Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at 87. - 🦀

[HTTP Error 404]

You didn't clip it so...
View attachment 1610260
Just as a recap from earlier, Pelo-si also caught Biden fever in that same interview. Unfortunately, Biden fever has a side effect of immediate cognitive decline.
View attachment 1610267
Just look at that tiny shill Snuffolophagus. Look as his face changes to horror as the interview goes on.

What's funny is he fucking freezes. Like, no movement at all. The only thing that man was thinking at that point was "Oh fuck is she drunk... oh god no she's sober... she's fucking losing it... are they going to suicide me for embarrassing her... fuck fuck fuck fuck"

 

[ChikN10der]

Do you think the Republicans will be pearl-clutching and martyring him as hard as the left is doing now?

No need for predicting the future. Look at the reaction when Scalia died, gravedancing galore.

I'm sure cons complained and the media ignored them. Also literally everyone was on the opposite side of the replacing a justice in an election year thing.

 

[JustSomeDong]

The Dems have gone all in on the loser's veto. Results of elections mean nothing to them. They refuse to consent to electoral outcomes, it's making the country ungovernable.

You might say they're ruthless.

 

[StevieLasVegas]

I think that Trump should have someone at the ready to fill the bench, but respect RGB's wish and wait until after the election to nominate them. If he nominates someone right away, you know the DNC will play for pity points, claim he is disrespecting her dying wish and more people will likely take the bait. Also, if he somehow manages to lose to Biden, he can make his pick as a parting shot to the DNC.

You know, the more I've thought about it and read through all the different opinions on the situation, I have changed my mind on this and they should fill the seat.

 

[Hungry Hungry Bitch]

 

[ChikN10der]

I find the thought that rbg was an accelerationist amusing, but unlikely. I'm more likely to believe she never said that.

 

[The Last Stand]

I am convinced that Cocaine Mitch will find a way to bring all them RINO cunts in line. I am surprised how much of a cunt is the senator Lisa Murkowski and she is from Alaska, a deep red state. Susan will have to votes yes unless she wants to lose her seat.

Everybody please remember that Mitch McConnell is a wretched, snake in the grass boomer that was binding his time during the Trump presidency to further his career. He's playing by the rules for his favor. Somebody as old fashioned as him taking charge in any modern, sane political influence would have long term consequences as would any neoliberal or neoconservative would bring.

I don't understand why Kiwi Farms is kissing the ground he so walks on. If he died tomorrow, I wouldn't even notice or care.

 

[Pointless Pedant]

always mandatory:

Also, joking aside, the USA is a permanent member of the UN security council, so they'd have to issue a resolution against themselves. No one talking about this seriously actually knows how the security council works.

 

[Random Internet Person]

 

[ChikN10der]

Everybody please remember that Mitch McConnell is a wretched, snake in the grass boomer that was binding his time during the Trump presidency to further his career. He's playing by the rules for his favor. Somebody as old fashioned as him taking charge in any modern, sane political influence would have long term consequences as would any neoliberal or neoconservative would bring.

I don't understand why Kiwi Farms is kissing the ground he so walks on. If he died tomorrow, I wouldn't even notice or care.

Wtf are you talking about? "Everybody knows" is shorthand for "I can't back this up with facts".
Who is kissing the ground he walks on? We like when the dude supposedly on our team actually tries to win.
"Playing by the rules in his favor"? What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Corn Flakes]

Everybody please remember that Mitch McConnell is a wretched, snake in the grass boomer that was binding his time during the Trump presidency to further his career. He's playing by the rules for his favor. Somebody as old fashioned as him taking charge in any modern, sane political influence would have long term consequences as would any neoliberal or neoconservative would bring.

I don't understand why Kiwi Farms is kissing the ground he so walks on. If he died tomorrow, I wouldn't even notice or care.

You're assuming people here are simping for McConnell when in fact they're just doing the usual "hey, do the thing that we want you to do! It's gonna be awesome!" thing everybody does here.

 

[Slimy Time]

To illustrate how even more retarded these shitlibs are, I would submit that John Roberts' death would be just as great a blow to the left, if not greater, than RBG's was, considering how he's been instrumental in being the deciding vote that has furthered the left's agenda in key decisions for the past decade.

Yet, had HE died, Ms. TikTok meltdown and the rest of these mentally retarded leftists would have literally been CELEBRATING because all they see is a White Male who was appointed by Dumbya and therefore, a priori, is evil.

They really are this stupid.

John Roberts is why this replacement is so critical. He's a Dubbya nominee , but flip flops depending on the issue or what side of the bed he woke up on. It's why in spite of all the screeching about Trump putting 2 Justices in, judgments haven't been conservative all the way, because Roberts might (and so far has consistently) sided with the Dem nominees. This 3rd justice would likely completely eliminate Roberts as a swing factor.

 

[CivilianOfTheFandomWars]

View attachment 1608861

PRESS N TO PAY RESPECTS CHAT!

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

This I agree with the most. I already mentioned ideas how to counter this (according to my mine craft simulator). What is happening is the rich and powerful are spooked at losing their meal ticket.

I can't speak for the rich-rich, but this is unironicly the core reason the DC bureaucrats hate Trump so much.

Here is how a friend who formerly worked in DC explained it to me:
>oh Trump won? No matter, my job is still secure either way; It's political tradition to keep us through different administrations after-all

>Actually I think you are half of the problem with this country and I am going to replace as many bureaucrats as possible
>wait? WHAT

>Trump wants to take away my rightful job? That makes him Hitler!
>WE MUST STOP HIM NOW!!!!1

 

[polyester]

John Roberts is why this replacement is so critical. He's a Dubbya nominee , but flip flops depending on the issue or what side of the bed he woke up on. It's why in spite of all the screeching about Trump putting 2 Justices in, judgments haven't been conservative all the way, because Roberts might (and so far has consistently) sided with the Dem nominees. This 3rd justice would likely completely eliminate Roberts as a swing factor.

Does anyone know of a good analysis of John Roberts' rulings that comes up with a better explanation than "The Dems have dirt on him"?
'Cause that's what it looks like.

If he had simply had a change of heart and become a leftist anti-originalist, he'd be writing rulings and dissents that argue the issues from a leftist viewpoint.
But that's not what he's doing.

Instead, whenever a case is really important to Democrats, Roberts avoids the central issue and twists himself into a pretzel to come up with a some technicality (like stare decisis) or suddenly discovering a new absurd meaning in some unrelated sentence of the Constitution (like the Commerce Clause for Obamacare) which he claims means the Dems must get what they want.
(And then of course he never applies that technicality, or that new meaning, to any other case where it would make a difference. It's always just a one-off parlor trick to rule in favor of the Dems without publicly agreeing with the Dems.)

 

[AkAuZtIk]

I mainly see that argument used by "This argument wouldn't work on me but if I use it on you you'll do what I want" types or self-proclaimed liberal Christians. So I'm not sure if someone like her would fall for it, but I thought there would be a risk .


So babies are in demand, but few people want to adopt a child older than 4 because the kid is probably messed up already?

I believe it more has to do with the reasons a couple has for wanting to adopt, and that reason being they want a child of their own. I would wager the desire for infants is greater, because it's easier to treat a child as your own, when there hasn't be a previous parental figure giving influence. Humans in general have such a huge spectrum of thought in regards to justifying a decision, but the reasoning usually is rooted in some form of this thought process. Helps connection with the child and with the parents, when the slate is blank - also reduces the chance of a child with deep seated psychological damage that even the most loving of adopted parents could fix.

Spoiler: More thoughts noone asked for:

Don't get me wrong, there is a need for kids past infancy to be adopted, which is why it's offered to parents who don't want to wait, or get tired of waiting. Which I feel could easily be incentivized appropriately (which actually is, they do get subsidized from the state and have seen multiple foster families, with multiple adoptions, across all age ranges) I have mixed feelings about using the foster system as a means to supplement income, but I understand it. The foster family I've met before had two black parents, both Christian, and the father worked as a butcher at Kroger's, but because of how many kids they could adopt, I want to say 4-5 total, they had a three story house in the suburbs and all the kids had everything they ever could want or need. Despite the motivations, if the kids aren't being mistreated and fed properly, then I feel the work performed in service to both those kids and society as a whole, overly justifies the amount of money they receive from the state. There should be more over sight of course, but even if someone is doing it for selfish reasons or abusing the system to make more money, it still is a net positive for our society to encourage

I proved my statement (there are zero infants in the "adoption system") true.

I think you were drunk and not paying attention to who said what.

My mistake, the gears of autism have no compassion for any human, especially to those who have it and those it is aimed at to be ground between them. Regardless I was wrong and trying to actually bolster and agree with your opinion, just mixed up the order of messaging and thought your reply was from the other person you disagreed with as proof there were infants up for adoption. Not drunk persay, but probably equal to it in regards to operating capacity, just tired with my thoughts running full steam. Glad you saw that no offense was intended, because of course, it wasn't.

 

[The Last Stand]

I can't speak for the rich-rich, but this is unironicly the core reason the DC bureaucrats hate Trump so much.

Here is how a friend who formerly worked in DC explained it to me:
>oh Trump won? No matter, my job is still secure either way; It's political tradition to keep us through different administrations after-all
View attachment 1611179
>Actually I think you are half of the problem with this country and I am going to replace as many bureaucrats as possible
>wait? WHAT
View attachment 1611180
>Trump wants to take away my rightful job? That makes him Hitler!
>WE MUST STOP HIM NOW!!!!1

You got to fight fire with fire.

 

[mindlessobserver]

Does anyone know of a good analysis of John Roberts' rulings that comes up with a better explanation than "The Dems have dirt on him"?
'Cause that's what it looks like.

If he had simply had a change of heart and become a leftist anti-originalist, he'd be writing rulings and dissents that argue the issues from a leftist viewpoint.
But that's not what he's doing.

Instead, whenever a case is really important to Democrats, Roberts avoids the central issue and twists himself into a pretzel to come up with a some technicality (like stare decisis) or suddenly discovering a new absurd meaning in some unrelated sentence of the Constitution (like the Commerce Clause for Obamacare) which he claims means the Dems must get what they want.
(And then of course he never applies that technicality, or that new meaning, to any other case where it would make a difference. It's always just a one-off parlor trick to rule in favor of the Dems without publicly agreeing with the Dems.)

Robert's is a Conservative judge but not an ideologically conservative judge. He does not like judicial activism even if it may benefit the right. What this means is he really hates second guessing the legislature, overturning prior precedents or reversing lower court rulings that are legally sound. Once you understand this his positions make way more sense and you can predict better which way he will go.

So for example, if a lower court decides to allow a gun ban in New York City this breaks prior precedent so he will reverse them. But if Alabama wants to bitch about ObamaCare being unconstitutional he will rule against Alabama because it's more a political question that should be addressed by the legislature.

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

Robert's is a Conservative judge but not an ideologically conservative judge. He does not like judicial activism even if it may benefit the right. What this means is he really hates second guessing the legislature, overturning prior precedents or reversing lower court rulings that are legally sound. Once you understand this his positions make way more sense and you can predict better which way he will go.

So for example, if a lower court decides to allow a gun ban in New York City this breaks prior precedent so he will reverse them. But if Alabama wants to bitch about ObamaCare being unconstitutional he will rule against Alabama because it's more a political question that should be addressed by the legislature.

This is something the left, generally speaking, is unable to comprehend about justices. They think justices are like a souped up legislature. Whereas a conservative might choose a judge based on their political philosophy ("orginalism," a term I hate) the left will always choose a judge based on what issues the justice will rule on. Conservatives do do this, especially in regards to abortion, but it's never quite as strong as a consideration and that's why justices elected by conservatives are not as predictable on the face of it as ones might be on the left.

Of course liberals judges will also rule on the actual law and not what they want, any good judge will do that, but when the left talks about selecting them, it's all about the issues and not about the rule of law.

 

[MrJokerRager]

Trump is waiting till Friday to announce the new pick. I believe every day is crucial as it gives more time for them leftist loonies to get louder.

Also any future GOP senators better off living in rural America if they don't want leftists showing up outside their houses.