SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Saturday September 19 2020, @01:48AM (8 children)
The fools crying because she died because she was on "their side" are the worst sort of people. She was a brilliant legal mind, and though in her later years I do consider many of her views to be of the more "tyrannical" sort, ideologically speaking, like any hero of myth who eventually becomes corrupt, such is the way of things. Her honor is preserved, and rightfully so. She non-violently fought and worked to the bitter end in the name of her ideals - no throwing of molotovs for her, certainly. I wish I could say that I would like a "democrat" to be elected in her place, but the democratic party has simply lost touch, and balance needs to be restored. Ultimately, I hope a true centrist replaces her.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Kell on Saturday September 19 2020, @02:15AM (7 children)
I appreciate your position, though I feel that centrism isn't enough because the elected no longer serve the people they represent. I feel that politics world over has become so polarised and entrenched with the interests of the wealthy that pretty much no major party of any stripe can be counted to advance the cause of the populace at large. I do not know what the solution is, but I think people everywhere need to start holding their political leaders to account to mitigate the widening inequality of society, the unaffordability of housing, limited access to healthcare and many other such ills. Our contemporary society can provide all these things to all citizens - we have the ability - but we tacitly accept that instead some people should be hyper-rich while others should die from lack. It's absurd and it should stop.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Saturday September 19 2020, @05:53AM
I've felt that way for a very long time and have written so here many times. I don't know what the answer is. I've thought a People's Lobby might be it, but We the People are pretty scattered politically and ideologically, so I don't see us agreeing on a People's Lobby and its issues.
So maybe Internet-based voting on all issues. We don't need to be a true democracy, but at least have an official count of who wants what, then maybe voters will do a better job of evaluating who really listens to their constituents (or not).
I have to wonder if media in general is to blame. Not because of political bias, but because, and I think we all know it, politicians pander to the cameras and microphones. They do things and show up at events that make them look good. They have PR experts and writers and prompters and who really knows who any of them are now? They get caught saying outlandish things when they think the mics are off. It's all about show.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 19 2020, @07:32AM (1 child)
"limited access to healthcare"
You are aware that emergency rooms must by law treat anybody regardless of ability to pay?
The rest of your rants sound like you think the govt should take over everything (or give away "free" money, which amounts to the same thing).
You want communism? Go to Cuba or Venezuela. Even the Russians don't do that shit anymore. China is still a totalitarian state, but they too have ditched some of their communist economics.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Saturday September 19 2020, @02:10PM
I've had both regular and emergency healthcare living in the United States and regular and emergency healthcare living in Australia. I choose to live in Australia for very good reasons, socialised healthcare is one of them.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday September 20 2020, @06:34AM (3 children)
"It's absurd and it should stop."
You've seen what effect, globally, telling maybe 50% of working people to "just stop" has had. It's never the problem to point out what's wrong. The problem is *always* what we should do instead, and everybody seems to think that the answer to one of the most globally important questions could be summarized off-the-cuff by a teenager who has never held a job, never read "between the lines" in a book - as in, "Animal Farm is just a book about a farm with some stupid talking animals, why should I care?"-tier reading - never not had his days completely structured for him, with meals and spending money provided, etc. all in about 15 seconds. That's the level of complexity and resolution that everyone who eloquently and in strokes of linguistic genius critiques the capitalist system seems to have, when it comes to offering solutions. Without a hint of irony, I saw somebody post online yesterday, "I can't believe the forest service is so desperate that they have to charge $50 for a yearly fishing license - we aren't giving them enough money, and so now they have to charge citizens? That's ridiculous." You don't have the answer, nor do I, and until we do have the answer, I think the best thing we can do is do everything right that we possibly can, including elect the best possible leaders who we have, and have the best, most painfully open discussions we can have. Want a better world? Hug a Trump supporter. MLK was great because he didn't throw molotovs. Gahndi was great because he didn't throw molotovs, but who sells are the rebels like Che Guevara, who can be found on shirts found in US Malls, on sale for $25 - MLK and Gandhi are never on them. Everyone talks about the "right side of history" but that shouldn't be taken so lightly. The question should be: How high is the pile of bodies that you're willing to pile up before you reconsider your position? For the left, that number is greater than 30, if the riots are any indication. Oh, but their families may have had life insurance policies for them, so that's okay...For now, a centrist, not an ideologue who supports violence against your neighbors in revenge against a distant politician, would be the best solution.
Left, right, or center, we need a justice in before the election to create an odd number on the court - if the election gets contested, it needs to fall one way or the other to avoid more meaningless deaths.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Sunday September 20 2020, @12:20PM (2 children)
You seem to have missed the part where I explicitly highlighted that I do not know what the solution is; I'm skeptical of anyone who has a pithy motto that supposedly will fix society's ills.
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Sunday September 20 2020, @08:38PM (1 child)
And you seemed to have missed my point where I stated that spending time on sophisticated but bloodless critiques of "The System" and seeding resentment with statements like "It should stop" is part of the problem.
(Score: 2) by Kell on Sunday September 20 2020, @11:55PM
I did not miss your point, but I disagreed with your thesis. Given that in the same post you highlighted the damage and death caused by bloody critiques, I'd say that sophisticated but bloodless critique is probably coming out ahead. Furthermore, I would hardly say I'm 'seeding resentment' so much as expressing my own identification of a problem (I have no illusions that I will change anyone's opinion in Soylent). If we do not critique our own society we have no capacity to change it; individuals expressing sentiments such as "This is bad and it should stop" is the societal equivalent of nociception: "Ow, I hurt. I should alter what I'm doing."
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.