Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at 87. - 🦀

[Sekirodiealot]

I'm not sure what to feel about her dying.

 

[Syaoran Li]

View attachment 1611149

This is actually a surprisingly good move since it's still early enough to get a confirmation by the end of October but doesn't look too much like gravedancing.

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.

Agreed, but I think it's a good idea to wait until after the funeral since it's better optics and gives the media and the Democrats a little less viable ammunition against them. I

f Trump makes the official announcement on Friday morning and the Senate begins their hearings later that day or on Monday, then it's possible we'll see this get rammed through within one or two weeks since it's obvious McConnell's using the nuclear option and if Trump's smart and goes with Lagoa then it makes it even quicker since she's not as vocal about her religion as Barrett nor is she a theocrat Justice Hawthorne wannabe like Rushing and they can just get through the vote within a week or two and be done with it by mid-October.

I'm wondering what will happen with Roberts and Thomas's replacements. If Trump wins four more years, he could get five nominations under his belt theoretically speaking.

 

[Markorian]

Has anyone realized that Martha McSally, who is likely losing the election to Mark Kelly, will be evicted on November 30th? That means, regardless of if Trump wins or lose, a seat will likely be filled by the Democrats.

That means if they had started the nominee process after the election, they would have less than a month to confirm a seat. Whereas with right now, they have over a month, which may buy enough time to ram Barrett or Lagoa through. I'm not sure that with the inevitable DNC stalling that they could do that after the election.

Even if Republicans only lose one seat, come November 30th, Republicans would have a 52-48 advantage, not 53-47. That means not only would they need to get Grassley to agree (I've heard he's a RINO, may I ask why?), but also get Collins, Murkowski, and Romney to grow some balls and vote "Yes". I know there are rumors that Ted Cruz is saying he's got enough Republicans to slam a nominee through, but there is zero evidence Rooster knows anything. I asked this multiple times and got nothing. Even if this is true, stalling could change all that as McConnell would have to sell the nominee to one more RINO.

Trump is making the wise play here, regardless of how it affects his election chances. Holding off the nomination is a trap the Democrats are setting and he will not fall for that. Now he has to get McConnell to force an expedited process. Announcement tomorrow please.
I see this a lot on this forum, but it needs to be said.

The black population is increasing and has been since the 1940 census. As of last year, 13.4% of the population is black (archive). That's larger than the 2010 census. Furthermore, they're by far the most politically active non-white voting block. Even with their massive downturn in 2016 (archive), they still outpaced Hispanics and Asians by double digit. Even with Hispanics being the most populous minority, blacks still vote at a higher percentage than them.

I agree that Republicans have far more in-road to make with Hispanics than blacks, but they are not fading from relevance as a voting block anytime soon which is why the Democrats are doing everything they can to get out the black vote.

McSally is losing no matter what, they got away with their test run of blatant voter fraud in 2018, and they're just gonna do the same thing again.

Well the democrats are giving the GOP more reasons to fill that seat asap. If GOP is living in a delusional dream that the uniparty is coming back, they are mistaken.

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.

As for Mitt Romney, apparently Biden is looking into him being his potential secretary of state. He really did deserve to lose in 2012.

The biggest cunts are ALWAYS the reps and senators with no chance at losing re-election, doesn't matter if they're democrat or republican.

 

[Unassuming Local Guy]

Black is a proper noun, it's the arbitrary name of a thing, it gets capitalized. Niggers is a slur, it doesn't. I capitalize French, I don't capitalize faggots.

Black is the adjective of a color. French is the adjective of a country. It makes sense to capitalize French, less to capitalize black.

I capitalize neither black nor white, because they're useful descriptors, not identities. Yes, people often make them into identities, but those people are stupid.

If you capitalize both words, I disagree but understand. Personal choice. What I strongly disagree with is capitalizing just black. Not only is it grammatically wrong to pick and choose, but it's being a useful idiot and furthering the media's new method of fomenting division and hatred. I can forgive being bad at grammar, but I can't forgive that.

On topic, the left is going to try to burn down the country and kill the opposition no matter what happens, so I say nuclear option it is. Half the political spectrum is already composed of zombies. Being nice isn't going to put their long-rotted brains back in their heads.

 

[Matthew216]

Hillary is making progress -- it wasn't too long ago that she couldn't utter the phrase "go down" at all.

Her husband is an expert at saying that phrase, though he usually ends it with “baby.”

 

[Sheryl Nome]

Its a generic response; however, it reads as a blanket assurance that she wouldn't rock the boat as an appellate judge with abortion cases similar to Whole Woman's Health or June Medical Services. Its probably why she sailed through her confirmation hearing. As I mentioned, she's barely spent any time on the federal bench; hence, the concern I raised about her, or Barrett or whomever, turning out as the next Souter.



Barrett's statement comes across as implicit opposition to what roe v wade created--a federal right to abortion--and as tacit support for abortion at a state level. I'd love to be wrong about these women, but these statements coupled with their lack of a meaningful record should be disqualifying, especially when they're being held out as strong catholic judges.

You're fucking retarded.

Its not saying "I won't rock the boat."

Its saying. "I will follow the basic legal principles that are required of me, as an inferior justice of the united states of america."

An appellate court judge MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST follow faithfully apply precedents from the surepemc ourt, even if they personally disagree with them. Thats why its called MANDATORY authority.

Trying to use this as a purity test to disqualify someone from being 'christian' enough for the spot just shows that you are too ignorant to even be trying to makin those sort of decisions

 

[The Last Stand]

Black is the adjective of a color. French is the adjective of a country. It makes sense to capitalize French, less to capitalize black.

I capitalize neither black nor white, because they're useful descriptors, not identities. Yes, people often make them into identities, but those people are stupid.

In this context, it's used as a description to describe one person's race. Hence, the use as a proper noun is correct. What's the difference between a black man and a Black man? In the first one, the man is colored black. In the second one, Black is used to describe what ethnicity the man is.

 

[verissimus]

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 would not go that far. McConnell is first and foremost a horse trader (essentially goes with his position). It's ridiculous to label him neo-anything. The only lasting impact I see McConnell having is simply through the courts which wouldn't have been a thing had democrats not shortsightedly killed the filibuster.

He is a massive pos though and certainly thinks he more clever than he thinks he is.

 

[The Last Stand]

I would not go that far. McConnell is first and foremost a horse trader (essentially goes with his position). It's ridiculous to label him neo-anything. The only lasting impact I see McConnell having is simply through the courts which wouldn't have been a thing had democrats not shortsightedly killed the filibuster.

He is a massive pos though and certainly thinks he more clever than he thinks he is.

I didn't say he was a neoconservative, I said he would AS any other neo.

 

[AkAuZtIk]

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.

I have disagree for his reasoning on ObamaCare, it was unconstitutional, because the wording of the written law as passed by the legislature did not phrase the penalty for not having insurance as a tax, that was an inserted redefinition which he has no power to do and if your contention is that he makes decisions based on precedent, the the appropriate thing to do was vote for it being unconstitutional and have the law redone and re-voted on in the legislature. I'm not a fan of redefining words on the spot, as a very real tactic of the left is to redefine words without a majority of society agreeing on that definition. He is only suppose to make his judgements based on what is written and not insert meaning that isn't expressly stated. Historical discussion is pertinate when discussing laws from the past, as the intent of the time of passing is relevant, but this wasn't something from another time, the intent was to punish Citizens for not complying with a requirement, by definition, taxes aren't taxes if used to punish an action, in this case not performing an action, it was a fine levied for violating the new law which took away citizen's rights. So if your defense is he operates based solely on not wanting to break precedent, he failed in this regard in every way and to a lot of people, it draws previous judgements and justifications for decisions into question. I can't recall any law, that wasn't removed for the same reason, that required someone to buy something that should be completely optional and isn't required for the safety of others. Car insurance protects other from having to take a loss for your mistake. Medical insurance only reduces a cost for yourself and only applies to yourself. Hospitals can't refuse treatment, so no medical is ever really denied, and as far as I'm aware, we don't allow imprisonment for not paying personal debts anymore. I'm real tired of someone using their personal medical condition to make emotional arguments, that woman in the Trump town hall who said they succeeded in life, despite having a debilitating disease, still wanted less medical costs, even though, if she was as successful as claimed, she could easily afford it without any hardship and argued from the point of view it was unfair she should have to pay for her medical costs in full.

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.

