Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Granddaughter: Ginsburg Didn't Retire Under Obama Because She Wanted a Woman (Hillary) to Name Her Successor

submitted by [deleted] from ace.mu.nu

all 43 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]cisheteroscumNational Justice Party 26 insightful - 4 fun26 insightful - 3 fun27 insightful - 4 fun -  (1 child)

So she was an egotistical woman who fucked over her supporters and allies with her pride. Lol. Fitting that her worst fear is now going to come true

[–]Trajan 10 insightful - 5 fun10 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

You don't have to be a feminist to be a narcissist, but it sure helps.

[–]Iam1ofMany 16 insightful - 3 fun16 insightful - 2 fun17 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

So she was a sexist. Good to know.

[–]ReeferMadness 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (8 children)

All leftists are. When your ideology is founded on group identity bigotry defines you. It is the epitome of doublethink that they think their bigotry is anti racism and anti sexism because they are sexist and racist against those who deserve it in their opinion.

[–]IridescentAnaconda 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I recently had an epiphany about the prefix "anti-". It is often applied to convey the notion of opposition, but it also can be used to mean "in the opposite direction" (e.g. anti-particles, physical particles that have opposite characteristics in some way).

"Anti-racism" makes total sense with this understanding: we must not be racist (against POC), we must be anti-racist (racist against white people).

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

they're against saying all lives matter. How can one be against those words. Those include black lives.

[–]Deadheadredemption 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

BECAUSE IF SOMEONE'S HOUSE WAS BURNING DOWN YOU WOULDN'T TELL THEM ALL HOUSES MATTER or some such horseshit I dunno

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

maybe black people should stop burning down houses lol

[–]Deadheadredemption 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Lol brutal

[–][deleted]  (2 children)

[deleted]

    [–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Except in this case identity politics is what DEFINES leftism.

    [–]AwakenGoyimEcoSlaves 13 insightful - 3 fun13 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

    sexist zionist bitch. Good riddance to that corrupt tool.

    [–]SaidOverRed 8 insightful - 4 fun8 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 4 fun -  (3 children)

    She's going to have a female successor. So she got half the bigotry she always wanted.

    [–]AcceleratedWallops 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    A female who is in a fucking cult

    [–]SaidOverRed 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I don't know much about her. What cult?

    [–]bagano1 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    That chick basically had someone pay for that PR blitz to get her name out there for the Supreme Court gig. See how easy it is to fool the masses?

    [–]Trajan 6 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    So she didn’t want a black man to appoint a new justice?

    [–]sproketboy 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    That's wacist!

    [–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Did her daughter actually say this?

    It's inexplicable that she would remain on the bench, other than pride.

    It's more surprising that her daughter would admit this.

    [–][deleted] 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    They aren't aware of how egotisitical they are these days because they have isolated themselves in a bubble.

    [–]Trajan 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

    It reminds me of a bunch of guys I got chatting with in a Pittsburgh hotel while there for work. Absolute unapologetic racists, talking about Obama as if they had just recently arrived from 1950s Mississippi. They talked that way because they did not see any issues with it. Left-wing identitarians are of the same mindset. They don't see any issues with their preferred form of bigotry and will react with surprise when normal people react poorly. I'm sure she saw no issues with what she said. I mean, fuck white guys, amiright?!!

    [–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    I'm sure she saw no issues with what she said. I mean, fuck white guys, amiright?!!

    She was married, and appears to have had at least one daughter, so I'm not sure about her actual hated of men.

    It's also unlikely she considered herself white. Her best friend in the court was Scalia, so I can't say she was racist, either.

    I have doubts about whether she actually said this. It's not inconceivable.

    I happen to think the elections have been rigged since at least 2000, and probably earlier. The supreme court ruled for Bush (illegally), and 9/11 had been planned for decades by the Neocons.

    She's definitely "in the club", so it would be surprising to me if she didn't know Trump was picked to win.

    It's entirely possible she stayed on the bench to ensure Trump (and company) were allowed to pick another Judge.

    I'm similarly suspicious about Scalia having a heart attack on a hunting trip. Another pick for Trump.

    [–]Tarrock 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    My wish for the last few years was for her to die under Trump. Not because he would replace her, but because she did the typical political spite bullshit that these old ass fuckers like McCain did. Making people miserable and trying to stay in power till the day they die.

    [–]mvpmvp 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Well that'd pretty stupid. Too bad other people has to suffer for that decision.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    is anyone really going to suffer

    [–]iamonlyoneman 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Ask the babies who are still dead because Roe hasn't been overturned yet.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    how does ginsberg dying make those already dead babies suffer, if anything less will die in the future if trump puts in an anti roe v wade justice and they finally overturn it? Tho I doubt zioist don does that.

    [–]at_finn 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Fuck her dying wish

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

    oops

    well mitch wouldn't have allowed a vote anyway lol, based.

    [–]ReeferMadness 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    She would have retired earlier and there wouldn't be any of this "election year" propaganda to play with.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

    I guess so. I was thinking with repubs having more than 50 votes in the senate, Obama would either have to put in a repub friendly conservative nominee, or repubs would just keep voting no on each nominee. But maybe Mitch knew the woman from alaska would support merrick garland or some others would or something. I think if he knew that even earlier and not during an election year he would just not allow a vote. Obama got to put in Sotomayor and Kagan. Sotomayor was in 2009 and Kagan in 2010 and the dems had a senate majority then. Repubs regained the senate majority in 2014. Obama tried to put in a new supreme court justice in 2016, Mitch said no. Ginsberg would have needed to retire before 2014.

    [–]ReeferMadness 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    If the Republicans pulled half the shit Democrats did with Kavanaugh they would lose the majority.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    Sometimes I think dems want to just show their bases they're trying to do something, so they do stuff they know will make no difference, like kavanaugh rape lies which only delayed his confirmation, or muh russia conspiracy theory which was to blame russia for winning when really it was because Obama was such a disappointment. You're right these kind of shenanginans end up hurting dems in elections but I also think they don't care that much about it. They get voted out of office yeah but they got their bribes and retire in luxury. Hillary lost but she is still rich. Back when Obama was president and in 2009 and 2010 dems briefly had a house majority and senate super majority, there was a lot of pressure on them to do something about healthcare, they gave us obama care which just mandated we give tons of money to private insurance, this was copied from romneycare. They also kept the wars and bailouts going. Reports got out Obama was trying to cut social security and only couldn't because repubs didn't support it which is funny. That huge sellout led to dems getting slaughtered in elections all over the country. So they lost the house in 2010 and lost senate seats each years till they did lose the majority there.

    [–]ReeferMadness 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    I guarantee they care about losing 3 seats in the supreme court. The left has been using the judicial system to rewrite laws with corrupt judges. I doubt you could even find examples now because Google is corrupt and manipules results. You need to be a next level sleuth. But I distinctly remember reading stories about judicial activism and some absolutely shocking judicial decisions that directly contradicted the law. But this was like decades ago and I can't even remember what it was about.

    But I definitely agree that most Dems don't believe their own propaganda. Their strategy for elections is simply to appeal to the poor with whatever bullshit they can sell. There are lots of examples of representatives on both sides writing legislation that has zero chance of passing and then voting against the same or similar proposals when put forward by someone else. They are all full of shit and the media is too corrupt to call them out.

    Imagine if your local news station regularly covered what your representatives did rather than the fluff pieces they are always running.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    I'm sure they care but what can they do about it. The lesson here is you need 51 dems in the senate to get a supreme court justice approved. In order for dems to have that they need to win elections and when they have it, not lose elections. How can they do that, they keep selling out. Like you say they try to appeal to poor people but then when they're in office they do nothing to help poor people. And so we have trump and they attack him as if he is a literal nazi. Well it worked to get control of the house in 2018. But we're talking senate, a bit harder because they get 6 year terms so it takes longer to get enough there for a majority. No one is really talking about that right now probably because it is mathematically impossible for dems to retake the senate. Biden could be president and then a supreme court justice dies but he never gets to replace him or her for 4 years. They talk about packing the court with more than the 9 but can they even do that, would it need to get voted on in the senate, yeah, mitch would just say no. Back with FDR he talked about expanding it past 9, which the constitution does not say it has to be 9 so he could, because the supreme court was saying the New Deal was unconstitutional. FDR had a senate majority so it could have happened. But then the 9 on the court changed their mind so he didnt have to.

    [–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    Can we just have ranked choice already and be done with the two party system? It's the elephant in the room in this entire thread and especially this discussion.

    [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Maybe some day but it's probably like this supreme court issue, it's a change that would need to be voted on first. And Mitch would say no. Even most dems would probably be against it because that would take power away from DNC. Rich donors would not donate to anyone that supports it.

    [–]whereswhat 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Yep, it's saddening.

    [–]soyboy77 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Hanging around, wearing out her welcome out of spite... What a "hero."

    [–]Marginotions 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    G's grandkid's msg to NYT looks like a phony cover-story she made up. After Trump won in Nov, RBG had over 2 months to resign, knowing HRC would not be there. RBG might have made a deal with O'Bumma but did not, and should have recognized she would not live 'til after Trump left office. (Anyone smart enough to be a SC justice is smart enough to see that reality, which was she was a narcissist.)

    [–]meatball4u 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    Is this actually true? I'm not clicking that link the url is sketchy

    [–]Chipit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Ace.mu.nu has been around forever. What's sketchy about it? Would you like to engage with the ideas being presented rather than sling feces?

    Another source.

    "I was struck by how many people I spoke with, including friends, acquaintances and former clerks, felt she should have resigned at the time and that her staying on was terribly self-centered -- a view I share," Samuels told The New York Times. "I was also struck that normally forceful advocates I spoke with would not express their dismay on the record while she was alive."

    [–]sproketboy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Inzie logic at it's finest.

    [–]bagano1 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Oops.