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. Squeeky, you’re an adult. Why do you refer to yourself as a girl? (and apparently so important to you that you include it in every one of your comments)

            1. Anonymous the Stupid, it’s not what I say that counts. It is what you write that informs the blog of your Stupidity. You have difficulty managing that fact.

          1. mespo727272, your insults are often self-reveals, just like Trump’s insults. Admittedly, being more prescient, creative and evolved than you is a low bar.

  1. Reading Trump supporters comments is like listening to Trump talk, you know they are full of it, but yet one has to marvel how truly ignorant they really are.

    1. Please do explain to us how you are appointed to be the Judge of all Trump Supporters….what qualifications do you have that aptly equip you to hold forth….without even knowing who they are?

      Are you using the same standards that the Left used during the Kavanaugh Hearings?

      As to whether the American People get a voice in who gets nominated by the President….we do….every time President Trump nominates a Supreme Court Justice or Federal Judge.

      He won the 2016 Election and is the President until January 20, 2021….and upon being re-elected shall hold that Office for four more years.

      We voted him in….and will do so again….deal with it.

    2. Listening to Biden talk…or squint and shout angrily at his teleprompter….then refuse to take any questions from pool reporters who follow him around to all his staged on-location speeches to no one, literally no one but a TV camera and a handful of pool reporters he refuses to take any questions from, is just bizarre. But see, when you are a Democrat with the media in your corner you can get away with sh*t like Biden is doing. Hiding out, avoiding questions, avoiding scrutiny, avoiding releasing results of a simple cognitive test to put the issue to rest, avoiding answering questions about his health, avoiding saying who is on his short list for SC justices, avoiding telling the truth every time you open your mouth…..Joe Biden is a liar, his campaign ads are full of outright lies, he is hiding out trying to coast through election day while he is outright deceiving and lying to voters. Joe Biden’s campaign is shameful. Absolutely shameful.

    3. Joe Biden gets agitated with voters, loses his cool, tells them to go vote for someone else. Joe Biden’s behaviour is bizarre and troubling, especially from a career politician. The voters are being deceived by both Biden and the media who cover for him. It is shameful and wrong to keep hiding Biden’s cognitive decline from voting public. He is not up to the job.

    4. ‘FACT CHECK: Biden said there’s no Supreme Court term until after election. That’s false. First arguments of the new term, as ever, begin the first Monday in October.

      Biden also said Trump campaign only started asking for his SCOTUS list after Ginsburg’s death. Not true either.’ @Arnie Seipel, NPR

  2. Another topic requires discussion. DS and MMC. Dumb Moments and Medical Monopoly Capitalism. 480,000 Americans die in 12 months. The numbers far exceed the Covid. The deaths are suicide. The doctors, pharmacies, hospitals, and investors all make fortunes. The doctors won’t talk about smoking. The politicians are often dumb smokers themselves and in suicide denial.

    This blog needs to feature this topic. Is Turkey as DS?

    1. Should we ban cigarettes? How about alcohol? How about French Fries, ice cream, and soda? How about motorcycles? Skydiving? Running with scissors? Why don’t we just place everyone in soft padded rooms? My generation grew up watching Evel Knievel…life is short and we all die. Enjoy it while you can in your own way. How we choose to live is our own decision- that’s what our nation is about.

  3. “My wife and I sat back as four dear friends chit-chatted about the court, grandchildren and a sauce for wild boar. How fortunate for my father, I thought, in his sometimes lonely position, to have the comfort of such friends.”
    **************************
    It’s easy to be cordial friends and fawning colleagues when you’re rich and powerful enough to have no skin in the game. Think Ginsburg ever feared for her personal safety with armed guards hovering around her all the time? Think Scalia really cared if women attended VMI? “Sauce for wild boar” is what truly occupies their thoughts. These Washington swampers are oblivious to the real world ramifications of the decisions they make. It’s a story of leadership as old as civilization itself and why Rome fell and Trump will be re-elected. These caste-based friends are the partygoers in Poe’s classic, “The Masque of the Red Death.” Come November the party’s over and they know it. They see the red masked specter at the door. It’s why they are so desperate.

    1. Scalia had nine children. He was invested in the Catholic wife in a way Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kavanaugh have not been (perhaps could not be, perhaps elected not to be). His personal friendship with her does suggest an odd compartmentalizing, or suggests that he saw what they did all day as an amusing intellectual exercise. The liberals on the court have been up to no good since 1937, and that no good has required a lot of high-class shysterism. You really shouldn’t behave as if it’s all in good fun. (Wm. O. Douglas was an appalling human being in his mundane life and his children were not on speaking terms with him at the end of his life; if I’m not mistaken, none of the other justices wanted him around).

    2. “Think Ginsburg ever feared for her personal safety with armed guards hovering around her all the time?”

      Yeah, given the armed guards hovering around him all the time, Trump has no fear either, which is why he went down to the bunker in DC during protests there and why he didn’t drive to Aisne-Marne Cemetery.

      “These Washington swampers are oblivious to the real world ramifications of the decisions they make”

      If you think that they don’t understand the real world consequences of their decisions about who became President in 2000, voting rights, abortion rights, same-sex marriage, and the many other issues they decide, you’re nuts.

      “Come November the party’s over and they know it.”

      Are you high on something? SMH that you think Trump isn’t going to nominate another person you’d characterize as a “Washington swamper,” like Kavanaugh.

      1. To be committed:

        “Yeah, given the armed guards hovering around him all the time, Trump has no fear either, which is why he went down to the bunker in DC during protests there and why he didn’t drive to Aisne-Marne Cemetery.”
        ***********
        Your lying aside, here’s Another point sailing hopelessly over your pointy head. You’re like talking to a space alien. Here let me flash card the difference. One wants to take away guns and is protected by them and the other doesn’t. Now who is the Uncaring hypocrite? Discuss among your commie sock puppets.

        1. Mespo, your incessant insults directed at everyone whose views you disagree with reminds me of Adam Sergers piece, The Cruelty Is the Point: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/the-cruelty-is-the-point/572104/
          No wonder you like Trump.
          No wonder you cannot understand that Scalia and Ginsburg could sometimes disagree on law yet be friends.

          It’s unsurprising that you comment on “lying” while misrepresenting Ginsburg’s actual 2A arguments and remaining silent about your earlier false claims re: “Washington swampers.”

            1. I think it’s more than that. If you haven’t read that piece by Serwer, it’s worth reading. A lot of the Trump supporters here seem to enjoy insulting people, and I suspect that a key reason they like Trump is because he is so prone to insult. For his supporters, it’s a feature, not a bug.

              1. Much of your problem arises from the leftist position that the right is made up of “deplorables” along with spurious statements linking the right to killers and racists who actually are from the left. Along with that you lie a lot. You have insulted most of the population that can read and write.

                1. Hillary Clinton —
                  You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? They’re racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic – you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people – now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks – they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.

                  … but that “other” basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they’re just desperate for change. It doesn’t really even matter where it comes from. They don’t buy everything he says, but – he seems to hold out some hope that their lives will be different. They won’t wake up and see their jobs disappear, lose a kid to heroin, feel like they’re in a dead-end. Those are people we have to understand and empathize with as well.

              2. Biggest applause lines at rallies and what he’s known for isn’t inspirational speeches or phrases, it’s put downs and insults. This is a cult built on resentment, not principles, and not aspirations.

                1. You create facts based on your what you wish to hear.

                  The most instpirational phrase Trump has used is Make America Great Again. I guess that is an insult to you and the democrat party.

                  1. How many times did Trump lead his supporters in a chant of Make America Great Again versus Lock Her Up and Send Her Back?

                    1. MAGA is number one. Lock her up is something many Americans agree on.

                      On the other hand “orangeman” bad is the most common statement on this blog.

                    2. There is more than one type of measurement. In this case the Obama Administration convinced weak minds that America wasn’t great and to continue with that idea more recently the 1619 project started based on a lunatic professor’s hallucinations. It’s more a mindset and placing America back on the path of productivity and success. America is great but faltered so Trump has been putting us back on the proper path.

                      The left hates success. Look what they have done to portions of one minority. The left intentionally keeps that minority down and makes sure their education stinks and that their families are broken. Then they want to kill their babies. The left has extended its hatred of a healthy society and is now destroying whole communities.

          1. Should Be Committed to Learning:

            “No wonder you cannot understand that Scalia and Ginsburg could sometimes disagree on law yet be friends.”
            ****************
            I perfectly understand it and said so in my comment. I’ll repeat it for you: They’re rich and powerful enough such that they’ve got no skin in the game. In other words and as Art Deco says, it’s an “amusing intellectual exercise” for them. And I gave examples of why. What’s there to be angry about? It’s merely the disputes of the “little people,” and who cares about them?

            Are you really that dense or just trying to be trying?

          2. Commit:

            “Your incessant insults directed at everyone whose views you disagree with reminds me of Adam [Serwer] piece, The Cruelty Is the Point:”
            *****************************

            Sorry not into virtue signaling pop psychology. They tend to get it wrong every time. I prefer the classics like this one:

            “Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions.”

            ~Tho. Jefferson, Letter to To Francis Adrian Van der Kemp, July 30. 16.

            PS Hope the Atlantic did a better job on the Serwer piece than they did on their “Trump Insults Soldiers” canard but I doubt it.

    1. Good luck pushing yet another “crisis” on the people. Keep crying wolf. We’re now immune to your unscientific nonsense.

      1. Ivan, it’s clear you’re immune to consistency, principle, and reason, but as Trump supporter, that goes without saying.

    2. “The Guardian”….a Left Wing rag in the UK….very known for its bias….right along with the BBC.

      Go with the Telegraph and Sky News for a reasonable source with only a bit of bias.

      The Guardian is best used to line the floor of birdcages and wrapping up your Fish and Chips.

  4. “What we can learn from Ginsburg’s friendship with my father, Antonin Scalia”

    Opinion by Eugene Scalia

    “Eugene Scalia is the U.S. secretary of labor. The views expressed are his own.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/eugene-scalia-rbg-friendship-oped/2020/09/19/35f7580c-faaa-11ea-a275-1a2c2d36e1f1_story.html

    “What we can learn from the justices, though — beyond how to be a friend — is how to welcome debate and differences. The two justices had central roles in addressing some of the most divisive issues of the day, including cases on abortion, same-sex marriage and who would be president. Not for a moment did one think the other should be condemned or ostracized. More than that, they believed that what they were doing — arriving at their own opinions thoughtfully and advancing them vigorously — was essential to the national good. With less debate, their friendship would have been diminished, and so, they believed, would our democracy.

    “One of my fondest memories of my parents was one of the last New Year’s dinners. My wife and I sat back as four dear friends chit-chatted about the court, grandchildren and a sauce for wild boar. How fortunate for my father, I thought, in his sometimes lonely position, to have the comfort of such friends. How fortunate for us all, especially those who are partisans of one or the other of these great figures, to have the example of their disputatious friendship.” -by Eugene Scalia

  5. It’s Trump’s gift in making people reveal themselves. It’s a shame justice Ginsburg tarnished the Supreme Court and her legacy in acting politically with her dying breath as member of thee NEUTRAL Non political court. If Justice Ginsburg had retired then she would be free to express her private citizen opinion. In my opinion she demonstrated lack of integrity.

    1. If she wanted to ensure that her replacement be selected by a president of an acceptable party, she had the choice to retire during Obama’s reign. Kennedy retired during Trump’s presidency, as a very recent example

      She had the choice – maintain her career or consider the future shape of the court. I don’t begrudge her of her choice, but I do certainly think it’s both unprofessional and selfish to even suggest that a sitting president (for whom she openly expressed disdain) should defer his right and privilege as the elected leader of the executive branch to do what he thinks is best.

      All this talk of needing to wait is childish, and even Obama implored the Senate in late August of 2016 to take up the vote on his nominee.

      1. Lorenzo, it has been reported that Ginsburg fully expected Hillary to not only with the vote but the EC and since Hillary had been responsible for bringing her to the attention of Bill Clinton, who nominated her to the court, she planned to step down and allow Hillary to appoint her successor.. It was not a decision based on selfishness.

        Obama nominated Garland 10 months before he would leave office, not in August,

        The needing to wait “principle” is the one the GOP sold when they were stealing a SC nominee from the popular vote and EC winner of 2 elections. People will judge their change of tune now – unlike with Garland, people are actually voting now – as either pure power politics and a blatant display of hypocrisy or blindly follow the situational ethics as if they were principle when there is none. You seem in latter group.

        1. She was operated on for pancreatic cancer in 2009, at the age of 76. Any normal human being would have resigned right then.

          BTW, in New York, retirement from the bench (full retirement, no more cases heard) is mandatory at the end of the calendar year you turn 76.

