭paw patrol


    Sad that somebody died esp from cancer but she wasn't a good person morally.
    The court will be better with less celebrity and more moral judgement.


  • Options
    #94
    paw patrol
    Registered Users Posts: 2,314 ✭✭✭paw patrol


    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.


    I find your final comment bizarre, why would they respect her wishes?

    What legal right does she have to make these requests?


  • Options
    #95
    antix80
    Registered Users Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭antix80


    Brian? wrote: »
    Unbelievably insincere. The man does not react like a normal human being.

    “I’m actually sad to hear that”, what kind of a thing is that to say?

    I think you're suffering from trump derangement syndrome but you forgot to say "orange man bad"


  • Options
    #96
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    paw patrol wrote: »
    Sad that somebody died esp from cancer but she wasn't a good person morally.
    The court will be better with less celebrity and more moral judgement.

    Lol.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    paw patrol wrote: »
    Sad that somebody died esp from cancer but she wasn't a good person morally.
    The court will be better with less celebrity and more moral judgement.

    Could you expand on this?


  • Options
    #98
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,262 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Meh, a good summation of politics in the US. One side has a lovely feel-good moment that doesn't achieve anything whatsoever, the other side actually get their way.

    Both get their way.

    Most of one side wants their politics implemented though.

    The other wants a feel food moment.


  • Options
    #99
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Lisa Murkowski says she’ll wait until the people decide who the next President is.

    That’s one down if Biden wins. If any Republicans up for re-election want to keep their seat (looking at you, Susan Collins and Dan Sullivan) then they’d be wise to follow suit.

    People expect Mitt Romney to be in this camp as well but I don’t know if he will be. It’s still a conservative judge at the end of the day.


  • Options
    #100
    Dillonb3
    Registered Users Posts: 1,706 ✭✭✭Dillonb3


    I think the republicans will try to appoint a new justice before November on the basis of the election potentially going to the supreme court if its disputed. If the court only has 8 judges could you risk a 4-4 split?


  • Options
    #101
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    paw patrol wrote: »
    I find your final comment bizarre, why would they respect her wishes?

    What legal right does she have to make these requests?

    Rules don't apply to left wing politicians


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,164 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Could you expand on this?

    Treated women as equal probably.


  • Options
    #103
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,064 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Dillonb3 wrote: »
    I think the republicans will try to appoint a new justice before November on the basis of the election potentially going to the supreme court if its disputed. If the court only has 8 judges could you risk a 4-4 split?

    The court is a 5-3 split in favour of conservatives as it is.


  • Options
    #104
    Dillonb3
    Registered Users Posts: 1,706 ✭✭✭Dillonb3


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    The court is a 5-3 split in favour of conservatives as it is.

    John Roberts hasn't always voted in line with the other conservative judges


  • Options
    #105
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,017 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Surely someones politics shouldnt matter,when they are a judge?

    They must be impartial,otherwise whole thing is a joke

    Youd think that, yes - but this is the US. It's not about impartiality and justice, is about one side versus the other and winning and losing.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Options
    #106
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,262 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Surely someones politics shouldnt matter,when they are a judge?

    They must be impartial,otherwise whole thing is a joke

    They should be impartial but that impartiality can vary, always will.


  • Options
    #107
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,064 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Surely someones politics shouldnt matter,when they are a judge?

    They must be impartial,otherwise whole thing is a joke

    You'd think that but in reality it isn't the case. Hence the Republicans stonewalled the Obama nomination in 2016 to get a conservative on to the court and why they will do everything to ram through a nomination in the next few months.


  • Options
    #108
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Dillonb3 wrote: »
    John Roberts hasn't always voted in line with the other conservative judges

    Yeah, Roberts does throw the odd curveball.


  • Options
    #109
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    bobbyy gee wrote: »
    she tried to survive until trump got voted out of office and worked while fighting cancer

    A pioneering woman and someone who will be rightfully remembered for her work, however she probably wasnt going to make it to 2025 anyway.

    This should tip the balance of the supreme court now and allow America to re-establish its conservative views. Anyone know who the potentials are ?

    And inb4 they get accused of sex assault like kavanaugh


  • Options
    #110
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    paw patrol wrote: »
    I find your final comment bizarre, why would they respect her wishes?

    What legal right does she have to make these requests?

    She doesn't, she also presumes that trump wont be re-elected, she can say whatever she wants, shes not getting a dem picked replacement


  • Options
    #111
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    Danzy wrote: »
    They should be impartial but that impartiality can vary, always will.

    It just shows once again what a ****hole the US really is


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Yeah, Roberts does throw the odd curveball.

    Roberts has become a swing justice rather than staunchly conservative. He doesn’t really Léan one way or the other anymore.

    Mind you the only one that bitch about it are the conservatives who consistently talk about impartiality.


  • Options
    #113
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,262 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Its lunacy...the whole thing is premised on the assumption that the judge wont park their personal bias and uphold the law


    Surely noone will rise far enough to become judge in top courts,if their decisions are riddled with political bias.....if they do america has a lot worse problems,than worrying about who gets this job

    The law can be interpreted in many ways, that's the bias.

    That's human nature, that's law.

    It's not going to change.


  • Options
    #114
    Danzy
    Registered Users Posts: 13,262 ✭✭✭✭Danzy


    weisses wrote: »
    It just shows once again what a ****hole the US really is

    Where is it different?


  • Options
    #115
    namloc1980
    Registered Users Posts: 18,064 ✭✭✭✭namloc1980


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    A pioneering woman and someone who will be rightfully remembered for her work, however she probably wasnt going to make it to 2025 anyway.

    This should tip the balance of the supreme court now and allow America to re-establish its conservative views. Anyone know who the potentials are ?

    And inb4 they get accused of sex assault like kavanaugh

    What are you talking about?


  • Options
    #116
    Eric Cartman
    Registered Users Posts: 26,283 ✭✭✭✭Eric Cartman


    namloc1980 wrote: »
    What are you talking about?

    Nothing specific but the framework will be there for a 5-3 majority were a decision to be taken. For all the good she did RBG was far too left aligned


  • Options
    #117
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    Danzy wrote: »
    Where is it different?

    As to what ?


  • Options
    #118
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    What a sh!tshow of a thread.


  • Options
    #119
    alchemist33
    Registered Users Posts: 10,969 ✭✭✭✭alchemist33


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Surely someones politics shouldnt matter,when they are a judge?

    They must be impartial,otherwise whole thing is a joke

    Of all the institutions of the US, this is the one that always confounds me the most. It just seems so bizarre from our standpoint, where judges may have their foibles but their views on politics and social issues are unimportant and nobody cares, that the members if the SCOTUS are decided on in a partisan manner. It's mad.


  • Options
    #120
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,017 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Its lunacy...the whole thing is premised on the assumption that the judge wont park their personal bias and uphold the law


    Surely noone will rise far enough to become judge in top courts,if their decisions are riddled with political bias.....if they do america has a lot worse problems,than worrying about who gets this job

    This is pretty much the case. Debate is more along the lines of conservatism v liberalism in the US rather than on the issue at hand. It's a very divided place at the moment for that reason.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users Posts: 33,017 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Eric Cartman wrote: »
    Nothing specific but the framework will be there for a 5-3 majority were a decision to be taken. For all the good she did RBG was far too left aligned

    By your standards, everyone is.

    She brought balance, like it or not. A 5-4 majority now a 5-3 majority is not balance.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



Advertisement