Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

Uncategorized 1 Minute

I disagreed with her view of pretty much everything, but Scalia regarded her as a friend, and that is enough for me to agree she was a good person.

Published by Don Tabor

I am a former Chairman of the Tidewater Libertarian Party and was the 2007 LP candidate for the 14th district VA Senate. Previously, I was the Volunteer State Director for the FairTax. I am married 50 years with two grown children and 5 grandchildren.

Published

48 thoughts on “Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died”

    1. I doubt that. He has so much baggage now that even Republicans would balk. Plus he is 70 and the right wants young ideologues in these lifetime appointments.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

  3. Not even a chance for her family to sit shiva before McConnell’s hypocrisy comes flying out. I hate to say I told you so.

    Now what say you on the alleged “conservative” side of this forum?

    As a reminder, in 2016, 8 months prior to the election, McConnell insisted on waiting until after the election to allow the American people to have their voice heard before confirming a new Justice and would not even allow a hearing, let alone a vote on a nominee Constitutionally forwarded by the Oval Office. Last night he pledged to “fast track” a nominee as soon as one is received from the WH. And it is only 2 months before the election.

    Go ahead Trumpsters. Defend McConnell’s hippocratic actions. I double dog dare you.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. McConnell could not care less about what people think. He will brag about his actions because the single issue voters such as anti-abortion and the gun lobby will love him.

      The best one can hope for is that SCOTUS tends to mold the justices. There have been several examples in recent decades of “solid” conservatives ruling against what the right deems to be correct.

      We pride ourselves on the Rule of Law, which is a good thing. But there are times when, to borrow a phrase, the “law is an ass”. And intelligent barristers will recognize that we are also a nation of people.

      In a weird way, this appointment could be a good thing. It takes the reason of appointing a conservative off the table as a re-election point for Trump. I think Thomas is next and perhaps that could be a motivator, but not in the same urgency as a liberal judge.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

    2. Wow, you’re just going to force me to speak ill of the dead.

      First, to get it out of the way, Merrick Garland should have had a hearing. A lengthy detailed hearing that left no time for another nominee, and then he should have been rejected for cause. McConnell handled that poorly.

      But McConnell did not create this situation, Ginsburg did.

      She certainly knew when her cancer returned in the Spring that she would not be able to complete the coming term beginning on the first Monday in October. She should have retired then, or at the latest, at the end of the last term, as is the tradition. Staying on when she knew she would not be able to serve in the coming term was wrong.

      But even more than a liberal, Ginsburg was ruthlessly partisan, and she chose to try to run out the clock as her last partisan act.

      So, instead of dealing with this in June, as we should have, it will fall in, or shortly after, the fall election. And it will be ugly.

      But it’s Ginsburg’s(and those who whispered in her ear’s) doing, not McConnell’s.

      Like

      Reply

      1. Soy ou blame the dead for dying too late? Unbelievably obtuse.

        And you STILL ignore the hypocrisy of McConnell. It is apparent you do have NO SHAME.

        June? Still only 5 months away from the election. McConnell ignored the Constitution and you l defend his actions. How can you say that what he is doing now is not a hypocritical political move?

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. You apparently have reading comprehension problems.

          I did not say Ginsburg died too late, I said she failed to retire when it became clear she could not meet her obligations for the coming term. She refused to step down for partisan purposes.

          And I already wrote that Garland should have had his hearing and that McConnell handled that wrong. Garland was never going to be confirmed, and Obama no doubt knew that when he made the appointment, but he wanted the fight, not the seat.

          Garland refused to accept the Heller decision, and he ruled that the DOJ could retain instant background check records even though the law clearly stated that they had to be destroyed immediately after the check was completed. This was an attempt at back-door registration and an absolute disqualifier. Judges don’t get to ignore acts of Congress.

          Like

          Reply

          1. Yet you still think it is OK for McConnell to do what he did in ’16 but completely reverse course this year?

            That is the worst kind of bullshit becasue you can’t even use it for fertilizer.

            Like

          2. Again with the reading problems?

            I wrote twice today that McConnell did it wrong in 2016, but that does not require him to do it wrong again now, especially since it is not his fault we didn’t get this over with in June

            Like

          3. He should apply his own rule this time, right wrong or indifferent. The only reason YOU don’t have an issue with it is because some Federalist Society idealogue is primed to get the seat.

            Like

          5. Single issue voters are the lifeblood of the GOP and the regime.

            God, gays and guns…so predictable you could navigate without a sextant.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. Until there is a cave in. In which case the canary is as dead as the unfortunate miners who relied on a single hazard warning for their safety.

            Liked by 2 people

          10. We’re stretching the analogy a bit, but the way I look at it, politicians would not be trying to disarm me unless they planned to do something I would shoot them for.

            So, we are all safer if they have to worry about me. The 2nd Amendment is the last ditch guarantee of every other right and the Rule of Law.

            TO use a different analogy, how would you feel about a cruise if the crew started burning the lifeboats?

            Like

          11. There was a great cartoon by Luckovich going back a few years.

            It showed a house with a worried looking man in a window pointing a rifle outside with a pile of ammo next to him.

            Out the backdoor ran a banker with bags of cash while telling the homeowner to “keep a good eye out for the Democrats that are coming to steal your guns”.

            It always come to mind when I read about single issue folks.

            You did not lose your guns during Clinton or Obama terms. Nor would you have. But it was a good way to scare the populace.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. So, do you see any single issue voters around here?

            Pretty much everyone here is involved with many issues, but the 2nd Amendment is that canary.

            Any politician who seeks a disarmed populace must be assumed to be an enemy of Liberty.

            Again, how would you judge the crewmen destroying the life boats?

            Like

          14. No, I said that his decisions (1 on Heller and 1 on the NICS section of the Brady Bill) were disqualifiers.

            In both cases, he sought to substitute what he thought the law should be in place of the plain language of the SCOTUS decision and the law.

            They were Firearms cases and thus they raised insurmountable opposition, but again, that’s the function of canaries, to alert you to foul air.

            Like

          16. Perhaps, but they were also

            1 a refusal to accept the ruling of a superior court.

            2 an attempt to rewrite a very clear law, negotiated and passed by Congress because he thought he had a better idea.

            Yes, they attracted attention because they involved guns and not soybeans or trolley cars, but they were still indications he did not understand or accept the limits of his role as a judge, and thus did not belong on any court, much less the Supreme Court.

            Like

      2. Actually all this debate may be moot.

        Murkowski has said she will not vote for a replacement, as did Susan Collins who said it is too close to the election.

        Grassley:

        “I’m just following what was established by the Biden Rule in 1986 and then emphasized by him in 1992… They set the pattern. I didn’t set the pattern. But it was very legitimate that you can’t have one rule for Democratic presidents and another rule for Republican presidents.”

        Graham:

        “October 2018 said, “If an opening comes in the last year of President Trump’s term, and the primary process has started, we’ll wait to the next election.”

        So barring changes or a Democrat defection, there will be no approval despite McConnell’s wishes.

        https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/ruth-bader-ginsburg-death-live-updates/h_73403b4eaf42724ec9db79154591d223

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since Grassley and Graham spoke. to the issue.

          But it doesn’t have to be before the election. It just has to be before Jan 20th (hopefully 2024)

          Like

          Reply

          1. You have a point, of course. But the political implications of a lame duck appointment that requires approval by the Senate are pretty strong. If Trump loses, his coattails, apron strings really, would be mighty short.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Political considerations aside, the Constitution is at stake. Biden has made no secret of his intent to appoint partisan, outcome oriented justices, largely chosen by race and gender and party affiliation.

            We could survive a Biden Presidency but I am not so sure of a Biden court.

            Like

          3. “… appoint partisan, outcome oriented justices, largely chosen by race and gender and party affiliation.”

            Oh, and the Right wing is so pure. 😇

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Following the law does not make you an ideologue. It is placing your agenda before the law that does that.

            Law should be made by the people, through their legislatures, not by courts appointed by those who cannot get their agenda through the process.

            Like

          9. Don, we are talking about people, not machines.

            The Torah is essentially the first five books of the Old Testament. Pretty clear what God said and what laws are supposed to do.

            Yet, the Talmud, is the interpretation and it runs for thousands of pages and continues to be debated.

            The Rules of Golf are now 24, up from the original 13, but less than the previous 34.

            But the “Decisions on the Rules of Golf” is a thick book.

            Simple language? Look at the dust up over impeachment rules, procedures and enactments.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Garland tried to get around the Heller decision, which constitutes the Talmud on the 2nd Amendment and the NICS section of the Brady Bill, which provides for the instant criminal background checks we use for retail firearms sales says very straightforwardly that the Federal government is to keep no records of those checks(which would constitute a back door registry of gun owners.)

            That is not some minor bookkeeping provision, it is a key part of the bill, which would never have passed without it.

            Yet Garland ruled the DOJ could ignore it because he didn’t see the need for it.

            That would be like a judge deciding that the Voting Rights Act need not be applied to Senatorial elections because he didn’t see any harm in discriminating there.

            Garland was NEVER going to be confirmed by a GOP Senate and Obama had to know that.

            Like

          11. You are entitled to your opinion. No matter how wrong headed it is.

            Unless Obama nominated the choice of Mitch McConnell, no one would have been approved. Remember the joy McConnell took in stating their primary goal was to ensure that Obama would be a one-term POTUS? FAIL!

            McConnell has one goal and one goal only: to remain in power. He has no use for regular Americans. He cares not one whit about you, me him, her, or them. He is a partisan hack who uses funding indirectly from China (you so know how rich his in-laws are, don’t you?) to bamboozle KY voters. He has his legacy. He can retire to Beijing with his wife and live his remaining years in Chinese obscurity. And the country would be better off.

            Like

          12. “That would be like a judge deciding the Voting Rights Act need not be applied to Senatorial elections because he didn’t see and harm in discriminating there.”

