Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at 87. - 🦀

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
(______) said:
Are they even trying to frame it as a bad thing there because the only context that implies that is the fact that it's wapo
Click to expand...

My guess is what's going on is media is just surfacing different traits so there's something to talk about.

Right now things are probably still in the "feelers" stage of sifting through things she did professionally, personally or privately, collecting a list of anyone or anything she ever associated with, any events or places she attended, and so on, in raw form until someone can pick some to refine into a narrative.
 
The spoiler is definitely appreciated for what would be next in the Democrat playbook - stacking the Court.
Given this election goes to Trump and thereby there will be future elections, in the 2022 midterms and 2024 that is a key issue which can be used to embolden the moderate and conservative voting base.

Combined with pretending every night is Devil's Night, all the left has in their arsenal is brown shirt tactics.

The thing is, the brown shirts and then the Nazi regime followed deeply desperate times in Germany post WWI with hyperinflation and lengthy poverty.
No such comparison today in the US. There is a motivated, patriotic population willing to fight to the death against these spoiled brats.

Huge miscalculation by the left.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Kosher Salt, Jackisnotaname, A Useless Fish and 8 others
If the democrats want to pack the courts, because the constitution doesn't explicitly state how many justices will sit on it, that works both ways; the republicans, if and when they get control over both houses, can pass a law limiting the supreme court to just nine members period, since nothing in the constitution actually precludes them from limiting how many people can sit on it, and indeed, the actual size of the court has been changed multiple times throughout American history, and the current statutory limit is nine. if they wanted to expand the court at all, in fact, they would have to pass a law to raise or eliminate the current statutory limit.

And even if the democrats suddenly gain control of both houses and the presidency at some point and pass a law to raise the limit, then confirm new justices, the Republicans can just pass a law that says that the next, say, seven justices to retire will not be replaced and their seats will lapse. The democrats trying to expand the court would just lead to infinite tard wrangling by Congress

Sweetpeaa said:
There is nothing moral about a forced pregnancy. It is cruel.
Click to expand...

Nigga, no pregnancy is forced unless you are talking about rape, and most pro-life supporters are willing to accept abortion in cases of rape (which are only a infinitesimal minority of cases). If you get pregnant, usually, its by a conscious, free decision on your part. If you have unprotected sex, or, hell, protected sex with a none foul proof method of contraception, you are taking what we call a calculated risk, one that everybody knows the consequences of. Nobody forced you to take your life into your hands. That was all you.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Squid Diddler, Jackisnotaname, yahooligan and 19 others
Feline Supremacist said:
the two women likely to be nominated are on record repeating it's established law and they'll adhere to stare decisis.
Click to expand...

That was only for when they were on the lower court. As Supreme Court justices, they will be in a position to overturn it. As lower court judges, they had to adhere to stare decisis because that's the legal system. As justices, stare decisis no longer applies.
 
  • Like
  • Disagree
Reactions: DoongDiing4545, Feline Supremacist and Day Of The Sword
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Kosher Salt, Honzou, Boones Farm Strawberry and 25 others
Day Of The Sword said:
They'll just make robo-Biden.
Click to expand...

If that fails there's always the T-virus.

biden.jpg
 
  • Horrifying
  • Islamic Content
  • Lunacy
Reactions: Kosher Salt, Honzou, Bungus Scrungus and 15 others
It's HK-47 said:
Firstly, I think it's very important to completely disregard the image of Ginsberg that both sides have painted. She's not this Holier Than Thou Woman-Saint of Social Justice, and she's not a baby-eating hobgoblin. Almost everyone's opinion of Ginsberg is just an opinion that they've picked up from other people's opinions. They either see a candle with her face on it and go "omg yas queen" or see a tiny snippet of her one, dissenting opinion about abortion and go "omg satan." As always, there's a bit more nuance to that in a human being, even when they stop being a human being and become a human was.

I think that Ginsberg's death completely cements the death of their party, and that her dying wish was--now that I've stopped laughing and actually thought about it-- intentionally calculated to help destroy it. Ginsberg was a lot of things, but stupid wasn't one of them. It's very easy for people to pin her up there with all of the dipshit Communists and Socialists in the Democratic party these days, but Ginsberg not only predated the DNC turning into a collection of obese, neon-coloured Communists and their pet skeletons in Congress, she actively hated them.

