Ruth Bader Ginsburg dies

[crays]

I was joking.

I never understood the mailing toxic substance idea. Must just be to scare, because it literally has zero chance of reaching the president.

The type of person who would commit this act is not the type of person who would understand/realize that.

Sent from somewhere...

[Aloha_Shooter]

Honest question
as a younger member only being able to vote in 3 elections so far and not really following politics until 2018 or so
What stemmed the almost universal dislike for her rulings/dissents
i am reading through the cases That easily come up via search.

My title says it all. And that is my civilized version. If we can't post the truth on the forum, then what is the point of posting at all?

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts...-ginsburg-says

Quote:
Second Amendment 'Outdated'
In the wake of the Colorado recall election and a fierce, nationwide debate over gun rights and gun control, Justice Ginsburg also comments on the past, present and future of the Second Amendment. She cites her dissent in District of Columbia v. Heller, and says her "view of the Second Amendment is one based on history."

She continues, "The Second Amendment has a preamble about the need for a militia...Historically, the new government had no money to pay for an army, so they relied on the state militias. And the states required men to have certain weapons and they specified in the law what weapons these people had to keep in their home so that when they were called to do service as militiamen, they would have them. That was the entire purpose of the Second Amendment."

While I strongly oppose many of her decisions as a member of the Supreme Court, she was dedicated and steadfast (and a Liberal hack), but I wish her to RIP, her life story is worth reading. Quite the lady.

That said, this really churns up the waters on the election status. The Dems couldn't have asked for more!

I don't know about "almost universal dislike" but yes, a lot of people disliked her opinions and dissents because she seemed to be making things up in order to rule the way she wanted. She gave no credence to the actual language or documented intent of those passing the Constitution or applicable amendments and even reached to foreign courts to find precedent or support for her decision. Her complete mischaracterization of the history behind the Second Amendment as cited by @BushMasterBoy is a classic example.

Regardless of your thoughts on RBG, her story of humble beginnings to the supreme court is a story that could only happen in America.

She was an intellect who worked and fought hard on some good fights for good causes. She also had flawed views regarding the legislative intent of the founding fathers and the constitution (IMHO).

The fact that RBG and Scalia were best friends is an example of professionalism and respect on both their parts. An example that, no matter how far apart you are, you can respectfully disagree and live in peace.

Exactly. The fact that Scalia was such good friends with her and respected what he perceived as her love of the Constitution is what moderates my opinion of her. I don't find evidence of her love for the actual Constitution in the rulings I've seen but he knew her a helluva lot better than almost anyone in the country and I respected the hell out of HIS opinion.

You are absolutely right. Anyone with a brain can see Joe really doesn't stand a chance without fraud and cheating. Conservatives know that, the left knows that. 4 car parades and 6 person rallies do not make a winning candidate.

So they are going to be absolutely, insanely desperate now. They may think they have a small chance to hold off a nomination until after the election, but they can't hold it off if Trump wins. Which is looking very likely. And that puts the President at risk. I hope the USSS is on their game.

One of the benefits of holding the majority in the senate is you get to make the rules and you get to confirm judges. The democrats don't have any problem using whatever power they have so I don't think it should bother the republicans. It's business. And it's important business. They don't need to admit anything. They just need to get a judge confirmed. Democrats can whine and piss and moan all they want. Fuck 'em.

The announcement will most likely wait until RBG services are concluded. And that's appropriate...even if it takes a week or so.

I would've rather seen her retire. If she'd retired I wouldn't care if she was immortal. I just didn't like her on the court.

What the Leftist MSM is ignoring was that McConnell told Obama straight off not to bother with nominating a replacement for Scalia. He upheld the "Advise and Consent" part of the Senate's responsibilities instead of lamely rolling over like Bob Dole and other Senate Majority Leaders did in the past (particularly in confirming RBG in 45 days despite the s--- shows the Dems put on with Bork, Thomas, etc.). Wish he'd put up a stronger battle against Sotomayor and Kagan as they were/are much more of a threat to the actual written document as a basis for Constitutional law.

In this case, the President intends to nominate someone using the Advise of the Senate and they will decide on whether they Consent -- far different from the way Obama tried to swing the court with Garland. I think it would be more consistent if they let Trump nominate but withheld action until after the inauguration and swearing-in of a new Senate however I don't blame them for taking the course they've announced. The Left has already announced their intent to pack the Court FDR-style at their next opportunity. They purposely empowered the Court far beyond the Founders' intent as a way to get around Constitutional restrictions on Executive power and their inability to to win Legislatively so they will fight tooth and nail to keep using it.

Easy one. She had inappropriate relations with minors while substitute teaching. A few shady emails will surface of a tryst she was rumored to have with another female co-worker.


Look, if they can produce a woman who said they were at college parties (way after they graduated) observing kavanaugh drugging women to pull trains, behind closed doors.
There's nothing they will not do to discredit, nay ruin, someone they disagree with politically

It started with what the Dems did to tear down Robert Bork and continued with their battle against Clarence Thomas. They still try to lionize Anita Hill and pay her back for doing anything to block a dedicated Constitutionalist. The Dems have shown for decades that they don't care about the truth or the damage to personal lives. Nothing more ironic than the Clintons complaining about "the politics of personal destruction" when they've been the preeminent purveyors of personal destruction.

PSA:

There is a unique opportunity I'm noticing that you can seize upon. I'm noticing libs talking about immediately going out to buy a firearm now. While counterintuitive to arm the opposition, I would encourage it and call their bluff - tell them supply is getting drier than a 80 year old grandma and if they don't commit this week they likely will have to wait 12 months, and offer to help train them and show them how to be safe.

You convert someone to your perspective with a thousand cuts... or a case of ammo, as it may be.

I agree with educating Lefties on what the 2A really means and that firearms aren't independently minded evil instruments like Sauron's Ring of Power or some Harry Potter horcrux. OTOH, the lesson I take from the Portland riots is that it won't matter -- dedicated Lefties will remain dedicated Lefties and educating them on firearms and 2A just makes them more violent and dangerous Lefties.

The biggest danger are the Lefties inside the legal infrastructure like the DAs that refused to press charges on violent rioters while pressing charges on people who simply defended themselves or their homes -- or in the case of Lucas Gerhard, just shared a joke with friends. These people are showing their colors this year and we need to show the "moderates" how immoderate and ridiculous the embedded Leftists are, get them voted out.

[BushMasterBoy]

And she came to the bench a few months after Bill Clinton and Janet Reno burnt down the Branch Davidian compound with women and children inside...

[Gman]

Flashback: In 2016, Ginsburg said Senate should hold SCOTUS confirmation hearing during election year

"There's nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being the president in his last year," Ginsburg said in a 2016 New York Times interview in which she called for Garland to receive a confirmation vote in the Senate.

As for whether the Senate should take up a vote on Garland, Ginsburg said at the time, "That's their job."

[Irving]

[Gman]

Newsweek: America Can't Afford to Wait for a New Supreme Court Justice
Snip

We are not without precedent of course. Eight Justices were nominated and confirmed to fill vacancies that arose during presidential election years. President Herbert Hoover nominated Benjamin Cardozo to replace the venerable Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes while running for reelection. When President Franklin Delano Roosevelt succeeded Hoover, the U.S. Senate confirmed Justice Cardozo in March of 1932.

While running for reelection, President Dwight D. Eisenhower appointed—via the seldom-used recess appointment—Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. to the Court on October 15, 1956. The Senate quickly confirmed the appointment when it returned to session in 1957, at the beginning of Eisenhower's second term. Brennan, like Justices Cardozo and Ginsburg, was a lion of liberal jurisprudence and served through the Rehnquist Court until 1990.

In other words, we have been here before. And history shows we can move quickly. The Senate confirmed Justice Ginsburg in 42 days, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in 33 days, and Justice John Paul Stevens in just 19 days. Perhaps the next Justice's nomination and confirmation will not be as swift as Justice Salmon Chase's—occurring on the same day in 1864 after Abraham Lincoln's reelection—but there is no reason to wait.

[JTP80]

If the dems win the WH and both houses in Congress, which looks possible by polls, they can pass legislation to expand SCOTUS from 9 to say 13 justices. This would give them a 7-6 advantage, and with Roberts being more middle lately, they'd control it for the next half century.

[Bailey Guns]

If the dems win the WH and both houses in Congress, which looks possible by polls, they can pass legislation to expand SCOTUS from 9 to say 13 justices. This would give them a 7-6 advantage, and with Roberts being more middle lately, they'd control it for the next half century.

If any of that scenario happens none of us are going to want to remain in this country.

[Gman]

If any of that scenario happens none of us are going to want to remain in this country.

I think that's when some will take action to prevent it.

[Aloha_Shooter]

I hope Trump is more careful than Eisenhower or Nixon/Ford. Brennan and Stevens were disasters. I've been unpleasantly surprised by Roberts' votes in recent years.