U.S. Supreme Court: Post-Nino Edition

Somehow I saw this thread had a bunch of new answers before I saw the news or noticed the RGB RIP thread, but I had a gut feeling it meant she had passed — maybe partly because I remembered recently seeing the headline that Trump had a shortlist of 20 new appointees to the court. I hope the consequences don't turn out as dire as they seem.

Congrats to Eric, whose horror film poll I remember with great fondness. Hope your chosen one shares that passion.

What’s up with the smug Canadians lately? Jesus.

was wondering why I got a notification email

"avenge my FP"

also one more round of congrats to Eric <3

Another congratulations! to Eric plus sad condolences from this non-smug Canadian

Congrats to Eric

I don't think 'not retiring under Obama' was a vain decision, it was just a decision

one fun thing if ginsberg dies will be watching all the bluecheck resistance types going "merrick garland much my good sir" as mcconnell serenely jams through justin walker to take her seat six weeks before the election

— The 20th Dryjacker (@allahliker) May 6, 2020

in addition to fighting over a new justice, how about impeaching and jailing the two rapists currently on the supreme court?

I know, I know...

Trump is going to nominate Barrett in a few days because he (correctly) intuits that the judge list won over the skeptical Republicans he actually needed to win. Democrats will be incredibly motivated to vote and will turn him out decisively, she gets confirmed in December. https://t.co/1mURiWidx8

— 'Weird Alex' Pareene (@pareene) September 19, 2020

Well, one of those two rapists on the SC is there today because of the other idiot running for President

do you oversimplify this much in other parts of your life, too?

Halfway through this round-up of her record:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/03/the-rise-of-the-ruth-bader-ginsburg-cult

Coney Barrett=Another Pynchon-esque Character Name In Government

RBG was no Wm. O. Douglas. Then again, Justice Douglas constantly was on the losing side of 8-1 votes and spent his tenure writing dissenting opinions that have been mostly ignored in later jurisprudence.

I don't know about his entire tenure, though. He's responsible for Griswold, Brady, and Terminiello, among others, which have had seismic influence.

"In January, the Court issued its opinion in the case of Kansas v. Carr. The Kansas Supreme Court had overturned a pair of death sentences, on the grounds that the defendants’ Eighth Amendment rights had been violated in the instructions given to the jury. The U.S. Supremes swooped in, informing Kansas that it had made a mistake; nobody’s Eighth Amendment rights had been violated, thus the defendants ought to have continued unimpeded along the path toward execution. The Court’s decision was 8-1, the lone dissenter being Sonia Sotomayor. Ginsburg put her name on Justice Scalia’s majority opinion instead."

Love too be on the winning side..

Like y'know Ginsburg above all people didn't believe in just ruling based on her gut feeling on the core issue (capital punishment).

Despite being pro-choice herself, she long felt that Roe v Wade's decision was based on shoddy legal reasoning

Also did you even read Sotomayor's dissent? Her dissent was that SCOTUS shouldn't have even heard the case because she felt nobody's eight amendment rights were violated

the case did not involve the Constitutionality of the death penalty

why are you falling for alphabet bait

Cos he's so dreamy

it's better not to encourage the spread of selective misrepresentations of fact. too much of that going around these days.

Notorious RBG and Scalia, dining in heaven

She's Jewish, and he's Scalia. No heaven.

Just misrepresenting the facts.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-ginsburg-idUSKBN0G12V020140801

It was a vain decision not to step down. And the consequences are grave.

From Scotus Blog re Coney Barrett

The New York Times reported that Barrett was a member of a group called People of Praise.” Group members, the Times indicated, “swear a lifelong oath of loyalty to one another, and are assigned and accountable to a personal adviser.” Moreover, the Times added, the group “teaches that husbands are the heads of their wives and should take authority for their family.” And legal experts questioned whether such oaths “could raise legitimate questions about a judicial nominee’s independence and impartiality.”

If we’re gonna point out Ginsburg’s flawed decisions on the Court, we should also consider her record before she got to the Supreme Court. Linda Greenhouse in New York Times notes that : Ruth Ginsburg was occasionally described as the Thurgood Marshall of the women’s rights movement by those who remembered her days as a litigator and director of the Women’s Rights Project of the American Civil Liberties Union during the 1970s.

that's fair but she was working in just one subject area!

iirc she did write the opinion in dennys rodriguez v. united states which was a case i cited a lot of times when i was criminal lawyering, but it wasn't an earth-shattering opinion, kind of a no-brainer. i just like how he spelled dennys.

maybe "one subject area" is not a good description of what she was doing--it was fairly broad, but it excluded maybe all of the areas of the law where people are most critical of her as a justice

All these idiots suggesting at attempt at a quorum bust seem to not get that a quorum is 51, the GOP has 53, and there's no rule requiring both parties be there. And even if there were, we'd just get Bob Packwood 2020.

That would be the easiest way to confirm the nomination

There's no question she was a great champion of women's rights and a brilliant person. In a way my criticism of her is really a criticism of the error of veneration of individual "legal minds" at the expense of political strategy. Four liberal geniuses on the supreme court is worth exactly zero versus five mediocre conservative stalwarts.

i.e. the problem is really the narrativistic, individualist focus on heroes rather than on politics as it actually works, and the whole "Notorious RBG" cult is a symptom of that problem, as was her own vanity to effectively think it was important for her to stay on the court because there was no one "better" to replace her (a younger justice would have been "better").

otm but it also means that non-Americans jump to facile reductions of her extensive record, which helps nothing

ppl call her "Notorious RBG" but her verses were fuckin weak

"otm but it also means that non-Americans"

It's the Americans that are coming up with criticisms of RBG on my timeline.

You have FB friends?

Nice one.

lol we are so fucked pic.twitter.com/4R5M4kYf8W

— 红色娘子军🌹 (@detachment_red) September 20, 2020

Politics is a dance of power, and the sum of power includes the perception of power. In practical terms the Republicans occupy both of the pinnacles of power when it comes to filling SCOTUS vacancies: president and a Senate majority. In that regard, yes, we are fucked.

But both those pinnacles rest on the broad basis of popular support. Make that earth they rest upon shake and they will feel it. Shaking that political ground beneath their feet is not an easy task right now and the tectonic plates of left and right have been locked together in apparent stasis for a couple of decades now. But that is where any hope of averting a 6-3 conservative or a 5-4 far right majority lies, and that court will do far more damage than just wiping out Roe v Wade.

I guess we'll know how it all shakes out in the next couple months.

I read that RBG felt that since sexism in the law and workplace kept her from participating in the legal world till her late 30s, and her husband died in 2010 that those 2 items influenced her choice to stay on the court. Not saying that was right on her part, but those factors should be acknowledged.

Also, in a US where many people can’t name Supreme Court justices, maybe having RBG as a role model/ icon despite her less than perfect judicial career is still nonetheless a good thing . In an ideal world more might understand the big picture of law and policy better, but maybe for some this is a stepping stone.

Both of the last two Republican presidents—Bush and Trump-- have lost the popular vote, and yet each nominated two Supreme Court justices, who have been confirmed by the votes of senators who represent a minority of the American people.

kinda fucked up tbh

so its between Barrett and Lagoa? Tempted by a punt on Nick Sandmann

The overemphasis on personal narrative is exactly the problem. I am more concerned about the results than her legacy. It is “kind of fucked up” that our system thwarts popular will, but Democrats keep acting surprised that that’s the system we have when it was designed that way. And then when we actually have majority power we don’t maximize its use and make needless concessions to the right for the sake of “norms” that they don’t observe. I don’t care what RBG’s personal motivation was for not stepping down because the Supreme Court is not and should not be about her personal motivations.

Lagoa is a Hialeah girl!

just increasingly feels like we have a system by the red states, of the red states and for the red states in terms of representation in all branches of federal government as well as revenue flows

True, it does feel that way. The only thing that gives me hope is that the people making that possible are disproportionately old. God, what is it about old voters. Maybe we should surrender the ballot at 65.