Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Justice. Show all posts

December 21, 2018

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg Has Surgery to Remove Cancerous Growths

 She is received at the court after she fell this past year and injured herself.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had cancerous growths removed from her lung today at the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City, the Supreme Court's office of Public Information said in a statement.

Details: "Post-surgery, there was no evidence of any remaining disease," the statement reads. The growths were discovered in November. Justice Ginsburg is the oldest justice on the court and has previously beaten back both colon and pancreatic cancer.

Show less
"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent a pulmonary lobectomy today at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. Two nodules in the lower lobe of her left lung were discovered incidentally during tests performed at George Washington University hospital to diagnose and treat rib fractures sustained in a fall on November 7.

According to the thoracic surgeon, Valerie W. Rusch, MD, FACS, both nodules removed during surgery were found to be malignant on initial pathology evaluation. Post-surgery, there was no evidence of any remaining disease. Scans performed before surgery indicated no evidence of disease elsewhere in the body.

Currently, no further treatment is planned. Justice Ginsburg is resting comfortably and is expected to remain in the hospital for a few days. Updates will be provided as they become available."


November 12, 2018

Every Time Justice Ruth Bader Coughs 60% of Americans Get The Flu "Please Be Around, Be Healthy"

 These roses reside where I live. They always come back evey spring but be careful if you touch them and not wear industrial thick gloves. I call Them 'Justiceruth' Roses
 On showing up despite undergoing cancer treatments and being presumed on the brink of death by Kentucky Republican Jim Bunning: “I also wanted them to see I was alive and well, contrary to that senator who said I’d be dead within nine months.” -In comments to CNN in 2016

Earlier this week, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was admitted to hospital. Why did the news send many Americans into a tizzy?
On Wednesday evening, Justice Ginsburg fell in her office at the US Supreme Court and went to the hospital, where doctors discovered she had fractured three ribs. The reaction from the liberal corners of social media was an instantaneous mixture of well-wishes and barely-suppressed horror.
"#RuthBaderGinsburg DON'T YOU DARE DIE WE NEED YOU!" wrote one.
"I hereby donate all of my ribs and organs to Ruth Bader Ginsburg," wrote Lauren Duca, a columnist for Teen Vogue. 
That evening, late night television host Jimmy Kimmel introduced the "Ruth Bader Gins-bubble" on his programme, saying the 85-year-old needed to be "protected at all costs" as a Ginsburg stand-in rolled on stage encased in a gigantic plastic bubble.
Although Ginsburg returned home on Friday, anxiety surrounding the health of the oldest sitting justice will surely continue. If Ginsburg were to retire or become too ill to serve, President Donald Trump would be able to cement the court's conservative majority with the appointment of his third justice, after Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh.
Beyond that, the outpouring of concern can be credited to the fact that for liberals, Ginsburg has become a bona fide icon. She's the subject of a new biopic On the Basis of Sex, a documentary, and a bestselling book called Notorious RBG, which re-introduced her to a generation of millennial women. It's now possible to purchase T-shirts and coffee mugs with her likeness on them. 
On Halloween, scores of miniature Ginsburgs waving tiny gavels filled social media:
Presentational white space
"I think people of all ages are excited to see a woman in public life who has shown that, even at the age of 85, she can be unflinching in her commitment to equality and justice," says Irin Carmon, one of the co-authors of Notorious RBG. "We don't have enough figures like her."
Famous for her diminutive stature, serious demeanour and long pauses - she is said to have no tolerance for small talk - how did Ruth Bader Ginsburg go from celebrated legal scholar to full-blown celebrity?
Short presentational grey line

A pay cut for being pregnant

Joan Ruth Bader was born in the Flatbush neighbourhood of Brooklyn, New York, in 1933, the daughter of Jewish immigrants. Joan Ruth's mother died of cancer when her daughter was just 17. 
After graduating from Cornell University in 1954, she married Marty Ginsburg and not long after, the couple had their first child. While Ginsburg was pregnant, she was demoted at her job at a social security office - discrimination against pregnant women was still legal in the 1950s. The experience led her to conceal her second pregnancy years later. 
Ginsburg in 1977Image copyrightBETTMANN
Image captionGinsburg in 1977
In 1956, she became one of nine women to enrol at Harvard Law School, where the dean famously compelled his female students to tell him how they could justify taking the spot of a man in his school. She later transferred to Columbia Law School in New York, and became the first woman to work at both schools' law reviews. 
Despite that, Ginsburg struggled to find work, even though she'd been at the top of her class. 
"Not a law firm in the entire city of New York would employ me," she once said. "I struck out on three grounds: I was Jewish, a woman and a mother."
Short presentational grey line

Playing 'kindergarten teacher' to all-male justices

She became a professor at Rutgers Law School in 1963, where she taught some of the first women and law classes, and co-founded the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. In 1973, she became the ACLU's general counsel, which kicked off a prolific era of arguing gender discrimination cases, six of which brought her before the US Supreme Court. 
She argued on behalf of a female Air Force lieutenant who was denied a housing benefit for her husband that her male colleagues received for their wives. She also took men's cases. In 1975, she argued the case of a young widower who was denied benefits after his wife died in childbirth. 
"His case was a the perfect example of how gender-based discrimination hurts everyone," Ginsburg said years later, at her confirmation hearing.
She won five out of the six cases she argued before the Supreme Court, a time when she says she felt she had to explain gender discrimination to the all-male justices like "a kindergarten teacher". 
It was also during this time that she argued on behalf of a female Air Force captain who'd become pregnant, and was being told to abort the baby or lose her job. Ginsburg hoped that the case would make reproductive autonomy a constitutionally-protected right, but instead, the Air Force changed its policy and the case was dismissed. 
The next year, Roe v Wade decided the question of abortion, and Ginsburg fretted that since the decision hinged on right to privacy instead of equal protection, it was open to legal attack.
"The Court ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action," she said in a 1984 lecture
Short presentational grey line

The second woman on Supreme Court 

In 1980, as a part of President Jimmy Carter's efforts to diversify the nation's federal courts, Ginsburg was nominated to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. She gained a reputation as a centrist, voting with conservatives many times and against, for example, hearing the discrimination case of a sailor who said he'd been discharged from the Navy for being gay. 
Justice Ginsburg is sworn in, with her husband Martin holding the bibleImage copyrightMARK REINSTEIN
Image captionJustice Ginsburg is sworn in, with her husband Martin holding the bible
President Bill Clinton nominated her to the Supreme Court in 1993, after a protracted search process in which some feminist groups, according to the New Yorker, spoke privately against her over her past remarks on Roe. But Clinton eventually made up his mind, making Ginsburg the second woman ever nominated to the US Supreme Court.
"It was her interview that did it," Clinton says in the 2018 documentary, RBG. "Literally within 15 minutes, I decided I was gonna name her."
During her confirmation hearing, Ginsburg proclaimed staunch pro-choice views. 
"It is essential to woman's equality with man that she be the decision maker," she said in the hearing before Congress. "If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex."
Short presentational grey line

The fiery dissenter 

One of her most important, early cases on the Supreme Court was United States v Virginia, which struck down the men-only admission policy at Virginia Military Institute. Writing for the majority, Ginsburg said that no law or policy should deny women "full citizenship stature - equal opportunity to aspire, achieve, participate in and contribute to society based on their individual talents and capacities". 
"It really was the last step in her own trajectory as a lawyer in trying to get the Supreme Court to recognise that gender classifications are a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment," says Paul Schiff Berman, professor of law at George Washington University and one of Ginsburg's law clerks in the late '90s.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg in her trademark lace glovesImage copyrightSOPA IMAGES
Over the decades, as the court has become more conservative, Ginsburg has increasingly moved to the left, and is now famous for her fiery dissents.
In the case of Shelby County v Holder, the court struck down a portion of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by a 5-to-4 vote, eliminating federal preclearance for changes to local voting laws - a provision intended to prevent voter suppression. 
In response to the majority's assertion that America had changed so much for the better that the preclearance was no longer needed, Ginsburg wrote in her dissent that this was "like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet". 
From justice to icon
In part thanks to her unsparing dissents, a young law student named Shana Knizhnik created a Tumblr account dedicated to Ginsburg called Notorious RBG - a reference to the late rapper The Notorious BIG. The account reintroduced Ginsburg to a new generation of young feminists, and became so popular that Knizhnik and her co-author Carmon turned the blog into a book of the same name, which became a bestseller. 
Notorious RBG helped propel Ginsburg into pop culture stardom. Actress Kate McKinnon began playing Ginsburg on Saturday Night Live. The justice herself is said to distribute T-shirts with her own likeness on them. 
"I think that it's actually something that Justice Ginsburg has really enjoyed in these last few years," says Berman, her former clerk. "For her to feel as if her legacy can inspire a new generation of young women in particular, I think, is very exciting to her."
As a part of her new pop culture relevance, all aspects of Ginsburg's life have become the subject of internet fascination - her workout routine, for example, has been attempted by comedian Stephen Colbert. She's been lauded as a fashion icon, from her penchant for lace gloves to her elaborate jabots, the collars she wears over her robes. Her famous "dissent collar" has been reproduced in miniature for necklaces. 
Ruth Bader Ginsburg dolls
Image captionOne of many RBG novelty items for sale
Her marriage to husband Marty is central to the new biopic, On the Basis of Sex. Marty Ginsburg died in 2010 - during the course of their 56-year marriage, he became his wife's greatest advocate, happy to play second fiddle to his famous partner. 
"Meeting Marty was by far the most fortunate thing that ever happened to me," Ginsburg says in the documentary RBG. 
Ginsburg is a famously stoic woman, but she adores the opera, a passion she shared with the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who despite being her ideological opposite was a close friend before he died in 2016.
"I get totally carried away," she says of opera in the documentary. "It's like an electric current going through me."
But the justice is not immune from criticism - or from error. During the 2016 election, she called then-candidate Donald Trump a "faker", and said she could not imagine a world with him as president. 
"He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego," she told CNN
Afterward she was criticised by both the right and left, who said her comments could undermine her impartiality and the authority of the court. She ultimately apologised.

 Why she refuses to retire

During President Barack Obama's two terms in office, some liberal pundits wondered loudly if it wasn't time for Ginsburg to retire, with a Democrat in office who could be relied upon to install another liberal justice. Those calls have been dismissed by Ginsburg, with some irritation on her part. 
"Many people have asked me, 'Well, when are you going to step down?'" she said in an interview this year. "As long as I can do the job full steam, I will be here."
Carmon is quick to point out that this is not the first time Ginsburg has broken her ribs, and that while she has survived two battles with cancer, and had a stent placed in her heart in 2014, she has never missed a day of arguments. 
"Each time she's returned with just as much determination and resilience," says Carmon. "She has been at this work for at least a half-century, and she's not done yet."

November 8, 2018

US Supreme Justice Ruth Bader in Hospital After Fall and Breaking three Ribs

US Supreme Court judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg has fractured three ribs after a fall on Wednesday, the court says.
The fall happened in her office at the Supreme Court in Washington.
Ms Ginsburg, 85, went home but was in discomfort and went to George Washington University hospital on Thursday morning, a statement said.
Tests showed that she had fractured three ribs on her left side and she has been admitted for observation and treatment.
It means Ms Ginsburg will not be present for Thursday's investiture of new Supreme Court judge Brett Kavanaugh, whose appointment led to protests following allegations of sexual misconduct.
President Donald Trump, who nominated Mr Kavanaugh and described the claims against him as a "hoax", is due to attend his investiture. 
Ms Ginsburg has sat on the Supreme Court since 1993 after being appointed by President Bill Clinton and is seen as the most senior justice on the court's liberal wing.
Prior to her appointment, Ms Ginsburg focused her work on women's rights and started the first law journal dedicated to the topic.
Some of her legal opinions, coupled with her refusal to step down during the Obama era, have seen her gain popularity in some quarters and earned her the nickname Notorious RBG.

September 12, 2018

A Judge Lying Under Oath "I wrote Some of The Stolen Memos-He should be impeached By LISA GRAVES"

This article first reported and posted on Slate

"He should be impeached, not elevated."

