Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hospitalized for gallbladder condition and infection, Supreme Court announces。
WASHINGTON – Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized Tuesday for "a benign gallbladder condition" that caused an infection, a Supreme Court spokeswoman announced. Ginsburg, 87, underwent "non-surgical treatment" for acute cholecystitis, and is expected to remain at Johns Hopkins Hospital for a day or two. The spokeswoman said Ginsburg plans to participate in the telephone arguments on Wednesday, just as she did Monday and Tuesday. Ginsburg initially sought medical care Monday after oral arguments and received outpatient tests at Sibley Memorial Hospital, which confirmed that she had a gallstone blocking her cystic duct that resulted in an infection.
Justice Thomas is well known as the man with few words on the bench, however, he listens intently. If you read his opinions, be it majority or dissent, you’d be awed by his scholarly sharp mind.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hospitalized for gallbladder condition and infection, Supreme Court announces。
WASHINGTON – Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized Tuesday for "a benign gallbladder condition" that caused an infection, a Supreme Court spokeswoman announced. Ginsburg, 87, underwent "non-surgical treatment" for acute cholecystitis, and is expected to remain at Johns Hopkins Hospital for a day or two. The spokeswoman said Ginsburg plans to participate in the telephone arguments on Wednesday, just as she did Monday and Tuesday. Ginsburg initially sought medical care Monday after oral arguments and received outpatient tests at Sibley Memorial Hospital, which confirmed that she had a gallstone blocking her cystic duct that resulted in an infection.
xiaomaoma 发表于 5/5/2020 9:26:46 PM
I thought she has left America long time ago as she said.
Well said! I don't like the names "conservative" vs "liberal" because it doesn't depict the true features of each party. It should be called "lawful" vs "lawless".
也不能这么说，有些事情也确实需要与时俱进的，毕竟写宪法的时候女人黑人都没有投票权。独立宣言里也写的是 all men are created equal. 完全教条也是不行的。
momosun 发表于 5/6/2020 10:36:34 AM
15th amendment and 19th amendment of USC were ratified to establish voting rights for blacks and women, respectively. Neither came from SCOTUS precedents. SCOTUS should only interpret the US Constitution, and leave the job of changing it to the proper and established ratification process.
通过华人这个论坛，真是可以窥见选民的民智啊。Ginsburg最主要的领域是right to abortion。她最有名的案子是1973的Roe v. Wade。在Roe以前，美国妇女是不能堕胎的。Roe为了平衡不同的意见，开创了3段式操作，简单说就是孕期前三个月可以按照孕妇意愿堕胎，后3个月孕妇想堕胎需要有更强的理由。直到今天，Ginsburg还在为女性争取自由选择是否要生育的权力，希望可以有一个合适的case revisit Roe的判决。现任Chief Justice John Roberts是布什任命的“共和党”首席大法官。但是在他的任期内，gay marriage 和Obamacare他都是投了赞成票，这两个landmark cases都是在“共和党”法官的领导下批准的。 小学生才会不是黑就是白。希望Ginsburg身体健康，早日康复。
通过华人这个论坛，真是可以窥见选民的民智啊。Ginsburg最主要的领域是right to abortion。她最有名的案子是1973的Roe v. Wade。在Roe以前，美国妇女是不能堕胎的。Roe为了平衡不同的意见，开创了3段式操作，简单说就是孕期前三个月可以按照孕妇意愿堕胎，后3个月孕妇想堕胎需要有更强的理由。直到今天，Ginsburg还在为女性争取自由选择是否要生育的权力，希望可以有一个合适的case revisit Roe的判决。现任Chief Justice John Roberts是布什任命的“共和党”首席大法官。但是在他的任期内，gay marriage 和Obamacare他都是投了赞成票，这两个landmark cases都是在“共和党”法官的领导下批准的。 小学生才会不是黑就是白。希望Ginsburg身体健康，早日康复。 christine777544 发表于 5/6/2020 1:00:29 PM
Ginsburg 还有一个著名的案例 Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld，这个案例对整个退休金的推动是重大的。大家有时间应该好好读一下。现在大家有些所享有的权利不是生来就有的，而是争取来的。RBG对女性的平权运动是影响深远的。
通过华人这个论坛，真是可以窥见选民的民智啊。Ginsburg最主要的领域是right to abortion。她最有名的案子是1973的Roe v. Wade。在Roe以前，美国妇女是不能堕胎的。Roe为了平衡不同的意见，开创了3段式操作，简单说就是孕期前三个月可以按照孕妇意愿堕胎，后3个月孕妇想堕胎需要有更强的理由。直到今天，Ginsburg还在为女性争取自由选择是否要生育的权力，希望可以有一个合适的case revisit Roe的判决。现任Chief Justice John Roberts是布什任命的“共和党”首席大法官。但是在他的任期内，gay marriage 和Obamacare他都是投了赞成票，这两个landmark cases都是在“共和党”法官的领导下批准的。 小学生才会不是黑就是白。希望Ginsburg身体健康，早日康复。 christine777544 发表于 5/6/2020 1:00:29 PM
Roe v. Wade manufactured right to abortion on the premise of right to privacy, both unwritten in USC. USC already declared that government power undefined by the Constitution belongs to the state. Each state may very well open up its own abortion rights.
The very act of bench legislation such as R v. W weakens constitution protection on EVERYTHING, and allows government intrusion to areas unimaginable by founders. We have usurpation of the USC from both left AND right, but two wrongs do not make a right.
When you and her Honor stop rationalizing government intrusion of freedom and liberty guaranteed by USC, I will start wishing Justice Ginsburg well.
Yes, it is a black and white issue for me, and I am proud of my elementary school education.
15th amendment and 19th amendment of USC were ratified to establish voting rights for blacks and women, respectively. Neither came from SCOTUS precedents. SCOTUS should only interpret the US Constitution, and leave the job of changing it to the proper and established ratification process.
通过华人这个论坛，真是可以窥见选民的民智啊。Ginsburg最主要的领域是right to abortion。她最有名的案子是1973的Roe v. Wade。在Roe以前，美国妇女是不能堕胎的。Roe为了平衡不同的意见，开创了3段式操作，简单说就是孕期前三个月可以按照孕妇意愿堕胎，后3个月孕妇想堕胎需要有更强的理由。直到今天，Ginsburg还在为女性争取自由选择是否要生育的权力，希望可以有一个合适的case revisit Roe的判决。现任Chief Justice John Roberts是布什任命的“共和党”首席大法官。但是在他的任期内，gay marriage 和Obamacare他都是投了赞成票，这两个landmark cases都是在“共和党”法官的领导下批准的。 小学生才会不是黑就是白。希望Ginsburg身体健康，早日康复。 christine777544 发表于 5/6/2020 1:00:29 PM
Roe v. Wade manufactured right to abortion on the premise of right to privacy, both unwritten in USC. USC already declared that government power undefined by the Constitution belongs to the state. Each state may very well open up its own abortion rights.
The very act of bench legislation such as R v. W weakens constitution protection on EVERYTHING, and allows government intrusion to areas unimaginable by founders. We have usurpation of the USC from both left AND right, but two wrongs do not make a right.
When you and her Honor stop rationalizing government intrusion of freedom and liberty guaranteed by USC, I will start wishing Justice Ginsburg well.
Yes, it is a black and white issue for me, and I am proud of my elementary school education.
SAT 发表于 5/6/2020 1:12:04 PM
The Court found that right to abortion is fundamental guaranteed by the Constitution, and therefore triggered "strict" scrutiny. In fact, the Court acknowledged that the state "has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life." But the state law violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment as the State did not demonstrate it had a compelling interest in the potentiality of human life during the first trimester.
通过华人这个论坛，真是可以窥见选民的民智啊。Ginsburg最主要的领域是right to abortion。她最有名的案子是1973的Roe v. Wade。在Roe以前，美国妇女是不能堕胎的。Roe为了平衡不同的意见，开创了3段式操作，简单说就是孕期前三个月可以按照孕妇意愿堕胎，后3个月孕妇想堕胎需要有更强的理由。直到今天，Ginsburg还在为女性争取自由选择是否要生育的权力，希望可以有一个合适的case revisit Roe的判决。现任Chief Justice John Roberts是布什任命的“共和党”首席大法官。但是在他的任期内，gay marriage 和Obamacare他都是投了赞成票，这两个landmark cases都是在“共和党”法官的领导下批准的。 小学生才会不是黑就是白。希望Ginsburg身体健康，早日康复。 christine777544 发表于 5/6/2020 1:00:29 PM
我支持妇女应该有堕胎的权利，但是我认为Roe v. Wade是彻头彻尾的恶法，为什么？
美国宪法 Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The Court found that right to abortion is fundamental guaranteed by the Constitution, and therefore triggered "strict" scrutiny. In fact, the Court acknowledged that the state "has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life." But the state law violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment as the State did not demonstrate it had a compelling interest in the potentiality of human life during the first trimester.
christine777544 发表于 5/6/2020 1:42:48 PM
Please find sentence(s) in the US Constitution that mention the word 'abortion', or 'privacy' even. I await your answer.
美国宪法 Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Please find sentence(s) in the US Constitution that mention the word 'abortion', or 'privacy' even. I await your answer.
SAT 发表于 5/6/2020 1:54:04 PM
I think your question represented the conservative school of thought, like Scalia. That's fine. There are different schools of thought. The Constitution only has about 2000 words. Nothing specific in it. Without the Court's interpretation of the Constitution, there would be NO development of laws. A woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy encompassed in the notion of privacy under the "liberty" of due process of the 14th Amendment. The Court acknowledged that "the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution." "These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy." If you stick with the original 2000-word Constitution, you would not find much rights that you own today, including the right to keep and bear arms. I think you would at least agree the US adopts case law system. Courts develop laws through precious cases. So when interpreting whether a law is constitutional, the Constitution is a good start, but definitely should not be the ending point.
美国宪法 Tenth Amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The US Constitution is the foundation of the country’s success because it defines only a few things government should do and very many it shouldn’t (a negative right document). It defines the bottom line (底线）amount of liberty the governed consent to give up collectively. 2000 words were plenty for that purpose and means were defined for changes. The fact that so few amendments had been passed is a testament of its strength that can withstand the test of time.
It’s hard to convince anyone to change opinion, so let’s agree to disagree.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hospitalized for gallbladder condition and infection, Supreme Court announces。
WASHINGTON – Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was hospitalized Tuesday for "a benign gallbladder condition" that caused an infection, a Supreme Court spokeswoman announced. Ginsburg, 87, underwent "non-surgical treatment" for acute cholecystitis, and is expected to remain at Johns Hopkins Hospital for a day or two. The spokeswoman said Ginsburg plans to participate in the telephone arguments on Wednesday, just as she did Monday and Tuesday. Ginsburg initially sought medical care Monday after oral arguments and received outpatient tests at Sibley Memorial Hospital, which confirmed that she had a gallstone blocking her cystic duct that resulted in an infection.
你如果见识过他们开会或者辩论持续多久，你就知道打瞌睡再正常不过了，真是从早上一直辩论到晚上啊！
好事情，本来大法官就是严格解释宪法就行了，不需要activist，显然自由派做不到
You are so mean 她什么时候打瞌睡被你看见了 我觉得她思路挺清晰的
这版上都是什么鬼啊？能说人话吗？你这和国内说祝病魔早日战胜美国人有什么区别？太可怕了。
早就说了，国内的五毛，跑到美国屁股一变，就是川粉，
厉害国仇恨教育下长大，只有利益，没有道义，只有党性，没有人性。
她要是真的惦念着自由派，应该在o8任内就主动退休的
你Out了，很多美国人都盼着病魔早日战胜她！
這就告訴我們要見好就收，魚跟熊掌不可兼得，川普一上就退的那個法官估計就是擔心這種情況
哟，每天那么多人诅咒一位老爷爷，你要不要也心疼一下啊？
Justice Thomas is well known as the man with few words on the bench, however, he listens intently. If you read his opinions, be it majority or dissent, you’d be awed by his scholarly sharp mind.
一点不奇怪 一直都这样 RBG 没事的时候他们都造谣诅咒
真是奇怪啊 好好的人 一川粉 就成了这种样子 2016 以来看到很多人性的丑恶
I thought she has left America long time ago as she said.
well said
赞一下。
不管是哪国人，盼一个8，90岁的老人死都是刻薄的行径。
没文化，说话还粗鄙，加上良心坏，你这种人真是不知道怎么在美国活下来的
猪党已经不顾了，明显越来越流氓化了。跟流氓讲道理真是对牛弹琴。好在有个Trump可以治治他们。
她打瞌睡这个很多人都看到过
等高法变成 6:3 的时候， 三权分立就基本上废了。 至少废几十年吧。
不是还有众议院吗。 而且未必参议院会继续保持共和党多数。 我个人是愿意看到多点美国保守传统回归的。可惜猪党几十年潜移默化造成的破坏，现在还不知道可不可逆。如果还有救，我对美国的纠错机制会更有信心。
不是还有众议院吗。
而且未必参议院会继续保持共和党多数。
我个人是愿意看到多点美国保守传统回归的。可惜猪党几十年潜移默化造成的破坏，现在还不知道可不可逆。如果还有救，我对美国的纠错机制会更有信心。
allieuibe 发表于 5/6/2020 3:08:49 AM
你知道美国保守传统要的是什么吗?
人算不如天算，打算在女克总统任内还一大礼的，报答当初男克的提名之恩
她有点看不上奥巴马（当然肯定不像讨厌Trump那样讨厌奥巴马，就是没那么喜欢），坚决不在奥巴马任内退休，一心等着希拉里上台，让第一个女总统提名她的接班人。这绝对是记入历史书的佳话啊~~~
美国历史上第一位女总统提名美国历史上第一位自由派女法官的接班人（Ginsburg是美国历史上第二位女法官，但是美国第一位女法官是保守派的，所以Ginsburg是美国自由派第一位女法官）
——————结果Trump怎么能赢了选举？！这下傻眼了，只能再熬4/8年了~~~~~~
话说她在最高法院25年，只用过一个非裔的clerk，而Kavanaugh去最高法院前，超过1/4的clerk都是非白人。我个人觉得招人应该merit-based，不应该考虑肤色，但是Ginsburg这种左派斗士，坚决维护AA的，是不是应该身体力行多招一些非白人啊~~~难道说我等普通人就要受AA招进来的医生的荼毒，她自己就不用AA招一些水平没那么高的clerk增加她的工作量荼毒自己？
总有像马哈蒂尔那种身体好的，一刀切也不合适，应该规定因身体原因缺席一定比例之后就要强制退
别装逼了。巴尔的摩的华人孩子被奥八儿子捅了，凶手只判8个月，都是托这老太婆的福
黑心？难道她和支持她的人就不同？这么大的年纪，一切只为了占坑，都是为了政治目的而已。
Well said! I don't like the names "conservative" vs "liberal" because it doesn't depict the true features of each party. It should be called "lawful" vs "lawless".
她要是能保持晚节，智力体力跟不上的时候及时退休，不耽误国家大事就更好了。
15th amendment and 19th amendment of USC were ratified to establish voting rights for blacks and women, respectively. Neither came from SCOTUS precedents. SCOTUS should only interpret the US Constitution, and leave the job of changing it to the proper and established ratification process.
Ginsburg 还有一个著名的案例 Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld，这个案例对整个退休金的推动是重大的。大家有时间应该好好读一下。现在大家有些所享有的权利不是生来就有的，而是争取来的。RBG对女性的平权运动是影响深远的。
Roe v. Wade manufactured right to abortion on the premise of right to privacy, both unwritten in USC. USC already declared that government power undefined by the Constitution belongs to the state. Each state may very well open up its own abortion rights.
The very act of bench legislation such as R v. W weakens constitution protection on EVERYTHING, and allows government intrusion to areas unimaginable by founders. We have usurpation of the USC from both left AND right, but two wrongs do not make a right.
When you and her Honor stop rationalizing government intrusion of freedom and liberty guaranteed by USC, I will start wishing Justice Ginsburg well.
Yes, it is a black and white issue for me, and I am proud of my elementary school education.
re
拉鸡巴倒，以为就你会转网呢？小布什的阵营是RINO你大概假装不知道？老妖婆宣传自己是女权斗士，除了堕胎，不许搜身藏毒品的女学生的身，主张12岁就可以OXOX，号召用"更先进更progressive"的国际法诠释美国法，各种用诠释法律的手段去影响立法，不control点儿什么就抓狂。国内张医生都说“不能欺负守规矩的人”。老太婆是“专门欺负守规矩的人”的那种恶人。
The Court found that right to abortion is fundamental guaranteed by the Constitution, and therefore triggered "strict" scrutiny. In fact, the Court acknowledged that the state "has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life." But the state law violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment as the State did not demonstrate it had a compelling interest in the potentiality of human life during the first trimester.
我支持妇女应该有堕胎的权利，但是我认为Roe v. Wade是彻头彻尾的恶法，为什么？
美国宪法 Tenth Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
美国跟中国不一样，美国是个联邦制国家，联邦政府只有有限的宪法赋予的权力，其他权力是属于州政府和人民的。想想你要结婚，要办驾照，要买车注册，是去联邦政府网站还是当地政府网站看相关规定？
是否允许堕胎是州政府的权力，不是联邦政府的权力，联邦政府没有权力要求州政府禁止或者允许堕胎~
同理，联邦政府也没有权力要求州政府认可或者不认可同性恋婚姻（Obergefell v. Hodges）~
最高法院的这些判例结果是好的，因为妇女应该有堕胎的权利，同性恋应该跟异性恋有同样的权利（是否能够结婚涉及到医疗保险，房屋所有权，遗产继承等生活的方方面面）。但是，从法律上来讲这些判例是错误的，因为联邦政府没有权力管这些事情，这是彻头彻尾的违宪~~~~~~是从州政府那里夺走了州政府和该州人民本来拥有的权力~~~~~~
根据美国宪法，立法，让法律保持与时俱进是立法机构的权力和义务，因为立法机构的成员都是靠人民选举上来的，如果他们做的不好，人民可以把他们选下去。
立法，让法律保持与时俱进不是最高法院大法官的权力和义务，最高法院应该只负责解释已经存在的法律，这就是保守派法官和自由派法官最大的区别~
Please find sentence(s) in the US Constitution that mention the word 'abortion', or 'privacy' even. I await your answer.
这些立法权是在各州。如我上述回复另一个人的，SC在判决书里明确写了州政府有权力制定这些法律。这些权力是在州政府，不在联邦。美国各权力都认同，最高法院是唯一可以解释宪法的机构（我希望没有人argue这点，如果有人不同意想挑战3权分立的基本，那就good luck吧）。SC解释的是是否州政府的法律是否违宪了。 SC得出的结论是是违宪了， 因为堕胎的权力是人民的基本权力，州政府想要“剥夺”这一权力需要有非常强有力的原因。在孕初期，生命还没有成形，堕胎对孕妇健康伤害不是很大，所以州政府没有compelling reason阻止孕妇堕胎，所以违宪。但是这个权力没有给联邦。美国宪法一共就2000字。法律的发展，完善就是靠律师，法官间不同的辩论思考得以形成的。左30年，右30年，但是总体还是向前发展的，就是因为随着时代的发展，州和国会有了新的立法，SC才对法律有解读。法律的发展基本都是落后于“民权”运动的。我想不出一个案例是SC“领导”人民往某个方向走。某种意义上讲，是某一种意识形态在某一个阶段占了主导，SC再去判决，以便让各州对于某一些重大的ssue有统一的判决，我认为这是对国家发展有益的。
I think your question represented the conservative school of thought, like Scalia. That's fine. There are different schools of thought. The Constitution only has about 2000 words. Nothing specific in it. Without the Court's interpretation of the Constitution, there would be NO development of laws. A woman's right to choose whether to terminate a pregnancy encompassed in the notion of privacy under the "liberty" of due process of the 14th Amendment. The Court acknowledged that "the Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution." "These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed "fundamental" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty," Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy." If you stick with the original 2000-word Constitution, you would not find much rights that you own today, including the right to keep and bear arms. I think you would at least agree the US adopts case law system. Courts develop laws through precious cases. So when interpreting whether a law is constitutional, the Constitution is a good start, but definitely should not be the ending point.
re
The US Constitution is the foundation of the country’s success because it defines only a few things government should do and very many it shouldn’t (a negative right document). It defines the bottom line (底线）amount of liberty the governed consent to give up collectively. 2000 words were plenty for that purpose and means were defined for changes. The fact that so few amendments had been passed is a testament of its strength that can withstand the test of time.
It’s hard to convince anyone to change opinion, so let’s agree to disagree.
Re