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

[Jonny]

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.

Pelosi is refusing to vote on the Republican proposal in the same way as the Senate is refusing to vote on the Democrat's proposal. The house has already passed a COVID relief bill. This is how negotiations between the two sides work. It is disingenuous to say that only one side is refusing to help people.

And as you'll recall, Republicans in the Senate refused to consider Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. On March 16, 2016, then President Obama nominated Garland to replace Justice Scalia, who had died just a month before. Republicans held the seat vacant until Gorsuch was confirmed on April 7, 2017, over a year later. This time, Amy Coney Barrett was nominated on September 26, 2020, less than a week after Justice Ginsburg died, and she is on track to be confirmed about in record time.

You're right, Trump is within his legal right to nominate Barrett and the Republicans have the political power to confirm her. That doesn't change my opinion that the process should be reformed. It has become too political on both sides.

You may not believe that "...just because Trump nominated someone, doesn't mean they are skewed right or left," but it turns out that, in practice, that is highly explanatory. For example, SCOTUS just ruled 5-3 that Alabama could ban curbside voting intended to accommodate individuals with disabilities and those at risk for COVID-19. All republican nominated justices supported the ban, and all democratic nominated justices opposed it. Go figure.

Again, we can argue about specific policy differences, but my main point is that the current process of nominating and approving members to SCOTUS has become far too partisan. One of the strengths of the court is the public perception that it is a bipartisan institution. To the extent that substantive reform can take place to bolster that perception, the better.

 

[Maou]

@ 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.

Halting talks isn't not negotiating ever, he also undid that pretty quickly. Why? Probably something we don't know about, he was just recovering from Covid. While the Democrats have 3.8 years of not wanting to talk about anything with him, and not giving Trump the time of the day. I'd say that is a very bad comparison.

From my perspective. Pelosi cares more about Democrat interests within the bill, than the American people. The reason they have been "Negotiating" is because she wants more than what she is saying in that bill other than Corona relief that would rack up even higher debt. Not going all out on spending is not a bad thing. Did you not see the debt? Then Trump and the Republicans won't give it to her, because the country is already in a tight spot money wise. The last Stimulus bill was rife with a lot of the same things, like green energy regulations etc. They only highlight the good bits, and say "Look what Trump won't pass.", while completely not saying anything about the extra stuff in the bill. Why won't Pelosi accept Trump's bill when they are practically identical in the news, but Trump has to accept hers? This shows that the one unmoving is Pelosi, not Trump.

Also not all "Bailouts" are bad, for example the airlines employ thousands of people. Bailing them out, helps those people keep their jobs. Letting it go under is a big fuck you to those employees, and essentially removes all air travel for a long time. Imagine having to drive across the USA to visit your family instead of flying. Bailouts, when it's not the fault of the company, are good.

 

[Maou]

Pelosi is refusing to vote on the Republican proposal in the same way as the Senate is refusing to vote on the Democrat's proposal. The house has already passed a COVID relief bill. This is how negotiations between the two sides work. It is disingenuous to say that only one side is refusing to help people.

And as you'll recall, Republicans in the Senate refused to consider Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland. On March 16, 2016, then President Obama nominated Garland to replace Justice Scalia, who had died just a month before. Republicans held the seat vacant until Gorsuch was confirmed on April 7, 2017, over a year later. This time, Amy Coney Barrett was nominated on September 26, 2020, less than a week after Justice Ginsburg died, and she is on track to be confirmed about in record time.

You're right, Trump is within his legal right to nominate Barrett and the Republicans have the political power to confirm her. That doesn't change my opinion that the process should be reformed. It has become too political on both sides.

You may not believe that "...just because Trump nominated someone, doesn't mean they are skewed right or left," but it turns out that, in practice, that is highly explanatory. For example, SCOTUS just ruled 5-3 that Alabama could ban curbside voting intended to accommodate individuals with disabilities and those at risk for COVID-19. All republican nominated justices supported the ban, and all democratic nominated justices opposed it. Go figure.

Again, we can argue about specific policy differences, but my main point is that the current process of nominating and approving members to SCOTUS has become far too partisan. One of the strengths of the court is the public perception that it is a bipartisan institution. To the extent that substantive reform can take place to bolster that perception, the better.

That first tweet is referring specifically to NYC, Portland, and places in California. Because thats just what they are, poorly managed, crime riden states. They let BLM run wild, spreading covid everywhere unchecked. Then have the audacity to ask for help because they brought this upon themselves? It is called Karma. I don't however, blame the citizens of such a state. Their vote will decide who was right.

