Ginsburg Declares Sexism Was Major Factor In Trump Win As Court Starts New Term

225px-ruth_bader_ginsburg_scotus_photo_portraitI have previously criticized Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her continued political comments in speeches to liberal and academic groups.  While not unique on the Court, Ginsburg is something of recidivist in abandoning the long-standing avoidance of justices of political discussions. Indeed, justices previously avoided most public speeches where Ginsburg has readily embraced her public persona.  Her latest comments occur on the eve of the start of the new term, a term with an array of major cases that arose from highly charged political conflicts over immigration, discrimination, and gun rights.   In her latest comments, Ginsburg echoed comments by Hillary Clinton that sexism was a big part of Trump’s victory.  It is precisely the type of political commentary that has cast a shadow over the credibility of the Court in earlier controversies.

I have long been a critic of Supreme Court justices embracing the era of what I have called “the celebrity justice.”  Justices are increasingly appearing before highly ideological groups and inappropriately discussing thinly veiled political subjects or even pending issues. I have been equally critical of other justices, including the late Antonin Scalia, for such comments. She previously called President Trump a “faker.”  Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been a notable recidivist in this type of conduct and does not appear to be deterred by criticism that she is undermining the integrity of the Court.  She is back at it with a new interview with the BBC.  Even after criticism for earlier comments, Ginsburg continued to publicly discuss the unfortunate times brought about with Trump.

Ginsburg, 84, has taken subtle and not so subtle shots at Trump, including expressing how the US is “not experiencing the best of times.”  She appeared to assure Democrats that the “pendulum” will swing back.  In her appearance before an enthusiastic  audience at New York City’s 92nd St. Y, Ginsburg responded to a question from CBS journalist Charlie Rose on whether she thought sexism played a role in the presidential election results.  The right answer is to say that justices do not, and should not, hold forth on political issues.  Ginsburg, again, dove right into the political waters and said that she has “no doubt that [sexism] did” play a role and added “There are so many things that might have been decisive. But that was a major, major factor.”

 Hillary Clinton and her key aides have blamed the election in part on self-hating women who would not vote for Clinton — dismissing that women could have entirely independent judgment rejecting Clinton on the merits.  Indeed recent polls show that Clinton would still lose to Trump despite his unpopularity with many voters.  According to the New York Times, Clinton carried only 54 percent of the female vote against Donald Trump. However, nearly twice as many white women without college degrees voted for Trump than for Hillary and she basically broke almost even on college-educated white women (with Hillary taking 51 percent). Trump won the majority of white women at 53 percent.  Clinton’s continued criticism of women as being self-haters was denounced recently as itself a sexist argument.  In an interview with VoxClinton said white women just do what men tell them to do:

“All of a sudden, the husband turns to the wife, ‘I told you, she’s going to be in jail. You don’t wanna waste your vote.’ The boyfriend turns to the girlfriend and says, ‘She’s going to get locked up, don’t you hear? She’s going to get locked up. Instead of saying, ‘I’m taking a chance, I’m going to vote,’ it didn’t work.”

It is not hard to imagine what the response would have been to someone else dismissing female voters as just a bunch of clinging mindless voters following the directions of their men.  

In the end however Clinton is a politician desperately trying to relieve herself of the primary responsibility losing to the least popular Republican ever to be elected in modern times.  Ginsburg is a justice who is about to vote on issues that deeply divide this nation.  With her continued refusal (despite prior expressions of regrets) from discussing politics, Ginsburg is undermining not only her own impressive legacy but the integrity of the Supreme Court.

359 thoughts on “Ginsburg Declares Sexism Was Major Factor In Trump Win As Court Starts New Term”

  1. Oh come now, Ruthy, don’t you know that the only reason that you are where you are is because of sexism. If your career was actually based on your “talents,” “abilities” and legal “scholarship,” you’d be fetching coffee for the law partners at Wilmer Hale. Be grateful for sexism.

  2. Turley is attempting to put Clinton’s words into Ginsburg’s mouth. Charlie Rose asked Ginsburg if she thought sexism played a role in Trump’s electoral victory. All Ginsburg said was yes, sexism played a role in Trump’s electoral victory. Ginsburg said nothing about self-hating women. Clinton purportedly said that. Ginsburg did not analyze the election returns for the candidates’ shares of the women vote. Turley did that.

    Ginsburg’s answer to Rose’s question is not Clinton’s complaint about self-hating women. When are Turley’s blawg-hounds going to recognize the difference between a mechanical rabbit versus a real rabbit?

    1. All Ginsburg said was yes, sexism played a role in Trump’s electoral victory.

      Again ‘sexism’ is a nonsense concept. There’s also no indication whatsoever that the number of people for whom HRC’s beaver was a decisive reason to vote against her exceeded the number for whom it was a decisive reason to vote for her.

      1. If Hillary wasn’t a woman I don’t think anyone would have considered her an adequate nominee for the Democratic Party.

        1. If Hillary weren’t Bill Clinton’s ho’ no one would have considered her. She was a one-term Senator of no special distinction. The number of people who fit that description who’ve been consequential presidential candidates isn’t a long one.

          1. I don’t Think she would have been Senator without being a woman and Bill Clinton’s wife. She was an inconsequential woman who alone I don’t think would have ever been elected dog catcher.

            1. She ran in a state with a history of electing Carpetbaggers and a high tolerance for obnoxious people (Andrew Cuomo, Alphonse D’Amato, George Pataki). Absent her association with Bilge, it’s a reasonable wager she could have made a good living in Mid-Law. She’s an unappealing person face-to-face, and I doubt she can work a room in a way you have to to prosper in electoral politics.

      2. SOT—people who vice-signal with derogatory terms for female sex organs don’t get to pronounce sexism a nonsense concept and keep their credibility intact. Pick one and stick with it.

        1. Your statement is nonsensical. ‘Sexism’ is or is not a coherent concept. Whether it is or is not is not dependent on my diction.

          I’m interested in calling ’em as I see ’em, not in making my self ‘credible’ to the world’s population of pretentious twits.

          1. So sexism is a neologism but FredoCon Caucus is just you calling ’em as you see ’em.

            Your use of the term “beaver” to refer to Clinton’s sexual organs is prima facie sexism, you literally incredible impersonage, you.

            Now go grab some woman’s p*ssy like Trump boasts of having done and see whether sexism is truly nonsensical.

            1. Your use of the term “beaver” to refer to Clinton’s sexual organs is prima facie sexism,

              It is neither sexist or non-sexist. Nothing is because there is no such thing a sexism.

              The usage is gamey, so I wouldn’t say it in front of my grandmother. My grandmother was a lovely person. You’re not, so you do not get any deference.

              1. Is this what Pravda Faux News is shilling to the gullible today? That “there’s no such thing as sexism”? Thanks for the update.

                this is to “I can’t change the channel, and there’s no such thing as confirmation bias” toady

                1. Thanks Mark M. I hope to return the favor someday.

                  Where’s Natacha? She’d make minced meat out of these wormtongues.

                  1. Where’s Natacha? She’d make minced meat out of these wormtongues.

                    No, she’d be verbose and obnoxious in giving everyone a report on her feelz.

    2. Has Ginsburg not passed her prime time to comprehend & impartially offer a valid judicial decision? Thus, is it not time to ignore her sexist commentary?

      1. Dear Gary A. Anderson, you’re free to ignore whatever sexist commentary you’d prefer to ignore. For instance, you’ve obviously ignored the sexist comment that Trump made about grabbing women’s crotches.

        No. Wait. You forgot about that sexist comment; didn’t you? Why? Because that would make Ginsburg’s claim that sexism was a major factor in Trump’s electoral victory sound more plausible; wouldn’t it?

        Now for the hard part, Gary. Why does Turley think that the candidates’ shares of the woman vote are more relevant to the question of sexism in Trump’s electoral victory than the candidates shares of the man vote? And why is Turley so keen on putting Clinton’s words about self-hating women into Ginsburg’s mouth?

        Do the head-scratching, Gary.

        1. Trump’s comment was neither ‘sexist’ or ‘non-sexist’. Nothing is. Invocations of ‘sexism’ are thrusts in argument. They are invariably manipulative and unserious.

          The import of Trump’s remarks was that you can get away with a great deal if you’re a star. That happens to be true.

          1. StepOnToads, do you really think that celebrities bragging about getting away with sexual assault is neither sexist nor non-sexist? Because nothing is sexist or non-sexist??? Celebrities getting away with sexual assault is “nothing of import” but a “thrust” in argument, invariably “manipulative”??? Grabbing a woman’s p*ssy whenever one wants, because one can, if one has the star power is a “thrust” in argument and invariably “manipulative” ??? Are you even aware, SOT, of the commonplace possibility for the shared meaning of lexical items posted on a blawg?

            1. “Grabbing a woman’s p*ssy whenever one wants, because one can, if one has the star power is a “thrust” in argument and invariably “manipulative” ???”

              Diane, that was locker room talk, not reality. So far we have seen the physical complaints against him fade away as the complainer was proven a liar. In essence you are converting locker room talk that your own father may have used into an actual assault. That makes you seem like a liar, though I understand that wasn’t your intention. All you wanted to do was lash out at Trump and misuse one of his statements so that others could be called liars.

              1. Allan said, “In essence you are that your own father may have used .”

                Allan, the one and only way to follow a thread is actually to follow the thread. SOT claims that sexism does not exist. SOT further claims that Trump’s sexist remark was neither sexist nor non-sexist.

                As I’m sure you know Allan, the only way to make good on SOT’s claims is to provide an alternative explanation for Trump’s sexist comment that somehow occupies the erstwhile excluded middle between the terms sexist versus non-sexist.

                Locker room talk cannot possibly occupy the excluded middle between sexist versus non-sexist commentary anymore than an actual sexual assault could occupy the excluded middle between sexist versus non-sexist conduct.

                The logical issue has nothing whatsoever to do with “. . . converting locker room talk . . . into an actual [sexual] assault.”

                It has to do with the existential import of Trump’s sexist comment.

                SOT places Trump’s sexist comment in the same existential category as unicorns, leprechauns and moon’s made of green cheese. Are you following that, Allan? Try to keep up. Stay fluid, Allan. Stay fluid.

                1. Firstly Diane, when you quote another you have to be careful to make sure the quote is accurate. I know misquoting is an habitual error of those on the left, but I don’t put up with it. The real quote that you started with was “In essence you are converting locker room talk that your own father may have used into an actual assault. That makes you seem like a liar…”

                  Now back to your comment: I’ll follow the conversation the way I see it because you have made numerous references to Trump and sex. What DSS said is very unimportant in the scope of things, but you prefer to use even more unimportant responses to prove yourself right. Pure foolishness, but foolishness seems to be your game. I don’t think you have a deep understanding about what sexism is and I am not presently here to deal with your emotional problems.

                  The issue is an “explanation for Trump’s sexist comment “. Let’s change it to a more personal question. Your father probably was in a locker room and made some comment he wouldn’t be proud of outside the locker room. Based upon that would you call your father a sexist? Trump hired women in his business and they filled positions that in competing businesses were generally filled by men. Is that type of hiring sexist?

                  Your foolish method of determining good and bad is terribly selective having more to do with your ideology than reality. I can’t make a comment about your last statement because it was totally inane, typical of many of your responses.

              2. What Allan actually said before I garbled it was, “In essence you are converting locker room talk that your own father may have used into an actual assault.”

                1. Too late to see this response, but at least I see you are learning how to quote.

                  1. Slow down, Allan. You’ll have an easier time following both the argument and the thread if only you would just slow down.

                    P. S. What SOT said is not at all unimportant in the scheme of the argument in which SOT and I were engaged. It was only unimportant in the scheme of the argument you’re trying to make. Go look and see if you can figure out what SOT and I were arguing about.

                    I know you enjoy your Perry Mason impersonation, Allan. But it is getting stale. This not a court of law. I am not in the docket as a witness giving sworn testimony under cross examination. And even if the foregoing sentences were false, your questions to me would still epitomize impertinence.

                    1. Diane, I don’t think you understand what you are arguing about. To you the word sexist is a tool or a weapon that can be used instead of using one’s mind and appropriately discussing things in their proper context. Sexist also can be used to symbolize mistruths as you have done over and over again.

                      We don’t need Perry Mason. All we require are facts that are verifiable, in context and honestly debated. None of those things seem to apply to your rhetoric. That is why you always seem to be on the losing end.

            2. I’ve given you a summary of what Trump said. I offered no evaluation of whether the phenomenon he describes is good, bad, or indifferent. It merely is.

              I would never evaluate anything by categorizing it as ‘sexist’ or ‘not sexist’, for the same reason I would never categorize phenomena as ‘stickball’ or ‘not stickball’ (other than stickball and bat and ball games). The categorization you fancy is nonsense and the people who use it are dishonest.

              1. A disciple of Herr Wittgenstein, I presume–eh SOT? I will gladly concede that the occurrence of phenomena without existential import entails a limited jurisdiction for the permissible tautology misnamed the law of the excluded middle–which we already knew anyone. After all, each of the three permissible tautologies are echt instances of phenomena utterly devoid of any existential import in the external reality of non-ego.

                Nevertheless, phenomena occur in the external reality of non-ego over which the permissible tautology of the excluded middle does have jurisdiction. Sexist language and sexist conduct are two such phenomena that have actually occurred in the external reality of non-ego over which the permissible tautology of the excluded middle has jurisdiction.

                Trump’s sexist comment that he could get away with grabbing a woman’s crotch anytime he wants, because he’s a celebrity, cannot possibly occupy the excluded middle between sexist versus non-sexist commentary. Consequently, Trump’s sexist comment cannot be neither sexist nor non-sexist. Likewise, it cannot be both sexist and non-sexist. It must needs be either sexist or non-sexist–but not both and not neither.

                I respectfully submit that the answer to that dilemma is intuitively obvious even to the most casual of observers. And we don’t need the Wittgensteinian contortionist act to get that answer.

                Trump’s claim that he could grab the crotch of any woman anytime wants, because he’s a celebrity, is an obvious instance of sexist commentary. And if Trump ever did that for real, then that would be an instance of sexist conduct for real.

                1. There is no such thing as ‘sexist commentary’. ‘Sexist’ is a nonsense term.

        2. “Dear Gary A. Anderson, you’re free to ignore whatever sexist commentary you’d prefer to ignore. For instance, you’ve obviously ignored the sexist comment that Trump made about grabbing women’s crotches.”

          Diane, are you jealous? 🙂

          ” And why is Turley so keen on putting Clinton’s words about self-hating women into Ginsburg’s mouth?”

          I missed that statement of Turley. Can you quote it?

          1. Allan, Turley used the verb “to echo.” As in the statement, “Ginsburg echoed comments from Hillary Clinton.” It was part of the title to the linked article, but then later on in the OP Turley drew a parallel between Hillary’s statements about self-hating women and Ginsburg’s answer to Rose’s question. A significant number of posters on this thread swallowed Turley’s bait hook, line and sinker. I don’t think that’s an accident, Allan.

            1. “Ginsburg echoed comments from Hillary Clinton.”

              I couldn’t find that quote except in a reference to take you to an article written by the Washington Post. That was his summary of the WP article and not his statement of belief. This demonstrates a poor understanding of how one writes an op-ed in today’s world.

              Let’s hear the quote of the other statement from Turley that you mention. So far 0/1 with number two pending.

  3. Justice Ginsburg passes away. Hilary Clinton approaches Donald Trump and says she wants to replace her. Donald replies, “I’ll talk to the undertaker”.

  4. JT you must be so proud, you have done what Trump wanted and drained the swamp, and they are here on your site along with the other slimy creatures that live in the muck.

    1. FishWings, Turley’s far too priggish to be proud of his “beaver-snatching” blawg-hounds. These mechanical rabbit chases of his device are Turley’s way of sanctimony-signaling far above the drool-offending fray that he unleashes here, daily–sometimes two or three chases per day or more.

  5. “‘Sexism’ you say, Sonny. I didn’t say sexism. Are ye deef? I said ‘hexism.’ Like wit’ witches and warlocks and punkins and such. Thats what dun in that pretty yungin’ , Hillary. Eyes of Newt, ya know. Like that sassy Gingrich fellow. You whippersnappers are always mixin up what we oldtimers say. Must be the vapors. Now let me get back to lawyering and judging and such.”
    ~ Granny Ginny

    1. Mespo, you’re suggesting, perhaps, that the persecution of witches had nothing whatsoever to do with sexism.

      Or that the victim of the greatest witch hunt in human history is . . . a p*ssy-grabbing manly man; and, therefore, the victim of reverse sexism.

      Or you just enjoy doing stereotypical caricatures of senior women.

      1. Late4Dinner – if you have read the transcripts of the Salem witch trials, you would agree that it is not sexism that is the problem. Women were the ones accused for the most part, but the accusers were female.

      2. Mespo, you’re suggesting, perhaps, that the persecution of witches had nothing whatsoever to do with sexism.

        I doubt Mespo has a talent for anachronism in your league.

      3. TooLate4Dinner: The act of procreation more frequently than not involves a bit of “p*ssy-grabbing” as does the imagination of most men.

        1. Allan, go back to the link I provided and find out what Mr. Justice Scalia would say about your latest observation.

          1. Diane, instead of using a library or citation why not supply the best quote you have in context and then tell us why that statement is wrong. Of course include the citation. To reply to your library until you can improve your skills I will refer you to the library of Congress which should answer whatever question you have.

            I didn’t see anything objectionable in those links. I find it important whether it be a Sotomayor or a Scalia educating the public as to how the justices think without dealing with specific cases or drawing conclusions about the individual who may, will or is the President of the United States.

  6. What a tiny woman and such a BIG mouth. Also a motor mouth. It’s hard to believe she has gotten so far having such loose lips.

  7. The traitor Ginsburg should have been impeached long ago for subversion of the Constitution, usurpation of the power of the legislative branch, illicit modification of the Constitution as “legislation from the bench” and treason among other egregious, anti-Constitutional and anti-American acts.

    Traitor Ginsburg had but one charge and that was to support the Constitution. Instead, she chose to impose by force upon America the principles of the Communist Manifesto.

    The right to private property and the limitation on Congress to tax only for General Welfare, not individual welfare, comprehensively preclude all forms of redistribution of wealth and social engineering, including completely unconstitutional affirmative action, “Fair Housing” and “Non-Discrimination” law.

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor…void”

    Alexander Hamilton’s full admonition to Traitor Ginsburg:

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    1. George,

      You sure love Hamilton, you quote him so much!

      I would bet, though, that if you were living in Hamilton’s days your opinion of him would wane greatly. Hamilton was a purveyor of strong federalism in his day — which seems to counter your positions.

      Quotes are a lazy method to state one’s opinion; unless used as a buttress after one states their own opinion. You cannot make an argument from quotes devoid of their historical context; most especially when the historical arc of your favorite ‘quotee’ doesn’t align with your weakly stated positions.

      Maybe you should read more, and write less.

    2. News flash: your fantasy of the United States left the station about 80+ years ago. Update your train schedule.

      This is to “no more porridge for you” georgie

    1. Hear, hear!

      Anthony Weiner was prosecuted and sent to prison. Why not Hillary?

      Hillary Clinton is exponentially more guilty and all roads lead to Obama:

      Rice Road
      Power Road
      Lynch Road
      Jarrett Road
      Farkas Road
      Lerner Road
      Holder Road

      1. Well, it goes back further IMO – HW Bush, Bill Clinton, Dubya, Obama…….and this is why there will be no prosecution…. They set it up so the globalist corporations reign at the expense of the people (NAFTA, CAFTA, KORUS). devouring what’s left of the working/middle classes. Damn that’s dark.

        1. “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, the most heinous constitutional criminal in American history.

          “Crazy Abe” committed abhorrent vivisection of the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights, 1789

          (Slavery must have been eliminated through the use of constitutional, free market tools such as promotion,

          boycotts and divestiture).

        2. Remember, Big Bill was seen in the company of both Henry Kissinger and the Queen of England, each of which are well-known to be members of the Trilateral Commission. And all three are suspiciously fond of black helicopters; I was told this by a knowledgeable man wearing a disguise at my last tinfoil hat convention.

          This is to “the globalists are listening” autumn

    1. YESS!!! I remember some MSM bimbo asking Bernie whether his campaign wasn’t sexist.

      TULSI GABBARD 2020!! if the DIms don’t kill her off beforehand

  8. So now we have Hillary, Michelle Obama, and RBginzberg all telling me that I couldn’t vote for a woman because of my own lack of self love and dislike for women, or I wasn’t listening to my inner voice, or men wouldn’t vote for her cuz they deep down hate women. Ridiculous. And I am sick of hearing from ALL of them, especially HRC who will not give up. I am 70, a former liberal until Hillary. CHeated in the primary, now I’m an independent…i can think for myself and these women should shut their mouths. Especially Justice ginzberg who misuses her podium. Btw, what Mrs. CLinton fails to consider is that voters didn’t like her because she’s a liar and a cheat.

    1. Okay; I’ll take the bait. Can you provide facts to support you claim that Hillary Clinton has “cheated” and “lied.” I’m asking only Cynthia O because I don’t recognize her as one of the usual wackjobs around here. I will also need “facts” that come from reputable, verifiable, commonly-accepted sources.

      This is to “damn, alex jones doesn’t count?” cynthia o

      1. Cynthia, whoever you might be if you go search Hillary lied at Judicial watch you will get 1570 responses. Judicial Watch is the organization that does FOIA requests and has investigators and legal staff to back them up. Democrats have made sure to obstruct justice by withholding data that should be released, but every day Judicial Watch has more and more data to substantiate that Hillary along with a whole bunch of others engage in lying much of the time. This is the group that has legally released many of Hillary’s emails that she lied when she said they didn’t exist.

        To make it simple the list is at

        Mark M. can’t remember things he has already been told. I think he is engaged in filing things away just like he has all the responses and proof made in previous responses to him. I think his memory is shot.

  9. She can’t control herself- she probably “tips offs” the batters at National Park also – I knew the fan wearing a robe was rather odd.

  10. I’ll try again to make an obvious point: being a judge does not require giving up one’s freedom of speech.

    No matter what the Yahoos state.

          1. You haven’t provided an authoritative link.

            I doubt one exists; free speech, you know…

      1. She damages our trust that she is fair and impartial.

        Blaming Hillary’s loss on sexism is not a fair judgment.

        Major factors in her loss would include her massive untrustworthiness. A few top examples: pay for play with the Clinton Foundation, her mishandling of government emails she was trusted to handle appropriately, lying about the real cause of the Benghazi tragedy.

        1. Not to mention the fact that she barely campaigned and never stepped foot in 3 key swing states…and dissing half the electorate as irredeemable. You can’t tell people that and expect their support. You can’t stay home and “rest” and expect to win an election.

        2. Prarie Rose, even the White Water Scandal is coming back to haunt her. Things were covered up then.

          “WASHINGTON – Hillary Clinton’s legal fights over her use of a private email server while secretary of state are far from over, with multiple court cases still in progress.

          But now she has another battle on her hands, as Washington watchdog Judicial Watch is working to make public the details of Whitewater, the decades-old scandal in which she emerged relatively unscathed at the time.

          Judicial Watch lawyers appeared before a federal appeals court in Washington Friday arguing for the release of draft indictments of Hillary Clinton from the 1990s Whitewater scandal. A ruling is expected later.

          The watchdog group has been demanding the National Archives release documents the archives maintains “should be kept secret [to preserve] grand jury secrecy and Clinton’s personal privacy.”

          Judicial Watch filed a FOIA request for the documents in March 2015.

          Then in October that year the group sued the National Archives and Records Administration for release of the 238 pages of related records.

          U.S. District Court Judge Reggie Walton ruled that the documents must be withheld in light of Clinton’s “substantial privacy interest,” which he claimed outweighed any public interest in disclosure.

          But Judicial Watch appealed, contending an abundance of information about Whitewater has already been made public and that “there is no secrecy or privacy left to protect.”

          Cont at:

        3. Prairie Rose, you’ve overlooked Ginsburg’s words, “there are so many things that might have been decisive.”

          You’ve also overlooked Trump’s words about grabbing women’s crotches anytime he wants because he’s a celebrity.

          It’s not like you, Prairie Rose, to overlook the obvious connection between Trump’s sexist words and Ginsburg’s claim that sexism may have been a major factor in the 2016 election results amongst so many other things that might have been decisive.

          I’m guessing that you forgot about Trump’s sexist remark.

          1. Late4Dinner – I have not forgotten that Bill Clinton shoved a cigar up Monica Lewinski’s vagina so he could both smoke and enjoy the taste of her later. Nor have I forgotten his rapes which wiped out Hillary’s funds at the Rose Law Firm. And if Hillary was to be elected, he was going to be what? First Rapist?

            1. Paul, Bill Clinton was a sexist pig. Now, if you would be so kind, could please you as to explain the existence of sexism to StepOnToads. SOT claims the very concept of sexism is supposedly nonsensical.

              1. No, Bilge Clinton is a roue who prefers sodomy. He’s a man who does not give evidence of having any non-corrupt facets, nor can one detect objects which are not self-indulgent. If it moves, he’ll have it. If it comes with fries and a medium shake, he’ll have it.

              2. Late4Dinner – Clinton was a sexist pig? Did he get over it? Or did he die?

                1. Yes, Paul. Bill Clinton was and most likely still is a sexist pig. Despite the fact that Bill Clinton nominated Ginsburg to The Supreme Court. Or Janet Reno to be Attorney General, for that matter.

                  You see, Paul, it’s the sexual harassment “peccadillo” that makes Bill Clinton a sexist. What makes Trump a sexist is bragging and boasting about grabbing women by their p*ssies anytime he wants. There might be still other things that make other men sexists.

                  For instance, believing that Eve was created to be Adam’s help-meet and, later, after the fall from grace, condemned to bear Adam’s children into the world; and that, therefore, “sexism” is a nonsensical concept might also be something that makes some men sexists–and maybe some women, too.

                  Or maybe that’s just another red herring. What do you think, Paul?

                  1. Late4Dinner – I think claims of “sexism” are over-rated and in Trump’s case, old news. I used to have a female friend that liked to grab male genitalia, was she sexist? Actually, I had two female friends like that.


                    1. Paul, if your female friends held a position of power over you when they grabbed your genitalia, then they, too, were sexist pigs. Otherwise . . . they were extremely uncouth.

                    2. Late4Dinner – the first time the gropes happened it was a pleasant surprise. After that, it became expected. It was never uncouth or rude, it was part of their persona. You need to join the 20th and 21st centuries and be accepting of people.

                    3. Paul, if your female friends held a position of power over you when they grabbed your genitalia, then they, too, were sexist pigs. Otherwise . . . they were extremely uncouth.

                      Your latest improvisation. The women lobbing accusations at Trump a year ago were people who sat next to him on airplane flights and the like.

                    4. Even if I took the accusations against him seriously, I’ve not clue what ‘power’ Trump has over reporters. IIRC, the complaints re pageant contestants concerned Trump entering group dressing rooms.

                    5. “Paul, if your female friends held a position of power over you when they grabbed your genitalia, then they, too, were sexist pigs. Otherwise . . . they were extremely uncouth.”

                      Diane, apparenlty you are unaware of reality.

                  2. “What makes Trump a sexist is bragging and boasting about grabbing women by their p*ssies anytime he wants.”

                    Diane, but for your sex you might have spent a lot of time in men’s locker rooms. That is a place where most men say things they would never say in any other public space. If you damn Trump for that statement then you would likely have to damn almost every male politician except perhaps the religious ones who are mostly on the right. Same for male college students.I disregard locker room talk because it is a different culture than the culture outside of the locker room. You should to.

                    That comment of Trump’s is totally meaningless, but played a lot by people that have done much worse.

                    1. Allan – all theatre students have to take Technical Theatre, which basically free labor painting sets, etc. One year the entire class were girls and I was asked to go in and give them a hand, some direction, etc. Listening to them talk I learned things that curled my hair. I heard jokes I would not even tell today. Don’t let anybody tell you that girls don’t have locker room talk as bad or worse than the men.

                    2. “Don’t let anybody tell you that girls don’t have locker room talk as bad or worse than the men.”

                      Paul, I have heard it all. In another place of mine one of the owners was an actress and she had her stage set up people build alot of the things that remain to this day.These stage people are very good at these things, but not good enough. I gave this place to my son for two years while he was training. The bar had a secret compartment, very carefully hidden and filled by me with good liquor, but when he left and I returned that area was empty. 🙂

                      Do you think any groping occurred? 🙂

              3. Diane, you say “Bill Clinton was a sexist pig.”. Why is that your conclusion? Did he not actually rape or force himself onto an unwilling woman? If any of these other things is true then you are trying to make Bill C look better than he is. Why?

                1. Neither Clinton nor Trump have actually been prosecuted for rape. Both have been accused. This is old news.

                  1. “Neither Clinton nor Trump have actually been prosecuted for rape. Both have been accused. This is old news.”

                    We know about Clinton’s heinous treatment of some women and we know of threats and payoffs. Can you tell me which woman accused Trump that appeared to demonstrate force and a cover-up? We know of some against Trump that have been proven absolutely false.

                    Trump is a bit horney. B. Clinton is a sick man.

          2. Late4Dinner,
            ““there are so many things that might have been decisive.””

            It is true that she gave this caveat. However, as far as I know, she did not list the other possible decisive factors, thereby effectively negating their importance. She did name ‘sexism’ as a factor as though it was the most important.

            It was not a major factor.

            People did not vote for Trump because of his obnoxious comments. Neither did they vote against Clinton because of sexism, particularly in regards to women who did not vote for her. I did not vote for either. Both concerned me.

            Hillary represented a corrupt and self-serving status quo.

            If Ginsburg had actually related the major reasons for Clinton’s defeat, she would have listed Clinton’s lousy campaign strategy and assumption that she would win (she chose not to campaign in several key states she assumed she had wrapped up), she is not trusted due to her breach of protocol with sensitive government material that would get the rest of us fired or worse (as well as pay for play), her lying to the public about the real cause of the Benghazi tragedy, the DNC corruption re: Bernie Sanders.

            Sexism is not a ‘major reason’ in light of the aforementioned.

            I did not overlook it; it did not make the top ten.

            1. Prairie Rose – my problem with Hillary was Whitewater and the “bimbo eruptions” she was in charge of. She smeared the reputations of a lot of young women her husband had molested. Anything she touched after that was poisoned.

              1. Paul, if national security and the ability to run a nation weren’t qualities necessary to run our government that would have been top on my list. It demonstrates Hillaries inability to deal with all Americans fairly even those that don’t agree with her. Further more it shows her up as the bi… she is.

            2. Thank you, Prairie Rose. FTR, I disagree with Clinton’s complaint against self-hating women. I also disagree with Ginsburg’s claim that sexism was a “major” factor in Clinton’s defeat.

              That Hillary was a deeply flawed candidate who failed to earn the trust of the voters seems too obvious to dispute.

              Nevertheless, I must insist that sexism played a role in Trump’s support amongst men. I further argue that the male Trump supporters who replied to my observation of Trump’s sexism pretty much prove the point.

              1. Late4Dinner,
                Thank you for the corgial reply. I am glad we are mostly in agreement. I do not think the gentlemen replying are sexist, especially in regards to Clinton. They rank Trump’s behavior below Hillary and Bill’s behavior.

                The sample size here is also quite small on which to base a judgment of the whole of men’s response. Of the men I know who voted for Trump, I would not consider any of them sexist. They voted against Clinton by voting for Trump. My sample size is small, too, but it does act as a counterweight.

        4. Prairie Rose, Ginsburg’s remark about sexism in the 2016 election was not a judgment from the bench at all. You’re equivocating over the word judgment when you argue that a judge’s public remarks should be as fair and impartial as that judge’s judicial decisions.

          FTR, no one, not even Turley, ever expected Antonin Scalia’s public remarks to be any fairer nor equally as impartial as his decisions and dissents from the bench were expected to be.

          There is such a thing as expecting too much.

          1. Diane, Ginsberg’s remarks have included political positions that demonstrate bias.

            Quote in context a remark of Scalia’s that does the same.

          2. Late4Dinner,
            “was not a judgment from the bench at all.”

            I never said it was.

            “You’re equivocating over the word judgment when you argue that a judge’s public remarks should be as fair and impartial as that judge’s judicial decisions.”

            We are using different definitions of the word judgment. Ginsburg used her judgment (more or less her ability to discern and to form an opinion) to comment on the “major reason” for Clinton’s defeat.

            A judge’s public remarks should not damage his or her reputation of being fair and impartial. Those remarks should cause people to question your ability to form fair judgments. Her reputation is at stake.

            It would be like a public school teacher or church elder behaving in a way outside of the school or church that damaged their reputations.

            Her judgment was not a fair (I.e., balanced or objective). She chose politics and easy excuses.

            1. Prairie Rose said, “A judge’s public remarks should not damage his or her reputation of being fair and impartial. Those remarks should cause people to question your ability to form fair judgments.”

              You’re a wonderful person, Prairie Rose. Your posts are always thoughtful in the considerate sense of that term. However, it was not “we” but “you” who used different definitions of the word judgment in one and the same argument about judgment. Thus it is not “we” but “you” who are equivocating over the word judgment.

              Meanwhile, the criterion of judgment that you’ve enunciated is even more priggish than Turley’s.

              Ask yourself, was Antonin Scalia under any obligation to make only those public utterances that would bolster his reputation for fair and impartial judicial decisions? So that no one would doubt his ” . . . ability to form fair judgments?”

              If so, then from whose point of view? From the viewpoint of his political detractors? Or from the viewpoint of his political supporters? Or only ever from some theoretically, abstract, ahistorical Platonic point of view?

              Given the history of acrimony about SCOTUS, it’s doubtful that any jurist could make only such public statements as would either mollify or fail to inflame his or her political detractors. Likewise, a jurist’s failure to mollify his or her political supporters in the very act of inflaming his or her political detractors might easily lead to a loss of sufficient support for confirmation to SCOTUS in the first place.

              Ginsburg, herself, as well as Roberts and Gorsuch all faced harsh negative criticism for dodging difficult questions about prospective judicial decisions during their confirmation hearings. And those are just three nominees who were confirmed for SCOTUS. There have been several nominees who have not been confirmed either because they dodged the difficult questions or, more boldly, they didn’t dodge the difficult questions.

              Turley’s priggishness can never become a solution for the history of acrimonious SCOTUS nominations.

              1. Late4Dinner,
                I was unclear even in my attempt at clarification. I was interrupted 3 times as I tried to respond! I need to sit in a locked bathroom to reply to posts. 🙂

                When Ginsburg responded by highlighting sexism as a major factor, she exposed a bias she has. It was not an unbiased response. That is the concerning element. Public officials (and even private citizens) should take care to speak too freely to reporters. What you say is recorded forever and reflects upon you forever. While none of us are obligated to speak a certain way (unless we have agreed to do so with an employer), I certainly carefully consider my words when speaking to people other than close friends and family. Heck, even with some family members I am careful what I say. That does not mean you dodge difficult questions, it just means you take more care than you would with your spouse after the kids are in bed. If Scalia’s comments called his fairness or impartiality into question, I would have grave concerns, too.

                1. Prairie Rose, I will gladly concede that Ginsburg is heavily biased in favor of gender equality. It is the foundation of her career in the law. And Ginsburg has done more than any other jurist thus far to improve the equality of the sexes.

                  Nevertheless, since Ginsburg’s comment about the 2016 election was necessarily a “political” comment, you force me further to concede that her lifelong legal position on gender equality probably got the better of her ordinary, everyday, rhetorical judgment.

                  As far as the clarity issue goes, please don’t lock yourself in the bathroom on my account. Some folks around here might accuse me practicing reverse sexism, if you did. Besides, I read you just fine Prairie Rose, especially when I read things into your posts that you had not actually written. I’m like that, sometimes.

                  1. “you force me further to concede that her lifelong legal position on gender equality probably got the better of her ordinary, everyday, rhetorical judgment.”

                    Diane, that is you hiding a potential problem because of your biases. You don’t seem bothered by the more important question that perhaps age “got the better of” her rhetorical judgement and that based upon what appears to be a diminishing intellect RBG ought to retire.

                  2. Prairie Rose, I will gladly concede that Ginsburg is heavily biased in favor of gender equality. It is the foundation of her career in the law. And Ginsburg has done more than any other jurist thus far to improve the equality of the sexes.

                    She did close to zilch that affected the lives of aught but a small minority. ‘Inequality of the sexes’ has not at any time since Ginsburg has been old enough to read been incorporated into black-letter law. There were in 1948 certain obligations which did not apply to women (military service), certain public sector positions for which they weren’t eligible in most jurisdictions (e.g. firefighter, police supervisor), and certain benefits in regard to which there was a bias contra female applicants (e.g. berths in state university professional schools). I think she won some suit which allowed men to claim better Social Security survivors benefits. A small number of dykes and professional-class women benefited from Ginsburg’s efforts. For the vast majority of women, it was a big meh.

                    ‘Equality of the sexes’ is code for promotion of abortion through judicial ukase and ending freedom of contract and association to allow people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg to harass employers and private clubs and extract rents from them. It’s predatory and nothing better than predatory.

            2. Ugh. It was late. I meant to add to “Ginsburg used her judgment (more or less her ability to discern and to form an opinion) to comment on the “major reason” for Clinton’s defeat” the concept that having used her judgment, she rendered a judgment (a formed opinion) when replying to the reporter. I did not mean, at all, ever, a formal, official judgment as found in a court of law.

              1. It’s okay, Prairie Rose. I was being especially ornery. You got caught in the crossfire. I’m sorry for that.

                For the life of me I cannot believe that anyone would seriously dispute that Trump’s remark to Billy Bush was sexist. And yet, such persons actually exist right here on this blawg. Go figure.

                1. No worries. I place a premium on being clear in my statements, and when I fumble that aggravates me. Lack of clarity can cause so many unexpected problems. Thank you for keeping me to my high standards!

                2. Diane, One can take many statements made and place that statement alone to be observed and commented on. Without question someone will find a sexist theme to the statement. The question at hand is whether or not the President is a sexist based upon locker room talk that is not untypical from the type of talk heard in locker rooms? Does one call a man who may have made such a statement, but who is known to hire women in high places where competitors don’t, prejudiced against women because of their sex?

    1. David.. do you see any of the others jumping in… they stay out of the BS.. take note

      1. Who are these “others” to whom you allude, Sir? The one’s who don’t jump in? That’s not you, Sir. The one’s who stay out of the BS? That’s not you, either, Sir.

        Take note: putting Clinton’s words in Ginsburg’s mouth is BS. And you jumped in it, Sirah.

        1. He didn’t put words in Ginsburg’s mouth. The only BS artist here is you.

          1. Turley did. And whole thread fell for it right on cue. Read the Original Post. Try to keep up. Stay fluid, Spinelli. Stay fluid.

            1. Late4Dinner, why don’t you post the quote of Turley where he was “putting Clinton’s words in Ginsburg’s mouth” unless you meant he wasn’t doing so.

              1. Now she’ll start a 30-post back and forth with you claiming she’s already answered your question.

    2. David.. do you see any of the others jumping in… they stay out of the BS.. take note

      1. You repeated yourself to clarify the point, I take it, that free speech is BS??? That legal professionalism requires self-censorship imposed upon Ginsburg by the professional legal prig Jonathan Turley??? That women who disagree with you should go sit in corner somewhere and just shut up??? That anyone who says that Ginsburg has a right freely to speak is jumping in BS???

        Which of these several points are you attempting to clarify by repeating yourself, Michael X McGuire, Sirah???

  11. Is “sexism” included in the freedoms of thought, speech, religion, assembly, press and every other conceivable, natural and god-given freedom per the 9th amendment?

    Ginsburg has absolutely no grasp of the American thesis, the Constitution, Bill of Rights or the manifest tenor of the intent of the Founders.

      1. She has a grasp of it. Since its in the way of what she wants, she’ll happily stomp all over it.

    1. Yes, George. Sexism in expressive speech and expressive conduct is protected by The First Amendment. That is why Trump can brag and boast about grabbing women’s crotches anytime he wants.

      However, George, sexual assault is against the statutory laws of all fifty sovereign states. And that’s why Trump can’t actually grab any woman’s crotch any time he wants—except while abroad.

      The Russians might indulge Trump’s sexual perversions. The Saudis, probably not.

      1. “The Russians might indulge Trump’s sexual perversions.”

        Why did you bring the Russians into the conversation?

        1. For sentimental reasons. You know . . . Auld Lang Syne and all that jazz.

          Oh, yeah. And then there’s The Steele Dossier.

          1. So far, Steele and Fusion GPS have stonewalled in providing information/ testimony regarding those hired them to work with the Russians.
            If there is a serious, comprehensive investigation into Russian involvement in the 2016 election, the Steele Dossier will be will be one issues investigated.

  12. Willie Mays is a Hall of Fame player who unfortunately didn’t know when to retire. Ginsburg is a AA Minor League player, who got her job BECAUSE she’s a woman, and won’t retire.

    1. You object to women living longer on average than men. Is that your complaint, Spinelli? Will Kagan and Sotomayor prove as healthy and long-lived as Ginsburg has? You want all three of those seats on the court before 2020; don’t you, Spinelli? You begrudge Ginsburg her continued existence, only because she refuses to retire. Otherwise, she can live as long as she may in retirement. Is that your thesis, Spinelli?

      1. Wait a second . . . Ginsburg has survived two bouts with cancer so far. So strike the healthy part. But keep the long-lived part and add a healthy heaping of chutzpah for good measure.

        That’s what really gets your goat; isn’t it, Spinelli?

        BTW, some folks [not me] but some folks on the left find fault with Ginsburg for not having retired while Obama was President and The Democrats still had a majority in The Senate.

        Who did you think Ginsburg was holding out for, Spinelli? Trump’s sister? The poor woman is probably wracked with guilt for having falsely assumed that Hillary would beat Trump. Now she has to cling to life to hold that seat till 2021.

        Never bet against the chutzpah, Spinelli.

        1. Diane or Late4Dinner, Ginsberg’s comments have been out of bounds for quite awhile and those comments have happened too frequently. She should have retired under Obama when it was clear that she was getting too old. Other justices have done that. She didn’t, so now she might have to retire under Trump. Blame Ginsberg, not anyone else.

      2. You object to women living longer on average than men. I

        I see you don’t object to fairly blatant red herrings. The rest of us can count among our blessings that we never have to encounter you in meat world.

        1. Mister Spinelli, I presume. You mischievous little imp, you. Was your analogy between Ginsburg and Willy Mays something other than a red herring?

          You object to Ginsburg because she’s a woman and because she won’t retire. The fact that women live longer on average than men supposedly has nothing to do with the fact that Ginsburg had the chutzpah to outlive Scalia and the chutzpah not to retire.

          You wouldn’t know a red herring if you choked on one, Spinelli.

          1. No, Spinelli is Spinelli and I am not. I have to use several handles because the spam filter has excluded one after another (or Darren keeps banning me). Spinelli’s always Spinelli. I assume you’re not using ‘Diane’ as part of some head-fake.

            Spinelli can speak for himself. I object to Ginsburg because she has a history as a gruesome political sectary who has no business being on the bench.

            I’m from New York, where judicial retirements are mandatory the calendar year you turn 76 and judges over 70 have an emeritus status which requires they apply for biennial certifications if they wish to continue hearing cases. I believe judges are properly subject to mandatory retirement, retention-in-office referenda, and recall, so I do not like the federal judiciary’s tenure one bit.

            1. Fine then, StepOnToads. I apologize to you for suspecting you of being Spinelli. I won’t apologize for the rest of it though.

              I used to use Diane, and sometimes forget to use Late4Dinner, which was an accidental suggestion from Mespo.

              So your position on mandatory retirement of judges is separate and distinct from you objection to Ginsburg, because you think she never should’ve been on the bench in the first place??? Not because she’s a woman. But because she’s a “gruesome political secretary???”

              If it wouldn’t trouble you too much, SOT, could you please explain why you think “sexism” is a nonsensical concept?

              1. Because it is contentless. An arbitrary label applied when the speaker (almost always female) wishes to rebuke without argument and exclude someone else’s argument from consideration. It’s a game. Honest people do not play games. I’m old enough to remember when ‘honest liberal’ was not a contradiction in terms. We lose a little bit of civilization every time a member of the Greatest Generation dies.

              2. Is that the same Diane that has been around and I have had multiple discussions with? I think it is more of a spam filter problem than anything else and one can go back to their original name. It’s hard enough keeping track of all the names on the blog. I had my name blocked, but I shortly was able to post on other threads with my original name so I kept my name and when I had to temporarily change my name I let everyone know who I was.

                If one is comfortable with their position then I don’t know why one doesn’t persist in using one name and identifying themselves when the name temporarily changes. When one doesn’t do that it makes one appear to be ducking what they previously said. I thank anyone who lets me know when there is a name change so I can keep track. Maybe someone can compile a list and post it. It appears there are fewer people commenting on the blog than the tally of the number of names would suggest.

            2. “’I’m from New York”

              Is that the City or State? If the city, then can we blame you for De Blasio?

  13. You can thank Scalia for this. I agree that the justices should maintain their traditional silence on such matters at least until they retire from the court. But Scalia couldn’t keep his mouth shut while he was on the court and frequently made inappropriate comments in speeches and other public events that he should not have made. He paid no price at all for this and was lionized upon his death by the most partisan on the right. Ginsburg is merely mirroring that same kind of regrettable commentary and will similarly be lionized upon her death by the most partisan on the left. It’s a shame really.

    1. Scalia couldn’t keep his mouth shut while he was on the court and frequently made inappropriate comments in speeches and other public events that he should not have made.


      1. Give it up, JT has built a far right group here and anything that does not conform to their thinking is wrong. Logic is out the window.

        1. Not so. You are projecting. You just described yourself – only you are the leftist version of what you think you see.

          1. Based on all the admissions to using multiple handles here, it might be a far right group that is each other.

        2. Wrong yet again FishWings:

          First, if the late Scalia made inappropriate comments I’d love to see your evidence and sourcing of those comments.

          Second, your presence here illustrates that there are leftists on the JT site.

          Third, logic is not on the side of any item on the left’s agenda. Disagree? Give me an example.

          Fourth, you still have not articulated an intelligent, intellectually devised answer to my central question: what happens AFTER Trump and Pence are impeached?

          The problem with the left is that ideology informs all of their ideas. With us on the right, ideas inform our ideology. That’s why we have a dynamic and innovative political model whereas the left is stuck with stupid ideas from one hundred years or more ago.

        3. JT has built a far right group here and anything that does not conform to their thinking is wrong. Logic is out the window.

          NEWSFLASH! When you see everyone is to the right of you and you do not see the logic in their views, odds are it is you and not them that is being illogical.

          Your posts are filled with emotion and that is understandable given the fact you cannot reconcile your far left ideology within our constitutional framework. You’d be better off banging your head against a wall, at least that might knock some sense into you.

          1. Fishwings makes sense to me and btw Trump did not drain the swamp. Price is the poster boy for the kleptocracy this week.

            1. Are the two of you identical twins. Did you not notice that Price was immediately gone and that sent a message to everyone? Did you not notice that approval for private planes by cabinet members now has to go directly to General Kelly? No way better to drain the swamp then to make an example of one of them.

              Way to go Mr. President. Great job. Don’t worry about the nuts out there Mr. President. It makes not a bit of difference what you do. Those nuts will find something to complain about.

              There is an old joke on this subject that shows how foolish the nuts are:

              “Trump invited the Pope for lunch on his mega yacht, the Pope accepted, and during lunch a puff of wind blew the pontiff’s hat off, right into the water.

              It floated off about 50 feet, then the wind died down and it just floated in place.

              The crew and the secret service were scrambling to launch a boat to go get it, when Trump waved them off, saying “Never mind, boys, I’ll get it.”

              Trump climbed over the side of the yacht, walked on the water to the hat, picked it up, walked back on the water, climbed onto the yacht and handed the pope his hat.

              The crew was speechless. The security team and the pope’s entourage were speechless.

              No one knew what to say, not even the pope.

              But that afternoon, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC and CNN all knew how to cover the story. Their banner headlines read, “Trump can’t swim.”

            2. Fishwings makes sense to me.

              Clinton made sense to millions. So did Hitler, Stalin and Mao. But in a natural rights-based constitutional republic, none of them makes sense. That would also explain the need to use force or fear to govern. Because no one would willfully accept the infringement of rights.

          2. First, “everyone” is a non-sequitur and merely a red-herring to feed the animals here. Second, this website is not representative of the normal polity in the United States. There are many here who can’t or won’t accept the fact that the majority of the country isn’t old, scared white people, and that most don’t want to go back to life the way it was in the “good ole days.” Third, the absolute terror these people obviously feel because the world is moving too fast causes them to say things that they would never say in real life to a real person; this “keyboard warrior” mentality is manifestly illogical.

            this is to “keyboard logician” olly

            1. Mark M. I’m an old White person who am terribly scared of a fair number of my fellow old scared White people, because they seem to think that it’s even possible in the first place to go back to the way things were in “the bad ole days.”

              Did you notice that none of the keyboard warriors stated their real objection to Ginsburg? Namely, that she practically wrote the book on gender equality. That’s what really get’s their goats.

              1. That’s what really get’s their goats.

                No, what gets my goat is that her conception of the role of the appellate judge is to engage in verbose pettifoggery whose object is to wreck the democratic process and get you and yours what they want. Understanding that is not difficult, but it defeats you.

        1. There isn’t one thing on that list that’s substantively or contextually inappropriate. The author and her editor either know that and are playing spin-games or they don’t know that because they live in a bubble or are generically obtuse.

          1. SOT, if the context to which the article is inappropriate is Ginsburg’s answer to Rose’s question, then you are correct. However, the article was published shortly after Scalia’s death. So the inappropriate context was not yet available to the author of that article.

            The link was provided only so that Horuss wouldn’t fell so all alone. Everybody must get stoned.

        2. I have to agree with DSS “There isn’t one thing on that list that’s substantively or contextually inappropriate. ”

          Scalia was stating facts whether they were right or wrong (I think they happen to be right and a lot of literature proves him correct) and his statements were at least partially removed from his context. I understand how real facts create a leftist ideological response that is dependent upon errant facts. What you have to do is Quote what Scalia said and try and quote the entire context of the remark. Then you have to state what was wrong with the statement.Neither you nor the Hill have done that.

          For example FishWings makes the ridiculous statement similar to there is a war by the police to exterminate blacks when, if I remember correctly, only 16 blacks our of >7,000 black deaths were caused by police (against an unarmed black, not the only legitimate reason for such such a death).) Therefore if Scalia responded to Fishwings saying his beliefs were not backed up with facts you might complain that his statement was inapropriate since you may errantly believe that all 7,000 plus were killed by the police which as you know is totally wrong.

    2. I’ve heard numerous Supreme Court Justices speak including Scalia . They all provided viewpoints as to how the law should be viewed. Ginsberg did something different. She took a public position against the President of the United States. I never heard Scalia say something that was about something under discussion by the SC or in a partisan way. In fact of all the Supreme Court Justices I have seen or met I found him the most thoughtful and concerned about appearances. He was brilliant, funny and when I spoke to him he almost seemed to read my mind a characteristic of a great teacher because the great teacher knows what is not said, but you are thinking.

      With that in mind Horuss, why don’t you tell us the inappropriate comments Scalia made. Remember, you may not like his opinion on how the law should be interpreted, but that is different than the partisan comments made by Ginsberg.

  14. CV Brown – I made exactly the right pick. I don’t do what she tells me either. 🙂

  15. There is no such thing as ‘sexism’. It’s a bit of rhetorical gamesmanship. And there’s no surprise here. The Democrats do not appoint people to the appellate courts who manifest professionalism. She herself was associated with the ACLU, which should have been a deal-breaker. Instead, more than 90% of the FredoCon caucus voted to allow her on the court.

  16. Justice Ginsburg lost credibility with that statement.

    As a woman, such a comment is offensive and repugnant to me. She is utterly and completely wrong to even imply that a female is incapable of forming her own opinion and voting because of her gender.

    I refused to vote for Hilary because I found her to be the most corrupt and untrustworthy candidate in my memory. Her actions made Watergate seem like a fraternity prank. I formed that opinion all on my own, without any pressure from my husband or father, and I do not hate my own gender.

    I frankly do not care about any candidate’s gender or race. That has nothing to do with their ability and merit, which should be the only attributes under consideration for the job of POTUS. She cannot use her ovaries to determine foreign policy, and melanin does not affect intellect.

    We should all be judged on the content of our character, actions, and abilities. Apparently, this is news to a member of the Supreme Court.

    1. I have seen men enter the voting booth with women just to make sure they were voting “correctly”.

      My ex-husband didn’t bother to vote until we were married and he voted then just to negate my vote, and he was vociferous about it. I started mentioning the opponent of my choice as a defense. After awhile, he was reinforcing my vote, not negating it.

      1. I have seen men enter the voting booth with women just to make sure they were voting “correctly”.

        I’ve seen people lie through their teeth in blog comboxes.

      2. Where the hell have you been voting? Any person has the right to ask someone to go into the voting booth unless it is their employer, union representative, or an actual candidate. Voters who are sight impaired, for example, may need help. Poll workers are supposed to be trained to spot fraud.

        “Voters who, for any reason, need or want assistance to vote have the right to receive help to mark a ballot. A voter can bring one or two people into the voting booth, or the voter may request assistance from a poll worker. Poll workers should be trained in what (and what not) to do if asked to assist. For example, it is a violation of state and federal law to disclose how a person votes. (§§ 2300(a)(6), 14224, 14282)
        County elections officials should train poll workers how to properly record the voters who have been assisted in marking their ballots. (§ 14283)”

        “A voter has the right to cast a secret ballot free from intimidation. Poll workers should be trained to watch for and address any form of intimidation, which includes electioneering activities (see Section 3 of these standards). Poll workers should also provide voters with disabilities, or any voter requiring assistance, the same opportunity for privacy when marking their ballots as they provide to all other voters. (§§ 2300(a)(4), 18540; California Constitution, art. II, § 7)”

        Anyone who votes is not only voting their own conscience, but trying to fight against votes they do not believe in. If someone you hated ran in your district, then you would vote against him, and try to get as many others to vote against him as you could, in order to outnumber and counteract votes for it.

        How do you know that the man was forcing the woman to vote a certain way? Could you hear him telling her to change her vote? If so, did you report it as unlawful intimidation? Was he telling her where her candidate was on the ballot? Did you actually hear these men intimidating their wives in the voting booth, or did you assume?

      3. Only women could come up with the incoherent and hysterical concept of giving women the vote. If women vote with their husbands, the 19th amendment gives them 2 votes. If women vote against their husbands, their 2 votes cancel each other out. What’s that tell you about the fallacy that is the 19th amendment? In a representative republic, the man votes for the family and for the good of the family. That is what the American Founders established, for good reason, to stand in perpetuity. Women were busy perpetrating the race/population and the “poor” would only sell their votes; they did. The 19th gives the vote to people outside of the family structure – outside of normalcy. Without the family structure, there are no people. Did you know that the American birthrate is in a “death spiral?” What good will the 19th amendment be after America runs out of people? The 19th amendment is an oxymoronic,national suicide pact. The Devil’s Paradox: Women get the vote and lose procreation. Next stop: extinction.

          1. “The Hand That Rocks the Cradle Is the Hand That Rules the World”

            – William Ross Wallace

          2. Did military conscription come with the 19th Amendment?

            Women don’t need to fight America’s wars but women need to vote in America’s elections.

            Women obtain affirmative action educations and careers but they don’t pay the price of military service.

            Women aren’t required to build a business but must be allowed by force to takeover a business.

            What incoherence it would be for women to fight a country’s wars. Women are busy making the fighters and, by extension, the country.

            Women would be hysterical if they were ordered into the military service of a nation but incoherently demand the right to vote in that nation.

            1. George – I believe in Heinlein’s political philosophy laid out in Starship Troopers (the book, not the movie). If you want to vote you go into the military. They find a place for everybody. If you don’t go into the military, you don’t get to vote. Ricco goes into the military but his parents decided that they did not want to vote and so avoided the military.

              1. PCS, and is it rational for people who receive paychecks drawn from tax revenues to vote? The Founders knew that the “poor” would sell their votes. Would not public workers sell their votes? For whom do we imagine public workers vote? The republic of the Founders vanished long ago.

          3. Not to put too fine a point on it but women have been takers not makers.

            Women have taken the right to vote, assistance and affirmative action.

            Women have not made the country – fought the wars, created the industries or built the nation.

            The essential, natural function of women is to perpetuate and multiply a nation’s population.

            The vanishing population of America has been imported for half a century now.

          1. Do you vote with your husband and double the effect or do you void out each other’s vote? Perhaps you no longer have a husband, meaning you don’t care about your husband, you don’t care about your marriage, you don’t care about your family, you don’t care about your children, you don’t care about the future, you don’t care about the nation, but you care obsessively about the vote. I’m not sure the Founders intended for that type of logically incoherent unintelligibility to bear on the vote, governance and the nation. I could be wrong, right?

            “That dudn’t make any sense.” – George W. Bush

            The American birthrate is in a “death spiral.” Americans are disappearing. The population of America is being imported. In the near future, there won’t be an American left in America. The same is true of Europe and Australia. Europeans everywhere are being diluted out of existence.

            Potential enemies of America have populations which dwarf America’s with the obvious implications including economic and military competition. The populations of the Asia-Pacific region will turn Ameirca into an infinitesimally small, long lost memory.

            And that’s a good thing? America will not compete or even exist in a couple of centuries. Surely that was the intent of the Founders, right?

            1. George – I know my wife often cancels out my vote and since we usually vote absentee, I take the ballots to the voting booth. There have been a few times I have been sorely tempted to “lose” her ballot on the way, but that is not the American way. 😉

              1. Ben Franklin, 1789, we gave you “a republic, if you can keep it.” Franklin’s was a restricted-vote republic. In 1789, the votes were far, far fewer and each vote mattered. The criteria were male, European, 21 with 50 lbs. Sterling or 50 acres. Women and the “poor” were not allowed to vote, why? The vote has been diluted and is meaningless today; ask the shadow government. California is a one-party, communist state and it is coming to a state near you soon. Californians had a choice of the democrat or the democrat for U.S. Senate in the last election.

                Take a good look at America today with the foreign invasion, the importation of its population (which is in a “death spiral”), redistribution, affirmative action, “too big to fail” and “too big to jail.” Does it look anything like what the Founders intended? Does China look pretty much as it has for 5,000+ years?

                There must be a reason for the destruction of America. It must be simple coincidence that America began “progressing” proximate to the ratification of the 19th amendment, right?

                Not to worry, given the birthrate in a “death spiral,” America will have been completely diluted or “fundamentally transformed” out of existence in a century or two.

                Goodnight, America.

                1. Things change, George. The ebb and flow of human needs always requires reassessment within a prevailing social construct.

                  Your criteria for voting rights are dated by two and one-half centuries. Why do you find the ideals regarding voting rights of centuries ago superior to what exists today? What is lacking for you?

                  Your concern is obviously centered around women, and what seems to be — to you — a clear social distinction of ‘troubles’ stemming from a woman’s right to vote, the breakdown of civilization, and all the pesky tangents arising from this, such as self-determination.

                  I suggest that you accept the simple fact that women exist, that they hold rights as precious as yours, and you should be grateful for this obvious fact.

                  1. The TEN COMMANDMENTS have experienced no imperative for change.

                    The TEN AMENDMENTS as the Bill of Rights were sufficient for the Founders.

                    Amendments were never proposed or intended to injure the Constitution.

                    The 18th did and it was repealed by the 21st after the incoherence and hysteria were obliterated.

                    “…if there are amendments…as will not injure the constitution,…”

                    “…IF…,” he said.

                    James Madison

                    Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789

                    ” And if there are amendments desired, of such a nature as will not injure the constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow citizens; the friends of the federal government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.”

                    The 19th amendment is demonstrably, insidiously and mortally injurious to the Constitution.

              2. Funny thing: Everybody votes in China. Women vote in China. Ask those Chinese men and women if their vote has any meaning at all. Same thing in America.

                Ben Franklin’s response was to a woman who could not vote. We gave you “a republic if you can keep it,” said Franklin. What do you suppose he admonished about? America could not keep its restricted-vote “republic.” America evolved, with the help of Lincoln’s “Reign of Terror” and the 19th amendment, and succumbed to Tytler’s Principle that one man, one vote democracy inexorably evolves into dictatorship.

                “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the people discover they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy–to be followed by a dictatorship.”

                ― Alexander Fraser Tytler

                America, like China, is a dictatorship ruled by the shadow government. Freed slaves have the vote. Women have the vote. Foreign invaders have the vote. The vote has been disseminated and diluted into insignificance. Freedom and free enterprise without interference by government have been repealed and redistribution of wealth, social engineering, central planning and importation of “population” to offset the vanishing American population (exacerbated by abortion and the birthrate in a “death spiral”) have been imposed. Welfare and affirmative action have been confiscated from Americans and awarded to minorities. Merit, Franklin’s republic and the Constitution are long gone.

                The 19th amendment made a huge contribution.

                “…to ourselves and our posterity,…”

                “…If you can keep it.”

                In deed.

                1. George – when England first gave women the vote, they had to be at least 30 years old. Now some people are talking about lowering the voting age to 16.

                  1. PCS, what is a “Tass?” I’m not familiar with that moniker. Is that derived from a Russian news service? How about gender?

                    1. George – I have no idea but I think Tass is a she. You should see the names that teachers are required to try to pronounce each year, given by mothers being super-creative. You almost want to make the mother come in and pronounce the name each time you call it. 🙂

              3. From a national perspective, the 19th amendment has facilitated an incoherent and destructive effect.

                Women engage in abortion.

                Women slash the birthrate.

                Both are deleterious and mortal for the nation.

                But women incoherently and hysterically demand the right the to vote.

                Women don’t care about American children sufficient to perpetuate the American nation, women don’t care about nurturing a sufficient number of children, women don’t care about increasing the population sufficient for the defense of the nation


                women care about voting.


                If women don’t care about the nation,

                why do women care about voting?

              4. PCS, did your wife build a nation – fight its wars or create a substantial enterprise?

                  1. God bless her, PCS, and God bless the broad, national effect of affirmative action on corporations and governmental organizations. I’m really addressing the big picture not individual cases. Your wife is to be commended. Have you presented her with flowers and chocolates lately? You’re a lucky man.

                    1. George – she started as a clerk in one of their smaller offices and slowly worked her way up. There was no AA involved. Although her current supervisor just found out the women were making less than the men at the same level and got them all raises.

                      Tomorrow is my birthday. It is my day for chocolates and flowers. Except I am on a strict diet, which doesn’t include chocolate. 😉

            2. It’s interesting how both George and PCS view women’s votes as voiding/cancelling theirs, or, in George’s argument giving a double vote if the husband’s vote aligns with the wife’s vote.

              Most votes ‘cancel’ someone else’s vote — this is the nature of voting, this is why they are tallied up and a winner declared.

              However, George’s concerns on the issue of women voting seems steeped in anger given that he has Prairie Rose all figured out given her admission of, “I am glad to vote and am a proud mother of four.”

              Given Prairie Rose’s statement, George’s response is:

              “Perhaps you no longer have a husband, meaning you don’t care about your husband, you don’t care about your marriage, you don’t care about your family, you don’t care about your children, you don’t care about the future, you don’t care about the nation, but you care obsessively about the vote.”

              Then George rambles on about, “logically incoherent unintelligibility…” not realizing it is a self-reference.

              1. I agree. Not sure at all what George is talking about or what point he intended to make. A vote is a vote. Families aren’t obligated to vote as a bloc nor are demographic groups required to do so. My wife and I differed at various points in the last election on who we supported – never viewed her vote as cancelling or doubling mine, or vice versa.

                1. I think what George is saying is that voting women like Prairie Rose are subverting the ‘natural order’ and that she should just stay in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant, of course.

                  1. Another time, another place, you might learn from your opposition. You’re not there yet.

                1. Do you think so? I have met people like that so I consider George a real misguided person.

              2. Tass Brown – my wife and I often cancel each out at the ballot box. However, I think that it is vitally important that everyone who is eligible to vote, vote. I will have to say that I misspoke when I said that my wife’s ballot often canceled mine. That gives the impression that mine is more important or more precious, which it is not. They are both equally important. Once they are cast they are the same as several million other ballots in my state, each of equal importance.

                1. I’m glad you cleared that up, PCS; because you initial statement left exactly that impression.

                  Of course, first words always carry more weight than the apologetics that follow.

            3. George, my liberal neighbor cancels my vote so I don’t understand your point. I understand the idea of one houshold vote though I don’t agree with it, but then why shouldn’t the woman vote? My wife is extremely intelligent and has worked, been productive, was actually an executive with a lot of men working in her department and provided a future generation of Americans. Why shouldn’t she vote? Why do you think you are more capable of voting than she?

              1. Isn’t the fact that your wife has a right to her own political representation enough of a reason, Allen?

                Why justify her right to vote because she, “is extremely intelligent and has worked, been productive, was actually an executive with a lot of men working in her department and provided a future generation of Americans.”

                Isn’t her existence enough of a reason?

                1. “Isn’t her existence enough of a reason?”

                  Tass, Of course that is a good reason to vote, but George thinks there are reasons she shouldn’t vote so I want to know why. He might think all sorts of things that aren’t true about women, so I want him to know my wife worked in a male environment and she was boss. Her training is far superior to most and might be superior to George’s. Maybe he feels women aren’t up to it, but my wife had an executive position where men like George worked for her. There she was competing in a man’s world so why shouldn’t she vote?

                  1. I wasn’t writing to George in the post you’ve responded to, Allan; so why so many references to an obviously bitter man?

                    Isn’t it great, that as a man, no one questions your right to vote? Are you intelligent, hard working, etc? Who knows? You could be like PCS and comment here while you’re ‘multitasking’ watching videos 24/7.

                    If you want to engage, tell me why your wife ‘deserves’ to vote. Is it because of the reasons you stated above, or is it because it is her right?

                    1. Tass Brown – if you have been keeping up, you will know that I break up the video watch (actually usually Netflix or Hulu) with reading and commenting on this blog. I do sleep about 8 hours a day, but it is broken into segments. And I have various things I do in the community, like last week I went to a lecture on Post-Modern Art and I have a play to go to this week. Be careful how you judge. 😉

                    2. Tass Brown – yes, I will remember you as the person who foolishly thinks I watch videos 24/7.

                    3. These are your own words, PCS; I do keep up.

                      You have stated over the years that this blog is your hobby, that you have little to do, and that you spend your time streaming videos while receiving email updates of every post made here so that you can compose your timely wit.

                      You should get outside more often.

                    4. Tass Brown – I am not sure this is my hobby as much as my vice. It is actually a vocation, not an avocation. And I would get out more, but this is Arizona and only mad dogs and Englishman go out in the midday sun. However, the weather will soon break and then I will go out for walks every day. Right now we just run from one shady spot to the next shady spot.

                      I am ADHD so I always need extra stimuli when I am doing anything, hence the multi-tasking with the movies. I have gotten through the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes collection, the Charlie Chan collection, etc. I have yet to start the Godzilla collection (I have all of the Japanese ones). All this while trying to keep up with new movies that are coming available, both foreign and domestic. I got four movies and a series from the library this weekend, they are due back next weekend, so they have to be watched. 😉 Nobody is going to watch them for me.

                      Then you have to remember my reading. I belong to two book clubs, one fiction, one non-fiction. And I always read an additional non-fiction as well. Last month I read books on the War of the Roses, the Middle Ages and the attack on Pearl Harbor, besides Hillybilly Elegy. The fiction book is due Thursday morning. And I just got the non-fiction which meets the 18th.

                      I appreciate your looking out for my health, but that is my wife’s job and she is very good at it. When she thinks something is wrong with me she nags until I go to the doctor.

                    5. You weren’t writing to George, Tass, but asking me a reason why. The real reason for me to answer had to do with what George was saying. Your question was merely a way for me to open my response to George. My response to you was made abundantly clear and answered in the first sentence of my last response.

                      [“Isn’t her existence enough of a reason?” Tass, Of course that is a good reason to vote,]

                      The last time I had a discussion with George he started quoting from Madison and saying a whole host of other things about the Constitution. What he said was wrong and I corrected him there and took this question of yours to respond to him again.

                      I think a bunch of us generally multitask when we are on the blog.

                    6. Tass, why do you care what PCS does? He seems quite well adjusted and happy. The only thing I am concerned about is why his wi fi doesn’t reach a big tree in his back yard? PCS even likes art and goes to shows. What more would anyone want?

                    7. Allan – I don’t have a big tree in my backyard. 🙁 However, when the weather gets cooler, I will have coffee on the back patio where I have a stereo system and an additional fan. 🙂

                    8. “have coffee on the back patio where I have a stereo system and an additional fan. 🙂

                      Paul, you missed the important item, Internet. 🙂

                    9. Allan – the internet does work out there, but I would have to use my laptop.

                    10. “Allan – the internet does work out there,”

                      Paul I have used boosters so I can get to a lot of areas outside, but there are distance limitations.

          2. America is currently under an existential, nuclear threat from North Korea which is a proxy for China.

            Asia Pacific countries have more than 4.5 billion people.

            China is homogeneous having almost 1.4 billion Chinese people from China.

            America has 323 million people of which 80 million are foreign derived Mexican-American, African-American, Asian-American, etc., with dubious allegiances – Obama, as but one example.

            Were war to eventuate, America could eliminate the equivalent of its population, or 323 million Chinese, and China wouldn’t bat an eye. Whom do you think is going to win that contest?

            Women can have as many as 36 children in their lifetimes and you had 4.


            You have “…miles to go before you sleep.”

            1. Prarie Rose, I think George is offering free childcare services whenever you need them. That is very nice of George.

      4. Lady Nancy Astor: Winston, if you were my husband, I’d poison your tea.

        Churchill: Nancy, if I were your husband, I’d drink it.

    2. Karen S said — about HRC: “Her actions made Watergate seem like a fraternity prank.”

      Really? How so, Karen?

      (You might want to brush up on your history before answering.)

      1. The Arwan investigation is soon to connect some really intriguing dots. You shouldn’t be so dismissive of things you aren’t qualified to discuss my friend.

    3. Then you apparently came to that opinion without judging the facts yourself. The Clintons are the most investigated couple in the United States going back nearly 30 years. Yet the indictment count stands at zero, notwithstanding the breathless and unsubstantiated claims of Pravda Faux News.

      This is to “but Rush and Hannity swore she was a baddy” karen

      1. You’re a genius!

        Faux for sure!


        Joseph Rago –

        “Wall Street Journal Reporter Asks Russia For “Clinton Information” —-Turns Up DEAD 2 Days Later”

        “A Wall Street Journal Editor who was investigating how a Russian
        Pharmaceutical firm could have been purchased in 2014 by an American
        Pharmaceutical firm while Sanctions against Russia existed against such
        business transactions, has been found dead in his New York City
        apartment. The crux of the dead journalists investigation was how
        then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton influenced the transaction to be
        finalized, but only AFTER her husband Bill was paid $500,000 for giving
        a speech in Moscow.

        The Russia Consulate General’s office in New York City was contacted
        by Wall Street Journal reporter/editor Joseph Rago who requested a
        Thursday (20 July) in person interview with consular officials regarding
        an upcoming article he was preparing on Hillary Clinton and her links
        to Russia. Rago failed to attend the meeting and was later discovered
        dead in his apartment of as yet “unknown causes” just hours prior to
        this meeting occurring.”

Comments are closed.