Forum Thread

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 15 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    npr.org/2018/12/21/679065534/justice-ru...

    Her health is not doing well and its not looking like she will survive the next two years as a SCJ.

    However, its practically guaranteed that the House will stonewall anybody Trump nominates unless he actually picks someone both parties like. Both the house and senate could jointly agree to list of top 3 that everybody could support, but unlikely Trump would accept anybody that would be a unbiased judge.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The House does not have a say in the approval of the President's Supreme Court nominations. The Senate Judiciary Committee first screens the candidate and if acceptable then puts the name forward to the full Senate. It used to be that the Senate required a 60 vote majority for approval of Supreme Court nominations, but Mitch McConnel changed the rules in April 2017 invoking the "nuclear option" to a simple majority vote. That allowed McConnell to push approval of both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court without the usual pushback of Senate minority party members.

    Not only that, he blocked President Obama's choice of Merrick Garland until after the election, thus giving Republicans a freebee with Trump's election win. Instead of Garland we have Gorsuch.

    If RGB dies in office no matter the date, McConnell will ramrod through another Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Federalist Society candidate -- even if it happens right before the election or right after the election. He controls the rule making and is absolutely ruthless in this regard.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt Wrote:

    The House does not have a say in the approval of the President's Supreme Court nominations. The Senate Judiciary Committee first screens the candidate and if acceptable then puts the name forward to the full Senate. It used to be that the Senate required a 60 vote majority for approval of Supreme Court nominations, but Mitch McConnel changed the rules in April 2017 invoking the "nuclear option" to a simple majority vote. That allowed McConnell to push approval of both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court without the usual pushback of Senate minority party members.

    Not only that, he blocked President Obama's choice of Merrick Garland until after the election, thus giving Republicans a freebee with Trump's election win. Instead of Garland we have Gorsuch.

    If RGB dies in office no matter the date, McConnell will ramrod through another Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Federalist Society candidate -- even if it happens right before the election or right after the election. He controls the rule making and is absolutely ruthless in this regard.

    Again this shows how outdated our laws and rules are; is McConnell "king"?
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    We need a cure for cancer, I have known several people, including my mom who died from it. Instead of spending money on wars and fighting each other, we should be spending money on finding a cure.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Yes my Mom also died of cancer. As we get older, we notice that more and more of our relatives and friends are afflicted with the disease. The baby boomer generation will feel it more as they age past retirement.

    RBG had excellent care to discover and treat her cancer early. Most Americans are not so lucky.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    That's true, by the time they found my mom had it, it was too late, plus there weren't treatments for cancer back then like they have now. If you had cancer in the 1980's or earlier, your chances of surviving were slim to none.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    A coronavirus outbreak that infected President Trump and spread to the Senate threw a fresh element of uncertainty on Friday into the politically fraught fight over installing Judge Amy Coney Barrett on the Supreme Court before Election Day, as Republicans vowed to press ahead and Democrats insisted on a pause.

    Pulling off a complex confirmation that touches all three branches of government in the four weeks remaining before the election always promised to be a daunting task for Republicans in the middle of a pandemic. But by Friday evening, with the White House and Congress in turmoil and two Republican members of the Judiciary Committee, Senators Mike Lee of Utah and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, among those announcing they had tested positive for the virus, it was clear that the challenge had grown steeper.

    Top Republicans insisted they would move ahead at an uncommonly swift pace to hold hearings on Judge Barrett’s nomination by Oct. 12, send her nomination to the full Senate by Oct. 22 and confirm her as soon as Oct. 26, eight days before Election Day — even if it meant breaking Senate norms and considering a lifetime judicial nomination by videoconference. But the latest outbreak raised the possibility that Republicans could lose their slim majority in the Judiciary Committee or on the Senate floor.

    Two Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have already raised objections to moving ahead before the election, reducing the wiggle room in the 53-47 Republican majority.

    Let's to the math.

    If Lee and Tillis quarantine for 14 days, the EARLIEST that votes could be taken would be October 17. If any of the eight Republican senators who were present in the Rose Garden test positive, that pushes the time line back further.

    As of right now, the Republicans have 49 votes, and Pence's vote would not give them the 51 votes that they neeed.

    It gave Democrats, who were already objecting to Mr. Trump’s push to install a new Supreme Court justice so close to the election, a new reason to call for a delay. Seeing a potential opening, top Democrats called for the Senate to pause and assess the scope of the outbreak. They declared that a fully virtual hearing for a candidate for a lifetime appointment to the nation’s highest court would be unacceptable.

    Mr. Lee and Mr. Tillis were among at least eight Republican senators present at the White House event, where some guests also gathered indoors and where video captured Mr. Lee hugging other attendees without a mask. Mr. Tillis wore a mask.

    Both men are on the Judiciary Committee and met with Judge Barrett on Capitol Hill this week indoors, without masks, as did more than a dozen others.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/02/us/supreme-court-trump-coronavirus.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Image may contain: 1 person, eyeglasses and closeup, text that says 'God works in mysterious ways donnie!'

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Breaking news:

    Wisconsin senator Ron Johnson announced this morning that he has tested positive, which brings the GOP count down to 48 - so far.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    We have discussed the US Constitution in other threads, but I thought this article on her perspective of the South African Constitution should be shared here.

    Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a fan of South Africa's constitution

    Quoting Ginsburg: “[South Africa’s constitution] was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. It really is a great piece of work.

    "In a 2012 interview with Egypt’s Al Hayat TV—in the wake of the Arab Spring uprising and democratic optimism there, she advised that the South African document was a better model to follow than the American one because of its more recent creation, but also because of its content. “That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US Constitution.”"

    Having made four trips to Cape Town I have observed the difficulties in bringing together a country that not too long ago was sanctioned for their apartheid policies. America could learn a lot from the new South Africa and that includes what leadership is about.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Schmidt, I'm glad you see it this way. Indeed the US can learn a lot from other countries. But yeah don't forget that this is an arrogant "island" who always know it better, ask Trump. For instance things like an "second amendment" or "laws" for presidents and their "limits" as well "mandatory" tax returns if they "run" for the job. The list goes on and on, like "election reform" without "money" Yes this country has an lot to learn, but refuses to do so. It will end up as Rome did.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The passing of Ruth Bader Ginzburg gave Mitch McConnell an opportunity to rush through the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett, ANOTHER conservative judge.

    There's a reason that her appointment should concern us, and it's not abortion of the Affordable Care Act.

    It's the election.

    Four justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas — have resuscitated a half-baked theory three justices espoused in Bush v. Gore to let Republicans trash ballots after Election Day. Chief Justice John Roberts has not joined his four colleagues in this misadventure. But if the recently seated Justice Amy Coney Barrett sides with the quartet, America could be in for a battle that makes Bush v. Gore look tame.

    Last week, in an opinion blocking an extended ballot deadline in Wisconsin, Kavanaugh highlighted this minority rationale from Bush v. Gore — the first such reference to that infamous decision since 2000. The "text of the Constitution requires federal courts to ensure that state courts do not rewrite state election laws,” Kavanaugh argued. Rehnquist had “persuasively explained” this two decades ago in his concurrence, Kavanaugh claimed, and the court had “unanimously” affirmed it in Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board, an antecedent to Bush v. Gore.

    This ascendant chorus from the Supreme Court’s most conservative bloc is frightening. It affords exclusive and unbounded power to state legislatures to set the terms of federal elections without oversight from or supplementation by any entity including any court — state or federal. And it clashes with the checks and balances that animate our federal system.

    Consider how state legislators could be used to warp elections if this absolutist vision were to prevail. Legislators could ignore the results of the statewide popular vote and just name their largest campaign contributors — or themselves — as electors.

    https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/11/01/opinion/conservative-supreme-court-justices-are-threatening-post-election-coup/?p1=HP_Feed_ContentQuery

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Yes, the stupid Dem's allowed all of this instead of "boycotting" the whole thing. It will be the noose around their necks for ages to come. Sure it will affect the "elections". They ( Dem's) were sound asleep; why? I guess because Pelosi and others are also "religious" which stopped them from forceably rejecting this nomination; sorry I call these people super "hypocrites".

    Even if Biden wins, then the "church" will rule, because he's also an fanatic "religious" indoctrinated person. The Supreme Court will still try to toss out Obama care and ban any abortion etc. Everything what the Dem's want will be an uphill fight.

    If Trump wins; actually the same will happen, but likely worse if it suits Trump. Anyway any "plans" or "health care" can be forgotten and the swamp will become an polluted "ocean"instead. Then forget this country; even Venezuela will be an"paradise" compared to this mismanaged "island". Amen

    But yeah, I guess the people here want that.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Since this "thread" is about Ginsburg, then I've come to the conclusion that she was "murdered". The FBI should have investigated and done an authopsy on the body. She was already very weak, so it was the ideal situation to pull it of. The medical technology is so advanced that she could have stayed on equipment to keep her alive until today. So I smell an "rat"

    Investigate who the "doctors" were and how "rich" they got!!

    The Khahoggi and Epstein cases are still very doubtful of what happened and who was behind this. It is very clear "WHO' this was. Wake up America you invited an "killer" into the W.H.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I sure hope so.abortion and Obama care should be thrown out.abortion btw takes way more lives than the corona virus has or ever will.