Senate confirms Justice Handmaid One

[Anathema-]

I wonder where the court "balance" fetishists are on this. Seems like that's never a concern replacing a liberal justice with a fascist one. 

[Joe]

2 hours ago, Anathema- said:

 

 

Such fucking hypocrisy. You'll notice it's exclusively dudes doing this, too.

[SuperSpreader]

3 minutes ago, Joe said:

 

Such fucking hypocrisy. You'll notice it's exclusively dudes doing this, too.

I know some boomer dudes who should have retired during the Obama years too, but here they are, fucking up my day!

[Guest]

Kennedy did it two years ago and hand picked his successor. It’s good strategy, and exactly what liberals in the legal community were encouraging her to do in 2014. But she didn’t think Obama would get a good enough justice to fill her seat, so now it’s going to be a hard right justice dismantling her legal legacy. She guessed wrong, and she won’t have to deal with the consequences of it.

[Joe]

19 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Kennedy did it two years ago and hand picked his successor. It’s good strategy, and exactly what liberals in the legal community were encouraging her to do in 2014. But she didn’t think Obama would get a good enough justice to fill her seat, so now it’s going to be a hard right justice dismantling her legal legacy. She guessed wrong, and she won’t have to deal with the consequences of it.

 

There is still no guarantee that her seat is filled by Trump.

[Guest]

Just now, Joe said:

 

There is still no guarantee that her seat is filled by Trump.

I like your optimism, Joe. But say a Trump nominee is seated, did Ginsburg make the right decision?

[Spork3245]

4 minutes ago, Joe said:

 

There is still no guarantee that her seat is filled by Trump.

[Joe]

2 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

I like your optimism, Joe. But say a Trump nominee is seated, did Ginsburg make the right decision?

 

I would say definitely not, but I'm not going to shit on her grave for it.

[SaysWho?]

40 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Kennedy did it two years ago and hand picked his successor. It’s good strategy, and exactly what liberals in the legal community were encouraging her to do in 2014. But she didn’t think Obama would get a good enough justice to fill her seat, so now it’s going to be a hard right justice dismantling her legal legacy. She guessed wrong, and she won’t have to deal with the consequences of it.

 

Sandra Day O'Connor, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter also timed their retirement like that, in O'Connor's case when there was a Republican president, and in Stevens' and Souter's case when there was a liberal in the White House.

 

Anyone who didn't vote has no right to complain, but I don't understand that tweet suggesting that the people complaining didn't vote in 2010, 2014, and voted third party in 2016. I did the opposite of all of that and surely can complain that she didn't step down even in 2013. Even if she lived until a potential Biden presidency, the fact of the matter is Democrats kept waking up the past four years hoping Ginsburg was alive.

 

 

No one really should have had to do that. I'm pretty sure if Biden wins, Breyer will retire once he's inaugurated. 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

The premise that the death of a single unelected judge can rend the societal and legal fabric so thoroughly all but condemns the entire system as one not worth preserving. 

[SaysWho?]

Also, for those of you saying, "I give up," that's exactly what they were trying to wear you down for.

 

 

 

 

She's younger than many of us. And many activists you don't know the name of waited decades before they scored a huge victory, and planted the seeds along the way. In my capacity as a part-time reporter, I met one of the co-founders of the National Organization for Women. They came during another feminist wave, a movement that's been nonstop for decades and encountered plenty of defeats and setbacks. I asked her, if she could change anything at all in her lifetime as an activist, what would it be.

 

"I'd make myself 40 years old so I could keep doing it."

[Guest]

Indeed, @SaysWho?, it isn’t an uncommon tactic at all. It’s also false to say it’s only males who have thought this. Many liberal females in the legal community had the same concern in 2014, that there was a risk that Obama couldn’t get anybody through a GOP senate after the midterms and that a 2016 election could bring a GOP POTUS and Senate.

 

And even for Ginsburg, what a miserable way to spend your final days hoping that the GOP wouldn’t be so bold as to fill your seat a month and half before the election. She carried a burden of enormous size these last few years.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

4 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Breyer will retire once he's inaugurated. 

For the record, he should have retired as well.

[Joe]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Indeed, @SaysWho?, it isn’t an uncommon tactic at all. It’s also false to say it’s only males who have thought this. Many liberal females in the legal community had the same concern in 2014, that there was a risk that Obama couldn’t get anybody through a GOP senate after the midterms and that a 2016 election could bring a GOP POTUS and Senate.

 

And even for Ginsburg, what a miserable way to spend your final days hoping that the GOP wouldn’t be so bold as to fill your seat a month and half before the election. She carried a burden of enormous size these last few years.

 

It's exclusively males saying she didn't retire because of her "ego" and shitting on the grave of literally one of the most important Americans ever.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Joe said:

 

It's exclusively males saying she didn't retire because of her "ego" and shitting on the grave of literally one of the most important Americans ever.

 

 

 

"So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?"

[SaysWho?]

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Indeed, @SaysWho?, it isn’t an uncommon tactic at all. It’s also false to say it’s only males who have thought this. Many liberal females in the legal community had the same concern in 2014, that there was a risk that Obama couldn’t get anybody through a GOP senate after the midterms and that a 2016 election could bring a GOP POTUS and Senate.

 

And even for Ginsburg, what a miserable way to spend your final days hoping that the GOP wouldn’t be so bold as to fill your seat a month and half before the election. She carried a burden of enormous size these last few years.

 

At the end of the day, she had a legacy and did much to support people underprivileged people. But when you're a lifetime appointee of a small 9-member court, what happens to your legacy when you're not on the court also matters. Why risk it regressing?

 

4 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

For the record, he should have retired as well.

 

Agreed!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Part of her legacy is her failure to grapple with her mortality and finding a likely/less risky point to retire rather than risk elections: 2014 midterms, 2016 presidential, 2016 senate elections at minimum. That her entire legal legacy is now in question because of her unwillingness to retire and hand pick a successor doesn't bode well! 

[Joe]

3 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

 

"So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?"

 

Ok let's definitely read too much into a silly throwaway statement she made.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Bernie bro confirmed

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Joe said:

 

Ok let's definitely read too much into a silly throwaway statement she made.

It wasn’t a silly throwaway statement, it was the thoughtful defense of her actions by one of the most brilliant people in the nation. That was her entire reason for not strategically retiring, she didn’t think anybody who Obama would get seated was good enough to replace her. Call that what you want.

[Joe]

It's a clear tell that many of you seem more interested in criticizing the legacy of one of the most important Americans ever than the shitty system that allows this situation to occur. Also a tell that none of you have ever been positively impacted by RBG's work (ie you're a bunch of dudes).

[CitizenVectron]

As an outsider I am free to criticize both the system for allowing the game, as well as the individual for not playing the game to maximize results/minimize negatives.

[CayceG]

16 minutes ago, Joe said:

It's a clear tell that many of you seem more interested in criticizing the legacy of one of the most important Americans ever than the shitty system that allows this situation to occur. Also a tell that none of you have ever been positively impacted by RBG's work (ie you're a bunch of dudes).

 

I don't think anyone is criticizing the legacy of Ginsburg. I think people are largely criticizing the way the system is set up and the possibility of that system to allow for the destruction of Ginsburg's legacy through a single moment. 

 

On balance, what she has done is objectively good, to say nothing of her accomplishments in an era where it was out of the ordinary. 

But that can be true along with the fact that she and the Democrats in 2013 should have been more politically aware of the moment and its implications. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

You can be critical of this decision regardless of her other influence

[mclumber1]

27 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

It wasn’t a silly throwaway statement, it was the thoughtful defense of her actions by one of the most brilliant people in the nation. That was her entire reason for not strategically retiring, she didn’t think anybody who Obama would get seated was good enough to replace her. Call that what you want.

 

Hubris?  

[Joe]

3 minutes ago, CayceG said:

 

I don't think anyone is criticizing the legacy of Ginsburg. I think people are largely criticizing the way the system is set up and the possibility of that system to allow for the destruction of Ginsburg's legacy through a single moment. 

 

On balance, what she has done is objectively good, to say nothing of her accomplishments in an era where it was out of the ordinary. 

But that can be true along with the fact that she and the Democrats in 2013 should have been more politically aware of the moment and its implications. 

 

I guess we interpret statements like "fuck her" and "I hope she rots in hell" vastly differently.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I,for one, would be thoroughly overjoyed to know that my grave would be danced upon and/or my legacy criticized.

 

Because that would mean that my existence meant a significant something to those who are doing it while their existence would have meant absolutely nothing to me.

 

In the end, I still won!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

6 minutes ago, CayceG said:

 

I don't think anyone is criticizing the legacy of Ginsburg. I think people are largely criticizing the way the system is set up and the possibility of that system to allow for the destruction of Ginsburg's legacy through a single moment. 

 

On balance, what she has done is objectively good, to say nothing of her accomplishments in an era where it was out of the ordinary. 

But that can be true along with the fact that she and the Democrats in 2013 should have been more politically aware of the moment and its implications. 

Failure to observe the game at play, and plan accordingly, is a failure and should be criticized. It's like if you ran for president and explicitly want to run up the popular vote, ignoring the electoral college entirely. Is the system shit? Yes! Do you still need to play by those rules? Also yes 

[CayceG]

4 minutes ago, Joe said:

 

I guess we interpret statements like "fuck her" and "I hope she rots in hell" vastly differently.

 

Hey, that doesn't transfer her agency to a man in power like Obama regarding her decision to not retire under a Dem Supermajority. It was her decision. 

[Joe]

5 minutes ago, CayceG said:

 

Hey, that doesn't transfer her agency to a man in power like Obama regarding her decision to not retire under a Dem Supermajority. It was her decision. 

 

Sure, and you're free to criticize that decision, but people are taking it way too far. It's a joke.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

"Truth" (not that I actually believe that such a concept exists to begin with, but I digress) be told, I'm largely indifferent to her decision as I consider it to be largely irrelevant "small potatoes" in comparison to the infinitely more significant, completely irreparable issue that I've outlined in my previous posts.

[Firewithin]

to nobodies surprise

 

 

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

No one who actually matters gives a rat's patootie about "hypocrisy" so neither should any of us.

 

And for that, we should all be thankful for being liberated from the rhetorical clutches of such a trite, hackneyed, uselessly boring normative concept!

[Spork3245]

Attempting to hold a Republican congressperson to their word is the most lol thing I’ve seen in awhile 

[mclumber1]

Reading through a thread on asktrumpsupporters on Reddit, and there is a few people upset that Trump may choose Amy Coney Barrett because she adopted a black Haitian child, which means she is a race traitor and a supporter of black lives matter.