• expired

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: My own words $16.50/David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet: My Witness Statement $19.80 - Amazon AU

600

Great prices for two books by two fantastic people that I personally admire and draw inspiration from. According to 3C these are the all time lowest prices on Amazon.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: My own words: https://www.amazon.com.au/Own-Words-Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg/dp/1... (Sold by Nyun Announced and fulfilled by Amazon)

David Attenborough: A Life on Our Planet: My Witness Statement and A Vision for the Future: https://www.amazon.com.au/gp/aw/d/1529108276

Enjoy!

Price History at C CamelCamelCamel.

Related Stores

Amazon AU
Amazon AU
Marketplace
Nyun Announced
Nyun Announced

closed Comments

  • +19 votes

    Quick: name two judges on the Australia high court?
    The are permanently appointed by the PM of the day. Scotty from Marketing has appointed two recently.

    OK, name one? Not big news? That's how it should be. Something is seriously wrong in the US when judges become celebrities, and their personal politic is important.

    ( no criticism of RGB implied, I'm on her side, just wish there were not sides in that context. )

    • +3 votes

      Agree with you, I’m not on her side though. But spot on

    • -9 votes

      Awful take. Just awful.

    • +7 votes

      I feel like your comment is inherently incorrect in one key way. Politicians shouldn't appoint justices. The legal community should be responsible for elevating it's most experienced and respected justices.

      If politicians make these appointments, we definitely should know more about them than we do.

      • +3 votes

        But the flaw in that is that senior silk are not always the most experienced and respected junior counsel, the bar is political too

      • +4 votes

        I don't see an issue with elected governments of the day appointing judges, as opposed to the unelected legal industry elite.

        •  

          Yeah, that system in the US really has it all over our awful system, excellent point.

        •  

          The pillars of successful democracy are intended to be separate. The media, justice system and government should not have close ties and/or influence over each other, in order for each to be accountable to the other.

          A government that has power over the media and the justice system, helps shape an autocracy. Plenty of examples of this.

    • -1 vote

      Well the reason is the Americans have a bill or rights. One side believes it should be interpreted literally and the other believes it is wide ranging. We don’t have this problem because we don’t have explicit rights to freedom of speech, etc.

    • -1 vote

      The personal beliefs of these justices will sure seem to affect Americans when they vote on abortion rights when revisiting Roe v Wade, or allowing voting law changes in Arizona that lower courts ruled discriminatory with the SCOTUS voting along party lines, or Bush v Gore back in 2000, etc.

      A party that has won the popular vote only once in the last 8 presidential elections has made a majority of the lifetime justice appointments. A party that currently represents 40 million less people in the senate and millions less in the house, and only lost the presidency by 40,000 votes despite being down 7+ million votes.

      There's a reason why the GOP blocked Obama's nomination, it has serious consequences for their party and voters. You think justice Barret considering birth control murder isn't gonna affect how she rules on Roe v Wade? Maybe take a peak at justice Alito's beliefs and rulings. The fact RGB's death was as significant as it was should tell you enough about the importance of who sits on the supreme court.

      The issue isn't everyday people caring about who sits on the supreme court, it's about who sits on the supreme court and who appoints them.

      • -2 votes

        Parliament should never be determined by the popular vote. It has to serve all America, otherwise all states should separate and it be the ununited states of America.

        Abortion is more than birth control, a baby dies.

        •  

          The electoral college forces the spotlight on swing states and effectively strips the voting powers of majority of the population.

          If you are a republican in California, your presidential vote does not influence the election. If you are a democrat in California, your presidential vote does not influence the election. Unless you are in a swing state you do not get a say in who gets to lead your country. And what's worse, due to electoral votes being stripped from larger states, a vote in Wyoming is worth 4x as much as a vote in California, and California can lose electoral votes despite having its population increase by millions, like it did earlier this year. Presidential candidates are also forced to visit swing states almost exclusively and build their platform around issues relevant to swing state voters.

          Some citizens are more equal than others.

          Rule of majority does matter in a democracy, the end result is that the supreme court isn't only built by the minority party, but by the a minority of states. The argument isn't about our personal opinions on abortion, but that the Supreme Court doesn't represent the majority of Americans.

          • +1 vote

            @TrulyUnicorn: These are safeguards put in place to ensure that all states in America have a voice and not just the states with a majority of the population in a few states

            The Supreme Court isn’t supposed to represent the majority of Americans, it is meant to represent all Americans.

            • -1 vote

              @grasstown: By which you mean the rural minority, that's kinda obvious.

              • +1 vote

                @mickeyjuiceman: Well I did say they can have the separate states of America if they want the popular vote to be more than it is

                •  

                  @grasstown: How does the supreme court represent all Americans if it is currently largely composed of justices appointed by the minority party? Majority rule is the best approximation of what most Americans want.

                  The Supreme Court has even blocked past attempts of secession and many state constitutions prevent secession all together. It's insincere to say "well they can just leave the union" when the issue is that states want more equal representation in the federal government in the first place. States can have 60x the population of another state and get no additional senators and have electoral votes stripped from them when their population grows. The minority are more equal than the majority?

                  •  

                    @TrulyUnicorn: The question is never what most people want. The question is always how do we ensure the minority have a voice. What is the point of having a government if a majority can dictate over a minority?

                    •  

                      @grasstown: What is the point of having a government if the minority can dictate over a majority?

                      •  

                        @TrulyUnicorn: The majority states need the smaller states. But I can see a future where the USA goes back to smaller individual governments if the fly over states are unrepresented. No easy passage across the USA and conflict between states.

          •  

            @TrulyUnicorn:

            Rule of majority does matter in a democracy,

            But the US is not a democracy, nor is Australia. This is where a lot of people go wrong.
            And nor do you want to be, would you like every single decision voted for by all of the people every single time? We elect representatives and they vote on our behalf for the term they are elected for, and if we aren't happy we can vote them out. This keeps this relatively stable.
            This is the least worst system I can think of, can you think of one better?

            •  

              @1st-Amendment: The US is a democracy - it inherently has to be to be a republic. In the modern era nobody is referring to a direct democracy like you describe when they say a country is democratic, they mean representative democracy.

              •  

                @TrulyUnicorn:

                In the modern era nobody is referring to a direct democracy like you describe

                Actually they do. Pretty much every time a decision is made that some special interest group doesn't like, they scream fascism, democracy dies in darkness etc. You've implied the very same thing in your comments above

                •  

                  @1st-Amendment: Who said anything about fascism or the death of democracy? It's just an objective truth that the US is a democracy, representative democracy/indirect democracy through a republic is democratic. I have absolutely zero clue who is advocating for a direct democracy. It is simply more democratic if the majority get to decide who their elected officials are.

                  •  

                    @TrulyUnicorn:

                    It is simply more democratic if the majority get to decide who their elected officials are.

                    Well that is the common and naive viewed repeated on the Internet as if the US Constitution didn't exist…

  • +9 votes

    Her sheer selfishness in not quitting when sick when Obama was president saw another appointment for Trump to make.

    • +7 votes

      She thought Hillary would win 😝

      • +5 votes

        Hillary probably told RBG to wait so she could appoint someone, not Obama whom she hated.

        The rest is history and probably not in this book.

      •  

        While on a court that repeatedly endorsed the concept of gerrymandering. Another piece of clever :-D

    •  

      The GOP blocked Obama’s attempts to put in a new judge.

      • +2 votes

        Blocked? Obama didn’t have the numbers.

        • +12 votes

          Yes, blocked. Mitch McConnell was being his usual massively hypocritical self.

        •  

          Republicans didn’t want to vote.

        • +1 vote

          Dems had a majority in both houses briefly at the start - and essentially a filibustering super-majority for a short time.

          •  

            @Almost Banned: Not enough to get someone in.

            •  

              @try2bhelpful: What are you talking about?
              Supreme Court nominees are subject to the advise and consent of the Senate. Confirmation hearings don't need to take long - see ACB. A super majority would easily have secured the nomination - a simple majority is all that is required.

        • +2 votes

          Merrick Garland was an extremely safe, centrist choice, the only reason Mitch blocked is because republicans would look stupid approving his appointment to SCOTUS.

