A very special message for Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Join LibraryThing to post.
FWIW Chuck Grassley is the same age as Bader Ginsburg and Orrin Hatch is only one year younger. What will we do when they are gone? Or the POTUS who is only in his 70's but looks to be in terrible shape and lives off of diet coke, overcooked steak and McDonald's quarter pounders.
"Ginsburg hospitalized" (8)
A tragedy -- both personal and politico-judiciary.
Zev Shalev @ZevShalev (https://twitter.com/ZevShalev) 14h14 hours ago:
This really is shocking. Why is a Russian oligarch making what sounds like a veiled threat about a Supreme Court justice and tagging his Putin’s man in the WH.
Translated from Russian by Microsoft (retyped by margd):
It is time to remove Ruth Ginzburg from the judges of the Supreme Court.
Ginsburg, the star of liberal jurisprudence, has been at the Supreme Court for 25 years. It's time for her to rest.
Verified account @ARTEM_KLYUSHIN
АРТЕМ КЛЮШИН Retweeted АРТЕМ КЛЮШИН
Судьи назначаются пожизненно, хотя:
1)Имеют право ВЫЙТИ в отставку по СОБСТВЕННОМУ желанию.
2)Судья может быть лишён должности путём применения процедуры импичмента.
3)Я говорю о выводе Рут Гинзбург из состава судей Верховного суда по ее желанию из-за болезни, ей пора отдохнуть
АРТЕМ КЛЮШИН added,
Verified account @ARTEM_KLYUSHIN
Пришла пора выводить Рут Гинзбург из состава судей Верховного суда. Гинзбург, звезда либеральной юриспруденции, находится в Верховном суде уже 25 лет. Пора ей отдохнуть 👩🏻🎓 @realDonaldTrump
Translated from Russian by Microsoft
Judges are appointed for life, although: 1) have the right to resign on their own volition.
(2) The judge may be deprived of his position by applying the impeachment procedure.
3) I'm talking about the withdrawal of Ruth Ginsburg from the judges of the Supreme Court at her request due to illness, it's time to rest
8:54 PM - 11 Jan 2019 from Dubai, United Arab Emirates
'Fox & Friends' accidentally shows graphic saying Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead
Avery Anapol - 01/21/19
Power is poison, as John Adams said. She'll die with her black robe on. They'll have to pull her body off the Supreme Court. A sad commentary on a despicable human being.
>12 barney67: If you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to clean up the spelling and then do some explaining.
You know what they did to Kavanaugh. What will happen to the nominee who replaces bad witch Ruth? Actual murder this time?
What did "they" do to Kavanaugh? I thought he went through a vetting or approval process or whatever it was called, and was accepted? Credible allegations were made against him, he answered them, and those responsible for approving his appointment chose to accept his side of the story. Other people disagreed. That's called due process, I believe. What has this got to do with "actual murder"?
>12 barney67: It's weird how we condemn our enemies for what we praise our friends for. I think most of us would praise someone on our side for not conceding an important lifetime appointment when it would go to someone on the other side.
>16 johnthefireman: Your characterization of that disgusting spectacle is so wrong I wouldn't know where to begin. I've told you before that you are getting your information from the wrong places.
>12 barney67: She'll die with her black robe on. They'll have to pull her body off the Supreme Court.
The Weekend at Bernie's jokes have been flying in the last year or two.
You didn't answer my question, though. What has the appointment process for a supreme court judge got to do with "actual murder"? It's not a trick question. You said it. In my ignorance about the USA I don't understand. Please enlighten me.
People were speaking about things he was alleged to have done, which is actually what is supposed to happen in an approval process, I would have thought, otherwise there is not much point in having such a process. What has that got to do with planning to murder him?
>20 barney67: Perhaps you should pause and figure out where to begin. How should we vet people we're giving a lifetime appointment to, to one of the top seats in one branch of government?
>25 prosfilaes: How should we vet people we're giving a lifetime appointment to, to one of the top seats in one branch of government?
Hmm, a certain woman born March 15, 1933 v a certain man born June 14, 1946. She'll outlive him, I suspect.
NO CONTEST, also, in her worst cognitive-day v his best!! ;-) Individuals differ, but on average...
Female Brains Appear to Be More Youthful Than Male Ones, Study Suggests
MICHELLE STARR | 5 FEB 2019
Scientists have just found a new distinction between the brains of the two sexes: age-related changes to the brain occur more slowly in women than in men.
...This latest research now indicates that female brains, on average, appear to be about three years more youthful than the brains of males of the same age when it comes to brain metabolism.
This difference could be why women tend to stay mentally sharp for longer than men, the researchers said.
...Scientists had already established that age-related grey matter volume decrease occurs more quickly in male brains than female brains. It's also been demonstrated that gene expression in the brain changes more rapidly in ageing men than women, resulting in a reduced ability to build and break down molecules in the male brain...
Manu S. Goyal et al. 2019. Persistent metabolic youth in the aging female brain. PNAS published ahead of print February 4, 2019 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1815917116. https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/01/29/1815917116
...We find that in terms of brain metabolism, the adult female brain is on average a few years younger than the male brain.
>26 margd: Ok, so how do I explain that women ten years older than me are smarter, too?
> 27 Individuals differ! The range of intelligence is no doubt the same for older men as women, but ON AVERAGE ladies of the same age have better brain metabolism than their male counterparts, apparently. (I was surprised that it starts so early in adulthood.)
The thing is you can't use such info to pre-judge individuals. I just couldn't help share it here... Mybad, I know.
Maybe, after age 65 or 70 or 75, all our officials in all three branches should submit to a annual cognitive review in order to continue in their positions?
>24 johnthefireman: People were speaking about things he was alleged to have done
What a euphemistic way of saying they were accusing him of being a rapist, and indeed a gang rapist.
The Kavanaugh family received death threats.
Therefore, as I said, applying your own standard, we must infer they were planning to murder him.
I was making a sarcastic remark. I know every Brit is familiar with sarcasm. They have invented it, in fact. I tip my hat to Jonathan Swift.
My comment was meant to suggest that the Democrats might resort to murder given the lengths they will go to defeat a Supreme Court nominee, and given that their tactics become more vicious and extreme with every Republican nominee. With every passing day. They tried to destroy the last guy from the inside out. Maybe this time, they will have simply destroy him altogether. Get it, chief?
Do I really believe the Democrats will murder the next nominee? No. They don't have to. They can do what they did the last time. Make something up.
Referring to murdering people and then brushing it off as "sarcasm" or, as in another parallel thread, a "joke" seems to be a pattern with you, Barney.
>30 barney67: Democrats have twice tried to scuttle Supreme Court nominees - Thomas and Kavanaugh - with bullshit accusations of sexual misconduct. Both times they failed.
Will they try the same thing a third time? I'm actually legitimately curious about this.
>30 barney67: There was a witness who claimed he tried to rape her. It's "vicious and extreme" to give that witness the time of day?
Let's recall that the Republicans sat on Merrick Garland's nomination for nine months. What are the lengths the Republicans will go to defeat a Supreme Court nominee?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was seen in public Monday. Conspiracy theorists still insist she’s dead.
Eli Rosenberg and Abby Ohlheiser | February 6, 2019
...Ginsburg did not attend the State of the Union on Tuesday night. Neither did Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Sonia Sotomayor or Stephen G. Breyer, but the conspiracy theory that Ginsburg is dead may draw more oxygen from the 85-year-old justice’s absence.
... questions about her health began to spread around the time she missed the court’s first case, Jan. 7, as she was recovering from surgery she had on Dec. 21. It appears to have originated on the message boards that house the QAnon theory...
The mini empire of amplifiers, profiteers and fame seekers benefiting from QAnon’s small but passionate audience went to work. Soon, videos questioning the official line on Ginsburg’s health were the top search results for the justice’s name on YouTube. An online petition to impeach her failed to meet a 5,000 signature goal.
But its real boost came when a couple of right-wing personalities with large social media followings engaged it. Ben Garrison...The Fox News show “Fox & Friends”...James Woods, an actor who is a mainstay of the conspiracy-laden parts of the pro-Trump Internet...Sebastian Gorka — a former adviser of President Trump’s...
And then the theory started to draw mainstream coverage — another way that conspiracy theories spread, even when they are properly fact-checked, debunked and contextualized, experts say. And the Twitter hoaxes continued. An anonymous account shared an old photo of the presidential hearse carrying Ronald Reagan’s body past the U.S. Capitol, writing “Prominent DC Funeral Home vehicle seen leaving the Ginsberg estate . . . what’s going on?”
