i was so gutted by this news last night. still feel awful about it today.
you know what is gonna happen. trump will nominate, mitch will allow vote, and they will get confirmed. end of story. we are all fucked for a whole generation.
if the dems win, they need to go nuclear. abolish filibuster forever. expand supreme court to 15 or 17.
fuck these fucking minority ruling republicans. i am so sick of dems winning elections and having no fucking power.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i did see something that made me chuckle. a liberal twitter memer made a photo of the supreme court with the zodiac killer photoshopped on top of RBG. trump will probably nominate someone of similar ilk.
i want to share it here but it is too soon. maybe next week.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i was so gutted by this news last night. still feel awful about it today.
you know what is gonna happen. trump will nominate, mitch will allow vote, and they will get confirmed. end of story. we are all fucked for a whole generation.
if the dems win, they need to go nuclear. abolish filibuster forever. expand supreme court to 15 or 17.
fuck these fucking minority ruling republicans. i am so sick of dems winning elections and having no fucking power.
Totally agree, gimme.
Dems need to take strong action next year and everyone who is sick of the bullshit needs to vote this year.
I won't chew out anyone's ass who wants to vote third party because chewing someone out will not change minds, but I want to encourage third party voters this time to please consider the consequences of another 4 years of Trump and a Republican Senate and vote Democrat. The consequences of four more years of Trump and his supporting legislators would be terrible and i think we all know that.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
If Biden wins and Dems take the senate, it’s time to pass a law to legally pack the court.
I don't follow, L. What does "legally pack the court" mean?
*****************************
Like many of you, no doubt, losing RBG was yet another gut punch yesterday. I wasn't able to sleep last night, got to far out to sea, tried to fall asleep but got tangled in my-shirt and sheets and felt the sucking undertow of depression that drags one down, down, down. Where did hope go? I feel lost.
Hang in there bri. We have hope. To offset the devastating loss of RBG dems need to play it tough, just like the Rs do. Adding more judges (aka packing the court like FDR tried) is the only option.
...
In the Judiciary Act of 1869, Congress had established that the United States Supreme Court would consist of the chief justice and eight associate justices. During Roosevelt's first term the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule that his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of Congress to change it. The legislation was viewed by members of both parties as an attempt to stack the court, and was opposed by many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan." [2]
In November 1936, Roosevelt won a sweeping re-election victory. In the months following, Roosevelt proposed to reorganize the federal judiciary by adding a new justice each time a justice reached age 70 and failed to retire.[6] supportive to the New Deal legislation.
Roosevelt's legislative initiative ultimately failed. The bill was held up in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Democratic committee chair Henry F. Ashurst who delayed hearings in the Judiciary Committee saying, "No haste, no hurry, no waste, no worry—that is the motto of this committee."[13] As a result of his delaying efforts, the bill was held in committee for 165 days, and opponents of the bill credited Ashurst as instrumental in its defeat.[5] The bill was further undermined by the untimely death of its chief advocate in the U.S. Senate, Senate Majority LeaderJoseph T. Robinson.
If Biden wins and Dems take the senate, it’s time to pass a law to legally pack the court.
I don't follow, L. What does "legally pack the court" mean?
*****************************
Like many of you, no doubt, losing RBG was yet another gut punch yesterday. I wasn't able to sleep last night, got to far out to sea, tried to fall asleep but got tangled in my-shirt and sheets and felt the sucking undertow of depression that drags one down, down, down. Where did hope go? I feel lost.
Hang in there bri. We have hope. To offset the devastating loss of RBG dems need to play it tough, just like the Rs do. Adding more judges (aka packing the court like FDR tried) is the only option.
...
In the Judiciary Act of 1869, Congress had established that the United States Supreme Court would consist of the chief justice and eight associate justices. During Roosevelt's first term the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule that his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of Congress to change it. The legislation was viewed by members of both parties as an attempt to stack the court, and was opposed by many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan." [2]
In November 1936, Roosevelt won a sweeping re-election victory. In the months following, Roosevelt proposed to reorganize the federal judiciary by adding a new justice each time a justice reached age 70 and failed to retire.[6] supportive to the New Deal legislation.
Roosevelt's legislative initiative ultimately failed. The bill was held up in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Democratic committee chair Henry F. Ashurst who delayed hearings in the Judiciary Committee saying, "No haste, no hurry, no waste, no worry—that is the motto of this committee."[13] As a result of his delaying efforts, the bill was held in committee for 165 days, and opponents of the bill credited Ashurst as instrumental in its defeat.[5] The bill was further undermined by the untimely death of its chief advocate in the U.S. Senate, Senate Majority LeaderJoseph T. Robinson.
