Ruth Bader Ginsburg is dead

[hobbes2702 12847]

1 minute ago, Planet Houston said:

This is what I donated to last night. They strategically allocate your donation to the most important senate races. 

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/getmitch

 

This x100000000000000

[atomheartbevo 89452]

46 minutes ago, Gourmand said:

 

 

It's Texas, you act like it's odd that a bunch of us donated time/energy/money to him back in 2000 (and his previous elections).  Hell, some of us still supported him come 2004 (for the record, I did not).  It was a good way to make connections with a bunch of people, for something I was considering.  Of course, I changed career paths after the election, got married, and my time spent volunteering prior to that was a waste of time, but I'm still in touch with some of those folks.  Hell, I went to high school in Fort Bend County back in the late 80s/early 90s.  Democrats were pretty scarce during that time.  We had a fuckload of aggy wannabes at my school.

Edited September 20, 2020 by atomheartbevo

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

This is what I donated to last night. They strategically allocate your donation to the most important senate races. 
https://secure.actblue.com/donate/getmitch
 

Done.

[atomheartbevo 89452]

24 minutes ago, nullset said:

I sincerely hope you're right on the enthusiasm point, I'm just skeptical that SCOTUS will be the tipping point for a significant number of people given all the other shit this administration has done that should have people frothing at the mouth to vote. 

I think we're in complete agreement on the gerrymandering point - the changing demographics are too much for this iteration of the Republican party to have popular support for much longer, so the Repub plan has been for some time now to stock as many lifetime federal judges on the bench as possible to scuttle any positive legislation the Democrats pass. 

If you want to look at it from another perspective - He won Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania by less than 1%, and Florida by 1.2%, and PA and MI had not voted for a Republican since 1988, and WI since 1984..  WI/MI/PA/FL all went for Obama, and WI/MI/PA went for Trump as a whole by less than 90,000 votes.

What has he done since 2016 to get voters in those states to come out for him?  And look at the mid-terms in those states.  The House flipped by the largest margin since Watergate.

Now has he pissed off a bunch of people in those three states over his handling of covid, and if so, was it more than 90,000 people who hadn't vote in 2016, or who had voted for him?  How many government employees and their families in those states, particularly in Florida, did he piss off with the shutdown?  How many in those four states have had a shitty time with the covid economy?  How many have seen him in office and don't feel like he's worth voting for, versus 2016 when he was new and shiny and anti-establishment and sticking it to Hillary?

Now toss in how the Rs are treating RBG.  How many women who didn't vote in 2016, or who voted Trump, or going to get upset?  And how many people who didn't vote in 2016 are going to be pissed about the Supreme Court situation?  

The treatment of RBG is not going to be a tipping point by itself, but nothing about it is going to help the Republicans in any way, at a time when they need the help.   Flipping the Senate is a real possibility.  

The fact that they appear to be rushing this nomination tells me they don't have confidence that Trump will win, and that they will have a firm hold on the Senate.

[thepop 4409]

If only we had this energy in 2016.

[thepop 4409]

33 minutes ago, Planet Houston said:

This is what I donated to last night. They strategically allocate your donation to the most important senate races. 

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/getmitch

 

Yup this was at 3 million before RBG died. Around 8 million when i donated. Now is going to hit 20 million tonight.

[Jive Turkey 12568]

3 minutes ago, thepop said:

If only we had this energy in 2016.

Alex Jones can explain. 

 

[Cairn Horn88 8187]

Isn’t Moscow Mitch, like 78 or so?  I think if the GOP loses the Senate, he just may retire and take his Russian handouts, along with wife and go home.  He’s too old to put up with playing second fiddle....imo.

[Cairn Horn88 8187]

1 minute ago, Jive Turkey said:

Alex Jones can explain. 

 

Fuck Jones.

[thepop 4409]

I just saw the Amy McGrath donation on the previous page. FFS. We need to sticky a post on top of each page saying DO NOT DONATE TO MCGRATH. With a link to the "get mitch or die trying" page.

[Gourmand 7774]

1 minute ago, atomheartbevo said:

It's Texas, you act like it's odd that a bunch of us donated time/energy/money to him back in 2000 (and his previous elections).  Hell, some of us still supported him come 2004 (for the record, I did not).  It was a good way to make connections with a bunch of people, for something I was considering.  Of course, I changed career paths after the election, got married, and my time spent volunteering prior to that was a waste of time, but I'm still in touch with some of those folks.  Hell, I went to high school in Fort Bend County back in the late 80s/early 90s.  Democrats were pretty scarce during that time.  We had a fuckload of aggy wannabes at my school.

Kudos for you to recognizing your past misjudgments of political affiliation. I grew up lower middle class in a single parent home in the Montrose area of Houston during the height of the AIDS epidemic and watched my mother watch three of her close friends die of the disease while the Reagan administration did nothing except stoke homophobia in the American public. I moved to Austin to attend UT in the late 80's/early 90's, voted for Dukakis as a freshman in '88 living in a frat-infested Goodall Wooten, and was Another Man for Ann in her campaign against Clayton Williams. I have never supported Republicans in Texas and doubt I ever will because I saw them as the party of the privileged few and not the party of the common Jane. I proudly voted for Gore and Hillary and supported Hillary over Obama in the primary wars of 2008 because I believed she was best qualified to lead the fight for health care reform. I'm glad you've seen the light, but I always believed in the general principles of the Democratic Party and saw the glaringly obvious con game of trickle down bullshit the God, Guns, and Guts racists, xenophobes, and homophobes in the GOP sold its supporters. 

In twenty years time the GOP has given us the two worst presidents in modern American history, both of whom lost the popular vote. They deprived two strong candidates and morally decent human beings from becoming president in favor of a cabal of war criminals and a man in Donald J Trump who represents the apex of Nixonian and Reaganism run amok.

/rant

[troph 24563]

They don’t trust Roberts.  I would argue that they shouldn’t necessarily trust Gorsuch either on election issues unless the case is truly legally defensible.
Gorsuch is hard right, but Elena Kagan has done real work to get him to be open minded about bucking the GOP.

I’d love to know more about Kagan working on Gorsuch. Any sources that led you to know this?

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19093]

I just saw the Amy McGrath donation on the previous page. FFS. We need to sticky a post on top of each page saying DO NOT DONATE TO MCGRATH. With a link to the "get mitch or die trying" page.

I went back and did the second as well.

[Anastasis 23394]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Don't underestimate RBG's fanbase, and women in general.

This is true.  My wife doesn't politically align with RBG at all. She is actually much more extremely  "conservative" than I am on every single issue.  But she has used RBG as a role model example for my daughter and was really moved by her passing.  Don't fucking sleep on the RBG. 

[Bateshorn 9905]

6 minutes ago, troph said:

I’d love to know more about Kagan working on Gorsuch. Any sources that led you to know this?

I might have gotten my liberal justices mixed up: Sotomayor

But he’s also Dissented with Kagan.

☺️

Edited September 20, 2020 by Bateshorn

[troph 24563]

If you want a young, liberal and experience doesn’t matter but you’d like to piss Republicans off to no end, I might be your gal. I’m a lawyer so I have minimum qualifications, transgender, progressive and I love beer. And I’ve never assaulted anyone so there you go. Qualified. Bonafide. Ringer is off silent mode for ya Joe!

[troph 24563]

I might have gotten my liberal justices mixed up: Sotomayor
But he’s also Dissented with Kagan.

Thank you.

[Bateshorn 9905]

4 minutes ago, troph said:

If you want a young, liberal and experience doesn’t matter but you’d like to piss Republicans off to no end, I might be your gal. I’m a lawyer so I have minimum qualifications, transgender, progressive and I love beer. And I’ve never assaulted anyone so there you go. Qualified. Bonafide. Ringer is off silent mode for ya Joe!

Are you under 45?  Sold.

[troph 24563]

45 and three weeks, close enough for government work.

[Anastasis 23394]

6 minutes ago, troph said:

And I’ve never assaulted anyone so there you go.

Shoulder checks at Cotton Bowl notwithstanding. 

[troph 24563]

Shoulder checks at Cotton Bowl notwithstanding. 

Oh snap. Forgot about that. I think he dropped his cigar or maybe I had a cigar. Too many wax cups by 9:30am to remember. Would do it again. Fun times.

[markstanco 12509]

Maybe if you shitbags actually cut taxes to match.

You won't get penalized for paying additional taxes you dont owe. Are you doing that?

Go ahead, we know the answer. You aren't. You love spending other peoples money and not yours.

[Gourmand 7774]

Anyone know if Matthew Petersen is available for the gig? That would make for a fun nomination process.

[Horn Dog 9674]

1 hour ago, Planet Houston said:

This is what I donated to last night. They strategically allocate your donation to the most important senate races. 

https://secure.actblue.com/donate/getmitch

 

Looks like they split the contribution EVENLY amongst the listed candidates.  Is there any fund that allocates donations strategically to maximize effect?  For instance, i don’t think Hegar is anywhere near as good an investment as Greenfield or Harrison

[thepop 4409]

12 minutes ago, Horn Dog said:

Looks like they split the contribution EVENLY amongst the listed candidates.  Is there any fund that allocates donations strategically to maximize effect?  For instance, i don’t think Hegar is anywhere near as good an investment as Greenfield or Harrison

You can hit customize and give certain candidates less, or however you want. Its really just a tool for you to donate in one place rather than going to multiple candidates pages.

[Planet Houston 4923]

Yes you can manually allocate however you wish. I should have been more precise in my description - the default is to evenly allocate your donation to a certain number of races (not sure how that is determined) but it’s good to use as a starting point and re-allocate however you wish. 

edit - holy run-on sentence, sorry 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Planet Houston

[David Dennison 18661]

28 minutes ago, markstanco said:

You won't get penalized for paying additional taxes you dont owe. Are you doing that?

Go ahead, we know the answer. You aren't. You love spending other peoples money and not yours.

Republicans like doing the exact same thing, just on different projects, usually those that include funneling money back to individuals and corporations who already have gobs of it at the expense of literally everyone else.

But you know that already.

Edited September 20, 2020 by David Dennison

[thepop 4409]

I think it's just determined based on which competitive races need money. Notice Arizona and Kentucky are not included because both Kelly and McGrath are well funded. And probably because neither race is very competitive.

[Fozzz 152]

31 minutes ago, markstanco said:

You won't get penalized for paying additional taxes you dont owe. Are you doing that?

Go ahead, we know the answer. You aren't. You love spending other peoples money and not yours.

You have no idea how money is created and what taxes actually are. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Fozzz

[David Dennison 18661]

Just now, Fozzz said:

You have no idea how money is actually created and what taxes actually are. 

He probably thinks money and markets would exist without the state.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Well. Just helped organize a protest/pussy hat sit in to take place next week at all of Senator Richard Shelby’s Alabama offices.

We already have over 6,500 RSVPs to the Facebook group in just over 24 hours.

Women of all ages adored RBG.

These crusty old white men in the senate are going to be very surprised.

I think they assume the average voter can’t even name a Supreme Court justice.

RBG is the exception - especially for white educated suburban women.

Hold on to your penis pump, Senator Shelby. We coming.

[fattyflattie 4636]

4 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

I think they assume the average voter can’t even name a Supreme Court justice.

This is probably still true, fwiw.

4 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

RBG is the exception - especially for white educated suburban women.

As is this.

[Fozzz 152]

I wouldn’t lionize any of the justices, but if you were to pick one to turn into a pop culture icon, why RBG?  It’s not just happenstance that her and Scalia were besties. More so than any on here would like to admit, they shared a certain worldview. Sotomayor is so much better. 

[workswithseed 2037]

1 hour ago, troph said:

Oh snap. Forgot about that. I think he dropped his cigar or maybe I had a cigar. Too many wax cups by 9:30am to remember. Would do it again. Fun times.

I thought it was good punch who did that.

[Fozzz 152]

Go to bed, UpperWestSide. You’ve had a long day spamming negs. You need your strength for tomorrow. 

[TexArcher 37524]

1 hour ago, Fozzz said:

I wouldn’t lionize any of the justices, but if you were to pick one to turn into a pop culture icon, why RBG?  

Because you're a shitty troll.

 

[washparkhorn 9935]

Thank you Justice Ginsberg for inspiring people to pay attention to the importance of the Supreme Court.  The Supreme Court is a separate realm of power over the law. That will be important as we move through this election. Courts will be busy.

Since Congress has effectively ceded all its (supreme) power to the Executive Branch, we have a unique legal situation in unusual times.

Justice Ginsberg said the quiet stuff out loud. Brave soul.

 

[Ted Lange 16053]

13 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Agreed.  The woman overcame substantial obstacles, fought for what she believed in, and gave 40 years of her life to this country as a judge.

If you have a bone of decency in your body, you give her the respect in death that she deserves.  To hell with politics for a day or two.

Also, if you haven't seen it, "On The Basis Of Sex" is a great film, or a great story, at least.

I wish @Fozzz would reply to stud like this.   But he’d rather live in a QAnon and Andy NGO reality.  SAD

[Queen Bitch 1692]

On 9/18/2020 at 8:29 PM, Bruh Man said:

If you're posting in here but not donating, organizing, and getting prepared to get in the street over the next few months, you are a part of the problem. I love this subforum, but there are too many observers on this site who pontificate all day about polls and "suburban voters" yet never get in the trenches and fight. 

A big part of "getting involved" entails putting pressure on feckless Dems to pack the courts. You are already know Biden is going to have to be dragged to this position.

Just donated to help flip the senate. Thanks for the push.

Edited September 20, 2020 by Queen Bitch
Tweak

[Fozzz 152]

3 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

I wish @Fozzz would reply to stud like this.   But he’d rather live in a QAnon and Andy NGO reality.  SAD

I haven’t mentioned either of those things in this or any other thread so I don’t know why you keep bringing it up. 
 

if you’d like to learn more about what RBG believes in, start here - 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/544/197/#tab-opinion-1961815

[washparkhorn 9935]

So Republicans really want to pull the mutually assured destruction button over the Ginsberg seat?  

It's a death cult in full regalia. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by washparkhorn
death cult in full regalia™ (better living through laws . . .)

[Ted Lange 16053]

13 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I haven’t mentioned either of those things in this or any other thread so I don’t know why you keep bringing it up. 
 

if you’d like to learn more about what RBG believes in, start here - 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/544/197/#tab-opinion-1961815

Deflect deflect. Head to your safe space snowflake.   That spot where you pretend to be an independent but 1000000% suck R cock.  Fraud. 

[washparkhorn 9935]

36 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

I haven’t mentioned either of those things in this or any other thread so I don’t know why you keep bringing it up. 
 

if you’d like to learn more about what RBG believes in, start here - 

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/544/197/#tab-opinion-1961815

Justice Steven's dissent is funny. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/544/197/#tab-opinion-1961815

Justice Ginsberg was a whiz at laches cases. That is a rough little patch of the law - the interplay of remedies/laches/law/equity/property. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by washparkhorn

[Mapache 1117]

 

[Bojack 2073]

8 hours ago, Fozzz said:

I wouldn’t lionize any of the justices, but if you were to pick one to turn into a pop culture icon, why RBG?  It’s not just happenstance that her and Scalia were besties. More so than any on here would like to admit, they shared a certain worldview. Sotomayor is so much better. 

Fozzzz, you should start a thread entitled Fozzz's Manifesto where you lay out your beliefs.  At best, you come across as all over the place. Mostly what I see from you amounts to LOL, Dems suck.  LoL, the fascists are winning but it's ok cause the dems are actually worse.  

 

Some poster:  Fuck you, Fozzz.  You sound like a trumpkin dumb shit.

Fozzz:  Nope. Never voted Republican.  You'll never guess what I believe.  Here's another clue for you all:  RBG was the real fascist and the Walrus was Paul.   

 

You act like you don't care about the negs but you're awfully close to getting banned from a site where you've made more than 6000 posts.  Anyone that posts that much cares somewhat.  Waka Waka.  

[BigHorn'13 3355]

9 minutes ago, Bojack said:

Fozzzz, you should start a thread entitled Fozzz's Manifesto where you lay out your beliefs.  At best, you come across as all over the place. Mostly what I see from you amounts to LOL, Dems suck.  LoL, the fascists are winning but it's ok cause the dems are actually worse.  

 

Some poster:  Fuck you, Fozzz.  You sound like a trumpkin dumb shit.

Fozzz:  Nope. Never voted Republican.  You'll never guess what I believe.  Here's another clue for you all:  RBG was the real fascist and the Walrus was Paul.   

 

You act like you don't care about the negs but you're awfully close to getting banned from a site where you've made more than 6000 posts.  Anyone that posts that much cares somewhat.  Waka Waka.  

You should(n't) see his posts in football...

 

As an actual independent, I don't see how Republicans can justify this when LITERALLY the same exact thing happened in 2015-16 and they wouldn't even hold a fucking hearing.

Now, a month and a half out from another presidential election, you... wanna railroad through someone? Bold strategy. 

Edited September 20, 2020 by BigHorn'13
ETA-- I'm sure this point's been mentioned multiple times by now.

[TwiceHorn 31288]

10 hours ago, troph said:

Thank you.

I'm not wholly convinced either of the ladies "worked on" Gorsuch.  I tend to think that's just Gorsuch being Gorsuch.  But it is true that the justices are constantly "working on" each other, mostly in good-faith and good-natured policy debates.  It may be the last place in America that that is occurring with regularity.

We have this notion, and it's probably at least partially accurate, that the Federalist Society and others on the right in particular have taken "vetting" of Supreme Court candidates to a level that there will be no "surprises" or major flip-flops or "party disloyalty" once on the Court.

That may be true as to a narrow class of cases that are litmus tests, like abortion (and even then, it's bad form for a justice to commit to overruling a case that isn't before her).

But I think that gives the complexity of the Supreme Court and of the justices themselves, all of whom (save maybe Clarence Thomas and Alito are actually human beings) short shrift.  And it also shows the short-sightedness of focusing on those litmus-test issues.

Scalia was basically a friend of the criminal defendant.  Ginsburg generally was not.  Such examples are relatively endless.

[troph 24563]

I'm not wholly convinced either of the ladies "worked on" Gorsuch.  I tend to think that's just Gorsuch being Gorsuch.  But it is true that the justices are constantly "working on" each other, mostly in good-faith and good-natured policy debates.  It may be the last place in America that that is occurring with regularity.
We have this notion, and it's probably at least partially accurate, that the Federalist Society and others on the right in particular have taken "vetting" of Supreme Court candidates to a level that there will be no "surprises" or major flip-flops or "party disloyalty" once on the Court.
That may be true as to a narrow class of cases that are litmus tests, like abortion (and even then, it's bad form for a justice to commit to overruling a case that isn't before her).
But I think that gives the complexity of the Supreme Court and of the justices themselves, all of whom (save maybe Clarence Thomas and Alito are actually human beings) short shrift.  And it also shows the short-sightedness of focusing on those litmus-test issues.
Scalia was basically a friend of the criminal defendant.  Ginsburg generally was not.  Such examples are relatively endless.

Agreed and I suspect the Court as an institution is not to keen on extremes, hence some surprises from Roberts. I think the weight of the position has them each considering and reconsidering their positions and anyone with experience doing so knows that if you continually reevaluate your thinking, there is one thing that’s certain, your thinking on an issue will change or at least migrate some. Which side? I don’t know but static positions are the hallmark of lazy and entrenched thinking, something few Justices could be accused of.

[Horn Dog 9674]

40 minutes ago, BigHorn'13 said:

As an actual independent, I don't see how Republicans can justify this when LITERALLY the same exact thing happened in 2015-16 and they wouldn't even hold a fucking hearing.

Now, a month and a half out from another presidential election, you... wanna railroad through someone? Bold strategy. 

This is all the GOP is about these days.  Good job “conservatives”!

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/19/us/politics/ginsburg-voter-reactions.html?referringSource=articleShare
 

“We might as well just add this to the list of things that make them cry and whine and make snowflake tears fall,” he said of Democrats. “We might as well try to get a justice in there to give us a little more advantage.”
 

“Absolutely, it’s hypocritical,” he said. “But it will be good for the Republican Party and good for America.”

[TwiceHorn 31288]

25 minutes ago, troph said:

Agreed and I suspect the Court as an institution is not to keen on extremes, hence some surprises from Roberts. I think the weight of the position has them each considering and reconsidering their positions and anyone with experience doing so knows that if you continually reevaluate your thinking, there is one thing that’s certain, your thinking on an issue will change or at least migrate some. Which side? I don’t know but static positions are the hallmark of lazy and entrenched thinking, something few Justices could be accused of.

Agreed.

There's no escaping that personal beliefs are going to affect a justice's decision.  So the vetting is going to be at least partially effective.

Which is why I would really like to see some justices with more dissimilar legal experience.  Even liberal justices tend to come from a prosecutorial or governmental lawyer background and I think that gives them an undue bias toward governmental interests.  And if it's not "governmental," a lot of the time it's "corporate/government" interests that get prioritized over more individual interests.

I think that varied "real world" experience is a powerful factor that can overcome personal biases.