The conspiracy theory lives on in the algorithms.
YouTube is still recommending “RGB dead” as one of its autofill searches. Twitter’s autofill recommendations for “RBG” have an even wider selection: “#RBGWhereYouBe,” “#RGBProofOfLife” and “RBG dead.”
If hoaxers were seeking attention for the theory, they certainly have succeeded. Targeting reporters such as (WaPO's Robert) Barnes who have wide followings online is a good way to start. Other reporters who saw Ginsburg on Monday night at the performance were hit with the same flood of replies and emails...
Sorry, but, here, we have to disagree. With a ready acknowledgement of the fact that accusations of sexual assault are always fraught with risks of false claims, I observed both of these episodes as they occurred and my view is that in each case, the truth--in all its important parts--was overwhelmingly, when not entirely, on the side of the women, Anita Hill, in the case of Clarence Thomas, and Christine Blasey Ford, in the case of Brett Kavanaugh.
But I'd add that, from the time I was a high school student, the law, its institutions and, especially the Constitution and the Supreme Court of the United States and the history of each, were areas of special interest to me. I spent a lot of time in elective reading about these in my most formative years. With that as background, I was simply shocked, appalled, that Clarence Thomas could be considered fit to be nominated for a seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, or, for that matter, any U.S. state's court of last-resort.
That Thomas could be successfully shepherded through the process of the Senate's confirmation hearings was a late lesson in politics that only reconfirmed a cynicism about American politics which was formed from watching the nightly news through the Vietnam war as that was prosecuted from Lyndon Johnson's term (1965-1969) through Richard Nixon's first term and the first year of his second term (1969-1973, 1974). So, by the time of the Kavanaugh episode, I was in no doubt about the possibility that he could make his way through the hearings and be confirmed.
Of course the Court has had very 'dark' periods in its history. Both before the Civil War and, during "Reconstruction", there were Courts which left records and opinions which were disgraceful; their legacy set the stage for the reversals which would show (many of) Justice Holmes Jr.'s dissents to have been monuments of legal reasoning--though he was not faultless. The Courts under Melville Fuller (rendered Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)* ; ), Salmon P. Chase (rendered the ruling in the Slaughterhouse Cases) and Chase's next two successors as Chief Justice, Morrison Waite (1874–88) and Edward Douglass White Jr. (December, 1910 – 1921) (who voted with with the majority in Plessy and was a member of the Ku Klux Klan) are part of that dark period.
Then, in some ways, something of a page turned with the appointments of
William J. Brennan Jr.,
Benjamin N. Cardozo,
Tom C. Clark,
William O. Douglas**,
John Marshall Harlan (1899–1971),
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.
Lewis F. Powell, Jr.,
Harlan F. Stone**
But the Court since (the end of) Chief Justice Warren's tenure has just fallen off a cliff:
Sandra Day O'Connor ?!
Anthony Kennedy ?!
David Souter ?!
John Roberts, C.J. ?!
Clarence Thomas ?!
Ruth Bader Ginsburg ?!
Stephen Breyer ?!
Samuel Alito ?!
Sonia Sotomayor ?!
Elena Kagan ?!
Neil Gorsuch ?!
Brett Kavanaugh ?!
* Chief Justice Melville Fuller joined Associate Justices Stephen J. Field, Horace Gray, Henry B. Brown, George Shiras Jr., Edward D. White and Rufus W. Peckham; David J. Brewer did not take part in the arguments or the court's vote on the ruling. John M. Harlan was the sole dissenter in both Plessy and in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883), under Chief Justice Morrison Waite (1874–88).
** True, it must be admitted that, among their other faults, these members voted with the majority in the disgraceful ruling in Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) .
>35 proximity1: excellent post, as far as it goes: I would be interested to know what swayed the author's views in each case--particularly as in the Kavanaugh case I can only muster something like 'it's obvious he's a guilty swine unfit to be any kind of judge...'
Particulary, thanks to proximity for putting in a word against the Korematsu decision.
Thanks for reminding us of the behaviour of Republicans in preventing Obama from appointing a Supreme Court judge. As far as I can recall there were not even any credible allegations against that candidate. It was purely partisan polticking.
And a weak Obama let it happen, never went public in anger, did nothing with his power to prevent it.
I don't know where else to post this, so I'll post it here:
Remember That Gay Couple Married by RBG? They Just Got Charged With Rape
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg used her power as a justice of the peace to marry a gay couple in 2014.