          1. Art Deco x 2 says:September 20, 2020 at 10:18 AM
            “She was operated on for pancreatic cancer in 2009, at the age of 76. Any normal human being would have…”

            “Normal,” like you, Art? Your a crotchety old goat.

          2. Scalia was 70 when he died and was still on the Court. If he were alive today — and a part of the Court — we wouldn’t be hearing a peep about his age. You’re a hypocrite, Artie.

            1. Anon..There needs to be a constitutional amendment for all federal elected and appointed positions with an age limit. House, senate, president unable to take office after any election if age exceeds 72. So if one is 71+364’days (365 if leap year), they can take office. SCOTUS should have a mandatory retirement of 75 effective on September 30th if any year.

              When the constitution was written, I dont think anyone envisioned a judge into their 80’s.

              And this comes from a Baby Boomer in that age group

            2. He was 79. I would have been distressed had he left a seat open that BO might nominate his successor and I’d wage he sought to avoid that as well. RBG faced no such dilemma in 2009. Also, Scalia had a menu of medical problems in 2016, but none of them rendered him a terminal patient. There are two types of people diagnosed with pancreatic cancer: the 85% who will die of the disease and the 15% who will die of something else before the disease resurfaces to kill them. She lived an astoundingly long time with it. Most people are dead in a year.

        2. That she bet wrong on the 2016 election is her fault, and her fault alone. As her more favored president said: “elections have consequences.” She would have done well to consider that a bit more fully.

          Regarding McConnell, it’s arguable about why he delayed the vote and if he’s being consistent with his reasoning. Even if you think it’s hypocritical, the left has been claiming everyone on the right is racist xenophobe misogynists, including immigrant women of color who support Trump. In other words, they have been crying wolf for years so no one but themselves care about their most recent objection.

      1. Another stupid statement from btb whose integrity has been questioned throughout his long journey on this blog starting with Jan F. and followed with multiple aliases. Why so many aliases? Lack of integrity.

              1. “There’s more than one person using this name and icon.”

                That is your problem Anonymous the Stupid. I don’t concern myself with which birdbrain I am talking to. It makes no difference, but you Anonymous the Stupid, know who you are and that is all that counts.


  6. Jonathan Turley
    @JonathanTurley
    ·
    10h
    Even without a closely divided court, any replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be traumatic because there is no replacing her, and we all know it. She is the type of personality that comes only a few times in history. ”

    No doubt RBG was a very accomplished person in her life, but so was Hitler, Stalin & Mao.

    …. I think not much need in being more common sense thoughts to the deeds she commented to us owners aka Citizen.

    1. “No doubt RBG was a very accomplished person in her life, but so was Hitler, Stalin & Mao“
      ******************
      True, but Ginsburg Is probably responsible for more kid deaths.

  7. September 19, CNN Smerconish poll question was: Should the vacancy created by the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsburg be filled by President Trump and the current Senate? At 7:37pm on 9/19, the result: No, 92.57% and Yes, 7.43%. 36,930 people voted.

    A Marquette University poll found that 67% favor hearings now and 32% are against.

    https://www.marquette.edu/news-center/2020/public-views-of-justice-ginsburg-and-appointments-to-the-supreme-court.php

    1. Steve,
      First, thank you for the honesty of using your name. It’s my opinion this comment section is degraded by ‘handles’.

      Regardig your point in raising the September 19, CNN Smerconish poll question, I trust you added the Marquette poll to observe the political leanings of Mr. Smerconish’s audience, yes?

      Meanwhile, in scanning the Sunday morning new programs, I’m struck buy the intellectual dishonesty of leaving off the bit in the McConnell Rule about the President and the Senate being of the same party. Then again, stirring up a storm is their goal as that’s what gains the highest ratings. It’s above my pay grade of what we can do when a media is paid for poop stirring. Sigh.

    1. That’s pretty funny. What they’ve got up their sleeve is an arm – with an outstretched hand at the end of it.

    1. Just a couple of posts back you were Steve, Paint Chips pretending not to know who you were. That is understandable. To be you must hurt.

  8. Some country was looking for a constitution and Ginsburg said “I wouldn’t advise the US constitution, I would look to South Africa’s constitution.”
    And its all on video.
    Gime a break, this woman was a traitor.

    1. Had any average American had colon cancer, liver cancer, lung cancer, pancreatic cancer, one after the other, they would have been dead by the second appearance of cancer, and no one would have batted an eye about ceasing treatments.

      Not Ruthy. For a woman who outright repudiated the Judaic proscriptions on holding all life sacred, most keenly and vociferously articulated by Maimonides, it is disgraceful how she hid behind Judaism. Judaism is one of the greatest monotheistic religions ever known. Rich in Moral Teaching, rules of upright living and the sacredness of all life, Ruth disgraced them all as a Jew in name only. Yet, when it came to her hide, she expected every surreal and extraordinary medical measure be taken to save her life. Now she is dead when she could have stepped down years ago and not caused the upheaval she knew would ensue after her death. She was a disgrace of a Jew, much like Pelosi and Biden are disgraceful “c”atholics, Jerry Falwell Jr an abortion of a “c”hristian and Keith Ellison a disgrace of a alleged Muslim. Words matter and although Ruth deserves prayers, she will get them for the abortions she protected, the end of life she championed and her duplicitous double standard when it came to her own life. May God have mercy on her soul.

      …..

      “A descendant of Noah who kills any human being, even a fetus in its mother’s womb, is to be put to death.”
      – Maimonides in Mishneh Torah, interpretation of Third Noahide Law

      ”All major religions have their parochial and their universal aspects, and the problem of abortion is not a parochial one. It is of universal morality, and it is neither a Catholic problem, nor a Jewish problem, nor a Protestant problem. It involves the killing of a human being, an act forbidden by universal commandment”
      – Rabbi Marvin S. Antelman, Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Rabbinical Court of America

      “Jewish law sees every human life as having the sanctity of intrinsic and infinite worth. One life has as much value as one hundred or one thousand; you cannot multiply infinity and you cannot divide it. So every human being has an identical worth and is identically worth saving.”
      – Chief Rabbi Dr. Immanual Jakabovits

    2. She was asked by an interviewer on Al Hayat TV in Egypt in 2012 whether she thought Egypt should use the constitutions of other countries as a model in creating a new constitution for their country:

      “Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution – first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor. …
      “You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”
      https://www.memri.org/tv/us-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-egyptians-look-constitutions-south-africa-or-canada

      Yeah, those are definitely the words of a traitor, how awful to suggest that Egypt look to post WWII constitutions. /s

      But thanks for prompting me to check whether you were quoting her correctly (you weren’t), because it was interesting to read what she actually said, and now I’m curious to read the South African constitution: https://www.justice.gov.za/legislation/constitution/SAConstitution-web-eng.pdf

    3. Ruth Bader Ginsburg irrefutably failed, in letter and spirit, to uphold her solemn constitutional oath to support the Constitution of the United States.

      Ruth Bader Ginsburg manifestly supported the principles of the Communist Manifesto (i.e. the ACA) and denigrated the Constitution to ideological enemies in a foreign country, committing acts of treason by

      “…adhering to Their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.”
      ___________________________________

      “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”

      “I might look at the constitution of South Africa…”

      – Ruth Bader Ginsburg
      __________________

      U.S. Constitution
      Article 6

      …judicial Officers,…shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;…

    4. NOT ONLY TRAITOR BUT 1 OF 5 RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF UNBORN BABIES. I HOPE SHE’S ROTTING IN HELL RIGHT NOW WHERE SHE BELONGS

  9. “That’s their job.”

    “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”

    – Ruth Bader Ginsburg, July 10, 2016

    1. “Scalia’s son shares anecdotes about father’s friendship with Ginsburg”

      https://thehill.com/homenews/news/517204-scalias-son-shares-anecdotes-about-fathers-friendship-with-ginsburg

      ‘At the end of the roast, Antonin Scalia said he wanted to conclude with “a few earnest comments.”

      ‘“I have missed Ruth very much since leaving the court of appeals,” Antonin Scalia said. “She was the best of colleagues, as she is the best of friends. I wish her a hundred years.”’

  10. Now, now children. Play nice.

    Biden shouldn’t concede + mail in (not absentee) ballots = they’re definitely up to something.

    So one way to put off nominating a new justice is for both Trump and Biden to announce that they will accept the election day results based on electoral college votes and that ballots received or “discovered” after November 3rd will not be counted.

    By the way, someone suggested that Mofo might be one of Estovir’s handles. Sorry folks, it’s just me. The name comes from a 1990s Penn & Teller show on Broadway. You can still get the t-shirt here:

    https://thecaptainsvintage.com/products/90s-mofo-knows-penn-teller-magic-trick-t-shirt-extra-large

    My previous handle was UnWoke but I think I was blocked for suggesting that this blog could use a resident proctologist because there are so many a-holes here. It seems my sin was that I spelled it out.

    1. “Biden shouldn’t concede” = he shouldn’t concede on election night if there are still a lot of votes to count; if he loses after all legal votes are counted, he’ll concede. And if Trump loses after all legal votes are counted, he should concede too.

      “mail in (not absentee) ballots” is simply wrong. In many states, there is no distinction between “mail in” and “absentee.” Trump voted by mail. He did not vote by absentee ballot; in fact, Florida doesn’t have an “absentee” option: https://dos.myflorida.com/elections/for-voters/voting/vote-by-mail/ Lots of people vote by mail, including members of our Armed Services and seniors.

      “accept the election day results”
      No. Accept all ballots that meet the legal requirements to be counted, even if they’re not counted on Election Day. Shame on you for wanting legal votes to not be counted.

          1. “Florida doesn’t make that distinction”

            That is not the issue. In Florida one has to request the Absentee ballot or mail in if you wish to call it that. The name doesn’t count. What counts is better certainty of one man one vote. That is something you do not understand.

    2. Mail-in ballots are unconstitutional.

      Tuesday is one day and only one day.

      Ballots may be distributed and voting may take place only on “the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November.”

      Mail-in ballots are not executed on that date, as the U.S. Mail requires multiple days for delivery and return, and are, therefore, invalid.

      All ballots not distributed and counted on “…the Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November…” shall be null and void.
      __________________________________________________________________________________________________________

      ACTS OF THE TWENTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,

      Passed at the second session, which was begun and held at the City of Washington,
      in the district of Columbia, on Monday, the 2d day of December, 1844, and ended the 3d day of March, 1845.

      JOHN TYLER, President of the United States. WILLIE P. MANGUM,President of the Senate, pro tempore.
      JOHN W. JONES, Speaker of the House of Representatives.

      STATUTE II.CHAP. I.

      An Act to establish a uniform time for holding elections for electors of President and Vice President in all the States of the Union.(a)

      Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed in each State on the

      Tuesday next after the first Monday in the month of November of the year in which they are to be appointed:…

      APPROVED, January 23, 1845.

  11. For all those having an anal hemmorrage over the possibility of Trump getting a nominee confirmed, just remember who changed the senate rules for a simple majority vote. Majority Leader Harry Reid led the chamber in eliminating the 60-vote majority needed to vote on most presidential nominations.

    Anytime a change is made to years of precedent setting restrictive laws and rules in most any settings, those changes are going to come back and bite those making the change in the a$$. If Trump gets his nominee confirmed, democrats can complain all they want able election year nominations, but its all on Harry Reid!

      1. You, of course, are lying. The data show that the percentage of circuit nominees confirmed during President Obama’s first term was 71.4%. Compare that to GWB, who only had 67.3% of his circuit nominees confirmed.

        82.7% of Obama’s district court nominees were confirmed. 76.9% under GWB.

        https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43058.pdf

        The GOP did not come close to blocking “virtually all” of Obama’s nominees. Obama actually had a larger percentage of nominees confirmed than GWB.

        You’re a dishonest hack.

        1. Regarding Obama’s federal district court nominations, the Senate approved 143 out of 173 as of November 2013, compared to George W. Bush’s first term 170 of 179.

          The rules change was passed in Nov 2013.

          I am in favor of ending the filibuster except for specific and critical legislation, or unless it is a physical speechifying filibuster. The Senate tradition of not ending debate should be maintained.

          1. 24 of the 30 Obama district court nominees who were not confirmed in the 112th Congress were renominated and confirmed in the 113th.

            You are a dishonest hack.

      2. Yes sir! I know that!!! I understand why he did it!!! And it had nothing to do with judicial appointments. It was based on amendments to a jobs program legislation that concerned china currency manipulation. Republican demanded amendments and filibustered and did not expect Reid to go nuclear after what had been a fight over amendments to China currency legislation.

        And that same 60 vote requirement worked for eons! Was that the first time a parties legislation got blocked? Remember, Southern Democrats filibustered the civil rights act for 60 days until they relented.

        Reid got pissed, changed the rules and now the democrats MAY pay the price. If he had not changed the rules for short term gain, they might not pay the long term price with a conservative justice for 25-30 years. Democrats could block any appt since McConnell would never get 60 votes now.

