Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sun Oct 25, 2020 9:10 am





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
RIP - Ruth Ginsberg 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5929
Thanks: 1380
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
Having said that, who here believes this left wing BS

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ruth-bad ... 795b108150


I call BS on the claim.
It's akin to claims made that Christopher Hitchens on his death bed claimed he was a believer


Why did Ginsberg keep her seat till she died?
Why didn't she assure balanced continuity by retiring when Obama was president?


Ruth made her seat too political.



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
Chris OConnor
Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:19 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Read Shakespeare before it was cool


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1638
Thanks: 1845
Thanked: 834 times in 671 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
ant wrote:
It's akin to claims made that Christopher Hitchens on his death bed claimed he was a believer
Well, actually not. It is entirely consistent with her previous views and her obvious political interest in the character of the court. She renounced no previous position but wished (in vain, of course) for the Republicans to follow principle rather than expediency.

ant wrote:
Why did Ginsberg keep her seat till she died?
Why didn't she assure balanced continuity by retiring when Obama was president?
The obvious answer is Merrick Garland. Some have said she should have retired before the Dems lost the Senate (for the terrible crime of getting 34 million Americans covered by health insurance, and removing the freedom of insurance companies to refuse coverage for pre-existing conditions) but that was 11 years ago and many, many justices have stayed longer than her age at that point.

ant wrote:
Ruth made her seat too political.
That's what they said about Scalia, too. Principles can be political. The important thing in a Justice is that they have some: that they be able to enunciate a principle behind their decisions, a principle they really believe in rather than a convenient CYA for the political outcome they are seeking.



The following user would like to thank Harry Marks for this post:
Taylor
Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:46 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6728
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 2060
Thanked: 2310 times in 1744 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
ant wrote:
Having said that, who here believes this left wing BS

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ruth-bad ... 795b108150


I call BS on the claim.
It's akin to claims made that Christopher Hitchens on his death bed claimed he was a believer


Why did Ginsberg keep her seat till she died?
Why didn't she assure balanced continuity by retiring when Obama was president?


Ruth made her seat too political.

So you're saying that Bader-Ginsburg's position on Merrick Garland was that the vacancy needed to be filled before the election, so that when she's reported to have said her own vacancy should not be filled, that is suspicious, a false report? I need some clarification.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
ant
Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:55 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5929
Thanks: 1380
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
Quote:
Harry wrote:

Well, actually not. It is entirely consistent with her previous views and her obvious political interest in the character of the court.


Brilliant retort!

Except it entirely misses the point: the ability of hearsay to place words in the mouth of anyone, particularly the dead.

This is an emotional time for the unhinged left - I get it.

So Ruth was interested in the "character of the court" but did not have the foresight to vacate the chair when an Admin like Obama's could more or less assure its character?
That lack of planning is on her.

You sound nearly as naive as Ocasio Cortez who is on record saying the dying wishes of Ruth should not be ignored and that "we" are in an "a fight for our lives" now.

Anyone tell Cortez that the Constitution allows for the sitting president to nominate a Supreme Court Judge, that alleged "dying wishes" do not count, and that despite the warnings that we all would be dead if Trump won his first term have still not come to fruition?
I mean, I was told that if Trump won the nomination the first time people like me would be deported or put in concentration camps.

Keep running on emotion instead of reason, guy.



Last edited by ant on Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:16 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5929
Thanks: 1380
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
DWill wrote:
ant wrote:
Having said that, who here believes this left wing BS

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ruth-bad ... 795b108150


I call BS on the claim.
It's akin to claims made that Christopher Hitchens on his death bed claimed he was a believer


Why did Ginsberg keep her seat till she died?
Why didn't she assure balanced continuity by retiring when Obama was president?


Ruth made her seat too political.

So you're saying that Bader-Ginsburg's position on Merrick Garland was that the vacancy needed to be filled before the election, so that when she's reported to have said her own vacancy should not be filled, that is suspicious, a false report? I need some clarification.


Um, I don't even know what you're talking about here.



Sun Sep 20, 2020 1:17 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4577
Location: NC
Thanks: 2019
Thanked: 2081 times in 1551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
ant wrote:
Having said that, who here believes this left wing BS

According to NPR, Ruth Bader Ginsburg's statement was recorded by her granddaughter Clara Spera: "my most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed."

As such, this isn't "left wing BS", but a direct quote as reported by several major newspapers. I don't see anyone challenging the veracity of the statement and it seems quite consistent with who Ginsburg was, her legacy as an advocate for gender equality and women's rights. Naturally, she would want her replacement to share her progressive beliefs and values. Why is hard for you to accept?

So I believe it as far as it goes. It seems far more likely that Ginsburg made this statement than that the quote was fabricated by NPR and/or Clara Spera. What would they gain by such dishonesty? Why would they risk their credibility?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Harry Marks, Taylor
Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:48 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5929
Thanks: 1380
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
Another one checks in to validate hearsay in a super charged political climate.



who else here believes Ruth Ginsberg would use her last dying breath to essentially promote betraying the constitution? :lol:
Makes sense!!
rumor has it she also said "vote blue!" rignt before she took her last breath

Boy, the unhinged are everywhere now. Even on Booktalk.

"Several major papers are reporting it" :roll:

!



Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:50 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4577
Location: NC
Thanks: 2019
Thanked: 2081 times in 1551 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
ant wrote:
Another one checks in to validate hearsay in a super charged political climate.



who else here believes Ruth Ginsberg would use her last dying breath to essentially promote betraying the constitution? :lol:
Makes sense!!
rumor has it she also said "vote blue!" rignt before she took her last breath

Boy, the unhinged are everywhere now. Even on Booktalk.

"Several major papers are reporting it" :roll:

!

So the granddaughter is lying. NPR doesn't care about its credibility as a news organization? As I said, Ginsburg's statement is perfectly consistent with her life's work. It's up to you to explain how it's not believeable. And how is it Ginsburg's statement a betrayal of the Constitution? Are you going to troll this one out or respond with an honest response?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Harry Marks
Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:59 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5929
Thanks: 1380
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
In 2016 Ruth Ginsberg is on record as saying “nothing in the Constitution” prevents filling court seat in final year"


https://www.independentsentinel.com/jus ... inal-year/

Find it very hard to believe her alleged final words would be encouraging a betrayal of the Constitution.
I don't have a dog in this race and am not as unhinged as most of you are in this political climate

OH!!! HER GRANDDAUGHER WOULD NEVER LIE!!


Talk to any hospice caregiver. ABSOLUTELY NONE would tell you end of life patients took a moment to talk about career replacements and politics.

Sorry.. it's just not likely in the least.



Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:09 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5929
Thanks: 1380
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
who is Ruth Ginsberg's granddaughter and why is she a credible source?
because she's RG's granddaughter, so therefore she would not lie for any reason whatsoever?

wow
we truly have some phony skeptics here on BT



The following user would like to thank ant for this post:
geo
Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:33 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Read Shakespeare before it was cool


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1638
Thanks: 1845
Thanked: 834 times in 671 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
ant wrote:
Quote:
Harry wrote:Well, actually not. It is entirely consistent with her previous views and her obvious political interest in the character of the court.
Brilliant retort! Except it entirely misses the point: the ability of hearsay to place words in the mouth of anyone, particularly the dead.
Well, that may have been your point, but when we are talking about credibility of the hearsay, by injecting the unlikely claim about Hitchens' conversion, then we are not just discussing the admissibility of hearsay.

ant wrote:
This is an emotional time for the unhinged left - I get it.
That's a pretty scurrilous thing to say. Of course you will deny that you actually accused me of reacting from emotion, much less of being unhinged. Oh, no, not Ant. Ant would never do that.

ant wrote:
You sound nearly as naive as Ocasio Cortez who is on record saying the dying wishes of Ruth should not be ignored and that "we" are in an "a fight for our lives" now.
I don't find that I agree with Ocasio-Cortez about very much.

As for it being a "fight for our lives," I think it would be wise of Mitt Romney, who is probably the swing vote, to reflect on his experience in Blue State politics to see what would be the result of putting an overturner on the court. Trump, who has probably paid for a few abortions in his day, does not care about abortion laws one bit. Nor does he care about the Republican party. But a lot of cogent analysis has found that if voters actually have to vote on the issue of outlawing abortion, the Republicans will be kicked out of power in all but the deepest red states, the ones who are not considered swing states at this point. They amount to about 130 electoral votes.

The Supreme Court could win Iowa for Trump, and in a pinch Pennsylvania, but it is very likely to lose Florida for him. The problem is, as occasional burps of foolishness from the red state frenzy over abortion have shown, they can't win on the issue of rape. Not very many people, (by which I mean no more than about 30% of the public) believe that a woman who has been raped has an obligation to carry that child to term. And like Obamacare, when the issue is actually on the ballot, it will swing against the Republicans.

The current Republican drive to overturn Roe v Wade needs a rationale that will hold up. Tribalism is enough in the Deep Red states, but not in the bulk of the country. They could argue that Roe v Wade was wrongly decided because there is no right to privacy, as Scalia insisted, in which case there is no protection for the right to use contraception, either. But of course no one, even in the party of Trump and McConnell, is foolish enough to go after contraception. (These "staying on message" requirements can be quite stringent. Trump actually proposed putting women in jail for getting an abortion, once, foolishly thinking that he understood the arguments and that the right is willing to take the position that abortion is murder.)

So what is the right-wing position? That it ought to be able to use heartbeat bills and social denial of abortion provision through admitting privilege requirements and lots of other seemingly legitimate restrictions to fight abortion. But they never come to grips with the actual issue, which is that privacy rights need a solid reason to be squashed, and they are not willing to take the extreme positions, such as that abortion is murder, needed to justify that on the basis of principle.

But that's okay, because principle was never their goal. The Republican party is the rickety cart driven by the libertarian rich who dangle the carrot of abortion restrictions in front of the religious right, the horse who powers them to electoral victory. The last thing they want is for the horse to actually get the carrot. Then what would they dangle?

The irony is that they are going to end up increasing the use of RU-486 and other "murder weapons" since women may not be able to wait until they know that they are actually pregnant to do something about the possibility. And their credibility keeps dropping.

ant wrote:
alleged "dying wishes" do not count,
That is assuredly true, though sometimes a good rallying cry can get people fired up.



The following user would like to thank Harry Marks for this post:
Taylor
Sun Sep 20, 2020 4:35 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Read Shakespeare before it was cool


Joined: May 2011
Posts: 1638
Thanks: 1845
Thanked: 834 times in 671 posts
Gender: None specified

Post Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
ant wrote:
In 2016 Ruth Ginsberg is on record as saying “nothing in the Constitution” prevents filling court seat in final year"
Find it very hard to believe her alleged final words would be encouraging a betrayal of the Constitution.

First of all, arguing that filling the court seat in the final year is not unconstitutional is not the same as saying failing to do so is a betrayal of the constitution. But the idea that she would urge the country to stick to the precedent promoted by McConnell to eliminate the advice and consent that is required in the constitution (his party did not vote down Merrick Garland, and probably would not have, which is why he simply refused a vote) is, to me, completely believable. For a jurist, if a principle is used to justify an action, then there is a commitment to that principle as being the right thing to do. Okay, that is not politics in the post-Cold War era, but it is how rule of law works.

ant wrote:
I don't have a dog in this race and am not as unhinged as most of you are in this political climate
Well, if arguing for principle as a standard, rather than expediency, is unhinged, then feel free to call me unhinged. But you might mention the basis now and then.

ant wrote:
Talk to any hospice caregiver. ABSOLUTELY NONE would tell you end of life patients took a moment to talk about career replacements and politics.
Well, I expect you are right about 99.9 percent of the public. But RBG was a different breed. She worked 22 hour days for months on end to hold her household together while her husband was battling cancer and to get through her law degree at the same time. She has stayed on the court, delivering cogent questioning and powerful opinions, through two bouts of cancer and major surgery. This is not your average couch potato we are talking about.



The following user would like to thank Harry Marks for this post:
DWill, geo, Taylor
Sun Sep 20, 2020 5:04 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Platinum Contributor
Book Discussion Leader

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 6728
Location: Luray, Virginia
Thanks: 2060
Thanked: 2310 times in 1744 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
ant's posts tend to be telegraphic, so I often don't see the point he's driving for. That's ok, because he didn't see mine. Now I get it that he thinks RBG's granddaughter made up the statement she reported, for her own political reasons. The media reported what the granddaughter said RBG said. So what?

I don't really care about this, and I'm not sure why ant does so much. But I think it's very believable that someone as passionate about issues and as dedicated to her mission as RBG was, would say something like this a few days before she died (according to the NPR story). The "dying wish" part is surely melodrama on the part of some headline writer.

Was what she said her private wish, rather than a statement she wanted released to the public? Perhaps her granddaughter should have kept the statement to herself. Regardless, RBG's view shouldn't have any bearing on whether a vote for a SCOTUS seat does take place before the election. It's gonna happen anyway, because the Republicans have the power to do it, just as they had the power not to allow a vote four years ago.



The following user would like to thank DWill for this post:
ant, geo, Taylor
Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:51 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5929
Thanks: 1380
Thanked: 973 times in 838 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
Quote:
DWill wrote:

RBG's view shouldn't have any bearing on whether a vote for a SCOTUS seat does take place before the election.


Agreed.

Again, I don't buy hearsay, particularly when it comes to politics. But I know Democrats are desperate for any feel good moment that will lift their spirits come election time.
The thug arm of the left and its violence on the streets has not helped.

Anyway, look at this:

Quote:
But in 2016, when a lame-duck President Obama tabbed Merrick Garland to replace the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, Democratic leaders had no problem with the move. And neither did Ginsburg.

"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.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/flashb ... ar-vacancy


I doubt Ginsberg would, while in hospice, take the time to discuss politics. More specifically, take a political position.
The character of the witness making the claim is unknow.
But, yeah, it doesn't matter and should hold no water. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the nomination prior to an election.

Case closed.



Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:18 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Beyond Genius

Silver Contributor

Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 854
Location: Florida
Thanks: 356
Thanked: 506 times in 389 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
The legal issue may be closed but the larger issue of loading the court with a flat earth theory believing, young earth creationist, is not an ‘case closed’ situation. And that’s the dilemma that we are dealing with with the death of RBG.

If PSfB gets his third court nominee confirmed it will be the worst court since the Taney Court. That is the court that gave us the brilliance of Dred Scott v. Sandford. The court ruled that African-Americans could not be citizens and that in the new state of Missouri they would in fact remain designated as ‘property’. (The Missouri Compromise)

I love your mind Harry Marks, I wish I knew you personally. You are a truly brilliant man. ( I love the minds of all the BT regulars but right now Harry is firing on all eight)

It is mundane to say the least that somehow it is an “unhinged time for the emotional left” when clearly it is the libertarian rich and their evangelical dupes who are squirming in their panties over RBG’s replacement because they are so so close to their hearts desire, a strict originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

Originalism, a constitutional view that has been debunked since Griswold v. Connecticut which has been sticking in the right-wings craw for 56 years and I suspect the reversal of Dred Scott does for some on the right as well. (I live in the Deep South, trust me I know)

I personally have dealt with loved ones in hospice, whether it be a home version or in one of the hospice houses, my experience taught me that people will talk about those things they know, the things that are common between the dying and the bereaved, It makes perfect sense that RBG would say what her granddaughter claims was said.

The Supreme Court has always been politicized, it was created by politicians. It has made bad decisions and good decisions, the bad ones are usually reversed. Citizens United seems like a bad decision that needs to be reversed.



Last edited by Taylor on Mon Sep 21, 2020 7:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.



The following user would like to thank Taylor for this post:
geo
Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:53 pm
Profile Email
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 32 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
Banned Books
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank