Author Topic: Ruth Bader Ginsburg  (Read 397 times)

Offline Jeff Raven

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 43
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« on: September 18, 2020, 09:23:31 PM »
Just read that Justice Ginsburg has died.  Such a loss to the court, and to the country.

And I am quite concerned about what's now going to happen given who is in charge of the process of finding her replacement.

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3495
    • Clavius
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« Reply #1 on: September 19, 2020, 11:48:38 AM »
Indeed, I always loved reading her opinions.  She cut straight to the heart and never minced the argument.

And yes, I'm certain we're going to get another Kavanaugh, and the court will be decidedly conservative (and markedly less intelligent) for the next few decades.  I imagine Roe v. Wade will be overturned.  Maybe even Obergefell v. Hodges.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2046
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« Reply #2 on: September 19, 2020, 11:53:01 AM »
I'm hoping like hell the Democrats manage to drag out the process, because I'm quite certain the Republicans won't accept that it's awfully close to an election and they should wait, despite it literally being their argument more than four years ago.  The thing is, ordinarily, I'd agree with them; yes, all right, it's part of the President's job.  But after they pulled that with Merrick Garland--and make no mistake, it's pretty well the same list of people in power who shaped that--they need to live with the consequences of their actions.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3495
    • Clavius
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« Reply #3 on: September 19, 2020, 11:59:56 AM »
Sen. Mitt Romney has already said he will not vote to confirm any candidate until after the election.  We need a surprisingly few more Senators to pledge likewise.  The Republicans hold only a slim majority in the Senate.  But Gillian is absolutely right:  be prepared for a tsunami of hypocrisy from the Senate Republicans about the propriety of choosing a new Supreme Court justice in an election year.

It's going to be a long-awaited rainy day here in Utah, so I can't work outside as I usually do on Saturdays.  I've made a pot of coffee and I'm going to put on Handel's organ concertos and read a few of Ginsburg J's best opinions.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3495
    • Clavius
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« Reply #4 on: September 19, 2020, 01:08:06 PM »
I wanted to say also that I came very close to meeting her.  When her biopic RBG premiered, she came to Park City and did a number of public appearances.  I was in a reception line that she filed past, but her Secret Service detail was not allowing anyone to approach.  And yes, she was as tiny as has been reported, but the proximity of very large protective officers probably amplified that.  I can't say frail, because she simply wasn't.  I pray to have that much energy when I'm 87.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline Jeff Raven

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« Reply #5 on: September 19, 2020, 06:51:14 PM »
I'm hoping like hell the Democrats manage to drag out the process, because I'm quite certain the Republicans won't accept that it's awfully close to an election and they should wait, despite it literally being their argument more than four years ago.  The thing is, ordinarily, I'd agree with them; yes, all right, it's part of the President's job.  But after they pulled that with Merrick Garland--and make no mistake, it's pretty well the same list of people in power who shaped that--they need to live with the consequences of their actions.

Agreed. I had a major issue when it was pulled 4 years ago, as they were basically saying that the president only has the powers of the office for 3 of the 4 years, or whenever the Senate decides he should. In fact, I've had a problem with it every time that those in the Senate have played that game. The president's powers are not for you to allow - they come from the Constitution.

And, of course, McConnell is bringing up the "it's different when the president and the Senate come from different parties, but since we now have control of both, of course we're going to confirm the appointee" line of B.S.  Yeah, Mitch, what happened to "the voters should be able to decide?"

Offline Jeff Raven

  • Venus
  • **
  • Posts: 43
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« Reply #6 on: September 19, 2020, 06:54:15 PM »
Sen. Mitt Romney has already said he will not vote to confirm any candidate until after the election.  We need a surprisingly few more Senators to pledge likewise.  The Republicans hold only a slim majority in the Senate.  But Gillian is absolutely right:  be prepared for a tsunami of hypocrisy from the Senate Republicans about the propriety of choosing a new Supreme Court justice in an election year.

If there aren't 3 other Republicans (assuming everyone who's not decides to not vote on a candidate) who say what Romney has said, perhaps the campaign trail will keep a few of them from being able to go to Washington to vote, and that would also stop this from being rammed through.  But wouldn't it make for some interesting times if the Republican powers-that-be decide that remote voting is suddenly allowable, so that they can get the vote done?

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3495
    • Clavius
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2020, 11:59:33 AM »
Keep in mind that a lame duck Senate will sit after the election for two months until the new Senate convenes.  Whether they will dare to vote on a Supreme Court nomination is beyond my power of political analysis.  But they will certainly have time to hold hearings and a vote.

