Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies At 87

Last night, many of us were discussing the terrible loss of one of the greatest icons in American law: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In the coming days, there will be much debated about the timing and the merits of any replacement on the Court. However, the trauma of this moment for millions is the fact that we know that there really is no replacement for this inspirational and brilliant jurist.  My column on Ginsburg was posted this morning in The Hill newspaper.

For my students (liberal and conservative alike), there are few better models in life than Ginsburg whose strength and quiet resolve helped shape the law and the country for decades.  On a Court where many justices evolved and found a voice, Ginsburg came to the Court with a powerful and clear voice. While selected as a presumed moderate, she was unabashedly liberal in her interpretation of the Constitution and remarkably consistent in her votes.  She was the rock on the left of the Court to which countless opinions were tethered.

Ginsburg was one of the smartest justices to ever sit on the Court.  From the minute she walked into law school, her intellectual skills were overwhelming.  She tied for first in her class at Columbia and had the distinction of serving on both the Harvard Law Review and Columbia Law Review. She was the gold standard for a nominee to the Supreme Court.

I had the honor of speaking with Ginsburg on many occasions over the years from conferences to private dinners.  She always displayed that same wry and penetrating humor.  She could deliver a haymaker in a whisper.  Some disagreed with her jurisprudence but we should all be able to celebrate her brilliance and her life. She faced open discrimination as a woman in our profession despite her stellar credentials.  She refused to be deterred or discouraged by such ignorance.  She stood her ground and, when she did, this diminutive figure with her signature lace gloves became a giant in the law.  She was a force to be reckoned with and she left a country changed as a result of that unbending resolve.

Rest in peace, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

480 thoughts on “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies At 87”

  1. She wanted to lower the age of consent to 12, she supported murdering unborn babies, and she spent the last 3 years being an activist, spat on the constitution, and was completely biased against the president, things a justice at that high a level should not be. Spare me this eulogy like she was a saint and can’t ever be replaced.

    You are such a hack.

    1. She apparently also had a monster ego because she could have retired in 2015 or early 2016 in obozo’s second term and let him put in another constitution hating activist. instead, she selfishly held on with her history of caner and now put her cult in the position it’s in where they are claiming they will burn down the country if she is replaced before the election when they will seek to steal it by massive mail in voter fraud.

      Almost every single thing the crazy leftists/democrats are ranting and raving about these days as “not being fair” were brought on by themselves, specifically during the second obozo term as they figured there was no way they would ever lose the presidency again going forward. Imagine how big a psychopath one must be to make choices that end up screwing them over and then claiming it’s not fair and that others should not follow or do the very things they put in place.

      As obozo said, elections have consequences. It’s time leftists deal with it and quit acting like petulant children.

    1. Ginsburg’s “last, dying wish” is dead. No one cares. Lefties can only blame Ginsburg for her selfishness for not retiring during Obama’s last term. Too bad, so sad.

      1. Ginsburg did manage to die at almost a perfect moment to upset everyone and throw another wrench toward the election.

        Phenomenal timing but — 2020.

        NO HEARINGS —

        Rumors Trump may nominate another Hispanic. Good move if he does it! This one probably really will be wise, unlike the last.

          1. She isn’t very smart. I recall her explaining a difficulty with an English phrase by saying it was the definite article; “Spanish doesn’t have definite articles.” But Spanish has lots more definite articles than English– el, la, los, las, etc.

            Her opinions don’t rate well either. Easily the least intelligent justice. I bet even Commit can’t polish the soi disant “wise Latina”.

              1. I am a lawyer and you are not.

                That gives me a better pedestal from which to judge judicial intelligence than you.

                When I want to install a septic tank I will give you a hollar.

                1. Nothing in your statements or your demeanor indicate any legal competency or general wisdom and you support Trump and repeat his nonsense like it was Holy Writ – see dead voters comment. How smart can you be?

                  Law school is the only trade school where you get to add Esq. to your signatures, wear tassled loafers, and get to pretend with others in the brotherhood that you’re keepers of a special knowledge, impenetrable to the rest of us, when as citizens the law belongs to us all. I deal with building codes denser than the Constitution, which is what the SC concerns itself with, and then I have to apply it to a real product intended to last 100 years in bad weather. I doubt you could handle any part of it.

                  1. Book. We have already seen that our special knowledge is impenetrable to you. You have a special talent for getting it wrong most of the time.

            1. “Spanish doesn’t have definite articles.” But Spanish has lots more definite articles than English– el, la, los, las, etc.

              It’s a reasonable wager she spoke pidgin junk as a kid.

              Sotomayer is the only judge from the streets and courts. The rest are all academics.

              Except for Kagan, all of them were appellate judges when they were appointed.

              Ginsburg’s father and Clarence Thomas’ grandfather founded and built their own businesses.

              1. My uncle is a world champion skier,but that’s not on my resume.

                Being an appellate judge is not street training and has the same subject matter as the SC. Sotomayor was from the poor side of town, living in a S Bronx tenement, was a DA prosecutor, in private practice and a district level judge. She knows what an actual courtroom looks like and has had to deal with the rights of victims and defendants sitting 20 feet from her.

                1. Sotomayor might make a good trial judge but on the Supreme Court one is not dealing from the heart. They look at the words in the Constitution. Two different jobs and requires a different mindset.

              2. I don’t care for Kagan but I would not say she is stupid, nor the others for that matter.

                It had not occurred to me that the not bright one did not have command of either language when she was young.

        1. The Court already has a black and a Hispanic. Trump should make history and appoint the first Asian. My suggestion is conservative Berkeley law professor John Yoo.

      2. Ginsburg held out and assumed that Hillary would win not only the vote, which she did, but the EC and she could be replaced by the first Woman President. Hillary also had a lot to do with Bill selecting her for the court in .93.

          1. Doofus, Trump’s own appointed commission on voter fraud, stacked with conspiracy mongerers, found none and disbanded. Only those stupid enough to take what Trump says straight believes this.

        1. Progressive and comedian Jimmy Dore has some hypotheses about how the Democrats pick their battles over judges.

          I am not sure I agree, but it is delivered with effervescent acidity

      3. You don’t care, Ivan. Many, perhaps most Republicans don’t care. But other people do care.

        You make the same mistake that Trump does, thinking that the only people who matter are the people who agree with him.

        We can all blame Donald for his selfishness, which has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of your fellow Americans.

        He didn’t care when the majority of deaths were in blue states. The majority are now in red states, and the total deaths in blue and red states are close to even:

        Trump’s so selfish that he chose to have an indoor rally last week where most people weren’t wearing masks.
        McConnell is selfish too. “McConnell let a $3 trillion coronavirus relief bill sit on his desk for over a hundred days but took an hour after the announcement of RBG’s passing before releasing a statement vowing to hold a vote to replace her.”

        Trump is President of the United States, but he doesn’t care about representing and caring for the entire country, nor does McConnell as Senate Majority Leader.

        1. ” the total deaths in blue and red states are close to even:”

          If what CTDHD says is true then it validates what John was saying and she couldn’t understand.

          You are a pure secretary. Good at collecting and filing data but unable to use it.

        2. AOC cares so much she has to read it from her notes instead of from the heart. Faux posturing only works on the faithful.


          or cower in fear like gelded pansies! but make no mistake you will ever be a target nice or not! proof:



          against those who do not respect law at all, the lawful authorities MUST do their duties with aggressive resolve!

    2. Scary!!!

      Improbably, there are ravenous parasites who listen to and consume the offal of rabid, zealous and covetous communist ideologues, such as this completely unaccomplished and unintelligible buffoon.

      Her incoherent prevarication has absolutely nothing to do with America, its Founders, its founding, its original intent or its Constitution.

      Never were these types of envious and avaricious failures intended to be elected and never were they and their dependent constituents intended to vote.

      Turnout was 11.6% in the 1788 election of President George Washington, by design.

      Naturalization and the vote were severely restricted in the American republic established by its Founders.

  2. By law, the President and Senate have a duty to appoint and seat a new Justice of the Supreme Court as soon as humanly possible, as the Supreme Court docket persists unabated.

    In the case of the office of the President, a Vice President is extant and ready, with no gap; no empty space in time prior to the assumption of office.

    The duty of the President and Senate to appoint Supreme Court Justices is not qualified and is, therefore, absolute.

    Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2

    The President…shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint…judges of the Supreme Court,…

  3. “She just died? Wow, I didn’t know that — I just, uh, you’re telling me now for the first time,…”

    – President Donald Trump, 12 hrs. ago.

    I just clicked on the Turley Blog and you’re telling me that McConnell hasn’t approved Trump’s nominee yet?

    1. Biden never said any such thing. And McConnell didn’t either in 2016. McConnell doesn’t care what he said. He only cares about will to power. He will happily focus on getting judges approved while ignoring the many important bills sitting on his desk waiting for action, while people who’ve lost jobs because of the pandemic are at risk of becoming homeless, while the number of people dying from COVID-19 continues to increase, …

      1. “I know there is an argument that no nominee should be voted in during the last year of a presidency. But there is nothing in the Constitution — or our history — to support this view.” – Joe Biden

    2. By law, the President and Senate have a duty to appoint and seat a new Justice of the Supreme Court as soon as humanly possible, as the Supreme Court docket persists unabated.

      In the case of the office of the President, a Vice President is extant and ready, with no gap; no empty space in time prior to the assumption of office.

      The duty of the President and Senate to appoint Supreme Court Justices is not qualified and is, therefore, absolute.

      Article 1, Section 2, Clause 2

      The President…shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint…judges of the Supreme Court,…

      1. No, Penelope Dreadful is my BFF and I work for her about half the week. I also use her Twitter because I lost my password and am too busy to keep up with it.

        I did once have a sock puppet called Venus N. Furz, though. . .

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

    1. It gets even better. You say that that’s your art, but it has Penelope’s name on it, and Penelope calls Squeeky Fromm her BFF.
      Are you lying about it being your art, or is Squeeky a sock for Penelope?

      1. No, it is my art. Penelope does not engage in much Internet stuff. She hates dealing with idiot and like she says, she argues to make money, not for fun. You will see the real her once in a while, usually when she spends the weekend with me which is about once a month.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter


    I don’t think confirmation hearings are required. The Constitution, which is law sometimes, says advise and consent. It does not say months of vicious, slanderous attacks and theater by supposed hearings.

    Nominate, Vote, Swear In. The ‘hearings’ have become destructive farce.

    1. If I remember correctly Young, the Senate makes its own rules. The filibuster was one of them until Harry Reid for political advantage changed the dynamics. That was followed by Garland where two different parties held the Presidency and the Senate. Then came Kavanaugh. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that to prevent a Supreme Court candidate from being approved the opposing side should lie, cheat and assasinate the character of the nominee but today’s democrat doesn’t adhere to the Constitution or America itself. Now we have an opening where the Constitution permits the President to nominate and the Senate to vote. It doesn’t require much more than that.

      Having said that IMO the chances of a nominee being confirmed by the Senate before Nov. 3 are not good. This is where McConnel earns his pay. If he is able to get out the vote then my appreciation for him will rise.

      1. Allan, well said and all true. But for a change I want to see Republicans fight with the energy, determination snd viciousness of the left. Too much is at stake to go all ‘Country Club Romney’ now.

  5. President Trump’s finest momemt was his reaction after he got off stage. He did not know she passed and a reporter told him. He was stunned and powerful and compassionate. No poltics. .BIden was all politics.

    1. “He did not know she passed and a reporter told him”

      Don’t be so sure that he didn’t know.

      Jennifer Jacobs (Sr. White House reporter for Bloomberg News):
      “While Trump gave the impression this reaction—immediate praise for RBG—was his 1st one, some of his closest aides, including Hope Hicks, Dan Scavino and John McEntee, had a brief opportunity to talk to him privately between when he left the stage and when he spoke to press pool.”

      You’d have to think that all of his aides are incompetent to believe that none of them told him that RBG had died prior to him walking out to talk with the press.

      Trump lies all the time. That he said he didn’t know doesn’t mean that he didn’t know.

        1. Then Trump could have been honest and said “I just heard” instead of acting like the pathological liar he is when he said “She just died? I didn’t know that.”

          And Biden’s initial response was “Ruth Bader Ginsburg stood for all of us. She was an American hero, a giant of legal doctrine, and a relentless voice in the pursuit of that highest American ideal: Equal Justice Under Law. May her memory be a blessing to all people who cherish our Constitution and its promise.”

          1. “Then Trump could have been honest and said “I just heard” instead of acting like the pathological liar he is when he said “She just died? I didn’t know that.””

            Note how Needs to be Committed takes her suspicion and makes it into fact. She can’t get over the fact that Trump is a gracious and wonderful President.

            1. Anon– Commit does that often. She is not particularly honest even with herself. There is some strange obsession or mania there. I wonder if she is the woman who filmed herself screaming because RBG chose an inconvenient time?

              Good comment from you. She just can’t accept that Trump has proven to be gracious and kind many times.

  6. This is not a comment for or against Trump. This comment comes from the perspective if the country. First, getting a nominee through the senate and confirmed by the end of this senate session is going to be very difficult. I takes about 110 days average to confirm a nominee. There is no time set aside between now and the end of the session for confirmation hearing. That could change, but many on the judicial committee are endangered republicans. Would McConnell pull them from the campaign trail to spend time vetting a nominee?

    On the other hand, this election has the best chance since 2000 going to SCOTUS for a decision. At 8 justices, and Roberts the swing(?) vote, a 4-4 decision is also a possibility. The final stop for an election of this type would appear to be the House of Representatives. How will that be received by the right?

    Best alternative? Maybe Trump nominates a judge, this becomes the top issue and voters make a decision on their senator and president based on moving a conservative or liberal nominee through the senate after January 2021.

    1. “this election has the best chance since 2000 going to SCOTUS for a decision”

      How do you determine that it’s more likely than 2016?

      Roberts is a conservative. He’s only become the swing Justice because Justice Kennedy retired and Kavanaugh was considerably more conservative.

      A 4-4 decision is unlikely, given the current 5-3 conservative majority. And we saw during the 14 months after Justice Scalia’s death that they’re plenty capable of moderating their own rulings in order to come to agreement with only 8 justices.

      1. “How do you determine that it’s more likely than 2016?”

        In 2016, there was a clear winner based on the constitution shortly after polls closed.

        This election may not be determined for weeks.


        With this number of lawyers for Biden, one can estimate Trump has the same or close. With mail ballots, everyone is going to be scrutinized and any hint of error questioned. That makes it much more a possibility that there could be multiple different cases based on different issues going to SCOTUS.

        1. “In 2016, there was a clear winner based on the constitution shortly after polls closed.”

          But we didn’t know in September that that would be the case, so you still aren’t presenting an argument that something is more likely to go to SCOTUS this year than in 2016.

          “This election may not be determined for weeks.”

          Or it might be quite clear. I know that my state has decided to start counting mail-in ballots in October and will continue the count as they continue to come in, embargoing the count until the polls close on election night and adding those votes to the total then, and only having to count the stragglers after.

          I think it’s pure conjecture that you have a way of assessing the likelihood in 2016 vs. 2020.

          1. It is “more likely” than 2016 because we know today that it did not go the SCOTUS in 2016
            This election “MAY NOT” be known for weeks. The key word is “may”.

            I did not say “will not”.

            I was only stating facts about 2016 and possible outcomes for 2020. You can disagree with 2020, you cant disagree with 2016 outcome as to how election was determined.

            And I see you are avoiding my comment about best alternative, that being Trump nominates, voters choose senators and president knowing choice and future political affiliation of SCOTUS.

            YES I said political affiliation since I believe SCOTUS is now Republican v Democrat, not liberal, conservative, moderate as there is little consensus on rulings other than how parties view issues. There are no sensible moderates on the court now.

            1. “It is “more likely” than 2016 because we know today that it did not go the SCOTUS in 2016”

              It also didn’t go to SCOTUS in 2004, 2008, or 2012, so if that’s your reasoning, then 2004-2016 are all equally “likely,” with a likelihood of 0. Normally, in talking about the likelihood of past events, we’re talking about the likelihood as assessed in September of 2004, 2008, 2012, and 2016, prior to the actual outcome.

              What’s the best alternative is a matter of opinion. My opinion about it is different than yours. I don’t want a rushed confirmation.

              1. No, you do not want a rushed confirmation because you want to delay as long as possible for tactical reasons.

                I will take anyone Trump nominates in a rushed confirmation over anyone Kamala nominates with studied care.

              2. Damn, I try to have a conversation with you and anyone else, making my comments and you nit pick words. So I will just accept and replace “more likely to go to SCOTUS with “a good possibility it could go to SCOTUS”. Please notice “possibility” and “could”.

                No wonder others here comment negatively about your thinking! I am beginning to understand. Do you nit pick words when you are talking personally to others also? Maybe your an English teacher?

                As for a matter of.opinion DUH, thats what all this site is about, all the way from Hurley to me.

                1. Sorry that you’re frustrated. That’s not my intention.

                  Discussion on this site is a mix of opinions, facts, guesses/conjectures, … What others interpret as me being “nitpicky” with words is often me distinguishing between guesses and knowledge and me checking that there aren’t logical errors in the reasoning. I’ve never taught English and have spent more time in STEM fields than anything else. I’ve worked as a researcher, which requires attention to detail. That’s not an “English” matter, but a lot of people who’ve never conducted research seem to interpret it that way.

                  Is there a possibility that the election will lead to a SCOTUS case? Sure.
                  Do we know how likely that is? No.
                  Do we know that it’s more likely than 2016? No.
                  Is there a reason for thinking that it would be more likely to result in a 4-4 split now? No, quite the opposite, since there was a 4-4 conservative-liberal split on the court in 2016, whereas now there’s a 5-3 conservative-liberal split. I’m not particularly worried that SCOTUS won’t be able to rule on something if they need to.

                  1. “What others interpret as me being “nitpicky” with words is often me distinguishing between guesses and knowledge and me checking that there aren’t logical errors in the reasoning.”

                    That is why I try to be very careful in making definitive statements. Sometimes I fail. But most times I try to qualify a statement with a verb like “may” ” might” “could”.

                    I still believe this election has potential to end up at SCOTUS. Not all states are following your states procedures. Just my.opinion.

              3. So here is CTHD with a talking point we will hear over the next 40 some days. “rushed confirmation” will be a catchphrase like “peaceful protest” we will hear it a thousand times. prepare to IGNORE

                I want a fast confirmation and run it through,. why not. Only because Democrats dont want it? Sorry.

                We gonna find out if Republicans have the cojones to use the power they have or not.

                threats of riot and arson from the mob on twitter should be disregarded since that is out there already. Use the power you have, immediately. it is completely legitimate and lawful and if it provokes more illegal mob behavior, good, then it has the virtue of trolling the hordes into more bad behavior that all will see

          2. listen to CTHD describe how they plan to muck up the election process. SABOTAGE.

            illegal activities of state officials or polling place workers will be prosecuted according to law

  7. Sen. Josh Hawley (MO):
    “Two months ago, I pledged to vote only for #SCOTUS nominees who understand and acknowledge that Roe was wrongly decided. I stand by that commitment, and I call on my fellow Republican senators to take the same stand”

    He wants to make abortion even more of an issue than it already is. I hope it backfires on him and the GOP.
    A majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal with restrictions: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
    By placing the Senate in the center of this, I hope that Hawley will weaken GOP candidates in purple states.
    I also hope that this, along with many other important issues, such as climate change, will push younger voters to actually turn out.

    Both Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins are pro-choice. They are unlikely to vote for a nominee who will strike down Roe v. Wade.

    1. Yup, he’s running uphill on that one. Even in swing states Roe v. Wade ranks high. No one wants to go back to when women had to have money to travel for a safe abortion if their state insisted on old white guys being in their uterus’.

      1. May I please abort my neighbor? He’s a infinite nuisance and sooooo inconvenient, oh, and it’s my property; my choice, right?

        Incidentally, the American fertility rate is in a “death spiral.” Women aren’t doing their duty to make Americans. That’s terminal for America.

      2. Most have some sort of center position, but the left keeps pulling at babies limbs to make sure he doesn’t come out in one piece. It is that attitude of letting a surviving baby die on the table or being dismembered just before that makes many recognize that the pull has to be in the direction of no abortion even though that will never happen whether or not Roe was overturned.

        1. 2/3s of abortions occur in the first 8 weeks. At 8 weeks, an embryo is less than an inch long and weighs about half an ounce. There is no pulling apart of limbs, and it’s months away from viability. Only about 1% take place after 20 weeks, most often because of newly-diagnosed complications.

          1. Anonymous the Stupid, we are not talking about when most abortions take place rather the limits to when it should take place. That is the determining factor for most Americans. Some advocate that in failed abortions the newborn even if healthy be left to die on the table.

            1. Allan – If an illegal gives birth on American territory the child is instantly an American with rights.

              If a child is born alive on American territory and on an abortionist’s table he can be cut up and sold for parts. Why no rights?

            2. You’re mighty quick with the rude retort, buddy. Striking down Roe and Casey would allow states to totally outlaw abortion, so yeah, we’re also talking about when most abortions occur.

