↓
 
Home » Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died

The New Neo Posted on by

RIP.

Whatever will happen as a result of this seems loaded with turmoil and strife and rage and uncertainty – as if we didn’t have enough of those things already.

UPDATE 10:50:

Seen in a comment at Ace’s: “Seriously though, this is peak 2020. This is 2020 saying, ‘f*** you, have some more.'”

The focus now turns to the Senate. With Scalia’s death and Obama’s nomination of Garland, the Republicans controlled the Senate and a Democrat was president. So the Republicans had every right to refuse to approve Obama’s appointment and to wait for the 2016 election results.

In addition, it’s the end of Trump’s first term and he’s running for re-election, whereas it was Obama’s last term. But even so, does anyone think for one moment that, if the Democrats had been in charge of the Senate at the time of Scalia’s death, they wouldn’t have moved heaven and earth to approve not just Garland, but someone else even further to the left? Of course they would have, even if they had had only a single day in which to do it before Obama left office.

The GOP blocked Garland’s appointment because they had the power to do so. If the Democrats had been in charge they would have approved whoever Obama appointed. Simple as that. But now the Democrats are saying the Republicans should desist from approving the appointment of a president of the Republicans’ own party, because that’s supposed to be consistent with what happened with Garland? Absurd.

The situation is complicated by many other things, including the fact of RINOs in the Senate who might decide to side with Democrats. Some of those RINOs also are up for re-election this year in purple or bluish states, and might lose their seats if they vote for a Trump SCOTUS appointment and therefore the GOP might lose the Senate as a result. However, if those same people don’t vote for a Trump appointment, they are likely to be abandoned by at least some of the GOP base and they may lose their seats anyway, with a resultant loss of the Senate for the GOP.

Scylla and Charybdis.

Comments

Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died — 86 Comments

  1. Never did see eye to eye with anything RBG ruled on.
    She made me mad as hell most times.
    She made me see that a judiciary is not unbiased, as I had thought it should be. I still regret finding that truth.
    That said, she had the courage of her convictions – without limits.
    Rest in peace, dear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. May God take you into his loving arms, and keep you safe forever.
    Thank you for your service to America. We are all better for knowing you.

  2. I certainly do not relish the death of anyone, even someone I fundamentally dislike and strongly disagree with (and as I largely did with Ginsberg). I am, however, relishing the hysterical reactions on social media.

    How Trump and McConnell proceed, and the political ramifications which result, are all very much unknown. But for now, for tonight, I’m just sitting back and enjoying lefty heads exploding, non stop.

    Petty and immature? I suppose. But we all need an indulgence now and then.

  3. Never liked her; but, I won’t dance on her grave.

    And, yes, I agree Neo – there will be turmoil and strife and rage and uncertainty on this.

    Good Lord! I can hear Chuck Schumer’s voice already harping about how they cannot allow Trump to nominate someone to replace her. I do feel sorry for the person, if there is one, who Trump nominates as the Democrats will be out for blood!

  4. Posted on an earlier thread

    If you think that we were at Spinal Tap volume 11 this political season we just hit 12. The senate races just got a lot more contentious and potentially violent. Look for boatloads of leftist money to pour into those races. I had hoped she would hold on until after Election Day but it was not meant to be.

  5. Left is already demanding that Trump not fill the vacancy till after the election.

    Just like at the end of Obama’s second term, there is the logic that the Senate won’t vote on the confirmation until after the election. The difference is, of course, that it was Obama’s SECOND term. If Trump doesn’t get reelected, the new president can always just withdraw the nomination. So, he might as well start the process now instead of later.

  6. Well, Ginsberg had famously stated that she didn’t want to live in an America where Trump was President . . .

  7. on with the fight to appoint a hard ass replacement who doesn’t immediately sell out after confirmation.

    This is also a golden opportunity to watch the Senate with an eagle eye and mark down the cucks and traitors on the Republican side.

    [edited by n for content]

  8. RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    But she was first diagnosed with pancreatic cancer in 2009 when she was 76 YEARS OLD. It is flatly ridiculous that she didn’t retire then.

    Mike

  9. I hope she went peacefully.

    That said. With the court now having 8 judges. And this election likely to eventually end up on their docket in some form. It would behoove the Republicans to replace her before the election. While this would be a fierce battle. But in my view better than to have an evenly split court try to make rulings on an election that clearly determines the make up it going forward.

    There will be civil unrest either way. And I am fairly sure that if Trump wins and the Senate flips. There will be no appointment to the court that will ever pass. Which of course would be the point. To further hamstring his next 4 years.

    I suggest they put up Amy Barret Coney. She seems solid. And they probably could not use the sexual assault angle again. It would require a whole new set of fables to construct.

    For the Democrats. I suggest saying she lured 2 German orphans from the forest and tries to make a pie from them. Im sure most millennials will have no idea.

  10. I suggest we give honor and respect to Ruth, give her a dignified send off without cheap shots and then move on forward using everything we, the right, can to get a decent new judge as soon as possible.

  11. De mortuis nil nisi bonum dicendum est. It would be better for the Republic if Supreme Court justices toiled in obscurity instead of being a super-legislature. Since we’re here where we are today, let’s try to get someone in who’ll follow the principles we support.

    This is very nearly the mirror image of 4 years ago, when Justice Scalia died.

  12. Roy Nathanson:

    There is an even bigger difference, in my opinion. With Garland, the Republicans controlled the Senate and a Democrat was president. So the Republicans had every right to refuse to approve Obama’s appointment and to wait for the 2016 election results.

    In addition, as you say, it was Obama’s last term. But even so , does anyone think for one moment that if the Democrats had been in charge of the Senate at the time, they wouldn’t have moved heaven and earth to approve not just Garland, but someone else much further to the left? Of course they would, even if they had had only a single day in which to do it before Obama left office.

    The GOP blocked Garland’s appointment because they had the power to do so. If the Democrats had been in charge they would have approved whoever Obama appointed. Simple as that. But now the Democrats are saying the Republicans should desist from approving the appointment of a president of the Republicans’ own party, because that’s supposed to be consistent with what happened with Garland? Absurd.

    But I don’t know how many people get the difference.

    However, the situation is complicated by many things, including the fact of RINOs who might decide to side with Democrats. Some of those RINOs also are up for re-election this year, and might lose their seats if they vote for a Trump SCOTUS appointment and therefore the GOP might lose the Senate as a result. However, if those same people don’t vote for a Trump appointment, they may be abandoned by the GOP base and they may lose their seats anyway, with a resultant loss of the Senate. That latter situation would be a case of angry people on the right slitting their own throats, but it has happened before.

  13. I have it on good authority that two anonymous whistle blowers. Named “H” and “G” will testify. And they will state they told this to 2 brothers known by the name “Grimm” who documented the crime

  15. Constitution says that Justices are appointed with “the advice and consent” of the Senate. They both have to agree. One proposes, the other accepts or rejects. Neither needs to have a reason for what they do with their respective role. Obama could have had his justice confirmed if he had picked someone acceptable to the Senate and so can Trump.

    All this talk of if it’s an election year and the Senate is held by the opposing party and the moon is in Pisces unless it’s Tuesday blah blah blah it’s just smoke.

    They each have a role in the appointment and they each have the power to do as they please in that role, accountable to nothing but the will of the votes in the next election.

  16. I come to bury Ruth, not to praise her.

    She was an anti-American, and by that I mean her ideals were not informed by the Framers, the Founders, the Constitution which she had no allegiance to.
    And she judged accordingly, guided by her personal preferences and not the spirit or intent of the Constitution.

    There are many innocent people who have died today that I will mourn.
    They were babies in the womb who were murdered with the approval of this evil woman.

    I am not glad she is dead. But I am glad that she is gone.
    Anyone with an ounce of humanity would have retired to enjoy her final days with family rather than clinging to a position as she clung to life, hoping to deny an opportunity to replace her by the man elected by the people to do so.

    She spat in our face on the way out.

    Now, we have two, perhaps three if you count Pierre Delecto, Republican senators who will not stand up for the nation.

    So may God see to the re-election of President Trump.

  17. @neo:What do you mean by “mirror image”

    In that what Scalia was to the Right, Ginsburg was to the Left, and their successor will be appointed by a President from the other team in an election year.

  18. If you Google “Ruth Bader Ginsberg Criticisms” you will find a significant number of leftist editorial saying that she was an “unreliable” progressive.

    Too many people don’t understand that the Supreme Court is often ruling, not on BIG issues, but on very narrow interpretations of the law. This is why you see “conservative” judges vote “liberal” on some cases and vice versa.

    Without a doubt, she was more likely to insert her opinion instead of simply interpreting the law, but I wouldn’t demonize her. Mostly, the SCOTUS judges try to maintain the logical consistency in the law, while adhering to the Constitution and Established Precedent. She was generally known to possess a brilliant legal mind. In interviews she has been very complementary to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

  19. Zaphod:

    I don’t mind commenters who offer criticism about someone who has died. But I draw the line at certain expressions that go beyond that. Yours did, and that’s why I edited it. The comment by Ed Bonderenka at 10:21 PM above criticizes her, and comes close to that line, but doesn’t quite cross it.

  20. Frederick:

    I see what you mean. The difference, as I pointed out at 10:14, is that in this case the president and the Senate are held by the same party. That was not true with Garland, and that’s the only reason he was not approved.

  21. Mythx:

    The charges were corroborated by Ursine1, Ursine2, and Ursine3: a blond juvenile female chose not to comment.

  22. @Edward Bonderenka

    Motion Seconded.

    I am shocked and horrified to have to report that in less genteel corners of the nativist intertubes, the Munchkins are vocalising in a major key.

    Shocked and horrified, I say.

  24. I can see it now. The protesters will show up in red hoods and lederhosen to show solidarity with our unbaked brothers and sisters

  25. Neo-

    Once you get past the honorifics involved. I think this entire thing will turn into a mess not seen in our lifetimes. I am choosing to mock the situation and not RBG. Just so we are clear

  27. Slow Joe the woodsman is coming from the basement to rescue G.

    H. unfortunately is SOL.

    The poor protesters have smart watches with GPS or they would never get out of the forest.

    A truly Grimm situation.

  29. So is there a conservative Black or Hispanic judge, lawyer, academic, and/or business leader who converted to Judaism and comes from a Mormon family – preferably from Utah? Because he or she would be confirmed before the election.

  30. Edward R. Bonderenka:

    As I said, I think you approached the line but didn’t cross it.

    It’s not as though the dead cannot be criticized for things they did in life. It just depends on how it’s expressed and what a person says about the actual death.

    Many blogs allow just about anything to be said, even some very foul stuff. I try not to let that happen here, for obvious reasons.

  31. Mythx:

    As I look around the blogosphere, I see very little rejoicing on the right. The general reaction is “Oh, NO!!!!”, because things were already so complicated and vicious and now they have gotten more so.

  32. @Eva Marie

    Beat me to it. Although doubtless I would have expressed it rather less tactfully.

    Wouldn’t hurt just this once for the Flyover Cattle to get one of theirs onto the Supreme Court. Stitch in Time…

  33. Well, the left has talked of impeaching Supreme Court Justices so why should they worry if another illegitimate Trump justice is confirmed, After all, in November or January(?) true justice will prevail and the left will be restored to their legitimate seat of power in the four branches of government. Impeaching three or four justices will be the work of a moment, Channeling Montage. 😉

  35. @Neo:

    There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your bookmarks folder.

    Or as Kit Marlowe put it after one too many:

    Boomers Don’t Meme.

  36. People are noting that we’ll need 9 on the Court in case there are challenges to the election. A 4-4 vote would be … unfortunate.

    Has Blasey-Ford come out of retirement? Or is she waiting for a nominee?

    In the end, one is left with a feeling of how selfish RBG was. Rumors say she was asked to step down during the Obama Admin, but wanted to end during the Hillary years so that the first “Woman President” could nominate her replacement.
    Then she served while incapable. How much was her staff shielding her?
    And now she has the gall to ask for a pause to the nomination.
    Self-centered.

  37. om:

    But That’s Not Who We Are ™.

    ^^^It’ll be stenciled on the sides of our tumbrils, assuming the Left can throw up anyone with the dry, mordant wit of a Lenin/Trotsky/Stalin this time around.

  38. It’s like God is testing us — how much do you really want to keep the USA?

    If I was reading this year as a chapter in a history book, I’d feel the story was hurtling towards something quite unpleasant.

  39. At the human level it’s sad to imagine how hard RBG must have been trying to make it past the election.

  41. “Oh, NO!!!!”

    Indeed. It would have been much more convenient if she had passed seven months ago or 60 days from now.

  42. In the end, one is left with a feeling of how selfish RBG was.

    Anyone of sense in her situation would have resigned from the court 11 years ago.

  43. Neo,

    Your completely correct about the other difference between this and four years ago. Apparently, Mitch McConnell has already said that the Senate would move forward with a quick confirmation of President Trump’s nominee.

  44. At the human level it’s sad to imagine how the Great Unmentionable must have felt when highly fluid political circumstances forced him to put down Blondi.

    Now I’m emphatically *not* attempting to push the boundary this time. The analogy is fair.

    This woman was playing for high political stakes on her deathbed and came up snake eyes. Cry me a river.

  46. Markie:
    “That said, she had the courage of her convictions – without limits.
    Rest in peace, dear Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. May God take you into his loving arms, and keep you safe forever.
    Thank you for your service to America. We are all better for knowing you.”
    I must disagree. Having courage of convictions would be much more commendable if those convictions weren’t so ideologically twisted and perverse. As for her service to America, Supreme Court justices who seem to sort of make stuff up aren’t doing us a great service. I would suspect that she cared little for this country. Her remarks disparaging the Constitution, for example, lead me to suspect she really despised the country, and those of us who love their country.
    There was a time when competitors strove mightily within accepted rules and norms. Ginsburg was part of the left who thought this country was so awful it really needs dramatic transformation, which means they find the country mostly unacceptable. The competitors who respected each other isn’t here.
    Fundamentally those on the left reject objective truth, which means their existence is a house of cards without structure, sort of a form of nihilism, waiting to collapse.

  47. We regret to inform the public that the roll out of the animatronic stand in was unexpectedly delayed by supply chain disruptions of critical components manufactured in China.

    Not the BabylonBee. They are so much better.

  48. “It has been suggested by more than one commentator, including some law professors, that I should have stepped down during President Obama’s second term,” said Ginsburg, 86, as reported by CNBC. “When that suggestion is made, I ask the question: Who do you think that the President could nominate that could get through the Republican Senate? ‘Who you would prefer on the court [rather] than me?”

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/ruth-bader-ginsburg-reveals-why-she-didnt-retire-during-obamas-term-2019-09-19
    _______________________________________________

    RBG liked being on the Court and she had beaten cancer back. She probably saw Hillary’s election as in the bag, so why not? She made a bet and she bet wrong. Call it hubris, but people who make it to the Supreme Court are usually ambitious. It seems pretty human to me.

    If Scalia had ended up in such a position, would commenters be so judgmental?

    Another question would be why she didn’t retire during 2009-20014, when the Obama was President and Democrats held the Senate.

  49. huxley:

    The left rejoiced when Scalia died IIRC and only wept when McConnell did not fold and Hillary lost. They have been possessed by furies ever since, as Neo has noted.

  50. And now we have Reza Aslan voicing the typical leftist threat:

    If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down.

    This is a man with a Master’s in religious studies and who has worked on several prominent liberal/left peace organizations, often trying to persuade Americans how peaceful Muslims are.

    Thanks, Reza!

  52. As Scott Adams says, Pres. Trump is bad at the easy stuff and brilliant at the hard stuff. This turn of events plays into Pres. Trump’s strengths. Slow Joe’s whole team is slow. And what is being said over and over again by both RBG’s supporters and detractors? She stayed too long. Who does that remind us of? Biden. No reason for despair. Of course very sad the way the vacancy came about but Trump gets to appoint another Supreme Court Justice. And he gets re-elected. 2020 is turning out to be a great year.

  55. Huxley

    “And now we have Reza Aslan voicing the typical leftist threat:

    If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down.”

    This is exactly why I have been so cynical in many previous threads. I have no illusions about how this ends. I have relatives who firmly believe that all of the riots, fires and looting. Are somehow the fault of the “Boogaloo” movement. I have co-workers who believe the same. There appears to be no amount of evidence that will persuade them from this.

    All of this seems to be a psychological contrivance to justify what they believe they must do next. Its scary as hell. Because I believe that Aslan does not mean this in a metaphorical sense. I think he is quite serious. Many on the left are simply not mentally healthy. And as reality continues to be askew of their perceptions. They are growing increasing strident and frustrated

  56. Reza Aslan is yet another example of why the franchise should be denied to immigrants and their descendants until the 5th Generation (+/- 1.. never let be said I’m inflexible).

  58. Oops, she may be repeating 3rd density on another world now. She didn’t make it to 2021!

    Is it so hard, people, to survive to 2021? Come on.

    It’s like God is testing us — how much do you really want to keep the USA?

    Hehe. The agents of the Divine Counsel are always watching you humans. And none of you realize it, even if I tell them so. The Veil of disbelief and confusion.

  59. Senators Murkowski, Collins, and Romney have imposed their low-mid level Conservatism on the party for years. It used to be their party. It has not been that Country Club party for years now. Republicans may lose the Senate this time around, and with this Supreme Court vote, it is more likely to happen. But honestly- the removal of Sens. Murkowski, Collins, and Romney is something that needs to be done. Murkowski has been a vote against what is needed for too long. Collins has had to do her dance for decades, and Romney? Well, Romney was never worth a nickel. He seems to play to an audience that no one else sees. Trump needs to proceed with this selection. He is the President. Let the Murkowski’s do what they must. Alaska- you’re on the clock.

  60. I don’t think, as of this moment, that Collins and Romney have said they will or won’t vote on a nomination. Even assuming three, though, that makes it 50-50 and Pence casts the deciding vote. Nominate Barrett, expedited visits with Senators, a fast hearing, if any, and vote.

    Democrats threatening to burn it all down aren’t much different from what they’ve been doing all summer. They’re losing support over their violence.

  61. In 2016, McConnell gambled on the Supreme Court and won.

    RBG gambled, and lost. Condolences to her children and grandchildren. The nation goes on.