Much of Washington has spent the week focusing on whether Judge Brett Kavanaugh should be confirmed to the Supreme Court. After the revelations of his confirmation hearings, the better question is whether he should be impeached from the federal judiciary.
I do not raise that question lightly, but I am certain it must be raised.
Newly released emails show that while he was working to move through President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees in the early 2000s, Kavanaugh received confidential memos, letters, and talking points of Democratic staffers stolen by GOP Senate aide Manuel Miranda. That includes research and talking points Miranda stole from the Senate server after I had written them for the Senate Judiciary Committee as the chief counsel for nominations for the minority.
Receiving those memos and letters alone is not an impeachable offense.
No, Kavanaugh should be removed because he was repeatedly asked under oath as part of his 2004 and 2006 confirmation hearings for his position on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit about whether he had received such information from Miranda, and each time he falsely denied it. 
For example, in 2004, Sen. Orrin Hatch asked him directly if he received “any documents that appeared to you to have been drafted or prepared by Democratic staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.” Kavanaugh responded, unequivocally, “No.”
In 2006, Sen. Ted Kennedy asked him if he had any regrets about how he treated documents he had received from Miranda that he later learned were stolen. Kavanaugh rejected the premise of the question, restating that he never even saw one of those documents. 
  Back then the senators did not have the emails that they have now, showing that Miranda sent Kavanaugh numerous documents containing what was plainly research by Democrats. Some of those emails went so far as to warn Kavanaugh not to distribute the Democratic talking points he was being given. If these were documents shared from the Democratic side of the aisle as part of normal business, as Kavanaugh claimed to have believed in his most recent testimony, why would they be labeled “not [for] distribution”? And why would we share our precise strategy to fight controversial Republican nominations with the Republicans we were fighting? 
Another email chain included the subject line “spying.” It’s hard to imagine a more definitive clue than that. Another said “Senator Leahy’s staff has distributed a confidential letter to Dem Counsel” and then described for Kavanaugh that precise confidential information we had gathered about a nominee Kavanaugh was boosting. Again, it is illogical to think that we would have just given Miranda this “confidential” information for him to use against us. But this is precisely what Judge Kavanaugh suggested in his testimony on Wednesday. He is not that naïve. 
In the hearing this week, Sen. Leahy also noted that the previously hidden emails showed that Miranda asked to meet Kavanaugh in person to give him “paper” files with “useful info to map out [Sens. Joe] Biden and [Dianne] Feinstein, and others.” The promised information included “Biden-speak.” Again, this would not have been a normal information exchange.
In response to Leahy’s questions this week, Kavanaugh made the outlandish claim that it was typical for him to be told what Democrats planned to ask at these combative hearings over controversial nominees, and that this was in fact the “coin of the realm.” As a Democrat who worked on those questions, I can say definitively that it was not typical at all. Kavanaugh knows this full well.
At the time, Kavanaugh was working with Miranda and outside groups to try to force these nominees through the Senate over Democratic objections, and it would have been suicide to give them our research, talking points, strategies, or confidential letters. The GOP senators, their staff, the White House, and outside groups were working intensively to undermine the work of Democratic senators to block the most extreme of President Bush’s judicial nominees.  
The Leahy talking points given to Kavanaugh were from my in-depth research into why the Senate had compelling historical precedent for examining Miguel Estrada’s Department of Justice records, which the White House counsel’s office was refusing to surrender. Other confidential materials Miranda shared with Kavanaugh related to investigations Democrats were pursuing over how Judge Priscilla Owen had handled an abortion case involving parental consent and about the overlap between her funders and groups with business before the courts of Texas. We would never have provided that information—key to our strategy to try to block what we considered extremist judicial nominations—to Miranda or to the White House.
Kavanaugh’s actions were dishonorable and dishonest.
Proceedings with ones in which Democrats might have cooperated with the other side, like the Patriot Act and airline liability. But these weren’t hearings on some bill where senators would share their concerns across the aisle to try to get a bipartisan fix on problems in a piece of legislation. These were oppositional proceedings in committee and on the floor over controversial judicial nominees. Kavanaugh knew this just as intimately as I did—our sides fought over those nominations intensely. It was also an area where Kavanaugh’s judicial nominations alliance had taken a scorched-earth approach, attacking Democrats ruthlessly. The White House’s closest allies went so far as to call Leahy and other Democrats on the committee “anti-Catholic,” even running attack ads.
Perhaps Kavanaugh was so blinded by his quest to get the most controversial Bush nominees confirmed in 2003 that he did not have any concerns about the bounty of secret memos and letters he was receiving—the full extent of which is not known because so many documents are still secret.
But, surely, reasonable questions about what he had been party to would have been considered after the story of the theft exploded in the news, Miranda was forced to resign, and the U.S. Senate sergeant-at-arms began a bipartisan investigation into the files stolen from the Senate?
As of November 2003, when the sergeant-at-arms seized the Judiciary Committee’s servers, Kavanaugh would have been on notice that any of the letters, talking points, or research described as being from Democrats that were provided to him by Miranda were suspect and probably stolen from the Senate’s server. 
But he did nothing. He did not come forward to the Senate to provide information about the confidential documents Miranda had given him, which were clearly from the Democrats.
Kavanaugh also apparently did nothing when the Senate referred the case to the U.S. attorney’s office for criminal prosecution. (Miranda was never prosecuted.)
Eventually, though, Kavanaugh went even further to help cover up the details of the theft.
During the hearings on his nomination to the D.C. Circuit a few months after the Miranda news broke, Kavanaugh actively hid his own involvement, lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee by stating unequivocally that he not only knew nothing of the episode, but also never even received any stolen material.
Even if Kavanaugh could claim that he didn’t have any hint at the time he received the emailsthat these documents were of suspect provenance—which I personally find implausible—there is no reasonable way for him to assert honestly that he had no idea what they were after the revelation of the theft. Any reasonable person would have realized they had been stolen, and certainly someone as smart as Kavanaugh would have too.
But he lied.
  And he did so repeatedly.

Under oath
Significantly, he did so even though a few years earlier he had helped spearhead the impeachment of President Bill Clinton for perjury in a private civil case. Back then Kavanaugh took lying under oath so seriously that he was determined to do everything he could to help remove a president from office.
Now we know that he procured his own confirmation to the federal bench by committing the same offense. And he did so not in a private case but in the midst of public hearings for a position of trust, for a lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary.
His actions were dishonorable and dishonest.
This week, as part of his efforts to be elevated to the highest court in the land, he has calmly continued to deceive, falsely claiming that it would have been perfectly normal for him to receive secret Democratic letters, talking points, and other materials. And if this absurd notion were somehow true, it would not even be consistent with what he testified to 12 and 14 years ago. Back then, he didn’t state it would have been normal for him to receive secret Democratic strategy materials. 
Instead, he explicitly and repeatedly went out of his way to say he never had access to any such materials. These objectively false statements were offered under oath to convince the committee of something that was untrue. It was clearly intentional, with Kavanaugh going so far as to correct Sen. Kennedy when the senator described the document situation accurately.
That’s why—without even getting into other reasonable objections to his nomination—he should not be confirmed.
In fact, by his own standard, he should clearly be impeached. 
Lisa Graves is the co-founder of Documented, which investigates corporate influence on democracy. She is the former chief counsel for nominations for the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and was deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice.

September 10, 2018

Kavanaugh Refused To Answer Anything on Gay Marriage Which Are Not Settled Law if They Come Back to The Supreme Court

Settled law only applies to lower courts. If a case comes back to the Supreme Court the Justices do not have to accept them as settled law but if they wish as a new issue which they can change what ever way they feel is right. 🦊Adam

Trump Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh declined to answer a question from Sen. Kamala Harris on marriage equality. 
Harris pressed Kavanaugh to say whether he felt Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, was correctly decided.
Kamala Harris Brett Kavanaugh hearing
Drew Angerer/Getty Images
Instead, he made note of the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, in which Colorado baker Jack Phillips won a narrow ruling in a case in which he argued his right to free speech would be violated if he were forced to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, calling it “relevant to your question.”

“Justice Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion…The days of discriminating against gay and lesbian Americans, or treating gay and lesbian Americans as inferior in dignity and worth, are over,” Kavanaugh said. 
When Harris inquired if he agreed with that decision, Kavanaugh declined to answer, taking the position that it would be improper for him to comment on recent or pending cases.

“Brett Kavanaugh’s refusal to answer very basic, very direct questions about the Supreme Court’s historic ruling bringing marriage equality nationwide is alarming and completely unacceptable,” said HRC President Chad Griffin in a statement.
“The Obergefell decision is settled law. If this nominee cannot so much as affirm that or the fundamental equality of LGBTQ people and our families, he should not and must not be granted a lifetime appointment to our nation’s highest court.”

“I think the potential is there for him to have a dramatic negative impact,” Jim Obergefell, whose legal battle made marriage equality possible, told The Advocate
“I’m worried that it could cause people who have been discriminated against not to pursue legal action because they might doubt the idea that they could take their case all the way to the Supreme Court and win. I worry that they will decide it’s not worth it.”
Obergefell added that he would have been “terrified” to have his case before the Supreme Court if it included all the justices currently on the bench plus Kavanaugh. 
Journalist based in Charlotte, North Carolina, whose work has appeared in The Charlotte Observer, Creative Loafing, and more.

Featured Posts

Second Day at Home {Adamfoxie}

I will rather post important stories not being published the way they should or post information in a new format that will h...