RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[surveyor_101]

Breadvan72 said:

For anyone interested in learning more about the force for good that was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the BBC did a good obit piece about her on Radio 4 on 25th September. The weekly obit show also covered the late, great Harold Evans, so you get two giants of decency and progress for the price of one.

Yes it seems in her younger years she really was a force to be reckoned with.

However she battled cancer 9 years plus for a long time and I think made the mistake of not retiring and falsely believing Hilary would win in 2016 which has now left the democrats in the position they are now in.

If only she had retired and let obama name her successor.

[anonymous-user]

On that we agree.

In the UK, we force very bright and able Judges to retire too young. In the US, SC appointments are for life. Neither system is good.

[kowalski655]

And a shame her passing has caused such an almighty st show in the US (& on this thread!)
Hopefully that will not overshadow her immense legacy

[irc]

surveyor_101 said:

Breadvan72 said:

For anyone interested in learning more about the force for good that was Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the BBC did a good obit piece about her on Radio 4 on 25th September. The weekly obit show also covered the late, great Harold Evans, so you get two giants of decency and progress for the price of one.

Yes it seems in her younger years she really was a force to be reckoned with.

However she battled cancer 9 years plus for a long time and I agree with surveyor_101 that she perhaps made the mistake of not retiring and believing Hilary would win in 2016 which has now left the democrats in the position they are now in.

If only she had retired and let obama name her successor.

Or if Supreme Court judges had a fixed retiral age. I don't think judges should be involved in any way in deciding who succeeds them.

Or if judges were appointed for a fixed term?

Either way being on the court until dead while potentially gaga for the last few years does not seem an ideal system. As wiki says

"many justices have timed their departure to coincide with a philosophically compatible president holding office, to ensure that a like-minded successor would be appointed".

Maybe Ruth made the mistake of thinking Hilary would be elected and she therefore had 4 if not 8 years to retire and allow a liberal judge to be appointed?

[kowalski655]

I'm sure I read Obama asked her to retire, but she refused

[pilotoscot]

Having watched ACB in the hearings. I’m interested. Particularly from BV. What’s not to like? Isn’t she an outstanding candidate of the highest moral values? Exemplary record of private and public service? The favourite and protege of Antonin Scalia, a great friend of RGB. How would you justify blocking her appointment given that it is clearly constitutional?

[anonymous-user]

The appointment would be Constitutional. The political hypocrisy that would attend it is pretty much par for the course for the post-Nixon GOP. Barrett is a good lawyer in most respects. She has a fatal flaw, which she shares with Scalia. The USA is a secular Republic. There are clear documents from its early years that show this to be the case. It is not a polity founded on Christianity. The religious right disputes this. This Judge places loyalty to a "Higher Power" above loyalty to that secular Republic. She will vote to reverse Roe v Wade, not because that is what the Constitution tells her to do, but because it is what her Faith tells her to do.

UPSIDE: If Biden wins, Trump will litigate. Kavanaugh and Alito will do as Trump wishes. Thomas, not so sure. Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett will, I think, uphold the Constitution, and Trump's case will be dismissed. I might be wrong about that! Look what the Court did in 2000.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

The USA is a secular Republic. There are clear documents from its early years that show this to be the case. It is not a polity founded on Christianity. The religious right disputes this. This Judge places loyalty to a "Higher Power" above loyalty to that secular Republic. She will vote to reverse Roe v Wade, not because that is what the Constitution tells her to do, but because it is what her Faith tells her to do.

It is indeed, but that fight has been lost for now, too many people are st scared of going against the power of the religious groups.
I don't see that changing for many generations, they are brainwashed from birth and those that don't agree have learned to keep their gob shut.

[anonymous-user]

PS: It is a racing certainty that Trump has paid for many, many women to have abortions. He gives not one st about Roe v Wade, save for the fact that reversing it plays big with his base.

[vetrof]

Breadvan72 said:

The appointment would be Constitutional. The political hypocrisy that would attend it is pretty much par for the course for the post-Nixon GOP. Barrett is a good lawyer in most respects. She has a fatal flaw, which she shares with Scalia. The USA is a secular Republic. There are clear documents from its early years that show this to be the case. It is not a polity founded on Christianity. The religious right disputes this. This Judge places loyalty to a "Higher Power" above loyalty to that secular Republic. She will vote to reverse Roe v Wade, not because that is what the Constitution tells her to do, but because it is what her Faith tells her to do.

UPSIDE: If Biden wins, Trump will litigate. Kavanaugh and Alito will do as Trump wishes. Thomas, not so sure. Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett will, I think, uphold the Constitution, and Trump's case will be dismissed. I might be wrong about that! Look what the Court did in 2000.

So does that disqualify, in your opinion, any person of faith? So no practicing muslims, jews, sikhs, etc? Basically only atheists need apply?

[anonymous-user]

No, but when a person makes their Faith a dominant chord in their system of values, to the extent that it shapes their judicial thinking, that is a problem. One of the greatest defences of secularism in English law was written by the late Sir John Laws when he was in the Court of Appeal. He was a practising Christian, but he resolutely rejected the argument that Christianity should have a favoured status in English law, because he placed legal principle over Divine authority. Barrett cannot be expected to do that.

[vetrof]

Interesting. I have no knowledge of ACB, or any members of the supreme court. Are you saying that she has a track record of making judgements based on her religious beliefs rather than the law? And that no other supreme court justice has done this.

[Crafty_]

vetrof said:

Interesting. I have no knowledge of ACB, or any members of the supreme court. Are you saying that she has a track record of making judgements based on her religious beliefs rather than the law? And that no other supreme court justice has done this.

She's in an organisation called People Of Praise. Ex members say that women are expected to be subserviant to their husband and do as they are told. This is denied of course.

WSJ article: https://www.wsj.com/articles/what-is-people-of-pra...
https://www.elle.com/culture/career-politics/a3431...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/10/pe...

It all sounds a bit cultish to me, but I'm not a religious person.

In the hearings today she's dodged questions https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/...

Refused to say if she'd have agreed with keeping birth control legal, anti abortion, anti same sex marriage, anti obamacare. Refused to acknowledge climate change. More pointedly she has also refused to say if she'd step aside should there be legal challenges around the election.

No-o ne knows of course, what she'd actually do in a courtroom if a case presented her with a dilemma, but its easy to see why some question her judgement.

[vetrof]

So is that a 'no' to my question?

[Crafty_]

I don't think she's actually had any position of power when this osrt of matter has come to a court, not that I could find, however it doesn't take much to look at her comments on the upcoming Texas vs California case to see where she'll hang her wig

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/amy-co...

Also https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/10/amy-coney-...

Nevertheless, she's likely to be confirmed in post from what I read.

There is a theory that the rush to get her in post is so she can help Trump if (when?) he ends up in the smelly stuff.

Depending on what you read she's either the devil icarnate or RBG mk2.

[vetrof]

Not sure where her religious views are influencing the potential rulings cited in those articles.
They seem to be critical that she will likely rule on the points of law rather than take into account the impact of the decisions. Which is the point of the supreme court is it not?
Which is sort of the opposite of what is being asserted up the thread regarding how she will decide cases.

Edited by vetrof on Thursday 15th October 09:28

[havoc]

vetrof said:

Not sure where her religious views are influencing the potential rulings cited in those articles.
They seem to be critical that she will likely rule on the points of law rather than take into account the impact of the decisions. Which is the point of the supreme court is it not?

I'm not an American or a lawyer, but I thought otherwise - I was under the impression the Supreme Court COULD (and DID) change the law so as to better ensure the 'correct impact' of the law, with direct reference to consequences.

[havoc]

Breadvan72 said:

UPSIDE: If Biden wins, Trump will litigate. Kavanaugh and Alito will do as Trump wishes. Thomas, not so sure. Roberts, Gorsuch, and Barrett will, I think, uphold the Constitution, and Trump's case will be dismissed. I might be wrong about that! Look what the Court did in 2000.

I've seen similar opinion from reasonably unbiased sources. Looks like a probable scenario.

[vetrof]

Maybe the case. But I was under the impression that laws were made by the legislature, the elected representatives of the people.
And if tested, the court decided if the law was in accordance with the constitution or not. I could be wrong of course, but it seems odd that 9 unelected people should be able to make the laws.

edit: I am neither American nor involved in the legal profession (can you tell?), so perhaps I have too simplistic a view on this.

[slow_poke]

Breadvan72 said:

The appointment would be Constitutional. The political hypocrisy that would attend it is pretty much par for the course for the post-Nixon GOP. Barrett is a good lawyer in most respects. She has a fatal flaw, which she shares with Scalia. The USA is a secular Republic. There are clear documents from its early years that show this to be the case. It is not a polity founded on Christianity. The religious right disputes this. This Judge places loyalty to a "Higher Power" above loyalty to that secular Republic. She will vote to reverse Roe v Wade, not because that is what the Constitution tells her to do, but because it is what her Faith tells her to do.

Succinct and informative. Cheers BV.