            The Roberts Court did they when they gutted the VRA several years ago. And the GOP jumped all over it.

            Like

          13. …” the Constitution is at stake”…

            And it wasn’t when Scalia died? Good grief, Charlie Brown, this is so blatantly hypocritical it turns one’s stomach.

            Yet you deny the hypocrisy and in effect, condone it.

            And you BELIEVE that only supposedly “liberal” judges are partisan.

            Your hate for anything Democratic is disgusting and one of the biggest problems with discourse today. Compromise is what this country was founded on, yet for you it is only your way or the hiway.

            Like

          14. Of course the Constitution was at stake when Scalia unexpectedly died. That’s why it was essential that a judge with utter contempt for the Constitution and the Rule of Law like Merrick Garland could never be allowed on the court.

            SCOTUS should not be left or fright, Democrat or Republican. It should interpret the laws of the legislature as understood by those who passed them and the Constitution and its Amendments as understood by the legislatures that ratified them.

            If you think the Constitution has become outdated, or was wrong in the first place, then it contains the means to amend it. Do the work to accomplish that, don’t try to install a Court that will twist it into something never ratified by the people’s representatives.

            It really comes down to whether we should be self-governed or ruled.

            Like

          15. ‘It really comes down to whether we should be self-governed or ruled.”

            I would rather have ruling by courts that understand the shifting of the world since 1787 and not be locked into 18th century standards.

            And be advised “the people” have come in in recent polling at 70% in favor of whomever wins in November should be selecting Ginsburg’s replacement.

            And Biden’s statement over the weekend concerning the appointment was spot on. If Trump wins, then the Senate should consider his nominee. If Biden wins he should get to choose the replacement for consideration.

            Like

          16. Polls are not elections

            If you don’t think the Constitution has kept up, it contains the means to amend it, You aren’t locked in, you just don’t want to do the work required to amend the Constitution, which requires more than just getting 51% of the citizens to agree with you.

            The Constitution was constructed to protect the rights of the citizens of the smaller states. We are the United States, not the United Cities.

            Like

    3. RE: “Defend McConnell’s hippocratic actions.”

      Nothing could be easier. The essence of the Hippocratic Oath is to “First, do no harm.” In 2016 the American people had installed a Senate and a President of opposite parties. The will of the people was clear: The Senate should resist the actions of the President.

      In 2020, there is no risk of harming the will the people by fast tracking a court nominee, because the Senate and the President are of the same party. McConnell is thus adhering to a consistent principle.

      Personally, I think it is too soon to nominate a new justice. RBG deserves the honor of being properly memorialized before we get on with the business of politics. But once we have paid our respects to her, I see no reason to delay the process.

      Like

      Reply

  4. “I see no reason to delay the process.”…

    No, the will of the Electoral College was clear. Over 3 million voters were ignored.

    …”I see no reason to delay the process.”

    But it was ok to delay the process 4 years ago? The purist action of hypocrisy by McConnell and you say it is OK?

    I am completely disgusted by the absolute blindness of Trumpists such as yourself and Don in the name of …what? Doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

    Neither of you have any shame whatsoever.

    Like

    Reply

    1. RE: “But it was ok to delay the process 4 years ago?”

      Yes, for the reasons I gave.

      RE; “I am completely disgusted by the absolute blindness of Trumpists such as yourself…”

      Nobody cares what you are disgusted by.

      Like

      Reply

      1. So what.

        Hypocrisy by the GOP is the only consistent platform they have ever had. But YOU and Trump supporters are just fine with it.

        YOU should be just as disgusted by it, but you are so blinded by hatred for othres, it just doesn’t play.

        Like

        Reply

        1. It was, in fact, different when Garland was nominated.

          The President nominates justices to the Supreme court and lesser courts with the advice and consent of the Senate.

          But in 2014, the last midterm before the 2016 election, the people had lost faith in Obama’s and the Democrat’s appointees, and had given the GOP control of the Senate, limiting his power to install judges at all levels.

          The people had spoken, Obama’s discretion to appoint judges had been revoked, in part because Harry Reid had worked to pack the lower courts with outcome oriented judges and Obama had made two terrible, and extremely partisan appointments to SCOTUS.

          The people have not revoked Trump’s authority to appoint the judiciary, on the contrary, the GOP gained seats in the Senate in 2018.

          So, unlike Obama, whose license to appoint justices had been restricted by the people, Trump’s authority remains intact.

          Like

          Reply

          1. You’re overlooking the 2018 midterms. But that’s OK. It’s convenient for your argument.

            In 2018, the GOP was only defending about 10 rock sloid seats. This year they are looking at 26 (I think that’s correct). It appears that McConnell is very afraid of losing the WH and his majority. And it is a rational fear to have. The AZ race between McSally and Kelly appears to be out of reach for the GOP. If Kelly wins, he will be seated at the end of November. That means there would be one less Republican with balls and convictions (Romney?) needed to derail the process for McConnell. Yep, he is scared.

            Like

Leave a comment