        1. Ron P, then advocate for changing the rules back. There is nothing about the 2013 change that is not changeable. However, I disagree. The Senate has been dysfunctional since comity ended and is part of the frustration of citizens that government can’t get anything done.

          PS The rule change in 2013 did not include SC nominations. That was enacted by Republicans during the Goresuch nomination.

          1. Why should I want it changed. I hope he nominates and McConnell fast tracts the confirmation before the election.

            I was only pointing out why the Democrats are having a total fit and how their former leader in the senate set this up!

          2. >> PS The rule change in 2013 did not include SC nominations. That was enacted by Republicans during the Goresuch nomination. <<

            The reason the Democrats exempted the Supreme Court from the rule change is because there were no vacancies on the Supreme Court at that time.

            They did the rule change primarily to fill vacancies on the DC Appeals Court. Obama openly bragged about usurping Congress's legislative authority to impose his policy preferences using his "pen and his phone". He knew most of his unlawful abusive power grabs would be litigated and end up at the DC Appeals Courts. So he and Reid conspired to destroy the Senate filibuster they could install left wing activists judges they hoped would rubber stamp Obama's unconstitutional abuses of power.

            You are a dishonest hack.

        2. Dems already paid with Kavanaugh. Something folks tend to forget is that gridlock is a feature of our system, not a bug. The Framers only set up a system where there would need to be a broad desire for action before laws could be passed. They could just as easily have set up a parliamentary system such as exists in the UK, but deliberately chose not to. While the now-discarded supermajority rule isn’t in the constitution, it was definitely in the spirit of the constitution. Of course no one on the Republican side is now going to try to reinstate it. We are well beyond such comity. So the sword the Dems lived by is now the sword they will die by.

          And frankly, given that the Dems have essentially sworn to not accept the results of the election, we simply cannot take the risk of a 4-4 “decision” by the Supreme Court on the November election. The 2000 election was unsettling enough. Now with the temperature dialed up insanely, a 4-4 Supreme Court ruling on the election could tip off a civil war.

          Too risky. An appointment must be confirmed before the election.

          1. “the Dems have essentially sworn to not accept the results of the election”

            Bullsh*t.

            “we simply cannot take the risk of a 4-4 “decision” by the Supreme Court on the November election”

            There’s a 5-3 conservative majority on the court.

              1. There’s something off about him and about Gorsuch.

                In truth, if we had a conscientious judiciary and a healthy political culture, only legal professionals would care about these appointments. Public policy would largely be made in state capitals and we’d all understand that was the proper locus. Federal policy would be made by elected officials with some interstitial elaboration by the executive, and everyone would understand that would be appropriate. We’d have judicial decrees for egregious disregard and for edge cases which could go either way.

                1. We live in a system that invested MASSIVE POWER in the federal judiciary. That is article III– lifetime tenure for the judges. No other office in the US has that feature. Obviously the Founding fathers were “up to something.” I will tell you what it was, obviously. Curtailing the democracy that they had sold in their enlistment propaganda to the Continental army

                  There’s a federal tyrant ready in every district in this nation, ready to nullify laws that the elites don’t like, or perform other acts of high handed arrogance on elected officials who run afoul of the plutocracy. Case in point, this charlatan who won’t dismiss the case against Flynn.

                  We should amend article III and limit them to 8 year terms. TERM LIMITS ON FEDERAL JUDGES would be effort well spent.

                  Yet, there’s not a snowball’s chance in hell that will happen. More likely the whole union will disintegrate first.

                  1. See Mary Ann Glendon on the frequency and character of federal judicial interference in public policy-making in the ante-bellum era and in the Lochner era. Lifetime tenure or no, judges used to be vastly less inclined to intervene than they are now.

            1. “the Dems have essentially sworn to not accept the results of the election” No. See Hillary’s tweeted video in which she says to Biden, “under no circumstances should you concede to Donald Trump.” Also, Dem party has hired a friggin’ 600 lawyers to contest the results of the election if it doesn’t go the way they want. Not to mention that they failed to accept the results of the 2016 election, and instead tried to pull a coup against Trump. They’ve already shown their hand amply.

              How is that not swearing to not accept the results of the election?

              So no, it’s not BS and simply saying so is without evidence.

Leave a Reply

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