I’ll never forgive her for Bush v. Gore. Literally destroyed the country. If she’d voted for the law, not for her party, there’d have been no Bush Administration, no was on terror, no Trump, no Dobbs. And we’re not done yet; there’s probably a Republican dictatorship in our near future.
The damage she did is incalculable. I’m glad she’s gone.
O'Connor and RBG, two pioneering women that totally shat on their own legacy.
I'll never forget Bush v. Gore, but at least she knew how to retire.
The Republican justices of today are going to die on the bench right after they rule that guns have the right to vote.
She retired to care for her husband, who wound up dying 3 years later. It was no benevolent choice. She also was free to do so as Republican Bush got to pick the replacement, who would up being Alito.
She retired to care for her husband, who wound up dying 3 years later. It was no benevolent choice
This seems pretty benevolent?
What I mean is it's not like she said justices should retire by that age. If not for her husband's poor health, she would have stayed much longer. She also likely would have ignored her husband's health had Gore or Kerry had been president. She had the convenience of being a Republican with a Republican President with a Republican 55-45 Senate majority to ensure a Conservative replacement.
Ah ok that makes more sense to me
RBG was a dem, as was Feinstein - they're all the same when it comes to not giving up their positions
Term limits need to be put in place
Don't expect me to shed a tear.
She brought us Bush v Gore.
Wow I honestly thought she had passed away long ago.
This has been a week of learning famous people I had thought were long dead, have in fact been alive...by seeing news articles announcing their deaths.
Yeah, this was a borderline Mandela effect moment for me. "Is this an old headline? She died years ago."
I had heard she was still alive when RBG passed and was surprised back then.
Slightly off topic, but a supreme court joke is the main reason I hated the Barbie movie. At the end, when one of the Kens asks to be on the Supreme Court, and Barbie says not until a woman in the real world gets that level of power. Like motherfucker, if the point your movie is trying to make depends on erasing Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor from history then maybe your message isn't as fucking progressive as you think it is.
EDIT: I'm probably wrong, see comment below. The phrasing could be misinterpreted and I likely gave it the least charitable interpretation. The line isn't divorced from reality but apparently I am.
one of the Kens asks to be on the Supreme Court, and Barbie says not until a woman in the real world gets that level of power.
I'm afraid your memory is a bit off. A Ken asks for a supreme court seat, President Barbie says "maybe one of the lower circuits", and shortly thereafter the narrator says something like "maybe one day the Kens will enjoy all the rights that women do in the real world". The movie certainly did not erase Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sandra Day O'Connor.
Just went back and rewatched it and you are absolutely correcct, its not what I remember at all. I saw an early run in the theatres and wonder if they changed it, but its probably just my confirmation bias after watching the whole movie feeling icky at how ham-fisted it was.
If you want an actually subversive comedy, look up 'Josie and the Pussycats.'
Ronald Reagan was all for 'affirmative action' when he picked her over hundreds of other, much more qualified candidates.
Ronnie was a RINO.
On the contrary; blatant hypocrisy is a very genuine Republican trait.
Her ego resulted in hurting women across the us.
Shame.
Bush v Gore set women back significantly. Downvote me all you want. sDO is a huge part of the reason Dobbs got overturned in the end.
If referring to RBG by mistake:
Ironically what you wanted was her to politicize her position. She was above that.
She dedicated her life to women and justice and to be on the Court. It's what literally kept her fighting through her illness to begin with.
Blame Republicans and nobody else for politicizing the courts and being the true source of hurting women everywhere.
Blame America and the Electoral College for even making it feasible for someone as dumb and crooked as Trump getting in power.
Strictly speaking, she wasn't above politicizing her position. In fact, she said that her final wish was for her replacement to be nominated after the next president was inaugurated. I'm all for honoring her, but it's not honoring her to make things up.
That's not particularly politicization one way or the other though, but merely precedent as established by the preceding Justice and McConnell's actions. At worst it's consistency or simply balancing the scales.
After all, RBG did not know who would win election when she died in September of 2020 before votes were cast.
So I'm not sure where you get this idea of "making things up." If she really wanted to be political, she would've just resigned under Obama in the first place.
Ironically what you wanted was her to politicize her position. She was above that
That's great for her and all, but it was a choice that had the disastrous outcome of allowing Trump to replace her with Barrett. Ginsberg doesn't have to live with that, but we all do. Thanks RBG.
That's such a silly way of looking at it. Because Ginsburg couldn't predict the future magically, it falls on her and not the actual people hellbent on destroying Democracy. It's like victim-blaming where in this case, more of a burden is placed on the heroes to overperform than simply putting further responsibility on the villains necessitating 4D chess in the first place.
So I look at it the other way around. RBG didn't fail America; America -- specifically, ignorant Americans -- failed RBG when they did what the world -- and RBG -- didn't think possible and elected a complete dumbass.
What you're saying is a nice thought, but it's a game theory failure.
In a perfect world, yes, America would not have elected a narcissistic maniac. But in the real world, we did. And Ginsberg, who knew she was in poor health (had cancer like a bazillion times) opted to take a chance.
Maybe she just calculated poorly, or maybe this was a magnificent act of putting principle above pragmatism. Either way, Roe v. Wade was still overturned and so much for RGBs legacy. The smart move for an 80 year old woman with colon cancer is to find an offramp that lets her preserve her legacy.
I get it if you disagree, but I don't think it's hard to understand why people blame her at least in part for this mess.
Fair enough. I feel I understand at least some of why people are upset with her; but I don't think all of her critics sufficiently empathize with her position. From within her shoes, she devoted her life to a greater cause of the American people that far exceeds the scope of simply Roe V. Wade -- and in that, I think she earned the right to be selfish and believe in herself that she could ride out another term. Completely unfortunate with hindsight, but she beat her cancer once and was in otherwise pretty good health - living alone and doing pushups to boot. Being on the court was literally the thing keeping her alive in the first place.
It is what it is at this point. But I refuse to put as much emphasis on good people not acting perfectly, versus bad people doing everything wrong and causing the degradation of the system in the first place. Anyway, my apologies for saying my silly quip.
It's all good my bro. I understand where you're coming from.
Are you thinking of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Because I'm not sure what you're talking about otherwise.
Bush v Gore set women back significantly.
I mean, I guess, in the sense that it set everybody back significantly. Framing it as an anti-feminist ruling in particular is a weird take, though.
No it didn't.
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.