General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGinsburg calls out Roberts
Talking Points Memo ?@TPM 2mGinsburg calls out Roberts: "One of the most activist courts in history": http://bit.ly/17gqwHo
She__ opened up the current court under Chief Justice John Roberts, who led the majority in striking down a crucial part of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in June.
Ginsburg said if its measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation, this is one of the most activist courts in history.
In a fiery dissent, Ginsburg blasted the court's voting rights decision, saying it could "hardly be described as an exemplar of restrained and moderate decision making."
read: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/ginsburg-calls-out-roberts-one-of-most-activist
PDittie
(8,322 posts)Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)Octafish
(55,745 posts)Unlike a lot of people, she has the guts to do so in public.
And to think more than a few DUers want her to step down.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3531149
elleng
(131,107 posts)and brains, and memory, and heart.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)She made clear traitors were running the show, 5-4, in 2000.
elleng
(131,107 posts)Concurrence Rehnquist, joined by Scalia, Thomas
Dissent Stevens, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer
Dissent Souter, joined by Breyer; Stevens, Ginsburg (all but part C)
Dissent Ginsburg, joined by Stevens; Souter, Breyer (part I)
Dissent Breyer, joined by Stevens, Ginsburg (except part I-A-1); Souter (part I)
edit:
I dont water-ski anymore, Justice Ginsburg said. I havent gone horseback riding in four years. I havent ruled that out entirely. But water-skiing, those days are over.
connecticut yankee
(1,728 posts)so that Pres. Obama can appoint another Liberal to the court.
If there's a Repuke majority in the Senate after the 2014 election, he'll never have a chance to do so. In fact anyone he nominates will probably be filibustered or overruled.
And that's the only reason.
She's 80 years old.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Better yet, impeach them. The grounds are there.
madinmaryland
(64,933 posts)for Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito!!!
That was a fucking classic!!!
Octafish
(55,745 posts)...that the truth about those gangsters can't get them impeached, let alone investigated by the Department of Just-Us, let alone Congress.
BTW: How's Gov. Don Siegelman doing?
drynberg
(1,648 posts)Time for Truth, no?
merrily
(45,251 posts)Kagan and Sotomayor are not liberals, except maybe on some cultural issues.
Judging by some of his appointment in his Cabinet and administration, we'll be lucky if he appoints DLCer Sunstein instead of a Republican.
bvar22
(39,909 posts)His two appointments to the Supreme Court has moved the overall make up of the Court Even Further to The Right (More Conservative),
Especially painful to Liberals was replacing Unashamed Liberal JP Stevens
with "moderate" Elena Kagan who has demonstrated an alarming tendency to agree with Scalia on too many issues.
Lasher
(27,637 posts)I have compared their analyses at the OnTheIssues website:
John Paul Stevens
Elena Kagan
If you scroll to the bottom there, you will see the following chart for each person:
There is no need to post both their charts here, because they look exactly the same. But Sotomayor is more clearly a moderate:
Sonia Sotomayor
Old DU thread on the subject
None of these is as liberal as Ginsburg, however. I hope she doesn't step down.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)Bake
(21,977 posts)That nominee would be filibustered TODAY, TOMORROW, and until the end of time.
Bake
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)look at his track record.
toby jo
(1,269 posts)Orrex
(63,224 posts)I need to double-check the schedule, because I sure as hell can't keep it straight.
Hekate
(90,793 posts)Paladin
(28,272 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)and you should deal with your own fuck, and leave everybody else's fuck alone.
Paladin
(28,272 posts)As soon as the younger liberal justices start publicly tackling the hyper-conservative, agenda-driven justices on the Court, I'll consider your position as having some merit. Not before.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)not after you tell people to go fuck themselves
Paladin
(28,272 posts)demwing
(16,916 posts)but she is old and sick.
She will be replace by someone. Are you willing to risk having her replacement be chosen by a Republican?
If so, fuck etiquette, you need to upgrade your reasoning skills.
Paladin
(28,272 posts)Blanks
(4,835 posts)In order to be replaced by an Obama appointee. If it looks like republicans will take the White House in 2016 (toward the end of 2015) it might be prudent for her to retire, but there's no reason for her to step down for at least 2 years.
Besides, she stopped water skiing. Obviously she'll be around for a while.
demwing
(16,916 posts)There's a chance both houses could flip. Good on us if the House flips, sucks to be us if the Senate flips (and there is a real chance that this will happen).
We cannot get shit done as it is, can you imagine putting through a progressive SC justice if McConnell is the Majority Leader?
mountain grammy
(26,648 posts)kelliekat44
(7,759 posts)Squinch
(51,007 posts)to fight to get to where she is, both as a woman and a liberal, to have worked all her life to uphold and improve our laws, and to still, at this late date, have to be fighting against the idiots. And to see that the idiots seem to be gaining ascendancy again?
I am grateful for her, but I also feel for her.
tblue
(16,350 posts)She is so right!!! This is a corporatist fascst court. 5/9 of it anyway.
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)About time any of them did! It's utterly shameful what has become of the highest court in the land.
Julie
LuvNewcastle
(16,856 posts)She really ought to be Chief Justice.
1-Old-Man
(2,667 posts)Members of the Court do not "call out" each other either in private, public, or in their opninions. These are not the monkeys tossing shit at each other like in the House of Representatives nor is it the Lords having their spats, al la the Senate. They are civil to one another at the Court and along with it being the only segment of Government where you actually have to have qualifications to fine yourself with a seat is probably what makes it that way. This posting seems to want to put the Court on the same playing field with the House, just a bunch of shit-slingers.
bigtree
(86,005 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 26, 2013, 12:32 PM - Edit history (2)
. . . civil?
Thomas?
At the least, the ambition of these two is to deny average Americans the protection of judiciary; to the deliberate benefit of a lopsidedly wealthy 1% or so in this nation. Neither they, nor you, can pretty up the fight against all of that hostility and real-world injury (within and without the Court) by pointing to these lawyers being polite to each other.
Besides, a dissent like the one Justice Ginsberg wrote against the Robert Court's evisceration of the Chapter 4 protections under the Civil Rights Act does, indeed, 'call-out' Roberts and others blatant attempt to block the emerging minority vote from having a decisive effect on elections.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)meet with her former Republican SCOTUS colleagues to encourage rulings free of political influence or ideology?
Don't flame me for CT, I'm just a doubting soul who gets lots of email spam.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Justices call each other in opinions out all the time.
Not ad hominem, of course, but saying how wrong, foolish, etc. the Justices who disagreed with them were and how their decisions will open the door for this catastrophe or that.
If you are quibbling with the term "call out," as opposed to some other label, I think it's a distinction without a difference.
And no one could trivialize the Court if the Justices had not done that to themselves, with all their 5-4 decisions that split along partisan lines over and over. Not to mention Bush v. Gore, which Scalia thinks we should stop mentioning.
Did I mention Bush v. Gore?
P.S. The American Bar Association rated Thomas unqualified, as did Anita Hill. Our blessed Senate confirmed him anyway. So there is now precedent for not having to qualify. They barely qualified O'Connor, but I she did get qualified and is head and shoulders over Thomas in every way.
1KansasDem
(251 posts)"well qualified".
leftyladyfrommo
(18,870 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)what will happen when she is no longer on the bench. As it is, Kagan and Breyer already went Republican on the Medicaid part of the Obamacare case. That's the part Democrats rarely talk about, too busy are they cheering the part of the opinion that says that the federal goverment to make us buy whatever it feels like making us buy or pay a "tax."
cascadiance
(19,537 posts)I think if Obama were as progressive as some had hoped, she probably would have retired by now if she had confidence that a good justice would be selected to replace her. Though she's tactful and honorable enough not to say this out loud in public, I think she might be hoping that someone like Warren gets elected in 2016 to make that selection, where she could retire then. I don't think Hillary will work any better than Obama, and she probably knows that. So things could change as primary season starts setting the stage for who's running later.
If Warren has a strong campaign to have Ginsberg feel more hopeful about her chances to win the nomination and the presidency later, then perhaps the rest of the Democratic Party, out of concern that a Republican gets elected and creates a worse situation for replacing Ginsberg, might have to sit down and negotiate with Warren to have her help Obama nominate Ginsberg's replacement in time enough or Obama to select her replacement before he leaves. Perhaps that might help alleviate Ginsberg (as well as the rest of "the left" of the Democratic Party, aka the majority of its grass roots constituents), to feel that a reasonable replacement might be found.
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/1265745
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)On the level of Bush v Gore and Citizens United. She was right to raise hell. That fucking Roberts should be ashamed to show his face in public. But here he is choosing the FISA court.
Cha
(297,655 posts)Mahalo bigtree~
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)though they claim otherwise, the conservative majority on the court is activist. and it's pretty clear what their agenda is all about: protecting the 1%.
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)Court Is One of Most Activist, Ginsburg Says, Vowing to Stay
August 24, 2013
WASHINGTON Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 80, vowed in an interview to stay on the Supreme Court as long as her health and intellect remained strong, saying she was fully engaged in her work as the leader of the liberal opposition on what she called one of the most activist courts in history.
In wide-ranging remarks in her chambers on Friday that touched on affirmative action, abortion and same-sex marriage, Justice Ginsburg said she had made a mistake in joining a 2009 opinion that laid the groundwork for the courts decision in June effectively striking down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The recent decision, she said, was stunning in terms of activism.
Unless they have a book to sell, Supreme Court justices rarely give interviews. Justice Ginsburg has given several this summer, perhaps in reaction to calls from some liberals that she step down in time for President Obama to name her successor.
On Friday, she said repeatedly that the identity of the president who would appoint her replacement did not figure in her retirement planning.
There will be a president after this one, and Im hopeful that that president will be a fine president, she said.
-snip-
Full article here: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/us/court-is-one-of-most-activist-ginsburg-says-vowing-to-stay.html?_r=0
And on DU here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251321035
Jake2413
(226 posts)I think we will be hearing more from her.
Overseas
(12,121 posts)Sad when telling it like it is becomes "calling out". So many people are so afraid of being crushed by corporate money I guess.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)according to quite a few DUers.
summer-hazz
(112 posts)about 2016...
Right now I see this voting rights act as a win for us.
A RWer came out today and said they are fighting along with
some other RWer's to come up with a solution to put it
back into law.
Can you even imagine how this will go over for College
Student's? I can, I live with four of them, one is my daughter and they all vote...
College loans are the next bubble to burst.. College student's
owe trillions of dollars to the gov and they
can't vote?... not to mention the other disenfranchised voters..
A college town that lives for its student's money can't vote?
No way this will ever stand!
Stupid republicans....
They had no ideal what a can of worms they opened when
they did this...