BookTalk.org
https://www.booktalk.org/

RIP - Ruth Ginsberg
https://www.booktalk.org/rip-ruth-ginsberg-t31627-15.html
Page 2 of 3

Author:  DWill [ Mon Sep 21, 2020 5:57 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

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:

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.

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.
Quote:
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?
Quote:
Case closed.

I don't think so.

Author:  KindaSkolarly [ Mon Sep 21, 2020 10:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

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

Author:  geo [ Tue Sep 22, 2020 8:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

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!

Author:  ant [ Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

Quote:
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.

Author:  Chris OConnor [ Tue Sep 22, 2020 3:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

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.

Author:  ant [ Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:07 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

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.

Author:  ant [ Tue Sep 22, 2020 5:49 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

Quote:
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.

Author:  DWill [ Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

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.

Author:  geo [ Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:51 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

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.

Author:  Chris OConnor [ Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:35 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

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.

Author:  DWill [ Wed Sep 23, 2020 12:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.

Author:  Harry Marks [ Wed Sep 23, 2020 4:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

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.

Author:  KindaSkolarly [ Wed Sep 23, 2020 9:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

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.

Author:  DWill [ Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:44 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

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.

Author:  Robert Tulip [ Thu Sep 24, 2020 8:49 am ]
Post subject:  Re: RIP - Ruth Ginsberg

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.

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/