The Notorious SAA: Democrats Denounce Alito After Years Of Praising Ginsburg For Controversial Comments

This week I criticized Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito for a speech that he gave to the Federalist Society. That should come as no surprise since I have spent two decades criticizing justices for such controversial public addresses.  However, I was struck in the last couple days by the politicians like Sen. Elizabeth Warren and liberal faculty members who are falling over themselves in utter disgust with such public commentary from a sitting justice. For years, I criticized the far more egregious comments from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg without a peep of protest from people like Warren. Instead, Ginsburg became the “Notorious RBG.” There is, however, no place for a Notorious SAA in the media or academia.

I admittedly hold a more traditional and cloistered view of public role of justices. I have been particularly critical of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who clearly relished appearances before ideologically supportive groups. We have seen in the last couple decades more and more public speaking by justices in both books and speeches on contemporary issues. I have called this trend the “rise of the celebrity justice.”

As I previously noted, Justice Alito addressed attacks on religious liberty and free speech, including citing past cases and disputes before the Court.  He also declared “The Covid crisis has highlighted constitutional fault lines” in attacking such rights. Alito also launched into liberals who he views as threatening religious rights, noting that “[i]n certain corners, religious liberty is fast becoming a disfavored right.” Alito attacked the Obama administration’s “ protracted campaign” and “unrelenting attack” against the Little Sisters of the Poor.” He also criticized a Washington State for requiring pharmacies to provide emergency contraception. He maintained that such emergency contraception “destroys an embryo after fertilization.” All of those issues have been and will again be before the Court. Indeed, as Alito was making these ill-considered comments, the Catholic Church was coming before his Court in these very issues.

So there is reason to be critical of Alito. However, the voices are coming from people who once cheered on such comments from Ginsburg.  Now however there was nothing but utter disgust. This was not “Notorious” but nauseating.

Rep. Jimmy Gomez, D-Calif., declared “These are stunning, harmful words from Justice Alito.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren was beside herself in shock and disgust: “Supreme Court Justices aren’t supposed to be political hacks. his right-wing speech is nakedly partisan.” 

Others repeated calls for packing the Court or taking other partisan moves in light of Alito’s remarks. Aaron Belkin, director of Take Back the Court declared “Justice Alito’s wildly inappropriate speech is a reminder that Republicans have packed the Supreme Court with extremist politicians in robes — and they’re planning a partisan revenge tour.”

Yet, Alito’s comments look positively tame in comparison to what Ginsburg regularly declared in speeches, which thrilled the media, members of Congress, and academia.  While I praised Ginsburg as a jurist, she undermined the Court in these public speeches. Ginsburg had a base of supporters and she maintained that base with speeches that were openly partisan and she often discussed issues before or likely to come before the Court. It was always a glaring conflict for the jurist who is referenced in the “Ginsburg Rule.” The rule is often cited by nominees in refusing to discuss issues or cases in confirmation hearings that might come before the Court. It is a rule that is based on principles of judicial ethics for all jurists. It is not just confined to confirmations. It applies to any justices and judges in discussing such issues at any time outside of courts. Yet, after refusing to answer even generalized questions in these hearings, justices proceed to speak publicly on the very same questions once they are confirmed. Indeed, some justices seem to maintain a fan base or constituency on the right or the left in these speeches — a serious challenge to tradition of neutrality expected of our justices.

Despite repeated controversies in speaking publicly on political issues, Ginsburg is undeterred. The same year that she passed, Ginsburg continued such speeches in discussing issues like the ERA to the joy of liberals. Shortly before that, Ginsburg again repeated her view that sexist voters prevented Hillary Clinton from being elected president — a repeat of controversial comments in her 2017 speech. Again, the comments thrilled liberals.

