Ruth Bader Ginsburg Thinks Americans Are Ready for Gay Marriage

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 12, 2015 9:16 PM GMT

    icon_biggrin.gif


    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-12/ginsburg-says-u-s-ready-to-accept-ruling-approving-gay-marriage-i61z6gq2?cmpid=yhoo

  • Destinharbor

    Posts: 4435

    Feb 12, 2015 11:36 PM GMT
    Bit of a contrast from Repukes appointees. Watch. They'll come up with some irrelevant talking point from Faux News which they believe makes sense.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2015 6:03 PM GMT
    Destinharbor saidBit of a contrast from Repukes appointees. Watch. They'll come up with some irrelevant talking point from Faux News which they believe makes sense.


    Try this one on for size, though it's my own opinion, based on my own knowledge and experience: However good her intentions as far as our issues are concerned, RBG is a left-wing elitist grossly out of touch w/ the American people, as are many judges and government mucky-mucks. Sure, I agree w/ her on the outcome of this issue, though probably not in the way she'll rule. At any rate, I think it's highly inappropriate for her to comment out of court on issues in a case now before her court and awaiting oral argument and decision. The increasing frequency of her outbursts leads me to think she might be touching on senility.

    And BTW, J Kennedy and CJ Roberts were both appointed by GOPers, and will probably rule in favor of gay marriage, judging on their records to date. So yes, let's watch, wait and see.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2015 6:29 PM GMT
    i hope she dosnt fucking die before June's decision. She fell asleep recently at the State of the Union event:
    6a00d8341c730253ef01b8d0d5c373970c-500wi
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2015 6:41 PM GMT
    pellaz saidi hope she dosnt fucking die before June's decision. She fell asleep recently at the State of the Union event:
    6a00d8341c730253ef01b8d0d5c373970c-500wi


    CJ Bobs lookin' good with those links!
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Feb 13, 2015 6:59 PM GMT
    @MGINSD

    I tend to agree with your post's underlying principle, that ALL justices should refrain from quips and comments about cases or controversial social issues in general while still serving. Loose lips and the law are never a good mix.

    However, that was below-the-belt to punch Ginsburg as touching on "senility." She is not. She even recently pulled an all-nighter to write an excellent dissent.

    (1). Scalia is more bombastic and outspoken than Ginsburg could ever be. He straight up spoke to my law school class and I (pre qualified question) was able to ask him his thoughts on his "original understanding" with respect to LGBT issues (which at the time of the founding of the nation, the terms and concepts didn't exist linguistically as we know them in the 20th and 21st centuries..."gay" didn't exist as a social construct), and he basically punted and started in on a very Catholic framework of the "gay agenda" and it all being a bunch of "mumbo jumbo." This was recorded, mind you, you can pull the video (I think it was Duke law that also got Sotomayor in trouble by recording the "wise Latina" comment). In short, Scalia is a loud-mouth, often crass pitbull who is sharp as a tact, but "comments" more than Ginsburg ever will.

    (2). Thomas is functionally illiterate and mute. He hasn't spoken in years--very disrespectful to the institution and lawyers before him/the Court.

    (3). And Reagan verifiably had Alzheimers and dementia for years while serving in office, even his own son has outed him.

    In short, Scalia is more outspoken than her, and Thomas and Reagan DO have serious performance issues, yet you praise Reagan and Scalia's "acumen," and fail to mention Thomas' (at least personality) defects. Pretty biased in my opinion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2015 7:09 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said@MGINSD

    I tend to agree with your post's underlying principle, that ALL justices should refrain from quips and comments about cases or controversial social issues in general while still serving. Loose lips and the law are never a good mix.

    However, that was below-the-belt to punch Ginsburg as touching on "senility." She is not. She even recently pulled an all-nighter to write an excellent dissent.

    (1). Scalia is more bombastic and outspoken than Ginsburg could ever be. He straight up spoke to my law school class and I (pre qualified question) was able to ask him his thoughts on his "original understanding" with respect to LGBT issues (which at the time of the founding of the nation, the terms and concepts didn't exist linguistically as we know them in the 20th and 21st centuries..."gay" didn't exist as a social construct), and he basically punted and started in on a very Catholic framework of the "gay agenda" and it all being a bunch of "mumbo jumbo." This was recorded, mind you, you can pull the video (I think it was Duke law that also got Sotomayor in trouble by recording the "wise Latina" comment). In short, Scalia is a loud-mouth, often crass pitbull who is sharp as a tact, but "comments" more than Ginsburg ever will.

    (2). Thomas is functionally illiterate and mute. He hasn't spoken in years--very disrespectful to the institution and lawyers before him/the Court.

    (3). And Reagan verifiably had Alzheimers and dementia for years while serving in office, even his own son has outed him.

    In short, Scalia is more outspoken than her, and Thomas and Reagan DO have serious performance issues, yet you praise Reagan and Scalia's "acumen," and fail to mention Thomas' (at least personality) defects. Pretty biased in my opinion.


    Ah, but you are forgetting MGINSD's "knowledge and experience".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 13, 2015 7:49 PM GMT
    Svnw688 said@MGINSD

    I tend to agree with your post's underlying principle, that ALL justices should refrain from quips and comments about cases or controversial social issues in general while still serving. Loose lips and the law are never a good mix.

    However, that was below-the-belt to punch Ginsburg as touching on "senility." She is not. She even recently pulled an all-nighter to write an excellent dissent.

    (1). Scalia is more bombastic and outspoken than Ginsburg could ever be. He straight up spoke to my law school class and I (pre qualified question) was able to ask him his thoughts on his "original understanding" with respect to LGBT issues (which at the time of the founding of the nation, the terms and concepts didn't exist linguistically as we know them in the 20th and 21st centuries..."gay" didn't exist as a social construct), and he basically punted and started in on a very Catholic framework of the "gay agenda" and it all being a bunch of "mumbo jumbo." This was recorded, mind you, you can pull the video (I think it was Duke law that also got Sotomayor in trouble by recording the "wise Latina" comment). In short, Scalia is a loud-mouth, often crass pitbull who is sharp as a tact, but "comments" more than Ginsburg ever will.

    (2). Thomas is functionally illiterate and mute. He hasn't spoken in years--very disrespectful to the institution and lawyers before him/the Court.

    (3). And Reagan verifiably had Alzheimers and dementia for years while serving in office, even his own son has outed him.

    In short, Scalia is more outspoken than her, and Thomas and Reagan DO have serious performance issues, yet you praise Reagan and Scalia's "acumen," and fail to mention Thomas' (at least personality) defects. Pretty biased in my opinion.


    Huh? Guilty by omission? And of collateral issues? This post was about Ginsburg, not anyone else on SCOTUS, let alone a former deceased President. (And I didn't realize that RBG had dozed off during the SOTU, which only buttresses my belief.) We differ in our opinions of who is more "outspoken" - Scalia or Ginsburg - but at least the former doesn't opine about cases pending before him as Ginsburg did here. (I trust SCOTUS had no gay rights cases on its docket when Scalia responded to your query at Duke; I've also met, spoken with, and listened to him on several occasions, in SCOTUS chambers,* seminars, and elsewhere, and found him as engaging and delightful as some choose to find him bombastic.) And, you may want to reconsider your opinions of Thomas after reading some of his. I would certainly never consider it disrespectful if a judge before whom I was orally arguing a case didn't question me; in fact, I, and most lawyers, would welcome it.
    _____
    *Where I was invited as a guest to attend J. Thomas' swearing in ceremony, to complete the record for any doubting namesakes.
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Feb 13, 2015 8:43 PM GMT
    @MGINSD

    Wow, that's awesome that you got to attend his swearing in. We all know I detest his ideology/jurisprudence, but I respect him as a man to an extent, and I certainly respect his office as a serving justice.

    I'll admit my response was a scattered, but I've seen you opine about Reagan, Thomas and Scalia (when it was relevant to talk about them), and you--then in the past--never went to task against them with accusations of senility or breach of duty.

    I agree that any one particular lawyer would prefer to deliver their argument and only be asked a few--or perhaps no--questions. However, in the aggregate, it is shameful that he won't deign to open his mouth. The clear impression is that he's somehow above oral argument and the back-and-forth is somehow beneath him. I have news for him, better men (morally and intellectually) have sat in that chair and deigned to partake in the custom of oral argument--he can too.

    Ginsburg ADMITTED yesterday that the justices (the ones who attended, e.g., not Scalia) went to dinner and had wine before this year's State of the Union, and she was "not sober" because Kennedy had poured bottles of California wine down their throats. It's quite a funny quip, nothing too scandalous. Humanizes them in my opinion.

