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

[The Cat]

Did they ask her? I haven't watched any of it. (I'm not sleeping as it is). If yes, who? So I can search for it.

She hasnt answered any of the questions that you'd want a justice to be able to answer...

 

[Totenkindly]

I'd love to hear how ACB reconciles her nomination with "originalism."

The concept of "originalism" kinda grosses me out. Expecting everyone to live by text written by a handful of men who died hundreds of years ago seems like a stone's throw from authoritarianism.

Viewed that way, I suppose her view of the Constitution and of the Bible sound pretty similar.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Tradcon lady should follow her beliefs and go back to the kitchen if that’s what she wants.

 

[anticlimatic]

She hasnt answered any of the questions that you'd want a justice to be able to answer...

You can thank Joe Biden for that. I agree it's a stupid rule.

The Ginsburg Rule | The Heritage Foundation

 

[The Cat]

Nice form, but a little rough on the landing, he may have to settle for the bronze.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Viewed that way, I suppose her view of the Constitution and of the Bible sound pretty similar.

That's actually exactly what I was thinking, that it reminds me of conversations I've had with (some) Christians about why some things in the Bible - even though there's no organic, logical reason for it - absolutely must not ever be considered, while other things in the Bible are considered "outdated". The distinction seems arbitrary sometimes.

One difference though is that the Bible was (allegedly) written by God, whereas the Constitution was written by men. And I'd almost wonder if so much reverence/obeisance (we mustn't question their ideas, but instead simply obey them) doesn't fall into "worshipping a false God" territory.

At any rate, it sounds like bullshit. Being sheeple to expired dogma just doesn't really have a place in the highest court of any democracy.

 

[Totenkindly]

I don't see that as speculation. It seems clear to me that they view America as God's nation, the creation of the country is holy and sacrosanct, it's why we're still having these fucking fights where these historical figures are put on a pedestal and unable to be criticized even when there are obvious contradictions in their personalities (it's how they view their OT Bible heroes too), and we get all the crazy imagery today involving god, guns, etc.

Take Columbus for example, why can't he be viewed for anything positive he accomplished while also criticized for any ills he contributed to or generated? Why put him on a pedestal? It's okay to reassess whether we want to venerate something based on our current understanding of the past. Instead we get some WH scree dogmatically looking at any criticism and reassessment as some kind of attack upon their sacred history. That's the most recent fight du jour but it's all the time with something.

I guess from a more philosophical level, we could compare those comparing the written word versus the spoken word, which are the poles of the current fight (the written word is inflexible and fixed in stone, the spoken word is dynamic and understands that the world changes so the word must be respoken to address the needs of the moment). The Bible and the Constitution are either viewed as rigid and fixed in stone by one side or as dynamic documents by the other that must be interpreted and reapplied to catch the spirit of the more recent moment...

Sorry, i'm multitasking, so this is more of a sketch of a post versus a carefully worded one, but I hope I am still getting the point across...

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

 

[ceecee]

I don't see that as speculation. It seems clear to me that they view America as God's nation, the creation of the country is holy and sacrosanct, it's why we're still having these fucking fights where these historical figures are put on a pedestal and unable to be criticized even when there are obvious contradictions in their personalities (it's how they view their OT Bible heroes too), and we get all the crazy imagery today involving god, guns, etc.

Take Columbus for example, why can't he be viewed for anything positive he accomplished while also criticized for any ills he contributed to or generated? Why put him on a pedestal? It's okay to reassess whether we want to venerate something based on our current understanding of the past. Instead we get some WH scree dogmatically looking at any criticism and reassessment as some kind of attack upon their sacred history. That's the most recent fight du jour but it's all the time with something.

I guess from a more philosophical level, we could compare those comparing the written word versus the spoken word, which are the poles of the current fight (the written word is inflexible and fixed in stone, the spoken word is dynamic and understands that the world changes so the word must be respoken to address the needs of the moment). The Bible and the Constitution are either viewed as rigid and fixed in stone by one side or as dynamic documents by the other that must be interpreted and reapplied to catch the spirit of the more recent moment...

Sorry, i'm multitasking, so this is more of a sketch of a post versus a carefully worded one, but I hope I am still getting the point across...

