Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at 87. - 🦀

[poopnigga295]

Im so lost. I have no idea who this woman was but whatever then rest in peace i guess? lol

 

[Dialtone]

Y̶̢̡̩̖̏͗̋͆̚͘Ọ̶̐̈͜U̴̢̱̼̖̰͊̅̚͜ ̴̨̧̟̈́̔̈Ț̷͚̗̣̕H̷̢̪̣̱̳̿͒̕Ơ̵̺̙̤͋̒̄̚Ȕ̴̡̯͕͈͖̒̍͋Ḡ̷̬̩̬̩̓͛̃̽͘Ĥ̷̢̼̠̠͔̟̃̂͝T̶̡̘̱̝̓ ̶̮͕͙̤̬̩͋̈́̐̂̈Y̶̡̻͖͎̾̊͐̽̌͠Ǫ̴̠̯̒̎͝Ú̸͕̞ ̸̛̞̼̫͊͝Ć̶̛͈̕̚̕͝Ǫ̴̖͎̩͋̏̀̔͌Ų̷̺̤̥̞̱̿͒͋̃̓͘L̷̬͔̎̓͂͐ͅD̴̨̮̘̊̽̿̌ ̷̡̨͙̂G̶͈͓̱̟͖͍͐̔Ệ̴͚̬̤̐͗͛̕͠T̴̙̳̺̹̻̦͗̈́̽ ̴͓͉̱̪͒̈̾̂R̵̲̮͇͉̯̍Ì̷̺̺͇̋̒D̸̢̡͚̫̩͔̍̓̈́͆̅͒ ̷͚̅̈́̒O̵̙̼̗̰̓̋͑̕ͅF̴̳̟̝̬̝̈̍͝͠ ̷̺̮͎̐M̶̬̯̥̜̺̼̏̿̀́Ȩ̸̛̛̣̠̖̘̈͛ ̴̧̱̼̣͙̗̈̎T̷͚̣͚̎̂̀͠H̸̜͋Ą̷̧̤̟̳̈́̽̌̂̃͠Ţ̷͍̲̝̾̑̏̋̾ ̴̡̘̝͑̊̀͘Ḛ̶̐̽̏̐͗̒A̴͉͈͍̣̎͜S̷̲̬̦̆̍̐̕͝I̸̩̅̊̌̉͛L̷̹͛͂Y̷̤̦͕̼̫̊?̸̝̘̲̗̪́̀

 

[Creep3r]

The shadow goblin has been vanquished, banished to the realm from whence it came.

The Shadow Realm?

 

[None More Black]

White women are so insanely out of touch with the world on certain things. No joke, I heard my daughters friends talking how "Black people just understand and are more open to things like pro-choice, women's rights and rights for LGBT" and I was just just couldn't help but laugh.

Both groups are out of touch with who they claim to be allied with.

I remember one of my black friends’ grandfather said that Pete Bootyboy seemed like the perfect candidate for president because he was young, healthy, a military man and seemed to know what he’s talking about.

But he’s gay.

That was the sole thing that kept him from voting for Pete and instead moving to Crusty Joe.

in his book david axelrod even talked about obama lying about his stance on gay marriage specifically due to religious blacks

 

[Freedom Fries]

Do you think that people really buy into the whole "The Court must be balanced" Horseshit? I started listening to news a week or two before the last election after taking the year long break. "He will get SCOTUS picks" is one of the absolute major issues that got Religious people who were sort of "meh" on him driven to vote.

No, but I think "coming back" is generally more motivating than "securing the win." There's naturally more complacency when you're in the lead. Furthermore, those people expect him to fulfill his promise of appointing Justices they want.

Yes, Trump has managed to get many of the people who were wary on his side already, but this will get people who wouldn't have voted for him, or who thought he probably had it in the bag mobilized.

There are a good amount of people on both sides of the aisle who are SCOTUSonly tards and think the SCOTUS is the only issue that truly matters.

It would probably mobilize both sides. It would definitely mobilize the left more than the right in the current circumstances.

I think the only potential way to close the gap would be to nominate someone very popular and have that be an exciting plank of the policy positions. I don't think it would completely close the gap though, so he should ram someone through which delivers another win which would still make the wonks happy and more likely to vote for him based on goodwill. Possible added bonus of loss of morale for the left.

