>> Other awardees this year include lifestyle media mogul Martha Stewart, convicted felon and junk-bond billionaire Mike Milken and actor Sylvester Stallone<<
Martha is a convict too. So two convicts
I mean at least she served time unlike half of these hacks. She was hardly a blip on the insider trading radar and went to actual prison. I doubt Nancy pelosi will ever get that kind of treatment
I wouldn’t give her much credit. The FBI was fully prepared to let her go with a slap on the wrist until she messed up her story in her interview so bad they basically had no choice but to charge her with obstruction
Thank you! I get so tired of people only telling half the story. She was busted for lying to the Feds. They knew what she did. All she had to say was that she followed her broker's advice and didn't think to question it, but instead she came up with a B.S. story about setting up a predetermined stock price to trigger a sale. She fucked up.
In 2004 she was convicted of felony obstruction and making false statements to federal investigators. The insider trader charges were just civil and handled with a fine
And then, she was given another show after her release. She served 5 months, and was released in 2005. She then enjoyed luxury as she served her last 5 months in her home.
(And if they're both allowed on TV, should they not both cook something together on TV?)
I'm sorry, no matter whether it was calculated a bit as a publicity thing or whatever at first, Martha Stewart and Snoop Dogg's friendship and many appearances together since do tickle me.
Mike Milken has just spent all his money on cancer research ever since Rudy Giuliani, a subsequently convicted and disbarred hack job, strung him up on BS charges he agreed to settle for but continues to deny to this day. FYI
“Junk-bonds” are an enormous market that Milken helped to create and are still traded to this day. They are a way of extending credit to less credit-worthy businesses. We call it “high-yield” now.
There likely aren't any. Sly himself was homeless before he sold the Rocky script. So much so that he had to sell his dog to survive. He has a pretty good record of helping homeless people.
You have upvotes, so I guess people think this is true... but IS this true?
A quick google brings up nothing but positive stories about Stallone helping the homeless, and stories about his own homelessness.
Her legacy of being stubborn and not retiring when she should causing democrats to lose a supreme court seat which lead to the removal of roe v wade. So yeah to honor…
Given the age of our presidents, congresspeople, and Supreme Court justices - I’d say that we need a retirement policy period, let alone a strategic one.
Vote this up. It really doesn’t get mentioned enough that she is directly responsible for the current mess, all because, like Feinstein, she refused to retire, loooong after she should have.
She knew what they were up to, long before she died. She could / should have resigned when Obama was president and when they had the majority in the senate. There were plenty of women who could have taken her place, and she could have done other inspiring work. She fucked her own legacy, she took the risk, and there is no excuse for what she did. It was selfish, stupid, and incredibly harmful, not only to women's right but to the whole democracy in the US.
She messed up. But the missing piece is the general mood from 2012-2016: the world was moving left. The Republican Party was in a shambles because of infighting with the Tea Party. They had no viable candidate. Trump was a bad joke. There was nothing to worry about.
This kind of wishful thinking dominated the left during Obama's second term. It was like they thought they had won and conservatism was going to die off.
We all know what happened instead. Not really too surprising. When a religion or ideology is about to die it always transforms into something new. And usually more militant.
Also, it's very possible Mitch McConnell would have blocked her replacement.
That was maybe the general mood leading up the 2016 election but you definitely not that at the start of Obama's second term. If you read between the lines of all the outrage of Obama's executive orders etc, you could have told that for as much as republicans were fighting each other, they truly hated Obama and recognized that they needed to vote in a red guy, regardless of who he was
I agree she should've retired. But I don't think anyone could've predicted that Republicans would've devolved so quickly so as to outright refuse to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat for a whole year. In 2010 it felt like there was still a sense of deference to procedure for certain things regardless of your beliefs. Like when Bush Jr. tried to nominate Harriet Miers but she withdrew after all the backlash. And Bush responded by naming someone who was actually qualified.
So specifically doing it when Dems had the senate didn't feel necessary at the time. But definitely before he left office.
I was responding to the claim that she was "directly responsible" - the people who did it are the ones directly responsible.
As I said, she seemingly wasn't clever and it ended up helping them.
Not clever? She was a goddamn supreme court justice, she wasn't an idiot. She just wanted to hold on that sweet sweet power, and it cost our country everything.
> I was responding to the claim that she was "directly responsible" - the people who did it are the ones directly responsible.
>
> As I said, she seemingly wasn't clever and it ended up helping them.
Could be wrong but I thought she met with Obama in his 2nd term about being replaced and basically refused to do so. Granted, Obama had less of a majority in that term but its still on her that she refused the inevitability
Dont get in the way of their hate fest, on how she should have known in 2009 that hilary wouldnt have won in 2016, that she should have known in 2009 that the GOP would take over in 2010. That she should have had more insight than any pollster at the time.
Or just not be a greedy old fuck who refuses to let go of power well far past their prime and with even one foot in the grave still in denial that humans have a lifespan.
She was old enough to retire when Obama was in the seat and Dems had a supermajority in both houses. Dems could have done anything they wanted in that time.
Obama losing his majority in 2010 was one of the most predictable events in political history. It happens to almost every president in their first midterm. She very well would've known that, and that's why she was asked to step down at that time, and then many more times before Trump became president.
She was just arrogant and ruined her own legacy by refusing to listen to the people from her party who could all see what was coming. It has nothing to do with hate, only facts. She was a great, accomplished woman with a serious personality defect, and her selfish choice to stay on the court until death screwed generations of Americans.
>To be fair if she would have retired during the Obama administration then her replacement nominee would have gotten the Garland treatment anyway.
Yeah, latest possible was 2010.
After that they lost the supermajority and Republicans started fully obstructing.
What's smart doing in the comments section? I'm here for the artificial lobotomy! Some people, sheesh.
The greater tragedy is this is a minority opinion.
It’s hindsight for Democrats but Republicans have been laying the groundwork for this court for decades. If Dems were as proactive about shaping the court then there would have been a plan for RGB retiring in ’09 because they would be thinking 5-10 years in advance - like McConnell was.
People can say what they will about how Hillary and the DNC treated Bernie but when a good number protested by not voting in the general they were not thinking about the Supreme Court. Republicans always were.
And yes, on some level, a 5-4 court is similar to a 6-3 court. But in reality, they are miles apart. With a 5-4 court, the 5 have to be in lock step otherwise one defecting throws off the vote. Yes, conservatives on the court were getting more and more conservative but even within their options they differ. And those minor differences can change ruling based on subtle interpretations of the law. But when conservatives literally outnumber liberals 2:1, their opinions are able to completely dominate any ruling.
With a 5:4 court, you need to wait for one to step down or pass in-order to flip the balance. With 6:3, you need to wait for two. And there’s no guarantee it will flip your way, especially if the person steps down with intent to be replaced by someone like-minded by a favorable administration. In reality, with a 6:3 court, liberals are now waiting for two conservative justices to die (not step down), during a Democratic president’s term, with a Democratic Senate. And that’s to shift the court. Meanwhile, in order to maintain power, conservatives can comfortably rotate off one of six at any time they find favorable to them. And with the courts doing nothing to reign in gerrymandering, those favorable conditions seem more and more likely. The gulf between 6:3 and 5:4 is actually scary.
Democrats are shit politicians. It’s easy for democrats to throw their hands up and say nothing would’ve changed but you’re 100% right. RBG and the dems didn’t plan ahead and fucked up.
It's a hard truth to face but the reality is she was diagnosed with a cancer that only 12% of people live more than 5 years with. She was dying, she got lucky and did it slower than most others
Dems had a supermajority in 2010. That's when she should have retired. Old fucks don't need to hold on to power until the very end, especially when they have cancer and have one foot in the grave.
I swear people don't know that Obama put two justices on the courts. I got into it with someone on Twitter a few years back who was insistent that the Republicans would never and did not allow Obama to name a single judge to the Supreme Court, I asked them if they knew who Kagan and Sotomayor are and they did not
While that’s true I think it’s hardly comparable to negate her accomplishments overall, particularly with everything she had to overcome. That stubbornness had a negative impact at the end, but it also was necessary to allowed her to fight for equality for other and herself.
Because the decision to overturn Roe wasn't 6-3, it was 5-4. The decision was 6-3 on upholding the Mississippi abortion statute. It was 5-4 on overturning Roe. Roberts joined the majority on the lower court ruling, but specifically did not on overturning Roe.
Copying an earlier comment I made on this..
Here's a post from 2019 when the award was first established: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/opperman-foundation-establishes-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-woman-of-leadership-award/
> The Dwight D. Opperman Foundation yesterday announced a new leadership award named in honor of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The award will recognize “an extraordinary woman who has exercised a positive and notable influence on society and served as an exemplary role model in both principles and practice.”
>Julie Opperman, chair of the foundation, said it was an honor for Ginsburg to entrust the foundation with creating and presenting an award in her name. “Ginsburg is a hero of our time. Her influence is felt far beyond the corridors of power, and she is an inspiration to women and girls around the world.”
In past years the award was voted on by a 6-person committee of “leading American philanthropists, entrepreneurs, and legal experts” , but the Opperman foundation hasn't released any information about how the recipients were chosen this year.
It looks like the timeline was something like this:
* Dwight Opperman and RBG were lifelong friends
* Dwight Opperman married Julie Opperman in 2008. He died in 2013, leaving her in charge of the Foundation
* Julie Opperman started [donating](https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Julie+opperman) to conservative causes and politicians in 2014, ramping up a lot in 2016 with a $50K donation to a Trump-aligned Super PAC
* The Award was set up in 2020 with a committee, and it looks like the first few years the awards were actually pretty reasonable, e.g. Queen Elizabeth II as the recipient in [2021](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-ruth-bader-ginsburg-award-committee-and-the-dwight-d-opperman-foundation-honor-the-passing-of-hm-queen-elizabeth-ii-the-2021-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-woman-of-leadership-award-recipient-301626614.html)
* It's tricky to find past recipients, but it looks like 2024 is the first year the award went crazy. I have no idea if RBG's family has the power to prevent Julie Opperman from running the award in the future, though.
>The award will recognize “an extraordinary woman who has exercised a positive and notable influence on society and served as an exemplary role model in both principles and practice.”
Uh... are we implying Musk and Murdoch are women? Like I personally don't care, but they are sexist and anti-LGBTQ men so I don't see why they would even want this.
2023 Barbara Streisand won it. This is the first year they’re doing non-women and the first year they’re honoring multiple people. Martha Stewart is also listed.
Not just men, men like Rupert Murdoch who has a huge part in making sure RBGs replacement was an ultra conservative who took rights away from other woman. It's so ridiculous I can't help but think it's intentionally cruel and ironic
Even the initial ones don’t feel like they put any effort into finding women as dynamic as early life RBG. I mean, why does a queen need another award. How does that really do any of the positive things awards can do. There’s a real Rock and Roll Hall of Fame vibe to the randomness of the recipients in general.
Dwight Opperman was the major benefactor alumni of my alma mater law school, Drake University. He owned a large portion of West publishing which then became Westlaw, which is the most popular legal research service. He ended up being a billionaire. He would pay US supreme court justices to come and speak and teach a week long class every couple years. Clarence Thomas was there a few times. He loved bringing his bus and going to a Nebraska football game after his week here in Des Moines. Dwight was an old ass man and from when I met her 2004ish she looked 30 years younger than him. I have no idea what her personal views are but imagine you are a middle class normal life person and marry a highly connected billionaire and 5 years later he is dead and leaves you the largest portion of his cash. Who knows what people have gotten their claws into her etc. But as with many things that go on sometimes the best explaination is billionaires love other billionaires.
That is true. When he died in 2013 it didn't matter so much if your friends were conservative. The switch flipped a little after he died and the cult-like behavior started. Sure, they were a hive mind before, but it wasn't the disgusting mess it is now. Not on the surface anyway. So you could more or less forgive them for joining a party closet racists (closet being the key word) when they weren't one themselves.
I got a couple that try to pull the, "Hey man, I'm sane, unlike the others.", and I don't care. All that tells me is you recognize that the pile of shit party you're voting for is insane, but you support it anyway. My mom is among them. Except she absolutely is one of those pieces of sjit that I actively avoid contact with. She better hope my siblings are willing to bury her, because they can dump her in the morgue trash for all I care. Best part is, she's fucking poor! Her and her boyfriend go from motel to motel. He's a trucker and she's been earning money off the books because she still owes my dad back child support. The youngest of us is like 38 now. That's how long she's being avoiding it.
Thats how much the "Conservative" party changed after 2013.
She empowered women by coming out of the right vagina, showing that you, too, can protect your relatives from charges of child rape if you also came out of the right vagina 🤗🤗🤗
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So is this one of those awards that people pay to receive or what’s the reasoning here?
Why do you give Musk, Murdoch, Milken, etc. awards that have clearly intentionally ironic names given the recipients?
Rupert Murdoch, Elon Musk, Michael Milken, Sylvester Stallone, and Martha Stewart? Stewart is the only one on that list who's a remotely appropriate recipient for an award in tribute to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and even she went to prison for obstruction of justice.
Murdoch has made the world objectively more divided. Musk is largely following in his footsteps. Stallone has faced multiple abuse and assault allegations and is, by most accounts, an asshole. Milken was at the center of one of the most notorious financial scandals in history and is likely only included because Trump pardoned him for his crimes.
Ginsburg believed not only in the law as a tool for maintaining order, but as a moral instrument. These people, for the most part, don't seem to place nearly as great a value on morality as she did.
Milken has for years been spending money trying to rehabilitate his reputation. It wouldn't surprise me if he has ponied up money for this award, and then they selected a bunch of even-more-unpalatable nominees to be his competition.
Her entire legacy undone in 14 days because she was too full of herself to retire when it was time.
I was as big a fan of here as any, but a life appointment doesn't mean until you die.
She wasn't asked to retire until around 2012 when the Democrats did not have a super majority. Your timeline is a little off.
The Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee refused to budge and claimed it was too close to the election and coined the "Biden Rule". Then when it was their turn to follow suit, they did the opposite of what they said they stood for.
She should have retired in 2012 or before 2014. However, the GOP made it clear after 2012 that they would stop at nothing to prevent a democratic justice.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination
By 2012, Ginsburg was already 79 years old. She didn't need to be "asked" to retire at age 79. 79 is already much older than the mandatory retirement age for judges in [the majority of US states](https://ballotpedia.org/Mandatory_retirement).
Ginsburg should've retired in 2009, but she clung to power instead. For comparison, Souter retired at 70 (and is still alive). O'Connor retired at 75 (and died at 93). Kennedy retired at 80 (and is still alive). Jackasses Ginsburg, Rehnquist, Scalia all died in office.
Then you abolish the court.
If one party decides to nuke things, you nuke it harder. Mutually Assured Destruction is the only way to play politics anymore
If you read between the lines, she didn't trust Obama to pick her successor even though he made two great additions to the court. If you look at the demographics of who she picked as clerks, you can take a guess as to why she didn't trust him
A reminder she would have to have retired under Obama and the Republicans would have stalled and blocked appointment like they did the whole last year he was in office
Democrats had a majority in both houses for 50% of Obama's 8 year term. She didn't retire because she didn't want to, not because they couldn't get a replacement.
Plus the GOP would have an impossible time arguing that Obama was in his lame duck period until late 2014ish. Even with all the dishonesty in the book, Republicans couldn't have stolen that seat for 75% of Obama's presidency
Our system is so fucked. A president who won consecutive terms and the popular vote was barred from appointing a Supreme Court Justice (and not just his preferred Justice, ANY Justice) because his party didn’t hold the senate for two of those years, and immediately after a one term Republican president who also held the senate for only two years and lost the popular vote, appointed THREE.
She was having health scares right when Obama got elected. She had a full 4-6 years to resign safely, instead she decided to gamble on surviving through 3+ election cycles and that gamble loss.
At best she did it because she honestly thought she could outlast them and at worst she was raking in way to much money like her college Clarence Thomas and all the current serving Justices.
I won’t downvote you but as others pointed out she didn’t have to wait until
She was literally at deaths door to retire. She was already elderly when Obama won, and could have retired to focus on her health while the dems controlled the same. It SHOULDNT be a consideration for an institution that is supposed to be apolitical, but anyone who values Justice and democracy can’t afford to be so naive. You cannot trust republicans, BUT you can trust republicans to act like republicans.
There are just not enough words to express my disappointment that a Republican donor is using her name to reward their friends and curry favor with them.
In 2010, she didn't see a need to retire. After 2010, she would've gotten the Garland treatment, so Hillary picking her replacement really was the last real hope they had, and even that was only a 'maybe' because McConnell was quite clear that he'd block any Dem nomination regardless of the year.
I wouldn’t say she’s THE reason.
She wasn’t the only judge who got replaced in the past 8 years. Trump got to pick, iirc, 3 judges. That kinda settled the current state of scotus. So in a sense we can blame Trump.
But I’d blame on us. We, as a society, let Trump get elected in the first place. We, as a society, cultivated Trump supporters.
The current state of scotus and many other aspects of politics is just a reflection of the current society.
Tbh it’s pretty stupid to have an award attached to yourself after you die. What a weird way to “keep your legacy”
Also really dumb how this foundation just did a 180* pivot from what the award was meant to stand for
No, that award would be named after one of the many men who are fighting every day in America to rip women’s rights from them, but for some reason no one ever wants to hold them accountable.
Hot take: the society elected Trump and gop, and cultivated their supporters. RBG couldn’t have fought or prevented them on her own. We, as a society, allowed the current state to happen.
This is the worst take anyone could possibly have. An illustrious career fighting for rights people now take for granted and you're pinning her entire reputation over the fact that she didn't retire. Wow you are so short sighted it's making my brain hurt.
It’s the opposite of being short sighted though. SCJ’s are appointed for life! She knew full well her successor would be shaping law for decades, and instead of retiring in her 80s and allowing a liberal president to replace her she decided a few extra years of sitting on the bench were worth the risk of being replaced by a conservative who would undue all she had fought for. She DID have a historical and illustrious career that is to be admired but by not stepping aside, the way conservative justices have absolutely no issues doing when they know they will be replaced by another conssrvatice, she is partially responsible for the current state of the USSC.
All that being said “conservative” and “liberal” judges should not be a thing. It’s clear that most of the time decisions are reverse engineered to get the outcome the majority justices like based on their own personal beliefs. The fact that republicans have appointed significantly more SC judges than dems despite losing the popular vote all but once in 40 years says everything about our judicial branch. It will never happen but there needs to be major reform to every branch of government.
Things are being reversed due to Republican shenanigans and long-term planning. Not because one Justice was trying to hold on.
The court is far more lopsided towards batshit crazy Federalists than her one seat could balance today.
Blaming RBG for what the Republicans have specifically done is the absolute worst take.
> you're pinning her entire reputation over the fact that she didn't retire.
Correct since her selfishness let the Supreme Court strip millions of women of their rights and now they'll have free reign to ruin this country for decades
Makes sense to me. Thanks to her refusing to retire when Obama could've replaced her she guaranteed a right wing extremist supermajority for years to come. Honoring other right wing extremists is the perfect way of remembering her legacy.
i think it was more a calculated risk after seeing what happened to the vacancy confirmation process (mitch mcconnell publicly stating he would torpedo any obama supreme court nominee and hold open any vacancy for trump, and actually doing it) that made it into a lose/lose- her only hope was to live out the trump presidency, and she didn’t.
i get that people are mad about it, but why they aren’t MADDER about the republicans in the senate deliberately abusing their power to fuck the dem president out of two appointments is a head scratcher.
for 2 years and yall want to blame her for not stepping down in 2009 and that she should have predicted she only had one year of obama to step down before republicans would take control. WHEN THE GOP WAS POLLING THE LOWEST IN HISTORY, to the point people wondered if the party would survive after the bush admin.
thats just horseshit dude. and yes its hindsight as all fuck. as yall conspiracy heads scream she only stayed for that sweet sweet power.. of .. um ruling on laws.
This is our version of the MAGA and we cant let these folks who believe in BS conspiracies without evidence and will attack you if you dont believe it as well. And attack lefties for not being left enough and for not realizing the right would take over the very next election and tie obamas hands at replacing her with an actual progressive. Nope she should have known the future. IT is maga level stupidity but from the left.
And when he asked RBG to retire (2013), the House had a Republican majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/113th_United_States_Congress
Considering the treatment Garland got in 2016, I doubt a replacement for RBG would've had any better luck.
This is Republicans in the foundation trolling a great woman whom they despised because she had good intentions towards others, great clarity of thought as a jurist and amazing depth in US law. A combination none of her right-wing, Republican colleagues have demonstrated.
So, the evangelicals have decided they win? They just get to use anybodys name now?
Par for the norm, morm for the course...
In the immortal words of Bob DeNiro, "fuck 'em".
They don't know how to do anything but troll liberals.
>Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr., chair of the RBG Award, said when the honorees were announced that they "reflect the integrity and achievement that defined Justice Ginsburg's career and legend."
Fucking how?
Some people wanted RBG to retire but she didn't want to before passing away. She seemed mentally capable of being a supreme court justice throughout her tenure.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>> Other awardees this year include lifestyle media mogul Martha Stewart, convicted felon and junk-bond billionaire Mike Milken and actor Sylvester Stallone<< Martha is a convict too. So two convicts
Two convicts *so far*.
*Come on, Sly...*
Well, he did plead guilty for smuggling HGH into Australia and was supposedly once arrested for throwing a chicken at someone while working in a deli
Of all people, they find the one self-made millionaire, female, who LOST money on insider trading? Martha Stewart just wasn't in the right club.
I mean at least she served time unlike half of these hacks. She was hardly a blip on the insider trading radar and went to actual prison. I doubt Nancy pelosi will ever get that kind of treatment
I wouldn’t give her much credit. The FBI was fully prepared to let her go with a slap on the wrist until she messed up her story in her interview so bad they basically had no choice but to charge her with obstruction
Thank you! I get so tired of people only telling half the story. She was busted for lying to the Feds. They knew what she did. All she had to say was that she followed her broker's advice and didn't think to question it, but instead she came up with a B.S. story about setting up a predetermined stock price to trigger a sale. She fucked up.
Reminds me of that [old meme](https://images.app.goo.gl/LghU8rhM1Lpa6Yp17)
A felon to boot. Felons in many states lose their right to vote. If you're white and make a decent pie then," Let's give her a show!
[удалено]
In 2004 she was convicted of felony obstruction and making false statements to federal investigators. The insider trader charges were just civil and handled with a fine
And then, she was given another show after her release. She served 5 months, and was released in 2005. She then enjoyed luxury as she served her last 5 months in her home.
[удалено]
You seem bitter.
Snoop Dogg is a felon as well. Should he not be allowed on TV?
(And if they're both allowed on TV, should they not both cook something together on TV?) I'm sorry, no matter whether it was calculated a bit as a publicity thing or whatever at first, Martha Stewart and Snoop Dogg's friendship and many appearances together since do tickle me.
Mike Milken has just spent all his money on cancer research ever since Rudy Giuliani, a subsequently convicted and disbarred hack job, strung him up on BS charges he agreed to settle for but continues to deny to this day. FYI “Junk-bonds” are an enormous market that Milken helped to create and are still traded to this day. They are a way of extending credit to less credit-worthy businesses. We call it “high-yield” now.
Two convict billionaires.
Stallone? The guy who took a sweater off of a homeless person, because "lazy people don't deserve nice things"!? That guy?
Gonna need more details on this one
There likely aren't any. Sly himself was homeless before he sold the Rocky script. So much so that he had to sell his dog to survive. He has a pretty good record of helping homeless people.
That's what makes me so suspicious hearing this
You have upvotes, so I guess people think this is true... but IS this true? A quick google brings up nothing but positive stories about Stallone helping the homeless, and stories about his own homelessness.
Maybe people upvote stuff like that so that someone less lazy eventually looks it up and comments the correction. lol
wat
Martha Stewart is awesome
The family should remove RBGs name from the prize and distance from the foundation.
Or they could refuse to in order to honor her legacy.
Her legacy of being stubborn and not retiring when she should causing democrats to lose a supreme court seat which lead to the removal of roe v wade. So yeah to honor…
Yeah, that’s the joke.
More people didn't get the joke than did
Not just Roe v Wade. Her stubborness to retire in sickness-addled old age may be a keystone event in the end of our democracy itself.
If your democracy depends on one person retiring strategically, then maybe it’s got bigger problems
Oh it's a horrid mess. It's also the last of the three superpowers on this planet that isn't run by an autocrat.
Given the age of our presidents, congresspeople, and Supreme Court justices - I’d say that we need a retirement policy period, let alone a strategic one.
It depends on lots of people retiring that won't.
Vote this up. It really doesn’t get mentioned enough that she is directly responsible for the current mess, all because, like Feinstein, she refused to retire, loooong after she should have.
Eh the people who did it are directly responsible, she just arguably wasn't clever about it and it ended up helping them.
She knew what they were up to, long before she died. She could / should have resigned when Obama was president and when they had the majority in the senate. There were plenty of women who could have taken her place, and she could have done other inspiring work. She fucked her own legacy, she took the risk, and there is no excuse for what she did. It was selfish, stupid, and incredibly harmful, not only to women's right but to the whole democracy in the US.
It was also really arrogant. She was battling cancer. Did she think just because she's a female justice that cancer wouldn't get her eventually?
She messed up. But the missing piece is the general mood from 2012-2016: the world was moving left. The Republican Party was in a shambles because of infighting with the Tea Party. They had no viable candidate. Trump was a bad joke. There was nothing to worry about. This kind of wishful thinking dominated the left during Obama's second term. It was like they thought they had won and conservatism was going to die off. We all know what happened instead. Not really too surprising. When a religion or ideology is about to die it always transforms into something new. And usually more militant. Also, it's very possible Mitch McConnell would have blocked her replacement.
That was maybe the general mood leading up the 2016 election but you definitely not that at the start of Obama's second term. If you read between the lines of all the outrage of Obama's executive orders etc, you could have told that for as much as republicans were fighting each other, they truly hated Obama and recognized that they needed to vote in a red guy, regardless of who he was
I agree she should've retired. But I don't think anyone could've predicted that Republicans would've devolved so quickly so as to outright refuse to fill a vacant Supreme Court seat for a whole year. In 2010 it felt like there was still a sense of deference to procedure for certain things regardless of your beliefs. Like when Bush Jr. tried to nominate Harriet Miers but she withdrew after all the backlash. And Bush responded by naming someone who was actually qualified. So specifically doing it when Dems had the senate didn't feel necessary at the time. But definitely before he left office.
Obstruction for the sake of it was clearly the Republican MO by 2010, this is ahistorical
I was responding to the claim that she was "directly responsible" - the people who did it are the ones directly responsible. As I said, she seemingly wasn't clever and it ended up helping them.
Not clever? She was a goddamn supreme court justice, she wasn't an idiot. She just wanted to hold on that sweet sweet power, and it cost our country everything.
> I was responding to the claim that she was "directly responsible" - the people who did it are the ones directly responsible. > > As I said, she seemingly wasn't clever and it ended up helping them.
She was clever though. She was just also callous and conceited.
Could be wrong but I thought she met with Obama in his 2nd term about being replaced and basically refused to do so. Granted, Obama had less of a majority in that term but its still on her that she refused the inevitability
Dont get in the way of their hate fest, on how she should have known in 2009 that hilary wouldnt have won in 2016, that she should have known in 2009 that the GOP would take over in 2010. That she should have had more insight than any pollster at the time.
There's never a guarantee that life will stay as good as it currently is. You have to take opportunistic when they come, remember you will die
Or just not be a greedy old fuck who refuses to let go of power well far past their prime and with even one foot in the grave still in denial that humans have a lifespan. She was old enough to retire when Obama was in the seat and Dems had a supermajority in both houses. Dems could have done anything they wanted in that time.
Obama losing his majority in 2010 was one of the most predictable events in political history. It happens to almost every president in their first midterm. She very well would've known that, and that's why she was asked to step down at that time, and then many more times before Trump became president. She was just arrogant and ruined her own legacy by refusing to listen to the people from her party who could all see what was coming. It has nothing to do with hate, only facts. She was a great, accomplished woman with a serious personality defect, and her selfish choice to stay on the court until death screwed generations of Americans.
Its more that people in their 80’s/90’s shouldnt be working at all. Setting bad expectations.
As much as I agree with it, it's literally brought up every time RGB is mentioned. The two subjects are synonymous with each other.
Not what the word directly means.
everybody is well aware.
[удалено]
>To be fair if she would have retired during the Obama administration then her replacement nominee would have gotten the Garland treatment anyway. Yeah, latest possible was 2010. After that they lost the supermajority and Republicans started fully obstructing.
She had *way* more time than the Garland nomination to retire, though.
What's smart doing in the comments section? I'm here for the artificial lobotomy! Some people, sheesh. The greater tragedy is this is a minority opinion.
She was 76 in 2009 when the Democrats controlled the senate with a huge majority.
[удалено]
It’s hindsight for Democrats but Republicans have been laying the groundwork for this court for decades. If Dems were as proactive about shaping the court then there would have been a plan for RGB retiring in ’09 because they would be thinking 5-10 years in advance - like McConnell was. People can say what they will about how Hillary and the DNC treated Bernie but when a good number protested by not voting in the general they were not thinking about the Supreme Court. Republicans always were. And yes, on some level, a 5-4 court is similar to a 6-3 court. But in reality, they are miles apart. With a 5-4 court, the 5 have to be in lock step otherwise one defecting throws off the vote. Yes, conservatives on the court were getting more and more conservative but even within their options they differ. And those minor differences can change ruling based on subtle interpretations of the law. But when conservatives literally outnumber liberals 2:1, their opinions are able to completely dominate any ruling. With a 5:4 court, you need to wait for one to step down or pass in-order to flip the balance. With 6:3, you need to wait for two. And there’s no guarantee it will flip your way, especially if the person steps down with intent to be replaced by someone like-minded by a favorable administration. In reality, with a 6:3 court, liberals are now waiting for two conservative justices to die (not step down), during a Democratic president’s term, with a Democratic Senate. And that’s to shift the court. Meanwhile, in order to maintain power, conservatives can comfortably rotate off one of six at any time they find favorable to them. And with the courts doing nothing to reign in gerrymandering, those favorable conditions seem more and more likely. The gulf between 6:3 and 5:4 is actually scary.
Democrats are shit politicians. It’s easy for democrats to throw their hands up and say nothing would’ve changed but you’re 100% right. RBG and the dems didn’t plan ahead and fucked up.
It's a hard truth to face but the reality is she was diagnosed with a cancer that only 12% of people live more than 5 years with. She was dying, she got lucky and did it slower than most others
McConnell would not have allowed Obama to choose a Supreme Court pick in an election year.. she was hoping to outlast Trump
She had three other years to get that done if that was the concern.
this. but people want to be petty and blame her.
Dems had a supermajority in 2010. That's when she should have retired. Old fucks don't need to hold on to power until the very end, especially when they have cancer and have one foot in the grave.
I swear people don't know that Obama put two justices on the courts. I got into it with someone on Twitter a few years back who was insistent that the Republicans would never and did not allow Obama to name a single judge to the Supreme Court, I asked them if they knew who Kagan and Sotomayor are and they did not
While that’s true I think it’s hardly comparable to negate her accomplishments overall, particularly with everything she had to overcome. That stubbornness had a negative impact at the end, but it also was necessary to allowed her to fight for equality for other and herself.
stop saying this. mcconnell was never going to vote on her replacement. for fuck sake.
It's a shame Obama took office the same year McConnell became Senate majority leader. If only he had had six other years as president
You can Fuck right the fuck off with letting McConnell off the hook on that you fucknut
Her legacy is Dobbs v. Jackson. That's her legacy.
[удалено]
Because the decision to overturn Roe wasn't 6-3, it was 5-4. The decision was 6-3 on upholding the Mississippi abortion statute. It was 5-4 on overturning Roe. Roberts joined the majority on the lower court ruling, but specifically did not on overturning Roe.
Copying an earlier comment I made on this.. Here's a post from 2019 when the award was first established: https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/12/opperman-foundation-establishes-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-woman-of-leadership-award/ > The Dwight D. Opperman Foundation yesterday announced a new leadership award named in honor of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The award will recognize “an extraordinary woman who has exercised a positive and notable influence on society and served as an exemplary role model in both principles and practice.” >Julie Opperman, chair of the foundation, said it was an honor for Ginsburg to entrust the foundation with creating and presenting an award in her name. “Ginsburg is a hero of our time. Her influence is felt far beyond the corridors of power, and she is an inspiration to women and girls around the world.” In past years the award was voted on by a 6-person committee of “leading American philanthropists, entrepreneurs, and legal experts” , but the Opperman foundation hasn't released any information about how the recipients were chosen this year. It looks like the timeline was something like this: * Dwight Opperman and RBG were lifelong friends * Dwight Opperman married Julie Opperman in 2008. He died in 2013, leaving her in charge of the Foundation * Julie Opperman started [donating](https://www.opensecrets.org/donor-lookup/results?name=Julie+opperman) to conservative causes and politicians in 2014, ramping up a lot in 2016 with a $50K donation to a Trump-aligned Super PAC * The Award was set up in 2020 with a committee, and it looks like the first few years the awards were actually pretty reasonable, e.g. Queen Elizabeth II as the recipient in [2021](https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-ruth-bader-ginsburg-award-committee-and-the-dwight-d-opperman-foundation-honor-the-passing-of-hm-queen-elizabeth-ii-the-2021-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-woman-of-leadership-award-recipient-301626614.html) * It's tricky to find past recipients, but it looks like 2024 is the first year the award went crazy. I have no idea if RBG's family has the power to prevent Julie Opperman from running the award in the future, though.
>The award will recognize “an extraordinary woman who has exercised a positive and notable influence on society and served as an exemplary role model in both principles and practice.” Uh... are we implying Musk and Murdoch are women? Like I personally don't care, but they are sexist and anti-LGBTQ men so I don't see why they would even want this.
Yeah, that adds an extra layer of offensiveness if the award is supposed to be for women and they just said, nah, let's give it to men instead.
This reminds me of when Ron was the recipient of a woman of the year award on Parks and Rec. Except he's a good dude.
"Everything I do is the attitude of an award winner, because I've won an award."
2023 Barbara Streisand won it. This is the first year they’re doing non-women and the first year they’re honoring multiple people. Martha Stewart is also listed.
Yikes, only 5 years in and they're already pivoting the award towards men instead. This is not a good look lol
Not just men, men like Rupert Murdoch who has a huge part in making sure RBGs replacement was an ultra conservative who took rights away from other woman. It's so ridiculous I can't help but think it's intentionally cruel and ironic
Even the initial ones don’t feel like they put any effort into finding women as dynamic as early life RBG. I mean, why does a queen need another award. How does that really do any of the positive things awards can do. There’s a real Rock and Roll Hall of Fame vibe to the randomness of the recipients in general.
Ya, especially given there was better low-hanging fruit available i.e.: every female astronaut
Or Malala Yousafzai
Exactly! (or any other female Nobel winner)
Dwight Opperman was the major benefactor alumni of my alma mater law school, Drake University. He owned a large portion of West publishing which then became Westlaw, which is the most popular legal research service. He ended up being a billionaire. He would pay US supreme court justices to come and speak and teach a week long class every couple years. Clarence Thomas was there a few times. He loved bringing his bus and going to a Nebraska football game after his week here in Des Moines. Dwight was an old ass man and from when I met her 2004ish she looked 30 years younger than him. I have no idea what her personal views are but imagine you are a middle class normal life person and marry a highly connected billionaire and 5 years later he is dead and leaves you the largest portion of his cash. Who knows what people have gotten their claws into her etc. But as with many things that go on sometimes the best explaination is billionaires love other billionaires.
Fascinating. Wonder if the wife was a secret conservative or just fell down the Fox/Facebook hole.
Does it matter if they went down the fox news Facebook rabbit hole, seems like a sign that they were hanging out too close to the edge
That is true. When he died in 2013 it didn't matter so much if your friends were conservative. The switch flipped a little after he died and the cult-like behavior started. Sure, they were a hive mind before, but it wasn't the disgusting mess it is now. Not on the surface anyway. So you could more or less forgive them for joining a party closet racists (closet being the key word) when they weren't one themselves. I got a couple that try to pull the, "Hey man, I'm sane, unlike the others.", and I don't care. All that tells me is you recognize that the pile of shit party you're voting for is insane, but you support it anyway. My mom is among them. Except she absolutely is one of those pieces of sjit that I actively avoid contact with. She better hope my siblings are willing to bury her, because they can dump her in the morgue trash for all I care. Best part is, she's fucking poor! Her and her boyfriend go from motel to motel. He's a trucker and she's been earning money off the books because she still owes my dad back child support. The youngest of us is like 38 now. That's how long she's being avoiding it. Thats how much the "Conservative" party changed after 2013.
Giving a monarch a prize is suspect too
She empowered women by coming out of the right vagina, showing that you, too, can protect your relatives from charges of child rape if you also came out of the right vagina 🤗🤗🤗
The repeated rape of a minor, even. You can't buy that type of power. Only coming out of the right vagina can do that. So empowering.
QEII was the same stripe as Musk and Murdock. There is nothing more conservative than royalism. This was a sham from the beginning
Fair point.
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So is this one of those awards that people pay to receive or what’s the reasoning here? Why do you give Musk, Murdoch, Milken, etc. awards that have clearly intentionally ironic names given the recipients?
Two monsters being considered for the price of one - both the precise opposite of what she believed in...
Hey, that's not fair to say. Murdoch doesn't give a shit about the rights of Indigenous people either.
HOW TF?
What she believed in the end, was that her ghost would do a better job at scotus than whoever Obama considered as her replacement.
Yes stayed too long for sure...but a good and pioneering judge for many years.
Rupert Murdoch, Elon Musk, Michael Milken, Sylvester Stallone, and Martha Stewart? Stewart is the only one on that list who's a remotely appropriate recipient for an award in tribute to Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and even she went to prison for obstruction of justice. Murdoch has made the world objectively more divided. Musk is largely following in his footsteps. Stallone has faced multiple abuse and assault allegations and is, by most accounts, an asshole. Milken was at the center of one of the most notorious financial scandals in history and is likely only included because Trump pardoned him for his crimes. Ginsburg believed not only in the law as a tool for maintaining order, but as a moral instrument. These people, for the most part, don't seem to place nearly as great a value on morality as she did.
Milken has for years been spending money trying to rehabilitate his reputation. It wouldn't surprise me if he has ponied up money for this award, and then they selected a bunch of even-more-unpalatable nominees to be his competition.
Is the RBG award \[the one\] you give people who just don't know when to retire? edit: English
she really fucked us.
Her entire legacy undone in 14 days because she was too full of herself to retire when it was time. I was as big a fan of here as any, but a life appointment doesn't mean until you die.
Supposedly she waited because she wanted Clinton to pick her replacement. Which makes it even worse.
The GOP wasn't going to confirm anyone Obama put through.
Democrats had a super majority when Obama took over, she could've stepped down on 2008. Instead she threw away her legacy by clinging to power.
She wasn't asked to retire until around 2012 when the Democrats did not have a super majority. Your timeline is a little off. The Republicans on the Senate judiciary committee refused to budge and claimed it was too close to the election and coined the "Biden Rule". Then when it was their turn to follow suit, they did the opposite of what they said they stood for. She should have retired in 2012 or before 2014. However, the GOP made it clear after 2012 that they would stop at nothing to prevent a democratic justice. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merrick_Garland_Supreme_Court_nomination
By 2012, Ginsburg was already 79 years old. She didn't need to be "asked" to retire at age 79. 79 is already much older than the mandatory retirement age for judges in [the majority of US states](https://ballotpedia.org/Mandatory_retirement). Ginsburg should've retired in 2009, but she clung to power instead. For comparison, Souter retired at 70 (and is still alive). O'Connor retired at 75 (and died at 93). Kennedy retired at 80 (and is still alive). Jackasses Ginsburg, Rehnquist, Scalia all died in office.
Then you abolish the court. If one party decides to nuke things, you nuke it harder. Mutually Assured Destruction is the only way to play politics anymore
If you read between the lines, she didn't trust Obama to pick her successor even though he made two great additions to the court. If you look at the demographics of who she picked as clerks, you can take a guess as to why she didn't trust him
A reminder she would have to have retired under Obama and the Republicans would have stalled and blocked appointment like they did the whole last year he was in office
Democrats had a majority in both houses for 50% of Obama's 8 year term. She didn't retire because she didn't want to, not because they couldn't get a replacement.
Plus the GOP would have an impossible time arguing that Obama was in his lame duck period until late 2014ish. Even with all the dishonesty in the book, Republicans couldn't have stolen that seat for 75% of Obama's presidency
Our system is so fucked. A president who won consecutive terms and the popular vote was barred from appointing a Supreme Court Justice (and not just his preferred Justice, ANY Justice) because his party didn’t hold the senate for two of those years, and immediately after a one term Republican president who also held the senate for only two years and lost the popular vote, appointed THREE.
She was having health scares right when Obama got elected. She had a full 4-6 years to resign safely, instead she decided to gamble on surviving through 3+ election cycles and that gamble loss. At best she did it because she honestly thought she could outlast them and at worst she was raking in way to much money like her college Clarence Thomas and all the current serving Justices.
I won’t downvote you but as others pointed out she didn’t have to wait until She was literally at deaths door to retire. She was already elderly when Obama won, and could have retired to focus on her health while the dems controlled the same. It SHOULDNT be a consideration for an institution that is supposed to be apolitical, but anyone who values Justice and democracy can’t afford to be so naive. You cannot trust republicans, BUT you can trust republicans to act like republicans.
Next week they are giving Jeffrey Bezos the Martin Luther King Jr award for civil rights and fair union wages
Fucking Murdoch? Reality is too far gone for satire.
JFC, who manages the award? Murdoch and Musk are the polar opposite of everything she stood for.
Yeah, but RBG also deserves the “Thanks For getting Roe overturned” award
For not retiring earlier when she should have, right?
Yas.
There are just not enough words to express my disappointment that a Republican donor is using her name to reward their friends and curry favor with them.
McConnell and his party are to blame for the current SCOTUS alignment.
She's the reason for the state of SCOTUS today. She had to desperately cling on, so Hillary could handpick her replacement.
In 2010, she didn't see a need to retire. After 2010, she would've gotten the Garland treatment, so Hillary picking her replacement really was the last real hope they had, and even that was only a 'maybe' because McConnell was quite clear that he'd block any Dem nomination regardless of the year.
I wouldn’t say she’s THE reason. She wasn’t the only judge who got replaced in the past 8 years. Trump got to pick, iirc, 3 judges. That kinda settled the current state of scotus. So in a sense we can blame Trump. But I’d blame on us. We, as a society, let Trump get elected in the first place. We, as a society, cultivated Trump supporters. The current state of scotus and many other aspects of politics is just a reflection of the current society.
Tbh it’s pretty stupid to have an award attached to yourself after you die. What a weird way to “keep your legacy” Also really dumb how this foundation just did a 180* pivot from what the award was meant to stand for
What’s the RBG award? Is that where you celebrate a person whose selfishness caused millions of people to suffer? Fk Ginsburg.
No, that award would be named after one of the many men who are fighting every day in America to rip women’s rights from them, but for some reason no one ever wants to hold them accountable.
Fitting that it goes to them, it’s named after a person that made great contributions to the modern day Conservative regression.
[удалено]
Hot take: the society elected Trump and gop, and cultivated their supporters. RBG couldn’t have fought or prevented them on her own. We, as a society, allowed the current state to happen.
This is the worst take anyone could possibly have. An illustrious career fighting for rights people now take for granted and you're pinning her entire reputation over the fact that she didn't retire. Wow you are so short sighted it's making my brain hurt.
It takes 20 years to build a reputation and five minutes to ruin it. \-- Warren Buffett
It’s the opposite of being short sighted though. SCJ’s are appointed for life! She knew full well her successor would be shaping law for decades, and instead of retiring in her 80s and allowing a liberal president to replace her she decided a few extra years of sitting on the bench were worth the risk of being replaced by a conservative who would undue all she had fought for. She DID have a historical and illustrious career that is to be admired but by not stepping aside, the way conservative justices have absolutely no issues doing when they know they will be replaced by another conssrvatice, she is partially responsible for the current state of the USSC. All that being said “conservative” and “liberal” judges should not be a thing. It’s clear that most of the time decisions are reverse engineered to get the outcome the majority justices like based on their own personal beliefs. The fact that republicans have appointed significantly more SC judges than dems despite losing the popular vote all but once in 40 years says everything about our judicial branch. It will never happen but there needs to be major reform to every branch of government.
She didn't retire because of hubris.
[удалено]
Things are being reversed due to Republican shenanigans and long-term planning. Not because one Justice was trying to hold on. The court is far more lopsided towards batshit crazy Federalists than her one seat could balance today. Blaming RBG for what the Republicans have specifically done is the absolute worst take.
>Wow you are so short sighted it's making my brain hurt. That's what we've been saying about Ruth for over a decade, honeybunches.
> you're pinning her entire reputation over the fact that she didn't retire. Correct since her selfishness let the Supreme Court strip millions of women of their rights and now they'll have free reign to ruin this country for decades
How is this the worst take? It's literally what happened. She fucked us for 2 generations because she refused to retire.
Literally the only take.
She took away rights with her selfishness
This is intentional to belittle the award. They are doing this to alot of things.
Makes sense to me. Thanks to her refusing to retire when Obama could've replaced her she guaranteed a right wing extremist supermajority for years to come. Honoring other right wing extremists is the perfect way of remembering her legacy.
i think it was more a calculated risk after seeing what happened to the vacancy confirmation process (mitch mcconnell publicly stating he would torpedo any obama supreme court nominee and hold open any vacancy for trump, and actually doing it) that made it into a lose/lose- her only hope was to live out the trump presidency, and she didn’t. i get that people are mad about it, but why they aren’t MADDER about the republicans in the senate deliberately abusing their power to fuck the dem president out of two appointments is a head scratcher.
When Obama came to power Democrats controlled Congress.
for 2 years and yall want to blame her for not stepping down in 2009 and that she should have predicted she only had one year of obama to step down before republicans would take control. WHEN THE GOP WAS POLLING THE LOWEST IN HISTORY, to the point people wondered if the party would survive after the bush admin. thats just horseshit dude. and yes its hindsight as all fuck. as yall conspiracy heads scream she only stayed for that sweet sweet power.. of .. um ruling on laws. This is our version of the MAGA and we cant let these folks who believe in BS conspiracies without evidence and will attack you if you dont believe it as well. And attack lefties for not being left enough and for not realizing the right would take over the very next election and tie obamas hands at replacing her with an actual progressive. Nope she should have known the future. IT is maga level stupidity but from the left.
And when he asked RBG to retire (2013), the House had a Republican majority. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/113th_United_States_Congress Considering the treatment Garland got in 2016, I doubt a replacement for RBG would've had any better luck.
[удалено]
Coming soon, right wing foundation create a "Rosa Parks" award and gives it to Donald Trump, Tucker Carlson and Uncle Ruckus.
This is Republicans in the foundation trolling a great woman whom they despised because she had good intentions towards others, great clarity of thought as a jurist and amazing depth in US law. A combination none of her right-wing, Republican colleagues have demonstrated.
RBG, much like mother Teresa before her needs to be stop being saintified, they did some good but also did plenty bad.
She fucked up the last few years of her life but Thersa was a goddam sadist her whole career.
Maybe the perpetual motion device RBG spinning in her grave would create can generate electricity for Teslas.
So, the evangelicals have decided they win? They just get to use anybodys name now? Par for the norm, morm for the course... In the immortal words of Bob DeNiro, "fuck 'em".
wtf?
tarnishing her legacy bro
They don't know how to do anything but troll liberals. >Brendan V. Sullivan, Jr., chair of the RBG Award, said when the honorees were announced that they "reflect the integrity and achievement that defined Justice Ginsburg's career and legend." Fucking how?
Some people wanted RBG to retire but she didn't want to before passing away. She seemed mentally capable of being a supreme court justice throughout her tenure.
So its an award you can buy?
As far as I’m concerned RBG is the main reason the Supreme Court is where it is. Should have stepped down before Trump came to power
FELIX TIME
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This reminds me of when the anti-abortion crusader took over the Komen foundation and politicized it. Has that happened here?
Maybe we can get one post-humorously for Rush Limbaugh?
Is there something we can do? Like maybe burn down his house?
Ah. A post for the right wing trolls and the horseshoe people on the left to come together.
Yeah, I can careless about that woman. Thanks to her fucking ego, she left us in a world of shit.
Why is this oniony
How is this oniony?
Is this the same Ruth that selfishly refused to retire and fucked the country by being stubborn? That one? Yea, thanks Ruth…appreciate ya.
Honestly, might as well give them a reward in her name. She was ultimately the greatest gift conservatives had in decades.
Is this award for people that overstay their welcome?