Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died - complications of cancer at 87

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
48,928
16,668
362
crimsonaudio.net
It wouldn't surprise me at all, but let's not pretend the Dems wouldn't do the exact same thing if the situation were reversed. A (D) controlled senate and an almost sure loss for the (R) and a conservative judge passed.

Plus if Hillary had won in 2016, RBG would have retired and this wouldn't even be a discussion.
I agree - the repubs have been particularly repugnant as of late but both sides play the game.
 

Go Bama

Hall of Fame
Dec 6, 2009
9,882
5,814
187
Fourteenessee
I'm posting this beautifully written letter from Heather Cox Richardson in this thread in addition to the Daily HCR thread. I realize many don't want to tackle the long daily posts, but this letter from a female historian is very appropriate for this thread.


Tonight, flowers are strewn on the steps of the Supreme Court, where “Equal Justice Under Law” is carved in stone. More than a thousand people gathered there tonight to mourn the passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died today from cancer at age 87.

Justice Ginsburg was born in Brooklyn, New York, on March 15, 1933, in an era when laws, as well as the customs they protected, treated women differently than men. Ginsburg would grow up to challenge the laws that barred women from jobs and denied them rights, eventually setting the country on a path to extend equal justice under law to women and LGBTQ Americans.

Joan Ruth Bader, who went by her middle name, was the second daughter in a middle-class family. She went to public schools, where she excelled, and won a full scholarship to Cornell. There, she met Martin Ginsburg, and they married after she graduated. "What made Marty so overwhelmingly attractive to me was that he cared that I had a brain," she later explained. Relocating to Ft. Sill, Oklahoma, for her husband’s army service, Ginsburg scored high on the civil service exam but could find work only as a typist. When she got pregnant with their daughter Jane, she lost her job.

Two years later, the couple moved back east where Marty had been admitted to Harvard Law School. Ginsburg was admitted the next year, one of 9 women in her class of more than 500 students; a dean asked her why she was “taking the place of a man.” She excelled, becoming the first woman on the prestigious Harvard Law Review. When her husband underwent surgery and radiation treatments for testicular cancer, she cared for him and their daughter, while managing her studies and helping Marty with his. She rarely slept.

After he graduated, Martin Ginsburg got a job in New York, and Ginsburg transferred to Columbia Law School, where she graduated at the top of her class. But in 1959, law firms weren’t hiring women, and judges didn’t want women—especially mothers, who might be distracted by their “familial obligations”--as clerks. Finally, her mentor, law professor Gerald Gunther, got her a clerkship by threatening Judge Edmund Palmieri that if he did not take her, Gunther would never send him a clerk again.
After her clerkship and two years in Sweden, where laws about gender equality were far more advanced than in America, Ginsburg became one of America’s first female law professors. She worked first at Rutgers University-- where she hid her pregnancy with her second child, James, until her contract was renewed—and then at Columbia Law School, where she was the first woman the school tenured.

At Rutgers, she began her bid to level the legal playing field between men and women, extending equal protection under the law to include gender. Knowing she had to appeal to male judges, she often picked male plaintiffs to establish the principle of gender equality. In 1971, she wrote the brief for Sally Reed in the case of Reed vs. Reed, when the Supreme Court decided that an Idaho law specifying that “males must be preferred to females” in appointing administrators of estates was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Warren Burger, who had been appointed by Richard Nixon, wrote: “To give a mandatory preference to members of either sex over members of the other… is to make the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment” to the Constitution.

In 1972, Ginsburg won the case of Moritz v. Commissioner. She argued that a law preventing a bachelor, Charles Moritz, from claiming a tax deduction for the care of his aged mother because the deduction could be claimed only by women, or by widowed or divorced men, was discriminatory. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit agreed, citing Reed v. Reed when it decided that discrimination on the basis of sex violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

In that year, Ginsburg founded the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Between 1973 and 1976, she argued six gender discrimination cases before the Supreme Court. She won five. The first time she appeared before the court, she quoted nineteenth-century abolitionist and women’s rights activist Sarah Grimke: “I ask no favor for my sex. All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks.”

Nominated to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1993, she was confirmed by a vote of 96 to 3. Clinton called her “the Thurgood Marshall of gender-equality law.”

