Ruth Bader Ginsberg died

[Kutnupe14]

Yeah. But don’t they all?

You’d think that didn’t need to be said, but I’ll clarify for those who need it. Her “personal beliefs,” framed under how she viewed the Constitution. I think it’s pretty well understood, that people cram square pegs into round holes all the times, and claim it fits.

 

[ljk]

Okay. So Trump says his SCOTUS nominee will be a woman. Why does plumbing matter? When asked that question, I’d have respected him more if he’d have said his nominee will be one or the other. A woman or a man.

It took 88 days to confirm Brett "I-like-beer" Kavanaugh.

 

[jamil]

Simple politics. It softens (but definitely doesn't eliminate) rhetoric against the nominee replacing a woman on the SC. It also makes it harder to "Kavanaugh" the new nominee as a rapist 30+ years ago.

Oh. I’m fine if Trump decides that a woman is the best fit. No problem at all. But people could figure out what’s wrong with declaring that only men would be considered for nomination. It’s the same problem if you declare only women would be considered.

 

[Expat]

Okay. So Trump says his SCOTUS nominee will be a woman. Why does plumbing matter? When asked that question, I’d have respected him more if he’d have said his nominee will be one or the other. A woman or a man.

I wonder if he has binders full of women.

 

[Phase2]

Oh. I’m fine if Trump decides that a woman is the best fit. No problem at all. But people could figure out what’s wrong with declaring that only men would be considered for nomination. It’s the same problem if you declare only women would be considered.

I'd be surprised if he is actually seriously considering anyone other than Barrett. There has already been a lot of vetting of her and she would likely get through the process faster than anyone. The biggest objection by the Democrats is that she is Catholic. Letting Democrats demonize Catholics in public doesn't hurt Trump's election chances at all. I think his suggesting a woman was just a hint of what he is intending to do anyway.

 

[Redhorse]

They do agree that mass murder is unacceptable. It’s that they don’t believe it’s murder. Do you not understand this? Your disagreement isn’t that murder is wrong. You’d need to convince them that abortion is murder. But jeez let’s not turn this thread into a referendum on abortion. It’s about the death of RGB. There are many other politically impacting issues resulting from her death than that. Overturning R v W is likely going nowhere even with another conservative on the bench. Might as well talk about things more possible.

This has been my thoughts completely. I understand that abortion is a hot topic for many on here but this isn't an abortion thread so it's time to stop

That's actually the issue, she was a United States Supreme Court Judge, acting on her personal beliefs is the last thing she should be doing. Unfortunately it's not just her, the whole process and system has become a partisan joke.

SCOTUS justices are supposed to act based on the Constitution, not their personal beliefs. Ginsburg made a deliberate, conscious decision to make decisions that she knew were wrong.

Yes, Ginsburg was a mortal enemy of the American people.

As much as I didn't like her assessment of the Constitution, I do believe she was acting on her interpretation of it. And I know that's an unpopular opinion on here and that's ok. It's not that I'm trying to stir the pot or make anyone upset but I do believe she was doing her job correctly even if I do disagree with her.

Oh. I’m fine if Trump decides that a woman is the best fit. No problem at all. But people could figure out what’s wrong with declaring that only men would be considered for nomination. It’s the same problem if you declare only women would be considered.

Women were already a minority on the Supreme Court so I think its fitting for another woman to replace RBG. There are plenty of qualified people for the job.

 

[jamil]

You’d think that didn’t need to be said, but I’ll clarify for those who need it. Her “personal beliefs,” framed under how she viewed the Constitution. I think it’s pretty well understood, that people cram square pegs into round holes all the times, and claim it fits.

Just to clarify even further, my views favoring original intent are my “personal beliefs”. I think that way, because the original intent of constitutional articles, amendments, legislation passed, is what was duly ratified and voted on in accordance with the rule of law. If we try to “modernize” the meaning for today, that new interpretation of the law was never duly enacted according to the constitution. Other people have their own personal beliefs that drive them to favor other methods. I think they’re wrong. They think I’m wrong. So now what?

There isn’t a law on how the constitution and duly enacted laws should be interpreted. I can disagree with the other without regarding them as enemies. It’s when others try to trample my rights by hook or crook that nears them closer to enemy status. I don’t think RGB did that. I have nothing personal against her, but I would say that with a conservative justice in her seat, there’d be a better chance that the court would rule more in favor of original intent.

 

[jamil]

This has been my thoughts completely. I understand that abortion is a hot topic for many on here but this isn't an abortion thread so it's time to stop



As much as I didn't like her assessment of the Constitution, I do believe she was acting on her interpretation of it. And I know that's an unpopular opinion on here and that's ok. It's not that I'm trying to stir the pot or make anyone upset but I do believe she was doing her job correctly even if I do disagree with her.

Women were already a minority on the Supreme Court so I think its fitting for another woman to replace RBG. There are plenty of qualified people for the job.

I don’t think diversity in immutable attributes, per se, is a thing of value. Diversity of opinions on the court, has some value. But because the court might be all women or all men or all black or all white, is irrelevant unless their immutable characteristics like plumbing or skin color gives them a diverse opinion. And that doesn’t seem to be true. We don’t see all the women of the court ruling consistently one way while all the men of the court ruling the other. Same with Black or Hispanic justices consistently rule across racial lines. I’m of the opinion that the POTUS will nominate to fulfill political goals. That’s not ideal. It’s what it is though. So we care about what plumbing nominees have.

That said, it would be politically expedient for Trump to nominate a conservative Hispanic or Black woman to the court.

 

[BugI02]

Reported for .... for...... well, just because. I now need to listen to Ozzie to cancel those horrible sounds.

Ozzie . The essence of noise reduction - equally horrible sounds, just played 180˚ out of phase (his time with BS is exempted)

 

[jamil]

**** sakes! Okay. If he’s gesturing the shape of the person he’s gonna nominate, it must be a fat woman.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-uses...ing-hell-nominate-woman-supreme-court-1533141

 

[mbkintner]

Reported for .... for...... well, just because. I now need to listen to Ozzie to cancel those horrible sounds.

Ozzie . The essence of noise reduction - equally horrible sounds, just played 180˚ out of phase (his time with BS is exempted)

I've just been passively reading the thread (with much interest) but if thread drift is taking us towards music I'm in!

 

[nm0369]

I'd be surprised if he is actually seriously considering anyone other than Barrett. There has already been a lot of vetting of her and she would likely get through the process faster than anyone. The biggest objection by the Democrats is that she is Catholic. Letting Democrats demonize Catholics in public doesn't hurt Trump's election chances at all. I think his suggesting a woman was just a hint of what he is intending to do anyway.

You nailed it, she is the obvious pick for a fast-track confirmation.

 

[indyartisan]

I'd be surprised if he is actually seriously considering anyone other than Barrett. There has already been a lot of vetting of her and she would likely get through the process faster than anyone. The biggest objection by the Democrats is that she is Catholic. Letting Democrats demonize Catholics in public doesn't hurt Trump's election chances at all. I think his suggesting a woman was just a hint of what he is intending to do anyway.

Joe Biden is Catholic as well?

 

[Redhorse]

Joe Biden is Catholic as well?

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Joe Biden is Catholic as well?

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

 

[Mikey1911]

As long as we’re doing “Oklahoma!”

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...=Euq8Z4l6Iwk&usg=AOvVaw2EE-zcI8VoROcoVcE5dsWN

”Pore Ruth is daid, pore Ruth Ginsburg’s daid . . .”

 

[Phase2]

Joe Biden is Catholic as well?

Well, then a lot of Catholics will get an eyeful if she ends up in hearings based on how Democrats respect her freedom to practice her faith.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I'd be surprised if he is actually seriously considering anyone other than Barrett. There has already been a lot of vetting of her and she would likely get through the process faster than anyone. The biggest objection by the Democrats is that she is Catholic. Letting Democrats demonize Catholics in public doesn't hurt Trump's election chances at all. I think his suggesting a woman was just a hint of what he is intending to do anyway.

He's locked into a woman. He would be roasted for hating women by replacing a woman with a man on the court, as if he fired RBG to put some old white dude in her place. Its the same diff to them. Its all about the plumbing and the heritage, and nothing else to them.

Joe Biden is Catholic as well?

Yes. And wasnt he denied communion due to his pro choice stance once while traveling as he worshipped at another church? Or was that another pro choice dem?

Edited. Thanks Phase!

 

[Tombs]

I wonder how they'll push rape accusations on a woman?

 

[OakRiver]

Well, then a lot of Catholics will get an eyeful if she ends up in hearings based on how Democrats respect her freedom to practice her faith.

We already saw that in her prior hearings. Seems that a few people, such as Feinstein, believed that she would be implementing "Rome Rule" from the bench, and be unable to separate her faith from her judicial duties.

But, if they want to display their bigotry, who am I to stop them?