Ruth Bader Ginsburg's tarnished legacy

That’s the same Dauber who was smearing Depp’s attorney.

Oh, well, then, R1. Did you even read the article? Or do you weigh eveything based on its relation to Johnny Depp?

Huge shit-stirrer.

After reading the recent Hillary Clinton thread, I can’t stop noticing how Democrats are quicker to blame their own party’s women over the Republicans who actually do the damage. Isn’t it curious?

This bitch should have retired. Nobody should be working after age 70, especially those with responsibilities to the entire country.

Yes, R4! Women are blameless, holy creatures!

If she had taken the cues that were being given to her way back in Obama's first 4 years, when he could have safely replaced her after she had already had bouts of both colon and pancreatic cancer, we would now have 1 more liberal justice on the court, not 1 less.

Interesting that you come to that conclusion, r6, but that wasn’t my point. Blaming Clinton for her Russian reset is one thing, blaming her for everything Trump did because she failed to beat him? Blaming Ginsberg for Amy Coney Barrett’s vote? I call bullshit.

To deny that RBG hasn’t directly had a hand in the diminishment of rights for every minority in this country because of her ego is delusional. She gambled with her mortality and lost. Badly. As a result, the decades she spent on rights are going to be erased in the blink of an eye. When Obama asked her to retire, she should have complied. She should have had the foresight to see that she was not in good health (as EVERYONE could see if you looked at her for more than ten seconds) and that Justices should not have jobs in perpetuity. Instead, she long overstayed her time at the fair and as a result hundreds of millions will pay the price.

R8, R8, the blame on Ginsburg is that she held on when she should have relinquished the seat to someone else.

The assertion that Ginsberg and Ginsberg alone is to blame is ridiculous.

R11, the article clearly states she alone is not to blame: "The fact is, people looking to cast blame for the rollback of abortion rights have a pretty long list of culprits before getting to Ginsburg: The justices who may write the decision, the presidents who appointed them, the GOP Senate that blocked Barack Obama’s third judicial nomination, the Democrats who didn’t pass a national abortion-rights bill when they had large majorities, the filibuster, the electoral college and on and on. You could even cite another judicial retirement decision: In 1991, Thurgood Marshall stepped down, declaring himself “old and falling apart.” Marshall wound up living until four days after Bill Clinton’s inauguration — meaning that if he’d somehow stayed put, Clarence Thomas might never have joined the Court to eventually vote down Roe."

Who asserted that Ginsburg alone is to blame, r11? Although it is true that is she'd retired during Obama's presidency, the situation in the US wouldn't be as it is right now.

There's no way of knowing that everything else in the U.S. would have stayed exactly the same if Ginsburg had retired earlier, with the only change being a liberal justice who replaced her.

Saying "she long overstayed her time at the fair and as a result hundreds of millions will pay the price" lays the blame entirely at her feet, despite your claim otherwise.

[quote]I can’t stop noticing how Democrats are quicker to blame their own party’s women over the Republicans who actually do the damage. Isn’t it curious?

Nobody is excusing Republicans, but the point is Democrats have to be smarter. Ginsburg wasn’t strategic, and she should have known better.

NO ONE has said that R11. No one. We are all well aware of what has happened. RBG has a huge role to play because of how justices are handled, however. And really, her refusal to leave will have huge implications well beyond the rights of Americans. It will most likely have a part in the complete reshaping of the court, from stacking to term limits. The fabled court of old is dead, and she (and the Republicans and McConnell and Trump -yes, we know) holds a large amount of responsibility for that.

No, it doesn’t R14. I’m not going to argue with you about it.

Back in 2019 when it was announced she was in poor health I was called a Russian bot for saying she should've retired in 2009.

Oh, hunny. The three, big dicked, gorgeous one night stands every Datalounger didn’t get-

Should’ve Could’ve Would’ve

"... with the only change being a liberal justice who replaced her."

That's a big change, R14 from what we now actually have, and will have for decades.

You replied several times already, r17, so it's far too late to pull out the "I'm not going to argue with you about it" card.

When you say "she long overstayed her time at the fair and as a result hundreds of millions will pay the price," you're letting a lot of other people who were far more responsible for this situation off the hook.

The bigger problem is that Obama was not allowed to replace a justice. The Senate Majority Leader should not have that kind of power. That situation should not have happened, and that precedent should not have been set. Further, the decades-long attacks on women's rights from the same party that refused to allow a president to nominate a replacement did far more damage than Ginsburg's decision.

To instead bitch and moan about a woman choosing to stay in her job, which she was entitled to do, is useless. It's placing the blame everywhere but where it should have been.

If equality rests on one judge’s decision to not retire early, maybe the system is broken.

She could have done her part, even if hers wasn't or wouldn't be the only part.

And that's the name of that tune.

[quote]If equality rests on one judge’s decision to not retire early, maybe the system is broken.

The “system” should have mandatory retirement at 75… at the latest.

[quote]R11, the article clearly states she alone is not to blame

I wasn't talking about the article, as you well know. Also, in another reply, you took part of a sentence of mine at r14 out of context to reply to it. You're just shit stirring. Fuck you.

"The bigger problem is that Obama was not allowed to replace a justice."

Wrong, R21. Obama could have replaced her in his first four years in office, after she'd aready had her frst bouts of both colon and pancreatic cancer.

She had plenty of opportunity to gracefully retire, after many decades on the court, at a time when Obama would have been able to replace her.

Her ego was too big (sadly encouraged by some Democrats) for her to do that. And the lack of balance on the court now is the direct consequence of her decision.

She was quite happy to bask in adulation for her immense intelligence and legacy on the court while she was alive, so it’s pretty odd that her fanboys are now trying to say that her complete misjudgement of the single most consequential decision of any justice was not her responsibility.

Ginsburg should have retired. But politico is a typical crypto conservative DC media rag.

I completely agree, R27. Her arrogance in not stepping down to allow another progressive justice leaves us where we are today.

She’s one of those people who is very intelligent, and has very poor judgment. See also Hillary Clinton.

[quote]The “system” should have mandatory retirement at 75… at the latest.

Isn't that age discrimination?

Ruth is happily roasting in Hell with others of her kind like Janet "Butch" Reno, Madeline Albright, GHW Bush, Eisenhower, and their master Satan!

If there should be term limits on anything, it should be serving on the SCOTUS.

The ultimate irony is that everything she believed in and worked for is being dismantled, including by one of her replacements. All because she didn't have the good sense to retire when she shouls have. Her hubris is destroying whatever legacy she hoped to have.

Sorry, r34, but it would still be a 5-4 conservative majority. They would likely still chipped away at Roe, just not obliterated it.

If Alito’s draft stands, the irony is that by ignoring precedence and blithely tossing away women’s freedom, he may destroy the conservative court movement.

Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are not young men.

Ruth Bader Cuntsburg was a power hungry bitch who only cared about herself

Roe v Wade being overturned is her legacy. It couldn't be done without her. Bravo Ruth

And if she were (brought back to life) and given the chance to do it all over again, SHE WOULD. She would do the same exact thing and stay in office until she died

I NEVER liked this bitch and couldn't understood the hero worship of her.

R35, it's not just about abortion. Her not stepping down is going to lead to a rft of bad decisions. As for the 5-4 part, Roberts has shown he will side with the progressive side. Any way you slice it, it was a bad decision her part, and at the very least, she helped to make it the lopsided conservative court it now is.

*is going to lead to a raft of bad decisions

Roberts has shown he will side with the progressive side.

I meant to say from time to time.

The crackpot prof is a spitting image of the late actor Robert Z'Dar.

What's your point, R40? Does what she say make it any less true? Ginsburg made a bad decision by not retiring when she could have and we'll feel the effects of that for decades. Especially when they dismantle same sex marriage.

This is what upsets me most about this. Back in 2016 there were quite a few democrats making the case that the Supreme Court was one of, if not the most important issue in the election. Those people still couldn't hold their noses and vote for Hillary. So, I don't blame RBG. I don't blame Trump or his SCOTUS picks. I blame the fuckfaces who were still arguing about Bernie and Jill Stein and those who couldn't do the one thing that needed to be done and vote for Hillary. Those people and those people alone are the reasons why we are here today.

[quote] Obama could have replaced her in his first four years in office, after she'd already had her first bouts of both colon and pancreatic cancer.

That is absolutely true, and Obama could have also fought Mitch's decision to not give him a supreme court pick. He could have taken Mcconnell to court. But he couldn't be bothered. He was like, "Hillary will win".

But taking Mcconnell to court would have required fighting and democrats are God damned wimps and refuse to fight. And they refuse to think outside the box. They don't have a strategy for anything. While the republicans have a strategy for EVERYTHING.

R41 My point is quite clear.

Do YOU know of ANY woman who looks like Robert Z'Dar? Huh? I thought not!

Well RBG was not unique, there are many other American political figures who are way past due for retirement but are driven by ego. Stop acting like our federal government isn't made up of ancient people.

Blaming a woman for not retiring then inconveniently dying rather than blaming women who voted for Trump. Makes total sense 🙄

Also, let’s remember the history. Until Trump, a Supreme Court nomination could be filibustered. Obama did not have 60 votes except for four months in his first term. Perhaps we should blame Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd for dying, and then Al Franken for not getting seated until June of 2009.

We find it hilarious that anyone with a functioning brain would think that it makes any difference whatsoever which paid stooges occupy the White House, the Congress, or the SCOTUS!

Yeah too bad she wasn't a narcissistic asshole who craved attention like Trump, she could have retired and traveled around the country to adoring crowds. Giving speeches and selling books. I wish she would have retired but she make a mistake. Who among us thought that this nation could ever elect a pussy grabbing, lying con man like Donald Trump to be President.

“We hoped Ruth would retire with dignity. Unfortunately, Ruth had other plans,”

Women cause so much damage and then don’t want to be held accountable. I think I respect them even less than the Trans.

There's way to many old ass people running our government in both parties. McConnell & Pelosi gave both been in either houses of congress since before I was born. And they're both still there right now today.

Unfucking believable.

And do not get me started on DiFi. These people don't wanna let go of power. It's time for them to pass it on to the next generation. Like mine! It's time for millennials Gen X & younger Boomers to take over. Enough of these old people running the fucking show. They've completely destroyed the country, to their benefit.

Don't blame Ruth for the current exploding abortion issue. She did the best that she could with the hand that she was given. Looking back in hindsight doesn't solve anything and won't change the current problems. She was a great and renowned Supreme Court Justice!!

R52…could not agree more

[quote]Women cause so much damage and then don’t want to be held accountable. I think I respect them even less than the Trans.

Do you caress your mother with those same keyboarding claws?

[quote]Back in 2016 there were quite a few democrats making the case that the Supreme Court was one of, if not the most important issue in the election. Those people still couldn't hold their noses and vote for Hillary.

Well, maybe Hillary should have taken some initiative and made that point repeatedly herself as part of her disastrous failed campaign. Trump regularly told Republicans during his speeches: “you want abortion made illegal? The way I’ll do it is through the Courts.” Unfortunately, he was a bit more savvy about this issue than “genius” Hillary.

She did make that point, frequently, along with calling for the Senate to vote on Merrick Garland. But go ahead and blame her, since that seems to be your goal.

[quote]She did make that point, frequently

She didn’t.

Yes, R46, I am blaming her for not retiring when she should have to preserve her liberal legacy AND at the same time get her progressive replacement on the bench when she could have. If she had, we would have 1 more liberal justice on the bench, not 1 less. That's entirely on her. She stayed well past her time.

It was her choice to stay on for years and years with advanced cancer. It was a stupid and arrogant decision.

Actally, R44, yes, I do.

She also could have retired during Obama's 2nd term, maybe two years into it. First term (Obama) would have been better b/c O had a majority Dem Senate. However, there would have been more time to get a new justice sworn in.

Everyone is allowed an opinion, so here's mine. Ginsburg should have retired and enjoyed the rest of her time on earth. I agree with r56/r58, and will go a step further. Hillary drove away the votes she needed to win the election with these three words: "basket of deplorables". If not for that unnecessary, antagonistic utterance, she would have won.

There were tons of people who did not want to vote for the Orange Idiot; Hillary gave them a reason to.

R4, it's utterly disingenuous and ridiculous of you to reduce the argument over Ginsburg's failure to retire in a timely and politically expedient manner with Democrats' blaming women for their political blunders--especially when that person is a SCOTUS justice. Nothing "curious" about it at all. In general, Democrats can and should be blamed for their lack of ruthlessness in dealing with their political enemy, the Republicans.

In this case, it's merely arrogance on her part.

Uh, I don’t think anyone on this thread knows how to do the math of the current Supreme Court. Never mind the author of this article.

She had multiple bought a with cancer. I have long said she should have retired even before she died. Really bad call on her part.

Yes, it was more than a 50-50 gamble. She was in and out of the hospital.

I work in the courts system. Aside from public adoration, she was completely coddled & put on a pedestal, professionally. She probably had multiple law clerks, assistants, etc., all kissing her ass.

Even these low-grade judges that I work with get really, really full of themselves. Even the nicer ones.

The day she died, I deleted a Facebook friend who posted. "Good riddance, evil bitch." It's bizarre how "Christians" feel it's acceptable to speak that way. I'm guessing he hated her because of her work for abortion rights.

And now Democrats want to hate her too? Blame Trump. Blame gleefully-evil Mitch McConnell. Blame two-faced Lindsey Graham. Blame the Trumpsters who've paid for their girlfriends' abortions but want to end abortion now to "own the libs". She was appointed the role of Justice for life. She had spent her entire life working for women's equality, and she wanted to continue doing that until her last breath. It's not her fault the system is corrupt.

Hillary could have run the worst campaign in the history of political campaigns, but it doesn't matter. Everyone knew what was at stake. Sometimes you hold your nose and vote for the one you don't like, because they are the lesser of two evils. But do keep trying to blame everyone else, including a dead woman, for your own personal failures.

R67, to say she bore no responsibility or accountability, knowing exactly what it meant to take a chance on every other administration being Republican, is completely sidestepping the issue. It's not about hating her. No one here said they hated her. She's being held to account for her terrible and arrogant decision to cling to the job. She had no business holding onto the job with her last breath. Politically, it was stupid, and she should have known better.

"But do keep trying to blame everyone else, including a dead woman, for your own personal failures."

WHOSE own personal failures, exactly, R68?

R68, agree. Some of the blame goes to the Bernie Bros who said, "Well if I can't have my first choice of Bernie, I'm taking my ball and going home."

[quote]to say she bore no responsibility or accountability, knowing exactly what it meant to take a chance on every other administration being Republican,

Ginsburg and Hillary honestly didn’t believe there would be a Republican administration in 2017. They were that arrogant, they didn’t think it was possible that Hillary could lose.

Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders don't have anything to do with Ginsburg's decision to essentially die on the bench. The bottom line is this: her stubborn refusal to step down when she should have helped create the situation we have on our hands today. And I would say the same for a male SCOTUS justice if he did the same thing. Breyer saw the mistake Ginsburg and reluctantly stepped down, but at least he did.

She made some unsavory comments about Colin Kaepernick taking a knee that turned me off to her.

Bitch didn’t like schvartes.

Hipster racism fail @ r75.

Well said R27.

RBG bought into her own hype and believed that she was invincible.

If she had retired during Obama, wouldn’t McConnell just have held up her spot like he did Scalia’s?

Obviously there's no one failure or mistake here, but she should have retired. Cults of personality are seldom good things. Look at Hillary. Look at Trump. When it becomes about the person, not the country, bad things are likelier to happen. DL always falls into the trap of my hero is best for the country.

[quote] If she had retired during Obama, wouldn’t McConnell just have held up her spot like he did Scalia’s?

That's a good question. Obama's first term, the Senate majority was the Democrats, so, no major issues. Obama's second term, yes, McConnell was there (majority Senate), but if the process had started early enough, Obama could have gotten a pick sworn in.

[Quote]"basket of deplorables". If not for that unnecessary, antagonistic utterance, she would have won.

Oh please, they wore that name as a badge of honor. They had it on t-shirts. Nobody clutched their pearls and voted against her because of it.

R81, a simple majority would not have been sufficient for a Supreme Court justice at any point in Obama’s term. He needed 60 votes.

I wasn't speaking of the hardline MAGA crowd, r82. Plenty of people disliked Hillary, but might have overlooked it had she not flaunted her well-known hubris to those who don't like having a condescending finger wagged in their face.

[quote][R81], a simple majority would not have been sufficient for a Supreme Court justice at any point in Obama’s term. He needed 60 votes.

They could have changed the rules, just like McConnell did. But they’re too weak to do that. So they let the old mcTurtle outmaneuver them.

[quote]Plenty of people disliked Hillary, but might have overlooked it had she not flaunted her well-known hubris to those who don't like having a condescending finger wagged in their face.

She didn’t know how to read a room. People viewed her as an out-of-touch elitist, and she did everything she could to reinforce that image. “Why aren’t I 50 points ahead? Why aren't the deplorables voting for me?”

Well in that case I blame Robbie Mook's board shorts.

Yet that fossil fool Stephen Breyer still smiles and still sits himself on the bench when he has his confirmed replacement already waiting in the wings.

p.s. We need to purge ourselves of ALL old, fossilized fucks so we can allow the new roots in.

Ginsburg was selfish

Democrats have won seven of the eight last presidential elections by the popular vote (and likely would have won all eight if George W. Bush didn’t have the advantage of incumbency in 2004 despite losing the popular vote in 2000). Yet we have a 6 to 3 conservative majority in the Supreme Court. Yes, Ginsburg was a self-infatuated fool but we are probably doomed by our outdated democratic process in the long run. The country is governed by the most dysfunctional and dependent areas of the country.

[quote] she could have retired and traveled around the country to adoring crowds

Justice Ginsburg was doing exactly that in her last years. In 2016 she was flogging her biography. In 2018 she appeared on Colbert. And much else besides. She relished the attention she was receiving as the “Notorious R.B.G.”

Yes, she was traveling while on the bench.

R83, Obama got the two other women (of the time) on the bench. He could have replaced her as well.

Yes, just because you have a Democrat POTUS and a Republican Senate majority does not mean POTUS can't get a SCOTUS pick sworn in. I'm sure we've had instances of a Republican SCOTUS and a Democrat majority in the Senate ---> SCOTUS pick sworn in.

It's also silly to say that, if the Senate is the same party as the POTUS, you can't get a SCOTUS pick sworn in because you need 60% or whatever. That's the magic combo: POTUS & Senate, same party.

Why do you assume Gisburg wouldn't join in overturning Roe.

In her famous 1992 lecture at New York University, Ginsburg warned against major judicial shifts, citing Roe as an example. "Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped...may prove unstable," she said.

"Measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication," she argued. "Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable. The most prominent example in recent decades is Roe v. Wade."

In any event, superheroes never retire.

"Why do you assume Gisburg wouldn't join in overturning Roe."

Oh, my sides, R95!

Abortion should have never been an SC case at all. It should be codified in the federal when they had the chance. I think they will turn it over to the states.

Look at Grassley and Feinstein. It's very hard to get mentally declining politicos to retire and RBG was in possession of all her faculties. She needed to go, no question, but that's not the message sent to the capable elderly.

I would say most young people did not know what was at stake in 2020 or what will be at stake in 2024. Unless Bernie is running to erase their student loans, they don't take a lot of interest and rely on sloganeering rather than reading.

I don't know how you get through to headstrong, uninformed people who are convinced they know more than their elders. We know the power of the Supreme Court appointment and that third party candidates are spoilers because we've lived through it..

I think a lot of young people voted in 2020, R98, and helped Biden win, because they also knoew what was at stake. An unusual amount more, if I'm not mistaken.

It’s amazing that the Obama administration is now forgotten. Kagan, Obama’s last appointment to the Supreme Court, was in May of 2010. The Tea Party took over the House in January of 2011, and the Democratic majority in the Senate was at 51. Then 53 in 2013, then Republican in 2015.

You think confirming a Supreme Court justice in the Tea Party era would have been a slam dunk? Dream on.

R100 No, which is why RBG should have done the obvious thing and retired while the Dems controlled POTUS and the Senate. There was plenty of opportunity for Obama to replace her if she hadn’t bought into her own hype by that stage.

She should have retired when the time was there. She had no way of predicting the future, but before Obama's power to appoint justices was clipped she should have taken cues from her health record, those around her, and the opportunity of the moment.

Had she wanted, she could have stayed in the warm glow of adulation by teaching giving lectures, advising presidents, looking after her health...

Instead we got years of fawning "and yet she persisted" and the current court that will fuck what's left of the U.S. all the way into the ground.

Pretty much, R102. Thanks for saying what sorely needed to be said here, and which some don't want to hear.

R25, you're talking to 2 different posters. And no, I didn't know.

Apologies, R25. Yes, you were only addressing me, my error. But it's not shit-stirring to coldly assess the bad mistakes of a beloved old liberal, or are you saying she can't be criticized?

Sites like this are sickening. For God's sake know when it's time to quit.

That doddering old woman at R106 gave us Amy, the handmaiden. Or was it Brett, the dry-drunk rageaholic? Appointed either way by, of all presidents, TRUMP. Some legacy she's left.

She was drinking Opus! Give her a break!

Only the best for our beloved Paragon of Progressivism!

I remember her reminiscing about Scalia, saying what a great friend he was, how they rode an elephant somewhere, and just what a great friend he was. made me think: it's great they're friends. And then I thought: she's friends with him? To her, it was an old man's club she was a member of. For the record, I don't think the left and right side of SCOTUS are friends hangng out, riding elephants.

Cunt. I want to spit whenever I see or hear her name. Narcissistic cunt.

This whole thread is SILLY. Lionizing a justice, FFS! Painting murals of her, or whatever the fuck that is in R95. Geeeze, it's almost like she's a demigod, which fits the narrative of the NON-left that liberals see politics as a religion, and they're just as fervent, close-minded and hateful of anything that opposes it's dogma or in this case, it's political platform as religious zealots are of their faith.

Both groups need to be obliterated.

[quote]I remember her reminiscing about Scalia, saying what a great friend he was, how they rode an elephant somewhere, and just what a great friend he was. made me think: it's great they're friends. And then I thought: she's friends with him? To her, it was an old man's club she was a member of. For the record, I don't think the left and right side of SCOTUS are friends hangng out, riding elephants.

You're not friends with people you disagree with politically? How is that even possible?

R112, OP is hardly suggesting lionization. Nor are a lot of people responding here.

R113, it's the idea that two old people with too much power to decide over people are riding elephants in a mutual admiration society. That's what I find odd. Not that they had admiration for eqach other as mutual friends.

I dont think Kagan and Kavanaugh will be riding elephants anywhere.

When did the SCOTUS get so fucking trashy?

R117 Well, you were picked, solely, on the basis of an immutable characteristic, soooo...you tell me.

Fuck you, Bill whitey, R118. My dick is bigger than yours.

It was folly. But it wasn't ego, arrogance, or buying her own hype, R27 et. al.

First--it was feminist sentimentality. Gender discrimination and women's rights were the focus of her brilliance as a law student, rights attorney, scholar, and appellate jurist long before joining the Supremes. She like just about every liberal/Democrat believed Hilz would be the next President. She wanted the joy of ending her time with the Supremes by swearing in her female replacement under a female President. Again--folly. But not ego or arrogance.

Second--This one is more speculative. I suspect she had unease that Obama could not be trusted to appoint a female to her seat. The simple fact is that if you were going to look at justice mathematically, the country arguably should have an all-female Supreme Court for a century or so, after which it could go to 5 or 4 females at any given time. Naturally that will never happen, but certainly there should not be another male appointment until there's 5 or 4 women on that Court. It's disgusting how long this has gone on.

Well, perhaps Obama committed to a female appointment when trying to persuade RBG step down (if he did try). But the O administration was a notorious Boys Club and Boys Locker Room. And it does occur that RBG had some unease, and thought she'd stick it out until Hilz was sworn in. Again . . . folly. But not ego or arrogance.

R120, I believe you're wrong in thinking she herself gave much thought to Obama's choice of replacement for her, partly because she never enterained the notion of retiring. He ended up appointed the only two (up to that time) female justices, of course. I also think it was ego and arrogance.

R119 I had better hair....correct, Big Thur?

The picture isn't coming through, R122, so I can't say, but make no mistake: I had the DICK. I didn't have to marry a white woman, Like Uncle Clarence, to have arrived.

Yeah, he appointed two women, but I think there is doubt he could be counted on to do the right thing and appoint a third in a row, or however many in a row in order to get those numbers to an equitable level. It's like the College of Cardinals there, and not only because most of them are Catholics.

R124, he wasn't unofficially charged with appointing all women, just liberals. And Obama's choices were solid. I hate the turtle, Moscow Mitch McConnell, with the heat of a thousand suns for what he pulled, and I agree that Obama should have fought him. Obama was far too congenial to white trash like McConnell, but he felt he had to be mindful of his manners as the first black president, and be respectful. That was foolish of him.

Ego, ego, ego, she believed the hype. Notorious RBG, as if. The workouts with the trainer. What a joke. I'll post yet another photo of her asleep at work. Now, if you were asleep on the job over & over & caught on camera would you keep your job? If you were elderly & caught sleeping on the job over & over, wouldn't you be brought in to HR or the boss & told to retire? .Maybe some dementia at play? Nasty old crone wasn't even embarrassed. Google it, there are at least 6 different pictures of her sleeping at work. At this old biatch got to collect a paycheck paid by my taxes to sleep at work! Bet there were loads more instances of her sleeping at work. Icon, my ass. That wore off when she refused to go.

No one said he was officially charged with appointing women. The point is, if he did not appoint another one to replace RBG, there is it at 2 again, and my speculation is he and his administration were enough of a Boys Club that she was uneasy about that. This speculation is secondary to my first reason for her inaction--she couldn't resist the prospect of a swearing-in for a new female justice under a President Hilz. And I agree, it was a disastrous mistake.

To the poster who said that republicans and democrats could not be friends. That is not true. People were not always talking about politics in the past and the right and left were closer together politically. This country is as divided today as I think they were during the civil war years. Most of the time I didn't know what party my friends were we didn't talk about politics all the time.

JAPs are control freaks.

I think one of those girls Kavanaugh coaches will come forward with molestation allegations and he'll hang himself.

We're probably stuck with Kavanaugh for a long time to come. Maybe he'll be falling asleep (drunk) at future State of the Union addresses.

[quote]“She gambled,” says Michele Dauber, the outspoken Stanford law professor, speaking of Ginsburg’s apparent calculation that Hillary Clinton would be in the White House to appoint her successor.

Dauber is really a piece of work. Nobody, but nobody, in SCOTUS circles or D.C. circles or in the media or in Prof Dauber's Palo fucking Alto/Silicon Valley circles, thought Clinton would lose. It wasn't a “gamble” ffs. Everybody knew Clinton was going to win. Ginsburg knew (incorrectly, it turned out) she had four years to assure her successor would be appointed, under Clinton.

I love how the liberals were forever making her their Madonna , idolizing her beyond all reason . And now they are turning on her as if she is Mussolini in the town square. Hysterical .

How do they like RBG at VMI?

So why didn’t she retire?

Personality disordered? What?

"Nobody, but nobody, in SCOTUS circles or D.C. circles or in the media or in Prof Dauber's Palo fucking Alto/Silicon Valley circles, thought Clinton would lose. It wasn't a “gamble” ffs."

Receipts, R132? When I voted for Clinton in that fateful election, I myself wasn't sure but was hopeful and cautiously optimistic she would win. But I never felt certain. If I had doubts, you can be sure there was doubt in DC as well.

r127, your theory makes no sense.

Hubris, God! Did those Greeks know how the world turns (& still turns), or what? Hilary la Hubris. The minute she did the deplorables speech, her goose was cooked. Sorta her Marie Antoinette, let them eat cake moment! She thinks & thought she can say whatever she wants to whoever she wants. Insult & demean whoever she wants. Maybe in her house .Maybe Bill , her servants & staff have eaten so much of her sh*t for so long she thought it could fly anywhere. But when you're looking for votes, that ain't the way to go.

This thread has nothing to do with Hillary Clinton, R137. We're not interested.

^Clinton is mentioned more than once in this thread. The claim is everyone was banking on Hilary winning the election, the Great RGB stayed on, since Hilary was such a shoe in.

What should happen is SC justices get a maximum appointment. Like maybe 10 years.

R139, the truth is we all would have been better off if Clinton HAD been elected. We all know that. And just because a few people brught her up doesn't change the fact that this thread is NOT about Hillary Clinton.

[quote]What should happen is SC justices get a maximum appointment. Like maybe 10 years.

You only say that because there are a bunch of justices on the court you don't like. You'd be singing a different tune about term limits if SCOTUS was liberal leaning.

Because people couldn't get over their HIllary nonsense, we gave up a prime opportunity to put 3 liberal/moderate justices on the court.

No, R142, I've been saying it for years: liberal or conservative, there should be term limits.

No one should have a job for life. Especially such a significant job as that. It breeds hubris.

R139 That doesn’t really make much sense – even if Clinton had won there was no way they’d have had the Senate. No sane person would have relied on some successor president getting in when they had a perfect chance sitting in front of them in their 70s to retire and be replaced by another liberal.

It was all ego. By then she had absolutely bought into the absurd RBG hype. A sad end.

Lifetime appointments to the Supreme Court were fine back when the Constitution was written, and the average life expectancy was 50. Nowadays, people can live to 100, and nobody is mentally fit at those advanced ages to be in a leadership position in government.

So by that logic, R146, are you saying that Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh are better for the court than the older more liberal justices because they're younger? I think you go down a slippery slope when you start playing the age game.

Receipts, r136 are the openly gobsmacked expressions on all the cable newscasters' faces as the election returns started to come in. The election result was considered “one of the greatest upsets in American history.” (Wikipedia, 2016 presidential election)

[quote]Clinton led in almost every nationwide and swing-state poll, with some predictive models giving Clinton over a 90 percent chance of winning.

My point was simply that RBG was not “gambling” as the odious Michele Dauber claimed. Clinton was a shoo-in. Everybody knew Clinton was going to win. This revisionist history that it was a chancy election is emerging only now, just after the SCOTUS leak overturning Roe occurred. It’s just incorrect.

“Cautiously optimistic” does not begin to describe what a certainty the Clinton victory was in DC-land, and on the coasts, where major media and SCOTUS justices and their clerks live. (I'm not particularly an RBG follower, but let’s be fair.)

R148, no one I knew thought it was a shoo-in. If we didn't, then so did many others bot think that. DC is like Hollywood--not necessarily in tune with what most people think.

[quote]“Cautiously optimistic” does not begin to describe what a certainty the Clinton victory was in DC-land, and on the coasts, where major media and SCOTUS justices and their clerks live

Everyone in Pennsylvania and Michigan knew she was going to lose. There was zero enthusiasm for her, and Trump was having a surge in popularity going into November. The clueless media was just as out-of-touch with reality as Clinton’s disastrous campaign.

Did RBG have avian bone syndrome?

If you’re going to blame anyone, blame Obama. He didn’t fight Moscow Mitch nearly hard enough to seat Garland. I have no doubt Barack had the same horrible revelation the day after the 2016 election.

R152, there is nothing he could have legally done.

Stop blaming Obama

Stop blaming RBG

Fight the real enemy - Trump and Republicans

Holding her to some account for her poor judgment is not blaming her for the bigger issue, R153.

The Democrats who are mean enough to fight the GOP are reviled.

No, they are respected. The ones who don't fight are pussies.

What about the ones who only fight other Democrats, like AOC?

"ignore the bad decisions of your side; focus on fighting the Republicans/winning the next election"

People who unironically believe this are the stupidest people in the planet. Like, what is even the point of this?

R5 Exactly. Especially not as a president.

Her legacy is fine.

The professor is also Condi's best friend at Stanford.

[quote] Her legacy is fine.

Does it send its love as well?

You think Rahm Emanuel is respected?

Trump made judges a key part of his campaign. He even released a list of potential SCOTUS nominees during the 2016 campaign. Message to Republicans was clear. You may hate my guts, but I'll do you right on judges.

Hillary talked about judges, but that was about it.

I agree, but you cannot blame her. I certainly didn't see Trump actually winning. Weren't we all in shock? It's not like all of the judges are regularly resigning before every election. Trump didn't even see his win coming.

Even in 2012 after Obama’s re-election, history would have shown that the next president would have likely been from the opposite party and history would also suggest that he would be a two termer. So in 2012 Ruth was gambling that she would live an additional sixteen years.

LBH the woman was a delusional narcissist who probably refused Obama’s request because he was black. White women of her generation were awful.

I’m sure you’d like to believe that R160.

She was a fucking racist bitch!

[quote]This country is as divided today as I think they were during the civil war years

R128 The 1960s were one of the most tumultuous and divisive decades in U.S. history, marked by the civil rights movement, race riots, Vietnam and antiwar protests, political assassinations, women's lib, etc. Many religious people thought it was the end of times, too.

Bump

Says who, R160--you?

"I certainly didn't see Trump actually winning." I did, R165.

[quote] I agree, but you cannot blame her. I certainly didn't see Trump actually winning. Weren't we all in shock? It's not like all of the judges are regularly resigning before every election. Trump didn't even see his win coming.

RBG was very old and suffered from chronic illness. She gambled, we lost.

[quote] If equality rests on one judge’s decision to not retire early, maybe the system is broken.

It is broken. When this ridiculous idea of lifetime appointments originated people usually only lived to @40 years old. Which to the average datalounger is a twunk.

[quote] If you’re going to blame anyone, blame Obama. He didn’t fight Moscow Mitch nearly hard enough to seat Garland. I have no doubt Barack had the same horrible revelation the day after the 2016 election.

This is not on Obama. He FOUGHT to get HRC elected. That was the most he could do at a time when American politics enjoyed the false veneer of integrity and civility.

Three bouts of cancer—colon, pancreas and lung—were not enough to deter Justice Bader Ginsburg from serving out her lifetime appointment. What did she have more of, grit or hubris?

I think that's been established, R175. The concensus is hubris.

She's DEAD to me!

I agree that her legacy is significantly tarnished because she was in her 80s with significant health issues, and yet she refused to step down while Obama was president so he can appoint another judge with a fair progressive perspective. She took a big gamble that a Democrat will either be the next president, or that she can survive the next presidential term if a Republican won. Between the Republican's shenanigans and Ginsburg's stubbornness we now have a Supreme Court packed with ultra-conservative judges that do not represent the majority of the US public.

Mavel-tov

My memoirs make a great Father’s Day gift!

I think RBG should have stepped down. But I get she wanting to continue and of course being hopeful about her own health.

Well her legacy certainly won’t be forgotten now

Notorious RBG indeed

Oh for fucks sake, even if she had stepped down, Trump still would have stacked the court with 2 other judges and not a single thing that happened today would have changed.

I always hated the silly adulation she got. The cause is always more important the person. She clearly should have resigned and let Obama chose a young liberal judge, Roe was actually struck down in a 5 to 4 vote so not replacing her led to the demise of Roe. Once Obama couldn’t get MG through it was all over. Evangelicals made a deal with the devil and it worked out for them.

Maybe the SCOTUS life terms were to be the State counterpart to the Church and Pope, Archbishop of Canterbury, etc.

R183. I agree. How did her fane arise? Did someone in her circle encourage it? Even if that wasn’t the case, she should have done more to discourage it. She clearly ate it up.

She did a number of good things and was a highly qualified lawyer but she didn’t seem to be spellbindingly brilliant and she was as boring as a person can be. Even at her confirmation hearing I was struck by how ordinary she seemed. Her spoken answers never really conveyed the extraordinary intelligence she surely must have had. Thurgood Marshall deserved at least as much a cult of personality as she did, given his pioneering role in the civil rights movement.

We can hope she was a one-off celebrity justice. Mercifully, the right hadn’t tried to make make Alito into a celebratory yet. Since the respect and prestige of the court seem to be vanishing, we can hope their will never be a similar phenomenon in the future.

R182 Nope. It was a 5-4 vote to overturn Roe. RBG’s choice to stick around and bask in adulation rather than do the decent thing made all the difference.

You dont know who would have replaced her and you cant say the replacement wouldn't have been stalled like Garland. Or that Obama would have picked some "moderate" who was basically a Republican with a Dem in name only like Joe Manchin.

No, R187, and no, R182. She should have resigned during Obama's first term, which has been repeatedly stated on this thread, and when she already had bouts of two different cancers. He could have safely replaced her then. And R186, for the record, the vote was 6-3, as they always will be, from now on.

R187. Maybe Obama would also have appointed a 95-year-old who would die the next year. It’s certainly possible, but EXTREMELY unlikely. Obama had already appointed two justices. Neither of them is a Joe Manchin. There’s no reason to think he would have suddenly had a change of heart and appoint someone entirely different.

Of course he would not have, R189. R187 is ridiculous in her speculations.

R188 No, it definitely wasn’t 6-3 on overturning Roe.

It was 5-4: Roberts explicitly opposed overturning Roe. He only agreed on the narrower point of allowing restrictions after a lower time limit.

Without the RBG effect, Roe would have remained.

Yes, R191, but he was still on the voting side of the supermajority, so however you slice it, it was actually 6-3, even with his objections. He could have sided with the minority, and he ultimately didn't. His objections were wet and worthless.

Clinton should have appointed Sarah Weddington instead of Ginsburg.

"As the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted in a 1992 speech for the Madison Lecture series, this political development was overrun by the decision in Roe vs. Wade."

Woulda, shoulda, coulda.

The past is firmly in the past.

The Row v. Wade decision is a blow to Nanny Central Govt. The states will & perhaps should have more power over themselves. Hopefully this can translate into smaller, central govt. Smaller salaries for legislators, judges. Maybe then the Feds. will attract fewer grifter, greed hogs with no real skills.

"The Row v. Wade decision is a blow to Nanny Central Govt. "

Huh, R194? It's a blow to women.

I believe the correct phrase in human rights, since there is not clear, real definition of what a woman is. Even men can have children, don't you know that R196?

R196 is talking to herself.

RBG is the perfect of example of how fucking stupid it is to deify people based on gender or cuteness. Had she retired in 2013, the court would be a little more balanced today. Instead, she gave Trump the opportunity to nominate 3 relatively young religious extremists who will set the US back decades in terms of social progress.

What a cunt.

You can tell that the posters on this forum are either woefully uninformed or trolls. r182 is right but has no WWs. r188 is wrong and has several. I don't mean their opinions are incorrect, I mean their facts are incorrect. Facts don't seem to matter on here anymore. It's that way all over the internet, I suppose.

What facts did I get wrong, R199? Obama could have easily and safely replaced her in his first 4 years in office, and even 2 years into his second term. Prove to me how I'm wrong about that.

I tried to get guardianship appointed to old Supreme Court Justices but you fuckers wouldn’t allow it.

Anyone with a brain should’ve known what’s happened was on the table, and it should’ve affected their voting choices. It was clear as day. I blame voters, not Ruth.

I blame both, R202. She was the only one to blame for her own inaction. Dying on the bench was really stupid.

The Supreme Court is a separate branch of government. No POTUS should be putting pressure on a justice to retire.

R200, I had the number wrong, I didn't mean to list your post. Sorry about that.

I should have said r182 is right and r186 is wrong. He keeps saying that the vote was 5-4, when it wasn't.

as read on Twitter: nothing like blaming the woman who refused to retire because a man told her to

For the last time for the mouthbreathers unable to parse two thoughts in their heads at once (the major reason we are here today), there were two votes:

The vote to uphold Dobbs, the Mississippi law restricting abortion to 15 weeks, was 6-3. Roberts concurring with the majority.

The vote to overturn Roe and Casey, was 5-4, Roberts voting with Sotomayor, Kagan, and Breyer.

Had just one of the 2 stolen seats (Garland -> Gorsuch and Coney Barrett, but you could even call shenanigans for Kennedy -> Kavanagh) been filled by Obama in the first case, a victorious Hillary Clinton in any of them, or Biden in the last one, the vote to uphold Dobbs might have fallen to 5-4, while there vote to overturn Roe and Casey would have failed.

Similarly, if RBG had retired when she developed pancreatic cancer in 2009 or had a stent in 2014 - the first a very safe time to retire and the second well within any potential obstructionist window for a replacement. (The reason McConnell fought so hard on Garland was that it was a Scalia replacement and one of 'theirs').

And one more footnote on her legacy - she hired one black law clerk out of hundreds over her entire tenure. Clearly she didn't like the schvartzes. Perhaps she was closer to her opera buddy Scalia that we knew.

Blaming RBG for this is a right-wing troll's dream come true. They can use it to demoralize liberals, and tell them it's their fault for everything bad that's happened to them. That's why I don't take the argument seriously. Thinking people know that the loss of Roe happened due to many factors over decades, not just because of one person.

Obama could have “easily replaced” her in a short window of 4 months. At the time, a Supreme Court Justice could required 60 votes.

And no, if the Governing While Black President had tried to remove the filibuster, he would not have won a second term.

Blame the people who DID this and wanted this. What the fuck is wrong with you people?

That's a ridiculously false as well as simplistic interpretation, R206. And to say, R208, that criticizing RBG is just to demoralize liberals is ridiculous, as I am one.

And once again, R209, Obama had 6 years, not 4 months, to replace her, and he could have, as he already put 2 justices on the bench.

[quote]And to say, [R208], that criticizing RBG is just to demoralize liberals is ridiculous, as I am one.

I didn't say that at all.

R208, as a "thinking person," you're nevertheless insinuating that criticism of RBG fits into some right-wing troll dream narrative, rather than legitimate criticism of her decision to hang on long after the situation was viable, which you reject.

R210, which Republicans would have voted for an Obama nominee after the Tea Party? He would have needed 60 votes to confirm RBG’s replacement.

Out of curiosity, how old were you during the Obama Administration?

R213, he had the majority to get a confirmation passed. He got 2 justices confirmed around the same time.

What does my age have to do with it? How old were you?

CUNT

[quote]you're nevertheless insinuating that criticism of RBG fits into some right-wing troll dream narrative

I'm not implying it, I'm stating it outright. Trolls see how Democrats and liberals criticize each other, and repeat it themselves as a trolling tactic, because much of their goal is to demoralize people and break alliances.

Because it's a troll topic, and because it's painfully obvious that we lost Roe because of multiple factors, and not just because of the actions of one person, this is an easy argument to disregard, regardless of who makes the argument. There's no point to it. As this thread has continued, people have turned to lying about things to try to bolster their argument that it's all RBG's fault. Clearly, if their argument was sound, they wouldn't have to lie.

You may not be a troll, but at both r20 and r210, you took something I said and removed context, so you could argue with me about it. I see that you do that with everyone. You're constantly calling everyone on here names, insulting them, and dismissing any point they make, even if they have facts on their side. You're more interested in being a cunt than in actually discussing the issue, so you'll excuse me, but I'm done giving you the attention you crave.

Say what you will but for all her wins, she was still a holier-than-thou ego monster

Obama needed 60 votes, a supermajority. He only had that for four months. He got 2 justices confirmed in his first two years, before the Tea Party.

I ask your age because it seems you are either too young or too imperceptive to remember that time,

R216, I called no one names anywhere on this thread. I never used the word cunt, for instance. That was never me. I respected her, to a point. I did call her arrogant and foolish--legitimate words to describe her hanging on. And this is not a troll topic, this is and has been a legitimate criticism levelled at her. You sound like someone who can't handle yourself in this particular argument. That's not my problem.

R218, what does the Tea Party have to do with it? Were they voting for Supreme Court justice? And he would have had those 60 votes. Kagan had 5 Republicans voting for her; Sotomayor had 9 Republicans. Another nomination would have produced similar support from Republicans, beyond those precious 4 months you cling to.

And thanks for your condescension, but "imperceptive" could be seen as a two-way street in this case, or at least a matter of opinion--yours, to suit your narrative.

Towards the end of her life, she became a pop culture icon...the "notorious RBG". It probably was a little heady for her, and kept her on much longer than it should. She didn't have the strategic foresight....or her ego was too big....to leave much earlier, when most likely, it would have been a liberal replacement. Everything is hindsight now...20/20 vision looking back.

Some things are not hindsight. If she had retired when Obama could have replaced her, which she should have done after two bouts of cancer, it would have been 4 liberal justices, with perhaps Roberts coming on to save Roe from being completely overturned, as he seemed to indicate he would have.

Inaction--hers--has as many consequences as actions do, in her case.

Stupid bitch

Has anyone interviewed either of Ginsburg's children following the overturn of Roe? Her daughter is a law professor, albeit intellectual property but still might reveal something about her mother's master plan for staying on the court .

Only an idiot would say it wouldn't have made a difference since there have been at least a few occasions where Roberts *may* have sided with the liberal justices.

R206. She should have known to retire without a man telling her too. Once a man told her to do it, she could never retire?

Rehnquist was similarly silly and vain. I would criticise his decision to die in the bench as well but since he was a conservative replaced by a conservative, it made no difference.