Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg...

[abax]

died today. She was my hero and a defender of the Constitution of the United States. I'm very
sad tonight.

 

[Guldal]

A light in darkness has been extinguished, a star of righteousness has stopped to shine.
Though, "Many waters cannot quench love, neither can floods drown it".

In deep respect for the courage and tenacity, that made her uphold her office to the very end. May she rest in peace!

 

[Djthomp28]

She was an amazing woman. She inspired so many, including me, and her legacy will continue to do so for generations to come.

 

[Ray]

And you know who has almost 4 months to pick a replacement.

 

[Guldal]

And you know who has almost 4 months to pick a replacement.

Let's hope and pray, that "You-Know-Who" will have no better luck in replacing her than Obama had in his last term endeavour to replace Justice Scalia!

 

[Linus_Cello]

A podcast on how clever a litigator she was before the Supreme Court (before she joined the Supreme Court):

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/more-perfect-sex-appeal

 

[southernbelle]

Let's hope and pray, that "You-Know-Who" will have no better luck in replacing her than Obama had in his last term endeavour to replace Justice Scalia!

Not to start a political argument, but there is a difference here... It has to do with the party controlling the White House and the party controlling the Senate when Obama was Pres. Vs. the party controlling the White House and the party controlling the Senate now. If you look at history, I believe there is a difference. End of my comments and I don’t mean to start vitriolic comments. Just pointing out a difference. Love me or hate me.

 

[abax]

Thank you all for acknowledging her accomplishments. Southernbelle, I
agree there's a difference, but your comment could be made a bit
more clearly. BTW, I'm on a bit of a crusade to rid KY and the senate of
McConnell. I won't succeed, but I am trying.

 

[eds]

It has to do with the party controlling the White House and the party controlling the Senate when Obama was Pres. Vs. the party controlling the White House and the party controlling the Senate now.

Being British, and an outsider to your country's politics, the hypocritical thing for me is the language that was used to justify blocking Obama's choice four years ago had nothing to do with who controls what but simply that a supreme court nomination shouldn't be made in the run up to an election. That is no different now.

But they're politicians and we should expect them to use whatever excuses for their own political gains. Standards in public life seem to have gone down the toilet in a number of countries around the world.

We have our own idiots here intent on breaking international law, jeopardising the Good Friday Agreement and throwing our country and the economy completely down the toilet by pursuing an idiot hard Brexit on the coat tails of this pandemic. And we're stuck with Boris for 4 more years with a big majority, at least you guys have a choice soon!

 

[Guldal]

Being British .... we have our own idiots here ... And we're stuck with Boris for 4 more years with a big majority, at least you guys have a choice soon!

Please, allow for me to quote myself from another thread on the possibilites, looking sadly bleak, for exchanging divisions with our british friends in the future:

... one day there might be a potential for exchanging divisions

That is, if Boris doesn't botch it all, so we end up with impenetrable, firewall borders between you guys and continental Europe! He certainly at the present seems to work quite hard to obtain exactly that goal. One wonders, whether he considered himself exempt, when he so voraciously declared, that you should take back control?

Press 'Click to expand' to see the entire quote.
Kind regards, Jens

 

[southernbelle]

Being British, and an outsider to your country's politics, the hypocritical thing for me is the language that was used to justify blocking Obama's choice four years ago had nothing to do with who controls what but simply that a supreme court nomination shouldn't be made in the run up to an election. That is no different now.

But they're politicians and we should expect them to use whatever excuses for their own political gains. Standards in public life seem to have gone down the toilet in a number of countries around the world.

We have our own idiots here intent on breaking international law, jeopardising the Good Friday Agreement and throwing our country and the economy completely down the toilet by pursuing an idiot hard Brexit on the coat tails of this pandemic. And we're stuck with Boris for 4 more years with a big majority, at least you guys have a choice soon!

Thanks eds. Not justifying, just stating the historical precedent.

 

[Ray]

Back to the US Supreme Court for a moment. I guess we shouldn’t be way too concerned. Justice “I Like Beer” hasn’t voted as rigidly right-wing, party alliance as I expected.

I just don’t think the Cheeto should have three picks.

 

[Berthold]

When electing a president, one should be aware that he can also influence the composition of the highest court.
Is there any problem?
For information: In Germany the limit for members of the supreme court is 68 years, not end of life. I think that is a better regulation.
What about her?