          Meanwhile Trump, who has never has a majority of American voters on his side, got three lifetime appointments.

          Doesn't seem like a fair system to me.

          • -3 votes

            @Jesus Chicken: Garland is currently serving as AG - and his actions to date do not appear to be particularly 'centrist', nor someone that many Americans would consider a 'safe' choice.
            As for his nomination, you either have the votes, or you do not.
            As for the system - it has worked for over two centuries. You get to nominate if there's a vacancy. Its the luck of the draw. Some Presidents get multiple picks, a few get none.

            • +2 votes

              @Almost Banned: Two things.

              1) "Worked" is a means-nothing word, especially given how the US looks compared to first-world nations.

              2) "for over two centuries" is an idiotic claim, given how vastly different things are now to the start of that period, especially given the current polarity.

              • +1 vote

                @mickeyjuiceman: given how the US looks compared to first-world nations.
                Given the US is the very definition of 'first-world' this statement is ludicrous, however, precisely what issues do you want to compare? And how many of them are relevant to the working of the Supreme Court?
                As for the two-centuries claim, please tell me precisely which part of the Constitution relevant to the Court has changed? The answer is none. The only substantive thing that have changed with the 'system' is the number of justices.
                The partisan acrimony in appointments feels like it has gotten worse, but that's highly debateable. Supreme Court nominees have been rejected since Washington, and Cleveland and Nixon had two nominations rejected. You think the Bork nomination wasn't 'polarising'?
                People have a 5 second introduction to the issue then think they know something about it…
                They have heard about something for 5 minutes and think nothing like it has ever happened before in history…

                •  

                  @Almost Banned:

                  They have heard about something for 5 minutes and think nothing like it has ever happened before in history…

                  I love it when people out themselves like this. Dunning-Kruger on full display.

                  • +1 vote

                    @mickeyjuiceman: Yep - you didn't even attempt to answer one of my questions, and both your responses to me have been completely fact-free. You can choose your own opinions, but you can't choose your own facts, and you have none.

              • +1 vote

                @mickeyjuiceman:

                "Worked" is a means-nothing word, especially given how the US looks compared to first-world nations

                Well what is your measure here? The richest most prosperous nation on earth, that is responsible for the modern definition of freedom and most global peace we've had in the last 70 years, and invented most of everything we have, technology medicine, transportation, education etc etc.
                Tell me which country you think has achieved more for humanity?

                Sure there is some warts in there too, but by any objective measure, the US system of government has produced the most benefit to the most people in human history.

          • -1 vote

            @Jesus Chicken:

            Meanwhile Trump, who has never has a majority of American voters on his side

            You're in for a surprise.

      •  

        He was there for eight years, you're generalising from one event.

  • +7 votes

    Wasn't devastated until after her death when I learnt about who she was and all the things she did for progressing women's rights in the US.

  • +2 votes

    A great read. Highly recommend. Her journey to the supreme court was trailblazing and her judgements and dissenting opinions rational and just.

    • -2 votes

      For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God

  • +2 votes

    Waiting for the Amy Coney Barrett autobiography, should be interesting.
    Might be a waiting a while though.

    • -1 vote

      Befriended an orange man. Got the top job. Switched sides instantly. The end.

      •  

        I don’t think she switched sides. I think her decisions will cherish life. And hopefully free speech.

  • +3 votes

    "RBG: My own words, from the grave"

  • +5 votes

    She became too embroiled in her own cult of personality and now America has to live with the results …

    •  

      Are you talking about trump?

      • +2 votes

        yes, she should have retired when Obama suggested it. As it is, it allowed Trump to stack the SC in his/elite/conservative favour

  • +1 vote

    But I'm totally buying the Attenborough one !

  • -1 vote

    Ding Dong the witch is dead!

  • -2 votes

    just wish RBG had taken Obama's advice and retired, then Trump wouldn't have been able to stack the Supreme Court as much as he did. Very unfortunate.

  • +1 vote

    I highly recommend the audiobook from Attenborough, he puts so much emotion into what he’s saying, it’s hard to stop listening.

    And seriously, dat voice.

    • +1 vote

      I'd take dry factual science over emotion any day.