• In total there are 27 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 27 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
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

Chris OConnor wrote: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.
Hey, guys:

Im in good company here despite what people like Geo, have said.

Again, most of you have been pretending to be skeptics all this time.

Politics will always bring out true colors.

What moved me in Chris's post is this fact:
You can detest Trump and still not believe this story has any real validity to it.
I respect that.

Both can be true at the same time.

Geo, you in particular ought not to be so presumptuous about my reasons why I doubt Ginsberg said such a thing.
Last edited by ant on Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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

KOS wrote:

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.
Nothing in the Constitution prohibits a nomination at this juncture in Trump's presidency.
Ginsberg was of sound character and would not betray her coherency.

People have become unhinged, politically spoiled, and just flat out running their engines on the fumes of raw, irrational emotion.
Just look at what Reza Aslan said about "burning it all down" if an attempt was made to replace Ginsberg.


End of story.
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

Does any Democrat really think, are any really saying, that RBG's statement (not dying words--please) has some determinative weight? They would be unanimous in opposing a pre-election vote had nothing emerged from RBG. It's Trump & Co. who have wanted to shoot down the confirmed report. I don't understand why they see it as threatening enough to gin up a conspiracy.
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

I see Justice Ginsburg's statement as something of a personal wish, one shared with her granddaughter. As such, I'm really not sure why it matters to anyone or why such a statement would have been fabricated by the family. It doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the selection of the next Supreme Court justice, legally speaking. As news, it's not really even very interesting. It has become much bigger, of course, because it is being politicized on both sides.

Just to clarify, what I originally said was that I believe NPR's report of Ginsburg's statement, as far as it goes—the qualifier being necessary because it was anecdotal in nature and I wasn't there to witness it.

But even so, I still think the simpler explanation is that Justice Ginsburg made the statement (as far as the evidence goes). If you argue that the statement was fabricated, than you are asserting that either the granddaughter lied or Nina Totenberg lied or both lied. And you would have to believe this without a shred of evidence. Occam's razor dictates that a problem should not be multiplied without necessity. The simpler answer is usually the best.

It also begs the question (to me), why all this lying, when it doesn't accomplish anything (and actually risks so much for Nina Totenburg and NPR)? What is the motive? I'll second DWill's question. Does anyone believe Ginsburg's words would have any bearing on the nomination process for the next Supreme Court justice? I just don't see it.

It has come to light since then that Nina Totenberg was a personal friend of the Ginburgs, which perhaps complicates matters. For what it's worth I still think the simpler explanation is that Ginsburg made the statement.
-Geo
Question everything
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17017
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3509 times
Been thanked: 1309 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

Unread post

Geo wrote:It also begs the question (to me), why all this lying, when it doesn't accomplish anything (and actually risks so much for Nina Totenburg and NPR)? What is the motive? I'll second DWill's question. Does anyone believe Ginsburg's words would have any bearing on the nomination process for the next Supreme Court justice? I just don't see it.
I think they are lying because it just might accomplish something. They are grasping at straws hoping this (potentially) fabricated story will cause enough of an uproar to keep Trump from moving forward with a nomination too quickly. I think liberals are scared right now and they should be. This is one effort to tip the teeter totter just a wee bit in favor of the White House waiting till after the election.

I don't think Occam's Razor fits in this scenario. Occam's Razor basically says don't replace a simple explanation for a more complicated explanation. And to me the simplest explanation here is that the family is making this up. RGB would have put this in writing on in a video if it really was a fervent wish. She was a brilliant woman. The default position here is that she didn't say this. We need proof from the affirmative claimant.

Not that it matters.

RGB's wishes aren't law. Even if a video comes forward with her uttering these words the Republican party is under no legal or ethical responsibility to honor her wishes. We have a two-party system and what matters is the law and to a lesser degree precedent. I'm more interested in knowing about the law and precedent.
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

Chris OConnor wrote:
Geo wrote:It also begs the question (to me), why all this lying, when it doesn't accomplish anything (and actually risks so much for Nina Totenburg and NPR)? What is the motive? I'll second DWill's question. Does anyone believe Ginsburg's words would have any bearing on the nomination process for the next Supreme Court justice? I just don't see it.
I think they are lying because it just might accomplish something. They are grasping at straws hoping this (potentially) fabricated story will cause enough of an uproar to keep Trump from moving forward with a nomination too quickly. I think liberals are scared right now and they should be. This is one effort to tip the teeter totter just a wee bit in favor of the White House waiting till after the election.
A future uproar was assured in 2016, Chris, when McConnell refused to bring forward Merrick Garland's nomination. The RBG wish doesn't add a thing to the reaction, as far as I can see, because nothing more is needed. That the family, presumably goaded by Democrat bigwigs, would think a fabricated plea of hers would be an effective deterrent to an expedited approval, I think is implausible.

