Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at 87. - 🦀

[RiceofSkywalker]

People freaking out on twitter over the dumbest shit is nothing new - But, with this unique situation, I don't understand all these niggas calling for "CIVIL WAR" and shit. Could you imagine being a kid in like, 2030 and looking back at your parents and seeing these social media posts? Being like "Gee, Mom. You know, you sure acted like an insane bitch over some dude who really did like, nothing, ever."

That situation assumes that abortion-hooked Twitter troons will ever get to have kids.

 

[frozenrunner]

Someone has never had a little boy.

Yes, a little boy is a child. Who, among totally dysfunctional (and probably mentally ill) adults, is more likely to behave like a spoiled child and throw an emotional tantrum to get their way? Men or women? Who is most likely to behave like they believe their outpouring of extreme emotion is inherently meaningful?

I'm not assigning blame at half the species, obviously. I'm pointing out just another way all of this "social justice" bullshit is distinctly feminine. We already know what malfunctioning masculinity looks like.

 

[mindlessobserver]

You can abort a pregnancy up to 24 weeks in the UK, and in exceptional cases, it can be as late as 28 weeks. I haven't seen any mainstream opposition to this, despite the fact that there are many premature babies who are born prior to these cutoffs and survive. Like I said, it simply isn't a contentious issue here.

I also reject the implication that the abortion debate in the US has been polarized by pro-choice activists. If you want to understand why the issue has become so divisive in America, look no further than the pro-life camp, who have made it repeatedly clear that they have no intention to make reasonable concessions, do not care about the negative implications of their policy recommendations, and who have effectively weaponized the issue by turning it into a rallying cry for single-issue extremists.

The reason you don't see activists rallying for third trimester abortions across Europe is because a sensible compromise on abortion has already been reached in Europe. The issue is settled, as it should have been in the US after Roe v. Wade.

The big issue is Roe v. Wade is judicial precedent, not an actual law. Congress never actually got around to building a legal framework to settle the issue with finality, and any effort to do so by the States got jammed up in the courts. The issue itself has become a self perpetuating monster of interest groups, non profits and politicians. Much like "cancer", treating the problem has become more profitable then curing it. The logical course of action would be to just nullify Roe v. Wade and tell the Legislatures to actually hash it out. Most will probably come to that "logical compromise". Those that go too far off the reservation one way or the other could then be roped in by the court.

But what do I know, I'm just a guy who shit posts on the internet.

 

[Spoonge]

So when did this nuclear option shit start? It was in Obama's term right? IIRC the Republicans were fillibustering a non SCOTUS judge appointment and the Dems got pissy?

 

[Observotron]

Another for the "things that never happened" pile.View attachment 1607365

Forcing your political agenda on your children usually ends up well in the long run, right?

 

[HeyYou]

You can abort a pregnancy up to 24 weeks in the UK, and in exceptional cases, it can be as late as 28 weeks. I haven't seen any mainstream opposition to this, despite the fact that there are many premature babies who are born prior to these cutoffs and survive. Like I said, it simply isn't a contentious issue here.

I also reject the implication that the abortion debate in the US has been polarized by pro-choice activists. If you want to understand why the issue has become so divisive in America, look no further than the pro-life camp, who have made it repeatedly clear that they have no intention to make reasonable concessions, do not care about the negative implications of their policy recommendations, and who have effectively weaponized the issue by turning it into a rallying cry for single-issue extremists.

The reason you don't see activists rallying for third trimester abortions across Europe is because a sensible compromise on abortion has already been reached in Europe. The issue is settled, as it should have been in the US after Roe v. Wade.

I didn't every make the implication that it was the pro-choice side's fault, considering I'm not pro-life, but going off that claim, how is it the pro-life camp's fault when the laws are currently more liberal in America than in several European countries? By your own argument an acceptable compromise hasn't been reached in America because it's ostensibly balanced towards the pro-choice side.

 

[Gustav Schuchardt]

That’s the most ironic part. The woman stayed on to preserve her “legacy”, but all her legacy even was to these people had nothing to do with her and only with what she represented. The people out there swearing at her for dying don’t care about her legacy, and many of them wish she had died years ago, now. She burned her own effigy by reaching too far.

It's worse than that. She could have retired when Obama was POTUS and he could have appointed a younger version of her to replace her. Instead, she decided to stay on so Hillary could do it. Trump unexpectedly won and the GOP took the Senate and here we are.

https://www.motherjones.com/politic...uth-bader-ginsburg-rbg-got-wrong-obama-trump/
https://archive.vn/L5F2z

The calls for Ginsburg to step down began in 2011 when Randall Kennedy, a Harvard law professor and former clerk to the late Thurgood Marshall, wrote a piece in The New Republic gently urging Ginsburg, then 78, to retire while Obama was in office. (He had suggested the same of Justice Stephen Breyer, now 80.) Kennedy was publicly airing private concerns among Democrats that it could be Ginsburg’s last chance to be replaced by a Democrat. “Justices Ginsburg and Breyer have enriched the nation with long, productive, admirable careers,” he wrote. “Those, like me, who admire their service might find it hard to hope that they will soon leave the Court—but service comes in many forms, including making way for others.”

Kennedy held up his old boss as a cautionary tale. Marshall’s health problems forced him to retire during the administration of George H.W. Bush, who replaced the legendary civil rights lawyer with Clarence Thomas, a conservative ideologue who has spent his 27 years on the bench working to unravel virtually everything Marshall fought for. “If Justice Ginsburg departs the Supreme Court with a Republican in the White House,” Kennedy wrote, “it is probable that the female Thurgood Marshall will be replaced by a female Clarence Thomas.”

Which looks like exactly what will happen.

Watch Ginsburg in RBG, the documentary, and it’s hard to be anything but charmed. She’s cute, she’s brilliant, she’s cool. Even the late liberal scourge Justice Antonin Scalia adored her. But how cute will we find Ginsburg if she becomes incapacitated and Trump replaces her with someone like 46-year-old social conservative Amy Coney Barrett, who believes life begins at conception and doesn’t really believe the Supreme Court must uphold precedent like Roe v Wade? A 6-3 conservative majority would push the court yet further to the right and eliminate any possibility that a sitting conservative such as Chief Justice John Roberts might serve as a moderating force and occasionally join with the liberal bloc to preserve critical rights and precedent.

Come to think of it this looks pretty plausible too. Who knew Mother Jones writers were so savvy?

 

[HumanHive]

The issue is settled, as it should have been in the US after Roe v. Wade.

It’s not settled because Roe v. Wade was built on a fiction.
Do you know what parts of the Constitution were used to justify “abortion as a right”? Criminal search and seizure and generic right to privacy. The left could have gotten an amendment but that would have required explaining to the public how babies aren’t actually babies until the sun touches them or something.

I’m sure your next line is something like “but a woman’s right to choose” or “but muh crotch goblins”, which is all irrelevant. Get a fucking Amendment, that’s how the Constitution works. Invent shit and expect it to be an issue until it is overturned.

 

[frozenrunner]

So when did this nuclear option shit start? It was in Obama's term right? IIRC the Republicans were fillibustering a non SCOTUS judge appointment and the Dems got pissy?

2013, I think.

 

[verissimus]

It's worse than that. She could have retired when Obama was POTUS and he could have appointed a younger version of her to replace her. Instead, she decided to stay on so Hillary could do it. Trump unexpectedly won and the GOP took the Senate and here we are.

I truly don't understand why any of the Justices want to stick around past their 80s especially if they're clearly doing so to support a side. Just retire. You are absolutely not indispensable.

 

[Übertroon]

She should have worn a mask

Now you guys might think I'm joking, but let me take you back three weeks

Justice Ginsburg officiates in-person at friends' wedding weeks after cancer hospitalization

The bride noted on Twitter she and her husband had tested "negative," presumably for the coronavirus, before the outdoor ceremony.

www.nbcnews.com

Hope that jewish wedding was worth it

 

[Shield Breaker]

Yes, a little boy is a child. Who, among totally dysfunctional (and probably mentally ill) adults, is more likely to behave like a spoiled child and throw an emotional tantrum to get their way? Men or women? Who is most likely to behave like they believe their outpouring of extreme emotion is inherently meaningful?

I'm not assigning blame at half the species, obviously. I'm pointing out just another way all of this "social justice" bullshit is distinctly feminine. We already know what malfunctioning masculinity looks like.

Isn't that because you guys are taught to hold your emotions in, no matter what?

 

[mindlessobserver]

2013, I think.

Yep. And Mitch McConnell warned them.

 

[Robert James]

Cause pregnancy is some terrifying body horror shit that can straight up kill you, and the end product is an extremely expensive, difficult to care for shit goblin a lot of us do not want and are not capable of caring for properly.

Come to the girly boards, you will learn many things.

Man it's not like there are pills, or condoms that can be used to stop pregnancy, it's not like their is something you can get an operation for that prevents it, it's not like you can just not fuck. I mean I get not wanting to have a kid, caring for something other than yourself is hard, but come on acting like their isn't a plethora of options out there to kill the thing before the first trimester is just childish.

 

[Absolutego]

I think that the Democrats are going to riot and rioting is what murdered their support. Ruth's death does nothing but further cement Trump's re-election chances because nobody who was sitting on the fence is going to suddenly get up and go, "Oh shit the old lady died, time to vote for the comparatively-old Biden."

And that's assuming that Trump and McConnell won't fucking slam an appointment through before the election. If they do that, then... Fuck it, there's no reason for these people to even go and vote. That would absolutely decimate whatever's left of their morale. I know that essentially everyone on that side of the aisle is shrieking about McConnell's hypocrisy, but not only are they ignoring the specifics of his dissension, which was that the appointment should be delayed when the White House and the Senate weren't controlled by the same party, but they're ignoring one very obvious piece of information that anyone with a pulse knows is true:

They'd appoint whoever they wanted if they held the cards right now. Because the Democrats always play fair, you see. They never spy on political campaigns or fill Special Counsels with Clinton supporters or try to destroy the lives of Supreme Court nominees for drinking beer or try impeaching the President for something that Joe Biden did. No, they'd never do that, they're always as straight as an arrow.

If the Democrats controlled the White House and the Senate, we'd already be congratulating Supreme Court Justice Hillary Rodham Clinton.

I don't understand this sentiment that Yurtle the Turtle and Trump ramming through a confirmation will demoralize Democrats. This party and its pet media class have been normalizing the idea of either packing the court or impeaching Justices for the past 4 years, to the point even my normie BoomerDem parents are mentioning it. It's incredibly easy to spin a fast confirmation into a pro-turnout issue for the Dems on the ground of un-doing the appointment.

 

[ArthurEdwards]

I really don't understand this fucking meltdown people are having... I mean, it's not a surprise and it's highly expected this would happen, but I wonder if these people are aware that their lives aren't gonna change one bit even if Trump nominates a hardcore conservative. Conservatives have no intention to hurt or remove any right that lgbts or anyone has, at the moment. The only thing that can change could be that someone they don't like it's gonna be in power, and that doesn't really affect them beyond hurting their egos.







OTOH, I really don't think they're as sad and hurt as they claim. They say so, but it's very likely all histrionics. It's an automatic response to lose something they think they're entitled to, in the same way a spoiled child does when their parents say "no". I'm certain that a few are probably even mad that she died.

Well said. I rarely use Twitter, but I decided to hop on today and see what was going on, because I knew this would be good. I mean, she died to cancer and lived to 87, and I reckon she could’ve lived longer had the liberals not pushed her to not retire under Obama’s administration. All I’ve fucking seen on Twitter are meltdowns and temper-tantrums, as per usual.

Like you pointed out, nominating another conservative to the SCOTUS will probably affect nothing. While RBG wished for there to be no replacement until Trump leaves office, I doubt this will happen, considering that this is an election year, and it’s important to have 9 justices because that’s just how many the SCOTUS should have.

I just think it’s extremely funny how steam is coming out of the ears of the left over someone who died as a result of cancer. It’s not like there’s a reason for outrage, she wasn’t assassinated or anything extreme/politically motivated. Obviously, it’s tragic that someone who, despite having differences with the republicans, died. She was a hard-working lady and I can respect that. But the fact that the left is making a giant deal over something that conservatives couldn’t control, and then trying to make it political is despicable. Like I said, she probably could’ve actually lived a bit longer had liberals not put pressure on her to not her retire.

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

I know, but I just wanted to defend Ashy. S/he was the first and only furry I didn't want to be gassed.

I also liked Ashy because they would engage in good faith with arguments and in turn would respect my own arguments.

Someone has never had a little boy.

True, I have younger siblings so I know what you're talking about; That being said it is a little concerning when you see grown ass men still acting like those children instead of growing up by their 30s.

 

[Dante Alighieri]

Yep. And Mitch McConnell warned them.

There's a thing the Democrats need to learn.. when they break and bend the rules to get their way, when they play by Rules for Radicals, when they lie, cheat, and steal at every chance they get-

Why should anybody else not do the same? You can't play by the rules against people with no respect for the rules. They made their bed. This is the future they chose.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

I would absolutely expect a replacement to be confirmed before the election. Another Bush v Gore situation might happen and in that case having a full court is essential.

Democrats will threaten court-packing over it like they did in FDR's day. Whether they will succeed is another matter.

 

[cypocryphy]

Official church teaching has never definitively stated the fate of unbaptized children. However, a lot of speculation from the like of Aquinas and others have stated that limbo is the destination of unbaptized children. Basically a part of Hell that is pretty nice.

At my Catholic school we were told they all go with Mary. But maybe that's what they tell 1st graders who could be horrified to hear that dead unbaptized babies don't go to Heaven.