The court says she died in Phoenix on Friday, of complications related to advanced dementia and a respiratory illness.

In 2018, she announced that she had been diagnosed with “the beginning stages of dementia, probably Alzheimer’s disease.” Her husband, John O’Connor, died of complications of Alzheimer’s in 2009.

O’Connor’s nomination in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan and subsequent confirmation by the Senate ended 191 years of male exclusivity on the high court. A native of Arizona who grew up on her family’s sprawling ranch, O’Connor wasted little time building a reputation as a hard worker who wielded considerable political clout on the nine-member court.

  • Dkarma@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Her ego resulted in hurting women across the us.

    Shame.

    Bush v Gore set women back significantly. Downvote me all you want. sDO is a huge part of the reason Dobbs got overturned in the end.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      If referring to RBG by mistake:

      • Ironically what you wanted was her to politicize her position. She was above that.

      • She dedicated her life to women and justice and to be on the Court. It’s what literally kept her fighting through her illness to begin with.

      • Blame Republicans and nobody else for politicizing the courts and being the true source of hurting women everywhere.

      • Blame America and the Electoral College for even making it feasible for someone as dumb and crooked as Trump getting in power.

      • logicbomb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Strictly speaking, she wasn’t above politicizing her position. In fact, she said that her final wish was for her replacement to be nominated after the next president was inaugurated. I’m all for honoring her, but it’s not honoring her to make things up.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s not particularly politicization one way or the other though, but merely precedent as established by the preceding Justice and McConnell’s actions. At worst it’s consistency or simply balancing the scales.

          After all, RBG did not know who would win election when she died in September of 2020 before votes were cast.

          So I’m not sure where you get this idea of “making things up.” If she really wanted to be political, she would’ve just resigned under Obama in the first place.

      • foofy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ironically what you wanted was her to politicize her position. She was above that

        That’s great for her and all, but it was a choice that had the disastrous outcome of allowing Trump to replace her with Barrett. Ginsberg doesn’t have to live with that, but we all do. Thanks RBG.

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          That’s such a silly way of looking at it. Because Ginsburg couldn’t predict the future magically, it falls on her and not the actual people hellbent on destroying Democracy. It’s like victim-blaming where in this case, more of a burden is placed on the heroes to overperform than simply putting further responsibility on the villains necessitating 4D chess in the first place.

          So I look at it the other way around. RBG didn’t fail America; America – specifically, ignorant Americans – failed RBG when they did what the world – and RBG – didn’t think possible and elected a complete dumbass.

          • foofy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            What you’re saying is a nice thought, but it’s a game theory failure.

            In a perfect world, yes, America would not have elected a narcissistic maniac. But in the real world, we did. And Ginsberg, who knew she was in poor health (had cancer like a bazillion times) opted to take a chance.

            Maybe she just calculated poorly, or maybe this was a magnificent act of putting principle above pragmatism. Either way, Roe v. Wade was still overturned and so much for RGBs legacy. The smart move for an 80 year old woman with colon cancer is to find an offramp that lets her preserve her legacy.

            I get it if you disagree, but I don’t think it’s hard to understand why people blame her at least in part for this mess.

            • lennybird@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Fair enough. I feel I understand at least some of why people are upset with her; but I don’t think all of her critics sufficiently empathize with her position. From within her shoes, she devoted her life to a greater cause of the American people that far exceeds the scope of simply Roe V. Wade – and in that, I think she earned the right to be selfish and believe in herself that she could ride out another term. Completely unfortunate with hindsight, but she beat her cancer once and was in otherwise pretty good health - living alone and doing pushups to boot. Being on the court was literally the thing keeping her alive in the first place.

              It is what it is at this point. But I refuse to put as much emphasis on good people not acting perfectly, versus bad people doing everything wrong and causing the degradation of the system in the first place. Anyway, my apologies for saying my silly quip.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Are you thinking of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Because I’m not sure what you’re talking about otherwise.

    • grue@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Bush v Gore set women back significantly.

      I mean, I guess, in the sense that it set everybody back significantly. Framing it as an anti-feminist ruling in particular is a weird take, though.