In her 27 years on the Supreme Court, Ginsburg championed equal rights both from the majority and in dissent (which she would mark by wearing a sequined collar), including her angry dissent in 2006 in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber when the plaintiff, Lilly Ledbetter, was denied decades of missing wages because the statute of limitations had already passed when she discovered she had been paid far less than the men with whom she worked. “The court does not comprehend or is indifferent to the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination,” Ginsburg wrote. Congress went on to change the law, and the first bill President Barack Obama signed was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.

In 2013, Ginsburg famously dissented from the majority in Shelby County v. Holder, the case that gutted the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The majority decided to remove the provision of the law that required states with histories of voter suppression to get federal approval before changing election laws, arguing that such preclearance was no longer necessary. Ginsburg wrote: “[t]hrowing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.” As she predicted, after the decision, many states immediately began to restrict voting.

Her dissent made her a cultural icon. Admirers called her “The Notorious R.B.G.” after the rapper The Notorious B.I.G., wore clothing with her image on it, dressed as her for Halloween, and bought RBG dolls and coloring books. In 2018, the hit documentary "RBG" told the story of her life, and as she aged, she became a fitness influencer for her relentless strength-training regimen. She was also known for her plain speaking. When asked how many women on the Supreme Court would be enough, for example, she answered “nine.”

Ginsburg’s death has brought widespread mourning among those who saw her as a champion for equal rights for women, LGBTQ Americans, minorities, and those who believe the role of the government is to make sure that all Americans enjoy equal justice under law. Upon her passing, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tweeted: “Justice Ginsburg paved the way for so many women, including me. There will never be another like her. Thank you RBG.”

For many, she seemed to be the last defender of an equality they fear is slipping away. Robyn Walsh, a University of Miami religion professor, watched the outpouring of grief after Ginsburg’s death and wrote “It says a lot about us that the loss of one voice leaves women and their allies feeling so helpless. I am grateful for RBG, her advocacy, and her strength. I'm enraged that we find ourselves here.”

That rage, prompted by the prospect of a Trump appointee in Ginsburg’s seat, led donors to pour money into Democratic coffers tonight. Democratic donors gave more than $12.5 million in two hours to the ActBlue donation processing site, a rate of more than $100,000 a minute. The effect of the loss of her voice and vote on the court will become clear quickly. On November 10, just a week after the upcoming presidential election, the court is scheduled to hear a Republican challenge to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. In 2012, the court upheld the law by a 5-4 vote.

Ginsburg often quoted Justice Louis Brandeis’s famous line: “The greatest menace to freedom is an inert people,” and she advised people “to fight for the things you care about, but do it in a way that will lead others to join you.” Setting an example for how to advance the principle of equality, she told the directors of the documentary “RBG” that she wanted to be remembered “Just as someone who did whatever she could, with whatever limited talent she had, to move society along in the direction I would like it to be for my children and grandchildren.”
Upon hearing of Ginsburg's death, former U.S. Attorney and law professor Joyce Vance tweeted, “We should honor the life of RBG, American hero, by refusing to give in, refusing to back down, fighting for the civil rights of all people & demanding our leaders honor the rule of law. This is our fight now.”

Rest in power, Justice Ginsburg.

May her memory be a blessing.
 

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
19,719
11,071
187
South Alabama
Wouldn't surprise me one bit if RBG's seat isn't filled within two weeks.
That would be too difficult even for Mitch. First Trump would have to nominate someone, and if he does he is wasting valuable time campaigning. Then the Senate will have a hearing and you know it’s going to be some circus with who he choices. I would say it would take 2 months minimum to push it through. Then you also add that a contested state like Arizona puts their senators in immediately. So the longer it drags the least likely it happens.

Do I think Trump gets this nomination before November 3rd? No

Do I think he will try? No. I think he will dangle it to get voters and if he loses will try to push it through as a lame duck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B1GTide

selmaborntidefan

Hall of Fame
Mar 31, 2000
24,817
7,485
287
51
Wishing I was somewhere close to Duluth with a sli
Well the Republicans will have to either decide if they want Pelosi or Biden as president. So I would welcome it.
We don't even know that yet.
There's been a lot of legal back and forth where it seems the only certainty is, "Trump's term ends at noon on January 20."

But I've seen a LOT of legal jargon written in all directions, too.
 

Bamaro

Hall of Fame
Oct 19, 2001
23,585
4,987
187
Jacksonville, Md USA
Senator Susan Collins of Maine became the first Republican to say that she would not support holding a confirmation vote to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court left vacant by the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She said Saturday that she does "not believe that the Senate should vote on the nominee prior to the election."

"In order for the American people to have faith in their elected officials, we must act fairly and consistently — no matter which political party is in power," Collins said in a statement, indirectly referring to 2016, when Republicans blocked President Obama's nominee from being confirmed to the court because it was an election year. "President Trump has the constitutional authority to make a nomination to fill the Supreme Court vacancy, and I would have no objection to the Senate Judiciary Committee's beginning the process of reviewing his nominee's credentials."
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: MobtownK

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
14,778
3,708
187
Here’s a scary thought. Murkowski stands her ground and joins Collins in blocking the nomination. She then gets a primary challenge in 2022 from Sarah Palin.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: selmaborntidefan

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
19,719
11,071
187
South Alabama
We don't even know that yet.
There's been a lot of legal back and forth where it seems the only certainty is, "Trump's term ends at noon on January 20."

But I've seen a LOT of legal jargon written in all directions, too.
At some point the Constitution and laws have to be followed. If he is not confirmed by the 20th of January then the Speaker should be President and if not the Speaker the pro tempore
 
  • Like
Reactions: MobtownK

4Q Basket Case

FB|BB Moderator
Nov 8, 2004
6,232
3,198
237
Tuscaloosa
The Supreme Court is nothing to be trifled with.

Yet both parties have played tit-for-tat for decades now.

While both parties have played the game, it did start when Robert Bork was torpedoed.

Both parties gave up moral purity long ago. Now, it’s just another political contest, and that’s a nasty shame.

Let the red and blue hypocrisy begin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MobtownK

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
19,719
11,071
187
South Alabama
The Supreme Court is nothing to be trifled with.

Yet both parties have played tit-for-tat for decades now.

While both parties have played the game, it did start when Robert Bork was torpedoed.

Both parties gave up moral purity long ago. Now, it’s just another political contest, and that’s a nasty shame.

Let the red and blue hypocrisy begin.
Its kinda hard to use the Bork argument when Kennedy was a 97-0 confirmation. Reagan tried to sneak Bork in there, and knew it was a hail mary at best using Nixon's Solicitor General and a guy that said he wanted he wanted to roll back civil rights court decisions.

Really this started when we decided to give the president the power to nominate and the Senate to confirm. It wasnt started because Reagan got caught trying to push in a highly controversial pick.

But at the current issue, the issue is that 4 years ago Rich Mitch decided that he wasnt going to let the Senate vote on a moderate SCOTUS pick chosen by Obama stating that the next President should decide. He even severely took Biden out of context in a defense. AS died in February, and Garland was nominated in March. There was plenty of time to have a hearing to just humor the idea of Garland. If Mitch pushes this through after making a year long stand against Obama doing it in his last year, then I dont want to hear any crying about what the Democrats do to the Republicans if/when they gain control of both houses again.
 
  • Thank You
  • Like
Reactions: MobtownK and 92tide

Crimson1967

Hall of Fame
Nov 22, 2011
14,778
3,708
187
I don’t know about adding more SCOTUS members. FDR tried to pack the court and it wasn’t well received. If they add two more, the GOP will add more the next time they are in charge.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MobtownK

81usaf92

Hall of Fame
Apr 26, 2008
19,719
11,071
187
South Alabama
I don’t know about adding more SCOTUS members. FDR tried to pack the court and it wasn’t well received. If they add two more, the GOP will add more the next time they are in charge.
It might have to if Trump gets another term. Breyer is unlikely to make another term. Basically you will have 5 far right theocrats and big business justices vs 2 Obama justices, a Bush justice, and Roberts. We will probably have to expand to 13 to counteract the threat to the Constitution. But hey, if the Bernie fans and all these people who have been yelling about how bad Trump is for 4 years dont vote....