The 2nd and 3rd tweet, is up in the air. I don't know what kind of thinking goes on right before transition of power. I can see why he would want to focus on it after the election, and nomination. But I agree that it is time sensitive. But not so sensitive that even the house won't vote on it because they disagree. I think its shameful on both sides. But I also don't entirely know what is at stake other than Americans. Having a full court might help certain things to be pushed through. I think Trump is also concerned about the unemployment rate, despite the failing small businesses. Since he is a buisness man, this looks like a cut your losses thing and focus on the future.

As for Alabama, that is a state issue, also, what happened to mail in voting? Did they ban that too? This just seems like fluff to me. As it does seem a little sketchy and unreliable. Also, this thing isn't even constitutionally related. Mail in your vote if you are disabled.


Also, you are probably not aware because almost no one reported on it. But mail in voting has been compromised somewhat due to the ballot request system. I witnessed in person, that one can view and edit the voter registration and ballot information of anybody in Washington, and Oregon, and request a new ballot (Not change their vote, as stated on the site). All with just their name, and DOB. Which you can pull off of Facebook. Which enulls your previous ballot (possibly already signed and in the mail), essentially negating your vote when returned because it was canceled. 4Chan Users Claim to Have Found Way to Easily Change People's Voter Registration and Cancel Ballots Online in Oregon and Washington The sites were shut down almost immediately when it was reported to the FBI. Not sure if they are back up.

I think the current nomination process is fine, its just one side thinks the other shouldn't be able to do what it does. Simple as that.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

If McConnell really said this, and assuming it isn't an unfair soundbite (and that more context would significantly change the meaning) - and if he expects the GOP to lose the WH and Congress (which is the only way Dems could "undo" what they've done after the next election), he must be admitting that not only will they not win majority vote but it seems doubtful they'll even win electorate - then it's important to reflect on how "they" (in "They won't be able to do anything about this for a long time to come.") refers to the majority of U.S. citizens.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Vox: How an anti-democratic Constitution gave us Amy Coney Barrett

In 2016, President Trump lost the national popular vote to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He lost it by a lot — 2,865,075 votes, to be precise.

[...]

Yet, while pro-Barrett senators control a majority of the Senate, they represent nowhere near a majority of the entire nation. Indeed, the senators who voted against Barrett represent 13,524,906 more people than the senators who voted for her.
​

 

[Virtual ghost]

Vox: How an anti-democratic Constitution gave us Amy Coney Barrett

In 2016, President Trump lost the national popular vote to Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. He lost it by a lot — 2,865,075 votes, to be precise.

[...]

Yet, while pro-Barrett senators control a majority of the Senate, they represent nowhere near a majority of the entire nation. Indeed, the senators who voted against Barrett represent 13,524,906 more people than the senators who voted for her.
​

Yeah but to be honest: when you watch from the outside that perhaps isn't even the biggest problem. Here you can't just hire layers that should stop counting of the vote (WTF?). Voting locations are static and you know where you have to go in each election cycle, since you can't just close/remove voting locations. Plus there is generally a decent amount of voting locations, which is why I never waited for more then something like 7 minutes. All votes are on the paper in order to allow easy recount. However if there is something fishy somewhere the vote is repeated in that location/region. Voting requires formal ID, so that the room for shenanigans is lowered. There is plenty of viable third parties as well as the option of snap elections. Which is there for administrations that don't do their job well or at all. Also adds are banned on the election day and the day before in order to create more calm social atmosphere. Plus formal campaigns last only about 2 months since that is enough, especially since everyone knows for what each party generally stands for (this is what makes snap election viable). I mean it it is better to give politics room to actually do something than to just have endless campaigns that are sucking plenty of time and energy for everybody.


So yeah, US evidently has room for improvement.

 

[The Cat]

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Yeah but to be honest: when you watch from the outside that perhaps isn't even the biggest problem. Here you can't just hire layers that should stop counting of the vote (WTF?). Voting locations are static and you know where you have to go in each election cycle, since you can't just close/remove voting locations. Plus there is generally a decent amount of voting locations, which is why I never waited for more then something like 7 minutes. All votes are on the paper in order to allow easy recount. However if there is something fishy somewhere the vote is repeated in that location/region. Voting requires formal ID, so that the room for shenanigans is lowered. There is plenty of viable third parties as well as the option of snap elections. Which is there for administrations that don't do their job well or at all. Also adds are banned on the election day and the day before in order to create more calm social atmosphere. Plus formal campaigns last only about 2 months since that is enough, especially since everyone knows for what each party generally stands for (this is what makes snap election viable). I mean it it is better to give politics room to actually do something than to just have endless campaigns that are sucking plenty of time and energy for everybody.


So yeah, US evidently has room for improvement.

I'm not sure I properly understand what you're saying, so nevermind if I'm missing the point.

The way accessibility to voting is handled (and voter suppression) is a problem for sure. I waited an hour in line this past week to vote, and I've never waited more than 5 minutes to vote early before - so part of the craziness is *so many* people showing up for early voting. I didn't want to senselessly burden the mail-in voting system (which shouldn't have to be a concern, but it is), and there's a lingering notion that who knows how bad the pandemic will be even a week from now - I suspect that logic led to a lot of people hitting the polls early. So there's some craziness being layered onto an already less than ideal system, leading to 8 hour waits in line in some areas - which is completely unacceptable. But I still think gerrymandering and the electoral college are the bigger problem. Because even if every single person had easy, fast access to voting - the system is rigged to make it easier for Republicans to win. And it's gotten to the point (they keep abusing the power that electoral college gives them to make consequent power grabs easier and easier) where it no longer feels like democracy. Their power grabs are degrading trust in and respect for the whole system.

 

[Virtual ghost]

I'm not sure I properly understand what you're saying, so nevermind if I'm missing the point.

The way accessibility to voting is handled (and voter suppression) is a problem for sure. I waited an hour in line this past week to vote, and I've never waited more than 5 minutes to vote early before - so part of the craziness is *so many* people showing up for early voting. I didn't want to senselessly burden the mail-in voting system (which shouldn't have to be a concern, but it is), and there's a lingering notion that who knows how bad the pandemic will be even a week from now - I suspect that logic led to a lot of people hitting the polls early. So there's some craziness being layered onto an already less than ideal system, leading to 8 hour waits in line in some areas - which is completely unacceptable. But I still think gerrymandering and the electoral college are the bigger problem. Because even if every single person had easy, fast access to voting - the system is rigged to make it easier for Republicans to win. And it's gotten to the point (they keep abusing the power that electoral college gives them to make consequent power grabs easier and easier) where it no longer feels like democracy. Their power grabs are degrading trust in and respect for the whole system.

This is exactly why I put that "perhaps" in the first sentence. Of course that current electoral college is a flawed system of picking a president but my point was simply that it is not the only one that has visible impact. Plus if you would have genuine multiparty system without "winner takes all" and perhaps with snap elections even the electoral college wouldn't really feel as such a "problem".


In other words for me the real problem is more in "us vs them" political process ... since in this case there are no alternatives. The choice is simply black or white.
Therefore here is how the result of last year's elections for EU parliament look like (which determines the top leader). In other words people choose our electors from multiple parties, since seats in the parliament are basically electoral votes. What makes the whole process more straight forward and with more options. Even if this is fundamentally a type of electoral college (the one that is simply more up to the date in the terms of democratic standards). Therefore this is basically house map and electoral map in one and without "winner takes all".

The problem is that running very large systems without some kind of a regional electoral college is hard. Since you may create a sense that there is no regional representation (what is bad). Therefore the answer is perhaps more in the refining of the system rather than crashing it.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

I'm not familiar with this source, but Sheldon Whitehouse posted this to his Twitter account: Barrett ads tied to interest groups funded by unnamed donors

 

[Jaguar]

The ads have also sought to frame any questions about her involvement in a charismatic religious community that opposes abortion and same-sex marriage as attacks on her Christian faith.

A cult who believes women should submit to their husbands is charismatic? Do they shout "Yes, Massah" in the house? I can think of no woman less equipped to replace Ginsburg than Barrett.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

The thing that doesn't make any sense about "attacks on her faith" is that Joe Biden is Catholic. The Pope is Catholic, arguably moreso, and both these guys are far more progressive. I'd take this current Pope as Justice over ACB - no contest - and I'm pretty sure most of the people opposed to her also would. So it's stunning that they're getting so many victim miles out of "attacking her faith."

 

[Totenkindly]

The thing that doesn't make any sense about "attacks on her faith" is that Joe Biden is Catholic. The Pope is Catholic, arguably moreso, and both these guys are far more progressive. I'd take this current Pope as Justice over ACB - no contest - and I'm pretty sure most of the people opposed to her also would. So it's stunning that they're getting so many victim miles out of "attacking her faith."

American conservative Christianity has a victim complex. I was steeped in it when growing up -- the world hates you, the world wants to silence and destroy you if it cannot convert you, the world is not your friend, "good people" of the world are more dangerous because they have a semblance of goodness without God and thus can trick you into compromise, be prepared to lose everything if you cling to God, but if you don't allow yourself to be corrupted by the world's influence and stay true, God will stay true to you.

In this case: "Biden promotes non-conservative ideals, so he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Don't be fooled by his kindly demeanor."

 

[Coriolis]

American conservative Christianity has a victim complex. I was steeped in it when growing up -- the world hates you, the world wants to silence and destroy you if it cannot convert you, the world is not your friend, "good people" of the world are more dangerous because they have a semblance of goodness without God and thus can trick you into compromise, be prepared to lose everything if you cling to God, but if you don't allow yourself to be corrupted by the world's influence and stay true, God will stay true to you.

In this case: "Biden promotes non-conservative ideals, so he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Don't be fooled by his kindly demeanor."

Whatever their complaints about Biden, I find it hard to see how they would consider Trump preferable. If we are going to look at Jesus as a model, Biden comes much closer to showing kindness to others, reaching out to the marginalized, etc. however imperfect his follow through.

 

[Totenkindly]

Whatever their complaints about Biden, I find it hard to see how they would consider Trump preferable. If we are going to look at Jesus as a model, Biden comes much closer to showing kindness to others, reaching out to the marginalized, etc. however imperfect his follow through.

Well, I know you understand this, but it's all about laws.

They are anti-abortion, anti-gay, and so forth. Trump didn't used to be, but he is now because he knew it would get him backing from them. Biden is a nice guy but the laws he would promote aren't Christian in their heads. (And so they see him as a "bad king" -- bad laws come from a bad king, good laws come from a good king.)

They didn't care about Trump's character. They just see it as more important that he provides them the political power to get legislation they want. Means to an end. I bet the same people would have been fine with King David's adultery and planned murder of Uriah (under an abuse of kingly power) if it got them what they wanted, politically.... although God had a different view. YHWH always cared about the heart.

 

[Coriolis]

Well, I know you understand this, but it's all about laws.

They are anti-abortion, anti-gay, and so forth. Trump didn't used to be, but he is now because he knew it would get him backing from them. Biden is a nice guy but the laws he would promote aren't Christian in their heads. (And so they see him as a "bad king" -- bad laws come from a bad king, good laws come from a good king.)

They didn't care about Trump's character. They just see it as more important that he provides them the political power to get legislation they want. Means to an end. I bet the same people would have been fine with King David's adultery and planned murder of Uriah (under an abuse of kingly power) if it got them what they wanted, politically.... although God had a different view. YHWH always cared about the heart.

See, that's just it. How is a so-called Christian who prioritizes human political ends over what God wants, even really a Christian?

As I've said before, if these folks really wanted a president who was a moral and upstanding Christian, they would have re-elected Jimmy Carter. He was that, if nothing else. Clearly they have other priorities. It is not surprising that that WWJD slogan was short lived. Too much for people to try to live up to.

 

[The Cat]

American conservative Christianity has a victim complex. I was steeped in it when growing up -- the world hates you, the world wants to silence and destroy you if it cannot convert you, the world is not your friend, "good people" of the world are more dangerous because they have a semblance of goodness without God and thus can trick you into compromise, be prepared to lose everything if you cling to God, but if you don't allow yourself to be corrupted by the world's influence and stay true, God will stay true to you.

In this case: "Biden promotes non-conservative ideals, so he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. Don't be fooled by his kindly demeanor."

I honestly cant believe any christians who read their bible see trump as favorable to biden. Trump at best is Ahab, and fits way more "antichrist" box ticks biden does. but you're right. -_- ugh.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

 

[Red Memories]

wowwww okay this meme is actually perfect.

 

[Red Memories]

I would like to formally remind people, I know this is hard to believe sometimes but...

There are many, many people who call themselves Christians, but use the Word of God to warp to any negative views they have or otherwise forget Jesus said to love others as yourself, love your neighbor, LOVE LOVE LOVE. Jesus did not come to condemn but to save. And if Jesus came back and saw these people He would be cleansing the temple again, because He hated the Pharisees who used faith as a self-righteous I'm right and everyone else is wrong thing.

To me, these kinds of people, are misguided and not true Christians, as I think @coriolis was already stating.