Supreme Court Justice RBG Dies

phuketrichard · Post by **phuketrichard** » Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:57 pm

newkidontheblock wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:01 am Death is always sad, especially Ginsberg who had a long career on the Supreme Court.

But I respectfully disagree.

Her death is absolutely timely. Smart politicians will use the nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice to drive voter turnout. It’s important. Justices are appointed for life and will make decisions for decades.

How much power do the courts have?

A previous US President created law with ‘the stroke of his own.’ The dreamers act. No law was ever passed by Congress. Legally whatever acts a President creates, another can reverse.

The courts have said no. If the courts like a particular act, then it can’t be reversed.

IT's the WORST time as trump and the Republican senate will try to push thru the next justice that sees things their way
Or he will try it when he is a lame duck president!!

Pray they will not allow this to happen

Chad Sexington · Post by **Chad Sexington** » Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:32 pm

phuketrichard wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:57 pm
newkidontheblock wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:01 am Death is always sad, especially Ginsberg who had a long career on the Supreme Court.

But I respectfully disagree.

Her death is absolutely timely. Smart politicians will use the nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice to drive voter turnout. It’s important. Justices are appointed for life and will make decisions for decades.

How much power do the courts have?

A previous US President created law with ‘the stroke of his own.’ The dreamers act. No law was ever passed by Congress. Legally whatever acts a President creates, another can reverse.

The courts have said no. If the courts like a particular act, then it can’t be reversed.
IT's the WORST time as trump and the Republican senate will try to push thru the next justice that sees things their way
Or he will try it when he is a lame duck president!!

Pray they will not allow this to happen

I should imagine the Democrats would do the same if the roles were reversed.
RBG could have retired during Obama’s administration and allowed the Democrats to choose a new SCJ, someone who could have served them for decades possibly, but she chose to carry on well into her eighties, and the Democrats will probably be cursing her for that decision.

phuketrichard · Post by **phuketrichard** » Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:24 pm

I asked: When the time comes, what would you like to be remembered for?
"Someone who used whatever talent she had to do her work to the very best of her ability. And to help repair tears in her society, to make things a little better through the use of whatever ability she has."

RIP:
she was one of a kind

From Barack Obama

Sixty years ago, Ruth Bader Ginsburg applied to be a Supreme Court clerk. She’d studied at two of our finest law schools and had ringing recommendations. But because she was a woman, she was rejected. Ten years later, she sent her first brief to the Supreme Court — which led it to strike down a state law based on gender discrimination for the first time. And then, for nearly three decades, as the second woman ever to sit on the highest court in the land, she was a warrior for gender equality — someone who believed that equal justice under law only had meaning if it applied to every single American.

Over a long career on both sides of the bench — as a relentless litigator and an incisive jurist — Justice Ginsburg helped us see that discrimination on the basis of sex isn’t about an abstract ideal of equality; that it doesn’t only harm women; that it has real consequences for all of us. It’s about who we are — and who we can be.

https://obama.medium.com/my-statement-o ... 925b627457

Jerry Atrick · Post by **Jerry Atrick** » Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:29 pm

Well, she was a particularly tough old cunt.

It's hilarious how corrupt the USA is.

Carry on

monomial · Post by **monomial** » Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:09 pm

phuketrichard wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:57 pm
newkidontheblock wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 9:01 am Death is always sad, especially Ginsberg who had a long career on the Supreme Court.

But I respectfully disagree.

Her death is absolutely timely. Smart politicians will use the nomination of the next Supreme Court Justice to drive voter turnout. It’s important. Justices are appointed for life and will make decisions for decades.

How much power do the courts have?

A previous US President created law with ‘the stroke of his own.’ The dreamers act. No law was ever passed by Congress. Legally whatever acts a President creates, another can reverse.

The courts have said no. If the courts like a particular act, then it can’t be reversed.
IT's the WORST time as trump and the Republican senate will try to push thru the next justice that sees things their way
Or he will try it when he is a lame duck president!!

Pray they will not allow this to happen

The only reason this would not happen is if polls show that Trump would suffer from it in the election. However, given that whether most people support this action or not is very highly correlated with preference for their choice for president, I believe there is little hope that the Republican Senate will not push through a new apointee.

That said, the Democrats would do exactly the same thing given the chance. In fact, long before this they already said they would increase the number of judges and pack the Supreme Court with liberals. So neither side is interested in doing what is best for the country here. It is a partisan political trick, and this round would seem to have gone to the Republicans. It will be undone by the Democrats once they come to power.

monomial · Post by **monomial** » Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:31 pm

SternAAlbifrons wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:39 pm This is all new, and a bit of shock to those of us who live under the Westminster system
- the basic system of government for most former and current British Commonwealth countries

At the heart of this system is the concept of the separation of powers between the three branches of government:
The Legislature - the Parliament, which makes the law.
The Executive: the Governor, Prime Minister/Premier, Ministers, departments and agencies, which implement the law.
The Judiciary: the courts, which interpret and apply the law.

Hence the politicisation of the Judiciary just does not play out anything like it does it does in USA.

This has the advantage of the citizenry having a pretty high level of faith in the judiciary - they have reason to believe proceedings will be fair, overseen by judges that are NOT chosen for their political allegiances, ideological leanings or to win the next election.

Similar too for electing judges - also unthinkable under the westminster system. Popularity and posturing are not the playthings of judges. They are supposed to be removed from all that.

Of course some politics, and personal political prejudices, do come into play. But i don't think it could seriously be argued that in this system the judiciary is as politicised to any where near the degree that it is in the USA.

A sincere and respectful question - What do our american friends (and allies) see as the advantage of their system of appointing the judiciary according to such obviously partisan practices?

Confused about your statement. How is the British system any different from the American one? The American system is taken almost directly from the British. You are telling me you think high court judges from the UK are completely unbiased?

Judges in the US are supposed to be completely removed from politics as well. There is no effective difference between the systems. The difference is simply in current cultural division. The US is a much more divided country than the UK, and those small biases, that existed for centuries but were insignificant, have been leveraged and magnified into gaping chasms in recent decades.

You've only just begun to see a small taste of the globalist divisions in the UK as a result of Brexit. It is going to get a lot worse throughout the world as this global economic reimagining unfolds. The UK doesn't have any unique ability to resist what is coming. The US is just further along the path of destruction as far as this is concerned. Look at the US as your future and try and figure out how to avoid it.

The one thing the UK does have going for it vs. the American system however, is the stabilizing influence of the monarchy. That belief in an institution that can not be politicized still gives a kind of anchor that brings people back to sensibility. The US tossed that anchor aside when they broke from England, so it is only natural to be less stable.

newkidontheblock · Post by **newkidontheblock** » Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:42 am

monomial wrote:The one thing the UK does have going for it vs. the American system however, is the stabilizing influence of the monarchy. That belief in an institution that can not be politicized still gives a kind of anchor that brings people back to sensibility. The US tossed that anchor aside when they broke from England, so it is only natural to be less stable.

I’m confused. So monarchy is a good thing? So why do so many Brits on CEO bash it and the royal family so much?

And the leader of the legislative branch, the Prime Minister is also the leader of the executive branch?
So they write the laws and enforce said laws? So who keeps in check the law writers and the law enforcers? The people elect their legislators, but how do the people choose their prime minister and by implication the rest of the executive branch?

TheImplication · Post by **TheImplication** » Sun Sep 20, 2020 7:47 am

Brody wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:16 am It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Scalia died before the last election and Mitch McConnell refused to let an Obama appointee go through, saying that the new president should make the appointment, as the death occurred in an election year.

Same predicament now but with political parties reversed.

Not the same at all. Trump isn’t a lame duck and GOP has the Senate and Presidency. The 2016 elections and 2018 midterms solidified that the US trusts the GOP to pick a judge at this time. Should they wait for three elections now to confirm that?

Or they could just take it from RGB herself from 2016.

There’s similar comments by Obama, Biden, Hillary, Schumer, and Pelosi that I can post as well saying that a president should nominate and the senate approve a judge near an election. But that doesn’t apply now because reasons.

TheImplication · Post by **TheImplication** » Sun Sep 20, 2020 8:34 am

Obama 2016: “There is no unwritten law that this (SCOTUS nomination) can only be done in an off-year"

Hillary 2016:

Apollo91881 · Post by **Apollo91881** » Sun Sep 20, 2020 9:35 am

Don't bother showing statements by the dems in 2016. The GOP set the standard and reasoning in 2016. Now they are going back on it.
In the end it doesn't matter. No matter what, those with money will control the law and politics leaving those without to whine and cry as though they had a choice.
That's probably why so many people would rather see change, even if it is to watch the world burn. That's what will get Trump another 4 years. That and believing the lies.

Supreme Court Justice RBG Dies

Re: Supreme Court Justice RGB Dies

Re: Supreme Court Justice RGB Dies

Re: Supreme Court Justice RGB Dies

Re: Supreme Court Justice RGB Dies

Re: Supreme Court Justice RGB Dies

Re: Supreme Court Justice RGB Dies

Re: Supreme Court Justice RGB Dies

Re: Supreme Court Justice RGB Dies

Re: Supreme Court Justice RGB Dies

Re: Supreme Court Justice RGB Dies

Who is online

Register/Login to CEO with your Social Media Account: