RBG leaves the stage.

BobTheCoward said:
I don't understand the, "honor her wish" thing.


Why should anyone care what her wish was? She is dead.
Click to expand...

It's a widely accepted human custom to respect the final expressed desires of a revered or beloved person. However, such wishes are generally confined to matters such as the bestowal of personal possessions ("Melissa gets Granny's china, Sally gets my jewelry, and Marcus gets the furniture") rather than telling people how they should carry out politics. As the last wish was an overreach the deceased surely recognized, it can be regarded as an actual wish rather than an instruction anybody need feel compelled to carry out. The deceased was herself not unfamiliar with the legal system so I think we can comfortably assume she knew that herself, and did not imagine she was issuing an order with any expectation it be followed.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
one of the Founders would agree with you.

Is argument for voting for Trump really that the other side is being mean?
Do you have any sense of what right-wingers call Dems every single day?
Click to expand...

I don't know if it's worth having a conversation with some people that "are not Trump supporters but..." It's like having a conversation with someone who claims "I'm not racist but..." The vitriol and poison coming from the right more than nullifies the "meanness" of anything liberals say.

I wonder what mean things Jews said that caused many Germans to lean towards the Nazi party...
 
uke2se said:
Seems to me that the GOP plan has been to control all future elections through control of the Judiciary. They figured - rightly - that the Judicial branch was the weak point of the US system, and after 2000 they learned that controlling the Supreme Court you can control who gets control of the other branches of government. That's why the Supreme Court is so important to the GOP. It's not about abortion or guns, but about gaining power and keeping it. That power would come against the wishes of the majority of the US population, but the GOP has managed to cultivate a core of highly motivated and heavily armed voters who will insist that they are a majority. The rest of the population is too divided to respond to this power grab effectively.

Thats' - as I see it - the plan, anyway. If there's any truth to it, Trump will steal the election in November by using a combination of court approved voter suppression tactics and challenges to the Supreme Court. Success will further cement GOP control of the one branch of government that controls the two other. At that point, there's not saving US democracy.

So, what y'all need to come to grips with is what you will do when this happens. Will you fight for democracy or will you acquiesce?
Click to expand...

They are using their power to turn the SCOTUS into king-makers. They are making this election not about popular vote, or even the electoral college. Their goal is for Trump's next term to be based on a vote of 6-3, or 5-4.
 
TragicMonkey said:
It's a widely accepted human custom to respect the final expressed desires of a revered or beloved person. However, such wishes are generally confined to matters such as the bestowal of personal possessions ("Melissa gets Granny's china, Sally gets my jewelry, and Marcus gets the furniture") rather than telling people how they should carry out politics. As the last wish was an overreach the deceased surely recognized, it can be regarded as an actual wish rather than an instruction anybody need feel compelled to carry out. The deceased was herself not unfamiliar with the legal system so I think we can comfortably assume she knew that herself, and did not imagine she was issuing an order with any expectation it be followed.
Click to expand...

That's kinda what I figured. The only weird thing is the way NPR reported it: Ginsburg "dictated a statement".

A dying wish is normally family business, private between the deceased and their relatives. "Make sure you write this down the way I tell it to you" is what? Write it down why? For public consumption? What is the public supposed to make of it? Obviously we're not supposed to think she means to dictate how and when the vacancy should be filled. There are millions of people who have the same wish. Her celebrity status means her voice is louder than most other citizens, but it doesn't have any more authority than the voices of other citizens, on this subject.

Her granddaughter thought it was important to report the wish to NPR, and NPR thought it was important report it to the rest of the world. To what purpose? Is it news? Should it be news?

---

What if Ginsburg had summoned her granddaughter to bedside and said, "make sure you write this down exactly as I say: It is my dying wish that the vacancy on the bench be filled as soon as possible." Would it have been reported? Would it matter to anyone?
 
theprestige said:
That's kinda what I figured. The only weird thing is the way NPR reported it: Ginsburg "dictated a statement".

A dying wish is normally family business, private between the deceased and their relatives. "Make sure you write this down the way I tell it to you" is what? Write it down why? For public consumption? What is the public supposed to make of it? Obviously we're not supposed to think she means to dictate how and when the vacancy should be filled. There are millions of people who have the same wish. Her celebrity status means her voice is louder than most other citizens, but it doesn't have any more authority than the voices of other citizens, on this subject.

Her granddaughter thought it was important to report the wish to NPR, and NPR thought it was important report it to the rest of the world. To what purpose? Is it news? Should it be news?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming RBG, her granddaughter, or both were hoping it would have a practical effect by influencing events. So it's more along the lines of propaganda on their part, as it is information intended to sway an audience...but because of what her job was the fact that she tried deathbed propaganda is in itself newsworthy, so it was duly delivered. I don't think it had much actual effect, though, as both sides of the question already have plenty of much better reasoning for their positions. Personally I think the thing was a misfire-- it achieved practically nothing, but it does tarnish the deceased's image a bit.

What if Ginsburg had summoned her granddaughter to bedside and said, "make sure you write this down exactly as I say: It is my dying wish that the vacancy on the bench be filled as soon as possible." Would it have been reported? Would it matter to anyone?
Click to expand...

I'm sure it would have been reported, given who she was and the significance of her death at this particular timing, but again I doubt the contents of the statement would matter to most. There are too many much better arguments on both sides than deathbed wishes.

It would also have been newsworthy if she'd admitted to a tawdry affair, confessed to a murder, expressed a deep disappointment in the finale of Game of Thrones, or declared a personal opposition to abortion. Because she was famous and important, and those are interesting things in that context. If she'd instead said something about how Tanya was to have Grandma's brooch and Jeffrey was to get the chifferobe and somebody see that Fluffy went to a good home it would not have been newsworthy and not reported. (Unless the chifferobe were full of human skulls. That would be newsworthy even if nobody famous was involved at all.)
 
TragicMonkey said:
I'm assuming RBG, her granddaughter, or both were hoping it would have a practical effect by influencing events. So it's more along the lines of propaganda on their part, as it is information intended to sway an audience...but because of what her job was the fact that she tried deathbed propaganda is in itself newsworthy, so it was duly delivered. I don't think it had much actual effect, though, as both sides of the question already have plenty of much better reasoning for their positions. Personally I think the thing was a misfire-- it achieved practically nothing, but it does tarnish the deceased's image a bit.



I'm sure it would have been reported, given who she was and the significance of her death at this particular timing, but again I doubt the contents of the statement would matter to most. There are too many much better arguments on both sides than deathbed wishes.

It would also have been newsworthy if she'd admitted to a tawdry affair, confessed to a murder, expressed a deep disappointment in the finale of Game of Thrones, or declared a personal opposition to abortion. Because she was famous and important, and those are interesting things in that context. If she'd instead said something about how Tanya was to have Grandma's brooch and Jeffrey was to get the chifferobe and somebody see that Fluffy went to a good home it would not have been newsworthy and not reported. (Unless the chifferobe were full of human skulls. That would be newsworthy even if nobody famous was involved at all.)
Click to expand...

Instead, if the statement is to be believed and taken at face value, her last thoughts were apparently of Donald Trump.
 
I think we're getting trolled into actually seriously debating "LOL why should we care that the head of the most powerful court in the land choose to make her last words a declaration against the sitting President, why my straw-Vulcan, pseudo-autistic, robot mind can't comprehend why that would be interesting to anyone, can you please explain it to me over the course of the next 40 pages of this thread while I pretend not to get it?"
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I think we're getting trolled into actually seriously debating "LOL why should we care that the head of the most power court in the land choose to make her last words a declaration against the sitting President, why my straw-Vulcan, pseudo-autistic, robot mind can't comprehend why that would be interesting to anyone, can you please explain it to me over the course of the next 40 pages of this thread while I pretend not to get it?"
Click to expand...

One, she wasn't the head of the court.

Two, why is it interesting to you?
 
JoeMorgue said:
I think we're getting trolled into actually seriously debating "LOL why should we care that the head of the most power court in the land choose to make her last words a declaration against the sitting President, why my straw-Vulcan, pseudo-autistic, robot mind can't comprehend why that would be interesting to anyone, can you please explain it to me over the course of the next 40 pages of this thread while I pretend not to get it?"
Click to expand...

If you find no value in others' exchange of remarks you can simply ignore it. Or them. Either casually or by forum software feature.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Democrats are more aligned to your position here.



If you were actually talking about doing away with racism, then the Democrats would be more closely aligned to your position, but since your stated position is more along the lines of just pretending racism doesn't exist because it doesn't affect you directly, then you're right to go for the Republicans. That's exactly how they justify white supremacism.



Trump is on record as saying that he wants to take people's guns away and worry about due process afterwards. So the Democrats would be more closely aligned with your position here.



Definitely democrats here.

But, sure, vote for Trump because some anonymous internet stranger made a post that you found to be a little too abrasive. That'll be voting for your best interests.
Click to expand...
I thought I was clear? I am a conservative, not a Trump supporter.
 
Red Baron Farms said:
I thought I was clear? I am a conservative, not a Trump supporter.
Click to expand...

But you may be forced to vote for him because some people online are saying nasty things about him even though he's proven to be a pathological lying, mentally unstable, only cares about himself, unfit sociopath. Got it.
 
Stacyhs said:
But you may be forced to vote for him because some people online are saying nasty things about him even though he's proven to be a pathological lying, mentally unstable, only cares about himself, unfit sociopath. Got it.
Click to expand...

"I'm not a supporter, I'm just going to defend him every single time" is the "I'm not religious, I'm spiritual" of politics.
 
Stacyhs said:
But you may be forced to vote for him because some people online are saying nasty things about him even though he's proven to be a pathological lying, mentally unstable, only cares about himself, unfit sociopath. Got it.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the "Biden is going to enable socialism" talking point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom