Install the app
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
Reply to thread
[QUOTE="Marauder06, post: 619903, member: 19"] I read up a bit more on the subject, and the below content is in regard to the arguments made [URL='https://www.newsweek.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade-abortion-doomed-cult-personality-experts-1703287']in this article[/URL], not the above post (which is quoted so people can follow the discussion that led to it). The problem I have with the "Ginsberg's fault" argument is that it makes an awful lot of assumptions. First we assume that President Obama could have gotten a replacement for her confirmed without it getting cockblocked like Merrick Garland's did. OK, so she retires at the wrong time, and instead of one vacancy when President Trump comes to power, he now gets two, and the vote ends up the same. We also assume that Justice Ginsberg, who is [URL='https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/']on the record[/URL] for not finding the Roe case compelling, would dissent (although IMO she would have done so). So even with a liberal replacement to Justice Ginsberg, the court would have still been 5-4 conservative(ish). We assume that the Democrats would have appointed someone willing to support a far-left agenda (I think that's a good assumption since I only recall one Republican appointee consistently voting outside party lines). Additionally, and more importantly, AFAIK Justice Ginsberg's decision to not retire had zero impact on the number of other justices appointed by President Trump. If she would have retired, there would have only been one fewer Trump appointee, with still a 5-4 vote. Despite his reputation as a "swing voter," I see no indications that Justice Roberts would have changed his vote if it would have made the difference between upholding Roe or striking it down. We can assume that he would have, but I don't see any evidence to support that would have been the case. In fact, [URL='https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/roberts-is-the-new-swing-justice-that-doesnt-mean-hes-becoming-more-liberal/']the evidence I found [/URL]indicates the opposite, when it comes to high-impact, long-term decisions like Roe. I'm not a Justice Ginsberg fanboy. In fact, I think the [URL='https://www.amazon.com/Notorious-RBG-Times-Bader-Ginsburg/dp/0062415832']"Notorious RBG" cult of personality [/URL]that grew up around her is silly, if not outright dangerous. But I don't think that Roe being overturned because she didn't retire is her fault. She's a convenient target, but without an enormous amount of assumptions and mental gymnastics, I don't think we can lay the Dobbs decision at her feet. If we want to cast "blame," we can probably start with the Republicans for refusing to hold confirmation hearings for Garland (which would have still made the vote 5-4 if Ginsberg hadn't retired), and more importantly for the Democrats' actions and choices during President Obama's administration and the election that the country decided it had no choice but... Trump. I also think it took courage for Justice Ginsberg to maintain her position on the bench despite the pressure she was under to resign. Is the on the bench to serve the American people (which she was fully capable of continuing to do when she was being asked to resign), or is she there to support partisan political interests and a far-left agenda? Good on her for putting her job above party. There is very little of that, on either side of the major parties, today. [/QUOTE]
How many letters are in "ShadowSpear?"