How Did Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Legacy Impact the US Supreme Court?

[StevieTNZ]

Expecting breaking news about Covid-19 in NZ, I saw this as a headline:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/ameri...-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-has-died-aged-87

https://www.supremecourt.gov/publicinfo/press/pressreleases/pr_09-18-20



May she RIP.

 

[Astronuc]

My wife read the CNN announcement to me about an hour ago.

 

[russ_watters]

We could tell she was hanging on, so it isn't much of a surprise, but she is definitely a big loss. There are Hall of Famers and then there is another level of all-time greats/icons and she is definitely one of the latter.

 

[jtbell]

Just a friendly reminder, not addressed to any of the posts so far... please no political comments or discussions about the consequences of this event.

 

[DaveE]

Thanks for the heads up. However we already knew, it's on every other news feed and social media site.
Is Physics Forums the best place for this?

 

[Algr]

The fact that it is risky to even complement her in her death shows the state we are in.

 

[DaveE]

The fact that it is risky to even complement her in her death shows the state we are in.

Yes. Agreed. However, that's not my point. Controversial or not, I don't see a strong connection to Science.

Perhaps an analogy will do:
Huckleberry Finn is a good book. I like Huckleberry Finn, and may want to re-read it someday. If I go to the library to check out Huckleberry Finn, I hope the Librarian hasn't put in among the chemistry or ancient Greek history books. Likewise if I want to browse through the biology books, I hope they haven't put lots of books in that section from other, perhaps equally interesting, topics.

I don't go to the local taqueria to buy shoes and I don't come to Physics Forums to learn about the supreme court. This has nothing to do with my curiosity, opinions, or knowledge of the supreme court.

 

[Evo]

Yes. Agreed. However, that's not my point. Controversial or not, I don't see a strong connection to Science.

We ALWAYS post RIP's here for ANYONE known to the public. This is no different.

She was a great mind, a great woman, and her loss is significant to many, so may she rest in peace.

 

[StevieTNZ]

This has nothing to do with my curiosity, opinions, or knowledge of the supreme court.

Then don't read or participate in threads that have nothing to do with science. plane @ simple

 

[Evo]

I don't go to the local taqueria to buy shoes and I don't come to Physics Forums to learn about the supreme court. This has nothing to do with my curiosity, opinions, or knowledge of the supreme court.

So why are you reading threads in GD? If you are lost and don't know where you are posting, please don't post.

Please pay attention to which forum you are in before posting!

Edited by Evo to say "please".

 

[atyy]

She's 3 years younger than Sandra Day O'Connor, another great, but who was able to retire early. I guess O'Connor joined the court when she was younger, so RBG served 27 years, only 2 years more than O'Connor.

 

[DaveE]

PAY ATTENTION to which forum you are in before posting!

Yes, I see you are correct. I really wasn't paying attention to the forum, Mea Culpa. I also was lost in the sense that I didn't understand that it is true that RIP posts are pretty common here. Since there have been RIP posts for the likes of Doris Day, John Prine, Kirk Douglas. and Dianna Rigg; then it is completely appropriate to do the same for RBG, actually essential, IMO.

They say you can't change anyone's opinion on social media, which is only 99.999% true I think. My opinion (which you can summarize as "the Physics Forum website should be about science") has now changed. I think a GD forum is a good thing to have to collect off-topic posts. Humans are an emotional, tribal sort and it is unreasonable to expect that you can build a community with strict rules to stay on topic. People will want to post about Doris Day and John Prine and it's good to have an outlet for that, ideally collected in one place, like this forum.

If you are lost and don't know where you are posting, please don't post.

Really? Would you say this if a chemistry post was put in a Classical Physics forum?

While perhaps not explicitly so, I found your replies to have a slightly hostile tone. My opinions were not in any way rude, demeaning, or inappropriate; they weren't even partisan. I'm not even sure they were in the wrong forum, can you suggest a better forum? Now may be a good time to re-read them a bit more literally this time. [BTW, if I did violate any rules, please let me know, I didn't/don't intend to]

Sorry, I think "please don't post" isn't a good look for a PF mentor. Are you a gatekeeper, or a guide? Is you goal to punish or educate? Can you tolerate opinions that differ from yours?

 

[Vanadium 50]

The fact that it is risky to even complement her in her death shows the state we are in.

What risks are you talking about? I have been reading compliments from all sides, including her political opponents. What risks are they taking exactly?

Furthermore, one of her best friends was someone who often held an opposing viewpoint (although not as often as you probably think), Justice Scalia. If they saw more to each other than the immediate political implications, shouldn't we honor their memories by doing the same?

 

[atyy]

Furthermore, one of her best friends was someone who often held an opposing viewpoint (although not as often as you probably think), Justice Scalia. If they saw more to each other than the immediate political implications, shouldn't we honor their memories by doing the same?

Does Scalia deserve to rank as a great? He had a consistent framework for viewing the law which he ignored in voting for Bush. Does that one mistake overshadow the rest of his achievements? Though in these times, that is looking like a tiny error.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think this is the right time or place to be discussing Scalia's approach to the law.

 

[Evo]

Really? Would you say this if a chemistry post was put in a Classical Physics forum?

No, but your post was more like posting a rant about Physics being worthless and science in general being of no value in the Chemistry forum. Except this complaint was in a thread about someone that had just passed away. My last 2 sentences go together, if you don't know what forum you are posting in, don't post for obvious reasons. You need to take a step back.

While perhaps not explicitly so, I found your replies to have a slightly hostile tone. My opinions were not in any way rude, demeaning, or inappropriate; they weren't even partisan. I'm not even sure they were in the wrong forum, can you suggest a better forum? Now may be a good time to re-read them a bit more literally this time. [BTW, if I did violate any rules, please let me know, I didn't/don't intend to]

Sorry, I think "please don't post" isn't a good look for a PF mentor. Are you a gatekeeper, or a guide? Is you goal to punish or educate? Can you tolerate opinions that differ from yours?

I'm sorry if I came across too harsh, but your post was seen as flippant, hurtful and inappropriate to some members that were in shock from the news and grieving. Also, no one was discussing the Supreme Court. I think people would have been offended in any forum you posted your reply in since it was an announcement about a person dying. I think a bit more compassion, and maybe reflecting on where and in what sense the announcement was made would have prevented your mistake. Just saying.

 

[DaveE]

Well, once again you have misinterpreted what I intended or actually said. It can be difficult to communicate effectively in social media posts because of people's inherent tendencies to interpret literal content through their emotions and cognitive biases. That's ok, people will do that and you can too. There's no point in arguing about opinions. I would ask readers to read and interpret what I actually wrote, and not other's interpretations of it.

I will take one last opportunity to explain my opinion to others: My point really had nothing to do with RBG, although I understand that that inference that can be made by juxtaposition. My point was that I would prefer PF to be more like Physical Review Letters or a chemistry class than like Facebook or Instagram. PF offers a unique and valuable place to discuss science. There are other places on the internet to find out what's happening with Doris Day or Marco Rubio; PF doesn't really add much to the web for those subjects.

I also understand that the PF community is a tribe of sorts; people with common interests. As such many will feel like there should be a place to discuss things of broader interest. That's a perfectly valid opinion also. So, it's good that there is a GD forum to allow this. Perhaps a place to post opinions (those that aren't rude, malevolent, etc.).

I understand that you don't agree with our like my opinion, that's ok. I'm also ok with your opinion that we should post here about non-science content. It is this individual feedback that can help guide how the community evolves.

My opinion is probably not shared by many, particularly in this forum. But it is neither intended to be hurtful or literally so. Even if that is how people may interpret it. Of course that is unfortunate, and perhaps partly my fault.

Having said that, I don't expect that you will approve of my posts or perhaps truly understand what I intended. So, I don't think there is any point in my attempts to re-explain what I actually said; I have done enough of that. Of course you are free to draw your own conclusions. So, I'm done. You are free to have the last word if you like.

To paraphrase Monty Python; Your time is up, I can't argue anymore.

 

[atyy]

I don't think this is the right time or place to be discussing Scalia's approach to the law.

Well, maybe it is, since Ginsburg's and Scalia's approaches to the law were often contrasted.

Personally, I admired Scalia's apparently principled approach, and I liked that he often stated that his personal preferences were different from what the law said, but that it should be up to the legislators to change the law. But in the end, it seems on the basis of practice that Ginsburg's approach was perhaps the more principled one.

Justices Ginsburg And Scalia: A Perfect Match Except For Their Views On The Law
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo...-to-being-tipsy-during-state-of-the-union-nap

"... That was not the first time either, said Ginsburg, explaining that the audience at the speech "for the most part is awake, because they're bobbing up and down all the time. And we sit there stone-faced, sober judges, but we're not —at least I wasn't — 100 percent sober, because before we went to the State of the Union we had dinner together, and Justice Kennedy brought a ... very fine California wine."

Ginsburg said she had "vowed this year, just sparkling water, stay away from the wine. But in the end, the dinner was so delicious it needed wine to accompany it."

Justice Scalia, who doesn't go to the State of the Union, interjected: "That's the first intelligent thing you've done." ..."

Here is the composer's site for the Scalia/Ginsburg opera, with very short excerpts in one of the clips:
http://www.derrickwang.com/scalia-ginsburg

 

[Pythagorean]

What risks are you talking about?

Risks of social engagements, such as forum threads, getting heated through subtext and tensions building over things that they usually wouldn't as a sort of stand-in for any localized elephants?

We should require that all participants in this thread share a Thanksgiving dinner upon its closure.

 

[atyy]

https://www.economist.com/obituary/2020/09/23/ruth-bader-ginsburg-died-on-september-18th

"... What did not change was her regard for her colleagues, conservative or not, in the wonderfully civilised family that was the court. For each of them, after all, their basic motivation was the same. At the end of “Scalia/Ginsburg”, the two famous foes-and-friends sang together the aria which was her favourite: “Separate strands unite in friction/To protect our country’s core...And this is why we will see justice done./We are different;/We are one.”"