    Let's cut the bull. Ginsburg is an older lady in frail health. She's everyone's Jewish grandma, "bubbie." After a long day and, perhaps, wine she dozes off. That in no way implies senility--it implies old age, a long day and some wine. If we exhibited this behavior on the bench (they're actually leather chairs) that'd be a different matter and would be grounds for concern. I say no harm, no foul.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2015 5:53 PM GMT
    Well, all this nattering about the relative (de)merits of the various justices, one should recall that the US can thank our Gov. Jerry Brown during his first tenure in the California governorship for the Thomas-Scalia-etc. "problem." (Remember the dictum: so goes California, so goes the nation. Often true, fortunately or unfortunately.) In his "governor moonbeam" days, thankfully now long behind him after he markedly matured being Oakland's mayor and dealing with the real world, he invented the concept of "child judges." During his first tenure, he appointed a "child" woman, very young and very bright but with limited legal experience, as the chief justice of the California Supreme Court. It provoked a bitter recall against her, too, which was quite divisive. Leaving aside the gender politics involved, her extremely young age for such a position was an assault on an entire generation and a half of lawyers well-qualified to assume leadership positions on the court, depriving them of their well-earned "day in the sun." He then proceeded to assault a full two generations of experienced, leadership-ready lawyers by appointing bunches of child judges to the municipal and superior courts and lower appellate courts, some of them barely ten years out of law school.

    This was done for the blatantly political purposes of seeking to influence future judicial decision-making for three to four decades to come.

    Well, it has certainly hasn't turned out as expected, has it? The Republicans (now the Religicans) were not widely in office at the time, but once the Republicans got into power, no fools, they learned from Jerry, and they as well started appointing child justices to the Supreme Court. (Do the arithmetic—see how long they'll be on the court.)

    The supreme courts of the land, state and federal, had long been destinations for senior lawyers and lower court judges, hopefully with judicial temperaments and sufficient longevity under their belts to bring some perspective to their decision-making, tempered by sufficient years of seeing the pendulum swings to be making more considered decisions. As deliberative institutions, one needs to understand that political winds change, sometimes 180-degrees, and the person appointed with certain "expectations" may or may not track in those expectations. Having a "rogue" justice, whatever their persuasion, ensconced in power for maybe 50-years is not good political social policy. Regardless of how one views the current SCOTUS, one can thank Jerry for its invention of its demographic makeup on age.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2015 7:25 PM GMT
    Good post, Sulla, historically accurate and logically put. I practiced before many of those "child judges" and they were a bunch of leftist idealogues; some even resorted to "dirty tricks" more reminiscent of Watergate than a court of law. Delayed calendars, taking cases out of order, sua sponte continuances, and other kinds of procedural legerdemain that compromised fairness and justice. We used to joke that representing a landlord in rent-controlled SF was about as fair as appearing before an East German Peoples' Court.

    But even they, Rose Bird in particular - who was apparently too busy reversing death penalty convictions to be bothered with other matters - failed to do much to advance gay rights; it took gay GOPer/Bush I appointee Vaughan Walker to do that with his opinion finding Prop 8, which purported to ban gay marriage, unconstitutional. Thankfully, most of them are retired now, but Jerry's back to appointing more unqualified newbies, per his spiteful naming of former RBGinsburg clerk and UCBerkeley law professor Goodwin Liu to SCOCA only 60 days after he withdrew from consideration for a seat on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which nomination the Senate had filibustered.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 14, 2015 9:53 PM GMT
    MGINSD saidGood post, Sulla, historically accurate and logically put. I practiced before many of those "child judges" and they were a bunch of leftist idealogues; some even resorted to "dirty tricks" more reminiscent of Watergate than a court of law. Delayed calendars, taking cases out of order, sua sponte continuances, and other kinds of procedural legerdemain that compromised fairness and justice. We used to joke that representing a landlord in rent-controlled SF was about as fair as appearing before an East German Peoples' Court.


    It sounds like your own right-wing inclinations had absolutely no bearing on your professional impartiality.
    I bet your fees didn't resemble those of an East German lawyer though.icon_wink.gif
  • Svnw688

    Posts: 3350

    Feb 14, 2015 10:23 PM GMT
    @Sulla, interesting post.

    I'd only mention my belief that many if not most judges/justices, with age, tend to MODERATE insofar that a judge can be said to be liberally or conservatively "biased" in their decision making.

    Look at Chief Justice Roberts and his "beliefs" on Obamacare. That was unexpected, but shows how justices/judges sometimes self-moderate. He knows Scalia/Thomas are full on conservative crazy, and Ginsburg/Souter are full on liberal crazy. He's purposefully moderating himself to "keep the court together" and to, quite frankly, look good in history books.

    I highly suspect Roberts' beliefs will "moderate" and he will position himself to look good when the gay cases come down in June. Scalia and Thomas are stuck, despite their protestations, and history will forever judge them like we judge bigot George Wallace who famously said: "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" to raucous applause. Literally, this one issue will mar and overshadow their judicial "legacy" to the point where their pictures WILL NOT hang in ANY law school. Duke took Nixon's picture down. Imagine what it'll do to equality haters Scalia/Thomas.

    Roberts gets all of this. He's no fool. He's not going down with a Korematsu-type decision. Roberts will side with marriage equality, mark my words. And it shows judges/justices often moderate themselves, in my opinion.

    Appearances are important.