I've told you before that you are getting your information from the wrong places.
John, the problem is that you get your information from reality, as opposed to the lunatic fantasy that barney lives in.
Just wondering what the fact that someone committed a rape has to do with the fact that they once got married?
>39 Carnophile: Surely you're not insinuating that Ruth is responsible for this heinous act!? Posting on this page sort of indicates that you do.
Thanks, but my question is not about a judge who approved someone's marriage being responsible or not for whether they commit a crime later. My question is what the fact that someone got married has to do with the fact that they carried out a crime? Or, since you mention the gender status of the person, what their gender status has to do with the fact that they carried out a crime? In other words, why do you feel the need to post about someone who committed a crime at all? And what it has to do with "leftists' smug, self-righteous assholery", whatever that means?
>43 Carnophile: This is hilarious in 'context'*: "As to why post it in Pro & Con at all, well, I like anything that undercuts leftists' smug, self-righteous assholery."
A gay coupled was charged with rape and posting that undercuts leftists' smug, self-righteous assholery?
*There is, I know, no discernible context, but when derangement is excessive it is very difficult to discuss without trying to put it in something that at least has the evanescence of a neutrino, which is aptly put as the thought put into the post in question is similar.
Yeah, well, at this "nasty site," you're semi-free to express your personal opinions about what or who is "naughty" or "nice," including, of course, this one: "My! This is a nasty site!"
Participation in the site in general or in this thread in particular is--as you know since you're a member since 2007!--optional and voluntary.
No one can force you to open and read "nasty" threads containing the "nasty" opinions of others.
I suspect that in your idea of a "nice" world, people would always express themselves in ways that conform to your tastes and prejudices; that's typically what people who write such things as "My! This is a nasty site!" are really interested in seeing done.
I get this a lot. Startlingly rude people are happy to urge me to conform to their ideas of what is acceptable and polite; that's not because they're good exemplars of politesse; it's rather because they don't agree with my opinions. I can and do take their objections as good indicators that I'm doing something right.
So, as for, "Let's all just 'be (your-idea-of) nice,' No, "thank you"!
Or we could just disagree with each other's opinions politely. There's a thought!
>46 kerrlm: Thank you for the reminder that there is an outside world. As one who is at times not nice, but whom like most tends to look more carefully at others, those who offend me, my sensibilities and/or my thought-world, I appreciate the implied comeuppance, which I deserve perhaps as much as anyone I argue with.
>48 proximity1: You might at least admit the possibility that someone merely peruses this thread out of curiosity and is simply appalled at the toxicity of the venom.
>46 kerrlm: This is the politics board. I'm sorry for some of my fellow posters and their aggressive styles, but you'll find most of the other boards to be much more reasonable.
>52 prosfilaes: Arrogance of the sort where someone apologizes for the bad behavior of others often breeds hostility.
As is so often true with lefties, it’s hard to tell when the ostensible lack of understanding is real and when it’s feigned just to be disengenuous.
The smug, self-righteous assholery in question is that of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, duh. “Marrying” two men is an example of what some on the right have termed leftist “virtue signalling,” the word “virtue” being used ironically.
Never again will RBG be able to mention her “marrying” of those two in order to prompt admiring sighs from politically correct wankers at liberal cocktail parties. That makes me happy.
>44 johnthefireman: since you mention the gender status of the person
Huh? "gender status"? What are you talking about?
>54 Carnophile: Never again will RBG be able to mention her “marrying” of those two in order to prompt admiring sighs from politically correct wankers at liberal cocktail parties. That makes me happy.
Finally, something amusing. (Are cocktail parties still a thing?) Could you elaborate on your fantasy? Are they all wearing Che Guevara T-shirts? Or is it Mao collars? Tell us more about your bliss.
>46 kerrlm: These are, in the words of Paul Johnson, the heartless lovers of humanity. Start by chanting "peace, love, equality, fraternity". End by inventing the guillotine and slaughtering priests and nuns. Strictly Pavlovian.
>58 barney67: I think she was referring to the thread that starts with gleefully awaiting the death of a public official.
Nobody like self-reflection, and I note that in the whaling on the French Revolution. Some 40,000 died in the French Revolution; two million died in the US Civil War, but that seems to lack simple stories about the end results of capitalist freedom and self-rule, or even white supremacism.
Your Civil War stat is higher than descriptions I've read. Could you say more about where you got this number, or how it was calculated?
>60 krolik: I see, I added numbers that were already added and counted casualties as dead. My bad. So we're looking at only 600,000 military deaths, with the total reaching a million with some counts of civilian deaths. (Unsurprisingly, slaves didn't fare well and slave deaths were often left uncounted.) Still, well over the 40,000 who died in the French Revolution.
>62 barney67: To make it simple enough for you, you're attacking the French for a revolution that killed 40,000 over equality, while you come from a society that killed a million for slavery and white supremacy. Those who argued for property rights killed way more than those who argued for equality, and are closer to home, but somehow you just see the evils of those who argued for equality.
>63 prosfilaes: ..."while you come from a society that killed a million for slavery and white supremacy."...
Really? Barney67 comes from the society of the U.S. 'war between the states' (1860-1865) ?! Born before, during or just after that catastrophe?! And here I'd supposed the "67" was probably a reference to a year closer to 1967 than to 1867 !
And you? Which society do you come from? the one that 'gave us' the Wars of the Roses? the Boer War? the Russian Revolution? the Boxer Rebellion? Mao's Cultural Revolution? the Battle of Thermopylae?
French Revolution kild 500,000 in Vendée alone, and that's not even counting the Napoleonic era. Screw negationists.
There's only one truly multicultural, diverse country on earth, and that's America. I'm sorry to break this to all of you. We had one Civil War in the 1860s which was brief as wars go and it wasn't just about race.
When people outside America talk about racial and ethnic diversity and multiculturalism, they are referring to something ideal and abstract. Put simply, they don't have a clue. No one is diverse as America and no one else has handled it so well. If you want to understand diversity and how it works, you have to live in America. The rest is clueless babble.
We had one Civil War in the 1860s which was brief as wars go and it wasn't just about race.
The sad thing is that you are probably historically illiterate enough to believe this to be true.
Only if you don't understand what flags are for. Not understanding how the world works seems to be your thing though, doesn't it?
I don't understand why you keep writing "flaggable" instead of just flagging the post if you think it is flaggable.
>73 johnthefireman: To drum up support. Hell, I flagged it. Why not? What? That's a TOS violation and a 'flaggable' flagging? A feller just can't win around here.
>76 barney67: Just so we are clear, Barney: someone wrote me privately to tell me I misunderstood your responses in that thread in which you said 'fuck you' to Davidgn. You apparently said THAT was not flaggable. Is that your position? That 'Fuck you' is not a personal attack or an insult?
>68 barney67: In other words, you lack a response.
>67 barney67: it wasn't just about race.
No war is just about one thing. But the succession documents of the Confederate states are pretty clear that they were succeeding from the Union because of slavery. Again, if you want to lump all forces claiming "equality" together, you need to lump all forces claiming "inequality" together, and then it doesn't look so pretty. If sometimes you start saying "equality" and end up killing nuns and priests, it is also true that often you start saying "I'm better" and end up killing nuns and priests.
If you want to understand diversity and how it works, you have to live in America.
But somehow this diversity doesn't manage to produce anyone who disagrees with barney67? A bunch of people you're arguing with are Americans. We live in America.
Before you complain about the spec in your brother's eye, worry about the log in your own. Let go of the French revolution and start talking about what you can learn from mistakes in US history.
Insults are a personal attack
Sure. Except pointing out your obvious historical illiteracy isn't a personal attack. It is pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about concerning the history of the United States, and just how sad it is that you have been so poorly educated.
The same kind of instinct that gave us Clarence Thomas...
Scoop: Trump "saving" Judge Amy Barrett for Ruth Bader Ginsburg seat
Jonathan Swan, Sam Baker | 12 hours ago
As he was deliberating last year over replacing Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, President Trump told confidants he had big plans for Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
"I'm saving her for Ginsburg," Trump said of Barrett, according to three sources familiar with the president's private comments. Trump used that exact line with a number of people, including in a private conversation with an adviser two days before announcing Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.
Barrett is a favorite among conservative activists, many of whom wanted her to take Kennedy’s spot.
She's young and proudly embraces her Catholic faith.
Her past academic writings suggest an openness to overturning Roe v. Wade.
Her nomination would throw gas on the culture-war fires, which Trump relishes...
This topic is not marked as primarily about any work, author or other topic.