She was a patriot and served her country honorably.

Her and Scalia reminded us all that you can have fundamental disagreements and still be friends and cordial colleagues, a lesson we all need nowadays.

Prayers to her family.

[Ginsburg] mulled whether the court could revisit its 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. She said she did not see how that could be done.

The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said.

“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.

I respect her work and judgement as much as Antonin Scalia. As far as I remember she wrote well written and sound impassioned dissents on decisions much like Scalia did, and worked very much as a worthy liberal advisory to conservative judges.

If you are 'celebrating' the death of Ginsburg, then you really have no moral high ground about people who did the same when Scalia passed away late in the Obama administration. .

I respect her work and judgement as much as Antonin Scalia. As far as I remember she wrote well written and sound impassioned dissents on decisions much like Scalia did, and worked very much as a worthy liberal advisory to conservative judges.

If you are 'celebrating' the death of Ginsburg, then you really have no moral high ground about people who did the same when Scalia passed away late in the Obama administration. .

Yes she served but I would not say completely honorably. A ardent advocate of infanticide. Virulently anti-constitutional when it came to anything having to do with Christianity or the 2nd Amendment.

Do I respect her. To point. She server on the court for 27 years, you always knew how she would vote. She was sharp but she was everything the founders did NOT want in a judge. The judicial branch was never meant to be the the arbitrator of what is or is not law. They were to deal with those who broke the law. Instead RBG was your worse type judge trying to legislate from the bench. Wanting to push her agenda no matter what. while she was an advocate and overcame many obstacles, and we can applaud her and remember her for that, we also have to remember how much harm she did as well.

I do send condolences to her family. It's always hard to lose love one. But death is a fact of life. She is now standing before the ultimate judge and answering for her life and decisions. I'm not sure I would want to be her.


Agreed but you rarely see much movement by the left to accomidate anything. The movement has to be on our side of the isle or else rarely does anything get done. RGB and Scalia could relate to the pressures of the job, Being a supreme court justice is a thankless job and a high pressure position that leads to isolation. It really is not to surprising they became close even though totally opposite on morals and where they stood. I like to think that it really does show that opposites attract.
The need is to respectfully agree to disagree. Not always but more often than not that is what you do see from most of the more conservative side. (There are exceptions). You see it a whole lot less from the progressive and Democrat side. So its no wonder the divide widens.

You a gun owner? If you are, then you are only a law abiding gun owner and not an outlaw or someone who gave up your guns because Ginsburg never got her wish to "revisit" Heller and determine you have no civil rights.

She's about as worthy of respect as the judges who ruled that certain persons didn't have civil rights 150 years ago.

She was an activist judge, legislating from the bench.

Scalia wasn’t.

If you don’t comprehend the difference, not much needs to be said.

I don't know what your ideas of a court of opinion should be, but I believe that no fervent idea even ones I would be willing to die for is beyond challenge or criticism. Stronger challenges make for stronger arguments, which makes for a stronger better thought idea.

Weak challenges make for weak people, and corruption tends to breed in such places.

Your argument for the second amendment shouldn't be "Because it said so."

Your arguments should be sound, reasonable, and wise with the intent and interpretation of the writers as for why it would make a better country:

- A government that fears its populace will serve its people better than if its people fear the government
- All laws are backed by violence, that violence should be in the power of its people and not monopolized by the state
- All people have a fundamental right for self defense, and should be allowed the best available tools to defend one's property, friends, and family regardless of race, gender, or physical ability

Those arguments work for any country and any government regardless if they were written in their Bill, Charter, or Constitution. If you argument is simply "Because it said so" you are inviting this idea that if it was never written then it has no reason to exist.

As Scalia offered these sound ideas in the case of DC v. Heller for the Second Amendment due to the challenges of the liberal wing, Ginsberg did very much the same for the 4th and 14th amendments for Obergefell v. Hodges, United States v. Virginia, and Herring v. United States.

She has been a worthy adversary for those cases, and has gotten her way for challenging the conservative ideas for the 4th and 14th, which I think with hindsight on some of those cases has made better arguments for.

The Washington State Legislature enacted a preemptive ban on local jurisdictions from making laws that might limit the sale or possession of firearms in our state.

If the state preemption law is repealed, the King County Gun Safety Action Plan will immediately:

Ban semi-automatic, high velocity weapons: Ban the sale and possession of semi-automatic, high velocity weapons
Ban high capacity ammunition magazines: Ban the sale and possession of high capacity ammunition magazines
Raise the minimum age to 21: For all firearm purchases and possession laws
Impose a waiting period: Establish a waiting period before taking possession of a firearm after purchase
Require safety training: Require firearm safety training before taking possession of a firearm after purchase

If Ginsburg had her way King County and others like it would be kicking down your door at 2am (for officer safety) and shooting you when you got out of bed or yelled "who's there?" They are wrong about preemption merely being the only road block (DC v Heller and "common use" applies but we need another judge to rule that way on AWBs), but look at what they think they can do if/when legal/judicial "obstacles" are removed....
https://kingcountycantwait.org/