Ahh! I see! Pack it, heck yeah! Thanks, L, and thanks for encouragement,
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
"A smart monkey doesn't monkey around with another monkey's monkey" - Darwin's Theory
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
This is why it’s important to be unemotional and steady. This is a problem for democratic politicians, leadership and every day Dems, who get too emotional and cry about things, and republicans get off looking at how upset the liberals get. Pelosi and Schumer, who I both like, complain and whine endlessly in congress and on TV about how unfair the GOP is. Time to change your approach, Democrats.
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
This is why it’s important to be unemotional and steady. This is a problem for democratic politicians, leadership and every day Dems, who get too emotional and cry about things, and republicans get off looking at how upset the liberals get. Pelosi and Schumer, who I both like, complain and whine endlessly in congress and on TV about how unfair the GOP is. Time to change your approach, Democrats.
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
This is why it’s important to be unemotional and steady. This is a problem for democratic politicians, leadership and every day Dems, who get too emotional and cry about things, and republicans get off looking at how upset the liberals get. Pelosi and Schumer, who I both like, complain and whine endlessly in congress and on TV about how unfair the GOP is. Time to change your approach, Democrats.
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
Right on! Time to be strong. There's no crying in baseball! (Or politics!)
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
This is why it’s important to be unemotional and steady. This is a problem for democratic politicians, leadership and every day Dems, who get too emotional and cry about things, and republicans get off looking at how upset the liberals get. Pelosi and Schumer, who I both like, complain and whine endlessly in congress and on TV about how unfair the GOP is. Time to change your approach, Democrats.
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
This is why it’s important to be unemotional and steady. This is a problem for democratic politicians, leadership and every day Dems, who get too emotional and cry about things, and republicans get off looking at how upset the liberals get. Pelosi and Schumer, who I both like, complain and whine endlessly in congress and on TV about how unfair the GOP is. Time to change your approach, Democrats.
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
Haha, are you implying that Republican politicians are unemotional and steady?
republicans fight dirty but within the law. democrats need to start doing the same. enough of this "we're better than that" bullshit.
I said this to my wife on Friday. Dems need to be ruthless. Take some of the moves out of the GOP playbook and run with it. They go low, kick them in the teeth, and when they hit the ground shove a foot up their ass.
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
This is why it’s important to be unemotional and steady. This is a problem for democratic politicians, leadership and every day Dems, who get too emotional and cry about things, and republicans get off looking at how upset the liberals get. Pelosi and Schumer, who I both like, complain and whine endlessly in congress and on TV about how unfair the GOP is. Time to change your approach, Democrats.
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
Tearing up papers on tv
Ha!
Pelosi just said something like the only thing that she can do is make sure everybody votes. Uh this is happening in real-time and we need the people we voted for to take action before Election Day on this and of course the ongoing pandemic that we’ve all decided to forget due to RBGs passing.
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
This is why it’s important to be unemotional and steady. This is a problem for democratic politicians, leadership and every day Dems, who get too emotional and cry about things, and republicans get off looking at how upset the liberals get. Pelosi and Schumer, who I both like, complain and whine endlessly in congress and on TV about how unfair the GOP is. Time to change your approach, Democrats.
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
Tearing up papers on tv
Ha!
Pelosi just said something like the only thing that she can do is make sure everybody votes. Uh this is happening in real-time and we need the people we voted for to take action before Election Day on this and of course the ongoing pandemic that we’ve all decided to forget due to RBGs passing.
Someone just said on the telly to slow down the senate and force R senators who need to raise money and campaign - they can do endless quorum calls until Election Day which forces them to physically be in the senate, then if Biden wins, they can impeach trump again after the election to tie up the senate during the lame duck until Jan 3 when the new congress gets sworn in. And this would also give them leverage if an impeached president tries to nominate someone after losing an election to pass a new law to pack the court (if the Dems win). It’s still very likely a 6-3 conservative court, goodbye Obamacare and womans right to choose
i know that it seems many seem to just automatically believe conservative judge = no more right to choose, but is that accurate? aren't there some conservative judges that believe it is a woman's right to choose?
We were out Friday night and my wife checked her phone and told me about RBG. Definitely shocking at first but not surprising.
I think the idea that RBG was doing everything she could to keep tRump from filling that sport is extraordinarily commendable. You know she has been miserable for quite some time. I'm wondering if she might have considered retiring in Obama's final year and then stayed once she saw the Scalia debacle.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
My only thread of hope right now..... Repub senators in vulnerable seats this year may want nothing to do with a Supreme Court nom before the election. However, if Biden wins they would likely try to push one through before inauguration. If they do that I think dems need to play extreme hardball and then just simply add seats to the Supreme Court. Would they have the balls? Maybe not, and it won’t be good for the country either way. It’ll be endless battles
I wonder. I kind of feel like they should in retribution for Garland. That was inexcusable.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018) The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
i know that it seems many seem to just automatically believe conservative judge = no more right to choose, but is that accurate? aren't there some conservative judges that believe it is a woman's right to choose?
There probably are, but now that we've hit the era of "nominating party loyalists so the president's base stays all-in" I don't anticipate that being a feature of the next nominee.
1995 Milwaukee 1998 Alpine, Alpine 2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston 2004 Boston, Boston 2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty) 2011 Alpine, Alpine 2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Obama's statement: "Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Once again he says and does the right thing.
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
Exactly! I miss a presidential president. Went to a small gathering last night surrounded by far right fucks. My girlfriend innocently (and yes, without much thought about her audience) said "Poor RBG, that was so sad to hear." The conversation hadn't been political prior to that and she clearly was not making a stance or starting any type of debate. Simply stating that it was sad to learn of the passing of RBG. The immediate response from the gun toting God & Kid Rock loving anti mask douche bags was: A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
This is why it’s important to be unemotional and steady. This is a problem for democratic politicians, leadership and every day Dems, who get too emotional and cry about things, and republicans get off looking at how upset the liberals get. Pelosi and Schumer, who I both like, complain and whine endlessly in congress and on TV about how unfair the GOP is. Time to change your approach, Democrats.
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
Tearing up papers on tv
Ha!
Pelosi just said something like the only thing that she can do is make sure everybody votes. Uh this is happening in real-time and we need the people we voted for to take action before Election Day on this and of course the ongoing pandemic that we’ve all decided to forget due to RBGs passing.
Someone just said on the telly to slow down the senate and force R senators who need to raise money and campaign - they can do endless quorum calls until Election Day which forces them to physically be in the senate, then if Biden wins, they can impeach trump again after the election to tie up the senate during the lame duck until Jan 3 when the new congress gets sworn in. And this would also give them leverage if an impeached president tries to nominate someone after losing an election to pass a new law to pack the court (if the Dems win). It’s still very likely a 6-3 conservative court, goodbye Obamacare and womans right to choose
Couldn’t the senate just prioritize the Nomination over yet another impeachment? Another impeachment seems like bad optics.
i know that it seems many seem to just automatically believe conservative judge = no more right to choose, but is that accurate? aren't there some conservative judges that believe it is a woman's right to choose?
Heard a story on Morning Joe. Joe was asked to bring up the name of a judge for potential SCOTUS to Jeb Bush...since both from florida at the time.
Joe said that the candidate was a staunch conservative and anti-abortion. Jeb said to him...Will the judge rule by the law or try to change the law? Meaning, he didn't want and the president didn't want an activist conservative judge, just a conservative judge. That's what the republican party used to be and should be again.
No matter what side you’re on, you can’t deny her impact for women in this country and that this is a loss for the country.
And for men too. In the early 1970s my dad’s cousin’s wife died in childbirth. She was a teacher and he was an artist. So she had a pension. At the time a widow could collect their husband’s pension but not the other way around. My dad’s cousin (my second cousin?) wanted to be a stay at home dad to the baby and Ruth Bader Ginsburg took his case to the Supreme Court and won and changed the law. Many years later when that baby (my third cousin?) got married RBG was already on the Supreme Court but kept in touch with the family all those years and officiated his wedding.
My sister just alerted me to this article that is about the story I told above about RBG and my 2nd cousin. It is a great article that really highlights the type of person she was. I remember my family visiting this cousin a few times in Florida when I was a kid. He and my dad are pretty close.
i know that it seems many seem to just automatically believe conservative judge = no more right to choose, but is that accurate? aren't there some conservative judges that believe it is a woman's right to choose?
They would probably make the restrictions and cost so great the women most likely who use this freedom, poorer/young minorities, the procedure would be out of reach for them.
i know that it seems many seem to just automatically believe conservative judge = no more right to choose, but is that accurate? aren't there some conservative judges that believe it is a woman's right to choose?
They would probably make the restrictions and cost so great the women most likely who use this freedom, poorer/young minorities, the procedure would be out of reach for them.
A bigger concern is we can kiss goodbye Obamacare
true enough, some of the states already do that with it being legal.
i mean, isn't there an unwritten rule on SCOTUS they rule by precedent, not overturning precedent? don't even conservative judges rule by this, especially in a case like this, where it would be a massive reversal of precedent made 40 years ago?
Comments
you know what is gonna happen. trump will nominate, mitch will allow vote, and they will get confirmed. end of story. we are all fucked for a whole generation.
if the dems win, they need to go nuclear. abolish filibuster forever. expand supreme court to 15 or 17.
fuck these fucking minority ruling republicans. i am so sick of dems winning elections and having no fucking power.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
i want to share it here but it is too soon. maybe next week.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Right on, Pete!
Hang in there bri. We have hope. To offset the devastating loss of RBG dems need to play it tough, just like the Rs do. Adding more judges (aka packing the court like FDR tried) is the only option.
...
In the Judiciary Act of 1869, Congress had established that the United States Supreme Court would consist of the chief justice and eight associate justices. During Roosevelt's first term the Supreme Court struck down several New Deal measures as being unconstitutional. Roosevelt sought to reverse this by changing the makeup of the court through the appointment of new additional justices who he hoped would rule that his legislative initiatives did not exceed the constitutional authority of the government. Since the U.S. Constitution does not define the size of the Supreme Court, Roosevelt pointed out that it was within the power of Congress to change it. The legislation was viewed by members of both parties as an attempt to stack the court, and was opposed by many Democrats, including Vice President John Nance Garner.[4][5] The bill came to be known as Roosevelt's "court-packing plan." [2]
In November 1936, Roosevelt won a sweeping re-election victory. In the months following, Roosevelt proposed to reorganize the federal judiciary by adding a new justice each time a justice reached age 70 and failed to retire.[6] supportive to the New Deal legislation.
Roosevelt's legislative initiative ultimately failed. The bill was held up in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Democratic committee chair Henry F. Ashurst who delayed hearings in the Judiciary Committee saying, "No haste, no hurry, no waste, no worry—that is the motto of this committee."[13] As a result of his delaying efforts, the bill was held in committee for 165 days, and opponents of the bill credited Ashurst as instrumental in its defeat.[5] The bill was further undermined by the untimely death of its chief advocate in the U.S. Senate, Senate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson.
Ahh! I see! Pack it, heck yeah! Thanks, L, and thanks for encouragement,
"Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.
Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.
Justice Ginsburg inspired the generations who followed her, from the tiniest trick-or-treaters to law students burning the midnight oil to the most powerful leaders in the land. Michelle and I admired her greatly, we’re profoundly thankful for the legacy she left this country, and we offer our gratitude and our condolences to her children and grandchildren tonight.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg fought to the end, through her cancer, with unwavering faith in our democracy and its ideals. That’s how we remember her. But she also left instructions for how she wanted her legacy to be honored.
Four and a half years ago, when Republicans refused to hold a hearing or an up-or-down vote on Merrick Garland, they invented the principle that the Senate shouldn’t fill an open seat on the Supreme Court before a new president was sworn in.
A basic principle of the law — and of everyday fairness — is that we apply rules with consistency, and not based on what’s convenient or advantageous in the moment. The rule of law, the legitimacy of our courts, the fundamental workings of our democracy all depend on that basic principle. As votes are already being cast in this election, Republican Senators are now called to apply that standard. The questions before the Court now and in the coming years — with decisions that will determine whether or not our economy is fair, our society is just, women are treated equally, our planet survives, and our democracy endures — are too consequential to future generations for courts to be filled through anything less than an unimpeachable process."
Unfortunately, for America and Americans, the current regime and its supporters DO NOT CARE about the rule of law or the fundamental workings of our Democracy.
Hopefully at least 4 senators will do the right thing and nullify this effort to get another forced birther in the court.
A laughing feigned "awe, that's too bad" "did you hear the Supreme Court is now Ruthless" & "the dems are losing their minds now!"
Dumb fucks!
until the Dems become measured and ruthless nothing will change. That is why it’s time for the Dems to start saying if there is nothing blocking it in the constitution (like court packing) we are doing it because the gop has continued to trash centuries old norms. Just ask Merrick Garland.
Republicans are talking about using the VP to break ties for Supreme Court nominations for the first time ever. What’s your move democrats?
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Right on! Time to be strong. There's no crying in baseball! (Or politics!)
www.headstonesband.com
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
www.headstonesband.com
I think the idea that RBG was doing everything she could to keep tRump from filling that sport is extraordinarily commendable. You know she has been miserable for quite some time. I'm wondering if she might have considered retiring in Obama's final year and then stayed once she saw the Scalia debacle.
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The Golden Age is 2 months away. And guess what….. you’re gonna love it! (teskeinc 11.19.24)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
2013 Wrigley 2014 St. Paul 2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley 2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley 2021 Asbury Park 2022 St Louis 2023 Austin, Austin
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
There are no kings inside the gates of eden
Joe said that the candidate was a staunch conservative and anti-abortion. Jeb said to him...Will the judge rule by the law or try to change the law? Meaning, he didn't want and the president didn't want an activist conservative judge, just a conservative judge. That's what the republican party used to be and should be again.
A bigger concern is we can kiss goodbye Obamacare
www.headstonesband.com
www.headstonesband.com