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.
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.
I push wanna briefly push back on this, Kagan isn't the greatest, but she's actually rather highly respected for the quality of her opinions, from people that actually read said opinions. She got legit praise from Scalia himself, Kagan, despise all else, is extremely smart.

Unlike Sotomayor, who is actually retarded, and Breyer, who is huffing glue.
 
The color revolution works if the media's narrative cannot be countered. Whereas thanks to the internet, it can be countered. Trump came at the right era and how he deals with this treason could be a future blueprint for countering glowie revolutionary faggotry.
Countered, yes, but countered successfully? Enjoy having almost every single media outlet in the world screaming at how Trump has finally destroyed democracy (for real this time) and having whoever doesn't (Tucker Carlson and some Fox News guys) smeared as "far-right extremists" or "propaganda mouthpieces" like never before which automatically discredits anything they say to the undecided. Anyone taking up arms against the government is viewed as a someone fighting for democracy, anyone fighting for the government a violent fascist thug. Record internet censorship occurs to the point where they'll try their hardest via financial threats and intimidating service hosts to close any place where free speech is allowed (and yes, they'll probably try here, 4chan will be gone of course). If they can't, they'll DDOS it like you'd never believe. Pretty much everyone of any note who is right of center will be banned off social media starting with Trump under some pretext like "hateful conduct" or "conspiracy theories". Hundreds of thousands of ordinary users will be banned from normie social media alongside them.

Trump has a no-win situation. He either loses for real (the odds are almost nil on that), he loses via electoral fraud (most likely), or he loses when he is ousted via color revolution and military coup. Everything the media is saying in the past few months is psychologically preparing vast portions of Americans to reject the results of the elections if Trump wins, mobilize in the streets, and realize there will be a military coup. That's why you have the opposition party candidate repeatedly talking about a coup and how it is needed and lots of retired generals agreeing with him.

The optimistic scenario is that the elites are just as sick of the riots and lockdowns as they are sick of Trump and will arrange it so Trump loses a few key states. Trump complains but goes peacefully after the courts rule against him (and some compromised deep state generals glare at him), some conservatives protest in the streets, and we enter the superior future of Joe Biden, where coronavirus is cured within months (by vaccine and "new" research showing the virus isn't as bad as we thought and HCQ works) and the "new normal" is just like the "old normal" but better and more equitable. "Sweeping police reform" is passed and the Antifa ringleaders are told by their deep state handlers to stand down meaning whatever's left of the rioters gets cleaned up by the police who are finally allowed to do their job (never mind none of them are charged).

Biden resigns in 2022 because of health issues (and so Kamala can run twice) goes down on the right side of history with descriptions like "no president accomplished so much in so little time" and is constantly hailed as one of the greatest presidents in history. Kamala Harris is hailed in the media daily for the next decade as she is elected in 2024 and 2028 (via stolen elections) and passes all sorts of progressive legislation to make America a more equitable place for people of all races, genders, and species.

No need for a civil war!
 
The nomination/confirmation process will probably help the GOP in their critical Senate races (Graham, Tillis, McSally, Ernst, James, maybe Gardner & Collins), but I'm becoming pretty doomer pilled as to RBG's potential replacements because they are relatively shitty. Barrett and Lagoa have each been on the federal bench for 2-3 years, which is not enough time for them to build a record as to their constitutional leanings. Barrett has upheld extreme covid lockdown orders (eg Illionis') and claims to be an originalist but believes theology trumps the Constitution. Lagoa believes Roe v Wade is settled law. Both are pro-abortion, which is kind of bewildering in Barrett's case. As far as I can tell, neither have written or joined any First or Second Amendment cases. Lagoa has ruled pretty heavily against illegal immigration, but that's not really a game changer.

Unfortunately, Trump will probably nominate Lagoa because she is the politically safer choice, likely has broader or more important appeal than Barrett (Hispanic/Cubans), and is popular in Florida. It'll be great to have a 6-3 Conservative SCOTUS, but conservatives should be extremely concerned over whether Lagoa (or Barrett, if she's nominated) will turn out to be another Souter.
 
The nomination/confirmation process will probably help the GOP in their critical Senate races (Graham, Tillis, McSally, Ernst, James, maybe Gardner & Collins), but I'm becoming pretty doomer pilled as to RBG's potential replacements because they are relatively shitty. Barrett and Lagoa have each been on the federal bench for 2-3 years, which is not enough time for them to build a record as to their constitutional leanings. Barrett has upheld extreme covid lockdown orders (eg Illionis') and claims to be an originalist but believes theology trumps the Constitution. Lagoa believes Roe v Wade is settled law. Both are pro-abortion, which is kind of bewildering in Barrett's case. As far as I can tell, neither have written or joined any First or Second Amendment cases. Lagoa has ruled pretty heavily against illegal immigration, but that's not really a game changer.

