RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

124678

Comments

  • St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,048
    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

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 24,048
    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

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    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.
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Posts: 44,366

    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    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
  • Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662
    mickeyrat said:


    Right on, Pete!
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Posts: 7,851
    brianlux said:

    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. SenateSenate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson

  • Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662



    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. SenateSenate Majority Leader Joseph T. Robinson


    Ahh!  I see!  Pack it, heck yeah!  Thanks, L, and thanks for encouragement,  :smile:
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • 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."

  • Craft Beer Brewery, Colorado Posts: 11,409
    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.
  • LaPorte, IN Posts: 7,357
    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
  • Posts: 7,851
    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?
  • Posts: 5,072

    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 
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 43,662

    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!)
    "It's a sad and beautiful world"
    -Roberto Benigni

  • Winnipeg Posts: 39,464
    republicans fight dirty but within the law. democrats need to start doing the same. enough of this "we're better than that" bullshit. 
    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • Posts: 9,216
    static111 said:
    Tearing up papers on tv 
    Ha! 
  • Posts: 9,478

    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?
  • St. Paul, MN Posts: 2,529
    edited September 2020
    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. 
    Post edited by jerparker20 on
  • Posts: 5,072
    nicknyr15 said:
    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.
    Scio me nihil scire

    There are no kings inside the gates of eden
  • Posts: 7,851
    edited September 2020
    static111 said:
    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
  • Winnipeg Posts: 39,464
    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?
    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




Welcome!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.