Ruth Bader Ginsburg

I am so very sad.

Thank you for your dedication and service. Rest peacefully ma’am.

I weep for our country and what is now to come. :disappointed_relieved:

Sad day for democracy. RIP RBG.

Incredibly sad.

RIP RBG

Please tell me there is hope of stopping McConnell from replacing her. Please. :disappointed_relieved:

There isn’t. Sorry.

Trump will replace her with someone who is against above-the-surface abortions so that he can keep underground all of the abortions he’s coerced women in the past into having.

What is an “above-the-surface abortion”?

Trump only wants abortions to happen below the surface so that the abortions that he’s had women have can still occur, whereas he wants to restrict access to widely-available abortions for lower-income women.

I think that Trump is pro-choice, but he doesn’t actually care and since he’s now a Republican he’s doing what the Republicans want in who he will pick as a judge.

Trump is only pro-choice for himself and the 15 or so abortions that he’s coerced women into having performed.

1 Like

He will force a nominee through the Senate that Mitch McConnell will rubber stamp. Exact mirror image of the game the Republicans played in 2016.

There won’t be any “force” required.

Utlimately - Trump should be able to get a vote for a nominee in the Senate. The issue is - Obama should have in 2016 too. What this does is show just how full of crap the Republicans in 2016 were in their justification of not holding a vote. We all knew it was true, but now we’ll have actual proof.

It would be nice if such proof had an impact on how some people will vote for Pres and Senate in November. It likely won’t, though.

It shows you the kind of people that vote for Republicans, though.

Oh, it definitely does. It takes some serious cognitive dissonance to think that both the Republican Senate’s actions in 2016 and today are perfectly fine - but I’ve already seen that sentiment expressed on Facebook by some friends*.

*likely soon to be put on ignore

A Justice is supposed to be apolitical, striving to issue objective opinions and act in a manner that is void of politics.

Perhaps she should have thought about retiring at the youthful age of 81 if she wanted to be replaced with a nominee put forth by a dem president.

I think the more people that participate in democracy the better. Just the other day I had a conversation with a homeless person at a bus stop who shared his political views, super enlightening. If only all the indigent were participating in the voting process… then we could achieve utopia. Democracy is unquestionably good!

Yeah, she should have resigned in 2014 or thereabouts.

I have no idea what this means in context. I can almost understand it out of context, but even then it’s tough.

It’s basically a satirical reply that pokes fun at the notion that democracy is “good” and anything else is bad. The US was not founded as a democracy, and somewhere along the way, it became common knowledge that democracy is just “good” and anything else is evil/bad.

So, anytime someone is saying “sad day for democracy” as if a sad day for democracy is a bad day for all of us; I question whether or not they know exactly what they are saying. The reason I question it is because any reasonable person could ascertain that not every person eligible to vote will do so in a way that will make our country or system better. For example, a person struggling with severe mental health issues who also happens to be homeless because of those same issues will not likely make a good decision on which direction the country should head.

Voter ID laws that popped up after the SCrOTUS ruling on the Voting Rights Act in 2013 make it very difficult for the indigent to participate in the process. I recommend seeing All In, which just came out on Prime Video - they give an in-depth look at how difficult it is for many people to register to vote, plus all the screw-ups that happen during the voting process, especially with lack of training for poll workers and the closing of polling places.