RBG plans 5 more years on SCOTUS

[jayem]

She's 85 now, and wants to stay on till she's 90. Same as Justice Stevens did.

Oliver Wendell Holmes still holds the record. IIRC, he didn't retire till he was almost 92. (Though "The Great Dissenter" was having medical problems.)

Justice Ginsburg is a great lady. I'll gladly drink to her health.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...he-ll-stay-supreme-court-least-5-more-n895726

 

[chevyontheriver]

She's 85 now, and wants to stay on till she's 90. Same as Justice Stevens did.

Oliver Wendell Holmes still holds the record. IIRC, he didn't retire till he was almost 92. (Though "The Great Dissenter" was having medical problems.)

Justice Ginsburg is a great lady. I'll gladly drink to her health.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...he-ll-stay-supreme-court-least-5-more-n895726

She may have to be assisted by nanites. Maybe then she could serve to 200.

 

[pat34lee]

She may be a great lady, but she's a lousy judge.
She's an activist who cares more about getting the outcome
she wants than following the law as it was written.

https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/how-spot-judicial-activism-three-recent-examples

 

[Aryeh Jay]

She may be a great lady, but she's a lousy judge.
She's an activist who cares more about getting the outcome
she wants than following the law as it was written.

https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/report/how-spot-judicial-activism-three-recent-examples

As opposed to the other activist judges getting the outcome they want?

 

[jayem]

I must make some corrections to my OP. Justice John Harlan, not Justice Holmes, was known as The Great Dissenter. Though a native southerner, and one-time supporter of slavery, he was the only dissenter in the Plessy v. Ferguson decision. Which upheld racial segregation laws as constitutional.

And Justice Holmes served till he was nearly 91. That was a typo.

 

[Phil 1:21]

So she wants Pence to name her replacement?

 

[pat34lee]

As opposed to the other activist judges getting the outcome they want?

As just like the other 3 who consistently vote with her on 4-5 and 5-4 decisions.
There may be excuse for 7-2 decisions honestly decided, but 5-4 decisions are
almost always (that I've seen) political decisions on the left side, not legal ones.

 

[expos4ever]

As just like the other 3 who consistently vote with her on 4-5 and 5-4 decisions.
There may be excuse for 7-2 decisions honestly decided, but 5-4 decisions are
almost always (that I've seen) political decisions on the left side, not legal ones.

How is it not obvious that this argument could be flipped to paint the conservative judges as playing politics?

 

[Aryeh Jay]

As just like the other 3 who consistently vote with her on 4-5 and 5-4 decisions.
There may be excuse for 7-2 decisions honestly decided, but 5-4 decisions are
almost always (that I've seen) political decisions on the left side, not legal ones.

Just as long as President Trump’s nominee overturns the law (Roe v Wade) as written, right? Didn’t we call legislating from the bench when Obama was in power?

 

[pat34lee]

How is it not obvious that this argument could be flipped to paint the conservative judges as playing politics?

Because most conservatives are Constitutionalists.
We believe that the Constitution and the law are what they are.
They cannot be finagled to say what you want them to mean.
Sometimes that means decisions you don't like, even if you make them.
It's up to Congress to change any bad laws, not the courts.

 

[pat34lee]

Just as long as President Trump’s nominee overturns the law (Roe v Wade) as written, right? Didn’t we call legislating from the bench when Obama was in power?

Roe is never going to be reheard by the SCOTUS.
At best (or worst, depending on your POV), it would
be turned over to the states or to the Congress to
make a real law. Congress should actually have done
that many years ago and taken it out of the court's hand.

 

[Sistrin]

Just as long as President Trump’s nominee overturns the law (Roe v Wade) as written, right?

Why is the practice of abortion so important to you?

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

Roe is never going to be reheard by the SCOTUS.
At best (or worst, depending on your POV), it would
be turned over to the states or to the Congress to
make a real law. Congress should actually have done
that many years ago and taken it out of the court's hand.

Yes, lets let states choose. Pretend Conservative Christians don't have abortion.
Sadly ,Having Conservatives come to my state to have abortion. Might help our economy more.

 

[jayem]

Roe is never going to be reheard by the SCOTUS.
At best (or worst, depending on your POV), it would
be turned over to the states or to the Congress to
make a real law. Congress should actually have done
that many years ago and taken it out of the court's hand.

Congress doesn't have the authority to regulate abortion. It's a medical procedure. And laws regarding medical practice have always been state matters, subject to state laws. An exception would be if abortion could somehow be considered an interstate commerce issue. (That's how the law prohibiting elective intact D & X (so called "partial birth" abortion) had to be worded. Strictly speaking, it really only applies to such abortions performed in the context of interstate commerce.) State laws are subject to review firstly by their own state courts. And ultimately, by the federal courts. And SCOTUS has the final word. To have uniform, nationwide legislation on abortion would require a Constitutional amendment.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why is the practice of abortion so important to you?

Because a woman's body isn't the property of the state.

 

[Sistrin]

Because a woman's body isn't the property of the state.

Noting my question wasn't directed to you, your answer is a deflection, typical sanctimony employed in an effort to claim some moral high ground. The pro-life crowd is in no manner attempting to establish the precept a woman's body is the property of the state, and to claim they are is simply a lie. The pro-life crowd argues from the base-line fact in the question of abortion there is another life at stake.

In addition the position of the pro-abortion crowd isn't concern for women's rights. It is insistence on this, quote:

"There is nothing wrong with a woman terminating her pregnancy at any point and for whatever reason she chooses. Fetuses are not babies. Women are not incubators. Abortion is not murder."

 

[TLK Valentine]

Noting my question wasn't directed to you, your answer is a deflection, typical sanctimony employed in an effort to claim some moral high ground.

Noting that this is a public forum where anyone can answer a question put forward publicly, your attempt to feign indignation accomplishes little to refute my point.

The pro-life crowd is in no manner attempting to establish the precept a woman's body is the property of the state, and to claim they are is simply a lie.The pro-life crowd argues from the base-line fact in the question of abortion there is another life at stake.

Whether or not that is true is a philosophical matter -- you would prefer the government to make that decision regarding the inner workings of female biology instead of the female herself.

But that's not declaring ownership, is it? That's just the government insisting that it can do the thinking for the female.

In addition the position of the pro-abortion crowd isn't concern for women's rights. It is insistence on this, quote:

"There is nothing wrong with a woman terminating her pregnancy at any point and for whatever reason she chooses. Fetuses are not babies. Women are not incubators. Abortion is not murder."

Sounds like a concern for women's rights to me... without bodily autonomy, no other rights matter.

 

[Sistrin]

Noting that this is a public forum where anyone can answer a question put forward publicly, your attempt to feign indignation accomplishes little to refute my point.

You didn't make a point, you quoted dogma. In regard to this issue the pro-abortion crowd instinctively regurgitates the standard trope, that they are fighting some noble cause in defense of the downtrodden. To wit:

Whether or not that is true is a philosophical matter...

No it isn't, it is a well established matter of science. You know, that grand discipline liberals evoke in dismissive fashion whenever they attempt to claim the intellectual high-ground? Did you sleep through High School biology?

This again is a prime example of leftist hypocrisy. In regard to some issues science is evoked like a flaming sword of righteousness, but in regard to abortion science can take a hike.

...you would prefer the government to make that decision regarding the inner workings of female biology instead of the female herself.

That isn't true. I support a woman's right to choose. I just want her to make that choice before she gets pregnant instead of after. Abortion on demand without apology, which is the express clear-as-day articulated position of the pro-abortion crowd, is abortion as a means of birth control, as a convenience. It is also a political expression of third-wave feminist ideology. What better way to stop the patriarchy, than to kill them before they are born?

But that's not declaring ownership, is it?

No, it isn't. But hey, when you can't make an intellectually honest argument, evoke the specter of slavery.

Sounds like a concern for women's rights to me... without bodily autonomy, no other rights matter.

If that is truly your belief, then logically you would support pulling Narcan as a treatment response for EMT's. I mean, if a woman wants to fill her body with opioids, who are we to say she can't.

However if you actually believe "There is nothing wrong with a woman terminating her pregnancy at any point and for whatever reason she chooses" is about bodily autonomy, then you are truly lost.

 

[TLK Valentine]

You didn't make a point, you quoted dogma. In regard to this issue the pro-abortion crowd instinctively regurgitates the standard trope, that they are fighting some noble cause in defense of the downtrodden.

I don't consider women to be downtrodden -- why do you?

No it isn't, it is a well established matter of science. You know, that grand discipline liberals evoke

And now you've abandoned reasoned argument in favor of strawmen and name calling, thus invalidating your argument.

I can only wonder that, perhaps if the anti-abortion crowd practices a tad more restraint, they would have more success winning people over to their cause.

That isn't true. I support a woman's right to choose. I just want her to make that choice before she gets pregnant instead of after.

As it is not your body, what you want is irrelevant.

Abortion on demand without apology, which is the express clear-as-day articulated position of the pro-abortion crowd, is abortion as a means of birth control, as a convenience.

Without apology? Who exactly should they apologize to?

It is also a political expression of third-wave feminist ideology. What better way to stop the patriarchy, than to kill them before they are born?

This makes no sense. What dogma are you spouting here?

If that is truly your belief, then logically you would support pulling Narcan as a treatment response for EMT's. I mean, if a woman wants to fill her body with opioids, who are we to say she can't.

Who indeed? Lacking a suicide note, I can only assume that such opioid overdoses are accidental, and as such, the person involved (man or woman) would prefer to live.

However if you actually believe "There is nothing wrong with a woman terminating her pregnancy at any point and for whatever reason she chooses" is about bodily autonomy, then you are truly lost.

And truly, you are the last person I would ask to attempt to "help" me.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

Because a woman's body isn't the property of the state.

No, it isn't. She has the right to determine whether to have babies or not. Birth control is freely and easily available. Choose before, not after pregnancy.