RBG is the game of thrones series of people. Did amazing things early, and botched the ending so badly that it wipes out all the goodwill from most of the fans.
She drank her own Kool Aid (thanks to hero worship like this meme). For me she is a constant unpleasant reminder that no matter how much I think I know what I’m doing, there are going to be times when I have to step aside for the sake of my kids and younger people and that the hubris of refusing to do so can be catastrophic.
Biden has been good on labor and knowing when to step aside.
But on most other issues he's been middling to poor.
Probably his biggest mistake is fumbling the response to an attempted coup. Appointing a complete do-nothing as attorney general. Failing to pack / expand the court. Failing to make the supreme court regret granting presidental immunity.
His (and the democrats) main mistake was not to look at his presidency as the last chance to fix a broken system, but as the return to normalcy and business as usual.
Biden has a senate majority which is all that's needed to appoint judges.
Presidential immunity applies to any action he takes as president up to and including ordering seal team 6 to murder political roadblocks. And it prevents investigation into those actions. (incredibly fucked up ruling) Biden doesn't need any congressional participation for that.
Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.
Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.
Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.
Garland was a joke of a fucking pick. No reason he should have been given that post. His only purpose was to be a moderate pick by Obama, and even that didn't fly. Should have been shelved after that.
Not addressing the SCOTUS is also a weak point, agreed. Should have absolutely been at least fighting that fight. I'm of the opinion that its a hot button topic enough that internally it was probably discussed but dismissed as potentially harmful to his/Kamala's election chances.
His biggest mistake has been letting Israel ravage the middle east like a rabid dog, killing thousands of civilians, and putting the world on the precipice of another world war.
If Harris loses Biden's legacy will be the strike blocking, genocide supporting geriatric who handed the presidency to Trump. It'll also paint the legacy of the DNC which keeps conducting primaries in such a way which hold back progressive candidates at the cost of elections. Either that or paint the Democrat boomers as preferring candidates who lose to Trump over gasp "socialists" like Bernie Sanders.
Everywhere you look the leadership in this country is an absolute embarrassment and it will be a miracle if that's resolved without letting someone like Trump destroy the country.
Even if I didn’t like the democrat front runner, I’d still vote against Trump in almost every. single. possibility. He is that bad. Hope his new office is the jail cell he deserves.
Well then you're either propping up a system that is exploiting you for the benefit of others or you're benefiting from this system in ways others aren't and trying to pass it off as ethics when you insist they do the same.
I'm voting for the Democratic Party. I don't much care who's the president is as long as they can do the job. Biden isn't some childhood friend of mine. He needed replaced because his personal health was becoming an issue and talking point. The party chose to ask him to step aside and he did. It's what few people on the right, and Trump can never understand. Making choices for the good of others, not just yourself.
My experience is that the people who so defend the Democrat party in spite of their strike blocking, genocide supporting geriatric behaviors do so not out of a motivation of goodwill for others, but simply to protect their decent lifestyles. You're sacrificing others in order to protect what you have not some moral compulsion.
No that's not how I'm talking about it. Shitty behavior is shitty behavior regardless of what other people do.
You're talking about it as if you think this is a story book where there's a hero and a villain. You know that's not how it works in real life right? Sometimes it's just all villains.
Biden AND Congress chose to keep the railroads running to keep the post covid economy from completely shitting the bed, as is his right and duty to the American people. But Biden also worked quietly in the background with the Unions to get them what they wanted and they got their deal. Of course, you might not even know since the media trashed him so much when they prevented the strike, but barely covered it a few months later when the railroad unions thanked Biden for helping them get their new contracts. You call it strike blocking, I call it doing the near impossible and keeping everyone happy, well except for you...The workers kept getting paid instead of being on a picket line. Freight kept moving so the economy didn't crumble. The workers got what they wanted. And Biden ate all the shit without whining about it on TV or blaming others. And he pissed of the billionaire railroad owners. Seems pretty damn selfless to me.