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

Do you think that people really buy into the whole "The Court must be balanced" Horseshit? I started listening to news a week or two before the last election after taking the year long break. "He will get SCOTUS picks" is one of the absolute major issues that got Religious people who were sort of "meh" on him driven to vote.


Yes, Trump has managed to get many of the people who were wary on his side already, but this will get people who wouldn't have voted for him, or who thought he probably had it in the bag mobilized.

There are a good amount of people on both sides of the aisle who are SCOTUSonly tards and think the SCOTUS is the only issue that truly matters.

I would PREFER that the court be balanced, but it's Ginsberg's own damn fault for not retiring, so fuck her.

 

[Not Really Here]

I would PREFER that the court be balanced, but it's Ginsberg's own damn fault for not retiring, so fuck her.

The court needs to be made up of people who can agree that "shall not" means 'no'.

 

[Standardized Profile]

I hate to be "that guy" but why are you unironically parroting literal incel talking points? I'm not even talking about the Woke Twitter definition of the word incel, but the literal self-identified Eliot Rodger types

I don't know about "incel talking points," but within living memory the government of an advanced, cultured nation ordered the mass murder of defective and poorly-raised persons. They were roundly scolded, but "non-voluntary euthanasia" is becoming normalized again. In my life, I think we'll move from non-voluntary to straight up involuntary euthanasia again. ("Don't worry, doctor, dad always screams no, stop at 4-o'-clock. Just hurry up and give him his shot.) As for infanticide, there are academic philosophers like Singer who promote infanticide on utilitarian grounds and because newborns aren't really sentient. How long does it take before a baby can recognize itself in a mirror? Is something less intelligent than a dolphin or an elephant really a human person?

Spoiler

The problem with abortion jurisprudence is the legal fiction that a human organism becomes a person at the moment birth is completed, as if some metaphysical metamorphosis occurs the moment his/her little toesies clear the vagina. It's not a particularly rational belief. It most closely mirrors the religious idea of "transubstantiation," the idea that the physical matter that makes something up--a piece of bread or a human organism--transforms essentially but invisibly into another being. The bread becomes the flesh of Christ, the human organism becomes a human person, all without a single particle of matter changing. Thinking people reject this because there's no rational or empirical reason to believe it occurs. (In religion it is believed because of divine revelation, but that doesn't apply here.) Once you get past this magical idea, you start looking for some other landmark that indicates the human organism has become a human person. It could be conception, implantation, development of some physical feature, quickening, even the mirror test, though I reject that. It could be anything that's observable and can serve as a rational basis for determining that an organism is now a person.

Whenever you decide that a human organism becomes a person, that's when he or she has rights, and you have to think about whether the homicide of that person is justifiable or excusable. I'm old-fashioned and subscribe to the idea that homicide is justified in cases of necessary self-defense, defense of others, just war, and operation of law to protect society, following due process. These standards are, or used to be, pretty universal throughout Western Civilization if not the entire civilized world.

Under these principles, an individual abortion could be justified to prevent grievous bodily harm to the mother or other fetuses, as that's self-defense or the defense of others. (And I don't buy the idea that healthy childbirth is GBH.) It could also be said a rape victim suffers sustained harm by experiencing pregnancy, and abortion is the only way to stop that harm. Not everyone would be convinced, but the actual number of abortions attributed to rape is so low, about 1%, that few pro-lifers would fight over it. But abortion for economic reasons, or lifestyle reasons, or convenience, cannot be justified under traditional Western principles.

To return to @Terrorist's reductio ad absurdum, there are lots of people I consider defective or maladapted to society, and there are lots of people whose existence is an inconvenience or a burden to me, but those facts don't justify their homicide. If I kill a street person and tell the jury, "I didn't want a street person, we're better off without them, his life looked pretty miserable, and I didn't want to pay for his gibs," they will rightly put me in prison for the rest of my life.

 

[SBG]

He gave a speech on the senate floor telling Schumer, et all, they would regret their decision. He's just keeping a promise.

 

[Honka Honka Burning Love]

I would PREFER that the court be balanced, but it's Ginsberg's own damn fault for not retiring, so fuck her.

I would prefer it to be all people who will read the fucking document they are supposed to be basing this shit off of and staying true to that.

 

[Observotron]

I would PREFER that the court be balanced, but it's Ginsberg's own damn fault for not retiring, so fuck her.

