Scalia and Ginsburg

[Gulo Blue]

This is great. You'd think they'd be sick of each other.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/13/politics/ginsburg-scalia-parasailing-sotu-wine/

"Why don't you call us the odd couple?" Scalia began, in a wide ranging conversation that included what really happened before Ginsburg attended the State of the Union, their thoughts on the Constitution as well as their habit of vacationing with each other. Scalia told a story about how they spent time together in the South of France once and Ginsburg decided to go parasailing.

 

[Michchamp]

he sucks. just another embarassment to us Italian-Americans, along with Joey Buttafuoco, Angelo Mozilo, Rudy Giuliani, Frank Rizzo, any Italian-American "stars" from "reality" TV shows, and much of the state of New Jersey

 

[tinselwolverine]

Scaralia had dinner with the other Supremes, as they traditionally do before the State of the Union address.

It made Ginsberg so happy that she drank a bunch of wine. That's why she was drunk for the State of the Union address.

EDIT:

Oh, it was the first time in a long time he had joined them. I forgot to include that in the anecdote; it made Ruth very happy, and that's why got drunk.

 

[tinselwolverine]

This is great. You'd think they'd be sick of each other.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/13/politics/ginsburg-scalia-parasailing-sotu-wine/

Why shouldn't they like each other? They're have a unique association that almost nobody else in the history of the world has ever had with another person.

They're both smart and passionate about the Constitution.

And neither of them has political opinions.

They may occasionally not agree about what the Constitution - and the overall history of United States jurisprudence - means...but those respectful disagreements aren't political.

Because neither has political opinions; both left them at the door at the entrance to the United States Supreme Court.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Why shouldn't they like each other? They're have a unique association that almost nobody else in the history of the world has ever had with another person.

They're both smart and passionate about the Constitution.

And neither of them has political opinions.

They may occasionally not agree about what the Constitution - and the overall history of United States jurisprudence - means...but those respectful disagreements aren't political.

Because neither has political opinions; both left them at the door at the entrance to the United States Supreme Court.

So you're not going to write the Odd Couple reboot based on them? You could call it a Dharma and Greg reboot if you wanted.

 

[byco42]

Ginsberg supports the evisceration of the unborn on demand. She targets the poor:

“It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people."

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of."

IN CONTEXT: ""Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong," Ginsburg said.

Harris v. McRae upheld the Hyde Amendment.

And her "perception" of abortion is still "altogether wrong."

 

[Michchamp]

Wait, wait, wait... I google a few choice terms, and all I get is a litany of right wing sites (Free Republic, WND, Drudge, etc.) taking a bunch of her comments out of context to claim she's in favor of eugenics.

YEAH RIGHT... that smear has been used so often by right-to-life nutjobs that it should be prima facie evidence the writer is a crank.

 

[byco42]

Wait, wait, wait... I google a few choice terms, and all I get is a litany of right wing sites (Free Republic, WND, Drudge, etc.) taking a bunch of her comments out of context to claim she's in favor of eugenics.

YEAH RIGHT... that smear has been used so often by right-to-life nutjobs that it should be prima facie evidence the writer is a crank.

I never mentioned eugenics. I only quoted her directly. "People we don't want to have to many of."

I'd like to know who "we" is in her mind. And why. And what is "too many." And what "people" she is referring to. Statistics show that there is a disproportionate number of abortions performed on African-American women (36% of all abortions in 2011) in relation to the percentage of the population in the U.S. (12%, including men). 13,000,000 since 1973. Source: CDC

 

[Michchamp]

can you post the link to the direct quote/source?

 

[Gulo Blue]

Wait, wait, wait... I google a few choice terms, and all I get is a litany of right wing sites (Free Republic, WND, Drudge, etc.) taking a bunch of her comments out of context to claim she's in favor of eugenics.

YEAH RIGHT... that smear has been used so often by right-to-life nutjobs that it should be prima facie evidence the writer is a crank.

Really? I wonder which terms you chose. I googled the entire 1st line of that quote and the 1st 3 links are from brainyquote, the New York Times, and Slate.

 

[Gulo Blue]

can you post the link to the direct quote/source?

It looks like it's from this NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=all

 

[byco42]

can you post the link to the direct quote/source?

Post #8 (to the CDC stats)

 

[Michchamp]

Really? I wonder which terms you chose. I googled the entire 1st line of that quote and the 1st 3 links are from brainyquote, the New York Times, and Slate.

Ginsburg + poor + abortion

 

[Michchamp]

It looks like it's from this NYT article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=all

I'm not seeing it there.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The Slate article is the same interviewer from the New York Times interviewing Ginsburg to try to clear up the quote.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...views_on_abortion_population_control_and.html

She claims she was talking about society's fears of overpopulation, not her own, and I don't really see an explanation for the "populations that we don't want" bit, except that it also would fall under the idea that she was describing other people's concerns, not hers. She just says that you have to be out to get Ginsburg if you see her quote in the way people are suggesting. Fine. But if it's such a horrible thought you should just know Ginsburg didn't mean that, it's still not cool that Ginsburgh assumes that's how society feels.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I'm not seeing it there.

ctrl-f
frankly

 

[Michchamp]

ctrl-f
frankly

ah.

the quote is actually bit different: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don?t want to have too many of."

Sounds like Eugenics to me! She's a Nazi... her arguments are invalid.

 

[Michchamp]

Ignoring the context... the prior question, and the entire quote, of course.

The reaction to her statement is proof that intelligent conversation goes over the head of most Republitards.

 

[Gulo Blue]

ah.

the quote is actually bit different: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don?t want to have too many of."

Sounds like Eugenics to me! She's a Nazi... her arguments are invalid.

copy/paste from byco

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don?t want to have too many of."

What am I missing, where's the difference?

 

[Michchamp]

I was going by what he said in post #8. I glossed over the rest of his previous post upon seeing the line about targeting the poor. Ooops.