RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

by **Liriena** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:41 pm

Tarsonis wrote:
Liriena wrote:She seemed like a fine, forward-thinking jurist who left a hell of a legacy.

This year sucks hard.

Definitely not looking forward to Republicans trying to replace her with Tom Cotton or some other warmongering authoritarian psychopath.

Barret is the favorite from what I've heard.

Her wiki article isn't too awful, for a conservative.

Incredibly low bar tho.

Also, fuck originalism. Learn to live with the consequences of entropy.

by **Sundiata** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:42 pm

It would be amusing to see Joe Biden appoint President Obama to the Supreme Court.

by **Novus America** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:44 pm

Liriena wrote:She seemed like a fine, forward-thinking jurist who left a hell of a legacy.

This year sucks hard.

Definitely not looking forward to Republicans trying to replace her with Tom Cotton or some other warmongering authoritarian psychopath.

The Supreme Court is not much involved in foreign policy. There are occasional foreign policy cases but these are rare, and the court usually finds they a non judicial political issue.

by **Liriena** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:44 pm

Picairn wrote:
Liriena wrote:She really should have taken advantage of the majority Democrats had early in Obama's presidency and retired. But we're waaaaaaay past that now.

2009 feels like eons ago...

Ah, 2009... just before billionaires astroturfed the Tea Party into existence and gave the radicalization of Republican voters one of the last few pushes it needed to create Trumpism.

by **Sundiata** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:47 pm

President Obama is certainly qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

by **Broader Confederate States** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:48 pm

Liriena wrote:
Picairn wrote:2009 feels like eons ago...

Ah, 2009... just before billionaires astroturfed the Tea Party into existence and gave the radicalization of Republican voters one of the last few pushes it needed to create Trumpism.

"Trumpism" isn't really anything new.

by **Geneviev** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:49 pm

Sundiata wrote:President Obama is certainly qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

I don't think he wants it, though. We should have another woman with RBG's strong moral compass.

by **Empirical Switzerland** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:49 pm

Sundiata wrote:President Obama is certainly qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

Hell no.

by **Sundiata** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:50 pm

I was only joking but it seems like Vice President Biden has considered it.

https://youtu.be/1LWS1TdbPaE

by **Sundiata** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:51 pm

Geneviev wrote:
Sundiata wrote:President Obama is certainly qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

I don't think he wants it, though. We should have another woman with RBG's strong moral compass.

Ok. Michelle Obama?

by **Geneviev** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:51 pm

Sundiata wrote:
Geneviev wrote:I don't think he wants it, though. We should have another woman with RBG's strong moral compass.

Ok. Michelle Obama?

She does fit the criteria. Definitely.

But, still no RBG. She is truly irreplaceable.

by **USS Monitor** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:52 pm

That is really sad. She was a cool person.

by **Sundiata** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:52 pm

Geneviev wrote:
Sundiata wrote:Ok. Michelle Obama?

She does fit the criteria. Definitely.

If not Michelle Obama, there is always Sasha or Malia.

by **Novus America** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:54 pm

If Amy Barrett gets in it will be a very Catholic Court. I just find it interesting Catholics make up such a large percentage of the court, relative to population. Of course even before this it was 5 Catholics, 3 Jews, and only one Protestant.

Interesting demographics relative to the general population. Although I guess a large number of Jews, and I suppose Catholics go into law?

by **Tranzoria** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:56 pm

Novus America wrote:If Amy Barrett gets in it will be a very Catholic Court. I just find it interesting Catholics make up such a large percentage of the court, relative to population. Of course even before this it was 5 Catholics, 3 Jews, and only one Protestant.

Interesting demographics relative to the general population. Although I guess a large number of Jews, and I suppose Catholics go into law?

Jews often become Lawyers, while Catholics get higher roles.

by **Sundiata** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:56 pm

Novus America wrote:If Amy Barrett gets in it will be a very Catholic Court. I just find it interesting Catholics make up such a large percentage of the court, relative to population. Of course even before this it was 5 Catholics, 3 Jews, and only one Protestant.

Interesting demographics relative to the general population. Although I guess a large number of Jews, and I suppose Catholics go into law?

Fair point, there might be a shot at repealing Roe v Wade in that case.

by **Kowani** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:57 pm

Empirical Switzerland wrote:
Sundiata wrote:President Obama is certainly qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

Hell no.

Ironically, Obama as a constitutional lawyer would actually be qualified.

by **Tranzoria** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:57 pm

I was gone for an hour. Wow.

by **Sundiata** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:57 pm

Kowani wrote:
Empirical Switzerland wrote:Hell no.

Ironically, Obama as a constitutional lawyer would actually be qualified.

Exactly.

by **Tranzoria** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:58 pm

Kowani wrote:
Empirical Switzerland wrote:Hell no.

Ironically, Obama as a constitutional lawyer would actually be qualified.

That is possible to to his experience (Short-lived) with Law.

by **Novus America** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:59 pm

Liriena wrote:
Picairn wrote:2009 feels like eons ago...

Ah, 2009... just before billionaires astroturfed the Tea Party into existence and gave the radicalization of Republican voters one of the last few pushes it needed to create Trumpism.

I mean it is actually not that new, and the Tea Party was more libertarian, while Trump took the Republicans back to their protectionist roots. Given the Republican Party was protectionist for over a century, that is not new.
Heck even Reagan, despite his rhetoric was more protectionist than Carter or Clinton.

by **Novus America** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:00 pm

Kowani wrote:
Empirical Switzerland wrote:Hell no.

Ironically, Obama as a constitutional lawyer would actually be qualified.

It would not be without precedent either:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Howard_Taft

by **Liriena** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:00 pm

Novus America wrote:
Liriena wrote:Ah, 2009... just before billionaires astroturfed the Tea Party into existence and gave the radicalization of Republican voters one of the last few pushes it needed to create Trumpism.

I mean it is actually not that new, and the Tea Party was more libertarian, while Trump took the Republicans back to their protectionist roots. Given the Republican Party was protectionist for over a century, that is not new.
Heck even Reagan, despite his rhetoric was more protectionist than Carter or Clinton.

Tbh, everyone who's looked at American history from outside the US knows that the US has almost always been a protectionist country.

by **Tranzoria** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:01 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knbwzRppZr0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKazwS1Hinw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JR-rG49bm64
The President, the Democrats, and the Public's reaction.
Compare.

by **Sundiata** » Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:01 pm

Tranzoria wrote:
Kowani wrote:Ironically, Obama as a constitutional lawyer would actually be qualified.

That is possible to to his experience (Short-lived) with Law.

Long-lived. He was a state and federal legislator. He headed the executive branch. Now it's time to head the judiciary.

RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg!

Who is online