Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fractures 3 ribs in fall

[stevenash]

56 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

It’s about a 36% raise in salary from what he was making with a lot more financial benefits obviously.   Not saying money was a problem but I think stating they “ruined this man’s life” is a bit of an overstatement.  

Are you saying that the last minute "discovery" and subsequent proceedings were not harmful to him and/or his family?

[TxHoops]

18 minutes ago, Englebert said:

But you also wrote he is a lousy justice. That is something the late, great Scalia would disagree. But I'm sure your opinion is more learned than Scalia's.  (I can't see this emoji, I just copied yours.)

No, on the contrary, Scalia and I would have precisely the same opinion.   Scalia wouldn’t say it publicly of course.  But it wasn’t a big secret either apparently.   Obviously Scalia would have a much more learnéd opinion than me.  We just happened to share this one.  

[TxHoops]

4 minutes ago, stevenash said:

Are you saying that the last minute "discovery" and subsequent proceedings were not harmful to him and/or his family?

Not at all.  Just saying the whole “ruined his life” rhetoric is a bit strong. 

[stevenash]

My guess is that "ruined his life" is a matter of personal interpretation/perspective and very difficult for you/me/etc to quantify.  Probably more easily done by him and his family.  Do you think it impacted/ruined the life of his accuser?  ( You may want to defer judgement on that one until her book is written)

[Tigers2010]

1 hour ago, TxHoops said:

It’s about a 36% raise in salary from what he was making with a lot more financial benefits obviously.   Not saying money was a problem but I think stating they “ruined this man’s life” is a bit of an overstatement.  

I don't. He was very publicly displayed as a "gang rapists", among other things. His children get to hear that, and live it. His wife gets the flack and the brunt as well. I'm usually with you, but to downplay this in the slightest is naive. Some around the country will forget it, but I bet his wife and kids and parents won't.

[PhatMack19]

16 minutes ago, stevenash said:

My guess is that "ruined his life" is a matter of personal interpretation/perspective and very difficult for you/me/etc to quantify.  Probably more easily done by him and his family.  Do you think it impacted/ruined the life of his accuser?  ( You may want to defer judgement on that one until her book is written)

Just look at Trumps two appointments.  Gorsuch can go out to dinner with his family and most people wouldn’t notice and the crazies wouldn’t cause a scene.  

Kavanuagh will have to live with being a “serial rapist” the rest of his life and deal with all of the BS that goes along with it.  The libs had him convicted from the second this came out.  It definitely changed his life and not in a good way.  

[Englebert]

20 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

No, on the contrary, Scalia and I would have precisely the same opinion.   Scalia wouldn’t say it publicly of course.  But it wasn’t a big secret either apparently.   Obviously Scalia would have a much more learnéd opinion than me.  We just happened to share this one.  

Scalia chastised pretty much everyone, included other SC justices...in public, in written form. That does not mean he thought they were all lousy justices, including Thomas. He sided with Thomas on many more decisions than he dissented.  

[TxHoops]

27 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Scalia chastised pretty much everyone, included other SC justices...in public, in written form. That does not mean he thought they were all lousy justices, including Thomas. He sided with Thomas on many more decisions than he dissented.  

All of that is true and not surprising given Scalia’s nature.   What is apparently surprising to some is how he thought about Thomas as a judge.   As I’ve heard from multiple sources in the know, including one who spent considerable time in the halls of the SCOTUS, he thought Thomas was basically worthless and wasn’t shy about making off-the-record-type comments about it.  I am comfortable enough with my sources to regard this as fact as to Scalia’s opinion on the matter.  

I disageed many times with some of Scalia’s opinions but I have the highest respect for him.  He would be on any SCOTUS “hall of fame” type list.  He would be in the GOAT justice discussion with strong arguments for.  You can be highly certain he didn’t think that way but I’m telling you would be mistaken.  Whether you believe that is obviously your prerogative.   

[TxHoops]

Look on the “bright” side, he gives you guys a great argument about affirmative action gone wrong.  Because there is no doubt his nomination had to do with virtually nothing else but the fact that he was an African-American who was “conservative.”  And I doubt very seriously you would find a single justice who served with both who would put him in the same league as the man he replaced.  And without question Scalia wouldn’t.  

[Englebert]

5 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

All of that is true and not surprising given Scalia’s nature.   What is apparently surprising to some is how he thought about Thomas as a judge.   As I’ve heard from multiple sources in the know, including one who spent considerable time in the halls of the SCOTUS, he thought Thomas was basically worthless and wasn’t shy about making off-the-record-type comments about it.  I am comfortable enough with my sources to regard this as fact as to Scalia’s opinion on the matter.  

I disageed many times with some of Scalia’s opinions but I have the highest respect for him.  He would be on any SCOTUS “hall of fame” type list.  He would be in the GOAT justice discussion with strong arguments for.  You can be highly certain he didn’t think that way but I’m telling you would be mistaken.  Whether you believe that is obviously your prerogative.   

I have not heard of Scalia's "private" thoughts about Thomas. I guess my opinion of Scalia's opinion is not based on opinions developed from other's opinions. To clarify, I do not know Scalia's private opinions of Thomas. I do know that it is not widely considered that Thomas is a lousy judge, which was my only point.

[TxHoops]

28 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I have not heard of Scalia's "private" thoughts about Thomas. I guess my opinion of Scalia's opinion is not based on opinions developed from other's opinions. To clarify, I do not know Scalia's private opinions of Thomas. I do know that it is not widely considered that Thomas is a lousy judge, which was my only point.

You obviously don’t but how would you?  You’re not a legal scholar any more than a scientist.   You do an admirable job playing both on the internet though. 

And I’m not basing my opinions on other’s opinions of Scalia’s opinion.  I’m basing it on what was told to me by someone who actually worked for Thomas, and overheard statements by the man himself on multiple occasions.   To be clear, I have no doubt this person thinks much more highly of Thomas than Scalia did, which isn’t to say they think highly of him as a justice. 

And again, lest someone think it is sour grapes on this person’s part, they ended up taking a high level appointment in the George W. Bush White House.  

[Englebert]

5 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Look on the “bright” side, he gives you guys a great argument about affirmative action gone wrong.  Because there is no doubt his nomination had to do with virtually nothing else but the fact that he was an African-American who was “conservative.”  And I doubt very seriously you would find a single justice who served with both who would put him in the same league as the man he replaced.  And without question Scalia wouldn’t.  

Where would you rate Elena Kagan in your "hall of fame" list? I really don't know anything about her or most of her decisions. I'm curious as to if you think the same about her as Thomas...that her nomination/confirmation to the Court was due more to characteristics outside of judicial qualifications. 

[TxHoops]

13 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Where would you rate Elena Kagan in your "hall of fame" list? I really don't know anything about her or most of her decisions. I'm curious as to if you think the same about her as Thomas...that her nomination/confirmation to the Court was due more to characteristics outside of judicial qualifications. 

I think she’s done an admirable job.  Not sure she’s a hall of fame choice.   But she was appointed on merit imo.   Funny you mention her because ironically, Scalia was lobbying for her addition to the Court for appointments even before she was nominated.  He was a huge fan of her work. 

[Englebert]

24 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

You obviously don’t but how would you?  You’re not a legal scholar any more than a scientist.   You do an admirable job playing both on the internet though. 

And I’m not basing my opinions on other’s opinions of Scalia’s opinion.  I’m basing it on what was told to me by someone who actually worked for Thomas, and overheard statements by the man himself on multiple occasions.   To be clear, I have no sont this person thinks much more highly of Thomas than Scalia did, which isn’t to say they think highly of him as a justice. 

And again, lest someone think it is sour grapes on this person’s part, they ended up taking a high level appointment in the George W. Bush White House.  

Ditto. And you know less about me than I know about you, but I will refrain from offering a "scientific" opinion.

As for the rest of the quote, that's still an opinion. Still doesn't change the fact that Thomas is not widely considered a lousy justice.

[Englebert]

9 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I think she’s done an admirable job.  Not sure she’s a hall of fame choice.   But she was appointed on merit imo.   Funny you mention her because ironically, Scalia was lobbying for her addition to the Court for appointments even before she was nominated.  He was a huge fan of her work. 

I mentioned her because I've heard enough rumblings from others that say it is widely known that she was appointed strictly due to her lack of the Y chromosome and Liberal ideology. That's not my opinion, as I do not have one of her...yet. She came to mind when you mentioned Thomas' "qualifications" as Black and Conservative. 

[TxHoops]

9 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Ditto.

And that's still an opinion. Still doesn't change the fact that Thomas is not widely considered a lousy justice.

He is but you are entitled to your opinion based upon whatever you base your opinions and label it a “fact.”

[TxHoops]

6 minutes ago, Englebert said:

I mentioned her because I've heard enough rumblings from others that say it is widely known that she was appointed strictly due to her lack of the Y chromosome and Liberal ideology. That's not my opinion, as I do not have one of her...yet. She came to mind when you mentioned Thomas' "qualifications" as Black and Conservative. 

Did you also know that she was Scalia’s recommendation for the Sotomayor appointment?   Apparently he wasn’t aware of your “widely known” rumblings. 

[Englebert]

7 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

He is but you are entitled to your opinion based upon whatever you base your opinions and label it a “fact.”

I guess it is my opinion that the opinion of others is not congruent with your opinion.

[Englebert]

4 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

Did you also know that she was Scalia’s recommendation for the Sotomayor appointment?   Apparently he wasn’t aware of your “widely known” rumblings. 

Scalia's opinion does not matter in the overall opinion of others. I'm shocked that you did not here about the many accusations of Kagan not being qualified to be on the Court, but was appointed because the Court needed more diversity. Like I said, I do not know her qualifications, but distinctly remember many people making that charge, irrespective of Scalia's opinion.

[TxHoops]

4 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Scalia's opinion does not matter in the overall opinion of others. I'm shocked that you did not here about the many accusations of Kagan not being qualified to be on the Court, but was appointed because the Court needed more diversity. Like I said, I do not know her qualifications, but distinctly remember many people making that charge, irrespective of Scalia's opinion.

If I did “hear,” I don’t think I would label those as “accusations.”   I know, pesky legal terminology and all when you are arguing with someone out of their element. 

[TxHoops]

In fairness, maybe I place too much weight on Scalia’s opinions.  I’m just a huge admirer.  I would trust his assessment of Kagan over “rumblings” though.  But that may just be me.  

[Whoopi Goldberg's Lips]

2 hours ago, TxHoops said:

It’s about a 36% raise in salary from what he was making with a lot more financial benefits obviously.   Not saying money was a problem but I think stating they “ruined this man’s life” is a bit of an overstatement.  

A raise from roughly 170k to 250k probably isn't worth the meat grinder he went through. Especially considering most of the attorneys I know make much more than that in their private practices (but you already know that, unless you're a prosecutor).  Judges usually don't run for election at local/state levels for the money. They do it for the prestige and benefits. I'd imagine SCOTUS Justices are much the same.

Would you have gone through what Kavanaugh just went through if you were guaranteed a seat on that bench?

[Englebert]

14 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

If I did “hear,” I don’t think I would label those as “accusations.”   I know, pesky legal terminology and all when you are arguing with someone out of their element. 

Come on now, that's all you can muster. You think I'm deciphering nonexistent "pesky legal terminology". I did get a good laugh at that one. I'm going to assume that was your intention.

I didn't know I had an element, but I can sometimes pick up on blatant condescension, even though I will be the one later accused of engaging in such drivel. Your turn again.

[TxHoops]

5 minutes ago, Whoopi Goldberg's Lips said:

A raise from roughly 170k to 250k probably isn't worth the meat grinder he went through. Especially considering most of the attorneys I know make much more than that in their private practices (but you already know that, unless you're a prosecutor).  Judges usually don't run for election at local/state levels for the money. They do it for the prestige and benefits. I'd imagine SCOTUS Justices are much the same.

Would you have gone through what Kavanaugh just went through if you were guaranteed a seat on that bench?

I would say yes, but Nash is right that it is tough to say unless you’re in that position.  Most, including my wife, who know me would know it’s ridiculous but I get that the general public was merciless and doesn’t “know” you.   I’d also like to think I would have handled it better but again that’s tough to say. 

You are 100 percent correct on the prestige aspect.  For me personally, that would be the most compelling part of the job.  I was using the money part of it as an example for the average joe.  A lot would be willing to endure a month of ridicule for $250k + a year for the rest of their life. 

[Tigers2010]

10 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

I would say yes, but Nash is right that it is tough to say unless you’re in that position.  Most, including my wife, who know me would know it’s ridiculous but I get that the general public was merciless and doesn’t “know” you.   I’d also like to think I would have handled it better but again that’s tough to say. 

You are 100 percent correct on the prestige aspect.  For me personally, that would be the most compelling part of the job.  I was using the money part of it as an example for the average joe.  A lot would be willing to endure a month of ridicule for $250k + a year for the rest of their life. 

Again, not if we were already making 170K. But, that is just me. The sad part is, Ford waits 27 years, and for a guy to be nominated for the highest court...anybody (who isn't trying to be blind) knows what this was. And the fact nobody is going to be punished is crazy. Not even the other "accusers". It is a true shame to women who are actually abused.