  62. Are the Democrats saying Chief Justice John Roberts is a liar? Are they saying the esteemed jurist was wrong when he wrote “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.”.

    If the selection of a judge matters that much then we really don’t have the “Rule of Law” and we have no further need of lawyers, judges, or lawmakers. Is that really the path the “Democrats” want to do down?

  63. Well, regardless of who Trump nominate’s he/she will be accused of sexual molestation or rape or uttering racist comments or cheating on some grammar school / junior high school / high school / college / law school exam, or having been a member of the KKK or Nazi Party or the Proud Boys (or it’s predecessor), of pouring gasoline into a storm sewer, of being a former or present drug user or drug lord and thus destroying thousands of lives, of income tax evasion, of consorting with Jeffrey Epstein and visiting his “fantasy island,” of causing the intoxication of a 17 year old when the nominee was 17 7/8 years old, of reading the english translation of Mein Kampf which proves he/she is a fascist, of calling a classmate fat and ugly, of ……….

    help me out folks, what am I missing??

    Safe to say that tens of thousands of demonstrators – many of them violent – will descend on Washington DC during the appointment hearings to “assist” the Senate in the decision making process.
    Of course, it will be a “peaceful” demonstration requiring only the mobilization of a few thousand National Guard.

  64. Do you think that in purple or blue districts, Democrats would come out in droves to unseat the Republican senator who voted for the confirmation, or that Republicans would turn away from that person? I guess the former is likely. Not doing your job because you’re afraid of losing your seat seems pretty cowardly, TBH.

  65. In 2016, if Hillary had been elected, her justice nominee would have been approved, even if Republicans retained the Senate.

    On the other hand, if Trump is reelected, and Democrats take control of the Senate, they will never ever approve a Trump nomination.

    So Republicans are completely justified in filling the seat immediately.

  66. Trump has to do what he has to do. There really is no choice. If the swamp prevails and leaves us with a 4-4 Court, the blood is on its hands, not his.

    It’s one of those rare circumstances where the right thing and the necessary thing are the same thing. Pick a nominee and para bellum.

  67. Here’s an idea: 1. POTUS nominates a bland Anthony Kennedy type pronto.

    2. The Dems go berserk. They’ll accuse the bland one of rape, sodomy, genital mutilation etc. More blue cities will go ablaze. RINOs will fold like cheap cameras and vote the nominee down.

    3. Because of the egregious behavior of the left, general sympathy will sway to Trump. Trump wins election. Nominates Amy Coney Barrett. Senate splits 50-50. Pence breaks tie.

    4. RBG spins in grave.

    Just an idea…,

  68. huxley on September 18, 2020 at 11:34 pm said:
    It’s like God is testing us — how much do you really want to keep the USA?
    * * *
    The situation is more like the one in the Bible story where God allowed Satan to set up the test conditions.

    It’s not often we meet the Brothers Grimm and Job in the same thread.

  69. Well, regardless of who Trump nominate’s he/she will be accused of sexual molestation or rape or uttering racist comments or cheating on some grammar school / junior high school / high school / college / law school exam…

    JohnTyler: Kevin Wiliamson has spotted the same problem and offers two promising candidates:
    ______________________________________________

    After the Kavanaugh fiasco, there are many Republicans who would love to rub Democrats’ noses in it. And when Republicans say that the Kavanaugh fight was an open invitation from Democrats to fight dirty on Supreme Court nominations, they won’t be entirely wrong. What are the Democrats going to accuse the nominee of this time? Cannibalism? Inventing the coronavirus?

    –Kevin Williamson, “What Will Trump Do?”
    https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-will-trump-do/

  71. shadow:

    Why not? It’s part of that life that the right disagreed with her.

    Plus, if you disagree with a person and still feel the person lived an extraordinary life and are able to praise aspects of it, doesn’t that just underline the magnitude of the person’s achievements?

  72. As Huxley and others have noted, the threats of violence are now coming out in droves. Per the other thread, can we really rationalize with these people? I also think her death rachets us closer to CW2. Anyone really trust Pelosi and Schumer to do the right thing? They will try to burn it down also.

  73. I liked Trump’s reaction to the news about Ginsburg’s death.
    Very humane, a breath of air.

  74. If a woman, which is to say someone with XX chromosomes, is nominated, I expect to hear that the lady is guilty of pedophilic statutory rape for borrowing a pencil from her son.

  75. I put my betting markers down on last night’s thread, but I think I’m pretty well aligned with the consensus here.
    https://www.thenewneo.com/2020/09/18/since-the-blm-autonomous-zone-was-such-a-raging-success-in-seattle-blm-has-decided-to-set-one-up-in-minneapolis/#comment-2515741

    AesopFan on September 19, 2020 at 11:20 am said:
    I’m sure there will be a dedicated RBG post later, but after reading the articles already up and a significant number of comments, especially at PowerLine, I want to put my marker on the SCOTUS Roulette Wheel.
    (1)-(3) are not original, and refer to the recent extension of the Federalist Society list of judges Trump is choosing from. (4) is recent news from Cruz.
    I did not see (5) anywhere yesterday, but don’t claim a monopoly on it.
    (6)-(13) are concerned with the timing of the nomination & political bean-bag tossing between the WAITERS (after the election) and the DOERS (before).
    …
    I cast my lot with the DOERS and say: go for nominating now and voting before the election.
    Seize the day, cross the Rubicon, and let the chips fall where they may.

    As Roy said above, “If Trump doesn’t get reelected, the new president can always just withdraw the nomination. So, he might as well start the process now instead of later.”
    That’s the problem with delaying the vote.
    Yes, it would be perfectly fair to confirm Trump’s nominee anytime before Noon on January 20, but there may not be enough Republicans in the Senate to do it.

  76. If Trump, either before or after the election, secures his S.C. nomination, will the Left resort to assassination, not just of Trump but of S.C. justices? Of Senators?

    Is there any level of depravity to which the hard core left will not resort to? For such as them, does not the end justify whatever means are necessary to the success of their agenda?

    The struggle between Left and Right is not only far from over, it has yet to reach its zenith/apogee.

  77. I also think her death rachets us closer to CW2.

    physicsguy: Yes. Specifically and generally.

    Specifically, I’m concerned with the Cruz scenario (as Jim NorCal and kolnai mentioned) in which RBG isn’t replaced, the 2020 election is contested (which seems in the cards no matter what), the case goes to the Supreme Court and the court is deadlocked 4-4. Chaos. What seemed to be an obscure constitutional possibility is suddenly quite real.

    Generally, the Left already has blood in its mouth after what they see as the criminal block of the Garland nomination and the criminal success of the Kavanaugh nomination.

    With another real conservative on the Court there is also the possibility of abortion curbs or even the repeal of Roe v. Wade, which will drive the Democrats/left insane, as well as the lost ability to legislate the leftist agenda from the bench rather than through elections.

  79. A post at The Hill linked an old op-ed by Jonathan Turley in 2017, which explains the gamble she was taking — it is indeed a problem of Ginsburg’s own making.
    Fortunately.

    https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-judiciary/328151-ginsburg-gambled-to-stay-on-the-supreme-court-now-she-may

    It is not clear if Ginsberg was betting more heavily on herself or Hillary, but many may conclude that the bet was reckless given the stakes on the table. For a few years on the Court, Ginsburg risked Trump “running the table” and the odds now favor precisely such a result.

    For Ginsburg, she may reach the same conclusion as Newton who reportedly (and perhaps apocryphally) said, “I can calculate the movement of stars, but not the madness of men.”

  80. There is more at stake than Roe v Wade.

    https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/09/19/fight-scotus-future-2nd/

    The political fight on Capitol Hill is likely to be a bruising one, but for gun owners and Second Amendment supporters, a third SCOTUS pick for Donald Trump could be the most compelling reason to turn out and vote in November, regardless of whether or not the pick is seated before the election. As Jazz pointed out, some Democrats and never-Trumpers are already pushing to expand the number of Supreme Court justices if Trump is able to win the confirmation fight but lose the election, and that raises the stakes for the 2020 election even higher than they already are.
    The Supreme Court has passed on virtually every Second Amendment case that’s come before the high court in recent months, with unnamed sources saying that pro-2A justices have become concerned that Chief Justice John Roberts may side with the liberal wing of the Court despite being in the majority in both the Heller and McDonald decisions a decade ago. If Donald Trump is successful in placing another justice on the Court who understands the importance of the right to keep and bear arms, those concerns about how Roberts might land on a Second Amendment-related case become far less important.
    If Trump were to lose in November, however, then Chief Justice Roberts won’t be the biggest cause for concern among gun owners. Instead, we could expect an overhaul of the Court itself, with Democrats changing the rules in order to pack the court with anti-gun justices who could render the Second Amendment a dead letter, legally speaking.
    The confirmation fight, in other words, is likely less important to gun owners than the election itself. Regardless of what happens with Trump’s nominee to replace Ginsburg, the outcome of the election will be the determining factor in the future of the Second Amendment at the Supreme Court. Gun owners already had plenty of reasons to get off the couch and get involved in this year’s elections at the grassroots level, but now it should be crystal clear just how important this election will be for our right to keep and bear arms. If Trump wins, our Second Amendment rights are far more likely to be secure for a generation or more. If Biden wins, they’re likely to disappear forever.

    Related:
    https://bearingarms.com/cam-e/2020/09/17/2a-sheriff-walks-away-from-dems/

    A sheriff in western Pennsylvania has become the latest elected official to jump ship and abandon the Democratic Party, though he says that the party actually left him, not the other way around. 70-year old James Albert was elected sheriff of Westmoreland County last year as a Democrat, but he now believes that his political views align better with the Republicans than Democrats, in large part because of the anti-gun and anti-police rhetoric emanating from all levels of the Democratic Party.
    …
    As I point out here recently that there’s just one Democrat left in Congress who’s “A+” rated by the National Rifle Association, when as recently as 2010 nearly a quarter of the Democrats in the House of Representatives earned the NRA’s top grade. Democrats have embraced an anti-gun agenda (that coincidentally, depends on armed police to enforce their gun control laws), and party leadership has made it clear that there’s no room in today’s Democratic Party for those who embrace the right to keep and bear arms.

    Where are Democrats like James Albert supposed to go? Are they supposed to just give up and become non-voters? Shrug their shoulders and walk away from politics altogether? Maybe that’s what Democrats want, but they’re not likely to get their wish. Instead, more folks like James Albert will likely find refuge in the Republican Party as their longtime political home becomes downright hostile towards the issues that matter the most to them, including the right to keep and bear arms.

  81. Brief survey of the Punditocracy:
    Andy McCarthy is a WAITER, which disappoints me, because I respect him greatly and yet think he is making the wrong call.
    David Harsanyi is a DOER, as is Bookworm, Glenn Ellmers at American Greatness (h/t PowerLine), and most of Red State.
    Kevin Williamson is a NEUTRAL (states what he thinks Trump will do without giving his own opinion) – but gives a good argument for DOING and not WAITING.
    Paul Mirengoff is all over the map with “on the one hand, on the other hand” observations – he never quite gets to the gripping hand.

    Don’t give the Democrats a heckler’s veto, no matter what they threaten to do; and what more can they accuse Trump of than they already have?
    https://babylonbee.com/news/leftists-threatning-to-rebuild-everything-and-burn-it-down-again

    https://babylonbee.com/news/biden-says-trump-is-responsible-for-all-deaths-throughout-human-history-since-the-dawn-of-time

    PS for those predicting that Civil War 2 is getting closer: Bill Ayers agrees with Ymarsakar that it is already here, although perhaps for different reasons.

    https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/09/11/weather-underground-terrorist-bill-ayers-suggests-the-civil-war-has-already-begun-n917703

    But it may be too late even for that.
    https://babylonbee.com/news/in-latest-plague-to-hit-california-pacific-ocean-turns-to-blood

  82. Zaphod on September 19, 2020 at 1:40 am said:
    “Reza Aslan is yet another example of why the franchise should be denied to immigrants and their descendants until the 5th Generation (+/- 1.. never let be said I’m inflexible).”
    Since I understand that my grandfather immigrated to the US in 1906 at age 16, making me “only” a 3rd generation citizen, I reject your argument completely.

    Now, the Ideology of Islam should be fully elucidated as to how its political component overwhelms its religious element, to the point that said ideology (or its scriptural documentation and shariah law) is practically equivalent to totalitarian communism, clearly at variance with our Western values of constitutional republicanism and views on human rights, and should not be able to access the protections for religious expression in the 1st Amendment. Aslan should be outed as a proponent of said vile, grotesque, essentially tribal, uncivil, and rather primitive ideology. If applicable, maybe he could be charged with sedition? Or something?
    I also understand that in many [not all] cases 1st generation Islamic immigrants actually assimilate reasonably well but some in the second generation is pulled in two different directions culturally and sometimes become “radicalized”.

  83. Update on Mirengoff’s position – maybe moving toward DOER?
    Still not sure, but he makes a couple of excellent points.
    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2020/09/what-it-all-comes-down-to.php

    The only rule that applies, and it’s a reasonable one, is that Supreme Court nominees get confirmed when the president’s party has secured enough support from the electorate to muster the 50 Senate votes needed to confirm.

    Voters didn’t give Democrats enough Senate votes to confirm Merrick Garland (or to get him the waste of time a hearing would have amounted to). That’s all there was to that story.

    It’s not clear whether voters have given President Trump enough votes to confirm a nominee this close to a presidential election or, if Trump loses, in the months afterwards. If voters haven’t, that’s all there will be to that story, with this caveat.

    Voters in Utah and Alaska must have thought, when they elected Mitt Romney and Lisa Murkowski, that they were giving Trump a vote to confirm a qualified Supreme Court nominee at any point in the calendar or election cycle. Thus, if Trump can’t get a nominee confirmed because of Romney and/or Murkowski (to take two important examples), it will be a tough pill to swallow.

    But we may have to swallow it, and distribute the blame among the two Senators and the voters they duped.

  84. re: Mirengoff of PL blog, it’s fascinating to see that (mostly) anti-Trump aircraft carrier gradually swing around in the waves and at last chart a (mostly) pro-Trump course.
    Seeing VP Joe Biden up close does that to people, I imagine …

  85. I spend time at the JustOneMinute blog. Its witty and genial host, Mr Tom Maguire is still (mostly) adhering to an anti-Trump position. I wonder (and, to be clear, pray) that the S.S. Maguire begins to gradually maneuver towards the pro-Trump port as well!

  86. Update: McCarthy has amended the post that led me to call him a WAITER, but the changes are not marked in the text, so I don’t really know what his personal preference is now.

    He still asserts the reasons he gave about holding off the nomination to game the voter turnout; however, given that McConnell and Trump are pushing for confirmation NOW, may reluctantly be acknowledging the possibility that a Judge in the Seat is worth Two in the (Bramble) Bush.*

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/09/replacing-justice-ginsburg-politics-not-precedent/

    That said, the fact that the president has the power to name a replacement for Justice Ginsburg and that Republicans have a majority to get the nomination approved does not necessarily mean that that’s the smart play.

    Of course, Trump could lose in November and the Republicans could lose their majority. That would militate in favor of the president’s naming a strong judicial conservative and McConnell’s trying to move it across the goal line. Personally, I was hoping for Judge Amy Coney Barrett the last time, and I still am. As a conservative Republican, I hope the Democrats do not sweep the November election, but I also have to recognize that it may be a long time before Republicans have another opportunity to shape the Supreme Court. And if the shoe were on the other foot, there is no doubt that the Democrats would ram a nomination through in nothing flat.
    [AF: “hope” is not a policy.]

    So . . . carpe diem, right? Not necessarily.

    I am far from convinced that Senator McConnell will have the 50 votes he needs (with Vice President Pence as the tie-breaker). He can only stand three defectors, and if it gets to four there will be more — bank on it. [AF: that’s a BIG gamble.]

    Moreover, there will be great outrage on the left if Republicans push a Trump nominee through while Democrats are screaming bloody murder (and if you thought the streets were already aflame, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet). It is always possible that Republicans will be energized by a Supreme Court nomination battle, but the lift they seemed to get during the hellacious fight to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh evaporated before the 2018 midterms.

    I’d thus wager that a determined Republican effort to replace Ginsburg in the coming weeks would increase the chance that Biden defeats Trump, and that Democrats take the Senate while holding the House.
    [AF: again, that’s a bet on something that is still in the realm of tea-leaf reading; although there are strong arguments for it, other pundits think voters will break the other way for Trump.]

    If that happens, Democrats will repeal the filibuster, add four to six seats to the Supreme Court, and pack it with liberal ideologues. Whatever benefit will have been achieved by confirming a Trump nominee will be overwhelmed. And that may be the least of our problems.

    The best play, particularly if Republicans lack the Senate votes they need anyway, would be to use the vacancy as a core issue in the 2020 campaign. This worked for Trump in 2016 — indeed, it got him elected, ever so narrowly.

    To be sure, Democrats are going to be more galvanized this time because the shoe is on the other foot: The prospect of a Republican replacing the Court’s leading liberal will alarm them as much as the prospect of Clinton choosing Scalia’s replacement alarmed Republicans. Nevertheless, as a political issue, the Court cuts in favor of Republicans. That is why Trump is already touting a list of potential nominees.

    For all the Democrats’ hysteria about the purportedly imminent reversal of Roe v. Wade (that never happens), every time a conservative is appointed, the fact is that Republican judicial nominees are forces of stability who favor judicial restraint, enabling Americans to determine democratically how they wish to live. By contrast, the public rightly sees Democratic judicial nominees as forces of radical change, imposed by judicial fiat at the expense of democratic self-determination. That is why Biden does not want to release his list of potential Supreme Court nominees. Democrats prudently fear that it would frighten voters and hurt his chances.

    For now, President Trump is signaling (by tweet) that he intends in short order to announce a nominee to fill the vacancy left by Justice Ginsburg’s passing, and that he will push for Senate consideration. There is a good chance that he won’t get Senate consideration before the election . . . but that the nomination of a solid prospective justice, and the inevitable comparison of the kinds of jurists a Biden administration would appoint, will help the president’s reelection bid.

    Editor’s note: This essay has been emended since its original publication.

    *In joke for lawyers.
    https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3094408-the-bramble-bush

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