As in her 2017 speech, Ginsburg again repeated her view that sexist voters prevented Hillary Clinton from being elected president. Speaking at a Columbia University Women’s Conference event, Ginsburg said

“I think it was difficult for Hillary Clinton to get by even the macho atmosphere prevailing during that campaign, and she was criticized in a way I think no man would have been criticized. I think anyone who watched that campaign unfold would answer it the same way I did: Yes, sexism played a prominent part.”

Ginsburg even attacked members of Congress for speaking inappropriately publicly. In one interview, Ginsburg blasted senators for discussing their views of the merits before any actual impeachment. She insisted “if a judge said that, a judge would be disqualified from sitting on the case.” In discussing these issues with the BBC’s Razia Iqbal, Ginsburg commented on Trump’s desire for a review of the basis for impeachment. She dismissed the idea and noted “The president is not a lawyer, he’s not law trained.” The Court just took a case with potential bearing on the impeachment and particularly the article of obstruction of Congress. For Ginsburg to make any comments on the issue is wildly inappropriate. She then added criticism of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other senators who have discussed their views of the merits: “Well if a judge said that, a judge would be disqualified from sitting on the case.”

Justice Ginsburg started another firestorm over public comments on how she would move to New Zealand if Donald Trump is elected. Ginsburg apologized for that public controversy, though I discussed in a column how the incident spoke to a much larger problem on the Court. While she express “regret” in that instance, it did not deter Ginsburg in continuing to speak publicly and hold forth on contemporary issues, though she did make a curious distinction on this occasion.

Sen. Warren never objected. Not once.  Holding forth on defeating Donald Trump, threats against abortion rights, or political issues from a liberal perspective were all wonderfully “notorious.”  Alito making comments on the trend against religious rights was naked partisan.
Alito may need a workout tape to reach the notorious stage but I would not count on it.

124 thoughts on “The Notorious SAA: Democrats Denounce Alito After Years Of Praising Ginsburg For Controversial Comments”

  1. Bill of Rites is a cab driver who was part of the Rite Aid family. He should not be confused with some document about con law rights.

    1. When it comes to double standards and hypocrisy Democrats cannot compete with Republicans. See Republicans treatment of Supreme Court nominees in 2016 and 2020 and see Republicans concern about spending and deficits when Obama was President and when Trump was President.

        1. The following examples have nothing to do with Democrats. Republicans created the Supreme Court rule in 2016 and did not follow it in 2020. Republicans were against spending and deficits in the Obama Admin and were no longer against them in the Trump Admin.

          1. When you start a ball moving don’t expect your opposition to fall in front of it to stop it. Thank Democrat Harry Reid for the most recent complaint of Democrats and Ted Kennedy et. al that started the ball rolling with Bork.

            Deficit! Do you read the news? Though too much of a spender in my mind Trump wanted to rescue the individual American while Pelosi and Democrats were pushing the bill higher and higher. You should be more concerned with the actions of the party you favor.

            1. My main point was to counter SW’s comment above that Democrats apply massive double standards and hypocrisy. I have done that by pointing out examples of Republican double standards and hypocrisy. I will leave it at that.

              1. Both parties have been guilty to some degree of hypocrisy. The problem is the Democratic party is oozing with hypocrisy and to the Democrats a double standard has become a way of life. I provided you with examples that were major and I don’t think you are able to counter. That is why you were anxious to leave it at that. Smart move.

              2. Concerned Citizen wrote, “My main point was to counter SW’s comment above that Democrats apply massive double standards and hypocrisy. I have done that by pointing out examples of Republican double standards and hypocrisy. I will leave it at that.”

                Your entire argument is an unethical rationalization and literally a deflection.

                1. The Golden Rationalization, or “Everybody does it”

                This rationalization has been used to excuse ethical misconduct since the beginning of civilization. It is based on the flawed assumption that the ethical nature of an act is somehow improved by the number of people who do it, and if “everybody does it,” then it is implicitly all right for you to do it as well: cheat on tests, commit adultery, lie under oath, use illegal drugs, persecute Jews, lynch blacks. Of course, people who use this “reasoning” usually don’t believe that what they are doing is right because “everybody does it.” They usually are arguing that they shouldn’t be singled out for condemnation if “everybody else” isn’t.

                Since most people will admit that principles of right and wrong are not determined by polls, those who try to use this fallacy are really admitting misconduct. The simple answer to them is that even assuming they are correct, when more people engage in an action that is admittedly unethical, more harm results. An individual is still responsible for his or her part of the harm.

                If someone really is making the argument that an action is no longer unethical because so many people do it, then that person is either in dire need of ethical instruction, or an idiot.

                Unethical Rationalizations and Misconceptions

                Your argument also falls into other rationalizations on that list; 1A, 2, 2A, 4, 6, 7, and 12.

          2. The “rule” (more like practice) is that when the Senate and White House are politically divided, and the nomination is the last year of the president’s term, the Senate will not vote to confirm. That has been the practice for a long time. It is not a “rule” as the Senate is not bound to follow it.

            1. BS William. Kennedy was confirmed by a Democratic senate in February of 1988. Thomas was also confirmed by a Democratic senate and Garland was the 1st nominee not withdrawn who did not receive a hearing by the senate since the Civil War. The GOP led Senate majority purposefully failed their constitutionally mandated duty to advise and consent on the President’s appointment for the purpose of stealing a seat from American voters who twice elected Obama. They never elected Trump.

              1. American voters who twice elected Obama. They never elected Trump.”

                This statement demonstrates how little Joe Friday knows about this country and the Constitution. I skip over most of his comments now because listening to Joe Friday is like listening to Daffy Duck on drugs.

    2. Boom!

      Alito Savages Democratic Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Accusing Him of Orchestrating ‘Affront to the Constitution and the Rule of Law’

      https://freebeacon.com/courts/alito-defends-gun-rights-attacks-covid-restrictions-on-religious-practice/

      Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse came in for a special rebuke, with Alito singling out a recent brief filed by the senator and four colleagues on a New York City firearms transportation ordinance. Whitehouse and his colleagues said that a pro-gun ruling would further incite the growing movement to “restructure” the Court.

      “The senators’ brief was extraordinary,” Alito added. “I could say something about standards of professional conduct. But the brief involved something even more important. It was an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law.”

      From the transcript of Alito’s Federalist speech:

      The senators brief was extraordinary. I could say something about standards of professional conduct. But the brief involved something even more important. It was an affront to the Constitution and the rule of law. Let’s go back to some basics. The Supreme Court was created by the Constitution, not by Congress. under the Constitution, we exercise the judicial power of the United States. Congress has no right to interfere with that work any more than we have the right to legislate. Our obligation is to decide cases based on the law period. And it is therefore wrong for anybody, including members of Congress to try to influence our decisions by anything other than legal argumentation.

  2. One additional comment. If justices are going to give their views on on a whole variety of public issues including those that could easily come before the court, then can we please stop this ridiculous standard in comparison that Supreme Court nominees can say virtually nothing at their confirmation hearings about their judicial views (ACB would not discuss Griswold) or their thoughts on public issues (ACB would not discuss climate change). Let’s work together on a bipartisan and scholarly basis to finding a consensus on expanding what a nominee can appropriately comment on.

  3. What a shocker; justices believe things. Oh the horror for any of them to express an opinion outside of the court. Everytime someone complains that the status quo is being disrupted, or this is not how it’s done, I want to ask, how do you know your way is better? Is the security of rights getting better or worse? Did this massive, administrative state get this way because constitutionalists on the court spoke out too much?

    Eff that. The rules of this civil war are not what will be found in constitutional traditions.

      1. Your we may not think so, but they don’t get to make that call unless they’re surrendering. Even then, it has to be accepted. And at this point, that’s not a given.

