|
Trapick posted:I think "she should have retired early in Obama's second term" is pretty ridiculous, it assumes she had reason to think the next Democratic nominee would lose, which wasn't really well supported at the time. Also we don't know exactly what prognosis she was dealing with afaik so maybe the smart money was on her living past Trump's presidency anyway. Kennedy retired right before the midterms even though it wasn't a sure thing that Republicans would lose the senate (as they, in fact, didn't). If he had waited and Democrats had won we'd be one old man death away from two open seats right now and a potential liberal majority, but he didn't wait so they ensured they kept the court regardless of what happened in the election. And that devotion to ensuring their own ideology dominates the court after they're gone is why conservatives are about to have a 6-3 majority and liberals are not. Hieronymous Alloy posted:MCconnell would not have allowed either Obama or Hillary to appoint her replacement regardless. He wouldn't have had a choice if she had retired before Democrats lost the senate in the 2014 midterms VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:35 on Sep 24, 2020 |
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
2014 was a whole different universe, practically speaking. Ultimately this whole line of discussion is somewhere between victim-blaming and wishing on the moon. It's over, she didn't, blame is useless especially targeted at a dead woman.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 04:12
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Kennedy retired right before the midterms even though it wasn't a sure thing that Republicans would lose the senate (as they, in fact, didn't). If he had waited and Democrats had won we'd be one old man death away from two open seats right now and a potential liberal majority, but he didn't wait so they ensured they kept the court regardless of what happened in the election. To be fair to RBG, it wasn't clear in 2014 that Mitch would play silly games with the judiciary in 2015 and 2016.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 04:13
|
|
|
a lot of jurists don't really give a poo poo about ensuring their ideology wins in a broader way, and making strategic choices to reflect and further that. it's part of the cult of the robe - they see law as an intellectual debate rather than an ideological battle.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 04:23
|
|
|
Rolabi Wizenard posted:To be fair to RBG, it wasn't clear in 2014 that Mitch would play silly games with the judiciary in 2015 and 2016. Yes it was, Reid had already had to abolish the judicial filibuster for lower courts because McConnell was playing games. But it's also irrelevant because she had no intention of retiring before 2016 in any case, she was determined to take that gamble no matter what and here we are. Hieronymous Alloy posted:2014 was a whole different universe, practically speaking.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 04:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
Which people are you referring to? What do you suggest those people learn? "Don't let Republicans into positions of power" is hardly a new insight.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 04:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Which people are you referring to? What do you suggest those people learn? "Don't let Republicans into positions of power" is hardly a new insight. Republicans have been on a 50 year ideological mission to take control of the courts and impose their unpopular agenda on the country by judicial dictates. Liberals treat the court like a debate club for smart boys and girls, and as some kind of totem for their own career ambitions. They just start screaming if you suggest maybe something like the continued existence of civil rights in this country is more important than one Harvard grad's self-gratification from getting to exercise power
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:That's fair. But they don't become a piece of poo poo, totally ignoring everything they've accomplished, if the answer is 'not as much as they could.' It's kinda like the The Boat Builder joke, but replace the characters with Ginsburg and Scalia.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 11:46
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Republicans have been on a 50 year ideological mission to take control of the courts and impose their unpopular agenda on the country by judicial dictates. What exactly do you think should happen? I'm not getting a clear picture of what you want here.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 11:47
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:What exactly do you think should happen? I'm not getting a clear picture of what you want here. Oh I thought it was obvious? Liberals should learn that not trying to dominate the courts when they had the power was a mistake, because conservatives learned that lesson and they're winning now. Stop passing GOP nominees through a Democratic senate like O'Connor, Thomas, and Kennedy, who repaid that favor by stealing the 2000 election ensuring more conservative justices would get appointed. Nominate ideological justices who are committed to expanding liberal control over the courts and who care about something greater than themselves. Justices who won't retire if a Republican is President. Justices who when they get old will retire before the midterms when Democrats win control instead of gambling on another election. Or ya know, don't, and wonder how Republican presidents keep managing to score open seats to flip while Democrats don't, that works too
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 12:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:
I think that's been fairly clear to everyone, RBG included, since Garland. Going on a multi-page rant at a dead lady about it seems like beating a dead, well, it would be rude to call her a horse. Especially when the dead lady's last practical chance to act on those recommendations was pre-Garland. I mean, I get that this is an insane time and the logical and rational response to the current situation is endless screaming, I just think you're arguing a debate that everyone agreed with you on in 2016. The only real remaining question seems to be how much we should yell at the dead lady about it, and that just doesn't seem productive. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 12:11 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 12:08
|
|
|
Ok well I don't think everyone agrees because multiple people itt have defended her decision and called it ageism to suggest that maybe critical positions of power shouldn't be gambled away? If I'm wrong and everyone in power learned a very big lesson this week and is already planning to do everything I suggested and more, great VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 12:26 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 12:24
|
|
|
lemme put it this way: I think everyone who might reasonably read and be influenced by your forum post agrees with you. There's definitely still some lovely dem leadership who seems to have not clued in but there also seems to have been a major sea change in awareness this week to the point that even Biden is playing his cards close to his chest. As to "defending her decision", in hindsight it was obviously a bad call but six years ago was a century ago in political years and it seems like monday-morning quarterbacking to rake her over the coals for it, despite the horrible consequences. Ultimately it's on the future to fix the fuckups of the past and that's just one more fuckup on the pile. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 13:01 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 12:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Republicans have been on a 50 year ideological mission to take control of the courts and impose their unpopular agenda on the country by judicial dictates. Uh...they’ve been on a 50 year mission because of Democrats imposing unrestricted abortion on the country by judicial dictate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 13:58
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Uh...they’ve been on a 50 year mission because of Democrats imposing unrestricted abortion on the country by judicial dictate. I keep getting reminded just how fervent anti-abortionists are. My father in law is a evangelist GP Doctor, and having discussed his support of Trump several times, it boils down to there is no evil that can be committed that exceeds the good done by saving even just 1 innocent baby. He knows everything Trump is doing is wrong and bad, he knows Trump is as un-Christian as one can possibly be, and he dislikes just about everything to do with the man, yet he voted for him and will do so again simply because of abortion. I asked him if he'd still vote for Trump after a 6-3 SC is seated and abortion is made illegal (presumably prior to election), and his response was he'd vote for Trump as a 'thank-you'. I'd wager abortion is the single most efficacious means of controlling those voters who prioritize it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:10
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Uh...they’ve been on a 50 year mission because of Democrats imposing unrestricted abortion on the country by judicial dictate. Wait, if a judicial dictate ordered mandatory abortions for all, how is anyone posting? Anyway, the idea that the pro-life movement arose in response to Roe vs. Wade is largely a political fiction. quote:When the Roe decision was handed down, W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas—also one of the most famous fundamentalists of the 20th century—was pleased: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.” quote:But this hypothetical “moral majority” needed a catalyst—a standard around which to rally. For nearly two decades, Weyrich, by his own account, had been trying out different issues, hoping one might pique evangelical interest: pornography, prayer in schools, the proposed Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution, even abortion. “I was trying to get these people interested in those issues and I utterly failed,” Weyrich recalled at a conference in 1990. quote:But Falwell and Weyrich, having tapped into the ire of evangelical leaders, were also savvy enough to recognize that organizing grassroots evangelicals to defend racial discrimination would be a challenge. It had worked to rally the leaders, but they needed a different issue if they wanted to mobilize evangelical voters on a large scale. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/religious-right-real-origins-107133 It wasn't abortion that galvanized the religious right as a political movement; it was school desegregation. Abortion has always and only been a cover story.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:11
|
|
|
Drone Jett posted:Uh...they’ve been on a 50 year mission because of Democrats imposing unrestricted abortion on the country by judicial dictate. Lol, you should google who appointed the judge that wrote the opinion in Roe I'll wait 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:15
|
|
|
Stop replying to racist garbage like Drone Jett, TIA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:26
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:I keep getting reminded just how fervent anti-abortionists are. My father in law is a evangelist GP Doctor, and having discussed his support of Trump several times, it boils down to there is no evil that can be committed that exceeds the good done by saving even just 1 innocent baby. He knows everything Trump is doing is wrong and bad, he knows Trump is as un-Christian as one can possibly be, and he dislikes just about everything to do with the man, yet he voted for him and will do so again simply because of abortion. I'm curious if he thinks that the guy who notoriously pays porn stars for sex/pays them to keep quiet about it and has run through multiple marriages while cheating constantly has never paid (or at least promised to pay) for an abortion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:36
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:I'm curious if he thinks that the guy who notoriously pays porn stars for sex/pays them to keep quiet about it and has run through multiple marriages while cheating constantly has never paid (or at least promised to pay) for an abortion. His response to this is that it doesn't matter if Trump is the literal devil. As long as he gets abortion outlawed it (and any other sacrifice) is worth it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:45
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:I keep getting reminded just how fervent anti-abortionists are. My father in law is a evangelist GP Doctor, and having discussed his support of Trump several times, it boils down to there is no evil that can be committed that exceeds the good done by saving even just 1 innocent baby. He knows everything Trump is doing is wrong and bad, he knows Trump is as un-Christian as one can possibly be, and he dislikes just about everything to do with the man, yet he voted for him and will do so again simply because of abortion. Have you ever asked him how he feels about the fact that abortion rates decline more under Democratic leadership than under Republicans because the most effective way to reduce abortion is not to ban it but to provide comprehensive sex education and widespread access to contraception, both of which Republicans fight tooth and nail to prevent?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:58
|
|
|
DandyLion posted:His response to this is that it doesn't matter if Trump is the literal devil. As long as he gets abortion outlawed it (and any other sacrifice) is worth it. "Even if the price is more abortions!" Yikes, sorry you have to deal with this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 14:58
|
|
|
Evil Fluffy posted:Stop replying to racist garbage like Drone Jett, TIA.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:04
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:the most effective way to reduce abortion is not to ban it but to provide comprehensive sex education and widespread access to contraception, both of which Republicans fight tooth and nail to prevent? Its usually more about wanting to punish women for having sex rather than abortion per se. If you really went for abortions being illegal because it is a person starting at conception, you would, for example, have pregnancy tests as a condition of international travel. (What nation wouldn't want to ask questions if a family came back with more of less members from a weekend trip to Toronto.)
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:06
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Have you ever asked him how he feels about the fact that abortion rates decline more under Democratic leadership than under Republicans because the most effective way to reduce abortion is not to ban it but to provide comprehensive sex education and widespread access to contraception, both of which Republicans fight tooth and nail to prevent? Yes, like I said he has a bit of a quiverfull mindset (though he didn't go that far with his own family - 3 biological kids and 6 adopted kids) and my take on it is he assumes any baby that doesn't get born, either from abortion or contraception is essentially the same.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:10
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Ultimately this whole line of discussion is somewhere between victim-blaming and wishing on the moon. It's over, she didn't, blame is useless especially targeted at a dead woman. In what sense is this “over”? RBG’s decisions precipitated a constitutional crisis that will rumble along at least until democrats are forced to pack the senate next year, more realistically for the next 20-30 years. Nothing is over, the crisis she set into motion is just getting started. This is now her legacy, believe it or not. Her poor political maneuvering undid abortion rights and countless more rights besides. Everything she did during her life is at risk because of 7 selfish years at the end. And sure, McConnell is ultimately the one who pulled the trigger, but if you are in a war and you have a general who makes the decision to leave a flank defenseless for no reason and the enemy exploits that, it’s ultimately not useful to cry about how it’s the enemy’s fault it was exploited, there was another person who had the singular ability to stop that. RBG left our flank defenseless. She was asked to retire in 2013, when she was 80 and had already had cancer three times. She chose not to for personal reasons.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:11
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:How is it racist to say that abortion was imposed by judicial dictate? That's an incontrovertible fact. The legal reasoning of Roe is itself fairly shaky. Look at his rap sheet. I don't think it's worth anyone's time arguing with a literal Nazi, they don't really do good faith arguments in the first place.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:11
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:In what sense is this “over”? .... Yes, exactly. It's spilt milk.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:12
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yes, exactly. It's spilt milk. That’s an awfully crass thing to say to people who have to endure a rollback of their human rights, that it’s just going to happen and you need to get over it and face it with a smile.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:14
|
|
|
Permitted more than imposed, really
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:14
|
|
|
Sarcastro posted:"Even if the price is more abortions!" Yeah, the scariest part is if you never spoke with him in private you would never know. He's a reasonable, well spoken, calm mild mannered man. I shudder to think of my doctor secretly harboring 'pray the sickness away' mentalities or political beliefs, even if they didn't prescribe to them in their own practice. He's a young earth creationist, and he takes his kids/grandkids every year to the Creation Ark exhibit in KY because its that important to him. Of course he homeschooled all his kids with extreme fundamentalist Christian curriculum. I was over one day and cracked open one of the 'science' books he was teaching his 15 year old son with and in the part on environmental activism the book says that its Man's duty to use the earth however he wishes and with no consideration for anything else, as the Earth was a gift to man by God and to not do so is an affront to God (and if it seems harmful to the earth its no big deal because God will fix it). Its just really so bizarre to me because he knows I'm a rabid liberal and yet he's always very nice/cordial/respectful around me (my wife says because I'm a man and he respects men no matter what). His library is filled to the top with Hannity esque books blatantly stating that liberals are the greatest threat to humanity and must be butchered without prejudice if America is to survive. Its really terrifying indoctrination.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:16
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:Look at his rap sheet. I don't think it's worth anyone's time arguing with a literal Nazi, they don't really do good faith arguments in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:17
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:That’s an awfully crass thing to say to people who have to endure a rollback of their human rights, that it’s just going to happen and you need to get over it and face it with a smile. Not what I said at all. The point is it has already happened. She made her choices back in 2013 and yelling at a dead lady over choices made a subjective century ago isn't worthwhile. Focus on the things that haven't happened yet and there's still time to change -- the election, court packing, whatever your choice of activist issue is. Yelling at people about RBG is just raising your blood pressure to no purpose. You might as well be yelling about Obama's refusal to pack the court when *he* had the chance in 2009. Hell, it would be more productive to yell at Obama. Obama is still exerting influence in current races. Making him feel some shame or guilt might accomplish something. Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 15:23 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:20
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:OK well gently caress that guy, in this case however, his argument is prima facie correct. That's fine, if someone wants to take up that argument they can, I'm just saying that it's not worth having with that guy.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:21
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Not what I said at all. "a subjective century ago" implies that nobody could have reasonably foreseen the circumstances. Again, people in 2013 told her it was time, she was 80 years old and a triple cancer survivor, she only hung on this long by the skin of her teeth, realistically she should have retired a long time ago. She was trying to hold on so her successor could be nominated by the first woman president, which she considered symbolically important. The mere fact that it happened 7 years ago is not particularly important, 7 years is not really a long time at all, even in politics. Even if it had been 70 years, the duration doesn't absolve you of the responsibility of doing something with obviously foreseeable negative consequences, and an octogenarian triple cancer survivor risking the fate of the country on the outcome of the next election was obviously risky. That was her decision and no one else's. Obama couldn't make her step down, it's not his fault. Yes, I have been quite vociferous that I think Obama didn't do enough to exert democratic power while he had the chance. What of it? That doesn't absolve RBG of the responsibility for her own part in this, it's just whattaboutism. (and the party establishment has been whining about that criticism of Obama just as much as they whine about criticism of RBG, for the record. It's funny how the goalposts shifted on that one.) As far as Obama and the court: the norms hadn't yet shifted to where a President doesn't get to pick judges if they don't control the senate. That is distinct from RBG choosing to roll the dice that Hillary would get elected so she could appoint her replacement. RBG wasn't concerned or not concerned about the Senate not hearing a nomination, she wanted a symbolic victory and presupposed the outcome of the election. That is certainly hubris at best, selfishness and irresponsibly gambling the fate of the country at worst. Her personal actions, undertaken for pointless and selfish reasons, placed the country at risk, even if she had won her gamble. McConnell changing the rules of the game has only amplified the crisis but it was a stupid, pointless risk to undertake for no real gain even before that. She wasn’t trying to squeeze in another couple years and then retire in 2015 or 2016, the rule change had nothing to do with the gamble she made. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:31
|
|
|
The "whatever my activist issue", during a time of a rollback of human rights, has in part a speaking honestly about the foolish actions of the dead lady entirely because the source of my activism- the decades of pain and suffering- would be extended if someone were to repeat the actions of the foolish dead lady.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 15:44
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:she was 80 years old and a triple cancer survivor, she only hung on this long by the skin of her teeth By bringing up her cancer diagnosis, all you're doing is stacking disability discrimination on top of age discrimination. It's a real thing where cancer survivors run into roadblocks in their careers due to unfounded fears. If you're not familiar with this, I suggest you do some reading. https://chronicdiseasecoalition.org/cancer-survivors-face-increased-workplace-discrimination/ https://together.stjude.org/en-us/teensand20s/adulting-with-cancer/workplace-discrimination-protections.html https://www.cancer.net/blog/2017-02/when-cancer-leads-workplace-discrimination Did her age or cancer affect her ability to perform her duties? No. It did not. Therefore, it should not be an issue.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
Breyer should've also retired in fairness to the dead lady. Did everyone forget Stevens retired when Obama could replace him?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 16:14
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:Breyer should've also retired in fairness to the dead lady. not everybody https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/08/28/when-do-supreme-court-justices-retire-when-politics-are-right/ https://archive.is/x4CKE
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 16:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 10:34 |
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:How is it racist to say that abortion was imposed by judicial dictate? That's an incontrovertible fact. The legal reasoning of Roe is itself fairly shaky. Well idk if it's racist but it's incorrect to say Democrats did it: the guy who wrote the opinion was a Nixon appointment Paul MaudDib posted:That’s an awfully crass thing to say to people who have to endure a rollback of their human rights, that it’s just going to happen and you need to get over it and face it with a smile. sir sir! Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a very wealthy professional who went to Harvard University. Stop criticizing a wealthy powerful woman right now sir! good heavens! VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:53 on Sep 24, 2020 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2020 16:51
|
|