View Full Version : RBG dead at 87 RIP
For Immediate Release
For Further Information Contact:
September 18, 2020 Kathleen Arberg (202) 479-3211
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died this evening surrounded by her family at her home in Washington, D.C., due to complications of metastatic pancreas cancer. She was 87 years old. Justice Ginsburg was appointed to the Supreme Court by President Clinton in 1993. She was the second woman appointed to the Court and served more than 27 years. She is survived by her two children: Jane Carol Ginsburg (George Spera) and James Steven Ginsburg (Patrice Michaels), four grandchildren: Paul Spera (Francesca Toich), Clara Spera (Rory Boyd), Miranda Ginsburg, Abigail Ginsburg, two step-grandchildren: Harjinder Bedi, Satinder Bedi, and one great-grandchild: Lucrezia Spera. Her husband, Martin David Ginsburg, died in 2010.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. said of Justice Ginsburg: “Our Nation has lost a jurist of historic stature. We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn, but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her -- a tireless and resolute champion of justice.”
Justice Ginsburg was born in Brooklyn, New York, March 15, 1933. She married Martin D. Ginsburg in 1954. She received her B.A. from Cornell University, attended Harvard Law School, and received her LL.B. from Columbia Law School. She served as a law clerk to the Honorable Edmund L. Palmieri, Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, from 1959–1961. From 1961–1963, she was a research associate and then associate director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure. She was a Professor of Law at Rutgers University School of Law from 1963–1972, and Columbia Law School from 1972–1980, and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences in Stanford, California from 1977–1978. In 1971, she was instrumental in launching the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union, and served as the ACLU’s General Counsel from 1973–1980, and on the National Board of Directors from 1974–1980. She was appointed a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1980. During her more than 40 years as a Judge and a Justice, she was served by 159 law clerks.
While on the Court, the Justice authored My Own Words (2016), a compilation of her speeches and writings.
A private interment service will be held at Arlington National Cemetery.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_09-18-20
This will likely magnify the discourse and chaos x1000. Crazy, crazy.
Agree.
If people thought that the Justice Kavanaugh appointment was contentious...just wait for the opinions on this open seat to play out during an election year.
IMO, the country needs a conservative, constitutionalist now more than ever to get the country back on track.
However, this will be a stress test for America and it’s institutions.
Old Dog New Trick
09-18-2020, 18:41
Damn! Total respect even if I disagreed with her view of things. May she rest in eternal peace.
RIP RBG
DOL
Let the games begun.
My guess is the big question will now be whether or not the Repubs can get a nominee installed before January.
My guess is the big question will now be whether or not the Repubs can get a nominee installed before January.
Mitch has his abacus out as we post. 🧮
Badger52
09-18-2020, 18:55
Mitch has his abacus out as we post. 🧮Huevos? He don' got no huevos. He don' got to cho us no stinkin' huevos.
But if Mitch did have the stones, for a hasty appointment Trump could do worse than Scalia-protege Amy Coney Barrett (https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/potential-nominee-profile-amy-coney-barrett/). (Bio at the link is from 2018; and she has been sitting on the 7th Circuit, courtesy of Pres. Donald J. Trump.)
Here are some major players in this situation - Senate Judiciary Committee.
https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members
Huevos? He don' got no huevos. He don' got to cho us no stinkin' huevos.
But if Mitch did have the stones, for a hasty appointment Trump could do worse than Scalia-protege Amy Coney Barrett (https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/potential-nominee-profile-amy-coney-barrett/). (Bio at the link is from 2018; and she has been sitting on the 7th Circuit, courtesy of Pres. Donald J. Trump.)
Now is the time Mitch needs to grow a pair.
Initial reports are that Mitch will give a nominee an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate.
This is an opportunity that cannot be missed - what is the left going to do...riot in the streets?
Given that the left has showed their hand - is there any doubt that they would name a nominee if they held both the WH and the Senate ?
Ret10Echo
09-18-2020, 19:16
Nominate Kamala Harris
Huevos? He don' got no huevos. He don' got to cho us no stinkin' huevos.
But if Mitch did have the stones, for a hasty appointment Trump could do worse than Scalia-protege Amy Coney Barrett (https://www.scotusblog.com/2018/07/potential-nominee-profile-amy-coney-barrett/). (Bio at the link is from 2018; and she has been sitting on the 7th Circuit, courtesy of Pres. Donald J. Trump.)
Ahhhh, ACB to replace RBG.
Now is the time Mitch needs to grow a pair.
Initial reports are that Mitch will give a nominee an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate.
This is an opportunity that cannot be missed - what is the left going to do...riot in the streets?
Given that the left has showed their hand - is there any doubt that they would name a nominee if they held both the WH and the Senate ?
Cocaine Mitch is up for reelection so he must produce, or he increases his chances of being thrown to the curb. Same with Lindsey Graham.
Would you say the passing of RBG takes the focus off Trump and Biden?
Gotta be some full blown implosions coming from the the other side of the aisle. RGB had a long and a full life and went down swinging.
Cocaine Mitch is up for reelection so he must produce, or he increases his chances of being thrown to the curb. Same with Lindsey Graham.
Would you say the passing of RBG takes the focus off Trump and Biden?
Noooooo...if an election case were now to go to the Supreme Court...you already know how RBG would have voted. That is now all up in the air.
No longer an RBG vote that was guaranteed for Biden.
Respect to RBG for her service - but she was as partisan as they come.
Old Dog New Trick
09-18-2020, 19:25
Ahhhh, ACB to replace RBG.
That’s a good solid call.
Bye. So-long to one of the only people who (though college educated) could not read the English language. Fare-well to a person who defined herself by the belief that it was possible to pick up a turd by the “clean end”..... See, she was an over paid moron who was a puppet of the leftist / communist insurectionists that need to be culled from this Republic. God be willing, and the Sun don’t shine, we will re-establish this Republic........ Game On!
Airbornelawyer
09-18-2020, 20:52
First law of politics: All political arguments are hypocritical. Republicans will demand a vote even though McConnell refused to bring Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 to the floor. The Dems will scream bloody murder and cite the case of Garland to deny a vote until after the election, even though they were in favor of Garland getting a vote, yet have been holding up other Trump nominees for upwards of three years. In other words, both parties believe the nominee deserves a vote when the outcome favors them, and both parties believe the nominee does not deserve a vote until the voting public gets a chance to voice its opinion when the outcome favors them.
It will basically come down to a whip count. Lisa Murkowski is already on record saying she won't vote on a nominee until after inauguration. Peel off Romney and Collins, and assuming the Dems and "Independents" are in lockstep against any nominee, and McConnell is down to 50 votes. Collins is up for reelection in a blue-state, and would probably prefer not to be forced to take a stance either way.
tom kelly
09-18-2020, 20:58
Justice Ruth B Ginsburg...RIP. President Trump will nominate a person on his list of candidates for the Supreme Court...The Senate will not get the nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee because of the Liberal Democrats Coons, Durban, Harris, and the rest of the democrat members will delay a vote. The Court could be the deciding factor for the POTUS. Dems have their playbook, & will not let a President Trump appointment come before the full senate for an UP or DOWN vote.
NurseTim
09-19-2020, 01:56
First law of politics: All political arguments are hypocritical. Republicans will demand a vote even though McConnell refused to bring Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 to the floor. The Dems will scream bloody murder and cite the case of Garland to deny a vote until after the election, even though they were in favor of Garland getting a vote, yet have been holding up other Trump nominees for upwards of three years. In other words, both parties believe the nominee deserves a vote when the outcome favors them, and both parties believe the nominee does not deserve a vote until the voting public gets a chance to voice its opinion when the outcome favors them.
It will basically come down to a whip count. Lisa Murkowski is already on record saying she won't vote on a nominee until after inauguration. Peel off Romney and Collins, and assuming the Dems and "Independents" are in lockstep against any nominee, and McConnell is down to 50 votes. Collins is up for reelection in a blue-state, and would probably prefer not to be forced to take a stance either way.
I think she said, “...until after the election”
I believe Team Trump will aggressively push for the most rapid nomination plan as possible.
The left has already clearly articulated on social that it will burn everything to stop it.
Everytime a fire is lit, more undecided voters will shift towards Trump to decisively put it out.
Everytime BLM demand a BLM salute to swear allegiance to national socialist justice, more undecided voters will shift towards Trump.
Political reconnaissance by fire.
Provoke a response, akin to IRA shooting a few rounds at UK Paras who overwhelmingly fired back into the crowd, and you get Bloody Sunday....a generation hardened against the UK.
Provoke a response on the Left by a rapid SCJ nomination, watch the Left burn things, and bump a few % points in voter sentiment towards Trump.
Thoughts?
Badger52
09-19-2020, 02:35
That’s a good solid call.Thx, there are a couple others besides Barrett. Probably there are too many RINOs peeled away to get a vote. I would be whamboozled if McConnell can pull this off. I also do not trust that him saying a nominee will get an up/down vote means he has conservative interests at heart, or that it's important to enable a legacy that offsets having to refit Roberts for diapers. McConnell's interests are McConnell. And besides the obvious RINO quislings there are others up for re-election who may not want to be seen as part of something hypocritical. Stuff cuts two ways.
Airbornelawyer
09-19-2020, 04:14
I think she said, “...until after the election”
I believe the reporter who quoted her as saying "after the election" later corrected his report, saying she said after inauguration and he inadvertently misquoted her.
cat in the hat
09-19-2020, 09:52
First law of politics: All political arguments are hypocritical. Republicans will demand a vote even though McConnell refused to bring Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016 to the floor. The Dems will scream bloody murder and cite the case of Garland to deny a vote until after the election, even though they were in favor of Garland getting a vote, yet have been holding up other Trump nominees for upwards of three years. In other words, both parties believe the nominee deserves a vote when the outcome favors them, and both parties believe the nominee does not deserve a vote until the voting public gets a chance to voice its opinion when the outcome favors them.
It will basically come down to a whip count. Lisa Murkowski is already on record saying she won't vote on a nominee until after inauguration. Peel off Romney and Collins, and assuming the Dems and "Independents" are in lockstep against any nominee, and McConnell is down to 50 votes. Collins is up for reelection in a blue-state, and would probably prefer not to be forced to take a stance either way.
Traditions, customs and politics aside, what if McConnell calls recess?
Can donny more or less appoint whoever he chooses and how long does that person sit as a justice?
AND can that justice weigh in on October cases?
I’ll just drop this here. The left has long chosen a path that selectively adopts their political positions solely to accommodate their political ends - without regard for the precedent they set for when they are no longer in power. They are, shall we say ruthless.
FLASHBACK: RBG Said Presidents Should Name Supreme Court Justices in an Election Year
BY MATT MARGOLIS SEP 19, 2020 11:37 AM
EST
PJ Media
As the debate over what to do about the vacancy on the Supreme Court is only getting started, perhaps we should heed the advice of the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg herself as to what to do.
When a similar scenario occurred four years ago, following the death of Antonin Scalia, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It was a controversial move, and Ginsburg had something to say about it: Ginsburg publicly called on the Senate to go through with the nomination.
“That’s their job,” she said in July 2016. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”
“Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees,” Ginsburg said on the issue a few months later during an event at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was with her, agreed. “I think we hope there will be nine as quickly as possible.”
“What we do is we automatically affirm the decision of the court below. No opinion is written, no reasons are given, and the affirmance has no precedential value,” Ginsburg explained. “It’s just as though we denied review.”
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) made the same argument was made Friday night, though he added that since the 2020 election results are expected to be contested, an eight-member Court poses a potential constitutional crisis.
“Democrats and Joe Biden have made clear they intend to challenge this election. They intend to fight the legitimacy of the election. As you know, Hillary Clinton has told Joe Biden ‘under no circumstances should you concede, you should challenge this election.’ And we cannot have Election Day come and go with a 4-4 Court,” Cruz told Sean Hannity on Friday. “A 4-4 Court that is equally divided cannot decide anything. And I think we risk a constitutional crisis if we do not have a nine-justice Supreme Court, particularly when there is such a risk of … a contested election.”
Unfortunately for the Left, their revered Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the case for Trump to nominate, and for the Senate to confirm, her own replacement back in 2016. You can point to the words of politicians who adjust their views to accommodate their desired political ends, and great, there’s plenty of that to go around on both sides, but are the same people mourning the loss of Ruth Bader Ginsburg going to say that she was wrong?
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2020/09/19/ruth-bader-ginsburg-made-the-case-for-filling-her-vacancy-before-the-election-back-in-2016-n944778?fbclid=IwAR0511sER0RCWXjoXHg3Woo3lhCTvcwT7 THyFPzu1k15S4BDC3XG4uYBORQ
rubberneck
09-19-2020, 15:19
Gotta be some full blown implosions coming from the the other side of the aisle. RGB had a long and a full life and went down swinging.
I have a hard time respecting her behavior the past five years. She has been the most nakedly partisan Justice in the history of the court hurting the institution with her selfish and boorish behavior. To make matters worse she refused to retire when Obama was still in office. Because of that we now must endure what is surely to be a violent freak show if Trump manages to get another appointee on the court before the next inauguration.
I don’t rejoice in her passing and her family has my condolences but whatever good she did earlier in her life is now outweighed by the damage she’s done. That’s a sad legacy to leave behind.
I have a hard time respecting her behavior the past five years. She has been the most nakedly partisan Justice in the history of the court hurting the institution with her selfish and boorish behavior. To make matters worse she refused to retire when Obama was still in office. Because of that we now must endure what is surely to be a violent freak show if Trump manages to get another appointee on the court before the next inauguration.
I don’t rejoice in her passing and her family has my condolences but whatever good she did earlier in her life is now outweighed by the damage she’s done. That’s a sad legacy to leave behind.
Agree 100%.
If she'd really wanted her replacement to be chosen by a dimm president, she should have retired during Obama's last term. She rolled the dice and lost on that account (as did everyone counting on Hilary's win).
S.
I have a hard time respecting her behavior the past five years. She has been the most nakedly partisan Justice in the history of the court hurting the institution with her selfish and boorish behavior. To make matters worse she refused to retire when Obama was still in office. Because of that we now must endure what is surely to be a violent freak show if Trump manages to get another appointee on the court before the next inauguration.
I don’t rejoice in her passing and her family has my condolences but whatever good she did earlier in her life is now outweighed by the damage she’s done. That’s a sad legacy to leave behind.
I agree. She should have resigned when she started failing in health and mental agility. Instead she kept her seat (in accordance with the letter of the law) for politically partisan reasons. So her legacy to me is that she was a partisan hack. Glad that she is off the bench. It took too long.
bblhead672
09-21-2020, 09:30
I have a hard time respecting her behavior the past five years. She has been the most nakedly partisan Justice in the history of the court hurting the institution with her selfish and boorish behavior. To make matters worse she refused to retire when Obama was still in office. Because of that we now must endure what is surely to be a violent freak show if Trump manages to get another appointee on the court before the next inauguration.
I don’t rejoice in her passing and her family has my condolences but whatever good she did earlier in her life is now outweighed by the damage she’s done. That’s a sad legacy to leave behind.
I agree. She should have resigned when she started failing in health and mental agility. Instead she kept her seat (in accordance with the letter of the law) for politically partisan reasons. So her legacy to me is that she was a partisan hack. Glad that she is off the bench. It took too long.
Totally agree. RBG had every opportunity to ensure her seat stayed in leftist hands...yet she held on selfishly. Now she is the only one to blame should Trump be successful in appointing a constitutionalist to her seat.
Justices are supposed to zealously portray themselves as the keepers of blind justice. Supreme Court justices insist that politics plays no role in their decision-making.
...one of them said they'd move to New Zealand if their candidate didnt win.
One of them waited to retire because they wanted to be replaced by the first female president.
When asked about the POTUS and their responsibniity for nominating a judge, one of them said, “That’s their job,” she said. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”
One of them spoke ill about the possibility of a second term for the current POTUS.
Judges don't get to pick their replacements.
Presidents do.
Presidents don't get to "seat" their nominee's.
The Senate does.
If you spend a career as an activist, you should expect to be subjected to opposing activism. If you want to be enshrined by the 1st Female POTUS, perhaps you should make sure she gets elected before throwing a tantrum. Thats the gamble when you are more focused on your own personal symbolism than what is best for your party and the country.
Everyone knows - if you control the House, you control the purse. If you control the Senate, you get to seat your judges with a bit less hassle. Maybe you might not want to seat one - it happens alllll the time. When Democrats controlled the House and Senate, there was no way on hells half acre that Robert Bork would get confirmed. The only reason democrats confirmed O'Connor and Kennedy is because they were MODERATES - or Reagan would have never gotten anyone seated on the court. The only reason Scalia made it in was because Republican controlled the senate for his confirmation.
...but hey, lets all pretend that politics is all about friendly days on the golf course sipping tea and lemonade and not the lying cut-throat game that the democrats play EVERY.SINGLE.DAY..
When one party has to seat a judge and THEIR party doesn't control the senate, they can expect to have a hard time getting their "real" pick conformed.
...perhaps folks that want to threaten departure from the US when elections don't go their way should just STFU
Gird your loins boys, shit is now officially "real"
Ret10Echo
09-21-2020, 11:23
Box,
Is there an "Activist corollary" to the physics here?
We have completely lost our ability to understand our "system" of government and the foundational constructs of our nation.
I'd settle for basic civics classes.
Reeducation? Yeah.. I'm FOR that
Required reading....
- The Constitution of the United States of America
- Federalist Papers
- Anti-Federalist Papers
- Democracy in America
My friend - the political shit show unfolding before us is a TEXT BOOK example of the third rule of Newtons Three Laws of Political Motion:
-For every action in nature there is an equal and opposite reaction.
The activist corollary to Newtons third law is quite simple if you just take a step back and observe the universe around you:
A liberal activist democrat president nominates a liberal activist democrat to assume a supreme court post...
...conservatives block it (equal and opposite)
...a liberal activist democrat senator says republicans should do their job and hold a vote and now says we should wait until the next term
...a liberal activist democrat judge said that presidents are president even during the last year of their service and then on her death bed said the POTUS should wait until there is a new POTUS
Think about the display of equal and opposites in that one - not to mention - stated from someone that said they didn't want to see a second term for the current POTUS (and she wont - regardless of the results)
ANTIFA hates fascism but will make you raise your hand and chant their mantra by applying the threat of violence
...certainly some opposite reactions going on there
Joe Biden and EVERYTHING he has said or done in the last 40 years when compared to everything ELSE he has said or done in the last 40 years.
John Kasich jumping on the virtue bandwagon that ALL republican candidates for the 2016 Republican presidential primaries should swear an oath to support the eventual nominee - and then speaking as a guest at the 2020 DNC convention after four years of refusing to support the 2016 republican nominee/President-Elect/President of the United States of America
alG0re hates people that don't love the environment and thinks George Bush should be more climate friendly...
...George Bush's ranch is remarkably more green than alG0res house that uses 34 times as much energy than the national average
Obama got a n0bel peace prize and then used a drone strike to kill an American citizen...
...President Trump has gotten the NORKS to the discussion table, he has drawn down US combat troops all over the world and has help broker peace agreements in the middle eats that were thought to be impossible yet the democrats call him a dirty warmonger
celebrities and a supreme court justice talked a big "fair election and peaceful transfer of power" game but then threaten to leave the country if their candidate looses...
...and then they do the opposite and stay
yes indeed - equal and opposite is on political display 367 days a year...
politics is RIFE with examples of the wonders of physics
I love physics - just be careful on your calls for re-education. If the wrong party should end up in charge, the POI's for that instruction you seek is NOT going to go the way you want it to go.
Can't have it both ways... :munchin 2016 Democrats on Supreme Court nomination
You know what to type.
https: //www.*******.com/watch?v=99-7RpJkXUw