It's greed. She could have left under Obama and got a replacement that would have had more in line with the left's beliefs, but she wanted to leave under Hilary to have someone that would have had her exact beliefs. Once again, she didn't want compromise, she wanted absolutes - now the dems may get absolutely nothing. The Ancient Greeks were right with that Icarus guy.

 

[DewsLit]

So you can't become immortal by stewing in pure hatred..?

 

[The Pink Panther]

It's sad to see the cheering of this woman's death bordering on bloodlust. Is it good that she's gone? Sure, that's fair; throw your party and go crazy, but isn't a little irksome to specifically celebrate the death of another compassionate human being?

 

[Not Really Here]

I think we'll move from non-voluntary to straight up involuntary euthanasia again. ("Don't worry, doctor, dad always screams no, stop at 4-o'-clock. Just hurry up and give him his shot.)

You are late and need to keep up with the news.

https://lozierinstitute.org/netherlands-forcible-euthanasia-case-and-the-slippery-slope/

Edit:

 

[Lord of the Large Pants]

The court needs to be made up of people who can agree that "shall not" means 'no'.

I would prefer it to be all people who will read the fucking document they are supposed to be basing this shit off of and staying true to that.

Yes, that would also be nice. But I get REAAAAAAAAL nervous when any political party or cause gains too much power. Even the ones I agree with.

Politicians aren't exactly know for being principled, and if the opposition gets too weak, the party in power can do whatever they want. Just because it happens to be in your interest today, don't assume it will be that way tomorrow.

The best way to prevent this is to keep the government in eternal deadlock so they fuck up the country as little as possible.

 

[Fareal]

How hard is it to not have unprotected sex? Is it that hard? Maybe keep your legs closed if it's too hard for you to take a pill, get a shot, get an IUD or learn to insert a diaphragm. And condoms are sold everywhere and given away for free.

t. woman who learned to do things

One of my children is the product of a straight up, hand round the throat, stitch-ripping postpartum rape. I refused all attempts by the rapist to coerce me into a termination. You can argue that that decision was unfair on him, because he didn’t want to have another child. I didn’t want to be raped and impregnated, so you can argue that was pretty unfair on me. Not having unprotected sex can be pretty hard sometimes. The question is, what do you do about it afterwards.

Human reproduction is a very ethically grey business involving difficult circumstances for a lot of people. I’m too old and sad to be as judgemental as I once was.

 

[HOMO FOR LIFE]

View attachment 1608179

Internet just showing how fucked up these faggots are and we should never trust anything they do.

 

[Honka Honka Burning Love]

Yes, that would also be nice. But I get REAAAAAAAAL nervous when any political party or cause gains too much power. Even the ones I agree with.

Politicians aren't exactly know for being principled, and if the opposition gets too weak, the party in power can do whatever they want. Just because it happens to be in your interest today, don't assume it will be that way tomorrow.

I mean, The entire idea of the SCOTUS is that they are supposed to be principled and not political, people who can't do that should not be on the supreme court at all.

 

[Freedom Fries]

I would PREFER that the court be balanced, but it's Ginsberg's own damn fault for not retiring, so fuck her.

I would prefer it to be originalists instead of practitioners of critical theory. Right wing Justices have a habit of NOT legislating from the bench unlike their supposed opposition.

It isn't like liberal Justices are opposed to the Patriot Act or broad search and seizure on the basis of any amendments or openness. They're happy to authoritarian policies and then make up bullshit for why their party is always right and why it's actually OK to racially discriminate against Whites but only them. It isn't like conservative Justices are trying to oppress people, they just follow the founding documents and laws.

If left and right in this context denoted any kind of disagreement on government power or anything like that I might agree, but it simply doesn't. It's critical theory vs. constitutionalism

 

[Caustic Gelatin]

What is with the fetishization (not the kind that makes weirdos peepees hard) of Ruth Bader Ginsburg anyway?
I mean there are books, toys, bobble-heads, funk pops, coloring books and even costumes to dress your children up in. Some places even shoehorn her in as some sort of pop culture reference (I think that new scooby-doo movie had one of the characters as a child dressed up as her). Its never really sat right with me and always seemed pretty weird that people seem to worship her as some sort of saint or deity or something like that.
I'm sure it will now only get worse now that shes kicked the bucket. Probably going to be seeing shit with her on it popping up everywhere.