|
patentmagus posted:The key phrase being "worth burning her credibility." Maybe she figures she has credibility to burn. If so, she's probably correct based on what I'm reading here. As to that, I couldn't say. I just think it's interesting to note that this isn't bog standard "political figure says something they shouldn't," fallout, like when Trump says that women should be punished for having abortions, then needs to rush into damage control when someone tells him that's in opposition to the party line on the subject; Ginsburg knows exactly what she's doing, and presumably has a good idea what the stakes are, too.
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
quote:Yes, that is exactly the point: that the functioning of the judiciary requires a certain amount of legitimacy and that means that at a basic level maintaining that legitimacy is part of the job, even if you think it's bullshit. The entire point of a court is that, win or lose, people accept the judgment and if you lose that then there's no point. Deal with the world as it is, not as your civics textbook said it was, and dispense with magical thinking. The GOP works tirelessly to undermine the court's legitimacy and yet you've picked this hill.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
People don't actually accept the judgement of the court as correct, they just aren't willing to start an insurrection over it. Instead they just lobby for power so that they can appoint people who will then overturn the rulings that they didn't like. If the supreme court was actually viewed as apolitical nominations wouldn't be a huge fight and presidential elections wouldn't be driven, significantly, by the desire to control the makeup of the court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
The only people who are going to lose confidence in the court over this are those who like to use the phrase 'activist judges' and they will lose (and attempt to undermine for everyone else) that confidence whenever a ruling they don't like comes up. Everyone else either gives no shits, or remembers all of Scalia's media appearances and lobbyist paid trips along with Thomas "who cares if it directly impacts my wife, no conflicts here". This won't make even a tiny blip for the second group since nothing she's said indicates any conflict of interest, just an opinion. Which she is allowed to have and would have whether she stated it or not and if you don't think a justice can have an opinion and rule on the merits of the law fairly despite that you ... I dunno, need to give up and face to bloodshed? 'Cause that means the entire thing is just a play and laws have no meaning.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2016 22:12
|
|
|
NippleFloss posted:People don't actually accept the judgement of the court as correct, they just aren't willing to start an insurrection over it. Instead they just lobby for power so that they can appoint people who will then overturn the rulings that they didn't like. If the supreme court was actually viewed as apolitical nominations wouldn't be a huge fight and presidential elections wouldn't be driven, significantly, by the desire to control the makeup of the court. in that sense, we can again blame the republicans or more specifically the rise of the 'conservative legal movement' for fostering and encouraging the picks of explicitly ideological right wing judges.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
And they in turn blame the liberals for the (wholly justified IMHO) refusal to allow Bork's appointment.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:Then again, historically, appeasement is not the correct or safe stance to take with fascist scum. This isn't 1950.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:10
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:And they in turn blame the liberals for the (wholly justified IMHO) refusal to allow Bork's appointment. Never understood this. Bork wasn't just an arch-conservative. He was the guy who finally would execute Nixon's hit order on Archibald Cox. These guys belong on Fox News, not on the Supreme Court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:This isn't 1950. It could well be 1935.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
Arsenic Lupin posted:It could well be 1935. No, not really.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
There's a feeling among some liberals that Trump is somehow uniquely bad, but if Cruz was the nominee he would be no less awful. I think Trump invites this kind of thing because he doesn't play by the normal rules, but the correct response isn't to lower your own standards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
Zas posted:There's a feeling among some liberals that Trump is somehow uniquely bad, but if Cruz was the nominee he would be no less awful. I think Trump invites this kind of thing because he doesn't play by the normal rules, but the correct response isn't to lower your own standards. This doesn't make either of them less bad. I have a morbid curiosity as to who Trump would nominate for the Court and so for that matter does RBG. Trump seems likely also to run with Newt Gingrich on the ticket, whose 2012 campaign platform included "If I don't like a Supreme Court decision, I'll ignore it!" That all of the GOP candidates share this view to at least some extent does not make Trump suddenly normal. While we're clutching pearls about RBG damaging the Court's sanctity, the Republicans have very nearly destroyed it. There's now only eight justices, the GOP has campaigned on de-fanging the judiciary for years, their state legislatures produce an endless litany of bad faith workarounds to undo Court decisions, and the right is constantly fast-tracking "test" cases that make it all the way to the Supreme Court, despite their legal standing being completely bogus. Hand-wringing about RBG breaking decorum is pointless and stupid, especially when she's completely right.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 03:39
|
|
|
just for the record, I'm not hand wringing or pearl clutching and this isn't the hill I've picked to die on. but as for pointless, I can't see RBG's actions here as anything other than pointless. there are enough people around to criticize Trump in public, I don't see why a justice needs to do so. what is the benefit? edit: lol not RGB I worked in video too long Mia Wasikowska fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Jul 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Zas posted:I can't see RGB's actions here as anything other than pointless. there are enough people around to criticize Trump in public, I don't see why a justice needs to do so. what is the benefit? Probably a lot of people who agree with you, and yet you felt like you needed to make this post...
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 04:07
|
|
|
ulmont posted:Probably a lot of people who agree with you, and yet you felt like you needed to make this post... yeah and there's a big difference between me, a nobody goon posting on a dead comedy forum, and the venerable wise justice ruth bader ginsburg. like I get we're holding her to a higher standard than her conservative counterparts, but that also isn't news, it's what you do when you want to be perceived as the more legitimate side. we know what she did was against tradition and we know that she knows this, so she must've had a good reason. but I don't know what that reason is, it doesn't seem like a politically or legally beneficial move Mia Wasikowska fucked around with this message at 04:52 on Jul 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 04:41
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:This doesn't make either of them less bad. I have a morbid curiosity as to who Trump would nominate for the Court and so for that matter does RBG. They got burned by the court in brown. Why would we be surprised they would try to use the same methods to promote their agenda?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
Isn't this thread's title taken from a case where Scalia was very blatantly trying to help one side of a case because he supported it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
So evilweasel, how's that public acceptance/embrace of legal realism working out for ya? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Isn't this thread's title taken from a case where Scalia was very blatantly trying to help one side of a case because he supported it? Yeah it's strange there was not media outcry about those cases.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 06:43
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Isn't this thread's title taken from a case where Scalia was very blatantly trying to help one side of a case because he supported it? It was during oral arguments drilldo squirt posted:Yeah it's strange there was not media outcry about those cases. Don't know if you're being sarcastic or not but it was King v Burwell. Only a handful of cases had more media outcry
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 13:20
|
|
|
And Justice Ginsburg has issued an apology, calling her remarks "ill-advised" and that she "regret[s] making them". "In the future, I will be more circumspect." Great wrap-up of the story for Trump.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
Beforehand posted:And Justice Ginsburg has issued an apology, calling her remarks "ill-advised" and that she "regret[s] making them". "In the future, I will be more circumspect." Do you have a link? Google didn't turn up anything but articles about Trump demanding she apologize.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
I'm seeing it on CNN right now, but apparently it's Washington Post with a report too. https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...4517_story.html
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
I wonder why she apologized. She had to know people would freak out before she even said it, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
bitch move if u ask me, rbg
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 15:39
|
|
|
More like Ruth Beta Ginsburg
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:More like Ruth Beta Ginsburg OK, that's pretty good, even if I completely disagree with the sentiment. Presumably once Trump loses there'll be a leak of RBG and several other justices (including conservatives) swearing up a blue streak about the potential harms of a Trump administration/appointees.
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 15:56
|
|
|
It's not every day a supreme court justice agrees i'm right, but it should be 
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:It's not every day a supreme court justice agrees i'm right, but it should be agreed, in the absence of actual justice our system whereby rights under the legal system are subject to fees far outside the reach of the plebian masses or the whims of various private patrons to generously provide access the appearance of justice is very important Badger of Basra posted:I wonder why she apologized. She had to know people would freak out before she even said it, right? not unbelievable that she was caught legitimately incensed that our country is considering the idea of electing donald trump president
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
UberJew posted:agreed, in the absence of actual justice our system whereby rights under the legal system are subject to fees far outside the reach of the plebian masses or the whims of various private patrons to generously provide access the appearance of justice is very important this but uh, unironically? i can't tell. anyway I'm glad she walked it back
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2016 13:36
|
|
|
We could maybe do a new thread for each new term. It would give someone a chance to do an informative OP about cases the Court has granted. Probably wait until late September though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
5th Circuit just knocked down Texas' Voter ID law. Discriminatory under the VRA.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:5th Circuit just knocked down Texas' Voter ID law. Discriminatory under the VRA. Awesome get hosed Texas.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
I really hope we have a liberal SCOTUS with 9 Justices the next time a major Voter ID case comes around.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:08
|
|
|
Zas posted:this but uh, unironically? i can't tell. He's saying the justice system only represents those with money, so it's important to pretend to be impartial by chastising RBG about her comments to maintain the facade of a system that operates in good faith. Cynical, but I can't disagree with it too much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
inkblot posted:He's saying the justice system only represents those with money, so it's important to pretend to be impartial by chastising RBG about her comments to maintain the facade of a system that operates in good faith. Cynical, but I can't disagree with it too much. As a practical matter yeah, many of the social goods served by a justice system (avoiding private revenge, permanent-ish settlement of disputes) rely more on the appearance of fairness than on actual fairness. You'd probably have a more stable society with a biased justice system perceived to be fair than a fair justice system perceived to be biased. That falls down once you ask how, exactly, you keep anyone from finding out that it's biased though 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:5th Circuit just knocked down Texas' Voter ID law. Discriminatory under the VRA. Oh cool so the SCOTUS can knock out another VRA provision
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
Zeroisanumber posted:5th Circuit just knocked down Texas' Voter ID law. Discriminatory under the VRA. hot drat, doesn't this place them back under preclearance as well?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:I really hope we have a liberal SCOTUS with 9 Justices the next time a major Voter ID case comes around. I honestly don't know if Texas appeals right now. If they do right away, they're getting a 4-4 at best because  at merrick getting confirmed before next session begins. If that happens, they're absolutely hosed and stuck with their circuit ruling and no recourse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
Goatman Sacks posted:Oh cool so the SCOTUS can knock out another VRA provision no it can't, it can only tie 4-4 and affirm the 5th circuit 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2016 20:21
|
|