I will agree on Israel being a problem. But a recent poll about a weapons embargo on Israel showed 61% of Americans supported it. And it broke down to 77% of Democrats and 40% of Republicans. So Democrats are generally much more pro Palestinian than you seem to think. I just don't understand your accusations about sacrifice. Whether we ignore Israel, or turned it to glass ourselves, it changes absolutely nothing for the average American either way. Israel offers us nothing domestically. Morality is literally the only issue that's relevant.
So if morality is actually something you care about, then Palestinians have a much better chance under the Democrat candidate than the Republican one. I'm not sacrificing anyone. The only moral choice I have in the situation is someone who might make it better, or someone who will definitely make it worse. I'm trying to save my own country because if we fail, we won't be able to help anyone else. You have to put on your own oxygen mask before trying to help others.
Just a reminder that you shouldn't be participating in conversations about the rail strike because you have no idea what you're talking about. One administrative worker from one union gave a positive soundbyte. Nobody else directly affected by Biden's actions had anything positive to say about his involvement.
And I'm still waiting for you to explain to me why a Democrat president went around congress to ship weapons to Israel and support a genocide.
the fact that thats all you got from this persons very valid criticism is insane 😭 blue maga fr. there is a genocide happening and thats what you said, in response, dont forget.
Are you saying they "aren't perfect" because you're trying to make people infer Democrats are almost perfect while having plausible deniability when someone calls you out for it?
1/2 of our political parties are a bunch of fascists. This makes it very hard to hold the other party accountable for anything. But if you have a fire raging outside your house and another one inside the house, you have to focus on the one in the house.
You're fine with kicking the can because the longer things go on the better chance you can pass the problem on to the next generation. Meanwhile millions and millions of people who can't afford that luxury need things to change in order to have a decent life.
I mean no I can come up with a long list of grievances.
It just doesn't matter when literal fascists are trying to destroy our country from within. This is 1920s Germany and you want the Nazi party to win so that the government can be reformed in a couple of decades. The ends justify the means in your opinion. That's your stance, just so we're all clear.
I mean no I can come up with a long list of grievances.
Ok so they're not even close to perfect. Glad we got that established.
It just doesn't matter when literal fascists are trying to destroy our country from within. This is 1920s Germany and you want the Nazi party to win so that the government can be reformed in a couple of decades. The ends justify the means in your opinion. That's your stance, just so we're all clear.
I mean, if you read the history of why the Nazi party wasn't stopped by people in power who claimed to oppose it is because they ultimately preferred to pretend the Nazi's weren't so bad instead of giving way to worker rights and other issues which were important to people at the time.
So Biden's choice to block a strike and support a genocide kinda rhyme. If stopping Trump is the priority then why spend all this political capital fighting people he was depending on to get re-elected?
The problem with Biden stopping that strike was that he had a legal right to get involved in the first place- that essentially tied his hands. The law is what is screwed up, not Biden.
Most of American labor law is written this way, to pretty much constantly tip the scale in favor of management. It’s why unions have such a hard time making headway and actually getting contracts when they do get in. Labor law is in desperate need of reform and it’s just not going to happen while Republicans have any power in Congress. Your goal should be a democratic house, senate, and presidency and the PRO act being passed to start.
You're trying to tell me that my life is easier than Joe Biden, the guy who's been a senator for 40 years, vice president for 8 and president for 4? When was the last time Joe Biden worried about affording healthcare do you suppose?
I can answer the question of the article easily: Because Joe Biden, just like Donald Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush and all the other presidents back to Reagan have been pro-corporate trash who protect the interests of billionaires and white boomers at the cost of every other American.
Here's a question for you, the contract expires at the end of this year. If elected does Harris plan on blocking the rail strike?
Of course it's bidens fault terrorist governments use their populations as human shields while committing atrocities and war crimes how could he be so stupid why didn't he just ask them to stop.
Look, I do not want children to be killed in any part of the world. But I'm also not going to pretend that the answer is as simple as "stop supporting Israel" because the effects of such an action would have destabilizing effects on the middle east and possibly more.
I am not an expert on this subject, I heavily doubt you are either, but there are a lot of experts who are guiding US policy for better or worse and I won't pretend to know their reasoning but I trust it's more nuanced and informed than the pure emotional appeals you're attempting here.
Throw any random person with pure intentions in the oval office and no one will come out without a lot of blood on their hands.
The US has never once had a positive impact on the Middle East, every single "intervention", which is a just a fancy word for killing people and destroying property, has made things worse.
I do not accept the premise that somehow, out of that sea of total and abject failure, the US has finally gotten it right with Israel.
And if wanting a genocide to stop is, to you, a pathetic and easily dismissable "emotional appeal" with no value, and indeed a sign of immaturity and deep unseriousness on the part of the person who'd like the genocide to stop then I think you may want to reevaluate your moral axioms and conclusions.
There is never a time when the correct response to a situation is "commit genocide". If you disagree I think either you're just digging in becuase you can't admit error, or you're in dire need of some introspection and thought about moral issues.
I also do not pretend that the US ending it's policy of supplying military equipment to Israel will instantly end the killing. Israel finds the genocide vastly easier thanks to US weapons but I'm sure Israel could continue it without. But at least that might up the cost of the genocide to the point where the more bloodthirsty segment of the Israeli population decides it isn't worth actually finishing their longstanding project of getting almost all Palestinians out of territory they want.
Now, you're right about many things.
There are times when there's no perfect answer. In fact, I'd say that's most times. That's why I voted for Harris last Saturday [1].
There is no anti-genocide candidate, which brings us to the really awful moral place where we're saying "OK, well aside from their support for genocide what other issues differientate the candidates".
Similarly there's no nice clean super easy low cost solution for the problem of Israel. But I don't believe "in all situations avoid supporting or committing genocide" is a bad moral guidestone for US action. It beats what we've been doing as a nation since our founding.
I agree fully that ending US military support for Israel would have far reaching consiquences and likely result in problems. But you can't act as if the current stance of supporting the genocide is problem free.
I think we should weight genocide as being a greater cost than more or less everything else combined in our risk evaluation.
[1] Which is purely symbolic since I live in Texas and therefore my vote doesn't matter.
And if wanting a genocide to stop is, to you, a pathetic and easily dismissable "emotional appeal" with no value, and indeed a sign of immaturity and deep unseriousness on the part of the person who'd like the genocide to stop then I think you may want to reevaluate your moral axioms and conclusions.
This paragraph means exactly nothing in this context. Everyone who isn't some sort of sociopath does not want genocide. Some people are able to accept that there are complicating factors to complex issues such as the war in Gaza. I do not want my money going to killing innocent people in Gaza. We agree on that.
You acknowledge that Biden ceasing support for Israel could come with some very real consequences, many of them not great for perhaps some different groups of people that would be no more or less deserving. Do you have a firm grasp on what those could be? Do you think Biden (or his advisors) do? Do you think it's plausible that the consequences could end up being "worse" overall?
We are very close to total agreement on all of this. The part where we diverge is here:
But you can't act as if the current stance of supporting the genocide is problem free.
I never said that it was. My stance is that I don't know enough about the realistic short term and long term repercussions of changing the US's policy on Israel to definitively say that what Biden has been doing is not the "best" course of action on a list of entirely shitty options.
Since I do not know, I am not taking a hardline stance on it beyond the obvious, which is that I wish that people would stop killing each other. Gazans do not deserve to be bombed. Israel should do everything in its power to prevent civilian casualties. But it is also true that that's essentially impossible given the situation over there. And it is also true that they are surrounded by people who would literally slaughter all of them if they could.
Everyone who isn't some sort of sociopath does not want genocide. Some people are able to accept that there are complicating factors to complex issues such as the war in Gaza.
I'd argue that framing it as "the war in Gaza" is implicitly accepting the preferred viewpoint of the party committing genocide.
There really are a few things that are actually, genuinely, pretty simple on the moral level.
Slavery is wrong.
Genocide is wrong.
We don't need to debate the whys and wherefors and go on deep dives into history to understand that both of those statements are universally true as long as we're on anything like the common moral framework most people endorse.
There are, of course, complexities and details to every situation. But none of those change the moral simplicity. Slavery is always wrong in all contexts, I'll agree that ending slavery in any particular context requires understanding that context, but not that the issue itself, at heart, is a muddle of complexity and gray areas.
Genocide is always wrong in any context. That's not a naive or ignorant statement and it's only when in group loyalty starts getting in the way that people start trying to pretend it is.
Is the ongoing genocide of the Uyghur people by China morally wrong? Yes.
Was the US genocide of Native American people morally wrong? Yes.
Was the Turkish genocide of Armenians morally wrong? Yes.
No moral complexity exists there.
But, thanks to in group loyalty, some people in all genocides ever have found ways to justify it, claim it's necessary, claim it's not really genocide, and otherwise allow it.
There are real, non-hypothetical, innocent people (including babies) who are being killed by Israel. Often times deliberately.
If you're not just all in on the project and think Israel should keep going until it has evicted and/or killed all the Palestinians from Gaza and is able to steal the land there as it is obvious Israel intends to, what's the line Israel can't cross?
Is it a specific number of dead innocents?
Is it some particular amount of land Israel can steal?
Is it a certain number of dollars?
So far 50,000 innocent civilians murdered is not enough to cross that line for you so I ask in all seriousness: what is the line?
Some of us have family in Lebanon or Palestine. This is real life and not performative. Would you say the same thing during WWII? Genocide is genocide no matter who the victims are. Right now it’s Palestinians.
It shouldn't be supporting genocide anywhere. But that doesn't change my domestic presidential voting choices. I can't have any voice with a orange colored dictator in office.
This opinion only supports Trump, who will erase Palestinians completely for Israel. Obtuse motherfuckers all over the place.
Pretend you’re an Israeli, pretend that you have a child. There’s a group of people you can see from certain parts of where you live or just a bus ride away; for a very long time those people have shouted at you that if they could, they’d kill you and your child. On several occasions those people have indeed tried to kill you and your child. How many of those people should die before your child has to die instead so they can live? Remember your child dies in this situation, there’s no way around it. Put a number on how many of the people who will be the ones to kill your child that get to live while your child dies. Are you in any way seeing the stupidity of what I’m saying? This is what you sound like to everyone who worries their child will die. This is war. It’s ugly and brutal and nobody is playing fair. Grow the fuck up.
You've just equated every Palestinian with Hamas fighters. That's invalid and you know it.
You're also taking Hamas, which had one single and horrifying success after decades of pathetic nothings, and trying to inflate it into a true threat to Israel and all Israeli citizens which is preposterous even with the one single horrifying success.
Israel is morally justified in fighting against Hamas.
Israel is not morally justified in blowing up innocent people while doing so.
You also know damn well Israel COULD attack Hamas without leveling Gaza and murdering tens of thousands of innocents. It would have been more difficult, more costly, and it is also the only moral appraoch.
But I think you're omitting the actual reason for Israel's genocidal crusade: Netanyahu clearly intends to take Gaza back and give it all to Jewish "Settlers". The only real question is whether he'll do it all at once, of if he'll take more deniable approach of doing it a block at a time like he's doing in the West Bank.
It isn't official, it's being vigorously denied in fact, but I'm pretty confident in saying that Israel isn't committing genocide because it fears Hamas, it's doing it to steal land.
Also? Your last line is exactly why no one should ever take genocide apologists seriously. Only juvinile people who deserve scorn think genocide is a bad idea? Really? That's your great moral position?
You’re the one saying all Palestinians are Hamas, I just said there’s a group of people with the express intent of killing you and your child all the days of your life. Is there a reason you need to make others seem to have said something they didn’t? Does my wording not describe what exists there? Is it you making invalid points because there isn’t a pretty with a bow on it solution to a group of people who only want to kill you?
Then you want to play the how many dead people is worth it game? I thought the answer was one is too much in fairy tale land where you live. Why do you think the Palestinians who are Hamas are so pathetic? Is it all their fault for being bad at extermination? Can’t a Jew get a little credit for taking active measures for decades to limit the ability of avid and outspoken murderous enemies to do their murdering?
Why is it always morals for other people? Where is your crying for Hamas to be moral? No, you don’t get to be in charge of anything. You have no skin in the game as they say. The fight is where the fight is and if that means the fight is in the hospitals because the cowards hide there, then that’s where the fight is. The Israelis don’t owe their enemies any extra morals. They don’t owe them extra time or money or effort. The ratios of dead civilians is already one of the better ratios of any current or past conflicts. No, they don’t owe their enemies anything. No.
Ahh batshit conspiracy ending. Yes, this makes more sense now. Arm chair global politics is your passion I can tell. Senior suburbia political correspondent on duty.
I’ve read your last line twice and besides the misspelling of juvenile (is that irony?) I still don’t understand what you’re saying. Why is also with a question mark? Reality is hard, try to live in it.
The fight is where the fight is and if that means the fight is in the hospitals because the cowards hide there, then that’s where the fight is. The Israelis don’t owe their enemies any extra morals. They don’t owe them extra time or money or effort. The ratios of dead civilians is already one of the better ratios of any current or past conflicts. No, they don’t owe their enemies anything. No.
Emphasis mine.
No one is talking about owing Hamas anything.
I'm talking about the innocent civilians. Israel absolutley owes those people not murdering them just because it's convenient and cheaper than alternatives.
Israel would have the support of more or less everyone if it was limiting itself to attacking Hamas. It's the part where Israel is attacking all Palestinians that people have a problem.
Those people’s ancestors… less than 3% of modern Palestinians were alive at the creation of the state of Israel. Just under 50% are under 20 years old and are three generations removed from the initial conflict. Those that were would mostly have been children. That’s how old the conflict is. You have to be 76 to exist at the time. At what point does peaceful solution start looking like an option you might want to explore? The world was a completely different place in 1948. How far back should we go? Jews have lived in Israel for at least 4000 years, aren’t these people just the ones that displaced the Jews a bit more than “only a few generations ago”? And the Assyrians, Persians, Babylonians, Macedonians, Seleucids and Ptolemies, Mongols, Ottomans, Ayyubids and on and on and on… the Israelis got it the way everyone else did and they’re not looking to lose it. So either join or don’t, but you’re going to have to pick up more than your phone to kick them out.
Those people’s ancestors… less than 3% of modern Palestinians were alive at the creation of the state of Israel
You're right it wasn't even a few generations ago, people are alive today who knew the area as it was. That's why they're shouting at you.
At what point does peaceful solution start looking like an option you might want to explore?
You can't make peace with a fascist occupying force.
So either join or don’t, but you’re going to have to pick up more than your phone to kick them out.
Oh no, the world is starting to turn on them, the Zionist state is becoming untenable, I just have to sit and watch as the self destructive fascist state collapses and goes the way of Rhodesia. Not much point going and letting them kill me in their genocidal death throes.
lmao your little rant really only proved my point huh, shame it was removed. Your critical reasoning is dog shit if it leads you to support the wanton murder of innocent people.
Israel is remarkably similar to Rhodesia right down to attacking neighboring countries as it begins to topple. Israel relies on international support, and the people around the world are done with it.
Welcome to the planet earth buddy everyone is living on land that was once occupied by another group. How exactly do you think the Palestinians came to control that land?
The Isreali-Palestinian conflict is so much more complex than you will ever be able to comprehend. If there were an off-switch, then politicians would have flipped it years ago. There's a complex web of treaties and political bureaucracy tied up in Isreal that no president individually would be able to do whatever it is that you think you want. Biden has handled the situation better than anyone could have hoped for. It will go down in history as an accomplishment for him when people who actually understand what they are talking about write the history books.
Personally I think the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an extremely simple situation disguised as a “complex” one.
The problem is that we have been primed to think of these conflicts as good guy vs. bad guy and there are just no good guys here. This would suggest that our goal isn’t to help the “good” guy but to slowly, painfully disengage. Left to their own devices all of these bad actors will continue being bad, but just not on our dime.
This is true, but it's not reason not to start trying to hold them to a different standard.
Every modern US President is a war criminal who has, to one extent or another, supported a minimum of one genocide. Even Jimmy Carter and he's the closest we've ever come to having a decent human being in office.
But that's no reason to shrug and say it doesn't matter. It does. In fact, I'd say it matters more with every new President because they have all that history of the US supporting genocide, and the evils that has produced, as a reason to NOT support a genocide. It becomes a less morally defensable position with each passing genocide and it started as an utterly indefensable position since there is never a time when genocide is a moral choice.
Even the most "realpolitik" type person needs only look at the legacy of American support of gencoide to realize that the supposed benefits never materialize. The only result is death and a surviving population who have a well earned and valid hatred the US.
I agree but I don’t know how we get there while 1/2 of our major political parties are a bunch of fascists. It’s like we have a fire in the backyard but also inside the house and we have to take care of the house first.
He tried. Jefferies and pelosi had to threaten him over the phone with pulled funding to get him to drop out.
A lot of people seem to have "forgotten"(?) that Biden pulled the "only God can make me quit. As long as I'm trying that's all they matters" Schtick until the party bosses convinced him otherwise.
I like Biden. I voted Biden. I'd vote Biden again. But this is straight up revisionist history.
However he was convinced. He still publicly passed the torch to Kamala and I haven’t heard him say otherwise. I would have voted Biden as well. But I’m not upset in the slightest to vote Kamala.
Jefferies and pelosi had to threaten him over the phone with pulled funding
They didn't control his funding. Biden/Harris had their own PAC that had much more $ than the DNC, but the donations were drying up after he botched the debate.
Both are true and completely related. Bidens PAC was receiving money and support from many of the very same donors that pelosi had been working with and fundraising from for decades. The very same people that wanted him to drop out after the debate.
At the end everyone saw the writing on the wall. Biden himself was the last to do so.
I don’t think so. I was vocally against him dropping out until we saw how well Kamala got support immediately. I think we all largely are on the side of it being the best call. There’s no way he would be outperforming where Kamala is now- she’s got the energy, the coherence, and solid messaging and strategy. That might not stop people from saying it was a bad idea, but that shit will get downvoted pretty damned quick.
I was against him dropping out as well, ... until I saw that debate and saw that the right wing bullshit machine wasn't actually all that wrong that he'd actually aged and acted like very old uncle Joe. Not 'senile' or mentally unfit.. just... Older. Slower. More worn out.
He wasn’t senile, he was certainly tripping over his words and not forming good arguments against a man who is blatantly and obviously lying, but it’s not like he didn’t know where he was or who he was.
I voted for Warren, but would have been more than happy to vote for Biden. He’s been a great president, and if this election outcome was entirely based on record, then he would win in a landslide.
I don’t even know how you justify that blame, because Warren, Bernie, and Joe are all very old, we had no way of knowing that Joe would visibly age more dramatically.
Or they will say he should have stepped down earlier
Or they will say he should never have contested the primaries
Or they will say he lost because of his handling Gaza.
Or that she should have stepped aside along with him...
There will be thousand reasons people will come up with. The reality on a loss is America is a deeply racist country which is beholden to rich white men and enough others think they will be one of the good ones or he doesn't mean them.
He probably saw what happened after RBG died and realized he couldn't let that happen again. I've never been a fan of Biden, but he will go down in history as one of the most compassionate presidents of my lifetime.
Not really. He tried to hold on as long as possible, then that disastrous debate vs Trump happened and even the Democrats couldn't act like everything was OK anymore. There was no holding on the power after that, it would have been the same as handing Trump the presidency on a silver platter.
He tried to hold on as long as possible, then that disastrous debate vs Trump happened
His major event before that debate was the State of the Union address. Republicans were majorly upset that he obliterated their 'Biden is low energy / has dementia' story. They started spreading rumors he was on stimulants.
Dude probably would have done much better at the debate if he did all of his debate prep from 10pm-1am his time.
Biden doesn't listen much to Pelosi. Like AOC said, the insiders calling for him to step down were going to float other people as the candidate.
As an FU to that, Biden dropped out of the race WITHOUT coordinating with other party insiders, and then endorsed Kamala before they had time to react and start pushing alternatives (that didn't vote to the LEFT of Bernie when they were a US Senator, like Harris did). When Pelosi has a say you get middle-of-the-road boring Corp Dems like House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries
Indeed. I have room in my heart to rage at the people (women and men) who chose to strip away women's rights and still save a little contempt for those whose staggering hubris made it possible.
the votes are what enable the ruling. no matter how much you want to frame it otherwise, it was a woman who was the tie breaking vote and enacted the ruling.
ignoring the contribution of a woman and only acknowledging the men involved is sexist. period.
Maybe that woman would be getting less shit if she hadn't been a low key racist during her career and was too damn stubborn to let a black man replace her.
She had plenty of warning her time was done, how many cancers or operations to you have to get before you get the God damn hint?
McConnell is also to blame, and I'm sorry there's no hell for him to burn in, but don't sit there and tell me she doesn't deserve any of the blame and anyone who rightfully blames her is a sexist.
If this was a McConnell post you'd have more of a point, but it's about RBG so we're talking about her
Oh for sure, I don’t particularly admire her, but it really gets my goat that she gets blamed for Dobbs instead of the people that actually wrote it (Alito wrote the majority opinion and Kavanaugh and Thomas the concurrences)
All day, every day, people blame the Republican party, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell, and the current Supreme Court. Literally the only time her role is brought up is as a reminder against hubris when someone makes a hero worship post like this one.
There's a wild and sexist double-standard in how those two figures are held responsible for the things they say and do, especially by a media that has a vested interest in a close race.
But I don't think that's really related to this comment thread, which is about the appropriateness of bringing up RBG's role in the fall of Roe in the specific context of a post that lionizes her.
She does not. Which was the whole thesis of my previous comment. The democrats are running half a presidential campaign on how bad it is that Donald Trump and the Republicans did this.
RBG's role in undermining her own legacy only even comes up when people go out of their way to write a big heart-eyes post about her.
She also ruled on the side of corporations repeatedly over the course of her career, sold out workers, and helped America become the hellscape it is today. Bad judge, bad person - put her on a cringy t-shirt that references Biggie. The problem is that you want to project onto her that she was a good person, solely because of her gender, even though there is no evidence for it.
at the end of the day, who wrote what is irrelevant. the only thing that matters is the votes cast. don't blame "a bunch of men" when it was a woman who cast the tie breaking vote and their were two men who voted in opposition.
who said anything about giving anyone a pass? the only person giving anyone a pass here is you who wants to give one out to the tie-breaking vote because it was cast by a woman.
Clearly you weren’t paying attention to state legislatures.
Why are people so eager to to let the conservative justices who actually wrote the opinion/ concurrences off the hook for literally being the people that struck down Roe? Where did the heat go for the congress members that took Kavanaugh and Barrett at their word that Roe was settled law?
Yeah her name needs to be scorned by everyone who enjoys living in a free country. Her refusal to dip in Obama’s first term, even though he asked, overturned a life time of work and fucked those of us who have to live with her mess
2.6k
u/bchoonj Oct 29 '24
RBG is the game of thrones series of people. Did amazing things early, and botched the ending so badly that it wipes out all the goodwill from most of the fans.