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

[JR449]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Is it wrong to believe that anyone who sides with Trump and his ilk are sub human trash?

Originally Posted by BoLevi

You know what screams white supremacist?

Adopting black kids.

Zing!. But really though, she seems like a stable minded people person at the end of the day.

[JR449]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Barrett was chosen on the knowledge she will back Trump if the election comes down to the Supreme Court deciding the results. This is what the Republican party is aiming for, the Supreme Court deciding the presidency after they lose in the voting.

But doesnt majority/ all signs show Trump winning the next election?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by JR449

But doesnt majority/ all signs show Trump winning the next election?

Legitimately, No.

Based on current polling Biden has about an 80% chance depending on what forecast you use.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by GGG

Legitimately, No.

Based on current polling Biden has about an 80% chance depending on what forecast you use.

Thanks for tonight’s restful sleep.

[flylock shox]

The Barrett nomination is more interesting than I would have expected, in that she's not an overt schill as I would have expected.



In fact, I'm having a hard time finding objective evidence to suggest she's far-right or extremist at all. I have to assume she's been vetted at least to the extent of confirming she'd overturn Roe, and Trump's M.O. would have been to ask (tell) her directly that he expects loyalty in exchange for nominating her - so one assumes that, for those reasons, she's a dangerous person to have on the court.



But a lot of the articles I'm reading about her - including ones reviewing her judicial decisions - really fail to make a compelling case.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

The Barrett nomination is more interesting than I would have expected, in that she's not an overt schill as I would have expected.



In fact, I'm having a hard time finding objective evidence to suggest she's far-right or extremist at all. I have to assume she's been vetted at least to the extent of confirming she'd overturn Roe, and Trump's M.O. would have been to ask (tell) her directly that he expects loyalty in exchange for nominating her - so one assumes that, for those reasons, she's a dangerous person to have on the court.



But a lot of the articles I'm reading about her - including ones reviewing her judicial decisions - really fail to make a compelling case.

It's just people being manipulated into hysterics. The Democrats want people to get all spun up about it to vote. The GOP doesn't fight back TOO hard, since they want to pretend like this might be a chance to get RvW overturned and get the pro-life/evangelical vote.

Basically, the more anyone gets all passionate about this, the more they have been manipulated.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It's just people being manipulated into hysterics. The Democrats want people to get all spun up about it to vote. The GOP doesn't fight back TOO hard, since they want to pretend like this might be a chance to get RvW overturned and get the pro-life/evangelical vote.

Basically, the more anyone gets all passionate about this, the more they have been manipulated.

I'll agree with you on the fact that the GOP doesn't actually want Roe vs Wade overturned, because as soon as that happen all those single issue voters that vote Republican every election no longer have a reason to go to the polls and the party gets decimated. The real danger in having this woman on the SC is to equality rights and financial reform, she just helps ensure that the rich white men pulling the strings in Washington get to throw around as much money as they want into politics, and that black voters continue to be disenfranchised

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

I'll agree with you on the fact that the GOP doesn't actually want Roe vs Wade overturned, because as soon as that happen all those single issue voters that vote Republican every election no longer have a reason to go to the polls and the party gets decimated. The real danger in having this woman on the SC is to equality rights and financial reform, she just helps ensure that the rich white men pulling the strings in Washington get to throw around as much money as they want into politics, and that black voters continue to be disenfranchised

I agree the ultimate goal of the Republicans is not to overturn Roe vs Wade. I think it's just a carrot out there to get the base riled up forever and in the end it's up to the individual states to decide.

Equality rights is always a slippery slope. Just because a woman wants to be a housewife and raise a family doesn't mean she's not equal. Liberals seem to want to reduce the value of a woman based solely on her career trajectory.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Liberals seem to want to reduce the value of a woman based solely on her career trajectory.

Yeah, no they don't.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

Equality rights is always a slippery slope. Just because a woman wants to be a housewife and raise a family doesn't mean she's not equal. Liberals seem to want to reduce the value of a woman based solely on her career trajectory.

Not one of these sentences has any footing in reality, what are you talking about?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

equality rights and financial reform,

Can you be specific?

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Not one of these sentences has any footing in reality, what are you talking about?

In the professional world often times women are being measured on success. Why are there not enough women in this department, or enough women in leadership roles, or enough women in executive roles, or enough women on boards. Myself, I've been asked to apply for some internal moves just to represent. Perhaps this is an issue between women and I'm on a board of mostly guys, but professional women really really look down on non-professional women, like they're not holding up their end of the fight. Perhaps I'm equating the ultra feminist movement with liberalism, which is unfair.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

In the professional world often times women are being measured on success. Why are there not enough women in this department, or enough women in leadership roles, or enough women in executive roles, or enough women on boards. Myself, I've been asked to apply for some internal moves just to represent. Perhaps this is an issue between women and I'm on a board of mostly guys, but professional women really really look down on non-professional women, like they're not holding up their end of the fight. Perhaps I'm equating the ultra feminist movement with liberalism, which is unfair.

I think you probably are. Equality is not a slippery slope, it's simply the idea that two people differentiated by race, sex, gender, etc. but equal in all else should have the ability to experience equal outcomes, not that they should be looked down upon for not achieving those outcomes.

The issue you're talking about isn't exclusive to women, either. Professional men often look down on "non-professional" men as well. That's more a class issue than anything else. And extreme feminism probably plays a role on a woman's side, but I doubt it's a role worth making generalizations about Liberals over.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

The Barrett nomination is more interesting than I would have expected, in that she's not an overt schill as I would have expected.

In fact, I'm having a hard time finding objective evidence to suggest she's far-right or extremist at all. I have to assume she's been vetted at least to the extent of confirming she'd overturn Roe, and Trump's M.O. would have been to ask (tell) her directly that he expects loyalty in exchange for nominating her - so one assumes that, for those reasons, she's a dangerous person to have on the court.

But a lot of the articles I'm reading about her - including ones reviewing her judicial decisions - really fail to make a compelling case.

I found this article really telling. Won't stop all the fear-mongering about her religion or supposed racist views because she adopted 2 black children. I mean how dare she!

Like many other liberals, I’m devastated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, which opened the way for President Donald Trump to nominate a third Supreme Court justice in his first term. And I’m revolted by the hypocrisy of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s willingness to confirm Trump’s nominee after refusing to even allow a vote on Judge Merrick Garland.

Yet these political judgments need to be distinguished from a separate question: what to think about Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom Trump has told associates he plans to nominate. And here I want to be extremely clear. Regardless of what you or I may think of the circumstances of this nomination, Barrett is highly qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

I disagree with much of her judicial philosophy and expect to disagree with many, maybe even most of her future votes and opinions. Yet despite this disagreement, I know her to be a brilliant and conscientious lawyer who will analyze and decide cases in good faith, applying the jurisprudential principles to which she is committed. Those are the basic criteria for being a good justice. Barrett meets and exceeds them.

I got to know Barrett more than 20 years ago when we clerked at the Supreme Court during the 1998-99 term. Of the thirty-some clerks that year, all of whom had graduated at the top of their law school classes and done prestigious appellate clerkships before coming to work at the court, Barrett stood out. Measured subjectively and unscientifically by pure legal acumen, she was one of the two strongest lawyers. The other was Jenny Martinez, now dean of the Stanford Law School.

https://www.vox.com/21456044/amy-con...t-roe-abortion

Also.

However, Barrett has also said several times that she believes the Supreme Court will not overturn Roe.

“I don’t think the core case, Roe’s core holding that women have a right to an abortion, I don’t think that would change,” she said in a 2016 appearance at Jacksonville University. “But I think the question of whether people can get very late-term abortions, you know, how many restrictions can be put on clinics, I think that will change.”

https://www.vox.com/21456044/amy-con...t-roe-abortion

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Can you be specific?

Citizens United was one of the worst things to happen to American politics, no chance that gets overturned with a conservative majority on the supreme court. Same with the decision to gut the Voting Rights Act

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelby_County_v._Holder