How to Pray for the 7 Mountains of Influence in America - Kenneth Copeland Ministries Blog

I truly hope, at the very least, Americans stop believing that the promise of a secular government is infallible. That means staying educated, informed and omg - talking about politics. There is a reason people have it in their heads that politics is a subject not to be discussed - it doesn't make that a smart idea as it's much of the reason we ended up here.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Heather Cox Richardson's Letters From An American post from last night:

Second, though, the timing of the story [about Hunter Biden and the emails] suggests it was designed to distract from the third and final day of Amy Coney Barrett’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in her hearing for confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court. The hearings have not been going particularly well for the Republicans. They have the votes to confirm her, and confirm her they will, but her insistence that she is an “originalist,” along with her refusal to answer any questions on topics relevant to the present, including on racial prejudice, climate change, voter suppression, and so on, have made her extremism clear.

Democrats have hammered home that putting Barrett on the court at this moment is an extraordinary power grab, and voters seem to agree. Turning attention away from the hearings would be useful for the Republicans when voters are on their way to the polls.

And yet, Republicans are determined to force her appointment through, even though it threatens to delegitimize the Supreme Court.

To what end?

The originalism of scholars like Barrett is an answer to the judges who, in the years after World War Two, interpreted the law to make American democracy live up to its principles, making all Americans equal before the law. With the New Deal in the 1930s, the Democrats under Franklin Delano Roosevelt had set out to level the economic playing field between the wealthy and ordinary Americans. They regulated business, provided a basic social safety net, and promoted infrastructure.

After the war, under Chief Justice Earl Warren, a Republican appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, the Supreme Court tried to level the social playing field between Americans through the justices' interpretation of the law. They tried to end segregation through decisions like the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, which prohibited racial segregation in public schools. They protected the rights of accused prisoners to legal counsel, and the right of married couples to use contraception in 1965 (it had previously been illegal). They legalized interracial marriage in 1967. In 1973, they tried to give women control over their own reproduction by legalizing abortion with the Roe v. Wade decision.

The focus of the Supreme Court in these years was not simply on equality before the law. The justices also set out to make the government more responsible to its citizens. It required that electoral districts be roughly equal in population, so that a state could not have one district of a few hundred people with another with a hundred thousand, thus establishing the principle of “one man, one vote.”

These were not partisan decisions, or to the degree they were, they were endorsed primarily by Republicans. The Chief Justices of the Court during these years were Republicans Earl Warren and Warren Burger.

Today’s “originalists” are trying to erase this whole era of legislation and legal decisions. They argue that justices who expanded civil rights and democratic principles were engaging in “judicial activism,” taking away from voters the right to make their own decisions about how society should work. They say that justices in this era, and those like them in the present—people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who protected women’s equality before the law-- were “legislating from the bench.” They hold tight to the argument that the Constitution is limited by the views of the Founders, and that the government can do nothing that is not explicitly written in that 1787 document.

Their desire to roll back the changes of the modern era serves traditional concepts of society and evangelical religion, of course, but it also serves a radical capitalism. If the government is as limited as they say, it cannot protect the rights of minorities or women. But it also cannot regulate business. It cannot provide a social safety net, or promote infrastructure, things that cost tax dollars and, in the case of infrastructure, take lucrative opportunities from private businesses. In short, under the theory of originalism, the government cannot do anything to rein in corporations or the very wealthy.

As Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, illustrated in careful detail at the Barrett hearings yesterday, it is no accident that Barrett’s nomination has the support of secret dark money donors. She will be the key vote to having a solid pro-corporate Supreme Court.

The Trump administration has made it clear that it favors private interests over public ones, combatting regulation and welfare programs, as well as calling for private companies to take over public enterprises like the United States Postal Service. But the New Deal government and the rights enshrined by the Warren and Burger courts are popular in America, so it is imperative for today’s radical Republicans that the courts cement their reworking of the country.

Former White House Counsel Don McGahn explained that the Trump administration wants to skew the judiciary to support its economic agenda. “There is a coherent plan here where actually the judicial selection and the deregulatory effort are really the flip side of the same coin,” he said.

The administration has backed pro-corporate judges whose nominations are bolstered by tens of millions of dollars worth of political advertising paid for by dark money. Trump's Supreme Court appointees have joined other Republican justices on the court, where they consistently prop up business interests—such as with the 2010 Citizens United decision allowing unlimited corporate money in elections—and attack voting rights, as in 2013 with the Shelby v. Holder decision gutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

In 2014, New York Times journalist Linda Greenhouse wrote that it is “impossible to avoid the conclusion that the Republican-appointed majority is committed to harnessing the Supreme Court to an ideological agenda.”

That ideological agenda has profound implications for our society as we know it, beginning with the Affordable Care Act, which the court is slated to take up on November 10, just a week after the election. But it is not just our healthcare that is at stake. At risk is the whole infrastructure of laws protecting our civil rights, as well as our democracy.
​

This^ is why I'm opposed to her. All the crap about overturning Roe vs Wade - I feel like there's no way around the fact that it's a temporary win (if the majority of people in this country feel strongly that it should be legal, it's just a matter of time), and it's not something I feel strongly about. Removing regulations on corporations though, and doing things that will only make the current divides in income inequality worse, will do SO much harm.

eta: Perhaps one if my biggest issues personally is getting rid of Citizen's United. It's fucked up.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Barrett was trustee at private school with anti-gay policies

Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett served for nearly three years on the board of private Christian schools that effectively barred admission to children of same-sex parents and made it plain that openly gay and lesbian teachers weren’t welcome in the classroom.

The policies that discriminated against LGBTQ people and their children were in place for years at Trinity Schools Inc., both before Barrett joined the board in 2015 and during the time she served.

The three schools, in Indiana, Minnesota and Virginia, are affiliated with People of Praise, an insular community rooted in its own interpretation of the Bible, of which Barrett and her husband have been longtime members. At least three of the couple’s seven children have attended the Trinity School at Greenlawn, in South Bend, Indiana.
​

Her religious views are more dogmatic/extreme than the Pope.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I hope whoever RGB's eventual replacement is will at least share her support for due process in all types of cases.

 

[Maou]

Supreme court only interprets the law and constitution, it doesn't make laws. Why are we freaking out again?

Also, people have no issue voting in Muslims who's religions are notoriois for killing gay people and abusing women in places like London. It's only bigotry to call someone out on their religion if it isn't Christianity apparantly.

Also hey guys, did you miss me?

 

[Jonny]

Supreme court only interprets the law and constitution, it doesn't make laws. Why are we freaking out again?

Also, people have no issue voting in Muslims who's religions are notoriois for killing gay people and abusing women in places like London. It's only bigotry to call someone out on their religion if it isn't Christianity apparantly.

Also hey guys, did you miss me?

Yes. Welcome Back! I'm not too concerned about SCOTUS. I think if Dems win a trifecta they should advocate for some sort of reform. I liked Pete Buttigieg's idea about expanding the number of justices to 10 and adding 5 more who are chosen by unanimous vote by the 10 who are appointed by the POTUS. As you say, the SCOTUS "only interprets the law and constitution" so it shouldn't be as political as it has become in recent years. I think you would agree that something needs to change.

 

[Maou]

Yes. Welcome Back! I'm not too concerned about SCOTUS. I think if Dems win a trifecta they should advocate for some sort of reform. I liked Pete Buttigieg's idea about expanding the number of justices to 10 and adding 5 more who are chosen by unanimous vote by the 10 who are appointed by the POTUS. As you say, the SCOTUS "only interprets the law and constitution" so it shouldn't be as political as it has become in recent years. I think you would agree that something needs to change.

Thanks!

Change has to be well thought out, and not partisan if it is going to happen at all. I don't have any confidence in the current government not messing it up, and making it easier for corrupted corperate politicians to pass unconstitutional laws easier. I don't even think people are as intelligent as the founding fathers anymore, as average intelligence has declined in the modern era. As of right now, it works. I think I lean more towards "If it ain't broke, don't "Fix" it." What merits are there to even expanding or changing it?

 

[Jonny]

Thanks!

Change has to be well thought out, and not partisan if it is going to happen at all. I don't have any confidence in the current government not messing it up, and making it easier for corrupted corperate politicians to pass unconstitutional laws easier. I don't even think people are as intelligent as the founding fathers anymore, as average intelligence has declined in the modern era. As of right now, it works. I think I lean more towards "If it ain't broke, don't "Fix" it." What merits are there to even expanding or changing it?

Well, it would be nice to not have the death of an 87 year old woman create a political shitstorm. It would be nice if, when vacancies arose, the Senate was perfectly content with holding hearings on the president's nominee. It would be nice if we could have bipartisan approval from the Senate.

I think these things are achievable if there is some established norm for doing so, and if the replacement of a single SCOTUS Justice didn't fundamentally change the legal landscape. Remember, back in 2000 the SCOTUS ruled 5-4 along party lines to cease the recount in Florida and hand the election to Bush. Just recently, Roberts joined the liberal justices in ruling on ballot deadlines. It would be nice if you couldn't necessarily predict what the outcome of a contentious case would be based on the composition of the court and which political party might benefit from it.

That said, I'm in a pretty privileged position, and nothing a conservative court is likely to rule on (Abortion, Gay Marriage, Healthcare, etc.) is likely to affect me personally. So, in some sense my relative calm in the face of a 6-3 conservative majority somewhat betrays my own limited empathy. Don't get be wrong, I still empathize, and it saddens me to think that some people might lose their health coverage, others might lose access to abortion services, etc. But I don't feel the fear viscerally.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

2020 Election Live Updates: On Court Packing, Biden Would Create a Panel to Study Changes

Joseph R. Biden Jr., who for weeks has declined to clarify his position on expanding the Supreme Court, said in a new interview that if elected, he would establish a bipartisan commission of scholars to study possible court overhaul more broadly.

“I will ask them to, over 180 days, come back to me with recommendations as to how to reform the court system because it’s getting out of whack,” he told CBS News’s Norah O’Donnell, according to an interview excerpt that is expected to be broadcast Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.”

“The way in which it’s being handled, and it’s not about court packing, there’s a number of other things that our constitutional scholars have debated and I’ve looked to see what recommendations that commission might make.”

Mr. Biden has previously opposed expanding the Supreme Court, but amid the current battle over Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination by President Trump just before the election, he has declined to take a clear position on the issue. However, he promised last week that he would make his position known to voters before Election Day.

The topic is likely to surface at tonight’s presidential debate.

“The last thing we need to do is turn the Supreme Court into just a political football, whoever has the most votes gets whatever they want,” Mr. Biden said. “Presidents come and go. Supreme Court justices stay for generations.”

He called the issue a “live ball” and said there were “a number of alternatives” that “go well beyond packing.”
​

While the prospect of having someone back in charge with such profound regard for fairness is somewhat soothing, this also turns my stomach a little bit. I'm sick to the teeth of Democrats, to borrow Tokenkindly's phrase, bringing casseroles to a knife fight. And this sounds like that same old casserole. I guess we'll have to wait and see if it amounts to anything.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

That said, I'm in a pretty privileged position, and nothing a conservative court is likely to rule on (Abortion, Gay Marriage, Healthcare, etc.) is likely to affect me personally. So, in some sense my relative calm in the face of a 6-3 conservative majority somewhat betrays my own limited empathy. Don't get be wrong, I still empathize, and it saddens me to think that some people might lose their health coverage, others might lose access to abortion services, etc. But I don't feel the fear viscerally.

If ACB gets seated, the majority of the Supreme Court will have been nominated by POTUSs who were elected by minority of the country's population and confirmed by Senators who represent a minority of that population. Despite studies consistly proving that the less capitalism is regulated the more wealth trickles upwards and gets hoarded by the wealthiest people, a conservative majority in SCOTUS is likely (by all accounts I've read) to even further deregulate. Income inequality will continue to get worse. Even if you're privileged enough to not be effected by the hot button topics (e.g. abortion, gay marriage, healthcare), how long are you going to feel safe in a country where the majority of people are struggling with increasingly unfair conditions and the power that *should* exist in a democracy to change the unfair conditions has itself been robbed from them (through the strategic, unscrupulous power grabbing of a handful of colossal douchebags)?

 

[Maou]

Well, it would be nice to not have the death of an 87 year old woman create a political shitstorm. It would be nice if, when vacancies arose, the Senate was perfectly content with holding hearings on the president's nominee. It would be nice if we could have bipartisan approval from the Senate.

I think these things are achievable if there is some established norm for doing so, and if the replacement of a single SCOTUS Justice didn't fundamentally change the legal landscape. Remember, back in 2000 the SCOTUS ruled 5-4 along party lines to cease the recount in Florida and hand the election to Bush. Just recently, Roberts joined the liberal justices in ruling on ballot deadlines. It would be nice if you couldn't necessarily predict what the outcome of a contentious case would be based on the composition of the court and which political party might benefit from it.

That said, I'm in a pretty privileged position, and nothing a conservative court is likely to rule on (Abortion, Gay Marriage, Healthcare, etc.) is likely to affect me personally. So, in some sense my relative calm in the face of a 6-3 conservative majority somewhat betrays my own limited empathy. Don't get be wrong, I still empathize, and it saddens me to think that some people might lose their health coverage, others might lose access to abortion services, etc. But I don't feel the fear viscerally.

I wasn't ignoring your post, just taking time to think about what I want to say.

It would indeed be nice if there wasn't a shitstorm, but as we learned throughout the Trump presidency. This is what politics have become due to the media's blatant bias and censorship. The Democrats are usually the ones that refuse to do anything bi-partisan. Just look at how the house treats Trump, and Pelosi refusing to vote on more Covid relief because she doesn't want Trump's name on the check. I have never seen Trump not try to negotiate with Democrats.

The president is elected for four years, not three. Trump had every legal right to nominate a new judge, and it isn't even that big of an issue as it is made out to be. I think it's a bit hypocritical to bring up precedence, when this presidency and year have been everything but. i.e. see impeachment and Russian collusion scandal as an example of unprecedented corruption by intelligence agencies and people in power.

Judges are to remain apolitical. I don't really believe just because Trump nominated someone, doesn't mean they are skewed right or left. Because it is a judge's job to interpret the law, not enact it. There have been plenty of right wing people who voted in favor of gay marriage for example, because it is constitutional.

Health coverage is something I really don't think is a matter of coverage, in terms of fixing it. There is a tremendous web of corporate and political interconnections make any real regulation and improvement impossible. From monopolies, to money laundering for administrative and political elites. Also, while we are on that subject. I do support government health care, but only if it can compete with private. And not cost an arm and a leg. I personally think insurance is part of the problem. Where does that money go? Why are tests etc so expensive? Those are the real questions we should be asking.

 

[Burning Paradigm]

I wasn't ignoring your post, just taking time to think about what I want to say.

It would indeed be nice if there wasn't a shitstorm, but as we learned throughout the Trump presidency. This is what politics have become due to the media's blatant bias and censorship. The Democrats are usually the ones that refuse to do anything bi-partisan. Just look at how the house treats Trump, and Pelosi refusing to vote on more Covid relief because she doesn't want Trump's name on the check. I have never seen Trump not try to negotiate with Democrats.

@ the bolded: Brah, what? Trump tried to halt COVID-19 relief talks until after the election. Every time he's come to the table, he's been shamed into doing so, especially with the election looming and being in serious, likely danger of losing.

I have my issues with the Democratic party, but Pelosi has been in talks with Mnuchin and Mark Meadows with respect to the stimulus bill. The House delayed negotiations because it was negotiating with the White House and tying some loose ends together. If anything, it's opposition from the Senate Republicans right now that threatens another relief and stimulus bill. Which makes it all the more disingenuous and hypocritical for people like Rick Scott to be talking about how they're supposedly the ones trying to come to a yes.

Senate Republicans Denounce White House’s Offer for Coronavirus Relief - The New York Times

My potential issue with the stimulus bill, just like the last one, is it threatens to leave workers with crumbs while allowing bailouts, once again, for large corporations. Such is the way of modern America. I realize this post isn't about judges; I've more or less accepted the GOP is going to do everything in their power to ram ACB's confirmation through, as passive and dejected as that may sound.