Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
Breaking News
posted by takyon on Saturday September 19 2020, @12:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the september-surprise dept.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Champion Of Gender Equality, Dies At 87

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the demure firebrand who in her 80s became a legal, cultural and feminist icon, died Friday. The Supreme Court announced her death, saying the cause was complications from metastatic cancer of the pancreas.

The court, in a statement, said Ginsburg died at her home in Washington surrounded by family. She was 87.

"Our nation has lost a justice of historic stature," Chief Justice John Roberts said. "We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her, a tired and resolute champion of justice."

Architect of the legal fight for women's rights in the 1970s, Ginsburg subsequently served 27 years on the nation's highest court, becoming its most prominent member. Her death will inevitably set in motion what promises to be a nasty and tumultuous political battle over who will succeed her, and it thrusts the Supreme Court vacancy into the spotlight of the presidential campaign.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 19 2020, @03:09AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 19 2020, @03:09AM (#1053242)

    That's moving the goalposts. McConnell's justification for not proceeding on Merrick Garland's nomination was that the 2016 election should essentially be a referendum on the Supreme Court appointment. Should the Senate refuse to confirm any nominees until the President and the Senate majority are of the same party? That seems to be an absurd conclusion.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 19 2020, @09:49AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 19 2020, @09:49AM (#1053383)

    Yeah, if that was the real reason, you think they would have said so at the time instead of coming up with it later once they realized how unprincipled that would make them look. But we all know politics is really just throwing shit at the wall and seeing what sticks while funnelling taxpayer dollars to your donors.

    Interesting note about their old rule though, people are already casting ballots in the 2020 general election right now. If being too close to the presidential election is the cutoff, having actual votes that have been cast makes a pretty good line. The lame duck session has already begun, in a Schrödinger sort of way.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 19 2020, @06:43PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 19 2020, @06:43PM (#1053612)

    Just like the 2 week lock downs to "flatten the curve" were moving the goalposts? Oops, you lose.