I think it more has to do with them finding an extremely effective political strategy that clearly works. If the final say always comes down to the same 9 people, and you hold a majority or semi-majority, you can ram through as many unconstitutional laws as you want through the legislature and then when the case is decided in your favor, enforce it without fear of any challenges because they now have the legal precedent set to be used as a defense. And while certainly cases on the same issue can be raised again and be re-challenged, if you have Judge's like Roberts who is claimed to make decisions on precedent, then that battle becomes harder and harder to perform. So the idea becomes, if the final say is always there, and we pack it with majority our side, then elections won't matter for that period of time as such a majority exists, and that can be several decades. They can block any new laws from their opposition, regardless if their side has majority in the legislature and executive. There is a check by legislature in which they can impeach or remove a sitting judge, but with political sides so close to 50/50 (which I don't believe by any means accurately reflects our population, just power dynamic in washington) that's really hard thing to accomplish, especially when you have to prove bias and compromised judgement as a reasoning.

Spoiler: If anyone knows or has information in regards to:

Is there any Kiwi out there who's payed attention longer than I have that knows of an event, or series of events that started this idea of changing definitions in order to win in political discourse and over extend or limit current long standing laws? I know the litigious culture played a part, in that lawyers win cases by their redefinition and interpretations of standing law and a majority of politicians who write the laws purposely write them confusingly vague on purpose for this reason, but I'm more looking for when media/DNC/non-conformists decided to employ this strategy across the board in order to give the supreme court extraordinarily increased power to be the final say in any debate. I've seen this pattern for decades, it's very noticeable, was just curious if there was any "singularity" event that started it. I know definitions change with time, but what is becoming more and more common is dictionaries unilaterally deciding changes that should be made, and then those new definitions used to justify judicial decisions.

Could just be an over arching scheme to break down communication between people in order to foment what ever narrative the media spews and prevent meaningful debate & compromise between normal folks, especially in regards to sensitive subjects, which is ultimately used to prevent people from noticing the true intent and purpose of what our politicians are actually doing.

To bring it back on topic, I'm no fan of a system in where 9 people are the final say on anything, not in a country with 350 million people, and since the Left side of politics has very clearly telegraphed that they intend to abuse this system, I'll now always be in favor of a conservative Supreme Court Justice, because they are the only ones who have people willing to perform such a powerful position properly and their previous rulings reflect that, despite my opinion of Roberts. I also think that cases that happen to share a single detail in relation to a previous ruling shouldn't be decided on that decision alone, the biggest example being Roe V. Wade, which arguably only guarantees medical privacy, but is used as a definer for abortion law disputes.

 

[verissimus]

As for Mitt Romney, apparently Biden is looking into him being his potential secretary of state. He really did deserve to lose in 2012.

God, why do so many Republicans turn out to be limp-wristed pansies, dumb warmongers, or feckless opportunists?

I didn't say he was a neoconservative, I said he would AS any other neo.

I don't follow...

 

[Freedom Fries]

military coup

There won't be a military coup. Any sort of coup or office removal will come from the IC or by way of some domestic enforcement branch on the orders of the courts (and legislature). It doesn't matter how much the officer class may or may not hate Trump, they're smarter than to outright destroy the status of the US military as "the good guys" like that. Getting involved in politics on such a blatant level would destroy all the goodwill the US military has with the populace and is simply not worth doing. It's far more likely that the military simply won't help Trump stop one and/or won't help him to restore order even if it's a lawful order.

Barrett, January 2013:



Lagoa, answering written questions during her nomination to the Eleventh Circuit (2019):

View attachment 1610944

Fuck on out of the conversation if you can't do basic research you mongoloid

I don't really think either of these things rules out a re-litigation of Roe but also indicates a non-ideological ruling regarding abortion. I don't think that's a bad thing considering I want originalist Justices, and it takes some of the bite out of the Handmaid's Tale hysteria. It's better from an election standpoint.

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

I'm willing to believe that sometime in the days, weeks, or months leading up to her death she said something like, 'God I hope that buffoon doesn't replace me (with Ted Cruz).' I don't buy that she said what her daughter is saying she said when she is saying she said it and in the context being reported. Ginsberg did have some respectability to her and an ability to engage across the aisle irreconcilable differences and all. Reportedly she was very cordial and welcoming with her "right-wing" coworkers.

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.

He's a mercenary, but he is our mercenary at the moment, and he really has done a great job wrangling the Senate for his term as majority leader. You have to acknowledge that whether you like him or not.

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

So I know as of this morning, it's 2/4 repub senators who've made gestures that they'll bomb any attempt at getting in a justice. It'll be curious to see if 2 more step up to it - I could only see this being a politically viable option in a purple state quickly becoming blue. Maybe someone will feel conviction and make their decision based on that, but I haven't known politicians to engage in that all too much.

 

[The Last Stand]

God, why do so many Republicans turn out to be limp-wristed pansies, dumb warmongers, or feckless opportunists?

They let themselves get overcome by the Religious Right in the 80s for votes and undermine their contributions to civil rights after MLK Jr. got Blacks to vote for Johnson.

 

[It's HK-47]

That theory for why Ginsburg would make a politicized "last request" that doesn't sound like her, is a bit of stretch.
It's more likely that her granddaughter simply made it up (or at least significantly embellished/distorted it).

That's definitely possible, but in the event that her daughter just made the entire thing up, the result is still the same: It's a statement that is objectively going to hurt the DNC because they can't just ignore it, they lack the foresight to see the damage they'll cause themselves by trying to follow through on that wish in the same way that they lack the foresight to avoid impeaching Trump a second time when the last time was a massive boost for him.

Whether it's intentional or accidental, her dying wish is still a primed explosive, and Ginsberg's death has already caused such a ripple that you'll notice that otherwise Conservative-minded people are (and have been, to be fair) saying that her replacement should be a Conservative woman, just to "own the libs" or whatever. When Sotomayer dies do we need to appoint another obese Mexican? When Thomas dies do we need to find another black man? I can certainly appreciate spite, but what they're implying is just identity politics with an extra step.

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

God, why do so many Republicans turn out to be limp-wristed pansies, dumb warmongers, or feckless opportunists?



I don't follow...

Romney is a Massachusetts Republican, which means he's pretty much the perfect storm of bad opinions. There's some shit I agree with him on, but I take a stronger position in that direction than than he ever did (I'm outright pro-gay marriage, etc). I refused to vote for Romney as he was a waste of time. Honestly I like Trump even less, but the left has really given me no choice but to back Trump since they've shown they're going to far and are so obsessed with victory that they're letting riots burn up buildings which I cannot abide.

 

[6MillionCoofs]

When Sotomayer dies do we need to appoint another obese Mexican? When Thomas dies do we need to find another black man? I can certainly appreciate spite, but what they're implying is just identity politics with an extra step.

A good way to make children stop playing stupid games is to play by their own rules and beat them until they stop playing because they know they'll lose.

Unfortunately it either takes a sound crushing or a quite a few times.

Since Trump will not win the election by an uncontestable landslide, it will take a few times

 

[discombobulate]

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.

There are more judicial philosophies than originalism and living Constitution, and no judge is "anti-originalism." Scalia was a textualist and Gorsuch tends that way as well. Even though Ginsburg referenced the living Constitution theory she was also a purposivist, especially when talking about statutory law. Roberts, as both Chief Justice and as his own judge, is more concerned with stability and limiting judicial overreach over the legislative process. Even though his decision on the ACA was egregious it makes sense from his POV. It hinges on the meaning of "tax:" clearly Congress would have considered all that crap to be a tax if that were the only thing holding it back and it would be fully within their power to do so with it being a legislative prerogative. Everything else can be excused away with precedent, even though the precedent was clearly flawed in the eyes of the other conservative Justices.

I have disagree for his reasoning on ObamaCare, it was unconstitutional, because the wording of the written law as passed by the legislature did not phrase the penalty for not having insurance as a tax, that was an inserted redefinition which he has no power to do and if your contention is that he makes decisions based on precedent, the the appropriate thing to do was vote for it being unconstitutional and have the law redone and re-voted on in the legislature. I'm not a fan of redefining words on the spot, as a very real tactic of the left is to redefine words without a majority of society agreeing on that definition. He is only suppose to make his judgements based on what is written and not insert meaning that isn't expressly stated. Historical discussion is pertinate when discussing laws from the past, as the intent of the time of passing is relevant, but this wasn't something from another time, the intent was to punish Citizens for not complying with a requirement, by definition, taxes aren't taxes if used to punish an action, in this case not performing an action, it was a fine levied for violating the new law which took away citizen's rights. So if your defense is he operates based solely on not wanting to break precedent, he failed in this regard in every way and to a lot of people, it draws previous judgements and justifications for decisions into question.

This is a problem with the precedent and not the ACA. Congress can redefine things relevant to the legislative branch without a majority of the country agreeing as that is their job, so long as the votes in Congress go that way. Deference to Congress and to executive agencies for their own definitions is long-standing precedent. Aside from precedent, no, judges are not supposed to draw conclusions only from what is written and it would be stupid to expect it that way. It makes laws over-broad, as prosecutions for someone kicking another person for assault with a "deadly weapon" enhancement for wearing shoes or sentence enhancements for trading a gun for drugs (as they are "using" the gun) demonstrate. In any case, if a case revolves simply around a definition the SC will rarely hear it and would rather remand it, unless it is a very sticky case.

The specific judicial philosophy you're referring to is the layman's idea of "strict constructionism." No current SC judge holds strongly to this philosophy and with the way that it has developed with respect to textualism, it's unlikely we'll see many in the future.

 

[Freedom Fries]

I have disagree for his reasoning on ObamaCare, it was unconstitutional, because the wording of the written law as passed by the legislature did not phrase the penalty for not having insurance as a tax, that was an inserted redefinition which he has no power to do and if your contention is that he makes decisions based on precedent, the the appropriate thing to do was vote for it being unconstitutional and have the law redone and re-voted on in the legislature. I'm not a fan of redefining words on the spot, as a very real tactic of the left is to redefine words without a majority of society agreeing on that definition. He is only suppose to make his judgements based on what is written and not insert meaning that isn't expressly stated. Historical discussion is pertinate when discussing laws from the past, as the intent of the time of passing is relevant, but this wasn't something from another time, the intent was to punish Citizens for not complying with a requirement, by definition, taxes aren't taxes if used to punish an action, in this case not performing an action, it was a fine levied for violating the new law which took away citizen's rights. So if your defense is he operates based solely on not wanting to break precedent, he failed in this regard in every way and to a lot of people, it draws previous judgements and justifications for decisions into question. I can't recall any law, that wasn't removed for the same reason, that required someone to buy something that should be completely optional and isn't required for the safety of others. Car insurance protects other from having to take a loss for your mistake. Medical insurance only reduces a cost for yourself and only applies to yourself. Hospitals can't refuse treatment, so no medical is ever really denied, and as far as I'm aware, we don't allow imprisonment for not paying personal debts anymore. I'm real tired of someone using their personal medical condition to make emotional arguments, that woman in the Trump town hall who said they succeeded in life, despite having a debilitating disease, still wanted less medical costs, even though, if she was as successful as claimed, she could easily afford it without any hardship and argued from the point of view it was unfair she should have to pay for her medical costs in full.

I think this point is especially poignant when you consider how he has twisted niggling sentences or off-the-cuff statements here and there into reasons otherwise black-letter allowed things Trump has done / attempted to do can't be done.

 

[Super-Chevy454]

As for Mitt Romney, apparently Biden is looking into him being his potential secretary of state. He really did deserve to lose in 2012.

How about ambassador in France, where he could use his alias of Pierre Delecto.

Btw, it was already mentionned I think but it might be worth to re-mention RBG's hobbies. https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/09/ruth_bader_ginsburg_eugenicist.html

https://archive.vn/JSzVt

Anyone notice an absence of black faces at the recent Ruth Bader Ginsburg memorials?

Here's one taken by photographer Ted Eytan via his Flickr Pro page.

He has an excellent collection here.

She's being lionized, though, and several prominent supposed black leaders such as Rep. James Clyburn (the man who brought us Joe Biden) and the Rev. Al Sharpton have sung her praises. Like the Black Lives Matter protests, though, it's mostly an all-white show with some black people out front.

One reason may be that Ginsburg was Jewish, and anti-Semitism in the U.S. is the strongest in the black community.

But there's also Ginsburg herself, who had some pretty questionable views about abortion and race. Here's an actual quote from the New York Times magazine, dating from 2009:

Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.

It's so bad that I thought it had to be fake when I first saw it. I had to look it up to confirm its authenticity. Who talks like that in 2009? Heck, who talks like that in 1973?

Ginsburg herself confirmed to her fawning reporter that it was an accurate quote.

Snopes, and the now former Times reporter, both try to paper over the remark and claim that she was talking about global overpopulation. But the quote itself distinguishes itself from broad global overpopulation and cites particular populations, with an "S," as ones we supposedly don't want too many of.