              1. Your Leftist Anarchists have been burning down minority owned businesses, throwing molotov cocktails, setting police precincts on fire with police inside, shutting down highways, stalking and dragging out of cars Americans, flashing laser lights in homes all over America and on and on and on

                You post a lot but you lie even more so

                Civil War.

                1. When you have to lie about what I believe to make your argument, you’ve lost the argument.

                  There is no civil war, and you need to learn the difference between civilian LEOs and the military. I’d think a right-winger like you wouldn’t confuse them.

            1. Olly, if you think this is civil war, you won;t be able to handle the real thing if it happens in your life time.

              Your video buffering is not a crisis and losing an election is not persecution. Suck it up and be an adult for a change..

              1. if you think this is civil war, you won;t be able to handle the real thing if it happens in your life time.

                😎 apparently you think war comes in only one state of existence. Thinking has never been a gift of yours. Thanks for your projection though. I, on the other hand, will be just fine. 🇺🇸

            2. No, I’m the person who knows the difference between standard crimes and civil war. If you want to look like an idiot confusing them, that’s your choice.

        1. We have been in a civil war all year

          https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/06/02/these-are-active-duty-units-deployed-dc-region-protests.html

          Some 1,600 active-duty soldiers are now staged just outside Washington, D.C. awaiting possible orders to support protest response in the city, the Pentagon announced Tuesday night.

          The troops were dispatched from Fort Bragg, North Carolina and Fort Drum, New York at the order of Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, according to the announcement.

          “Active duty elements moved to the National Capital Region by military aircraft over the last 24 hours,” officials said.

          Officials confirmed on Monday that active-duty units from Bragg had been moved into the region and placed on alert status. Tuesday night, they identified the units that had been deployed. They include the following:

          An infantry battalion, designated Task Force 504, out of Fort Bragg
          16th Military Police Brigade headquarters, out of Fort Bragg
          91st Military Police Battalion, out of Fort Drum
          It’s not clear how many troops from each element were deployed. Officials said that the 16th Military Police Brigade headquarters would provide command and control capability for military police and engineers attached to the 91st.

          “Active duty elements are postured on military bases in the National Capital Region but are not in Washington, D.C,” officials said in the statement. “They are on heightened alert status but remain under Title X authority and are not participating in defense support to civil authority operations.”

          The prospect of deploying active-duty troops to suppress protests on American soil is a hotly contested issue.

          President Donald Trump, who has expressed dismay at what he called states’ “weak” responses to protest violence, property damage and looting, said in a Monday address that he was ready to deploy “thousands and thousands of heavily armed” troops to quell the demonstrations. While employing Title 10 troops in a domestic law enforcement capacity is prohibited in most cases under the Posse Comitatus Act, the president has the authority under the Insurrection Act to determine such a mission necessary.

          At the Pentagon Tuesday morning, a senior defense official said Defense Department leaders hoped to avoid employing active-duty troops.

          “We really would like to see this stay a National Guard response to the degree that we have to put any uniformed forces against it,” the official said.

          D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser has also expressed her strenuous objection to military presence at the protests.

          1. Trolls like JF do not engage in comments that contradict their employer provided talking points.
            Theirs is about controlling the narrative not discussing facts. Theirs is about power not democracy.
            They are Marxists not American Patriots

            🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

  4. There seems to be different degrees of ethics. Judge Alito made his comments after the election. Judge Ginsburg compaigned against Trump both during and after the 2016 election. A Justice should be as good as her word. She must now surely reside in the purgatory of New Zealand. She has faithfully fulfilled her promise. We were so blessed to see her in action.

  5. I have heard people defend RBG’s regular political comments as exercising her First Amendment rights.

    However, many government jobs require as a condition of employment no public presence on political issues.

    Do such political speeches by justices give the impression of bias? Wouldn’t that bias exist whether they spoke their opinions publicly, or not? Is it better to know what that bias is, than for the justice to remain quiet about their preconceived ideas?

    I tend to agree with Professor Turley, that justices should stay out of the political spotlight, on both sides of the aisle.

  6. Yeah but Professor, this is kind of important. People have been hypnotized into accepting anything “because Covid.” From now on, there will be more and more reasons, and flimsier and flimsier excuses, to “temporarily suspend” people’s rights, until they don’t need an excuse anymore. That’s the whole reason this virus was unleashed. Somebody has to sound the alarm. Normal people are cancelled when they say something basic like this. I got doxxed just for writing a letter to the editor objecting to Judge Sullivan’s bias. If not Alito, who? If not now, when?

  7. The term “Constitutional fault lines” is exactly right. Alito is just bringing up how the country has been changing, and how it effects his job. There used to be a time when the Court dealt primarily with real disputes between discreet parties, and the major constitutional issues only rarely came up. There were no “class action” cases, or straw-man/woman cases that became flash points for the future way of life for millions of people. But look at the Court now. Every Justice nominee is a potential Trojan horse for the “enemy” to overrun us all! The fat-cat national media gets purple-faced over every comment overheard when a Justice goes to the toilet. Alito, like Ginsberg, is only making public what every body sees anyway. Let’s face it. The fault lines are real, and no public works project can fill them up. And of course, the “free press” feels no responsibility at all for why so many Americans feel like the world is closing in on them.

  8. The RBG examples that JT gave were liberal comments not directly related to SCOTUS cases. Alito’s comments were directly about cases that are before the court, or will be soon. That is huge difference.

    1. MollyGee. We are speaking of judicial ethics. Justices are expected to stear clear of politics. To demean one ethical breach and defend another is hypocrisy at an amazingly high and apparent level. Turley has applied the test to the Justices and found both of them wanting. Fairness applied. As for fairness, you never had an atom. For some, fair is just a place where pigs go to get blue ribbons.

      1. Thinkit, Turley quoted RBG commenting on what she saw as sexism by voters in the 2016 election. That is a generic issue not involving legal action of any kind, and therefore not one likely to be heard at the SC.

        1. There have been many cases effecting sexism and there will be many more. Ginsburg expressed herself on the matter many times before the cases came to court.

                  1. Based on what you have written it is quite clear you are wrong. If you are wrong you are likely Joe. If you are not Joe you are still wrong.

          1. I don’t think you’re really thinking it through, Thinkit. Let me know if you come up with a specific case that might be affected by Ginsburg’s comments that Turley quoted. That is what he laid before us.

            1. I have to cite a specific case about the rights of women? You somehow think that sexual descimination has not come before The Supreme Court. How did we get the laws prohibiting sexual desrimination in the work place. Google is a wonderful place to find a long list of sexual discrimination cases that have come before the Court. Ginsburg was on the court for a very long time. You question my honesty with a demand for a paticular case when my argument is based on common knowlege easily found with a simple search. A truly vast amount of evidence can be found with the tap of a finger. Honesty of argument would be appreciated instead of “oh Yaa show me the case”. Right out of junior highschool.

              1. Thinkit, I didn’t question your honesty, I questioned your thinking.

                So, it is your position that thinking sexism exists and opposing sexism are controversial positions which will predictably define positions on legal issues?

                Interesting.

                1. When you intimate that my “thinking” has no bases in proof you are saying that I am making a statement based on no available evidence. Such an action would therefore most assuradly be considered dishonest. It is not required that the actual word dishonest be used. There is no question that you were attempting to impune my statement. Without counter argument (in this case “cite your source for common knowlege”) your intent was solely to present my case as an act of dishonesty. Instead of giving me a product from a pretzel factory give me a cognizant counter argument.
                  Citing sources is a good thing but is not required when the answer can easily be found on the internet as a general subject. i. e. common knowledge. The Little Two Step is a very old dance.

        2. JoeF. I’m sure that Ginsburg saw half the nation (including women) as sexist. Half the nation (including blacks) as racist. Half the nation (including Latinos) as xenophobic. I believe she made a loan of the word deplorables to Queen Hillary. A more fair justice never adorned The Supreme Court with her presence.

        1. Thank you Anon for the best you could do. You just admitted that Molly is not quit as unfair as I am. Surely you can do a better job of defending her than that. Weak thinking in one weak thinking in all.

    1. There is nothing wrong with analyzing the examples and pointing out differences. For example, RBG’s thoughts on Hillary’s loss and possible sexism or her leaving the country is not going to be a case that comes before the court.

      1. It is blatent political campaigning. Note the word camp in the word campaigning. How many ways can one spell it out for it to be understood. Elementary grade one.

        1. My main point is that there is nothing wrong with comparing and analyzing the Alito and RBG examples — I would think that Professor JT would welcome it. I will leave it at that.

      2. CC, I only am concerning myself with the double standard of the left and its hypocrisy. What we see today is not all that different from 1984.

        1. 1984, Similarly in other comments I have been focused on the Republicans double standards and hypocrisy. If you don’t mind, what is significance of 1984 with respect to double standards as opposed to another year? Thanks.

          1. “What we see today is not all that different from 1984.”

            Read the book 1984 by Orwell. It’s one of the most famous books so one would think you would have read it. Your lack of knowledge regarding 1984 demonstrates that your school system didn’t do its job.

            1. I read it and should have made the connection, but I don’t think of the book as synonymous with double standards and hypocrisy. Thanks.

              1. Better late than never. Apparently the book didn’t have much of an impact if you didn’t make the connection. Maybe you should reread it and take better note of the discussion that has ensued.

                1. Rereading 1984 after so many decades would probably be a better use of my time than hanging around here — thanks for the suggestion! By the way, I voted in 1984 and there was plenty of double standards and hypocrisy in that election year as well.

                  1. “I voted in 1984 and there was plenty of double standards and hypocrisy in that election year as well.”

                    You are right. That was the Reagan landslide over Mondale and their was plenty of hypocrisy from the left then but there wasn’t the degree of cheating we saw in this election.

                    You are absolutely right. You should be reading 1984 and a lot of other books. Your knowledge regarding the political economy of the US is awful. We need not just concerned citizens. We need educated concerned citizens.

                    1. I would be happy to learn more about your perspective — do you have any book, article, or website recommendations (besides 1984)? Please let me know. Thanks.

                    2. You are of such an age (you voted in 1984) that you should already be familiar with that work and many others. If you are not familiar I am sure you can research 1984 and find a myriad of articles filled with the information you are looking for.

        2. 1984 applies more to Trump and the right than it does to the left.

          “There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party.”

          “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

          “In a way, the worldview of the Party imposed itself most successfully on people incapable of understanding it. They could be made to accept the most flagrant violations of reality, because they never fully grasped the enormity of what was demanded of them and were not sufficiently interested in public events to notice what was happening. By lack of understanding they remained sane. They simply swallowed everything, and what they swallowed did them no harm, because it left no residue behind, just as a grain of corn will pass undigested through the body of a bird.”

          Trump is a pathological liar, and his supporters will not admit it. He wants government employees to be loyal to him rather than loyal to the Constitution.

          1. I don’t want to get into an argument with you because I have already seen the drivel you produce arguing with others. You are too much of a kook who can’t seem to put away the outlandish hyperbole while substituting fiction for fact. Only people overrun with hate talk as you do.

            1984 was about control. There is no doubt that the left controls the media (very prominent in 1984), academia, social media, and Hollywood. They represent the elite of society, but not the bulk of the working population. All one has to do is go to alternative sites such as https://www.oann.com/youtube-censors-oan-report-exposing-hazards-of-voting-fraud-in-2020-election/ “YouTube Censors OAN Report Exposing Hazards Of Voting Fraud In 2020 Election” and look at what is being censored by Youtube and Twitter, to name just two. Why would the MSM censor so much information that is true and proven? Why does the MSM trickle such information out while hiding it behind other news? How long did it take for the media to recognize that Hunter Biden’s computer was of importance to the nation? How long was the phony Steele Dossier used by the MSM to repress the positive things done by our government?

            1984 is all about changing the facts and censoring the individual. Today Democrats are making hit lists to destroy any individuals that supported Trump while intimidating the rest of the population. That is 1984.

          2. “Trump is a pathological liar”

            Are you playing the part of an unlicensed psychiatrist. Most of what you say is unintelligent. Stay away from making a psychiatric diagnosis that requires expertise and training.

            Additionally, Trump is acting in the political realm where lying is based on one’s perception. However, such a statement must mean Trump has grievously lied in office while performing his duties as President. Making such a statement means you have plenty of evidence. State his egregious lies with appropriate proof

          3. “He wants government employees to be loyal to him rather than loyal to the Constitution.”

            Trump wants both, which is what a leader requires. The President, based on the Constitution, was elected to do his job in his way, not the way of others. Those with different ideas present them, he listens, and then the President acts. If advisors disagree, they don’t infringe on the President’s duties. They abide by his decisions, or they resign.

            On the other hand, Biden and Obama used the intelligence agencies and others to inhibit the legal actions of the President. They wanted loyalty when their activities were unconstitutional. Some of these actions are documented in the files released by the FBI.

  9. Professor Turley and other legal bloggers have commented on the military and political speech. Under the UCMJ, members of the military are prohibited from political speech while in uniform. However, when not in uniform they are free to speak politically. Was Justice Alito speaking as a member of the court in his recent speech, or was he speaking as a private citizen? Justice Alito did not say that his concerns would influence his decisions on the matters coming before SCOTUS.

  10. Despite the fact that I agree with most if not all of what Justice Alito said, I think the timing, rather than the content, was inappropriate. His comments seem to telegraph how he would rule. I would be much more comfortable if he had given this speech after the cases had been decided, as a way of outlining his reasoning on the matter.

  11. I am not graduated in Law, I studied Vernaculars, Philology and Literature at the University. Nevertheless, I appreciate analyzes that aim at integrating political and constitutional discourses as an outlet, a delta from which it is impossible for the waters to return or be dammed, since they will break any dike to reach the sea. Democracy, as can be seen, after the French Revolution and the Industrial Revolution, tended to absorb to a greater or lesser degree liberalizing advances, which were faster among leftist groups than among conservatives. Whatever the outcome of the review of the parties’ role in these elections, the expansion of the possibility of real confrontation within society will grow a lot and both the Supreme Court and Congress will have to question their behavior. The uncontrolled growth of the population and the strategy of the low-profile computerized economy will lead large national states to reflect better on the linear application of constitutional values, under penalty of fragmentation of the federative unit. So, the ideological division into two fields invokes Manichaean precepts that will in no way contribute to any solution negotiated between two Powers, such as the Judiciary and the Legislative. The most unpredictable aspect is the behavior of the big transnational investors and the trillionaires, who got the media right, usurping their discourse, redirecting their purposes and manipulating their means of reaching goals, many of them unmistakable.

  12. Watch our Pinko posters twist to rationalize why RBG is good and Alito bad.

    Or more likely, they will attack Turley for pointing out their partisan positions.

    One lefty – can’t remember which one – even told Turley to get lost on his own blog!

    Takes a certain chutzpah for a visitor to demand that his host leave his own blog.

    But the lefties are determined to shout down the opposition.

    1. One lefty – can’t remember which one – even told Turley to get lost on his own blog!

      That sort of effrontery is a Gainesville special.

    1. Discourse from the Democrats reflects blatant hypocrisy again and again. And the mainstream media condones and supports it 24/7. It’s a sinister alliance. The double standard is infuriating!

Leave a Reply

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