Jump to content

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87


Recommended Posts

On 10/1/2020 at 5:28 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

When "dictator" FDR (Democrat) tried to pack the Supreme Court...and failed:

I'm trying to come to terms with how the slack-jawed racists that would have made up most of the Democrat Party in 1936 apparently stood up to Roosevelt's power grab. 

It shows character on a level that they could scarcely have had. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shady said:

ACB is savage.  She’s using the Ginsburg rule, and Democrats don’t like it.  She’s even citing words used by Ginsburg during her confirmation hearing.  I might be in love!  Durbin was left speechless.

Lol.

Dem Senators trying their luck at a battle of wits with ACB is like as many butterflies attacking Conan the Barbarian. 

The confirmation process is once again a bloodsport, but this time the shoe is on the other foot.

 

Side note, this era of "WE NEED TO APPOINT WOMEN EVERYWHERE BECAUSE IT'S 2015, 2020" or whatever has put some real duds in high places of late (eg Theresa Tam, Chrystia Freeland, Kamala Harris etc) but there are some up-and-coming women who take a backseat to no man. ACB and Dr Lewis tower over most of their 'peers'. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Lol.

Dem Senators trying their luck at a battle of wits with ACB is like as many butterflies attacking Conan the Barbarian.

 

It was entertaining to watch Judge Barrett easily dismiss the white senators' "George Floyd" civil rights provocations by pointing out her two (Black) children.   Ooops !

This is all political theatre, and the Democrats know it is over except for their screaming and shouting.

"Elections have consequences." -  President Barack Obama (2009)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/14/2020 at 8:28 PM, WestCanMan said:

Side note, this era of "WE NEED TO APPOINT WOMEN EVERYWHERE BECAUSE IT'S 2015, 2020" or whatever has put some real duds in high places of late (eg Theresa Tam, Chrystia Freeland, Kamala Harris etc) but there are some up-and-coming women who take a backseat to no man. ACB and Dr Lewis tower over most of their 'peers'. 

Uhm, you clearly aren't very knowledgeable about the fundamentalist Christian community she's a part of. It absolutely makes the point that women very much DO take a backseat to men.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/1/2020 at 8:28 PM, bush_cheney2004 said:

When "dictator" FDR (Democrat) tried to pack the Supreme Court...and failed:

He didn't fail. He threatened to and the court suddenly became a lot more cooperative.

Also, listening to Republican supporters whine about court packing is LOL. You guys have been desperately packing the court with extremely religious anti-abortion types for years. Which is why, when Barrett, who is a member of a secretive, fundamentalist Christian community, is voted in she will be the 6th Catholic on the SC. There are currently no protestants on the supreme court other than John Roberts and HE was raised Catholic!

But no, no, Republicans aren't trying to pack the court! Of course not!

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Argus said:

He didn't fail. He threatened to and the court suddenly became a lot more cooperative.

 

 

His plan to limit justices to 70 years of age failed.

https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packing-supreme-court

Also, court packing means adding more justices to the bench in the American context.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

His plan to limit justices to 70 years of age failed.

https://www.history.com/news/franklin-roosevelt-tried-packing-supreme-court

Also, court packing means adding more justices to the bench in the American context.

If the Republicans choose to use the SC to thwart the Democrats in things like public health care or regulating political donations or even to get around the prohibition on states regulating abortion I don't see anything unfair or immoral about the Democrats increasing the size of the court. It really all boils down to whether they're simply conservative judges or Republican religious zealots put in place to carry out a Republican agenda - which most of them appear to be. Certainly no previous administration in the last seventy years, Republican or Democrat, would have tried to appoint someone like Amy Barrett.

You reference FDR and the opposition to him appoint more judges. But that was because it was seen as undemocratic. I don't think he'd have much trouble getting support today because if the Republican Catholic court overturns a bunch of stuff Biden wants to do that will be seen as undemocratic too. I mentioned this some time ago, that the risk the Republicans were taking with their single-mindedness on SC appoints was to damage the reputation of the SC for being a neutral and unbiased body.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Argus said:

You reference FDR and the opposition to him appoint more judges. But that was because it was seen as undemocratic. I don't think he'd have much trouble getting support today because if the Republican Catholic court overturns a bunch of stuff Biden wants to do that will be seen as undemocratic too. I mentioned this some time ago, that the risk the Republicans were taking with their single-mindedness on SC appoints was to damage the reputation of the SC for being a neutral and unbiased body.

 

The SC has never been a neutral and unbiased "body", and has long been subjected to presidential and congressional influence.  ACB is clearly qualified to be on the bench, and has been nominated per the U.S. Constitution and Senate requirements.

The Democrats only have themselves to blame for invoking the nuclear option (Harry Reid) that has now come back to bite them right in the ass.

The SC is supposed to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Argus said:

Uhm, you clearly aren't very knowledgeable about the fundamentalist Christian community she's a part of. It absolutely makes the point that women very much DO take a backseat to men.

Sure but how did she make it this far in her own life? Supreme Court nominee. Knows when to take a back set to men.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

The SC has never been a neutral and unbiased "body", and has long been subjected to presidential and congressional influence.  ACB is clearly qualified to be on the bench, and has been nominated per the U.S. Constitution and Senate requirements.

The Democrats only have themselves to blame for invoking the nuclear option (Harry Reid) that has now come back to bite them right in the ass.

Reid did not lower the voting numbers for SC appointments. Mitch McConnell did.

12 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

The SC is supposed to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.

Nice theory. But when you get the final say on all legislation you can, in fact, legislate by interpreting the constitution however you like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Argus said:

Reid did not lower the voting numbers for SC appointments. Mitch McConnell did.

 

Democrat leader Reid started the process in 2013...now the Democrats will feel their own burn.

 

Quote

Nice theory. But when you get the final say on all legislation you can, in fact, legislate by interpreting the constitution however you like.

 

They don't get the final say...Congress can still constitutionally legislate around the court, which is the entire point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

It's an interesting tactic...calling all Catholics religious nutbars. 

She is not a mere Catholic. She is a fundamentalist Catholic and member of a group called People of Praise. It's not a cult, but its leadership is very secretive and there have been reports from ex members that it advises its members not to be open with priests, and not to seek their guidance but to obey the dictates of the POP leaders instead.

Meanwhile, perhaps you could explain why, once she's appointed, six of the nine member of the supreme court will be Catholics and a seventh will be a man raised Catholic.

Edited by Argus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Argus said:

She is not a mere Catholic. She is a fundamentalist Catholic and member of a group called People of Praise. It's not a cult, but its leadership is very secretive and there have been reports from ex members that it advises its members not to be open with priests, and not to seek their guidance but to obey the dictates of the POP leaders instead.

 

I'm sure all those Catholics that were called nutbars will appreciate your caveat addendum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

I'm sure all those Catholics that were called nutbars will appreciate your caveat addendum. 

The group is not all Catholic. And it does not necessarily follow Catholic teaching.

By the way, you didn't address why the Republicans would only appoint Catholics to the Supreme Court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

It's an interesting tactic...calling all Catholics religious nutbars. 

They're mostly insinuating that she's part of a sect that's contrary to the whole 'women's equality' movement, but I don't know what's more 'equal rights' than a woman completely dominating dozens of Senators on her way to a SCJ appointment. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Argus said:

The group is not all Catholic. And it does not necessarily follow Catholic teaching.

By the way, you didn't address why the Republicans would only appoint Catholics to the Supreme Court.

 

I'm sure that all those Catholics that were called nutbars will be all over your excuse for those shit bags asking those reprehensible questions of that female judge you hate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

I'm sure that all those Catholics that were called nutbars will be all over your excuse for those shit bags asking those reprehensible questions of that female judge you hate.

I don't hate her. I don't believe I've even written anything about this prior to the last couple of days. Having conservative judges on the court isn't a bad thing to me. I'm simply pointing out that the reason the Republicans have only appointed Catholics to the SC for the last twenty five years is because they're trying to appoint people who will overturn Roe v Wade, and care little or nothing about the appointees beyond their being opposed to abortion.

Which is damned silly, frankly.

As to religious people. I don't mind religious people. But religious people who take it to extremes make my teeth ache. A lifelong member of some sort of secretive Christian community raises my suspicions about just how much impact their religious beliefs would have on their rulings. Barrett herself is on video in a speech to law students stating openly their legal training is only there to serve their religious beliefs.

“And that is this: that you will always keep in mind that your legal career is but a means to an end, and ... that end is building the kingdom of God. You know the same law, are charged with maintaining the same ethical standards, and will be entering the same kinds of legal jobs as your peers across the country. But if you can keep in mind that your fundamental purpose in life is not to be a lawyer, but to know, love, and serve God, you truly will be a different kind of lawyer.” 

People are correct to question whether this sort of rigid belief system would interfere with her duties as a judge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Argus said:

People are correct to question whether this sort of rigid belief system would interfere with her duties as a judge.

The first time I ever saw that quote you gave was at the confirmation hearing. ACB gave a reply. She explained how her belief system didn't interfere with her ability to judge the law as what is called an "originalist" or somebody or judges the law by the constitution as written. 

I'm curious why you're more interested in the question than you are in quoting the answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Infidel Dog said:

The first time I ever saw that quote you gave was at the confirmation hearing. ACB gave a reply. She explained how her belief system didn't interfere with her ability to judge the law as what is called an "originalist" or somebody or judges the law by the constitution as written. 

I'm curious why you're more interested in the question than you are in quoting the answer.

Well, unlike the Trump cult I haven't been following any of the senate hearings or the news about them. But now that you ask I would say that what people say in an unguarded moment is generally more truthful than what they say when people are calling them to account.

Perhaps you could explain why the Republican party only appoints Catholics to the supreme court?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...