A 6-3 conservative court would be Sen. Mitch McConnell's crowning achievement.  He has been packing the judiciary with unqualified young conservative hacks as fast as he can for the past two years, which is why Congress has accomplished almost nothing else in recent years.  He knows the key to consolidating power in the hands of the Republican Party is to defuse a judiciary which can override the political branches of government.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2046
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2020, 12:35:19 PM »
He very famously said he would do what he could to prevent a theoretical President Clinton from confirming any Supreme Court justices for her entire Presidency.  He doesn't care at all about the Constitution.
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3495
    • Clavius
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2020, 02:44:55 PM »
Sen. McConnell and other Republicans seem unconcerned with the fallout of their sheer hypocrisy, because there doesn't seem to be any.  The latest polls in Kentucky show Mr McConnell clearly in the lead and primed for another six years in the Senate.

The Senate is a funny animal, since California has millions of people and only two senators while the entire midwest has the same population and well over 40 senators.  The Senate does not represent the people.  It was designed expressly not to.  And the President did not win the popular vote.  He lost it by 3 million votes.  So the next choice for Supreme Court justice will be made largely without any say from the people.

But yes, the sheer hypocrisy.  Sen. McConnell told Pres. Obama it was the Senate's prerogative to take up or ignore any nominations they saw fit.  Now, as if nothing has happened, he -- and the President -- are telling us it's their sacred constitutional duty to act quickly in order that the seat not be vacant any longer than strictly necessary.  It's as if they think we can't see them just making all this up as they go.

Anyway, that's for the various other politics threads we have going here.  If anyone would like to read a very good example of the late Mrs Justice Ginsburg's reasoning and advocacy, I recommend her dissenting opinion in Ledbetter v. Goodyear.  Ms. Ledbetter had been chronically paid less than her mail counterparts at Goodyear for substantially the same work.  Upon discovering this, she filed suit alleging sex discrimination.  The trial court handed down a verdict in her favor.  The appeals court reversed on procedural grounds, ruling that because the alleged discriminatory acts began years prior, Ledbetter was time-barred from filing a claim.  (The statute requires a claim to be filed within 180 days of the alleged discriminatory act.). The Supreme Court majority concurred with the appeals court.  Her dissent speaks to substantive law, while the majority opinion generally relies on technical maneuvering.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline gillianren

  • Uranus
  • ****
  • Posts: 2046
    • My Letterboxd journal
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« Reply #10 on: September 21, 2020, 11:55:03 AM »
I'll admit I was concerned about a few of her recent votes, where she didn't seem to understand racism--a lot of my leftist acquaintances got really angry at the "Notorious RBJ" thing and have been yelling a lot about Sotomayor, and rightfully so.  And I also agree that, honestly, it might've been better for her to step down under Obama with the express purpose of being replaced by Obama.  But who can even say what McConnell would've done then?
"This sounds like a job for Bipolar Bear . . . but I just can't seem to get out of bed!"

"Conspiracy theories are an irresistible labour-saving device in the face of complexity."  --Henry Louis Gates

Offline LunarOrbit

  • Administrator
  • Jupiter
  • *****
  • Posts: 971
    • ApolloHoax.net
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« Reply #11 on: September 21, 2020, 02:35:36 PM »
I think maybe people still operated under the belief that Republicans had at least some principles back then and that wasn't revealed to be wrong until too late in Obama's last term.
It suddenly struck me that that tiny pea, pretty and blue, was the Earth.
I put up my thumb and shut one eye, and my thumb blotted out the planet Earth.
I didn't feel like a giant. I felt very, very small.
- Neil Armstrong (1930-2012)

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3495
    • Clavius
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« Reply #12 on: September 21, 2020, 04:44:37 PM »
The conventional wisdom was that she should have retired in 2013 when both the White House and the Senate were in Democrat hands.  But that's with great hindsight.  The gamble for her to stay on was predicated on the assumption that Clinton would win in 2016.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams

Offline JayUtah

  • Neptune
  • ****
  • Posts: 3495
    • Clavius
Re: Ruth Bader Ginsburg
« Reply #13 on: September 21, 2020, 05:00:49 PM »
And yes, I think Justices Sotomayor and Kagan have lived too long in Justice Ginsburg's shadow.  Justice Kagan's dissent in the gerrymandering case from the most recent session is just as well reasoned and just as fiery as anything we came to expect from Ginsburg.
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams