Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

big_thanks t1_j25t858 wrote

People who worship RBG are so selective in their memory.

She's the #1 reason for the state of our current Supreme Court. She also really wasn't the progressive hero many memorialize her as.

Also... local hero? She was born in Brooklyn lol.

54

ertri t1_j26ji6a wrote

She was notably way worse on native issues than resistance lib Gorsuch

11

vermillionmango t1_j25ohhp wrote

Man I liked RBG but she tossed out everything she did when she let her ego come before good sense and refused to retire in 2013. No one is irreplaceable, and now a 6-3 conservative SC for the next 10-20 years is what we get for one woman's pride.

48

BoomerangingBrain t1_j29qikf wrote

This. I hate having to agree with it but it's simple fact.

She was, it turns out, human.

3

NPRjunkieDC OP t1_j265db6 wrote

Was she told/given a chance to retire in 2013?

−17

vermillionmango t1_j266tnh wrote

Everyone knew it was probable Dems would lose the Senate in 2014. Obama even met with her to try and convince her to retire.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/25/us/politics/rbg-retirement-obama.html

She was 79, had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer twice already. It was pure hubris on her part to remain on the court.

28

realNoahMC t1_j26ciga wrote

>She was 79, had been diagnosed with pancreatic cancer twice already. It was pure hubris on her part to remain on the court.

TWICE? Holy shit! Regardless of your political affiliation or beliefs you can't deny that this is fucking egotistical! Regardless, may she rest in peace.

12

NPRjunkieDC OP t1_j26b6pa wrote

Thx for the link. But not even Obama expected the extreme polarization that led to his choice for the SC not even being considered for about a whole year . Unprecedented, I think.

−13

Formergr t1_j26tx8p wrote

What do you mean, “given a chance” to retire? She was a SCOTUS judge, she could retire whenever she wanted.

5

NPRjunkieDC OP t1_j26v6pw wrote

There's a link to a NYT story about Obama asking/hinting she should retire before the Dems lost 2014 Midterms

1

Formergr t1_j27swjo wrote

Right, agree. But the comment made it seem as if she needed to be asked to resign/retire in order to do so, and that no one had asked yet, so she didn’t.

2

[deleted] t1_j2522q5 wrote

[deleted]

31

AsbestosIn0bstetrics t1_j252v85 wrote

Not to mention, she lacked the good sense to retire at a time when she could've been replaced with someone who isn't a total right wing wackjob.

32

Ainwein t1_j2547gu wrote

Yeah - as much as I appreciate her jurisprudence she put vanity/pride/whatever over the country and multiple generations are going to feel the sting of her decision.

16

NPRjunkieDC OP t1_j26594w wrote

She had no reason to think Hillary would lose .

−16

big_thanks t1_j2a3o06 wrote

Why not? She didn't know Trump would be the nominee. Her best opportunity to retire was years before the 2016 election cycle even started.

The whole point is she shouldn't have left it to any chance. She fucked around and now we'll be paying the price for generations to come.

2

NPRjunkieDC OP t1_j2ab6hk wrote

It's not her fault that Garland didn't even get a hearing when Obama put him forth as a candidate . Close to a year with one SC justice less

0

big_thanks t1_j2acfli wrote

You're conflating two very different things.

Ginsburg was rumored to have been asked to retire as early as 2013 (when the Dems still controlled the Senate, i.e. so they could replace her with any candidate they wanted before the 2014 election); Garland wasn't nominated until 2016.

2

jaredb123 t1_j26ux3f wrote

Most dorks per capita

11

mrkenny83 t1_j28704g wrote

Isn’t RGB from New York?

4