Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87

[Doctor Cringelord]

But why is justice viewed politically in the first place?

I do agree with you - nevertheless I don't think justice should change if I am a centrist, you are a leftist, and Johnny down the road is a staunch conservative. Justice is justice...

I’m not viewing it politically, but the court should be balanced in a way that more closely resembles the actual country. Most citizens don’t neatly fall into the left or right and the court should somewhat resemble that makeup.

Especially when considering ideas of “justice” tend to vary from person to person and group to group.

 

[Coriolis]

I’m not viewing it politically, but the court should be balanced in a way that more closely resembles the actual country. Most citizens don’t neatly fall into the left or right and the court should somewhat resemble that makeup.

Especially when considering ideas of “justice” tend to vary from person to person and group to group.

Exactly. Justice itself should not be political, but different views of what constitutes justice definitely can be, as are the people responsible for delivering justice. Is it just to own a slave? To pay women less than men? To prevent gay people from marrying? To let children in poor towns receive a poor education? These are all questions that have been examined by courts over the years, and on which people of different political viewpoints have offered different judgments.

 

[The Cat]

the scales need to be balanced or the illusion of civility fails.

 

[anticlimatic]

Democrats are terrible at picking justices. Republican appointees for the most part often rule against their political priors in the name of jurisprudence, whereas democrat appointed judges are always in lock step with their political priors. Honestly they should be banned from selecting judges at this point- since they're clearly using the Supreme Court to ram down an agenda rather than interpret the constitution.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Totenkindly]

 

[Totenkindly]

So, serious question -- the reason we negotiate rules and laws is to avoid physical altercation / violence when there are differences of opinion. Society is our way to avoid escalation of conflict.

How far does the system have to break down / be exploited until it eventually fails and people just stop playing altogether, and then what?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Democrats are terrible at picking justices. Republican appointees for the most part often rule against their political priors in the name of jurisprudence, whereas democrat appointed judges are always in lock step with their political priors. Honestly they should be banned from selecting judges at this point- since they're clearly using the Supreme Court to ram down an agenda rather than interpret the constitution.

I think it's just a case that with the exception of judges like Scalia and Thomas, most justices tend to move left at that level. It's a completely different world--presiding over a regional/local court versus presiding over the national level court where one must take into consideration the whims and beliefs of more than just their local jurisdiction (not to mention having to take into consideration that their decisions now will have far greater range and effect). I don't see how this system would make it as likely for already left leaning judges to move rightward. The natural tendency of most SC justices seems to become more moderated or progressive in their views with time.

 

[Virtual ghost]

So, serious question -- the reason we negotiate rules and laws is to avoid physical altercation / violence when there are differences of opinion. Society is our way to avoid escalation of conflict.

How far does the system have to break down / be exploited until it eventually fails and people just stop playing altogether, and then what?

As the guy that actually went through this "braking down" I can say that a lot depends on culture and circumstances. However very large chunk of the equation comes down to the point in time when normal life is no longer possible for 10 to 20% of the people, while another 50% is struggling. While on the other hand the government is not putting out fires fast or precisely enough.
Plus international approval should be generally bad since that cripples the possibility of fast recovery. Because the factor that blows up is the whole thing is hopelessness, which will "force" people to turn on each other through blame games or what not. Therefore this is simply the point where pretty much everything can implode simply over night. Thus far elections are kinda counter-intuitively holding you in place by adding pressure that hold things in place. However when that ends it is possible that there will be some tectonic shift, regardless of who wins. Maybe everything be be 'ok" under current circumstances but defining a path can trigger people and cause the already mentioned hopelessness. Which is why it is very important that the winner lowers the tensions as quickly as possible after election day (what wouldn't be trivial to achieve).

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Romney has a point in his 2 wrongs don't make a right reasoning for supporting moving forward with a vote, I just wish he'd been in the senate back in 2016 to chastise the other republicans for pulling the stall tactics back then.

His reasoning being that just because it was wrong in 2016 doesn't make it right now in 2020. Besides, I bet anything he'll still vote against the first choice, likely leading to more procedurals in hopes of stalling a final vote, assuming enough GOP senators defect to join him and the dems.

I'm still of the mind that the dems should do everything in their power to stall whilst reminding everyone of what the gop did in 2016. Voters are stupid creatures with short memories and need to be reminded of this too, otherwise they'll just notice the dems doing it as the inevitable complaints of unfairness come from McConnell and his boot lickers

 

[anticlimatic]

I think it's just a case that with the exception of judges like Scalia and Thomas, most justices tend to move left at that level. It's a completely different world--presiding over a regional/local court versus presiding over the national level court where one must take into consideration the whims and beliefs of more than just their local jurisdiction (not to mention having to take into consideration that their decisions now will have far greater range and effect). I don't see how this system would make it as likely for already left leaning judges to move rightward. The natural tendency of most SC justices seems to become more moderated or progressive in their views with time.

I certainly don't blame you for having that view, since evidence at a glance would support it. But justices aren't supposed to take "whims" into account at all. They do, but it isn't right. It isn't their job to be high and mighty presiders over the land. Their only job is to interpret an ancient traditionalist document for the sake of measuring current issues against it for the sake of ensuring the type of justice for all americans that the ancient document intends. It's mostly a game of semantics and context, so I don't really understand why you think there is an inherit pull to the left that just "is there." Perhaps you could elaborate. Because at the moment my interpretation- that the reason republican appointed justices occasionally rule against their own political priors, is because the semantics and contextualizing inherit to the job can unbiasadly lead that way, in the type of impartiality we all would hope for and expect in a judge. Meanwhile, no democrat appointee ever (or maybe seldomly) seems to do the job as intended, since they pick their political priors first and then just rule in ways that justify them, despite semantics and context. As though bought and paid for by politicians, or at the very least complete failures at impartiality.

Do you think that justices lean left "at that level," because like RGB herself, you feel like the left represents a superior path to which the future is ultimately beholden?

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I certainly don't blame you for having that view, since evidence at a glance would support it. But justices aren't supposed to take "whims" into account at all. They do, but it isn't right. It isn't their job to be high and mighty presiders over the land. Their only job is to interpret an ancient traditionalist document for the sake of measuring current issues against it for the sake of ensuring the type of justice for all americans that the ancient document intends. It's mostly a game of semantics and context, so I don't really understand why you think there is an inherit pull to the left that just "is there." Perhaps you could elaborate. Because at the moment my interpretation- that the reason republican appointed justices occasionally rule against their own political priors, is because the semantics and contextualizing inherit to the job can unbiasadly lead that way, in the type of impartiality we all would hope for and expect in a judge. Meanwhile, no democrat appointee ever (or maybe seldomly) seems to do the job as intended, since they pick their political priors first and then just rule in ways that justify them, despite semantics and context. As though bought and paid for by politicians, or at the very least complete failures at impartiality.

Do you think that justices lean left "at that level," because like RGB herself, you feel like the left represents a superior path to which the future is ultimately beholden?

All this or any country have been at any given moment through history are the codified guardians of collective whims

 

[Virtual ghost]

They knew that they have needed hands even before they knew who is the candidate.

This is interesting perspective on the issue.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Romney has a point in his 2 wrongs don't make a right reasoning for supporting moving forward with a vote, I just wish he'd been in the senate back in 2016 to chastise the other republicans for pulling the stall tactics back then.

His reasoning being that just because it was wrong in 2016 doesn't make it right now in 2020. Besides, I bet anything he'll still vote against the first choice, likely leading to more procedurals in hopes of stalling a final vote, assuming enough GOP senators defect to join him and the dems.

I'm still of the mind that the dems should do everything in their power to stall whilst reminding everyone of what the gop did in 2016. Voters are stupid creatures with short memories and need to be reminded of this too, otherwise they'll just notice the dems doing it as the inevitable complaints of unfairness come from McConnell and his boot lickers

The thing about this is that it's weird to consider it "wrong" to give back something stolen in the first place. If the situations were completely reversed and a Democratic majority refused to vote on a Republican POTUS nominee for a year again - even that wouldn't really be "wrong" because Moscow Mitch is the one who forced that bizarre (and temporary) 'rule' into place. The only move by Democrats I might consider equally "wrong" would be if a Democratic Senate pushed norms *as much* as he did by refusing to vote for 2 years instead of 1.

I think it's weird and shamelessly manipulative (per usual for them) to call it "two wrongs." They stole something that they now have an opportunity to return, to help mend the damage they've done on so many levels by abusing power the past few years, and they simply don't want to do it.

The fact that Romney is the closest any of them come to admitting it was a wrongful abuse of power in the first place doesn't amount to much because he's still also putting forth convoluted logic to take this seat.

(The only reason they have the majority that gives them power to abuse in the first place is because of unfair power grabs like gerrymandering. If nothing else, hopefully this all energizes Dems to fight harder to get rid of gerrymandering and electoral college once and for all.)

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

The thing about this is that it's weird to consider it "wrong" to give back something stolen in the first place. If the situations were completely reversed and a Democratic majority refused to vote on a Republican POTUS nominee for a year again - even that wouldn't really be "wrong" because Moscow Mitch is the one who forced that bizarre (and temporary) 'rule' into place. The only move by Democrats I might consider equally "wrong" would be if a Democratic Senate pushed norms *as much* as he did by refusing to vote for 2 years instead of 1.

I think it's weird and shamelessly manipulative (per usual for them) to call it "two wrongs." They stole something that they now have an opportunity to return, to help mend the damage they've done on so many levels by abusing power the past few years, and they simply don't want to do it.

The fact that Romney is the closest any of them come to admitting it was a wrongful abuse of power in the first place doesn't amount to much because he's still also putting forth convoluted logic to take this seat.

(The only reason they have the majority that gives them power to abuse in the first place is because of unfair power grabs like gerrymandering. If nothing else, hopefully this all energizes Dems to fight harder to get rid of gerrymandering and electoral college once and for all.)

I think his logic in this case was pretty straightforward, I just don't agree with his final conclusion for other reasons. But his logic here is actually sound and had it been followed in the first place in 2016, we wouldn't be where we are right now.

Unfortunately he wasn't in the senate in 2016, so we have no real way of knowing if he would've joined McConnell or spoken up about a delay being wrong based on the principle of constitutional law.

It gives Romney a nice cushy spot of being able to say the whole thing is wrong whilst ultimately supporting a vote in 2020, as we can't really hold him to what the senate did in 2016 like we can his GOP peers who were serving at the time. He's basically saying "They were wrong then but this time they're right" and he isn't incorrect if you consider he's framing it in terms of constitutional procedure and tradition. It's a far more cushy spot to be in than aforementioned peers who now have to justify their past dismissal of tradition and principle whilst arguing their current actions are based in the same principle and tradition they so casually ignored when it suited their political ends.

In principle, I think he is right, but the whole past drama that led up to this makes the whole thing reek, regardless

 

[Totenkindly]

The thing about this is that it's weird to consider it "wrong" to give back something stolen in the first place. If the situations were completely reversed and a Democratic majority refused to vote on a Republican POTUS nominee for a year again - even that wouldn't really be "wrong" because Moscow Mitch is the one who forced that bizarre (and temporary) 'rule' into place. The only move by Democrats I might consider equally "wrong" would be if a Democratic Senate pushed norms *as much* as he did by refusing to vote for 2 years instead of 1.

I think it's weird and shamelessly manipulative (per usual for them) to call it "two wrongs." They stole something that they now have an opportunity to return, to help mend the damage they've done on so many levels by abusing power the past few years, and they simply don't want to do it.

The fact that Romney is the closest any of them come to admitting it was a wrongful abuse of power in the first place doesn't amount to much because he's still also putting forth convoluted logic to take this seat.

(The only reason they have the majority that gives them power to abuse in the first place is because of unfair power grabs like gerrymandering. If nothing else, hopefully this all energizes Dems to fight harder to get rid of gerrymandering and electoral college once and for all.)

I'm with you.

I also see people whining about Romney on FaceBook for this stance when they were counting on him standing up against everything, and I have to laugh. How many times does a person need to get bitch-slapped before they realize that compliance and negotiation no longer works? What has changed since last time? Nothing. I am fully expecting them all to just do what they've done every other time, and we can name the few who will make a pretense of wavering while still contributing to the same outcome regardless. These past 4-5 days have been exactly what I expected.

I had my little rage-fit back in 2004, and simply left the party I was in because I realized they would never change; and it hasn't, really, it's all just gotten so much worse.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I never expected a strong ally in Romney. I’m glad he isn’t part of the Trump bootlicking brigade and wish more of his party followed his lead. But given the rare chance to play a hand in selecting a conservative justice, his actions are very much in character with who Romney is and whatever he believes

 

[anticlimatic]

All this or any country have been at any given moment through history are the codified guardians of collective whims

I guess the constitution falls under that concept- I thought you meant that it was to be constantly subject to change based on trends or majority/mob rule (which Roberts in particular is partial to, but which is not his job).

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I guess the constitution falls under that concept- I thought you meant that it was to be constantly subject to change based on trends or majority/mob rule (which Roberts in particular is partial to, but which is not his job).

No, but I’d support a rewriting of it every generation or so, like Jefferson himself favored.

 

[anticlimatic]

Grassley may keep his word:

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told Fox News in 2018 he would not support a Supreme Court nomination vote in 2020 following the commitment he made in 2016, adding “that's a decision I made a long time ago."

Supreme Court confirmation fight: No nominee yet, but McConnell already on the cusp of having the votes - CNNPolitics

Sens. Chuck Grassley and Cory Gardner, both considered possible defectors, came out in support of moving forward with the nomination on Monday.
GOP Sen. Mitt Romney of Utah -- one of the remaining wild cards going into the morning -- signaled Tuesday that he's on board with an election year confirmation for a Supreme Court nominee, saying in a statement that if a nominee reaches the Senate floor then he will vote "based upon their qualifications." His comments all but ensure that the nomination is on track for election year confirmation.