Unfortunately, Trump will probably nominate Lagoa because she is the politically safer choice, likely has broader or more important appeal than Barrett (Hispanic/Cubans), and is popular in Florida. It'll be great to have a 6-3 Conservative SCOTUS, but conservatives should be extremely concerned over whether Lagoa (or Barrett, if she's nominated) will turn out to be another Souter.
... Both are Pro-Abortion? According to what? Everything I have seen puts them squarely in the Pro-Life camp, fairly rabidly too.

Also, Barrett never said theology trumps the constitution, ever. I have a feeling if I looked into the rest, this is all utter bullshit, given on a quick glance I see two outright falsehoods off the bat.
 
The list of politicians who have never supported anything retarded or malicious is zero names long. I'm still happy when they decide to do something good for a change, and can recognize which ones do that more often than others. Lindsay Graham is a faggot, a centrist, and a retard, but i respect how consistently he loathes bad-faith behavior. He's an excellent mouthpiece for dissent against the left's behavior, expressing people's general reaction to it pretty well. I still remember his rant during the Kavanaugh hearings, and that picture of him being filled with joy at the realization that he could just ignore the dumb bitch screaming at him on the street. He's like a little avatar of moderate-reactionary America.

View attachment 1610566
We stan a king.
if they've done something genuinely worth commending then sure, give them credit, i just don't think a few good deeds automatically make all of the prior bullshit they've done irrelevant. like i'll laugh at lbj ordering custom-made xxl pants for his giant shaft and gaping asshole but that doesn't mean he wasn't a retarded texan fogey
 
Countered, yes, but countered successfully? Enjoy having almost every single media outlet in the world screaming at how Trump has finally destroyed democracy (for real this time) and having whoever doesn't (Tucker Carlson and some Fox News guys) smeared as "far-right extremists" or "propaganda mouthpieces" like never before which automatically discredits anything they say to the undecided. Anyone taking up arms against the government is viewed as a someone fighting for democracy, anyone fighting for the government a violent fascist thug. Record internet censorship occurs to the point where they'll try their hardest via financial threats and intimidating service hosts to close any place where free speech is allowed (and yes, they'll probably try here, 4chan will be gone of course). If they can't, they'll DDOS it like you'd never believe. Pretty much everyone of any note who is right of center will be banned off social media starting with Trump under some pretext like "hateful conduct" or "conspiracy theories". Hundreds of thousands of ordinary users will be banned from normie social media alongside them.

Trump has a no-win situation. He either loses for real (the odds are almost nil on that), he loses via electoral fraud (most likely), or he loses when he is ousted via color revolution and military coup. Everything the media is saying in the past few months is psychologically preparing vast portions of Americans to reject the results of the elections if Trump wins, mobilize in the streets, and realize there will be a military coup. That's why you have the opposition party candidate repeatedly talking about a coup and how it is needed and lots of retired generals agreeing with him.

The optimistic scenario is that the elites are just as sick of the riots and lockdowns as they are sick of Trump and will arrange it so Trump loses a few key states. Trump complains but goes peacefully after the courts rule against him (and some compromised deep state generals glare at him), some conservatives protest in the streets, and we enter the superior future of Joe Biden, where coronavirus is cured within months (by vaccine and "new" research showing the virus isn't as bad as we thought and HCQ works) and the "new normal" is just like the "old normal" but better and more equitable. "Sweeping police reform" is passed and the Antifa ringleaders are told by their deep state handlers to stand down meaning whatever's left of the rioters gets cleaned up by the police who are finally allowed to do their job (never mind none of them are charged).

Biden resigns in 2022 because of health issues (and so Kamala can run twice) goes down on the right side of history with descriptions like "no president accomplished so much in so little time" and is constantly hailed as one of the greatest presidents in history. Kamala Harris is hailed in the media daily for the next decade as she is elected in 2024 and 2028 (via stolen elections) and passes all sorts of progressive legislation to make America a more equitable place for people of all races, genders, and species.

No need for a civil war!
With the exception of Western Europe and Canada. All the other countries of the world don't give two fucks if Trump decides to 1488 it. As long as Americans are out of their backyards, they don't care.

I am frankly tired of the western media and Trump has to go for it and fight. He has fought the media this whole time and his supporters have grown. Impeachment gave him a big boost.

Media bashing has not hurt Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Israel and Based Korea.

None of the niggers and mud people give a shit what the media thinks. Time to dissolve NATO and tell the European faggots to fuck off and burn in hell.
 
... Both are Pro-Abortion? According to what? Everything I have seen puts them squarely in the Pro-Life camp, fairly rabidly too.

Also, Barrett never said theology trumps the constitution, ever. I have a feeling if I looked into the rest, this is all utter bullshit, given on a quick glance I see two outright falsehoods off the bat.

Barrett, January 2013:


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

EiYdcKCU8AUww3E.jpg


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

“A day after the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, chants of "Fill that seat! Fill that seat!" broke out during President Trump's campaign rally in Fayetteville, N.C., on Saturday.

"That's what we're going to do. We're going to fill that seat!" Trump said, saying his supporters should print "Fill that seat!" on T-shirts.”

Didn’t take them long to get them in his official store for a $30 donation. :story:

F2CAA167-EC9B-44E9-AEE9-448557DEE3B5.png

 
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
>For lower court judges

I know you're illiterate, but she's saying that as part of her job as an INFERIOR judge to the Supreme court, she will, as she must, faithfully follow those binding precedents

This doesn't mean she would necessarily feel the same if she was on the supreme court.

But a lower court judge literally cannot overrule a supreme court ruling, they have to, to the best of their ability, apply mandatory authority from supreme court cases.
 
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
Neither of those is "Pro-Abortion".

The first is fundamentally a states rights question, not an abortion one. It in no way says she is for it, just that it is likely settled law whether you like it or not.

The second, again, says... the same thing.

Hint, a judge saying something is settled law doesn't mean they like the law.
 
I just read thru that whole screed, it'd make a hell of a first person shooter. As for UN troops landing in the US? HAW HAW HAW. Other than some light wheeled APCs and small arms the UN has no homogeneous equipment. It has to rely on armies acting on its behalf for the most part. Nobody wants to try the US' patience during a crisis even 1/100th that dire, especially not the global powerhouse backed up by countries like Ivory Coast, Luxembourg, and Thailand.

always mandatory:

 
Back in 2013, I thought that the obstructionism of the Republicans seemed ridiculous.
Now, seeing the rulings of the judges that Obama managed to appoint, I thank god for the Great Turtle's obstinate actions.

That man really was a trojan horse. He governed in a basic, establishment way, but he sewed these poisonous cunts all throughout the government agencies.
 
>For lower court judges

I know you're illiterate, but she's saying that as part of her job as an INFERIOR judge to the Supreme court, she will, as she must, faithfully follow those binding precedents

This doesn't mean she would necessarily feel the same if she was on the supreme court.

But a lower court judge literally cannot overrule a supreme court ruling, they have to, to the best of their ability, apply mandatory authority from supreme court cases.

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.

Neither of those is "Pro-Abortion".

The first is fundamentally a states rights question, not an abortion one. It in no way says she is for it, just that it is likely settled law whether you like it or not.

The second, again, says... the same thing.

Hint, a judge saying something is settled law doesn't mean they like the law.

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.
 
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.
True that she was 87 years old and a cancer filled one at that, but the fact she died two months before the election does make one wonder.
 
Ginsberg was a Democrat on the Supreme Court and that's literally the only reason that they cared about her.

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.
 
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.

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).

Also, curious to see you describe Kagan as a do-nothing idiot.
In SCOTUS analyses I've read, Kagan was usually presented as very smart and determined; possibly even a master tactician and truly dedicated political operative for the Democratic party who works quietly in the background, alliance-building and vote-trading and steering her fellow Justices towards Democrat-approved decisions when it matters most.
Do you think that's all bull?

(I have no problem believing that Sotamayor is a dummy who could be replaced with a rubber stamp, though.)
 
1600688791972.png
By your own admission, there is 2-7 year waiting period for an infant? How do you throw that stat out and still have the idea that there isn't enough people willing to adopt, at least in regards to the current issue of no one adopting those allowed to be birthed and not aborted?? The person you were replying to shouldn't have taken the "L", because you proved his previous statement true, there aren't enough infants available, for the demand on them, meaning as soon as one is available, it's already locked to the first person on the list. There maybe infants technically in the adoption process, but they don't stay long enough in that process to really count.
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.
 
Back