For those claiming "we wouldn't be in this mess if RBG had retired under Obama," consider this:

[StarfishSaver]

There have been several comments around here castigating Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg for not the retiring while Obama was president and thereby, according to them, being responsible for the current state of the court and the nation. "If she had stepped down, we wouldn't have this mess" ...

But targeting the blame at RBG misses an important point. She didn't have years and years in which to retire. The window for retirement that would have had the results her detractors claim that her retirement would have created was very narrow - less than 2 years between late 2012 and mid-2014.

Yes, had RBG retired between November 2012 and late spring/early summer of 2014, it is possible that Obama could have selected and had confirmed a liberal justice before the Republicans took over the Senate. Any nomination after that time would have been blocked by Senate Republicans, through filibuster, majority vote or inaction.

While it's easy to look back in hindsight and criticize RBG for not deciding to leave her seat nearly 10 years ago, that position fails to consider the actual circumstances at the time. In 2012, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a 79-year-old justice in good health (her previous cancer had been successfully treated and she'd been in remission for years and she was strong as an ox) and at the top of her judicial and intellectual game. There was no reason to believe in 2012 and 2013 that death or incapacity was imminent - and, in fact that proved to be true since she lived and remained active for another 8 years..

So, It wasn't the least bit unreasonable for RBG to decide in 2012 to remain on the court.

When the Republicans took over the Senate in 2014, there was no longer a question of whether RBG should step down. It would have been crazy for her to do so and put the fate of her potential successor in the hands of the Republican Senate. At that point there was nothing for her to do but try to stick it out.

In other words any control RBG may have had over any of this only existed between late 2012 and mid-2014. And her decision not to step down was a perfectly reasonable one at the time. After that it was out of her hands.

At that point, the responsibility for preventing judicial disaster has shifted to Democratic voters, who knew good and well that the 2014 and 2016 elections would decide the makeup of the Supreme Court for generations. And yet too many Democrats ignored the importance of the Supreme Court and allowed the Senate to flip to Republican control in 2014, and then refused to vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, thereby allowing Trump and a Republican Senate to shape the Supreme Court. The fact that Trump and McConnell were able to force Amy Coney Barrett onto the court is on the voters' heads, not on RBGs, since they had the ability and the power to ensure that didn't happen.

So if blame is to be assigned (which is useful only as an educational and motivational tool to help people do better moving forward to remedy the situation since blame for blame sake is a waste of time), please focus blame on the people who could have prevented this from happening and lay off of the late, great Ruth Bader Ginsburg who to her last breath gave us everything she had.

[Elessar Zappa]

1. I place zero blame on RBG.

Anyone blaming her for our current situation really needs to rethink things. She’s a giant and will forever rest in power.

[Hoyt]

2. Certainly don't blame RBG. Lucky we had her. Those who helped elect trump deserve the blame.

[Alpeduez21]

3. Fuck that RBG shit

we wouldn't be in this fucking mess if higher than mighty letting perfection be the enemy of good enough protest voters had actually voted for the front running democratic candidate in EVERY election of the past 25 years. This is a war. For those who don't like it, tough shit. America will become a republican fascist country damn quick if all you want to do is write strongly worded letters and keep hoping repukes will see reason.

[wyn borkins]

4. Understood...

Well written - and thank you (and RBG).

[niyad]

5. Thank you! And thank RBG.

[Rollo]

6. While I don't blame RBG for not retiring before 2014...

... at the same time, even with a Republican majority Senate, Obama could have appointed a moderate like John Roberts to the court and secured Senate approval for that. Certainly it could have prevented at least one of Trump's far-right appointees.

That said, neither Obama nor Ginsburg had crystal balls to predict the future. I think a big part of the SCOTUS shift to the right was Biden's decision to wait out the 2016 election, which he quite probably would have won, and prevented the Trump disaster. Then there was Bitch McConnell's refusal to consider replacing RBG until Trump's coronation.

So, rather than focus on what went wrong before Trump, I think we need to focus on preventing another Trump-style presidency, secure a bigger Dem majority in Congress, and work on electing the best candidate for the White House in 2024. If the Trump presidency taught us anything, it is that united we win, divided we fall. America cannot afford another Trump-McConnell charade.

[StarfishSaver]

9. "even with a Republican majority Senate, Obama could have appointed a moderate like John Roberts"

First of all, John Roberts isn't a "moderate" or anything close to it .

Second, President Obama DID appoint a moderate (to the consternation of many progressives), whom he was promised by Republicans would be easily confirmed, but who never even got a hearing.

[MyOwnPeace]

40. And THAT, Starfish, is facing TRUTH!

With Moscow Mitch McTurtle as Majority Leader, HE ruled who got what - when. PRESIDENT OBAMA could have nominated ANYBODY - but if he/she wasn't approved by the Federalist Society - he/she was DEAD ON ARRIVAL - and Moscow Mitch would have issued the death certificate (NO hearings - NO scheduled vote).

