The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) unveiled a stamp honoring late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday, where former colleagues, family and friends gathered to celebrate the justice’s legacy both on and off the bench.
“Now a new stamp will honor this outstanding American eminent jurist who gave so much to our country as a scholar, teacher, lawyer, judge and justice,” Supreme Court Justice John Roberts said in opening remarks at the National Portrait Gallery.
The stamp features an oil painting of Ginsburg wearing her black judicial robe and white collar. Postal Service art director Ethel Kessler designed the stamp with art by Michael J. Deas, which was based on a photograph by Philip Bermingham.
Ginsburg passed away at the age of 87 in 2020 due to complications from pancreatic cancer. She served on the Supreme Court for 27 years.
Ginsburg’s granddaughter, Clara Spera, called the stamp “particularly special,” among the tributes to her grandmother.
“Of the many honors my grandmother has received, this stamp is especially fitting and not only because the Supreme Court has had occasion to interpret the postal clause found in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution,” Spera said.
“Indeed, stamps played a large role in my grandmother’s life from long before she ever sat on a federal bench,” she continued, telling stories of Ginsburg as a mother and grandmother.
Roman Martinez IV, the chairman of the USPS Board of Governors, said the stamp honors not only Ginsburg, but in effect, the Supreme Court as well.
“The one particular thing that I admire was her ability to persevere, her ability to fight for what she believed in, but to do it so in a civil way,” Martinez said, who added the country needs more of Ginsburg’s spirits amid sharpening divisions.
“And as we Americans use her forever stamp, let us hope forever remember what binds us together as a nation,” he continued.
Pointing out USPS receives thousands of suggestions each year for new subjects, Martinez said the postal service is “proud” to be issuing a stamp in her honor. Out of the 103 Supreme Court justices who have passed away, only 14, now including Ginsburg, have been on a stamp.
Nina Totenberg, an American legal affairs correspondent for National Public Radio, said she interviewed Ginsburg dozens of times throughout the years. She remembered Ginsburg for changing “the way the world is for American women,” while sharing stories of their exchanges.
The first-class Forever stamp will be sold in panes of 20, according to the service. Each stamp costs 66 cents.
Democrats should pack the courts, should have been a day 1 assignment for Biden. No reason not to after the bullshit they pulled with Obama and then reversed stance on with Trump.
I agree they should pack the court, but also congress has impeachment power and several of the justices have been proven to not follow ethical rules. Not to mention the credible SA allegations and the illegitimacy of depriving Merrick Garland a vote and giving to Gorsuch. Finally, Congress could also just enshrine Roe into law and could have at any time done so and they didn’t so I blame Congress more than anybody
When did they have the votes to enshrine Roe? And please be specific about dates and do a little research first.
Ouch. Hit with your own projection. Roe vs wade was passed in 1973. By a Republican majority supreme court. Immediately after it's passage and for more than the next decade Republicans Or democrats either one could have easily passed it into law. But they didn't. Only in the 1980s with the Resurgence of fascism frightening democrats for all the wrong reasons. Did the Trope of the timid stand for nothing Democrat and the dumber than dirt anti-abortion Republican Trope come into existence.
By the 1990s it would have started becoming slightly hard to have passed it into law but was still doable. But they didn't do it. The fashionably fascist Republicans did not have an interest in it since it would not expand their power. And the timid stand for nothing Democrats dare not. Because they saw how handily they were beaten by the fascist in 1980. But that still 20 plus years that it could have been passed to wide legislative and public support.
It was never about the votes, it was them not wanting to give up their fundraising cash cow by selling fear that republicans would take it away. Since they never acted when they had the chance, it was taken away.
Nice job not answering the question
Since RvW they had about 7 combined years to pass it when they had a supermajority.
The Democrats had a fillibuster proof majority for a whopping 72 days and they passed the ACA and Patient Protection Plan.
And during that same period they found the time to pass 161, mostly pointless, other laws. But nothing for the law Obama promised to sign day one.
Cool - you answered the question, gold star. Here's one more - in those 7 years, was there ever a call from the public to put RvW into law? I'll even settle for ONE call-to-action news article from that time period.
One nobody who wrote the sentence "they should make RvW into the law" while the dems had a supermajority and I'll say you have a point
I mean it would have been redundant up until the court decided that settled law didn't actually matter. When they had a supermajority row vs wade was a constitutionally protected right, there was no reason to spend the political capital on "settled law".
Then why did Dems promise year after year to codify it into law if it was settled? And why did numerous Dem legislators draft bills codifying it into law that got referred to committee where it was sent to die if it was settled?
https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/blog/obama-freedom-of-choice-act-not-highest-legislative-priority/
More than likely fund raising? Or it could be that pretty much every American politician is a professional liar who's only real job is to lubricate the human crushing machine that is capitalism.......
Idk, pick your poison.
Find raising was the sole reason they did nothing, they sold women out to raise money
Well yeah, they're ghouls..... of course they'd rather spend their political capital protecting business interest than use it to protect women.
I wasn't defending Congress in my statement about the redundancy of passing an actual law, I was just explaining their reasonings. Why pass a policy when it's already "settled law". If their opposition is obsessed enough to delegitimize the judicial concept of binding precedents......well we'll just fund raise off that.
It's kinda brilliant if you're a conservative or liberal, you don't even have to pretend to be progressive anymore. America is so shrouded in conservative ideology that "progressives" are now people who fight to reestablish the status quo of 10 years ago.
There were multiple calls from legislators with big promises to codify it.
So... nothing again. Not one source
https://www.ourbodiesourselves.org/blog/obama-freedom-of-choice-act-not-highest-legislative-priority/
You realize that article describes how Obama re-iterated his pro-choice stance when asked if he would sign FOCA, right? What did you expect him to do? Magically declare RvW into law using his Executive branch wand?
If you're hung up on the URL, I can think of one little thing congress might've been distracted by with their 72 days of supermajority.
FOCA had already been drafted by Barbara Lee and referred to committee where democrats sent it to die. They never even brought it up for a vote when they held that supermajority. Talk is cheap, and that's all they are.
From the time Obama was swore in until the ACA was passed they managed to find the time to pass 161 other laws, mostly useless trivial bullshit.
Narrator: they never had the fucking chance.
If Democrats actually did their job in Congress we wouldnt need to rely on SCOTUS as much,
It should be done, but Biden has never had the opportunity.
The size of SCOTUS is set by statute, and would need a law passed by the house and senate to do so. Democrats don't hold the house today, but did in the prior congress. That vote likely could have succeeded. It would have failed in the senate. At the time the senate was 50-50 and I cannot possibly imagine any scenario where Manchin and Sinema would have voted for that law. King and Feinstein wouldn't have been certain votes either, but likely winnable if it came down to the wire. Even if all of them did vote aye, regular legislation can be filibustered and there is definitely 0% chance that Manchin+Sinema would have voted to kill the filibuster.
Dems need a house majority and at least a 52-48 senate majority for this to happen. I suspect that rage has already faded enough that it won't happen even then, barring SCOTUS doing more Dobbs sized awful decisions.
We kinda have to wait for the justices to either retire or die off, for better or for worse.
Supreme Court was never meant to take cases. Overturn Marbury v. Madison.