I'm not contending, just by the way, that Democrats wouldn't be doing the same thing as the Republicans if the decision was theirs to make.
I don't think Occam's Razor fits in this scenario. Occam's Razor basically says don't replace a simple explanation for a more complicated explanation. And to me the simplest explanation here is that the family is making this up. RGB would have put this in writing on in a video if it really was a fervent wish. She was a brilliant woman. The default position here is that she didn't say this. We need proof from the affirmative claimant.
She would have known that, although it was her wish for the vote to be delayed, any statement she issued publicly should have no bearing on the matter and would also be improper. We don't know anything definite about her intention, but that's how I lean.
Not that it matters.

RGB's wishes aren't law. Even if a video comes forward with her uttering these words the Republican party is under no legal or ethical responsibility to honor her wishes. We have a two-party system and what matters is the law and to a lesser degree precedent. I'm more interested in knowing about the law and precedent.
I agree completely here. The seat isn't hers in any real sense. I'm repeating myself, but I think the very irrelevance of her statement points to the likelihood that it was real, and not a weaponized lie. How stupid it would have been for the family or Democrats to think they could stop the train with this tactic.

And again just by the way, let's have term limits for Supreme Court justices! Say 18 years with a schedule of rotating them off and appointing new ones.
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

DWill wrote:And again just by the way, let's have term limits for Supreme Court justices! Say 18 years with a schedule of rotating them off and appointing new ones.
I saw the op-ed advocating this. It looks plausible enough, but for some reason they felt it necessary to sneak in the idea that the size of the court would be fixed by constitutional amendment. Given that the author was a Republican, and there is no guarantee in such an amendment that the Senate will always play by the same rules when confirmation time comes round, I am skeptical. Can you imagine a constitutional amendment spelling out that the Senate must vote on the nominee within 1 month, or some such artificial boundary? The question is when will we go back to just letting jurisprudence proceed in an orderly way rather than trying to put the fix in.

We may see the Dems pull a range of circus stunts to delay a vote. Some, like me, may see it as just deserts, after the Garland outrage. Others may see it as just one more step in the descent from order into drama. But it's a sad prospect for democracy when the majority of the country has to resort to stunts to get a minority to follow rules so that governance can happen. Which is where we have been since Gingrich's shutdown of the government in the 90s.
KindaSkolarly

1E - BANNED
Doctorate
Posts: 512
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2017 3:53 pm
6
Location: Texas
Has thanked: 16 times
Been thanked: 104 times

Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

Unread post

I hope that Trump nominates on Saturday and the Senate votes on Monday. They're under no requirement to stage confirmation hearings. Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed by the Senate in 2017 for a federal post, so if she's the nominee then just go ahead and vote.

And just like that, we'd go from ultra-liberal Ginsburg to ultra-conservative Barrett. Talk about whacking a hornet's nest with a big stick. The Democrats have already threatened several responses to the changeover. Some say they'll burn the country down. Some say they'll add Puerto Rico and Washington DC as states, putting 4 more leftists to the senate. Some say they'll add a gazillion new seats to the Supreme Court, or however many it takes to re-infest the institution with communists.

This is the sweetest October Surprise we could have hoped for. It's so wonderful. Leftists are just beginning their guttural primal scream at realizing they may lose their precious child sacrifices. Oh me o my what's a satanist to do when you can't butcher a million a year for the lord of the nether regions?

Dove season's kind of puny this year on account of the droughts, so we're hoping the mobs come ranging out of the Democrat cities looking to vent their rage. Election time's good, because that would be an extra hunting season before we get serious about deer. Dove, commies, deer. Maybe that will become the new hunting calendar.
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

KindaSkolarly wrote: Dove season's kind of puny this year on account of the droughts, so we're hoping the mobs come ranging out of the Democrat cities looking to vent their rage. Election time's good, because that would be an extra hunting season before we get serious about deer. Dove, commies, deer. Maybe that will become the new hunting calendar.
And your own contribution to the revolution will be to destroy booktalk.org. I suppose you deserve credit for calculating that posts like this will make users of the site flee. You're sick, man. I have hope, however, that this is your swansong.
Last edited by DWill on Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:49 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Robert Tulip

2B - MOD & SILVER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 6499
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 9:16 pm
18
Location: Canberra
Has thanked: 2719 times
Been thanked: 2662 times
Contact:
Australia

Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

Unread post

DWill wrote:
KindaSkolarly wrote: Dove season's kind of puny this year on account of the droughts, so we're hoping the mobs come ranging out of the Democrat cities looking to vent their rage. Election time's good, because that would be an extra hunting season before we get serious about deer. Dove, commies, deer. Maybe that will become the new hunting calendar.
And your own contribution to the revolution will be to destroy booktalk.org. I suppose you deserve credit for calculating that posts like this will make users of the site flee. You're sick, man. I have hope, however, that this is your swansong.
Inciting political violence should be a banning offence.
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”