RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[AuntK]

Besides all the other horribles mentioned above that will likely happen with whatever Nazi justice Trump picks, it also means Trump will not ever go to prison for his crimes!

[GreyhoundFan]

"Ginsburg’s passing may worsen the crisis of our democracy"

Spoiler

My heart is breaking today. Not just because of the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg — one of the great pioneers in American legal history — but also for what her death could portend: a further delegitimization of our already fragile political institutions. I hope against hope that the great justice’s passing does not worsen the crisis of our democracy. But I fear that it will.

The United States has grown more disunited for years, with less and less that Democrats and Republicans can agree on. Even basic facts are in dispute in the age of Facebook and Fox News, with roughly 40 percent of the population trapped in an alternative reality bubble where immigration is an existential threat but global warming isn’t. Conspiracy theories and “fake news” have proliferated — and millions and millions of Americans believe them.

President Trump has accelerated those terrible trends. He routinely accuses his political opponents of treason, calls the press the “enemy of the people,” says any election he does not win is fraudulent and claims the civil service is part of a “deep state” plotting against him. He does not even make any pretense of caring about states that didn’t support him. Defending his coronavirus record, he said: “If you take the blue states out, we’re at a level that I don’t think anybody in the world would be at.”

That kind of poisonous talk takes a toll. A Pew Research Center survey last year found that only 45 percent of Democrats and just 38 percent of Republicans say they share any “values and goals” with members of the other party. A new Pew Research Center poll finds that few Biden or Trump voters have friends who support the other candidate.

Serious scholars are worried that if present trends continue, we could see significant unrest and violence far beyond even today’s already alarming levels. Sociologist Jack A. Goldstone and scientist Peter Turchin developed a model tracking social unrest. They predicted a decade ago, based on growing levels of income inequality and self-interested behavior by American elites, that “the U.S. was heading toward the highest level of vulnerability to political crisis seen in this country in over a hundred years,” with those trends “set to peak in the years around 2020.”

What Goldstone and Turchin call the “Turbulent Twenties” are here with a vengeance. Now, they predict, the United States is “headed for still greater protests and violence”:

Inequality and polarization have not been this high since the nineteenth century. Democrats are certain that if Donald Trump is reelected, American democracy will not survive. Republicans are equally certain that if Trump loses, radical socialists will seize the wealth of elites and distribute it to undeserving poor and minorities, forever destroying the economy of the United States. Both sides are also convinced that the other side intends to change the democratic ‘rules of the game’ in ways that will make it impossible for them to compete effectively in future elections.

The Supreme Court has traditionally been the one institution that safeguards the Constitution and upholds neutral “rules of the game.” Its legitimacy, though battered by years of Republican efforts to stack the court to achieve the party’s desired political outcomes, remains intact largely because some Republican appointees such as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. have put principle above politics. Democrats are hardly blameless for the politicization of the court (Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) had to apologize for saying that Trump’s appointees would “pay the price” for voting against abortion rights), but their actions have been considerably less harmful than those of the other side.

Two acts, in particular, have done great damage to the court’s legitimacy. First was the 2000 Bush v. Gore ruling, on what amounted to a party-line vote, handing the disputed presidential election to George W. Bush. The second was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (Ky.) refusal in 2016 to even give a hearing to a moderate judge, Merrick Garland, nominated by President Barack Obama. McConnell excused his obstructionism by inventing a rule that nominees should not be considered in an election year. He held the seat open until Trump could nominate Neil M. Gorsuch.

Imagine how much greater will be the damage if McConnell now flip-flops and tries to force through a replacement for Ginsburg either just before, or just after, an election that his party may well lose. Already two of the five conservative justices were nominated by a president who lost the popular vote. And George W. Bush, who lost the popular vote when he was elected to his first term, went on to nominate two more in his second. Imagine if a sixth conservative is nominated by a president who lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes and confirmed by Republican senators who represent 15 million fewer Americans than their Democratic colleagues. Imagine further that this new justice is the deciding vote on abortion rights, the Affordable Care Act — and even the outcome of the presidential election.

The result would be a political crisis that will shake our institutions to their foundations and make our current predicament seem paradisal by comparison. Don’t go there, Sen. McConnell, if you care at all about the republic and not just the Republican Party.

 

[ignorantobserver]

So there is a real, somewhat probable even, possibility of Roe vs Wade being overturned in the next few years ? Are there other points on the agenda ? @GreyhoundFan mentioned that they might try to allow discrimination against LGBT people on the grounds of 'religious freedom'. Obviously, this perspective is terrifying.

But would something like the ACA be in the same category of "battle field of the culture war" ? If this charming Tom Cotton is nominated, would he actually mirror the political program of his party in every case he comes across ? If I understood these essays correctly, most conservative judges still care about upholding the system of the Supreme Court as a legal institution, not a political one.

1 hour ago, AuntK said:

Besides all the other horribles mentioned above that will likely happen with whatever Nazi justice Trump picks, it also means Trump will not ever go to prison for his crimes!

This is a really stupid question, but is something like this even likely to end up in front of the Supreme Court ? Is it legally possible ? It's not like they can (I suppose) just pick any case where someone is being accused of criminal activities ? Besides, if my memory is correct, Nixon himself was pardoned immediately by his successor, isn't it likely that the same thing will happen to Trump ?

[Four is Enough]

5 hours ago, EmmieJ said:

  I don't want a blue wave, I want a blue tsunami.

From your mouth to God's ear..

4 hours ago, AuntK said:

Was it just me or did anyone else hope something had happened to the orange baboon when the networks broke into regular programming last night with, "SPECIAL BREAKING NEWS?"

I try very hard to contain my rage and venom when he comes on tv. I try very hard to not think in terms like that because I dont' want to have any part of his demise on my conscience.. but if it happens, I think I won't spend much thought for it.

[church_of_dog]

2 hours ago, ignorantobserver said:

Besides, if my memory is correct, Nixon himself was pardoned immediately by his successor, isn't it likely that the same thing will happen to Trump ?

Well, Nixon was able to be pardoned because he resigned, and his successor was his VP, of his own party, who then pardoned him.

If Trump had resigned at the time he was impeached, a similar pardon may well have happened.

But now, if Trump loses in November , he loses to a Democrat, who is certainly not going to pardon him.  

If instead he resigned this instant  Pence would have a few months as POTUS to pardon Trump (and I have no idea what would happen to the election)

Edited September 20, 2020 by church_of_dog

[WiseGirl]

It may become one. Very uncertain times. 

[HereComesTreble]

I’ve held myself together the past 24 hours.  I lost it when I just read this RBG’s quote from her confirmation hearing:

“I have had the great good fortune to share life with a partner truly extraordinary for his generation, a man who believed at age 18 when we met, and who believes today, that a woman’s work, whether at home or on the job, is as important as a man’s.”

This speaks to my heart and it’s breaking so much right now.

[adidas]

Forgive me for not being politically and legally savvy enough - I’m up to my elbows in my own country’s disasters. I hope these aren’t dumb questions - I’m asking from the other side of the world and my only experience with US stuff has been as a tourist, consumer and watcher from afar.

i understand the ramifications of RBG’s death in that Trump will not honour her wishes, and will replace her ASAP with a very conservative person. It is disgraceful. 

But can someone please explain if this will have an impact on the election? Will it favour Trump if it does?

[ALM7]

16 hours ago, GreyhoundFan said:

The damage could be huge. If the supremes have a significant reich-wing majority, they can and will select cases from the lower courts that are in relation to the topics you mention. Once they hear those cases, they can (and likely will) rule in a way to hurt the rights of so many people. This is why all those bright red states have been pushing the insane heartbeat bills, knowing they would face legal challenges, hoping that they work their way to the supreme court after RBG's passing, assuming that 45 would nominate a far right person, who would encourage the other RW supremes to uphold the heartbeat laws, which would effectively nullify Roe v. Wade. So RvW wouldn't be overturned directly, but it would be impossible to get an abortion in those states after a ridiculously early period, like six weeks.

There would also likely be other outrageous laws passed in ruby red states to limit the actions of others, like the stupid bathroom bills, or "religious freedom" bills (I don't have to serve you if you're gay because Jesus) in the hope that they work their way to the new uber rightwing supreme court.

One person can definitely have that impact because it tilts the balance of power in a dangerous fashion.

:my bold above:

Exactly.  This is why we should be very concerned.  I would give a thousand likes/hearts if I could.  Oh, and Trumps power mongers are stacking the lower courts.  This is so bad, I'm beside myself, even though I feared this might happen.

RIP Justice, you are loved by many.

My hope is men, that benefited from Justice Bader Ginsburg's advocacy, will realize what a giant of human rights we have lost.  The Justice never played favorites, she was an equal rights protector of all, regardless of sex.  

Edited September 20, 2020 by ALM7
RIP

[GreyhoundFan]

7 hours ago, adidas said:

Forgive me for not being politically and legally savvy enough - I’m up to my elbows in my own country’s disasters. I hope these aren’t dumb questions - I’m asking from the other side of the world and my only experience with US stuff has been as a tourist, consumer and watcher from afar.

i understand the ramifications of RBG’s death in that Trump will not honour her wishes, and will replace her ASAP with a very conservative person. It is disgraceful. 

But can someone please explain if this will have an impact on the election? Will it favour Trump if it does?

I understand, US politics consume so much of my attention that I don’t know as much as I’d like about Australian and European politics. I appreciate the members of FJ who share important and helpful information about non-US events.

to answer your question: yes, RBG’s death will impact the election. It will likely energize voters on both sides. My concern is that some voters who were leaning away from twitler might turn back to him because he’s going to nominate a person who will vote to strangle Roe v. Wade. Far too many people in the US are single issue voters, and “saving the babeez” is all that matters to them. The other group of single issue voters are the second amendment gun nuts. Any nominee put forth will likely be a gun nut too. 
 

I posted this in the elections thread, it might help answer better than I can:

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by GreyhoundFan

[ignorantobserver]

22 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

Far too many people in the US are single issue voters, and “saving the babeez” is all that matters to them. The other group of single issue voters are the second amendment gun nuts. Any nominee put forth will likely be a gun nut too. 

Single issue voters are a huge problem in every democracy. People who like their politics easy and black-and-white are... well, they are not the ideal citizens for a functioning democratic system. Especially if their "single issue" is in itself problematic.

[SassyPants]

11 hours ago, HereComesTreble said:

I’ve held myself together the past 24 hours.  I lost it when I just read this RBG’s quote from her confirmation hearing:

“I have had the great good fortune to share life with a partner truly extraordinary for his generation, a man who believed at age 18 when we met, and who believes today, that a woman’s work, whether at home or on the job, is as important as a man’s.”

This speaks to my heart and it’s breaking so much right now.

This statement has hit me particularly hard. My own parents are RBGs age and my mom has often stated that she short changed her career because my dad told her that “her career would never impact his, and if she wanted to work, she needed to figure out how to balance the kids and house too.” So, my mom stayed home until her youngest was in school full time, but she NEVER forgot his words. Yes, my dad is nearing 90 and is a Trump supporter, and would NEVER vote for a woman. Shakes my damn head!

Just now, SassyPants said:

This statement has hit me particularly hard. My own parents are RBGs age and my mom has often stated that she short changed her career because my dad told her that “her career would never impact his, and if she wanted to work, she needed to figure out how to balance the kids and house too.” So, my mom stayed home until her youngest was in school full time, but she NEVER forgot his words. Yes, my dad is nearing 90 and is a Trump supporter, and would NEVER vote for a woman. Shakes my damn head!

Quoting myself (hit wrong button). My dad is not pro life, anti-education or pro gun. He is rather liberal on social issues, but hates government bloat and wasting money.

[GreyhoundFan]

"The tortured logic from right-wing media about replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg"

Spoiler

Back in 2016 and early 2017, Fox News was the self-satisfied home to a great deal of principled thinking about the importance of the American people’s will.

Here, for example, was Laura Ingraham, voicing her approval of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s machinations to bypass Obama nominee Merrick Garland and get conservative justice Neil M. Gorsuch onto the Supreme Court bench after Trump’s election:

“The last 70 years, a Supreme Court justice was not confirmed in the final year of a president’s term,” preached the future Fox host, then a frequent guest on “Hannity.” She fretted that it “doesn’t matter” to left-leaning partisans. This was lofty-sounding but wrong: To pick just one of many examples to the contrary, the Democratic-controlled Senate unanimously confirmed President Ronald Reagan’s nomination of Anthony M. Kennedy in early 1988, an election year.

Fox hosts Sean Hannity and Dana Perino, too, signaled their approval of stonewalling Obama’s nomination pick.

“You know, it’s interesting — what goes around, comes around,” Hannity opined, mentioning McConnell’s citation of the supposed “Biden rule” to justify the move. “Why should the Republicans act any different?”

There was no such rule, though: Joe Biden, as a senator from Delaware in 1992, had been discussing, in a 1992 speech, “a hypothetical situation involving a voluntary resignation, not a death, that never came to pass,” as Matt Gertz of Media Matters pointed out.

Such high-mindedness was in short supply during Fox’s popular opinion segments on Friday evening. While Fox’s news team gave ample attention to the life and career of the just-deceased Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and TV news across the spectrum discussed the likely next maneuvers in filling her vacancy, nothing was as raw as the comments by conservative activist Ned Ryun.

“This is an opportunity, and I say they seize the moment,” urged Ryun, founder of the grass-roots candidate-training factory American Majority, in an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, barely an hour after news broke of Ginsburg’s death.

For his part, Carlson did have the grace to suggest it might be well to tone things down in those initial hours and wait a bit to respect Ginsburg’s memory. But he also threw doubt on a credible report that Ginsburg had expressed her “most fervent wish” that the next president would appoint her replacement.

“It’s hard to believe, and I’m going to choose not to believe that she said that, because I don’t think that people on their deathbeds are thinking about who’s president. You hope not — that’s a pretty limited way to think as you die. But certainly this will be used as a cudgel by the left.”

The problem is that her words, according to NPR’s reporting, were not uttered in her final hours but a few days earlier in a conversation with her grandchild.

Fox News, though, wasn’t the only place to find tortured logic and misrepresentations.

“Ted Cruz with an excellent point,” tweeted Marc Thiessen, the American Enterprise Institute fellow and Washington Post columnist. “If election is litigated can’t risk having just 8 justices and the possibility of a deadlocked court. Could cause a constitutional crisis.”

There were thousands of retweets and likes, but a number of people who pointed out that Cruz and Thiessen seem to have short memories. After all, there was an ideologically split eight-member court in November of 2016 — for the very reasons discussed above. (Also, if you’re worried about a constitutional crisis, how about an election settled with the help of a justice Trump just appointed?)

In coming days, you can be sure to hear and read about such things as the “Thurmond rule,” the “McConnell Rule,” the “Biden rule” — none of which exist in law, and sometimes not even in writing. At most, they are conventions, not rules.

(According to the Brookings Institution, Strom Thurmond, the longtime senator from South Carolina who chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee, is credited with an “unwritten admonition” that “in presidential election years, the Senate should stop processing judicial nominations around the time of its summer recess, perhaps with limited exceptions for clearly non-controversial nominees.”)

There’s no reason to think that the pro-Trump media and right-wing politicians will have a monopoly on self-serving justification in coming days. It’s likely to be a dysfunctional circus.

The media — of all stripes — could keep from making it worse by maintaining a level tone, by not twisting the facts for the sake of partisanship, and by pushing back against misrepresentations.

Based on the initial hours after Justice Ginsburg’s death, that’s going to be an unreasonably high bar.

 

[libgirl2]

I honestly believe the GOP does not want to end abortion.  It's the carrot the dangle in front of voters every year. They need the issue out there to continue to string along people in hope for it to end. And the SCOTUS will make it up to the states. 

[GreyhoundFan]

This is fucking disgusting:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

A little smile:

 

[fraurosena]

 

[Dandruff]

1 hour ago, GreyhoundFan said:

This is fucking disgusting:

 

His people are so good that they have to quit, are fired, and end up in jail in droves. 

He's full of stuff to fill his own seat and I wouldn't be surprised if he does so regularly.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Dandruff

[thoughtful]

Obviously, our actions matter most. But a little symbolism can't hurt:

https://dissentpins.com/collections/rbg-collection/products/dissent-collar-pin

 

[GreyhoundFan]

A nice video about RBG:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

Yes!

 

[GreyhoundFan]

I don't have words to describe how much I despise him:

 

[GreyhoundFan]

 

[GreyhoundFan]

No surprise, Romney is on Mitch's team:

 

[TuringMachine]

7 minutes ago, GreyhoundFan said:

No surprise, Romney is on Mitch's team:

 

Fuck. That is a bit surprising. I thought he was one not terrified of Trump. That's what I get for giving credit to a republican. 

Now it's up to Murkowski, Collins, and Kelly assuming he's sworn in in time.

Edited September 22, 2020 by TuringMachine