• In total there are 25 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 24 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 789 on Tue Mar 19, 2024 5:08 am

RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

Unread post

ant wrote:
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.
User avatar
Harry Marks
Bookasaurus
Posts: 1920
Joined: Sun May 01, 2011 10:42 am
12
Location: Denver, CO
Has thanked: 2335 times
Been thanked: 1020 times
Ukraine

Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

Unread post

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.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

Unread post

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.
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

Unread post

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:
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.
User avatar
Taylor

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
Awesome
Posts: 962
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 7:39 pm
14
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 423 times
Been thanked: 591 times

Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

Unread post

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.
User avatar
DWill

1H - GOLD CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6966
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
16
Location: Luray, Virginia
Has thanked: 2262 times
Been thanked: 2470 times

Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

Unread post

ant wrote: 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 statement checks out. Nina Totenberg confirmed it. I don't see why Ms. Spero's statement, made as far as we know just to a few people and not for public consumption, bothers Trump and his people enough to declare it to be fake. I was wondering whether I should acknowledge Trump's decent behavior towards the late justice. He praised her as an amazing woman; he is putting off his nomination until after services for her. But I decided acknowledging would only highlight the unusualness of his decency. Then I found out about his creation of the "Schiff made it up"conspiracy, and I'm so glad I didn't give him any credit.

https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/ruth- ... ant=1_Show
ant wrote:Anyway, look at this:
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.
I can't find anything about her having hospice at home, but maybe she did. It doesn't matter. She's perfectly likely to be thinking of those things that are most important to her, at such a time when she could have realized she would soon die. Ginsburg has at least once made a political statement (about Trump), so it's probably not out of character. Her statement does go against her 2016 declaration. That, it seems to me, would be a more reasonable objection by Trump & co. But they really can't say that with the rank hypocrisy of McConnell & co. staring them in the face.
But, yeah, it doesn't matter and should hold no water. Nothing in the Constitution prohibits the nomination prior to an election.
No, it doesn't, and it's a shame that McConnell made up the prohibition in 2016 in hopes of stealing a justice seat. Do you expect the Democrats to stand on principle and go along with nominating, vetting, and voting before the election in 44 days, when the Republicans asserted 9 months before an election was too soon to even start a process?
Case closed.
I don't think so.
KindaSkolarly

1E - BANNED
Doctorate
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:53 pm
7
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 104 times

Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

Unread post

22 presidents have nominated Supreme Court justices while in the fourth year of a term. Trump would be breaking precedent if he didn't nominate. Eisenhower even appointed a justice when congress was on recess.

Most likely, Trump will nominate, and the senate will dawdle through some hearings, then take a vote after the election (between the election and the inaugurations). That way the 1/3 of the senate that's up for re-election won't have to alienate voters.

After the election, the senate confirmation hearing will divert the nation's attn from the Democrats' vigorous attempt to steal the presidency with their mail-in fraud. People will get so riled up over the court situation that the media will be able to quietly report Creepin' Joe gaining here and there as votes trickle in through the mail.

If Trump appoints a true conservative, then it could be that Roe vs Wade (the pro-abortion ruling) could be overturned. And this has the Leftist cult frothing. They DEPEND on child sacrifice to placate their demons.

Liberal Woman Posts Selfie Video of Hysterical Meltdown Over Death of Justice Ginsburg (“Ruth! You Just Had to Make it to 2021!”)
(Link to Twitter video is about 2/3 way down the page. This woman, or the demon possessing her, would no doubt claim that it's her body, her choice when it comes to killing babies, but it's not my body, my choice when it comes to going without a mask).
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/0 ... make-2021/

Image
User avatar
geo

2C - MOD & GOLD
pets endangered by possible book avalanche
Posts: 4779
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2008 4:24 am
15
Location: NC
Has thanked: 2198 times
Been thanked: 2200 times
United States of America

Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

Unread post

Ant's in good company. Trump also believes (without evidence) that Ginsburg's statement is "fake news!" The statement was probably written by Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer and/or Nancy Pelosi.

Chuck Schumer angrily denies the rumor, but he would, wouldn't he? wink wink

Meanwhile, Nina Totenberg, who broke the story for PBS, confirmed her account of Justice Ginsburg’s statement, and said that others in the room at the time witnessed her making it, including her doctor. “I checked,” Ms. Totenberg added, “because I’m a reporter.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/tech ... e=Homepage

I do appreciate KindaSkolarly checking in here too. We always appreciate diverse viewpoints! And this is such an important story!
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
ant

1G - SILVER CONTRIBUTOR
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 5935
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:04 pm
12
Has thanked: 1371 times
Been thanked: 969 times

Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

Unread post

Ant's in good company. Trump also believes (without evidence) that Ginsburg's statement is "fake news!" The statement was probably written by Adam Schiff, Chuck Schumer and/or Nancy Pelosi.

"Guilt by association" is not a rational argument.

I've indicated reasons why I am skeptical here. They are not empty "trump says it's fake news so it must be" reasons.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17019
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3511 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

Unread post

I think her family is lying and Trump is right to question the claim. If she really had such a fervent belief she would have put it in writing or in a video. Or did this fervent belief just hit her as she was taking her last breath? Doubtful. A Supreme Court justice is educated and rational and knows the law. She knows stuff like this holds no weight or value without being in proper format. She wouldn't whisper something so silly to her family as she is right at the end of her life. People are lying. I'll believe they lied until someone steps forward with empirical evidence and that won't be happening because it probably never happened.

I say the above as someone who detests Trump. I am horrified at the prospect of the Supreme Court adding another conservative. But truth matters to me and I believe her family has fabricated this story.
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”