[Coldwinter]

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/2020/09/18/10030...ity-dies-at-87

[MB.]

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

[FaLaLaLand]

An absolute legend. RIP.

[arista]

https://news.sky.com/story/us-suprem...-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]

Originally Posted by 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/2020/09/18/10030...ity-dies-at-87

For 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

[Holly Christmas]

RIP

[Ammi]

...a great age for a great lady......

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

[GiRTh]

Originally Posted by Ammi

...a great age for a great lady......

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

A great loss. RIP

[Ammi]

Originally Posted by GiRTh

A great loss. RIP

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

...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."

[Time to Sleigh]

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]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

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...

[Parmy]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...t-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.

[arista]

Republicans vow to vote on Trump pick

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

[Trouble1321075]

Originally Posted by arista

Republicans vow to vote on Trump pick

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

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

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by Trouble1321075

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]

Originally Posted by Liam-

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-]

Originally Posted by Trouble1321075

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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Trouble1321075

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.

[Trouble1321075]

Originally Posted by Dezzy

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

[Tom4784]

Originally Posted by Trouble1321075

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.

[Liam-]

Of course they do, because they’re hypocrites

[Trouble1321075]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Of course they do, because they’re hypocrites

Ginsburg 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