Throwing your life's work down the crapper because she wanted to hold on to power. She took Roe v. Wade with her to the grave and set the feminist movement back to the 1950s.
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
331 points (91.3% liked)
politics
19340 readers
2026 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I mean literally if she had retired during Obama administration we likely wouldn't be in the same mess. Can directly blame her for the loss of roe vs Wade.
Potentially. A SCOTUS seat opened when Obama was in office, but Republicans actively prevented it from being filled.
A great Innuendo Studios video about this behavior: https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A
The pressure campaign for RBG to retire was when democrats still held a senate majority with 53 seats. Republicans blocked Obama's SCOTUS appointment when they held the senate majority. In 2016, republicans simply just didn't allow a vote to happen because the senate leader sets the vote schedule. The nuclear option had already been invoked by that very same dem caucus on all other presidential nominations too.
The scenarios look similar on a surface level but in the details that matter they are leagues apart. If RBG had retired in 2013 or (most of) 2014, her replacement would been confirmed, barring a Kavanaugh-sized scandal. Either republicans would have provided the seven votes needed to secure cloture, or Reid would have invoked the nuclear option to lower the cloture requirement on SCOTUS nominees to a bare majority, like all other positions. Either way the nominee would have been confirmed.
Well said. There's a reason why pride is one of the seven deadly sins.
Like most elderly politicians these days, she waited too long to retire and left us with a mess.
Make sense that the USPS made it a forever stamp. You to can hold on to power (to mail a letter) forever!
Is the stamp "ROE v WADE" chisled on a tombstone?
Democrats should pack the courts, should have been a day 1 assignment for Biden. No reason not to after the bullshit they pulled with Obama and then reversed stance on with Trump.
I agree they should pack the court, but also congress has impeachment power and several of the justices have been proven to not follow ethical rules. Not to mention the credible SA allegations and the illegitimacy of depriving Merrick Garland a vote and giving to Gorsuch. Finally, Congress could also just enshrine Roe into law and could have at any time done so and they didn’t so I blame Congress more than anybody
If Democrats actually did their job in Congress we wouldnt need to rely on SCOTUS as much,
It should be done, but Biden has never had the opportunity.
The size of SCOTUS is set by statute, and would need a law passed by the house and senate to do so. Democrats don't hold the house today, but did in the prior congress. That vote likely could have succeeded. It would have failed in the senate. At the time the senate was 50-50 and I cannot possibly imagine any scenario where Manchin and Sinema would have voted for that law. King and Feinstein wouldn't have been certain votes either, but likely winnable if it came down to the wire. Even if all of them did vote aye, regular legislation can be filibustered and there is definitely 0% chance that Manchin+Sinema would have voted to kill the filibuster.
Dems need a house majority and at least a 52-48 senate majority for this to happen. I suspect that rage has already faded enough that it won't happen even then, barring SCOTUS doing more Dobbs sized awful decisions.
Supreme Court was never meant to take cases. Overturn Marbury v. Madison.
We kinda have to wait for the justices to either retire or die off, for better or for worse.
We should all remember Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a woman who fought so hard for so many people's rights and yet was willing to undo all that for the sake of her own pride.
Honestly fuck her Crazy old bat
And fuck any asshole who doesn't stop aside when they're geriatric and senile and access over the entire nation because of their own arrogance
The one good thing is that it sticks around an extraordinarily long time.
"The USPS went on to say they're ready to release the stamps but they're waiting for just the right time."
/s
Should not celebrate someone who did insane damage to our democracy.
woof. You'd think they would have gone with a more flattering photo/image. Not one reminiscent of Gollum.
She does not deserve anything more than this.
Be careful: eagle, goblin, and troll references to Jewish facial features have long been considered antisemitism. Just FYI.
Gollum is a hobbit, so it's all good.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
“Now a new stamp will honor this outstanding American eminent jurist who gave so much to our country as a scholar, teacher, lawyer, judge and justice,” Supreme Court Justice John Roberts said in opening remarks at the National Portrait Gallery.
The stamp features an oil painting of Ginsburg wearing her black judicial robe and white collar.
“Of the many honors my grandmother has received, this stamp is especially fitting and not only because the Supreme Court has had occasion to interpret the postal clause found in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution,” Spera said.
Roman Martinez IV, the chairman of the USPS Board of Governors, said the stamp honors not only Ginsburg, but in effect, the Supreme Court as well.
Pointing out USPS receives thousands of suggestions each year for new subjects, Martinez said the postal service is “proud” to be issuing a stamp in her honor.
Nina Totenberg, an American legal affairs correspondent for National Public Radio, said she interviewed Ginsburg dozens of times throughout the years.
The original article contains 424 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 60%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!