Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg death watch

Opie&JimmyShow

Well-Known Member
Donator
Maybe it’s the blatant disregard for her radical views. Views that have slowly become more normalized by a coordinated push from almost all major media outlets in an attempt to change our culture from the inside out.

Ginsburg called for...
- the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.”

- the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.”

- the sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.”

- casting constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.”

- reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.”

- the assertion that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional.

- the objection to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.”

- the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.”

- a demand that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.”

- hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel).

- wanting he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.”

- condemning the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.
Despite these radical views she was confirmed to a near unanimous vote. Yet by all accounts a very Vanilla by the book Kavanugh was nearly destroyed for High School antics. Our normal political discord has been replaced by craziness.

Sent from your Mom's box.
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Maybe it’s the blatant disregard for her radical views. Views that have slowly become more normalized by a coordinated push from almost all major media outlets in an attempt to change our culture from the inside out.

Ginsburg called for...
- the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.”

- the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.”

- the sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.”

- casting constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.”

- reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.”

- the assertion that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional.

- the objection to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.”

- the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.”

- a demand that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.”

- hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel).

- wanting he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.”

- condemning the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.
I did a little digging on the age 12 thing, because that's the one folks seem to hang their hat on, and if RBG was running around tweeting about how everyone should be able to bang 13 year olds, I'd be the first one to call for her to be umpeached. However, she didn't really call for all out sexy time on 13 year olds. What seemed like a preposterous claim was in fact just that.

I read the section of her paper that folks reference, specifically the part where she quotes a Senate Bill and says "this is an example of how to write grape rules that are gender neutral."

I think whoever wrote that definition of grape in that Senate Bill (RBG was never in the Senate, so it wasn't her) was trying to protect those cases where a 16 year old high school student screwed a 15 year old. I make that assumption based on RBG stating that statutory **** standards should still be put in place for minors in situations where one party is significantly older than the other. I didn't read the whole thing to see if she or anyone else put forth a definition of "significantly older".

I think a reasonable person would interpret that proposed Senate bill as saying "a couple of teenagers might be able to screw each other, but an adult can't fuck a minor, and anything under 12 is off limits no matter how old the other person is." I'm guessing RBG interpreted it that way as well.

I don't know...doesn't seem that bad to me. How old were you when you lost your virginity? How old was the girl?
 

Pickle

Registered User
I did a little digging on the age 12 thing, because that's the one folks seem to hang their hat on, and if RBG was running around tweeting about how everyone should be able to bang 13 year olds, I'd be the first one to call for her to be umpeached. However, she didn't really call for all out sexy time on 13 year olds. What seemed like a preposterous claim was in fact just that.

I read the section of her paper that folks reference, specifically the part where she quotes a Senate Bill and says "this is an example of how to write grape rules that are gender neutral."

I think whoever wrote that definition of grape in that Senate Bill (RBG was never in the Senate, so it wasn't her) was trying to protect those cases where a 16 year old high school student screwed a 15 year old. I make that assumption based on RBG stating that statutory **** standards should still be put in place for minors in situations where one party is significantly older than the other. I didn't read the whole thing to see if she or anyone else put forth a definition of "significantly older".

I think a reasonable person would interpret that proposed Senate bill as saying "a couple of teenagers might be able to screw each other, but an adult can't fuck a minor, and anything under 12 is off limits no matter how old the other person is." I'm guessing RBG interpreted it that way as well.

I don't know...doesn't seem that bad to me. How old were you when you lost your virginity? How old was the girl?
Has RBG been pushed to clarify her position on this? I’d be interested to hear her expound on her thoughts and beliefs rather than trying to give her the benefit of the doubt especially in context to the other stances she has taken on controversial issues within her own publication. Issues that seem to predate and almost outline all of the major stances now being pushed by post-modern progressivism.
 

domelogic

Registered User
I did a little digging on the age 12 thing, because that's the one folks seem to hang their hat on, and if RBG was running around tweeting about how everyone should be able to bang 13 year olds, I'd be the first one to call for her to be umpeached. However, she didn't really call for all out sexy time on 13 year olds. What seemed like a preposterous claim was in fact just that.

I think he was talking about her book. In the seventies she wrote a book and consensual age of 12 might have been written there. I could be wrong but I think that is what pickle was referencing.
 

domelogic

Registered User
Despite these radical views she was confirmed to a near unanimous vote. Yet by all accounts a very Vanilla by the book Kavanugh was nearly destroyed for High School antics. Our normal political discord has been replaced by craziness.

Sent from your Mom's box.

Or maybe they were not vetted as tough as they are now. RBG of today would be made to answer for her thinking even if the msm cushioned her views. 90’s rbg did not have to do that. Your point on Kav is spot on though and only because of politics. All I would like is for a judge to interpret the law the way it was written without a left or right radical/political view. That does not seem to be happening as much today.
 

Opie&JimmyShow

Well-Known Member
Donator
I think he was talking about her book. In the seventies she wrote a book and consensual age of 12 might have been written there. I could be wrong but I think that is what pickle was referencing.
I don't recall when she posted that opinion but, I do recall a slew of statutory **** cases involving teen on teen consent in recent years. I think she may have been referencing them. I'm not sure. I think we all agree that 15 year old and 13 year old can consent to each other. 18 year old and 16 year old etc....not all of her opinions are completely out there. I DO agree with some of them. The majority are offfahaaa. They are so hard left they make a circle.

Sent from your Mom's box.
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Has RBG been pushed to clarify her position on this? I’d be interested to hear her expound on her thoughts and beliefs rather than trying to give her the benefit of the doubt especially in context to the other stances she has taken on controversial issues within her own publication. Issues that seem to predate and almost outline all of the major stances now being pushed by post-modern progressivism.
As far as I can tell she hasn’t. I don’t think anyone in a position to ask her has ever chosen to do so, which I think gives quite a bit of weight to my theory.

Progressives aren’t pushing for open season on 13 year olds either. I know, I know - pizzagate! Blah! But it’s not part of their political platform/agenda
 

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
I think he was talking about her book. In the seventies she wrote a book and consensual age of 12 might have been written there. I could be wrong but I think that is what pickle was referencing.
I looked up what he was referencing so that you didn’t have to.
 

domelogic

Registered User
I looked up what he was referencing so that you didn’t have to.

Ok. I thought he was going off of his post in the chip thread which I just looked at. It mentions the age of consent at 12 from her book. Carry on then.
 

Floyd1977

Registered User
What's with the "supposed" brilliance? You may not align with her ideologically, but the bitch got brains. Why does it bother you that people admire her?
Nothing wrong with admiration, but the way she's been propped up lately goes beyond that and seems awfully manufactured. Christ, there are whackos out that who are almost literally declaring "My life for you!" The reality is when you shove polarizing people into everyone's faces some people are going to get annoyed. Trump is admired by many and obviously you've seen how crazy that drives people on the left.

Yes she's smart and has had a great career and made her bones in a MAN'S world. But I'm sure the other 8 justices are admired too. I can't say I know much about Clarence Thomas's early life, but assuming he wasn't born into privilege, I'm sure that being a black conservative made it difficult for him to make his bones too. Sotomayor and Kagan may get their turn to be lionized while still living but not sure I can say that about the others.
 
Last edited:

Pigdango

Silence, you mortal Fuck!
Donator
Nothing wrong with admiration, but the way she's been propped up lately goes beyond that and seems awfully manufactured. Christ, there are whackos out that who are almost literally declaring "My life for you!" The reality is when you shove polarizing people into everyone's faces some people are going to get annoyed. Trump is admired by many and obviously you've seen how crazy that drives people on the left.

Yes she's smart and has had a great career and made her bones in a MAN'S world. But I'm sure the other 8 justices are admired too. I can't say I know much about Clarence Thomas's early life, but assuming he wasn't born into privilege, I'm sure that being a black conservative made it difficult for him to make his bones too. Sotomayor and Kagan may get their turn to be lionized while still living but not sure I can say that about the others.
I have indeed seen how crazy people are on the left, which is why I’m always so incredibly embarrassed when I see people on the right acting the same way.
 

Begbie

Wackbag Generalissimo
Nothing wrong with admiration, but the way she's been propped up lately goes beyond that and seems awful manufactured. Christ, there are whackos out that who are almost literally declaring "My life for you!" The reality is when you shove polarizing people into everyone's faces some people are going to get annoyed. Trump is admired by many and obviously you've seen how crazy that drives people on the left.

Yes she's smart and has had a great career and made her bones in a MAN'S world. But I'm sure the other 8 justices are admired too. I can't say I know much about Clarence Thomas's early life, but assuming he wasn't born into privilege, I'm sure that being a black conservative made it difficult for him to make his bones too. Sotomayor and Kagan may get their turn to be lionized while still living but not sure I can say that about the others.
Right on. It's all political. RBG has to go down as one of the greatest, most brilliant legal minds in American history and it really doesn't have to be based on her accomplishments. As mentioned in the gushing comments I sampled from media types reviewing, she's an American "icon" who has a "breathtaking legal legacy". You will sit there an "awe" just listening to her story and wondering when she'll pull that cape out and fly away.

I'll venture to guess, the RBG fanboys and girls are a little over the top with their admiration. And for good reason....the left needs to put people like her on this pedestal and be over the top, regardless of her work. She has largely supported their causes and if they've got a fighting chance in the decades to come, they need younger generations to admire her and follow in her footsteps. The media and lefty figureheads will drive that message deep into heads of younger generations.

Would any other SC Justice get treated the same way as this superstar pop culture icon that has Hollywood paint them as a brilliant, upstanding citizen? Scalia was quietly regarded as one of our greatest justices, sure. I know Clarence Thomas likes his women and a movie was done fairly recently about Anita Hill. Kavanaugh likes his beer and even though he likely never assaulted or groped any women, theres now just a hint of doubt that will probably follow him around for the rest of his career. It's just more of that, "conservatives bad, progressives good" that we see every day now.

EDIT: My utmost sincere apologies...it appears I've done it again...

I commented on a movie involving Clarence Thomas and never provided the Rotten Tomatoes score. Shame on me.

Rotten Tomatoes Score:
Confirmation (2016): 79%
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
It's My Birthday!
Donator
I have indeed seen how crazy people are on the left, which is why I’m always so incredibly embarrassed when I see people on the right acting the same way.
Same here. Whenever I see a highlighter-marker-haired gender-indeterminate NRA activist doused in period blood and screeching autistically while being dragged out of the Senate chamber by security, I feel so incredibly embarrassed for the right.
 

Creasy Bear

gorgeousness and gorgeousity made flesh
It's My Birthday!
Donator
Right on. It's all political. RBG has to go down as one of the greatest, most brilliant legal minds in American history and it really doesn't have to be based on her accomplishments. As mentioned in the gushing comments I sampled from media types reviewing, she's an American "icon" who has a "breathtaking legal legacy". You will sit there an "awe" just listening to her story and wondering when she'll pull that cape out and fly away.

I'll venture to guess, the RBG fanboys and girls are a little over the top with their admiration. And for good reason....the left needs to put people like her on this pedestal and be over the top, regardless of her work. She has largely supported their causes and if they've got a fighting chance in the decades to come, they need younger generations to admire her and follow in her footsteps. The media and lefty figureheads will drive that message deep into heads of younger generations.

Would any other SC Justice get treated the same way as this superstar pop culture icon that has Hollywood paint them as a brilliant, upstanding citizen? Scalia was quietly regarded as one of our greatest justices, sure. I know Clarence Thomas likes his women and a movie was done fairly recently about Anita Hill. Kavanaugh likes his beer and even though he likely never assaulted or groped any women, theres now just a hint of doubt that will probably follow him around for the rest of his career. It's just more of that, "conservatives bad, progressives good" that we see every day now.
Ginsburg will be tossed away like a Blasey Ford blackened banana peel once she betrays the left by dying and abandoning her duty to REEEsist Trump. The left has no use for people who are no longer of any use to the anti-Trump cause.
 

jnoble

Lingering longer for a longering linger
Ginsburg will be tossed away like a Blasey Ford blackened banana peel once she betrays the left by dying and abandoning her duty to REEEsist Trump. The left has no use for people who are no longer of any use to the anti-Trump cause.
Yep. This guy gets it
 

BIV

I'm Biv Dick Black, the Over Poster.
Has anyone seen the commercials for the new film “On the Basis of Sex?”

I cringe during the part where one person is like “Who are you?” And Felicity Jones in her American Accent is like “I’m Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

It’s a mix of that hack Hollywood trope of introducing yourself with your full name to get a rise out of an audience and a bad impressionist who has to say the name of the person they’re impersonating so the audience is clued in because they wouldn’t know otherwise.
I've never seen the commercial with sound. I had no idea it was an RBG movie.
 

Floyd1977

Registered User
I certainly hope she departs, but I'm not holding my breath just yet.
She’s not going anywhere unless she is truly, literally dying. If she was in such a dire situation it would have leaked. So, no, don’t hold breath,
 
Top