There IS NO COMPROMISE with these cretins - we must save our democracy by killing the beast!

[brush]

10. Not retiring is overated. If you're ok financially and it doesn't negatively...

affect other, do it. I retired at 66 and have never looked back. I did my part for forty six year and was ready to let others take over responsibilities and the stress.

Now my time is my own for the first time since starting elementary school. I repeat, since elementary school.

What a liberating feeling. And I do what I want to when I want to. No getting to the office on time, no boss, no irritating co-worker (there's always at least one in any office) no slacking underlings.

I was done with it and never regretted it for a minute.

[irisblue]

21. Rollo, why are you describing the man who gutted the Voting Rights Act as a moderate?

[sheshe2]

7. Thank you.

[LakeArenal]

8. RBG almost made it. If Repukes had followed their own rule, Biden would have replaced her.

She nor Obama created this court system.

[Mad_Machine76]

67. That really sucks

Had she lasted 2-3 more months, Trump wouldn't have had time to get Barrett confirmed, although there would have been a slight delay in confirming a Biden nominee while waiting on the outcome of the Georgia runoff (which might have boosted turnout on the Republican side)

[Dream Girl]

11. You are correct about people sitting out 2016. RBG wanted the Hillary, the first female president

To appoint her replacement. She did not want Obama to appoint her replacement because his appointment wouldn’t be progressive enough. ( Kind of a luxury in retrospect). As we know, that didn’t work out like she’d hope. I would not call a frail, 79 year old women with multiple bouts of pancreatic cancer “strong as an ox” despite the exercise videos of her working out with her trainer.

[StarfishSaver]

13. RBG in 2012 was not frail, she was extremely strong and

She had not gone through multiple bouts with pancreatic cancer.

Of course, "strong as an ox is an idiom" not intended to be taken literally, since there are probably few human beings on Earth who are actually as strong as oxes. But as people go, RBG was in considerably better shape than most people her age (or even younger) in 2012.

[Drunken Irishman]

12. RBG shoulders some of the blame.

Absolutely. And refusing to admit this only guarantees it'll happen again - maybe now with Breyer.

The facts are clear, and something you spell out in your own post.

She turned 80 less than two months into Obama's second term. 80 is not young - especially for someone who had already battled colon cancer in 1999 and pancreatic cancer in 2009 - roughly four years earlier.

Beyond this, it was just pure hubris to risk that seat knowing two things:

1. The sitting president's party almost always loses senate seats in the midterm of their second term. It happened to Bush (lost 6 and the majority), it happened to Reagan (lost 8 and the majority), it happened to Ford, who was completing Nixon's second term (lost 4) and it happened to LBJ, who while technically was in his first full term, was in year six of the JFK/LBJ presidency (lost 4). The only time the sitting party did not lose seats during a second term midyear was 1998, and that was during the whole impeachment backlash. Even then, the best the Democrats could do was not lose seats. They gained none and still were the minority party.

In 2014, the Democrats had a very unfavorable senate landscape and a pretty marginal majority - it should have been clear to RBG that if she didn't step down then, she would lose a favorable senate makeup for her replacement.

2. It's extremely rare now that one party wins three consecutive elections. It's even more rare that the Democrats do it. The last time the Democrats held the White House for more than eight years in a row was back during FDR-Truman. And the GOP has only done it once since FDR's first term: Reagan-Bush.

Republicans held the White House for eight years under Eisenhower and then promptly lost it to Kennedy and the Democrats, who held it for eight years themselves. The Republicans once again won the White House under Nixon and held it for eight years. After eight years, as it was twice before, the other party won it back, this time with Carter. He only held it for four years before Reagan won it. Reagan then won reelection and his vice president won an election of his own, giving the Republicans control for twelve years. But Bush lost it to the Democrats in 1992, as Clinton won it and then won reelection to keep the White House for eight years. Bush then won it for the Republicans, held onto it for eight years and the party lost it to Obama, who then won reelection.

From 1952 to 2012, the frame of reference we're using here, only once did a party serve more than eight years. On that alone, RBG should have known in 2013 and 2014 that there was a historical precedent that indicated the Democrats had an uphill battle to win in 2016. Of course, this was even before Trump was a thing, a candidate no one thought could win. Knowing that, along with the fact the midterms were likely going to result in the Democrats losing seats based on history, she should have stepped down, especially with her being in her 80s and especially when you consider her past cancer scares. Her refusal to, though, was purely selfish on her part and we're now paying for it.

Continuing to condone her actions just gives justification for it to happen again with Breyer. And he should step down too now.

[StarfishSaver]

14. Continuing to ignore the substantial role Democratic voters played in shaping the current SCt

while unfairly and ahistorically overemphasizing RBGs culpability is far more likely to lead to future disaster than putting RBGs decision in appropriate context.

[Drunken Irishman]

22. Democratic voters DID deliver RBG an out in 2012 by reelecting Obama & keeping control of Senate

We showed up and did our part in that election. She took those results, shrugged, and decided to selfishly hold out another four years. That's on her - not the Democratic voters.

The fact, at 80 years old, and having fought two cancer battles, she dismissed a Democratic president being reelected, and the Democrats holding onto the senate, makes me even wonder if she had intent to ever retire or just die on the bench.

[COL Mustard]

26. Drunk, I Know What You're Saying

And I wish she’d have retired then, but she didn’t. And we are where we are.

I hope Justice Breyer is well, but I also hope he’ll retire before the midterms. At least give Biden a chance to appoint someone.

[Drunken Irishman]

89. I hope Breyer doesn't take to heart some of the arguments used her to defend RBG.

We should call out that prove solely because we do have an opportunity to fill a seat now.

But there is no guarantee Biden wins reelection - or even has a Democratic majority in the senate for the final two years of his first term. I really hope Breyer saw the damage RBG's staying on the court has caused and uses that as guidance to step down.

[StarfishSaver]

29. Oh, please.

But let's go with that.

Let's assume what happened happened - that RBG did not retire in 2012.

Then what? Democratic voters had no further responsibility to protect the courts? Knowing that RBG was still on the court but could die at any moment (actually, EVERY justice COULD die at any moment, but that's a different discussion), why didn't the voters do everything they could in 2014 to ensure that if she DID die, she'd be replaced by a Democratic president and Senate?

And once they failed to do that in 2014 and allowed the Senate to fall into Republican hands, why didn't they THEN step up and do everything they could in 2016 to ensure that a Democratic president was elected and the Senate returned to the Democrats in 2016?

Are you saying that once RBG did not step down in 2013 or 2014, everyone else in the country was absolutely powerless and they had absolutely no responsibility to step up and when they didn't step up and the Courts shifted drastically to the right, it's ALL on RBG because of what she didn't do in 2012?

That kind of responsibility shifting may satisfy you and some other people around here, but that's not how this works. It's not the responsibility of one individual Supreme Court Justice to protect the Court from the voters' laziness and bad decisions. If people were so worried about the impact that RBG's continued presence on the Court would have on our futures, they should have stepped up and taken action to ensure that she would be replaced by Democrats. They didn't do that and now some people are trying to blame her for the fact that too many Democrats cared more about their own hurt feelings and pet causes than the courts and the country. We weren't let down by RBG - it was our own fellow Democrats who dropped the ball.

[pnwmom]

59. The difference is that Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a singular power that wasn't available

to the rest of us. If she had retired as soon as she safely could, as soon as Obama was elected, then he would have been able to replace her. And she KNEW that just a few years earlier, in 2009, she'd had a form of cancer with a low life expectancy.

Yes, all Democrats collectively could have somehow worked to keep the Senate majority, but none of us had the individual power that she did.

"The five-year survival rate for all stages of pancreatic cancer is 9 percent." That means for all patients diagnosed in 2009, as she was, there was a 9% chance of surviving till 2014.

https://www.healthline.com/health/pancreatic-cancer#life-expectancy

And yet she decided to take her chances. And now here we are, with the TX decision decided by a 5-4 vote.

[StarfishSaver]

62. Seriously?

That singular power was in deciding whether to retire. But Democratic voters had even greater power - the collective power to decide who would select her replacement whenever she retired or died. And too many of us used that power to allow Republicans to make the selection.

This is NOT RBG's fault. I really can't believe you're making such an argument.

[pnwmom]

66. None of us AS INDIVIDUALS had the power to influence the composition of the SCOTUS

that she did, as an individual.

All of us voting Democrats would have had to get millions of others to vote for Democrats, and many of us did everything we could and failed anyway.

But all SHE had to do was retire, at the age of 79, just 3 years past a pancreatic cancer diagnosis.

Who, individually, had the power that she did to change the composition of the court in 2012? No one. Not one of us.

[StarfishSaver]

71. Maybe we should start calling on Sotomayor to retire now, too

After all, she's in her late 60s and it's possible that in eight or nine years when she's in her 70s, she'll get sick and die when a Republican president and Republican Senate are in office (given the rate the voter suppression bills are being passed around the country, that's not a crazy idea) and then we'll be screwed. But if she retires now, she'll be able to use her individual power to make sure that she's replaced now by a liberal justice. And then the voters won't have to bother trying to muster up their collective power to protect the courts by electing Democrats to the White House and Senate.

[pnwmom]

75. Ginsburg's pancreatic cancer made her health much more precarious, and she was 10 years older.

But if Sotomayor knows something about her health that we don't, then she should retire. So should anyone else who is given less than a year to live, which would have been the case for Ginsburg in 2009. (The fact that she was still alive in 2012 didn't prove she wasn't still at risk. She hadn't even passed the 5 year mark at that point, at which there was still a very low chance of survival.)

Are you saying you don't think Justice Breyer should retire? He should just hang tough, like Justice Ginsburg did?

[Celerity]

76. I agree with your pushback replies on this subject nt

[XanaDUer2]

78. This nt

[Drunken Irishman]

93. You are 100% right!

RBG made the decision. Just because she made the decision, and it's completely within her right, does not mean she is above reproach on this. How many times do people attack Feinstein's age and the fact she now theoretically could die any moment, and potentially have someone like Larry Elder replace her temporarily (therefore giving the majority of the senate back tot he GOP)?

People seem to believe the Supreme Court is untouched by politics but that's just a naive way of thinking. It's clear Souter, in 2009, wanted a Democrat to choose his replacement on the court, and so he retired despite the fact he was actually younger than RBG. A guy like Stevens likely held on through the second Bush presidency hoping that he could step down under a Democrat.

Kennedy clearly waited Obama out to step down.

These justices play politics all the time - especially now in today's environment. The fact some in this thread point to RBG's hope of being replaced by the first female (Democratic) president shows that even they concede there was some politics in RBG's decision to remain on the court.

But at the end of the day, she was an 80 year old woman, who had twice beaten cancer, and it was pure hubris to risk it like she did.

[Drunken Irishman]

88. Oh please.

2013 was the perfect time for her to retire - just as 2009 was the perfect time for David Souter (who was younger than RBG at the time of his retirement) and John Paul Stevens (who would go on to live another nine years).

The difference is that they weren't selfish. They know the politics of the court and the possibility that Obama could be a one-term president and that if they waited any longer, there was no guarantee their seat would be filled by a Democrat.

[StarfishSaver]

92. But she didn't retire in 2013

So then what? Everyone just sits on their hands and does nothing because, you know, it's all her fault and no one else had the power to do anything?

But people DID have the power to do something and of they'd done it, RBG not retiring in 2013 would have been a moot point. Had too many Democrats not stayed at home to teach Obama a lesson in 2014 and, instead, kept or even increased their majority in the Senate, RBG may have decided to retire between 2014 and 2016. And even if she decides to stay on past 2016, has Democrats not stayed home or voted third party because Hillary was no different than a Republican or she was a corporatist or there was just something about her they didn't like, had RBG died before the next presidential election, Hillary Clinton would have appointed her successor and no one would be complaining that she stayed too long.

Pretending that this is all on RBG and there was nothing a home could have done once she decided not to step down on 2013 is counter-factual at best and, at worst, is a disgusting smear of one of a woman who has did more for this country and the people in it than anyone who has the nerve to blame her for results caused by other people's malfeasance.

And given the nature of the criticism I've been seeing, as well as some other clues I've noted but won't mention, I suspect much of this is about more than just an honest misreading of history and circumstances.

[Drunken Irishman]

94. Never said it was all her fault.

The post I replied to basically said she was blameless in all this. I disagree. I think she shoulders some of the blame for the situation we're in (which is exactly what I said in the title of my first post to this thread - not all, some) and again, excusing it or dismissing it only justifies Breyer deciding to stay on the Supreme Court for who knows how long and then maybe dying too during a Republican presidency.

I want him to retire too and not repeat RBG's mistakes - and let it be known: the move to not retire was a mistake.

[pnwmom]

95. WE did what we could, but SHE didn't do what she could.

We Democratic voters couldn't force all the far left and centrist and apathetic to vote for a Democratic Senate.

But SHE had it in her power to make sure Obama could replace her with someone younger and healthier and more liberal than any Republican nominee.

So, yes, I'm mad at any Democrat or progressive who didn't help seat a Democratic Senate in 2014. But I'm also mad at RBG, who had infinitely more power than any single voter. She destroyed her legacy by remaining too long, convinced that no one Obama would nominate would be better than she. (She even said that.)

And what about Justice Breyer? Do you think he also should just hang on as long as he can? He's healthier than she was and only 2 years older.

From July. 2014:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-ginsburg/u-s-justice-ginsburg-hits-back-at-liberals-who-want-her-to-retire-idUSKBN0G12V020140801

Referring to the political polarization in Washington and the unlikelihood that another liberal in her mold could be confirmed by the Senate, Ginsburg, the senior liberal on the nine-member bench, asked rhetorically, “So tell me who the president could have nominated this spring that you would rather see on the court than me?”

SNIP

Among those liberals who have called for Ginsburg to step down is Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Irvine, law school. He had asserted that only if she resigned this summer, before the November elections, could she ensure that Obama would be able to choose a successor who shares her views.

Ginsburg said on Thursday that even if she had retired, the president would have been more likely to have chosen a compromise candidate than a liberal.

Some liberals are further concerned that if she does not retire during Obama’s presidency and a Republican is elected as his successor in 2016, Ginsburg would end up being replaced by a conservative justice, moving the court even more to the right.

[NH Ethylene]

16. The Justices are not responsible for ensuring a like-minded replacement.

We all have different factors that play into the timing of our retirement. Why should the Supreme Court Justices have to ignore their own timetable in service of the country? Why should the weight of the nation's future be placed on their shoulders? It shouldn't. It's abhorrent for people to try and shame these people into doing their bidding.

The political climate that ushers in a new justice is the responsibility of the voters.

[StarfishSaver]

20. Thank you SO much for this!

You are dead on!

[COL Mustard]

37. But If I Chose To Stay In My Job

Until I was 120 years old, it wouldn’t make any difference. A Supreme Court Justice is an entirely different matter.

[Drunken Irishman]

24. It's abhorrent for these people, whose choices impact an entire nation...

...to be so flippant about their own health. They're not a fucking crossing guard who can retire whenever and be replaced by someone with zero experience moving kids across a busy road. They are, in many ways, the most important individuals in our government and shape laws that impact the entire country.

Their decisions do not just impact them! They impact you, me and everyone else. The fact they're willing to stay on the court, knowing their death may be the death knell in something they truly believe in, tells me that issue isn't all that important to them in the first place.

RBG refused to step down. That's her right. It doesn't mean her choice was a smart one or above reproach. She took the selfish way out and we're all left paying for it now. That is a fact.

[StarfishSaver]

31. Your point might make sense if RBG not retiring was the final nail in the coffin. But it wasn't

As I noted earlier, there were plenty of things that could have been done along the way to prevent the mess we're in now. Pretending that RBG's decision not to retire in 2012 or 2013 cemented the deal and there was nothing more that could have been done by anyone else is counter-factual.

[Drunken Irishman]

90. When it comes to Roe? Absolutely it is.

Roberts sided with the liberal justices - but it's not enough. That's the problem. The Supreme Court went from having Roberts be the deciding vote on things to now his vote not really mattering.

Had we had this makeup in 2012, the ACA does not survive. That's the makeup of the Supreme Court we are seeing today. It was right of center before RBG's death - now it's extreme right of center where we can't even count on Roberts saving things because of how far to the right it's drifted. RBG being replaced by a liberal justice wouldn't have saved everything but it would have put the court in an infinitely better position than it is right now - especially with two conservative justices (Thomas and Alito) from the right already over the age of 70.

Now, even if say Thomas dies tomorrow, and the Democrats fill his seat, we'd still be in the position we were in pre-RBG's death. Not ideal.

But had she retired in 2013, and was replaced and something happens between now and 2023, it's Biden who is remaking the court and not Trump.

The fact is, RBG's holding on directly lead to Trump filling her replacement. That is a fact. She opted to risk it. That's on her. She knew the risk she was taking by staying on despite her battling cancer twice and she took it. Does she deserve all the blame? No. But she knew what to expect if the Democrats lost the Senate in 2014 and the White House in 2016 and she obviously felt that was not an issue for her. Her legacy is always going to include the fact she was replaced by Amy Coney Barrett - just as Thurgood Marshall's legacy includes the fact he was replaced by Thomas.

[NH Ethylene]

36. She did her utmost to keep serving, even as she was dying! And you call her selfish.

It's sickening and sad that you and others would tarnish the image of a great woman, just so you can lay the blame at someone's feet.

There are a lot of people whose collective actions led to what is happening today. Perhaps the vehemence on this topic is a way for those people to assuage their own guilt.

[StarfishSaver]

41. So true!

[Doremus]

80. Pancreatic cancer has a 9% 5-yr survival rate.

She had to know she was on borrowed time. What does that say about her? I know what my opinion is.

[Drunken Irishman]

91. Agreed. And that was on top of her fighting colon cancer a decade before.

So, clearly, there was a history of cancer in that area of the body. And while she fought a valiant fight, what killed her? Complications of metastatic pancreatic cancer.

Hell, Souter retired in 2009 and he was younger than RBG! But he decided he wanted a Democratic president to appoint his replacement. RBG wasn't as inclined.

[left-of-center2012]

15. I have not seen those criticisms on here

Are you referring to something posted recently?

[gab13by13]

17. I haven't seen any either.

[StarfishSaver]

19. It's a frequent refrain

Here's a recent example from today.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100215823446

On edit - read some of the posts in this thread. That flag is flying wildly right here, right now ...

[Mad_Machine76]

69. I also see it said aloud frequently by progressives/leftists (outside of DU)

and they're not fans of her general, presumably because she made some decisions they didn't agree with and thus wasn't "pure" enough for them.

[StarfishSaver]

65. I assume your question has been answered ...

[littlemissmartypants]

18. You're so right, StarfishSaver!

No one wins the blame game.

Thanks so much for standing strong with and for our supreme hero. She really did give us all she had.

[bronxiteforever]

23. Blame is useless and pointless.

What we do know is that many things she and us believed in are going to be put to the torch by this Court.

[iwannaknow]

25. In my view she undoubtedly believed her health would hold up long enough.

And it almost did. She should not be blamed.

[StarfishSaver]

35. True - she might also have had greater faith in Democratic voters than many deserved.

[JanMichael]

42. Gambled and lost. Bummer right? Tell that to women Texas. Nt

[StarfishSaver]

47. Her "gamble" didn't pay off because Democratic voters didn't do their part

So what should those Democratic voters who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary in 2016 and felt the need to "hold Obama's feet to the fire" by not voting in the 2010 and 2014 mid-terms tell those women - and how should they explain that they care enough about them to make sure that RBG's "gamble" actually did pay off?

[JanMichael]

49. Always someone else's fault I guess. Nader or Sarandon etc.

Maybe so but doesn't exclude a gamble made and lost.

Why is it so hard for people to not acknowledge faults in their heroes?

[StarfishSaver]

52. There's a difference between "acknowledging the fault of our heroes" and claiming that RBG "caused

this mess"- and refusing to even admit that voters bear any responsibility for the situation their choices put us in.

The bottom line is that once RBG made the decision not to retire, had voters elected a Democratic Senate and a Democratic president - something fully within their power to do - we would not have a problem. Which is proof positive that RBG didn't "cause" this.

[JanMichael]

58. I never said she caused the mess, Just a gamble and a BIG loss.

She's a big part of it. Her gamble combined with the other issues is the reason we are in the situation we are. Sarandon et al idiot posturing has little weight compared to RBGs gamble.

Her gamble had consequences. Ie replaced by a fucking Trump appointed radical right winger.

There are different levels of playing chips in this game.

Honestly I expect intelligent people to make better decisions.

Most people if they stay in their job a little longer than they should it really doesn't matter in the big picture. People may get annoyed with them but the result is not a fascist country.

Please acknowledge that some people have more influence on the World than others.

[StarfishSaver]

60. Her biggest gamble was trusting Democratic voters not to be selfish whiners who didn't give a damn

about the courts as long as they thought other people's rights would be trampled.

As I keep reminding people, yet it seems to be falling on deaf ears - even if it's believed that RBG made the wrong choice in 2012-2013, that didn't absolve us from our own responsibility to make sure that her decision didn't result in long-term damage to the courts. Voters had ample opportunity to elect Democratic president and Democratic Senate and had they done so, RBG's decision wouldn't have mattered one way or another - in fact, she would have been hailed as a badass hero for staying the course for so long. But they didn't. And now people are blaming HER because other people didn't do what they should have done.

I certainly recognize that some people have more influence on the world than others. In particular, millions of Democratic voters had considerably more influence on who would replace RBG on the Court than she did - and if they had exercised that influence, it wouldn't have mattered what she did or when she retired. THAT's power. Unfortunately, too many people on our side decided instead to use that influence to allow Republicans to control the process.

[JanMichael]

70. The only person that could control replacing RPG is RBG quitting.

Voters are important but couldn't make her quit.

Saying that they had more power to choose her replacement ignores the problem. That wouldn't happen unless she retired.

She had all of the power when it came to her seat on the Supreme Court. She could either retire or she could die in that seat. Lifetime appointments are lifetime appointments if you're alive you're in it if you're dead you're not.

No number of voters in this country could do anything about her replacement unless she was dead or she retired when a decent replacement could have been possible.

Overall we're really in agreement thar voter apathy sucks. I also think gambling the future of the SC on the turnout or reliability of democratic voters is a gamble which I was right.

[StarfishSaver]

73. Voters "couldn't make her quit," but they surely could have ensured that her replacement was

chosen by a Democratic president and confirmed by a Democratic Senate.

[sciencescience]

27. she could have easily prevented it, by stepping down

She herself could have prevented it. She shoulders a lot of the blame AND the voters could have prevented it.
Breyer can prevent another disaster right now. He will shoulder a lot of the blame AND the voters too.

[ismnotwasm]

28. No, she couldn't.

[pnwmom]

54. Yes, she could have. She'd had pancreatic cancer, an extremely serious cancer, in 2009.

And that was her second bout of cancer, following treatment for colon cancer.

Once Obama was elected in 2012, she should have quickly stepped down, at the age of 79.

Instead, she decided to take a chance that she'd live another four years, despite her medical history. And that's on her.

[StarfishSaver]

57. She took a chance. And then the VOTERS took a chance - several, in fact - long after she did

They were also aware of her medical history, and they were warned REPEATEDLY in 2014 and 2016 that the courts were on the ballot. And too many of them didn't care.

That's on them.

[pnwmom]

61. But millions of voters only had a tiny percent of a chance to influence the outcome of the elections

And, yes, we can blame those who didn't vote for the Democrats.

But she was a Democrat, and she had more power than all of us to make sure a Democrat replaced her . . . and she decided not to use it.

[StarfishSaver]

64. She didn't use that power you claim she had in 2012

But then Democrats had more power than she did to make sure a Democrat replaced her - since after 2014, she no longer had that power - it was all up to the voters - and the voters failed to use their power. This is not all or even mostly on her.

[pnwmom]

74. Are you claiming there's a doubt she had that power between 2012 and 2014?

Of course she had that power.

She had more power than all the rest of us put together between 2012 and 2014. Obama would have been able to appoint her replacement. Period.

And it's not like she didn't know how precarious her situation was. Pancreatic cancer back then had an even grimmer prognosis than it does today. My grandfather had had pancreatic cancer, so I was very aware of her precarious health, relieved when Obama was elected, and fully expected that she'd retire quickly. So I don't know how anyone can think SHE wasn't aware of how serious her situation was.

Is there are reason you only mentioned one cancer in your OP? Had you forgotten about the second, much more serious cancer? I'm sure she hadn't forgotten.

[StarfishSaver]

51. And then, seeing she hadn't stepped down, Democratic voters could have stepped up to make sure

this was prevented.

In the law, we call that an "intervening cause."

Intervening Cause

An event that occurs after a party's improper or dangerous action and before the damage that could otherwise have been caused by the dangerous act, thereby breaking the chain of causation between the original act and the harm to the injured person, is known as an “intervening cause.”

The presence of an intervening cause can mean that the person who started the chain of events may no longer be considered responsible for damages to the injured person since the original action is no longer the proximate cause.

For example, in the Ohio state case State v. Smith, the defendant punched the victim in the head, and the victim hit head on a nearby car and then the pavement. On being rushed to the hospital for his head injuries, the victim refused to get a CAT scan, but his head injuries persisted. On returning home, he continued to feel sick and confused, and failed to take his insulin. The victim died days after the punch. The court did not, however, find that the victim’s failure to take his insulin was an intervening cause, since the punch caused the victim to fail to take his medicine through the mental injuries. The defendant was thus guilty of homicide.

Think of RBG's failure to retire in 2013 as comparable to punching a person in the head. The person is rushed to the hospital but refuses to go to the hospital, refuses to get a CAT scan, refuses to take their medication and then dies. The proximate cause of the death was not the punch in the head, which could have been treated with the victim suffering no ill effects. But the victim's refusal to take appropriate steps AFTER the punch in the head was the proximate cause of death.

Except, in this case, the victims refused to take the steps necessary to ensure that RBG's continued presence on the Court would not result in damage to the country should she die. Voters could have elected a Democratic Senate, but didn't. And then they had the chance to elect a Democratic president, but didn't do that either.

Democratic voters' failure to take the courts as seriously as Republicans did was the proximate cause of the problems we have now. Had they met their responsibility, RBG's decision not to retire wouldn't have mattered at all.

[yaesu]

30. McTurtle is the only one to blame, he even went on GOPIV & bragged about it. nt

[StarfishSaver]

33. Why blame McConnell for any of this

So much easier to blame Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

[OhioTim]

32. I Blame Breyer Too

He's 83 and won't retire. Lose the senate and it's over.

[StarfishSaver]

34. Blaming him for what?

[ColinC]

38. The window actually was literally any time between January 2009 and January 2015.

It wasn't such a small window.

[StarfishSaver]

43. The window was exactly as I described it.

It made no sense for any justice to retire in the first years of a president's first term.

And why would she have retired after a Republican Senate was elected? Nominations and confirmations take time - at least they did before October of 2020. A successor would never have been appointed and confirmed by a Democratic Senate after the summer of 2014. Don't use the current circumstances to judge how things would have played out in the past - That's revisionism at its worst.

[ColinC]

82. two justices retired the first years of Obama's term.

Are you saying it did not make sense for them to retire? I don't understand your rationale for that. A justice can retire and make sense retiring whenever they want. For RBG, she wanted to do it under a female president. Any other time was the not a time that made sense with her. And I respect that whole heartedly. But to make up any arbitrary window for when it is possible, is a tiny bit strange to me.

[StarfishSaver]

84. If the point of retiring is to let a president appoint a justice of his party, yes, I am saying that

[ColinC]

85. Of course If they didn't do that, we would likely have an 8-1 conservative majority

[11 Bravo]

39. Do you ever post ANYTHING not designed to create internecine turmoil?

Asking for a friend.

[StarfishSaver]

44. Interesting that you believe a thoughtful post explaining why one of our greatest heroes should not

be maligned and blamed for circumstances she didn't cause "creates internecine turmoil."

[11 Bravo]

45. First, look up "internecine".

Then read the replies to your thread.

After that, you're on your own.

[Hekate]

46. Thank you. It's such an old, old trick to place blame on one woman's shoulders...

Almost as old as Eve, when you think on it.

[StarfishSaver]

48. And that "blame the woman" tactic is not limited to Republicans

As we see right here in this thread and elsewhere on the board.

[monkeyman1]

50. put blame where it belongs , these arm chair politicians all of us !

[pnwmom]

53. You have forgotten that she had 2 types of cancer. And the second was in 2009,

and it was pancreatic cancer, and pancreatic cancer has a very grim prognosis.

So many of us were well aware that, at the age of 79 in 2012, she had a short window for retirement, and that the situation was urgent.

I disagree that her decision was reasonable, knowing that she'd had surgery for her second cancer, pancreatic cancer, just a few years earlier. Her mind was strong to the end, but her body was not "strong as an ox."

[StarfishSaver]

56. I haven't forgotten anything

In fact, I noted it in my post.

Her pancreatic cancer was caught at a very early stage when the prognosis was good - and the fact that she lived 11 more years proves that her particular prognosis was not so "grim."

But that's only part of my point. Once she decided not to retire in that very short window, it was time for the voters to step up and ensure that if she did indeed die in one or two or seven or eight, her replacement would be selected and confirmed by a Democratic president and a Democratic Senate. They didn't - apparently, they didn't think the situation was all that "urgent." They bear far more responsibility than RBG does.

[pnwmom]

77. Your post only said she'd had cancer ONCE. She'd had two types of cancer,

colon cancer and pancreatic. And three years from the pancreatic cancer diagnosis, she was not in the clear. In retrospect, we know she lived till 2020, but there was no way for her to know that in 2012, three years after her pancreatic cancer diagnosis. A prudent decision then would have been to retire as soon as Obama was elected.

A prognosis is a prediction, based on statistics, so the fact that she lived that long doesn't prove that her prognosis was wrong. It simply proves that she incredibly beat the odds -- which are STILL very grim for her kind of cancer, even if caught in the earliest stages.

Potentially Curable If Caught Very Early
Despite the overall poor prognosis and the fact that the disease is mostly incurable, pancreatic cancer has the potential to be curable if caught very early. Up to 10 percent of patients who receive an early diagnosis become disease-free after treatment. For patients who are diagnosed before the tumor grows much or spreads, the average pancreatic cancer survival time is 3 to 3.5 years.

Better Prognosis for Resectable Tumors
Patients whose tumors are found before they have metastasized or become locally advanced tend to have longer survival rates, on average, because their tumors can usually be resected (surgically removed).

About 15 to 20 percent of all pancreatic tumors are resectable. These include stage I and stage II tumors. Rarely, locally advanced stage III tumors, which are typically considered unresectable (do not qualify for surgery), are characterized as “borderline” and may be removed if the patient has access to an experienced, highly trained surgeon.

Tumors can still grow back in many patients. So, on average, patients whose tumors were resected live for 2.5 years after their diagnosis and have a five-year survival rate of 20 to 30 percent.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/pancreatic-cancer/pancreatic-cancer-prognosis

[StarfishSaver]

81. I said her previous cancer

That encompasses both.

But since you already knew that she had two types of cancer, what's the problem?

[pnwmom]

86. Previous cancer isn't the same as previous cancerS. She was at higher risk than someone

who'd only had colon cancer, and a reader who didn't know her history could be misled.

This is what you said:

In 2012, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a 79-year-old justice in good health (her previous cancer had been successfully treated and she'd been in remission for years and she was strong as an ox)

This minimizes the risk she was facing in 2012-2014.

[StarfishSaver]

87. Ok. Whatever.

Obviously, you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours. But I'm certainly not going to engage in a lot of picayune arguing back and forth about this.

Think whatever you want...

[admonish]

55. voter suppression also played a role

I'd really like to find out if voters were illegally removed from the rolls during the aforementioned dates and just how many

[Mad_Machine76]

63. I have not been a fan of this RBG bashing

The best thing that we can do moving forward is to keep electing Democrats so that we continue to hold the Senate and WH.

[Snackshack]

68. I don't blame her.

There were articles written when President Obama won about her retiring so he could pick her placement, the topic was being batted around and she was not oblivious to the dangers of her holding on to the chair.

I put the blame squarely where it should be and that is on the GOP and to some extent the Dems. Had preceded and the process of filling a seat on SCOTUS won the day we would not be in this mess. McConnell flagrantly abused his power as Majority Leader to seat Gorsuch and Dems let him do it little more then Collins concern. Kennedy’s retirement out of nowhere and Kavanaugh being seated was astonishing. Barrett is another example of GOP abuse of the system.

[StarfishSaver]

72. I agree with everything you wrote except "Dems let him do it with little more than Collins concern"

There really wasn't anything the Dems could have done from their position in the minority.

The die was cast when we let the Senate flip to the Republicans in 2014.

[crickets]

79. Thank you for being the voice of sanity, StarfishSaver.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg owes none of us any apologies. She served the country admirably, her health issues rarely causing her to miss time on the bench until the very end. She almost made it. She did not create the situation we find ourselves in, and it's hardly her fault that Hillary lost in 2016 or that her death was ill timed.

[StarfishSaver]

83. Apparently, it's all her fault

It's so much easier to blame a dead heroine than hold accountable living Democrats who put their own selfish interests ahead of the country.

And don't get me started on McConnell and the Republicans ...