Obama was a failure. Despite the fact that you see the both of them in pictures all the time and despite the fact that they met on dozens and dozens of occasions, Obama could never convince Ginsberg to retire so that he could appoint another Justice. For all of the charisma he's been accused of wielding, for all of the efforts to paint the both of them as progressive and perfectly-aligned equals, Obama couldn't get her to budge. She completely rejected his judgement and stubbornly refused to allow him to replace her. Why?

If you go back through Ginsberg's legal opinions--especially from the 1990s--you'll notice a pattern. The only time that she really strikes you as a "progressive" is when it comes to the issues of civil rights, and even then she doesn't typically walk that far out into Left field, they're just more Liberal, legal interpretations than her opinions on things like criminal justice, businesses, and freedom of speech. Moreover, you can see the logic in her opinions. She's not stamping her foot down and demanding that you listen to her or you're a racist, she's attempting to persuade you to her side, or in the very least explain how she came to that conclusion. You might find that you disagree with her anyways, but there's at least a structure to her arguments.

Compare that to Kagan or Sotomayer. Can anyone list a single opinion they've made that's been noteworthy? They're both women, they're both minorities, and they've both been on the Supreme Court for over a decade, so why does nobody care about them? Why are their political opinions never touted and why is their acumen for legal matters never lauded? The answer to that is tied directly to why Ginsberg would never let Obama take her seat on the Supreme Court.

Kagan acted as the Solicitor General for Barack Obama before he shoved her in a black dress and pushed her up to the Supreme Court, which was an awfully odd thing to do considering that as Solicitor General, she lost most of the cases that she elevated to the Court. If you try to read her individual dissents or opinions, you just wind up going glassy-eyed and losing interest, because there's no real substance to any of it. Kagan doesn't really think and she doesn't try to persuade you in the same way that Ginsberg did, much the same way that Sotomayer never bothers, and just tries to pull one heart string after another instead of giving you an actual fucking argument. People try to give Ginsberg flak for being some sort of Liberal rubber stamp in the Supreme Court, but that's just not true. Ginsberg sided with the Conservative Justices on a fairly routine basis, but Sotomayer could be replaced with a literal, rubber stamp and I think it'd be months before anyone noticed that she was missing, and even then it would only be because there's suddenly a lot of food left in the fridge and the Cloak Room isn't full of Milky Way wrappers.

Ginsberg wasn't stupid. Ginsberg saw the caliber of Justices that Obama was keen to appoint, and knew that people who are that overwhelmingly stupid are not only going to wind up destroying the Supreme Court if they're given a majority, they're going to end up destroying her legacy. I can see no other reason as to why she would have constantly fought off Obama's attempts to replace her, and I don't buy the narrative that she wanted to wait until Queen Hillary's coronation because Ginsberg wasn't nearly as progressive as people try to make her seem. Ginsberg was a lot of things, but a Social Justice lunatic wasn't one of them, and it's a mistake to try and give her that moniker.

Obama met damned near every checklist qualification for Social Justice types; he was the fucking Crown Prince of Social Justice and rapidly became one of their golden cows. If he couldn't convince her to step down from her seat, it wasn't because he "wasn't progressive enough." I think that everyone is mistaken in assuming that Ginsberg wanted Hillary to appoint her replacement, when it's much easier to assume that she just hated Obama.

Ginsberg wasn't stupid, and she wasn't some blind devotee to the Church of the Saint Who Can't Breathe. She used her own death as a political weapon, but she's not stupid. It wasn't done flippantly. There are very few people in the world who know the ins and outs of the legal processes as well as Ginsberg had, and she knew very well that there's no legal argument for her request to stand on. If there was, she would have left it behind, but the only thing that she left behind was a request that she knows is going to send the Democrats headfirst into an unwinnable fight.

There's nothing to stop it and trying to pull a "feels" to get the result that she wanted isn't something that you'll see in any of Ginsberg's dissents or much of anything in her personal life. She's painted up as "yas queen slay don't need no man!" but have you ever actually seen that coming from her, or just the people who depict her like that? It doesn't fit any of her history, it doesn't make any sense.

I think that Ginsberg knew full well that her dying wish wouldn't be respected, because she never wanted it to be respected. I think that's just the lit match that she threw into the room full of hippies and gasoline. She'd already seen the Far Left. She'd seen the economic damage, the riots, the identity politics, the slow erosion of everything that she'd been working for. She's dolled up as some kind of hyper-liberal who surrounds herself with It's Her Turn and BLM posters and her goldfish is a trans rights activist, but... That's just not who Ginsberg was. That's the Regressive Left's lunatic interpretation of Ginsberg because that's who they wanted her to be.

She'd already personally experienced what happens when these people get power: They appoint two fat retards who spend more time wolfing down cheap wine and take-out pizza than they do crafting dissenting opinions, all while insisting that even though these fat retards do nothing of value, they're your intellectual equals. They're the future of this party, and you need to retire so we can have more of them, and finish destroying your legacy so we can replace it with our own legacy of fat retards.

I think she laid down on that death bed, pulled the pin on the grenade, and went out knowing exactly what she was doing to the Far Left.
Click to expand...
This is all fascinating nuance and a great example of trying to judge political figures by what they do instead of what other people say about them, and for that I applaud you. Seriously. There isn't enough of this on this board, or the world in general, sadly.
But as much as I can completely believe Ginsberg detested Obama, and as much as I do think staying past 2016 wasn't about wanting Yaas Kween to appoint her so much as dissatisfaction with the wombo combo of an unappealing executive and an opposition party being responsible for her replacement, I still find it easier to believe her granddaughter/some unaffiliated DNC figure pushed the "dying wish meme", instead of Ginsberg herself, upon her deathbed.

This is a woman who was lifelong friends with her diametric opposite on the court, Antonin Scalia. Her last words were absolutely not about petty political concerns.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Kosher Salt, Angry New Ager, Ohoolihan and 16 others
The Demon Pimp of Razgriz said:
That was only for when they were on the lower court. As Supreme Court justices, they will be in a position to overturn it. As lower court judges, they had to adhere to stare decisis because that's the legal system. As justices, stare decisis no longer applies.
Click to expand...
What are you smoking, of course precedent applies at the SCOTUS level. You are mistaking overcoming precedent in constitutional issues of law and all the recent conservative justices have reiterated a litigant has to jump over a high bar to overturn it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Freedom Fries, ThatOneLurker and Day Of The Sword
It's HK-47 said:
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.
Click to expand...
The best part is because of RBG's cult following, people in the DNC will assume that the pathos of the "dying wish" will catapult them into a landslide election.. when most people outside of that bubble don't give a shit or actively resent the idea of such things being honoured in matters like this.

Edit: I wonder if it's like the KCD intro to them. "Ruth Bader Ginsburg, liberal icon and supreme court justice, had a long and successful tenure. The rights of women and minorities expanded, and our interest groups lived in peace and prosperity. When the Justice died, the whole nation mourned. More than 700,000 bots people accompanied her in her final wish...."
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: Snekposter, Nguyen Van Phuoc, The Great Chandler and 3 others
GuntPunt said:
I've been seeing novice poll readers and analysis channels since PPD and Barnes hit it big. Here is probably the worst one, "True Americans" sperging about RGB.
Highlights include storming the White House and Senate to threaten Cocaine Mitch and Trump, Trump appointing the Exxon Mobile CEO to the SC, putting Bernie on the SC, and wishing Ted Cruz ends up like the author in Misery. Also, he recorded himself getting roasted by his Youtube commenters telling him to get out of his parent's basement. He is probably one nomination away from becoming a political Johnathan Ross.
View attachment 1611894
Click to expand...
I think this sped may have cow potential. He interacts in his comments section, and regularly produces content.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Atomic Wangler, ufukiniggas, GuntPunt and 1 other person
Feline Supremacist said:
People are forgetting SCOTUS interprets the Constitution and that's it. Is the ability to get an abortion or discriminating on the basis of sex, color or religion a right under the Constitution? The Court ruled years ago yes you have a right to an abortion if you want one and no the government or businesses can't discriminate against you for being a minority, religious or a man/woman. Anyone thinking conservatives judges are going to overturn years of established law and bring back coat hangers and Jim Crow are delusional.

lol wtf
Click to expand...
They very well could overturn roe v wade, it's based on a... Debatable interpretation of equal protection. If they ruled, for example, that fetuses also should have equal protection...
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Buttigieg2020, ufukiniggas, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz and 1 other person
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back