this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
332 points (91.3% liked)

politics

18651 readers
3766 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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.

all 46 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 168 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Throwing your life's work down the crapper because she wanted to hold on to power. She took Roe v. Wade with her to the grave and set the feminist movement back to the 1950s.

[–] [email protected] 85 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I mean literally if she had retired during Obama administration we likely wouldn't be in the same mess. Can directly blame her for the loss of roe vs Wade.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Potentially. A SCOTUS seat opened when Obama was in office, but Republicans actively prevented it from being filled.

A great Innuendo Studios video about this behavior: https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A

[–] [email protected] 46 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

The pressure campaign for RBG to retire was when democrats still held a senate majority with 53 seats. Republicans blocked Obama's SCOTUS appointment when they held the senate majority. In 2016, republicans simply just didn't allow a vote to happen because the senate leader sets the vote schedule. The nuclear option had already been invoked by that very same dem caucus on all other presidential nominations too.

The scenarios look similar on a surface level but in the details that matter they are leagues apart. If RBG had retired in 2013 or (most of) 2014, her replacement would been confirmed, barring a Kavanaugh-sized scandal. Either republicans would have provided the seven votes needed to secure cloture, or Reid would have invoked the nuclear option to lower the cloture requirement on SCOTUS nominees to a bare majority, like all other positions. Either way the nominee would have been confirmed.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 10 months ago

Well said. There's a reason why pride is one of the seven deadly sins.

[–] [email protected] 76 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Like most elderly politicians these days, she waited too long to retire and left us with a mess.

[–] [email protected] 47 points 10 months ago

Is the stamp "ROE v WADE" chisled on a tombstone?

[–] [email protected] 37 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (5 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] -5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

When did they have the votes to enshrine Roe? And please be specific about dates and do a little research first.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Nice job not answering the question

[–] [email protected] -5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

Since RvW they had about 7 combined years to pass it when they had a supermajority.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The Democrats had a fillibuster proof majority for a whopping 72 days and they passed the ACA and Patient Protection Plan.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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".

[–] [email protected] -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

There were multiple calls from legislators with big promises to codify it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

So... nothing again. Not one source

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

Narrator: they never had the fucking chance.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago

If Democrats actually did their job in Congress we wouldnt need to rely on SCOTUS as much,

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

Supreme Court was never meant to take cases. Overturn Marbury v. Madison.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

We kinda have to wait for the justices to either retire or die off, for better or for worse.

[–] [email protected] 30 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

We should all remember Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a woman who fought so hard for so many people's rights and yet was willing to undo all that for the sake of her own pride.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 10 months ago

Honestly fuck her Crazy old bat

And fuck any asshole who doesn't stop aside when they're geriatric and senile and access over the entire nation because of their own arrogance

[–] [email protected] 20 points 10 months ago

The one good thing is that it sticks around an extraordinarily long time.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 10 months ago

"The USPS went on to say they're ready to release the stamps but they're waiting for just the right time."

/s

[–] [email protected] 15 points 10 months ago

Should not celebrate someone who did insane damage to our democracy.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

woof. You'd think they would have gone with a more flattering photo/image. Not one reminiscent of Gollum.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

She does not deserve anything more than this.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Be careful: eagle, goblin, and troll references to Jewish facial features have long been considered antisemitism. Just FYI.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 10 months ago

Gollum is a hobbit, so it's all good.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:


“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.

“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.

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.

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.

Nina Totenberg, an American legal affairs correspondent for National Public Radio, said she interviewed Ginsburg dozens of times throughout the years.


The original article contains 424 words, the summary contains 169 words. Saved 60%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!