GordonGekko
Footballguy
Direct Headline: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Could Probably Have Saved Roe by Retiring
But she earned the right to make her choice. Point a finger instead at Democrats who’ve proven they will give in, while Republicans will fight to the end to protect their power....As one of the most esteemed liberal justices to sit on the bench, Ginsburg had scoffed at the idea of retiring before she felt that she could “no longer do the job”. Following multiple bouts with cancer and a broken hip her ability to conquer each health obstacle with perseverance and strength turned her into a living feminist folk hero and rock star until her death at the age of 87. She seemed indestructible, until she wasn’t.
Now, the question must be asked: Could her retirement at the age of 80 in then President Obama’s second term have....saved the court, but in giving up her seat she could have stalled its transformation into the conservative juggernaut that is about to achieve the Republicans’ Holy Grail....When the calls for Justice Ginsburg to retire began, many, including myself, derided the suggestions as anti-feminist at best and outright misogynist at worst. Do we ever ask men of a certain age to retire? No, we admire them as elder statesmen and applaud their ability to cheat death until the very end. Women, of course, are never afforded such applause....
....Should it have been up to Ginsburg, the second woman ever named to the Supreme Court, to make her own decision about whether or not to retire? Yes. It was her choice and she earned it...
Danielle Moodie May 03, 2022 12:58AM ET
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-could-probably-have-saved-roe-by-retiring
Direct Headline: Why Ginsburg Didn’t Retire
If justices admit they’re political, their role in government becomes much harder to defend. No wonder Ginsburg clung to her seat....Many people are therefore revisiting the question of why Ginsburg didn’t retire when Democrats held the Senate back during Barack Obama’s first term, so that she could be replaced with a younger liberal who could cling to the bench for many more decades....
At the time, many pointed out that Ginsburg’s refusal to leave risked putting us in exactly the scenario that has now occurred. For her part, Ginsburg’s public reasoning ranged from the naive to the self-aggrandizing. She said that “I think one should stay as long as she can do the job,” that “there will be a president after this one, and I’m hopeful that that president will be a fine president,” and even expressed doubt that a replacement could be as good as her: “Who you would prefer on the court [rather] than me?”
..... Instead, I think we can find a key part of the explanation for Ginsburg’s decision in something New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse said in 2013: “I think she feels that it belittles and diminishes the court to have retirements so obviously timed for political reasons, and the more people yap at her… the more political and instrumental her retirement would seem....”
My guess is that this was, in fact, at the core of Ginsburg’s decision. If Ginsburg had made the decision to retire not on the basis of her own capacity to do the job, but purely because she wanted Barack Obama to “get a younger liberal justice on the court,” this would have been “political” and “instrumental.” I suspect that everything in Ginsburg’s understanding of what the court is and how it should function revolted against this. To admit that the court is political would be to admit that much of what the justices say and do is mere pretense. To retire would have involved accepting something that justices like Ginsburg work very hard to deny. It would have bordered on admitting that the institution is a fraud....
....Federal appellate judge Richard Posner explained in a 2009 interview the dirty secret that judges are on some level aware of but try not to speak aloud: ....They are reluctant to admit that they are… “occasional legislators,” and have been skillful in concealing the fact from the public [not that skillful, I’d note, since we all know it], being abetted in this regard by the legal profession, which has an interest in depicting the law as a domain of sophisticated reasoning rather than, to a considerable extent, of politics, intuition, and emotion. The secrecy of judicial deliberations is an example of the tactics used by the judiciary to conceal the extent to which such deliberations resemble those of ordinary people attempting to resolve disputes in circumstances of uncertainty. The concealment feeds a mystique of professionalism that strengthens the judiciary in its competition for power with the executive and legislative branches of government, the branches that judges like to call “political” in asserted contradistinction to the judicial branch.....
....Ultimately, what we want is to enact our policies, and conservatives want to enact theirs, and the court is a means to that end, but once it starts blocking those policies, none of us like the court anymore. ...We fight over the Supreme Court because we are stuck with the Supreme Court. .... This is in part because everything is political; “politics” is just a statement of our normative values about what our governing institutions ought to be doing, and everyone has such values, and it’s good to have them....
...I see no need to gratuitously excoriate Justice Ginsburg after her death. But her view of the court is not one that anyone can reasonably hold anymore..... Everyone else should admit this, too, even though it leads us to deep and unsettling questions about what the purpose of the Supreme Court even is. We should be willing to confront those questions even if they lead us to radically reevaluate what kinds of institutions are needed in order to best serve the public good......
Nathan J. Robinson 23 September 2020
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/09/why-ginsburg-didnt-retire/
Direct Headline: Ruth Bader Ginsburg fires back against critics who say she should have retired under Obama: ‘Who would you prefer on the court?’
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fired back on Wednesday against critics who say the liberal justice should have retired while President Barack Obama was in office.....“When that suggestion is made, I ask the question: Who do you think the president could nominate that could get through the Republican Senate, who you would prefer on the court than me?”
....The 86-year-old justice is on the mend after completing a three-week course of radiation treatment in August for a tumor found on her pancreas. In December, Ginsburg underwent surgery for a separate cancer found on her lungs....
“This is my fourth cancer bout, and I found each time that when I am active I am much better than when I am just lying about feeling sorry for myself,” Ginsburg said. “The necessity to get up and go is stimulating. And somehow, all these appearances I’ve had since the end of August, whatever my temporary disability is, it stops, and I’m OK for the event.....”
Tucker Higgins Sep 19 2019 10:00 AM EDT
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/rbg-fires-back-against-critics-who-say-she-should-have-retired-under-obama.html
Direct Headline: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Roe v. Wade Went Too Far
Justice Ginsburg made some interesting comments about Roe v. Wade recently. Could they be a signal about where the Court is headed on gay marriage?....Instead, Ginsburg told an audience Saturday at the University of Chicago Law School that while she supports a woman’s right to choose, she feels the ruling by her predecessors on the court was too sweeping and gave abortion opponents a symbol to target. Ever since, she said, the momentum has been on the other side, with anger over Roe fueling a state-by-state campaign that has placed more restrictions on abortion.
“That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly… My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change....”....The ruling is also a disappointment to a degree, Ginsburg said, because it was not argued in weighty terms of advancing women’s rights. Rather, the Roe majority opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, centered on the right to privacy and asserted that it extended to a woman’s decision on whether to end a pregnancy....A more restrained judgment would have sent a message while allowing momentum to build at a time when a number of states were expanding abortion rights...Ginsburg told the students she prefers what she termed “judicial restraint” and argued that such an approach can be more effective than expansive, aggressive decisions....“The court can put its stamp of approval on the side of change and let that change develop in the political process...”
....Some advocates of abortion rights have argued that Roe has actually hurt their movement more than it has helped because, for more than 40 years now, it has served as a rallying cry for the Pro-Life movement....They could have limited their decision simply to that issue rather than trying to set policy for the nation as a whole. Yes, it would have meant that the abortion rights movement would have had to take the time to expand abortion rights at the state level. However, it’s worth noting that, at the time Roe was handed down, many states had already either begun or completed the process of liberalizing their abortion laws thanks in no small part to the influence of the women’s rights movement, other states were getting ready to follow in their footsteps. By intervening to set national policy in one fell swoop, the Supreme Court halted that political process and imposed abortion policy on the nation as a whole at a time when the political debate about abortion rights had barely begun. As a result, it served to create an impression that abortion rights were imposed on the nation in an undemocratic manner, something that the pro-life movement has used to its advantage for decades now....
Doug Mataconis May 12, 2013
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade-went-too-far/
Direct Headline: Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Warning About Roe v. Wade Came True
.....While it may seem unlikely, Ginsburg, the pioneering advocate for women's rights who died in September 2020 at age 87, was a frequent critic of Roe v. Wade, especially its framing and the speed in which it was pushed through....In a much-quoted lecture she gave at New York University in 1992, Ginsburg noted how Roe was an example of how "Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped...may prove unstable...."
....Ginsburg was in essence disagreeing with Roe's base argument that the right to abortion was based on the privacy of a woman with her doctor, and not a violation of equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution....Ginsburg believed "it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause" so Roe v. Wade would be less vulnerable to attempts to have it disbarred...."Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?....It's about the doctor's freedom to practice...it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered.....Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force....Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court's splintered decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey? A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why [it] might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy...."
By Ewan Palmer 5/3/22 8:57 AM EDT
https://www.newsweek.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade-abortion-scotus-1702948
**********
“Dissents speak to a future age. It’s not simply to say, ‘My colleagues are wrong and I would do it this way.’ But the greatest dissents do become court opinions and gradually over time their views become the dominant view. So that’s the dissenter’s hope: that they are writing not for today, but for tomorrow.” - Ruth Bader Ginsburg
This is an extremely complex topic beyond just the current fight about abortion rights across America.
On one hand, RBG still had her sharp thoughtful wit and her mental acuity still seemed to hold a razor's edge. On the other hand, she was aging to the point of legitimate concern, with major medical issues including multiple bouts with cancer (lung, colon, pancreatic) , in a demographic range where a possible cognitive free fall or death could have had a brutal impact on our entire Republic. ( Some believe that it did....)
Should RBG have retired to save Roe V Wade? Or to allow a liberal leaning Justice candidate to come forward while Obama still held POTUS?
Is RBG, now receiving some criticisms that she "should have retired", responsible for the Democratic Party and it's inability to win enough elections to codify Roe into federal law?
Is RBG responsible for Obama lying about pushing for Roe to become federal law as his first goal and duty in office and then refused to lift a single damn finger over the issue?
Is RBG responsible for Obama holding reproductive rights as hostage against voters for another potential term, reaping the value of the wedge issue and the implied boost in fund raising, instead of just ending this long standing conflict for good?
Is RBG responsible for Hillary Clinton refusing to campaign for....Hillary Clinton in the 2016 cycle.... where she was widely and arrogantly perceived as almost ordained, anointed and promised POTUS, and then lost Trump and three subsequent SCOTUS seats to the Conservative Catholic base?
Is RBG responsible for Team Blue politicians refusing to accept fault for not being able to convince everyday working class Americans at large that they were worth voting for and supporting to win the majorities they needed to get the laws they wanted in the actual democratic way prescribed?
Is RBG responsible that Obama and his minions in Congress didn't fight harder or change their tactics over Merrick Garland?
Is NYT's Linda Greenhouse correct in that for RBG to retire in a way that was "politically expedient" for Obama and Team Blue, that it would essentially admit in public that SCOTUS is not above party politics? Is that a bit of a quagmire as it's long held that SCOTUS Byron White ( one of two who dissented in Roe) timed his own retirement so Clinton could nominate RBG in the first place?
Is RBG's long term legacy tarnished for this? Is that insulting as she's been instrumental in furthering women's rights her entire legal career? Will she be "cancelled" after death because she had the audacity not to live another three to four months more for the benefit of Team Blue and their partisan desires?
How complicated does the age factor to all this become when Joe Biden is already under constant fire for questions about his age and "alleged" cognitive decline and the tragic potential of POTUS 2024 turning into Trump Vs Biden 2.0, where it would be a war of the geriatrics?
Is it misogynist and sexist that it's long held in rumor that Obama asked RBG to retire but that some critics say that would not have happened if she was a man instead?
Should a retiring SCOTUS Justice have any say in their potential successor if there is a methodology to "time" their retirement to benefit one specific political Party over another?
Had RBG lived longer, what would be her view of Amy Coney Barrett? Is it fair to ACB to be held to the standard of Ginsburg without the fair public opportunity to carve her own path without the implied tribalism?
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade, which she knew was under threat?
I'll leave this here for others to discuss.
But she earned the right to make her choice. Point a finger instead at Democrats who’ve proven they will give in, while Republicans will fight to the end to protect their power....As one of the most esteemed liberal justices to sit on the bench, Ginsburg had scoffed at the idea of retiring before she felt that she could “no longer do the job”. Following multiple bouts with cancer and a broken hip her ability to conquer each health obstacle with perseverance and strength turned her into a living feminist folk hero and rock star until her death at the age of 87. She seemed indestructible, until she wasn’t.
Now, the question must be asked: Could her retirement at the age of 80 in then President Obama’s second term have....saved the court, but in giving up her seat she could have stalled its transformation into the conservative juggernaut that is about to achieve the Republicans’ Holy Grail....When the calls for Justice Ginsburg to retire began, many, including myself, derided the suggestions as anti-feminist at best and outright misogynist at worst. Do we ever ask men of a certain age to retire? No, we admire them as elder statesmen and applaud their ability to cheat death until the very end. Women, of course, are never afforded such applause....
....Should it have been up to Ginsburg, the second woman ever named to the Supreme Court, to make her own decision about whether or not to retire? Yes. It was her choice and she earned it...
Danielle Moodie May 03, 2022 12:58AM ET
https://www.thedailybeast.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-could-probably-have-saved-roe-by-retiring
Direct Headline: Why Ginsburg Didn’t Retire
If justices admit they’re political, their role in government becomes much harder to defend. No wonder Ginsburg clung to her seat....Many people are therefore revisiting the question of why Ginsburg didn’t retire when Democrats held the Senate back during Barack Obama’s first term, so that she could be replaced with a younger liberal who could cling to the bench for many more decades....
At the time, many pointed out that Ginsburg’s refusal to leave risked putting us in exactly the scenario that has now occurred. For her part, Ginsburg’s public reasoning ranged from the naive to the self-aggrandizing. She said that “I think one should stay as long as she can do the job,” that “there will be a president after this one, and I’m hopeful that that president will be a fine president,” and even expressed doubt that a replacement could be as good as her: “Who you would prefer on the court [rather] than me?”
..... Instead, I think we can find a key part of the explanation for Ginsburg’s decision in something New York Times reporter Linda Greenhouse said in 2013: “I think she feels that it belittles and diminishes the court to have retirements so obviously timed for political reasons, and the more people yap at her… the more political and instrumental her retirement would seem....”
My guess is that this was, in fact, at the core of Ginsburg’s decision. If Ginsburg had made the decision to retire not on the basis of her own capacity to do the job, but purely because she wanted Barack Obama to “get a younger liberal justice on the court,” this would have been “political” and “instrumental.” I suspect that everything in Ginsburg’s understanding of what the court is and how it should function revolted against this. To admit that the court is political would be to admit that much of what the justices say and do is mere pretense. To retire would have involved accepting something that justices like Ginsburg work very hard to deny. It would have bordered on admitting that the institution is a fraud....
....Federal appellate judge Richard Posner explained in a 2009 interview the dirty secret that judges are on some level aware of but try not to speak aloud: ....They are reluctant to admit that they are… “occasional legislators,” and have been skillful in concealing the fact from the public [not that skillful, I’d note, since we all know it], being abetted in this regard by the legal profession, which has an interest in depicting the law as a domain of sophisticated reasoning rather than, to a considerable extent, of politics, intuition, and emotion. The secrecy of judicial deliberations is an example of the tactics used by the judiciary to conceal the extent to which such deliberations resemble those of ordinary people attempting to resolve disputes in circumstances of uncertainty. The concealment feeds a mystique of professionalism that strengthens the judiciary in its competition for power with the executive and legislative branches of government, the branches that judges like to call “political” in asserted contradistinction to the judicial branch.....
....Ultimately, what we want is to enact our policies, and conservatives want to enact theirs, and the court is a means to that end, but once it starts blocking those policies, none of us like the court anymore. ...We fight over the Supreme Court because we are stuck with the Supreme Court. .... This is in part because everything is political; “politics” is just a statement of our normative values about what our governing institutions ought to be doing, and everyone has such values, and it’s good to have them....
...I see no need to gratuitously excoriate Justice Ginsburg after her death. But her view of the court is not one that anyone can reasonably hold anymore..... Everyone else should admit this, too, even though it leads us to deep and unsettling questions about what the purpose of the Supreme Court even is. We should be willing to confront those questions even if they lead us to radically reevaluate what kinds of institutions are needed in order to best serve the public good......
Nathan J. Robinson 23 September 2020
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/09/why-ginsburg-didnt-retire/
Direct Headline: Ruth Bader Ginsburg fires back against critics who say she should have retired under Obama: ‘Who would you prefer on the court?’
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fired back on Wednesday against critics who say the liberal justice should have retired while President Barack Obama was in office.....“When that suggestion is made, I ask the question: Who do you think the president could nominate that could get through the Republican Senate, who you would prefer on the court than me?”
....The 86-year-old justice is on the mend after completing a three-week course of radiation treatment in August for a tumor found on her pancreas. In December, Ginsburg underwent surgery for a separate cancer found on her lungs....
“This is my fourth cancer bout, and I found each time that when I am active I am much better than when I am just lying about feeling sorry for myself,” Ginsburg said. “The necessity to get up and go is stimulating. And somehow, all these appearances I’ve had since the end of August, whatever my temporary disability is, it stops, and I’m OK for the event.....”
Tucker Higgins Sep 19 2019 10:00 AM EDT
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/18/rbg-fires-back-against-critics-who-say-she-should-have-retired-under-obama.html
Direct Headline: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Roe v. Wade Went Too Far
Justice Ginsburg made some interesting comments about Roe v. Wade recently. Could they be a signal about where the Court is headed on gay marriage?....Instead, Ginsburg told an audience Saturday at the University of Chicago Law School that while she supports a woman’s right to choose, she feels the ruling by her predecessors on the court was too sweeping and gave abortion opponents a symbol to target. Ever since, she said, the momentum has been on the other side, with anger over Roe fueling a state-by-state campaign that has placed more restrictions on abortion.
“That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly… My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change....”....The ruling is also a disappointment to a degree, Ginsburg said, because it was not argued in weighty terms of advancing women’s rights. Rather, the Roe majority opinion, written by Justice Harry Blackmun, centered on the right to privacy and asserted that it extended to a woman’s decision on whether to end a pregnancy....A more restrained judgment would have sent a message while allowing momentum to build at a time when a number of states were expanding abortion rights...Ginsburg told the students she prefers what she termed “judicial restraint” and argued that such an approach can be more effective than expansive, aggressive decisions....“The court can put its stamp of approval on the side of change and let that change develop in the political process...”
....Some advocates of abortion rights have argued that Roe has actually hurt their movement more than it has helped because, for more than 40 years now, it has served as a rallying cry for the Pro-Life movement....They could have limited their decision simply to that issue rather than trying to set policy for the nation as a whole. Yes, it would have meant that the abortion rights movement would have had to take the time to expand abortion rights at the state level. However, it’s worth noting that, at the time Roe was handed down, many states had already either begun or completed the process of liberalizing their abortion laws thanks in no small part to the influence of the women’s rights movement, other states were getting ready to follow in their footsteps. By intervening to set national policy in one fell swoop, the Supreme Court halted that political process and imposed abortion policy on the nation as a whole at a time when the political debate about abortion rights had barely begun. As a result, it served to create an impression that abortion rights were imposed on the nation in an undemocratic manner, something that the pro-life movement has used to its advantage for decades now....
Doug Mataconis May 12, 2013
https://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade-went-too-far/
Direct Headline: Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Warning About Roe v. Wade Came True
.....While it may seem unlikely, Ginsburg, the pioneering advocate for women's rights who died in September 2020 at age 87, was a frequent critic of Roe v. Wade, especially its framing and the speed in which it was pushed through....In a much-quoted lecture she gave at New York University in 1992, Ginsburg noted how Roe was an example of how "Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped...may prove unstable...."
....Ginsburg was in essence disagreeing with Roe's base argument that the right to abortion was based on the privacy of a woman with her doctor, and not a violation of equal protection as guaranteed by the Constitution....Ginsburg believed "it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause" so Roe v. Wade would be less vulnerable to attempts to have it disbarred...."Roe isn't really about the woman's choice, is it?....It's about the doctor's freedom to practice...it wasn't woman-centered, it was physician-centered.....Suppose the Court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the Court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force....Would there have been the twenty-year controversy we have witnessed, reflected most recently in the Supreme Court's splintered decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey? A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why [it] might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy...."
By Ewan Palmer 5/3/22 8:57 AM EDT
https://www.newsweek.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade-abortion-scotus-1702948
**********
“Dissents speak to a future age. It’s not simply to say, ‘My colleagues are wrong and I would do it this way.’ But the greatest dissents do become court opinions and gradually over time their views become the dominant view. So that’s the dissenter’s hope: that they are writing not for today, but for tomorrow.” - Ruth Bader Ginsburg
This is an extremely complex topic beyond just the current fight about abortion rights across America.
On one hand, RBG still had her sharp thoughtful wit and her mental acuity still seemed to hold a razor's edge. On the other hand, she was aging to the point of legitimate concern, with major medical issues including multiple bouts with cancer (lung, colon, pancreatic) , in a demographic range where a possible cognitive free fall or death could have had a brutal impact on our entire Republic. ( Some believe that it did....)
Should RBG have retired to save Roe V Wade? Or to allow a liberal leaning Justice candidate to come forward while Obama still held POTUS?
Is RBG, now receiving some criticisms that she "should have retired", responsible for the Democratic Party and it's inability to win enough elections to codify Roe into federal law?
Is RBG responsible for Obama lying about pushing for Roe to become federal law as his first goal and duty in office and then refused to lift a single damn finger over the issue?
Is RBG responsible for Obama holding reproductive rights as hostage against voters for another potential term, reaping the value of the wedge issue and the implied boost in fund raising, instead of just ending this long standing conflict for good?
Is RBG responsible for Hillary Clinton refusing to campaign for....Hillary Clinton in the 2016 cycle.... where she was widely and arrogantly perceived as almost ordained, anointed and promised POTUS, and then lost Trump and three subsequent SCOTUS seats to the Conservative Catholic base?
Is RBG responsible for Team Blue politicians refusing to accept fault for not being able to convince everyday working class Americans at large that they were worth voting for and supporting to win the majorities they needed to get the laws they wanted in the actual democratic way prescribed?
Is RBG responsible that Obama and his minions in Congress didn't fight harder or change their tactics over Merrick Garland?
Is NYT's Linda Greenhouse correct in that for RBG to retire in a way that was "politically expedient" for Obama and Team Blue, that it would essentially admit in public that SCOTUS is not above party politics? Is that a bit of a quagmire as it's long held that SCOTUS Byron White ( one of two who dissented in Roe) timed his own retirement so Clinton could nominate RBG in the first place?
Is RBG's long term legacy tarnished for this? Is that insulting as she's been instrumental in furthering women's rights her entire legal career? Will she be "cancelled" after death because she had the audacity not to live another three to four months more for the benefit of Team Blue and their partisan desires?
How complicated does the age factor to all this become when Joe Biden is already under constant fire for questions about his age and "alleged" cognitive decline and the tragic potential of POTUS 2024 turning into Trump Vs Biden 2.0, where it would be a war of the geriatrics?
Is it misogynist and sexist that it's long held in rumor that Obama asked RBG to retire but that some critics say that would not have happened if she was a man instead?
Should a retiring SCOTUS Justice have any say in their potential successor if there is a methodology to "time" their retirement to benefit one specific political Party over another?
Had RBG lived longer, what would be her view of Amy Coney Barrett? Is it fair to ACB to be held to the standard of Ginsburg without the fair public opportunity to carve her own path without the implied tribalism?
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade, which she knew was under threat?
I'll leave this here for others to discuss.
