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

politics

19103 readers
3463 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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] 171 points 1 year 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 1 year 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] 28 points 1 year ago* (last edited 4 months 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] 48 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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] 18 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 77 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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] 15 points 1 year 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] 7 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year 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] 1 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year 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 1 year 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 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 18 points 1 year 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 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year 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 1 year ago

She does not deserve anything more than this.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year 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 1 year ago

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year 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!