              1. “You’re mighty quick with the rude retort, buddy. ”

                What did I say that is rude? I bettter defined American sentiment towards abortion.

                Roe will not be overturned and was a state issue to begin with. I don’t know that any states would entirely ban abortion but if one did then all the money spent on fighting the issue could be spent on transportation to a state that permits abortion. The centers could be easily located at the border so the average distance would be relatively small.

  8. Leftist ‘journalist’ are threatening violence if Trump appoints anyone to replace her before the election. Ginsberg herself was put there by Clinton in 42 days. The Republicans did not ‘burn the country down’. Get your head out of the sand, Professor Turley.

    The left are a lost and very problematic cause. Oh, BTW, I am a registered and secular Independent that is never voting dem again, lest you think I’m late for mass or anything. As far as I’m concerned, they can’t move fast ENOUGH. The dems are terrified, and they are desperate, and they are volatile. They brought it on themselves.

    1. You don’t name any journalists who “are threatening violence,” James. Can you, or are they a figment of your imagination?

        1. Blue checks aren’t all journalists, ninny. I’ve never even heard of Beau Willimon, Laura Bassett, or Scot Ross. If that’s the best you’ve got, you’re only showing how weak your hand is.

      1. WordPress doesn’t permit accurate posting, therefore one can have problems quoting the left:

        “You don’t name any journalists who “are threatening violence,” James.”

        Whichever anonymous you are, whether Anonymous the Stupid or another one, you have severe myopia that has made you blind. With a simple search Mespo has proven your statement ignorant. Take Reza Aslan.

        Reza Aslan is one of those leftists journalists with a leftist mindset that will do or say anything to advance his views. Global jihadism from a poseur. He is an Iranian Muslim who left Iran. He pretended to be a Mexican. He pretended to be an evangelical. He pretends the west has defined Islam wrongfully but here he says what is on his mind contradicting himself: “If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire f.u .c.k.i.n.g thing down.” … “Over our dead bodies. Literally.” This journalist is followed by others with the same violent sympathies and even more that refuse to talk about the violence in the streets today.

    2. @James – What “42 days?” Ginsburg was nominated by Clinton on June 14, 1993. That was only five months into his first term.

  9. Reading the disgusting, degrading, and distasteful remarks about RBG by mindless and cowardly idiots, I understand more clearly Turley’s obsession with free speech. Unfortunately this is not simply a perverse cathartic discharge for this ilk. They will continue to be responsible for America’s demise.

    1. I felt more the loss of Scalia, a fine mind that truly understood the original constitution, not one that needed to be re-interpreted through the lens of progressive ideology. Let us hope for a replacement for this dear woman with another woman in Scalia’s mold, Amy Barrett.

      1. My sympathies exactly, however, I believe though possible during this final year of the Presidency it is far more likely to occur after the election. There will be two major issues inciting the left to riot. We can only hope that sensible patriotic Americans, Republicans, Democrats, and others don’t feed the flames of the left and that the left’s violence burns out.

      2. Scalia was that fine mind that referred to the Constitution as ‘dead’ not to evolve, along with the people. Scalia would have made a fine argument against emancipation, against women’s suffrage, etc. Scalia was a ‘fine’ orator and had a prodigious memory to refer to details almost no other person can manage. However, Scalia argued for his own druthers. As a progressive, I believe that those that wrote the Constitution were progressive and not ‘dead’. Otherwise they never would have gone to the trouble to break away from the ‘dead’ British Empire. Step back a bit and you will see the similarities between the conservative advocates, like Scalia, of a ‘dead’ Constitution and the ‘Lords’ and kings of centuries ago. Even the British today aren’t governed by such regressive minds as can be found in ‘these here United States of America’. It has never been so clear how power can be sought at the expense of integrity, democracy, freedom won, and everything else America stands for and holds sacred, than with the likes and aspirations of traitors like Trump and McConnell.

  10. The only thing that truly counts is a judge’s decisions. Many of hers were awful violations of individual rights. She used the law and the Constitution as a cudgel for feminism and collectivism. The biggest lie is that she was a defender of “equal rights for all.” “All,” that is, unless you happen to own a gun, be an employer, or one who is not a member of a favored ethnic tribe. (See “Heller,” “Grutter,” “Ledbetter.”)

Leave a Reply

Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks
%d bloggers like this: