Ruth Bader Ginsburg has passed away

[Josiah.]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the demure firebrand who in her 80s became a legal, cultural and feminist icon, died Friday. The Supreme Court announced her death, saying the cause was complications from metastatic cancer of the pancreas.

The court, in a statement, said Ginsburg died at her home in Washington surrounded by family. She was 87.

Read more: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/100306972/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-champion-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87

[MB.]

I literally just watched the documentary about her on Netflix this week... RIP

[LaLaLand]

An absolute legend. RIP.

[arista]

https://news.sky.com/story/us-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-12075701


Yes she was very ill with cancer

[MB.]

also, America's legal system is so broken that their entire democracy as we know it was essentially resting on the health of a single 87-year-old woman, so... the foreseeable future is not going to be pretty

[Trouble1321075]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the demure firebrand who in her 80s became a legal, cultural and feminist icon, died Friday. The Supreme Court announced her death, saying the cause was complications from metastatic cancer of the pancreas.



The court, in a statement, said Ginsburg died at her home in Washington surrounded by family. She was 87.



Read more: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/18/100306972/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-champion-of-gender-equality-dies-at-87For real?

I didnt agree with her ideologically but i respect her. It would be a lie for ms to say im not glaf she is off the vdnch but sad its this way

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Kate!]

RIP

[Ammi]

...a great age for a great lady...:love:...

...”I’m a very strong believer in listening and learning from others”...such wisdom...

[Strictly Jake]

I thought this said ruth badger at first and was so shocked!

[bots]

she was a fighter all the way to the end, i think she endured 5 different cancer incidents

[Ammi]

she was a fighter all the way to the end, i think she endured 5 different cancer incidents

...I think that her husband did as well...not 5 maybe, but he was a cancer survivor, I’m sure...before the disgusting disease did take him from his loved ones...

[Beso]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/ruth-bader-ginsburg-dead-trump-reaction-supreme-court-latest-b491380.html

[Tom4784]

She was an incredible person, a feminist icon and a trailblazer in many ways. The amount of good she has done in service to the people while holding her position cannot be understated. It's a true loss for the US as a whole, especially considering how that hypocrite Mitch McConnell has already put plans in motion to put a conservative judge in her place despite voting against judges being appointed in Election years before.

RBG upheld the values of her position incredibly well, and sadly, her death will be used as a method to ensure that the Supreme Court falls even further under republican rule. It makes me angry to think that a lot of the good she did will likely be overruled.

[GiRTh]

...a great age for a great lady...:love:...

...”I’m a very strong believer in listening and learning from others”...such wisdom...
A great loss. RIP

[arista]

Republicans vow to vote on Trump pick

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54216710

[Liam-]

Of course they do, because they’re hypocrites

[Trouble1321075]

Republicans vow to vote on Trump pick

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54216710Why wouldn't they? If democrats could of gotten garland in they would of done it too.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Trouble1321075]

Of course they do, because they’re hypocritesGinsburg could of stepped down while obama was president but instead she gambled with the seat and lost. The Republicans would be foolish to gamble on that seat when they have the power to name anyone they want.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Liam-]

Why wouldn't they? If democrats could of gotten garland in they would of done it too.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The nomination of Garland was blocked by republicans because it was deemed ‘too close’ to an election, mainly by McConnell and Grahame, if they decide to try and go ahead with it, despite their previous stance, it will make a mockery of the ‘system’

[Trouble1321075]

The nomination of Garland was blocked by republicans because it was deemed ‘too close’ to an election, mainly by McConnell and Grahame, if they decide to try and go ahead with it, despite their previous stance, it will make a mockery of the ‘system’Yup they sure did say that, and the democrats argued that the upcoming election didn't matter it was the sitting presidents privilege to get a vote on his nominee. Do they still feel that way or are the democrats hypocrites too?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Liam-]

Yup they sure did say that, and the democrats argued that the upcoming election didn't matter it was the sitting presidents privilege to get a vote on his nominee. Do they still feel that way or are the democrats hypocrites too?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

They’re just trying to keep the republicans to their word

[Trouble1321075]

They’re just trying to keep the republicans to their wordRight, there is nothing principled about the Democrats position either. Both sides are arguing from whatever is politically convenient in the moment.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Tom4784]

Why wouldn't they? If democrats could of gotten garland in they would of done it too.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Well considering most of the Republicans said that it would be unjust to nominate an SC judge before an election in 2016, they really shouldn't be outrageous hypocrites and do exactly that now the shoe is on the other foot.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Genuinely never heard of her

[Tom4784]

Honestly, being like 'BUT THE DEMOCRATS' is pointless. Republicans enforced a standard in 2016 that they themselves will not abide by in 2020. You can complain about the dems all you want but it's not gonna change the fact that the republicans are massive hypocrites.

[Trouble1321075]

Well considering most of the Republicans said that it would be unjust to nominate an SC judge before an election in 2016, they really shouldn't be outrageous hypocrites and do exactly that now the shoe is on the other foot.They are fools if they don't use their position to name another judge to the bench.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Liam-]

Well the White House has said that there won’t be time to do it before the election anyway

[Tom4784]

They are fools if they don't use their position to name another judge to the bench.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

No, they'd just be hypocrites offering up more reasons not to trust them. I don't know how you can defend the republicans and then try to paint democrats as hypocrites while ignoring and then trying to justify Republican hypocrisy.

[Trouble1321075]

Honestly, being like 'BUT THE DEMOCRATS' is pointless. Republicans enforced a standard in 2016 that they themselves will not abide by in 2020. You can complain about the dems all you want but it's not gonna change the fact that the republicans are massive hypocrites.You can call republicans names all you want but its not gonna change the fact that they are doing exactly what the progressives would of done if the roles were reversed. They would of blocked a republican nominee in 16 had they held a majority in the senate and they would of elected a progressive judge to fill the current open seat before the election. Republicans are gonna put another judge on the bench.
This is ginsbergs fault for not stepping down when obama asked her to. She gambled that she could outlast a republican controlled process and she and her party lost.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Trouble1321075]

No, they'd just be hypocrites offering up more reasons not to trust them. I don't know how you can defend the republicans and then try to paint democrats as hypocrites while ignoring and then trying to justify Republican hypocrisy.Im being honest about it. Neither party would pass up an opportunity to name a judge to the bench. Look at the lengths progressives went to block kavanaugh. Politics has become a bloodsport.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[arista]

https://storify.com/services/proxy/2/oGCMpd1zqXwl7dVafVCJ8g/https/media.fyre.co/hIpjzyU7QJG8jzpzs9cH_Observer%202009.PNG

[Tom4784]

You can call republicans names all you want but its not gonna change the fact that they are doing exactly what the progressives would of done if the roles were reversed. They would of blocked a republican nominee in 16 had they held a majority in the senate and they would of elected a progressive judge to fill the current open seat before the election. Republicans are gonna put another judge on the bench.
This is ginsbergs fault for not stepping down when obama asked her to. She gambled that she could outlast a republican controlled process and she and her party lost.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Yeah, **** her for dying! Good grief.... So, let me get this straight, the Republicans being dirty little lying hypocrites that can't abide by the standards they force on others is not their fault, it's the fault of a woman who died of cancer and the dems for not being as morally corrupt and opportunistic as the republicans... That's a lot of blame for the republican's actions to place at everyone's door BUT the republicans.

Your logic is..... fascinating....

[Tom4784]

Im being honest about it. Neither party would pass up an opportunity to name a judge to the bench. Look at the lengths progressives went to block kavanaugh. Politics has become a bloodsport.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Because Kavanaugh's a rapist piece of ****. You also can't talk about politics becoming a bloodsport when you're obviously playing the game by jumping through hoops to avoid attributing any blame to the republicans for their own actions.

[arista]

President Trump is picking a Lady for the Job.
He said speaking to a reporter at a Rally.


So all is good


Ref: SkyNewsHD

[Ammi]

A great loss. RIP

...she was a true advocate of all equality../...just of equal humankind...:lovedup:..

...her words in discrimination...

"I try to teach through my opinions, through my speeches, how wrong it is to judge people on the basis of what they look like, color of their skin, whether they’re men or women."

[Niamh.]

RIP [emoji53]

[Trouble1321075]

Yeah, **** her for dying! Good grief.... So, let me get this straight, the Republicans being dirty little lying hypocrites that can't abide by the standards they force on others is not their fault, it's the fault of a woman who died of cancer and the dems for not being as morally corrupt and opportunistic as the republicans... That's a lot of blame for the republican's actions to place at everyone's door BUT the republicans.



Your logic is..... fascinating....Im not "blaming" her. I am pointing that she was offered an opportunity from Obama to step down and she rejected his offer. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.
She took a calculated political risk and her health failed her. Her time of passing has occurred with a republican president in office and a republican majority senate. That is the worst case scenerio for democrats.
You and others are complaining that its not fair and republicans are hypocrites. The fact is that it is completely fair. No rules are being broken.
Republicans and Democrats are both hypocrites. Its naive to believe that either party would of done anything differently in the same situation. They both play a win at all costs game.
I got news for you, you better worry about Breyers seat too because he is no spring chicken. Thomas may also retire if we have a republican president and senate.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[The Slim Reaper]

Im not "blaming" her. I am pointing that she was offered an opportunity from Obama to step down and she rejected his offer. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.
She took a calculated political risk and her health failed her. Her time of passing has occurred with a republican president in office and a republican majority senate. That is the worst case scenerio for democrats.
You and others are complaining that its not fair and republicans are hypocrites. The fact is that it is completely fair. No rules are being broken.
Republicans and Democrats are both hypocrites. Its naive to believe that either party would of done anything differently in the same situation. They both play a win at all costs game.
I got news for you, you better worry about Breyers seat too because he is no spring chicken. Thomas may also retire if we have a republican president and senate.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Prior to Garland, republican presidents appointed judges if dems held the senate, and dem presidents appointed judges with republican senates.

It's not even a dem issue, republicans just decided to take a dump on precedent and started inventing their own rules and now they've decided that their own rules don't apply to them. Because you're a republican I can understand that you don't care (even though these things are cyclical and will come back around eventually), but to not even acknowledge reality doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Tom4784]

Im not "blaming" her. I am pointing that she was offered an opportunity from Obama to step down and she rejected his offer. That is not an opinion, it is a fact.
She took a calculated political risk and her health failed her. Her time of passing has occurred with a republican president in office and a republican majority senate. That is the worst case scenerio for democrats.
You and others are complaining that its not fair and republicans are hypocrites. The fact is that it is completely fair. No rules are being broken.
Republicans and Democrats are both hypocrites. Its naive to believe that either party would of done anything differently in the same situation. They both play a win at all costs game.
I got news for you, you better worry about Breyers seat too because he is no spring chicken. Thomas may also retire if we have a republican president and senate.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You're endorsing that politicians, people in power, act in bad faith, you treat this like it's a game in which you have to do anything to win and it's not. It's about securing human rights, it's not about winning or losing. If those in power act in bad faith, then they must pay the consequences because the decisions that the SC make are no joke.

If Republicans opposed the appointment of a new Judge in 2016 because it was an election year, they simply cannot change their minds because it now benefits them. When you enforce a standard upon others, you must also adhere to it.

I'm not naive, you have simply divorced yourself from your own sense of morality just so you can bend over backwards to exalt the republicans from blame. It's utterly ridiculous that anyone would support those in charge acting in such bad faith against the interests of the people and find it acceptable because it's 'their side' that benefits from it. Politics is not a game.

[The Slim Reaper]

It might actually do the US good to have abortion taken away for a couple of years, so they can start to realise the US experiment was to move away from European theocracies not create a new one.

[Trouble1321075]

Prior to Garland, republican presidents appointed judges if dems held the senate, and dem presidents appointed judges with republican senates.

It's not even a dem issue, republicans just decided to take a dump on precedent and started inventing their own rules and now they've decided that their own rules don't apply to them. Because you're a republican I can understand that you don't care (even though these things are cyclical and will come back around eventually), but to not even acknowledge reality doesn't make a lot of sense.Im not denying reality. I am acknowledging it. Republicans control the senate and the whitehouse. They are going to confirm a judge to their liking.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Trouble1321075]

You're endorsing that politicians, people in power, act in bad faith, you treat this like it's a game in which you have to do anything to win and it's not. It's about securing human rights, it's not about winning or losing. If those in power act in bad faith, then they must pay the consequences because the decisions that the SC make are no joke.



If Republicans opposed the appointment of a new Judge in 2016 because it was an election year, they simply cannot change their minds because it now benefits them. When you enforce a standard upon others, you must also adhere to it.



I'm not naive, you have simply divorced yourself from your own sense of morality just so you can bend over backwards to exalt the republicans from blame. It's utterly ridiculous that anyone would support those in charge acting in such bad faith against the interests of the people and find it acceptable because it's 'their side' that benefits from it. Politics is not a game.I have not divorced myself. If it were up to me i would force congress to handle things differently than they do. What your suggesting is that republicans should not act in their own selfish interests when we all know democrats do the same thing.
Do you remember how they passed ACA into law, did you complain about that? It was dirty pool and the left defended it. Politics isnt a gentleman's game its a bare knuckle fight.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Trouble1321075]

It might actually do the US good to have abortion taken away for a couple of years, so they can start to realise the US experiment was to move away from European theocracies not create a new one.Abortion should be decided on a local level not a federal one.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Trouble1321075]

To put an exclamation point on this conversation about hypocrisy. This season of BB usa we have 3 blacks on the show. 2 girls and 1 guy. The girls were approach about voting out the guy and they said they would not vote out someone who is black. I personally don't have a problem with that. They can vote on who they want for whatever reason they want but imagine the reaction if someone said they would not vote out a white person. There is no shortage of hypocrisy on either side. The selective outrage based on partisanship does not move me. Both sides are guilty of it and neither side has any room to complain about it when they get a taste of it back.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[The Slim Reaper]

Abortion should be decided on a local level not a federal one.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

So local that it's decided on the female level.

You do realise the first 2 things they'll do will be to abolish abortion at the federal level (rendering local level irrelevant), and cancel obamacare, kicking millions off healthcare and removing pre-condition protections, in the middle of a pandemic?

[Trouble1321075]

So local that it's decided on the female level.

You do realise the first 2 things they'll do will be to abolish abortion at the federal level (rendering local level irrelevant), and cancel obamacare, kicking millions off healthcare and removing pre-condition protections, in the middle of a pandemic?

I think i may be the one person on the planet who is indifferent about abortion.
As far as obamacare goes, i don't think it should of ever been passed in the first place. I think it makes matters even worse than they were before. It is the wrong approach to lowering costs if thats the goal.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Tom4784]

I have not divorced myself. If it were up to me i would force congress to handle things differently than they do. What your suggesting is that republicans should not act in their own selfish interests when we all know democrats do the same thing.
Do you remember how they passed ACA into law, did you complain about that? It was dirty pool and the left defended it. Politics isnt a gentleman's game its a bare knuckle fight.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You're making excuses for selfish behaviour by people who should be fighting for you, not degrading your rights for their own profit.

Hypothetical hypocrisy does not counter very real hypocrisy. You can bleat on about democrats forever, but it doesn't change the fact you are defending ACTUAL hypocrisy just because it comes from the side you favour.

Yes, how dare the Democrats pass a law that granted affordable healthcare to those who wouldn't have it before. Such hypocrites. Oh wait, creating a law that benefits the country is way different to forcing through the appointment of a judge that defies precedent that the Republicans enforced during the last election year. Honestly, your comparison just doesn't work. Apples and oranges.

It's quite sad how people will defend those who stand upon their necks.

[Trouble1321075]

You're making excuses for selfish behaviour by people who should be fighting for you, not degrading your rights for their own profit.



Hypothetical hypocrisy does not counter very real hypocrisy. You can bleat on about democrats forever, but it doesn't change the fact you are defending ACTUAL hypocrisy just because it comes from the side you favour.



Yes, how dare the Democrats pass a law that granted affordable healthcare to those who wouldn't have it before. Such hypocrites. Oh wait, creating a law that benefits the country is way different to forcing through the appointment of a judge that defies precedent that the Republicans enforced during the last election year. Honestly, your comparison just doesn't work. Apples and oranges.



It's quite sad how people will defend those who stand upon their necks.

The democrats are not fighting for you any more than the republicans are fighting for me. They are telling us the things they think we want to hear to get our votes. They dont give a damn about you, me or anyone but themselves.
You claim i am defending the republicans because I favor them. I generally do view them as the lesser of two evils but that has nothing to do with I am defending them. I am defending them because they are not breaking any rules. I may or may not like the judge they appoint, i dont like the last 2, but they have the power and the right to nominate whoever they want. If democrats think its unfair they should of made a rule in congress that prevents it. Don't forget it was harry reid who ended the filibuster rule for judges when he was the democrats leader of the senate. If that rule were in place the democrats could of blocked not just this next nomination but the 2 previous ones as well. Democrats didn't like having their judicial nominations blocked. They didn't want to negotiate with the other side so they changed it to a simple majority vote and now they are reaping what they sowed.
Rest assured republicans are gonna find themselves in the wrong side of this rule someday too. I will be equally unsympathetic to them too.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Nicky91]

Im not denying reality. I am acknowledging it. Republicans control the senate and the whitehouse. They are going to confirm a judge to their liking.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

yep and they will remain like that until 2040 at least since that is how long Trump is gonna remain in office

:smug:

[Trouble1321075]

yep and they will remain like that until 2040 at least since that is how long Trump is gonna remain in office



:smug:im assuming you meant 2024

If that does happen, I can see Trump getting 2 more appointees. Breyer is getting up their in years and thomas has expressed a desire to retired in the past. The scotus could end up with 5 Trump appointees on it.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Tom4784]

The democrats are not fighting for you any more than the republicans are fighting for me. They are telling us the things they think we want to hear to get our votes. They dont give a damn about you, me or anyone but themselves.
You claim i am defending the republicans because I favor them. I generally do view them as the lesser of two evils but that has nothing to do with I am defending them. I am defending them because they are not breaking any rules. I may or may not like the judge they appoint, i dont like the last 2, but they have the power and the right to nominate whoever they want. If democrats think its unfair they should of made a rule in congress that prevents it. Don't forget it was harry reid who ended the filibuster rule for judges when he was the democrats leader of the senate. If that rule were in place the democrats could of blocked not just this next nomination but the 2 previous ones as well. Democrats didn't like having their judicial nominations blocked. They didn't want to negotiate with the other side so they changed it to a simple majority vote and now they are reaping what they sowed.
Rest assured republicans are gonna find themselves in the wrong side of this rule someday too. I will be equally unsympathetic to them too.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Of course they aren't fighting for me, I'm not american.

There's no logic in saying that the Republicans are the lesser of two evils when you have Mitch McConnell voting down measures to prevent outside influence (IE Russia) with the election, choosing to vote down Covid relief in favour of making more judge appointments etc, how can you say Republicans are the lesser of two evils when Trump has committed endless crimes whilst in office and had all but one of the republicans clear him for it?

Answer me this, how can you say that the republicans are the lesser of two evils when it's been the republicans politicising and underplaying the pandemic to the tune of over 200,000 deaths? How about the human rights abuses going on at the border? Obama introduced a law that gave the authorities the power to seperate immigrant children at the border from their guardians if they suspected abuse and/or trafficking. This power was not used much at all during Obama's administration, yet the Trump administration used it as justification for their cruelty by splitting up thousands of families and leaving children to die in cells they shouldn't have been in. The republicans have basically allowed concentration camps to pop up along the border yet they are the lesser of two evils, in your eyes?!

I advise you spend less time watching Fox News.

[arista]

Ginsburg Supreme Court: Republicans secure vote for replacement


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-54254141

[bots]

Each side does what they have the political power to achieve. It's hardly surprising that the GoP want a new judge in their image when they have the power to see it through, the dems would do exactly the same in that position

[arista]

Trump has now appointed
Was Live on the 2 News Channels

Amy Barrett as the New Supreme Court


She is a Strict Catholic.

https://news.sky.com/story/trump-nominates-amy-coney-barrett-to-replace-ruth-bader-ginsburg-on-supreme-court-12082954

https://e3.365dm.com/20/09/768x432/a8bdefb6ca3593b8b760690dd7e8492e9fbf4b2a3f82ef145f 7ee9558248141d_5109997.jpg?bypass-service-worker&

[Nicky91]

very strategic this from Trump, going for a woman :idc:


also he called her a very intellectual lady 4 times (i counted)


very predictable this aiming for women voters

[Nicky91]

but congrats on winning another term Trump (ugh you bought yourself another win)

[Tom4784]

Amy Barrett, who belongs to a religion (Read: cult) that believes women should be subservient to men and may, or may not, have inspired the Handmaid's Tale. She is also, like almost every other republican in existence, a rampaging hypocrite as she said in 2016 that a Supreme Court judge should not be appointed until after the election.

[Nicky91]

also that moment where Trump got boo'd at Ruth's memorial service

i don't think any previous u.s president had been boo'd that much

[Crimson Dynamo]

also that moment where Trump got boo'd at Ruth's memorial service

i don't think any previous u.s president had been boo'd that much

clinton was bood more at memorial services and abe lincoln

[Cherie]

Pretty sure Jie Biden is also a catholic, not sure why that has been dragged up in Amy’ case, it’s so close to the election this appointment should have been delayed

[bots]

She has to go through an approval process the same as Kavanaugh did. The dems need to be very careful how they approach this so that they don't alienate voters ... so things like religion, race, immigration, abortion are all going to be sticky topics

[Nicky91]

2 republican senators test positive for covid-19, potentially jeopardizing Barrett's confirmation vote

https://whdh.com/news/two-gop-senators-test-positive-for-covid-19-potentially-jeopardizing-barrett-confirmation-vote/


also Live now ongoing discussion on CNN