The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Justice Kennedy to Retire
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From NYT:

Justice Kennedy Announces Retirement
Court Loses Swing Vote and Trump Can Move It Rightward
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR 33 minutes ago

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced that he would retire, setting the stage for a furious fight over the future direction of the Supreme Court.

His retirement gives President Trump the opportunity to help create a solid five-member conservative majority.

Comments?

 
Hide 274 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. e says:

    Susan Collins. McCain. Problems.

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    Yeah but there's Joe Manchin, it'll be interesting.
    , @Barnard
    Plus Jeff Flake, he could kill a qualified nomination simply out of spite. I don't think this will change the Supreme Court that significantly. Clarence Thomas criticized lower courts for misusing nationwide injunctions in the travel ban ruling. Returning the court system to its proper role in the government would keep this and any future Supreme Court openings from becoming political flashpoints. That is impossible with the rabid, foaming at the mouth left wing movement we have today.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Tester. Manchin.
    , @Thomas

    Susan Collins. McCain. Problems.
     
    The Democrats have even bigger problems, namely: Joe Manchin, Sherrod Brown, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Joe Donnelly, and Claire McCaskill, among them. The Senate map is brutal for the Democrats, and there's no way McConnell isn't going to force them into a no-win confirmation vote right before November. Somehow managing to drag the vote past then will be sure to undermine any relative advantage in turnout the Democrats are counting on in November, with a Supreme Court seat, this Supreme Court seat, in play.

    Trump is on track to leave a very deep mark on the federal bench. The odds aren't bad that he's going to get at least one more appointment (Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is 85, has had two bouts with cancer, and a coronary artery stent), which would make him the first President since Reagan to appoint three or more Supreme Court justices.

    Problems: no guarantees Trump doesn't nominate another Souter-type that turns out to be a liberal in disguise (though that's probably less likely than it was in 1990). My best guess for now: Thomas Hardiman from the 3rd Circuit, who was Trump's second choice for Scalia's seat after Gorsuch, and who sits on the same court as Trump's sister.

    Also, the Democrats and the left are going to go absolutely apeshit this summer, especially with this coming on top of the horrid last week of the Court's term they've just had (losing the travel ban, abortion speech, and mandatory union dues cases back-to-back) and the border juvenile hysteria. I would not be surprised, and in fact am fully expecting, more James Hodgkinson-type would-be assassins and/or Weather Underground-type bombings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Still not tired of winning.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. The left are going to absolutely lose their minds this summer. The nominee needs to be confirmed before the election, so Dems can’t use it as a get-out-the-vote issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The nominee needs to be confirmed before the election..."

    Not according to the McConnell Rule.
    , @Mitleser

    The left are going to absolutely lose their minds this summer.
     
    https://twitter.com/snachiavelli/status/1012095648588615685
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Thud says: • Website

    This is just too good, the months ahead will be a wonder to behold.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. The Fort Sumter ! The dems and fringe will revolt over any choice Trump puts forward. Just to bust balls if I was Trump I would float Hillary, Barack, Bernie and hmmm, Maxine Watters. Oh f**k throw out Ta Nehisi and Rachel Maddow too. Chum in the water. Oh, wait Robert Mueller.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. Berty says:

    It’s the best possible thing to happen to the GOP this year. A gift that just might save their bacon.

    I’m really hoping McConnell doesn’t actually schedule a vote until after the election. A SC vacancy is the perfect issue to hit the Democrats over the head with in Senate races. It will enable them to hold TX, TN, and AZ and most definitely help them in MO, MT, ND, IN, WV, WI, and FL. Hell it might even put Ohio back on the map.

    (I’m not counting Nevada because it might actually help the D’s there but Heller likely doomed anyway so it doesn’t matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    Why would it help? As get-out-the-vote for the Republican candidates? Space Ghost in comment #3 thinks it is a better issue for the Democrats.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Good grief I thought your political instincts couldn't get worst.

    One of the few times I've been wrong around here.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Dave Pinsen says: • Website

    Read More
    • LOL: Daniel H
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Jake says:

    Trump should float the names of the most culturally conservative people the Left can imagine to hate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @gregor
    Rick Santorum has a law degree. That would trigger a meltdown for the ages.
    , @Cagey Beast
    Does Stephen Miller have a law degree? If not, can he get one by September?
    , @Buck Turgidson
    Ann Coulter. Steve King. Tom Tancredo.
    , @Doug
    No. The Senate vote is going to be razor-thin as it is. (Partly because Alabama Republicans insisted on playing the same "trigger leftists" game, and lost the Senate seat.) There's at least four Republican Senators who despise Trump and will look for any excuse to backstab him. They'll never have political cover to deep six a candidate because of their conservatism.

    But if Trump picks someone gimmicky like Ann Coulter or Jeanine Pirro, then it will be the Harriet Miers debacle all over again. Pick a reliable, young, well-mannered, well-vetted conservative who's already a qualified Federal judge and isn't some sort of public lightning rod. It might feel good to really rub it in the left's face, but don't snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Since Trump became President, liberal judges have made it painfully clear that they have no basic respect for the law or precedent.

    Controlling the Supreme Court is now an existential battle for the soul of the country. There is no other redoubt.

    Read More
    • Agree: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Anon7
    Every time some pathetic refugee single mom with three little kids in tow shows up on the local news, all I can think about is the 1981 Supreme Court ruling, Plyler vs. Doe, which requires local taxpayers to pony up $10,000 per year per child, K-12.

    If only some of these past judgements could be revisited. Until then, the Wall is the only solution.
    , @Thea
    They’ve been doing this for much much longer than that!
    , @Svigor

    Controlling the Supreme Court is now an existential battle for the soul of the country. There is no other redoubt.
     
    Congress controls the federal judiciary, in almost every respect (and in every meaningful one). The idea that this control is a dead letter (because the entire political class says so) is valid, but since so few people seem to understand these facts, I like to belabor the issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Flip says:

    Have there been any leftist justices who have moved right over time? It mostly seems like it has been Republican appointees who have moved left such as Warren, Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, and O’Connor. The current four leftists are clearly now voting in a results oriented way regardless of the law.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Maybe football star Justice Whizzer White in the 1960s.
    , @Jake
    It works that way because WASP culture is a revolutionary one, specifically a revolutionary culture born of a Judaizing heresy.
    , @snorlax
    As Steve says, Byron White. And FDR appointee Felix Frankfurter. Elena Kagan has moved slightly right although not enough to matter (she's still further left than any of the Republicans except Clarence Thomas are right). In general, modern-day Democrats bat 1.000 with judicial nominees.
    , @Tyrion 2
    They should move the Supreme Court to Mesa, Arizona or Oklahoma City. Old people often start to get a bit confused and forgetful. Surrounding your Supreme Court justices with the Washington DC type is likely to nudge them astray.
    , @Anonym
    Kennedy in retiring arguably has moved right, since he knows what sort of candidate will be put forward to replace him.

    Jewish twitter is apparently having a collective aneurysm, judging by MSM articles on the subject. Hilarity is ensuing as we speak. Liberals had better be quick to have some unprotected sex, conceive an embryo and murder the fetus to take advantage of Roe vs Wade before that runs out. (As it will, apparently.)

    I have to say that while I am quick to criticize Trump for lethargy in moving forward on immigration (does that make me an eeyore?), this makes me happier than I have ever been to have voted for any candidate, ever. This is pure awesome, and to think that Trump may get to replace RBG as well! Not only that, he got to renew an old and worn out Scalia, like one might replace a car part.

    I'm sure you've heard the rumors that Scalia was murdered, I guess to ensure that a SCJ would be liberal, assuming HRC won. It would make a good Christmas movie type of thing, to see that all that skullduggery resulted in a young conservative SCJ being appointed, but not without a lot of tension before the resolution in the third act.
    , @ScarletNumber

    Republican appointees who have moved left
     
    You left out Harry Blackmun. Brennan was an Eisenhower appointee, but he was always liberal.

    Have there been any leftist justices who have moved right over time?
     
    Well there haven't been too many leftist justices who have been appointed in the first place. Out of the last 17 justices appointed, 13 have been by Republican presidents. The 4 exceptions are the 4 who are currently serving. Remember, that from 1969 to 1992 a Democrat was only president for only 4 years, and no one retired during that time. Steve is correct that that last liberal justice to go right was probably Whizzer White. Hell he literally wrote the decision that criminalized sodomy.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    Perhaps Byron White, who was a Kennedy nominee, moved somewhat to the right during his Supreme Court tenure; he generally voted with the conservative justices. But John Kennedy would be a right-wing conservative by the standards of today's Democratic party, so I'm not sure the comparison is apt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. BenKenobi says:

    Winning bigly this week.

    I think someone around here said a few months ago “if all Trump does is get to pick two Supremes, it will all have been worth it.” We’re well past that now.

    What is this emotion I’m feeling? Is this what they call optimism?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
    It's hard to be optimistic from winning one battle when you're still losing the war (the 1,000,000+ per-year invasion continues). But I'll take schadenfreude...and some popcorn for the confirmation theatrics.
    , @Twinkie

    I think someone around here said a few months ago “if all Trump does is get to pick two Supremes, it will all have been worth it.” We’re well past that now.
     
    I was one of those people. I also wrote that if he built even just one more mile of the border fence, he’d have proven to be a better president than anyone else running.

    I supported Ted Cruz during the primary, but once Trump was the candidate, I supported him as I pledged (as a member of the Republican Party). I also admitted that I was disappointed by Cruz’s sore loser behavior since the primary.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Kanye West or Peter Thiel for SCOTUS?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. @Flip
    Have there been any leftist justices who have moved right over time? It mostly seems like it has been Republican appointees who have moved left such as Warren, Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, and O'Connor. The current four leftists are clearly now voting in a results oriented way regardless of the law.

    Maybe football star Justice Whizzer White in the 1960s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Williams

    Maybe football star Justice Whizzer White in the 1960s.
     
    What is it with judges and those great names? Whizzer White? Easily as good as Learned Hand, Bushrod Washington, and Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar II (seriously, the second?).
    , @Edwhy
    Kennedy appt, maybe didn’t move right so much as remain in place as the country moved left.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. anon[115] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    But its just not fair!

    Errr. Ha.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. JohnnyD says:

    Why not Kris Kobach? Elena Kagan has already shown that you can be a Supreme Court Judge without any actual judicial experience…

    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126764692

    Read More
    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @Corn
    Nominating Kris Kobach would be worth it just to see the Open Borders types immolating themselves on the Capitol steps.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. bjondo says:

    Appoint Mel Gibson to replace Kennedy.

    Maybe a 3rd soon. Heard Bader Ginsburg stuck in a revolving door. She keeps pushing. Door keeps turning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bugg
    Obama is probably not happy Ginsburg did not retire on his watch. At 85, they will prop her up even if she stops breathing until a Dem is president.
    , @Pat Boyle
    I had a cat by the name of Max. He like Ginsburg got very old. He was 22. I never found out what happened to him. I figure he just evaporated. Here's hoping.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. I am afraid he’ll nominate another libertarian…

    Read More
    • Replies: @larry lurker
    Yeah, the left is freaking out over the possibility of a reversal on Roe v. Wade, but I don't see Trump nominating a hardcore pro-lifer - Ivanka wouldn't like that. I'd be even more surprised if there was a reversal on same sex marriage.
    , @Thomm

    I am afraid he’ll nominate another libertarian…
     
    Oh! That would be fantastic!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Jake says:
    @Flip
    Have there been any leftist justices who have moved right over time? It mostly seems like it has been Republican appointees who have moved left such as Warren, Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, and O'Connor. The current four leftists are clearly now voting in a results oriented way regardless of the law.

    It works that way because WASP culture is a revolutionary one, specifically a revolutionary culture born of a Judaizing heresy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Luke Lea
    "It works that way because WASP culture is a revolutionary one, specifically a revolutionary culture born of a Judaizing heresy."

    I believe there is only one WASP on the court. The four are Catholic and three Jewish. Not sure about Thomas's religious background..

    , @Hibernian
    Sounding like a broken record isn't good for the cause, Jake.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. snorlax says:
    @Flip
    Have there been any leftist justices who have moved right over time? It mostly seems like it has been Republican appointees who have moved left such as Warren, Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, and O'Connor. The current four leftists are clearly now voting in a results oriented way regardless of the law.

    As Steve says, Byron White. And FDR appointee Felix Frankfurter. Elena Kagan has moved slightly right although not enough to matter (she’s still further left than any of the Republicans except Clarence Thomas are right). In general, modern-day Democrats bat 1.000 with judicial nominees.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    In general, modern-day Democrats bat 1.000 with judicial nominees.
     
    And, in general, modern-day Democrats bat 0.750 with Republican judicial nominees. Sandra Day O'Connor, Souter, etc.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Achilles says:

    Because of Kennedy’s decision that same-sex marriage is mandated by the constitution, I predict a media campaign that the president make this the gay seat on the court and nominate an openly-gay man to carry on Kennedy’s legacy.

    Whoever occupies the gay seat on the court will be entitled to wear a special rainbow-colored robe and will be considered the moral conscience of the court.

    Read More
    • LOL: BB753
    • Replies: @dwb
    He could always follow former Justice Rehnquist, who designed his own costume for the Clinton impeachment hearings.

    He looked like he was auditioning for a high school production of "The HMS Pinafore."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Anon7 says:
    @candid_observer
    Since Trump became President, liberal judges have made it painfully clear that they have no basic respect for the law or precedent.

    Controlling the Supreme Court is now an existential battle for the soul of the country. There is no other redoubt.

    Every time some pathetic refugee single mom with three little kids in tow shows up on the local news, all I can think about is the 1981 Supreme Court ruling, Plyler vs. Doe, which requires local taxpayers to pony up $10,000 per year per child, K-12.

    If only some of these past judgements could be revisited. Until then, the Wall is the only solution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    If only some of these past judgements could be revisited. Until then, the Wall is the only solution.
     
    Actually, I think e-Verify would do it. Assuming the fines were sufficient to dissuade the violators.

    After that, solve the anchor baby problem.
    , @ben tillman

    Every time some pathetic refugee single mom with three little kids in tow shows up on the local news, all I can think about is the 1981 Supreme Court ruling, Plyler vs. Doe, which requires local taxpayers to pony up $10,000 per year per child, K-12.

    If only some of these past judgements could be revisited. Until then, the Wall is the only solution.
     
    The rationale for Plyler included a presumption that illegal alien children would not be deported. Start deporting them, and Plyler is distinguishable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Flip
    Have there been any leftist justices who have moved right over time? It mostly seems like it has been Republican appointees who have moved left such as Warren, Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, and O'Connor. The current four leftists are clearly now voting in a results oriented way regardless of the law.

    They should move the Supreme Court to Mesa, Arizona or Oklahoma City. Old people often start to get a bit confused and forgetful. Surrounding your Supreme Court justices with the Washington DC type is likely to nudge them astray.

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    Not Mesa, that's turning hispanic.
    , @mr. wild
    Forget that. Move all three branches of government to some midwestern town: Tulsa, Kansas City, Lincoln. We can keep edifice's like the Smithsonian in DC. This struggle is as geographical as anything else.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    Absolutely agree--there's no reason for the Supreme Court to be in Washington DC. I might personally choose Kansas City, but anywhere outside the Beltway is better than what we've got now.
    , @S. Anonyia
    You must live in California if you think those are remotely centrally located for the older population. Missouri, southern Illinois and western Kentucky fit that bill better.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Anon7 says:

    For those who are dissatisfied with President Trump’s progress, just imagine how you’d feel if Hillary and the Democrats got to pick a Justice for both Gorsuch’s spot and now Kennedy’s:

    Read More
    • Agree: jim jones
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. Isn’t Ann Coulter a lawyer?

    Read More
    • Replies: @midtown
    Yes. Wow, you would have to get in your bunker if she were to actually be nominated! Although, come to think of it, I really don't know what her stances are on a lot of issues.
    , @Hank Archer
    Ann would be excellent. She's a bomb-throwing spotlight seeker, but she has an great legal mind when she writes seriously about the law. Check out her essay on Miranda.
    , @Hibernian
    Of sorts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Anyone mentally healthy & nationally conscious. Just- avoid the abortion iceberg. It’s not worth it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rapparee

    Just- avoid the abortion iceberg. It’s not worth it.
     
    As a short-run political calculation, that may or may not be true, but institutionalized Moloch-worship certainly isn't doing any favours for the long-term health and safety of the Republic. It didn't work out great for Carthage or the Aztec Empire- Satan always devours his own servants.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. artichoke says:
    @e
    Susan Collins. McCain. Problems.

    Yeah but there’s Joe Manchin, it’ll be interesting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @e
    And in addition to Collins and McCain, we have to worry about the other AZ asshole, Flake. Oh, and there's always the ugly Lisa Murkowski.

    True, Manchin's in a vice. Good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. artichoke says:
    @Tyrion 2
    They should move the Supreme Court to Mesa, Arizona or Oklahoma City. Old people often start to get a bit confused and forgetful. Surrounding your Supreme Court justices with the Washington DC type is likely to nudge them astray.

    Not Mesa, that’s turning hispanic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Depends where you go. Even the area around Dobson and Southern is looking nice nowadays. The further out you get from Fiesta Mall and towards QC the whiter it gets.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Better put the “justices” outside the USA, then.
    , @Tyrion 2
    It is strange the things you forget. I actually had a fun night out in Mesa. I got drunk with a bunch of proto-SJW brownish types who hated the rich, white people in Scottsdale and then I got tear gassed in the street. It reminded me of Marseille, but a million times less threatening. The same strange egocentric ressentiment was there.

    Scottsdale, on the other hand, I ended up favourably comparing to Monaco. Though judging by the quizzical looks Americans give me when I mention that, perhaps I just somehow always ended up in the best places.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Barnard says:
    @e
    Susan Collins. McCain. Problems.

    Plus Jeff Flake, he could kill a qualified nomination simply out of spite. I don’t think this will change the Supreme Court that significantly. Clarence Thomas criticized lower courts for misusing nationwide injunctions in the travel ban ruling. Returning the court system to its proper role in the government would keep this and any future Supreme Court openings from becoming political flashpoints. That is impossible with the rabid, foaming at the mouth left wing movement we have today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. artichoke says:

    Kennedy was clearly hanging on, hoping to flip the Travel Ban or Public Employee Union decisions, but he lost both 5-4! And now he’s outta there!

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    (emphasis mine)

    Kennedy was clearly hanging on, hoping to flip the Travel Ban or Public Employee Union decisions, but he lost both 5-4! And now he’s outta there!
     
    What? Didn't he rule with the majority on both of those cases?
    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-unions-fees-20180627-story.html
    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/anthony-kennedys-travel-ban-vote-shows-hes-done-playing-the-wise-centrist.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. hate WINS!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Neuday says:

    Nominate Rudy Guliani, then when defeated, nominate Roy Moore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnonAnon

    Nominate Rudy Guliani, then when defeated, nominate Roy Moore.
     
    Nah, we want another 50 year old youngin’ like Gorsuch who will make rulings for decades.

    Supreme Court picks was my number one reason to vote for Trump. I hope Ginsberg kicks the bucket soon, too. Hopefully libs would commit mass suicide. Who’s got the pillow guy’s number?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @BenKenobi
    Winning bigly this week.

    I think someone around here said a few months ago "if all Trump does is get to pick two Supremes, it will all have been worth it." We're well past that now.

    What is this emotion I'm feeling? Is this what they call optimism?

    It’s hard to be optimistic from winning one battle when you’re still losing the war (the 1,000,000+ per-year invasion continues). But I’ll take schadenfreude…and some popcorn for the confirmation theatrics.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Yes but Whizzer was bad, bad, on race / affirmative action. Signed Whitey right up for more punishment, please!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    He waited for a Democratic President, Slick Willie, to be inaugurated, before he retired.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. istevefan says:

    I don’t know who benefits more, the democrats or GOP. On the one hand this will absolutely energize the democrats to show up in November. Of course winning the House is immaterial to the Supreme Court confirmation process, and the Senate is difficult for them this time because they have so many seats they are defending. But it will definitely energize the donors and probably help turnout.

    On the other hand the GOP base will be fired up too. Even guys disappointed over immigration, we are still taking in 3000 legals per day, will have to show up to ensure we replace this swing justice with something more reliably conservative. Any notion of GOP voters staying home because they are upset about all the emphasis on taxes should be put to rest with this. Even some of the more realistic neverTrumpers realize we would not have gotten Gorsuch if Hillary had won. This is too huge an opportunity to forgo. Whatever your opinion of Trump’s first two years, you need to make sure the Senate is packed on our side.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. artichoke says:
    @Berty
    It's the best possible thing to happen to the GOP this year. A gift that just might save their bacon.

    I'm really hoping McConnell doesn't actually schedule a vote until after the election. A SC vacancy is the perfect issue to hit the Democrats over the head with in Senate races. It will enable them to hold TX, TN, and AZ and most definitely help them in MO, MT, ND, IN, WV, WI, and FL. Hell it might even put Ohio back on the map.

    (I'm not counting Nevada because it might actually help the D's there but Heller likely doomed anyway so it doesn't matter.

    Why would it help? As get-out-the-vote for the Republican candidates? Space Ghost in comment #3 thinks it is a better issue for the Democrats.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Berty
    In case you haven't noticed Trump isn't popular, the Democrats have maintained a clear edge in the generic ballot albeit not a gigantic one, and the healthcare issue is a dead weight on the GOP's neck. So it's in the party's best interests to take people's minds off of all that and get them focused on a hugely high-stakes issue that isn't related to Trump, at least not directly. It's the one issue that unites all factions of the GOP and gets conservative-leaning independent motivated as well. There might be many conservative voters in Tennessee for example who like Phil Bredeson (who has been leading in all the polls) and don't like Trump or Marsha Blackburn, but they'll vote Blackburn if they believe the court is at stake. Same for Texas voters who hate Ted Cruz, of which there are many. As you say there are some places where the court issue hurts Republicans but by and large they're not where the major races are this year and certainly not the Senate races.

    If they confirm the nominee too quickly then the issue immediately goes away and voters are back to thinking about how worried they are about healthcare and how much they don't like Trump.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @e
    Susan Collins. McCain. Problems.

    Tester. Manchin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Random Dude on the Internet
    Heitkamp. McCaskill.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. His first choice-step forward Judith Susan Blum Sheindlin.

    1/ Very good on TV

    2/ Pure New York ‘tude

    3/ Rich

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident
    "His first choice-step forward Judith Susan Blum Sheindlin."

    a.k.a. "Judge Judy".
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Sheindlin
    (All emphasis in below quote mine- Dis.)

    She is a supporter of same-sex marriage[46] and, although she has said that she is not a supporter of "big government," she believes that the issue of same-sex marriage should be handled at the federal level rather than on a state-by-state basis.[91] Sheindlin has stated that she is in favor of increasing requirements for gun ownership.[92] She prefers not to be labelled by political terms, and states that she is not registered with any political party. When asked about the 2012 presidential elections, Sheindlin stated that while she voted for President Barack Obama in 2008 (as well as voting for Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton respectively in 1980 and 1984, and 1992 and 1996), she did not care for either of the leading candidates in the 2012 United States presidential election.[93]
     
    What's not to love?
    , @Gross Terry
    Uh, her name makes her sound pretty pro-pervert/deviant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Berty
    It's the best possible thing to happen to the GOP this year. A gift that just might save their bacon.

    I'm really hoping McConnell doesn't actually schedule a vote until after the election. A SC vacancy is the perfect issue to hit the Democrats over the head with in Senate races. It will enable them to hold TX, TN, and AZ and most definitely help them in MO, MT, ND, IN, WV, WI, and FL. Hell it might even put Ohio back on the map.

    (I'm not counting Nevada because it might actually help the D's there but Heller likely doomed anyway so it doesn't matter.

    Good grief I thought your political instincts couldn’t get worst.

    One of the few times I’ve been wrong around here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    LOL.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. gregor says:
    @Jake
    Trump should float the names of the most culturally conservative people the Left can imagine to hate.

    Rick Santorum has a law degree. That would trigger a meltdown for the ages.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Dan Hayes says:

    Steve,

    One good thing about the efforts of lower court judges to thwart Thump will be to stiffen his resolve to thwart their machinations by nominating another Gorsuch-Scalia clone! Even better, this clone like Thomas should also be animated with the don’t get mad, get even syndrome.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. @artichoke
    Not Mesa, that's turning hispanic.

    Depends where you go. Even the area around Dobson and Southern is looking nice nowadays. The further out you get from Fiesta Mall and towards QC the whiter it gets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. AnonAnon says:
    @Neuday
    Nominate Rudy Guliani, then when defeated, nominate Roy Moore.

    Nominate Rudy Guliani, then when defeated, nominate Roy Moore.

    Nah, we want another 50 year old youngin’ like Gorsuch who will make rulings for decades.

    Supreme Court picks was my number one reason to vote for Trump. I hope Ginsberg kicks the bucket soon, too. Hopefully libs would commit mass suicide. Who’s got the pillow guy’s number?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Not Raul
    How about former Attorney General of Alabama, Bill Pryor; or Georgia Supreme Court Justice Keith Blackwell?
    , @Brutusale
    Eugene Volokh. Scalia cited him in the Heller decision.
    , @MarkinLA
    If Ginsberg retires or kicks when Trump is President, I am going to open that 25 year old bottle of Single Malt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @snorlax
    As Steve says, Byron White. And FDR appointee Felix Frankfurter. Elena Kagan has moved slightly right although not enough to matter (she's still further left than any of the Republicans except Clarence Thomas are right). In general, modern-day Democrats bat 1.000 with judicial nominees.

    In general, modern-day Democrats bat 1.000 with judicial nominees.

    And, in general, modern-day Democrats bat 0.750 with Republican judicial nominees. Sandra Day O’Connor, Souter, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. Anon[275] • Disclaimer says:

    I notice Kennedy stayed on the court long enough to deliver the karate chop to union funding of the Democrats, since that ruling was just announced. He was watching the calendar. That decision of his was a great big middle finger to the Democratic party on his way out the door. Someone commented that the ruling left open the possibility that unions could be sued for the older dues they forced out of their members. That would bankrupt all the unions. Since there are lawyers who want that union money, someone is going to do it. All it takes is just 1 person in every organization to sue, and the unions are screwed.

    Since the DNC is broke, and unions heading that way, the Dems are going to have to rely more heavily on guys like their generous Uncle George Soros. A lot of wealthy Dem donors got burned badly by Hillary’s loss, and from the state of the DNC’s coffers, they’re very reluctant to donate again.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Thomas says:
    @e
    Susan Collins. McCain. Problems.

    Susan Collins. McCain. Problems.

    The Democrats have even bigger problems, namely: Joe Manchin, Sherrod Brown, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Joe Donnelly, and Claire McCaskill, among them. The Senate map is brutal for the Democrats, and there’s no way McConnell isn’t going to force them into a no-win confirmation vote right before November. Somehow managing to drag the vote past then will be sure to undermine any relative advantage in turnout the Democrats are counting on in November, with a Supreme Court seat, this Supreme Court seat, in play.

    Trump is on track to leave a very deep mark on the federal bench. The odds aren’t bad that he’s going to get at least one more appointment (Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is 85, has had two bouts with cancer, and a coronary artery stent), which would make him the first President since Reagan to appoint three or more Supreme Court justices.

    Problems: no guarantees Trump doesn’t nominate another Souter-type that turns out to be a liberal in disguise (though that’s probably less likely than it was in 1990). My best guess for now: Thomas Hardiman from the 3rd Circuit, who was Trump’s second choice for Scalia’s seat after Gorsuch, and who sits on the same court as Trump’s sister.

    Also, the Democrats and the left are going to go absolutely apeshit this summer, especially with this coming on top of the horrid last week of the Court’s term they’ve just had (losing the travel ban, abortion speech, and mandatory union dues cases back-to-back) and the border juvenile hysteria. I would not be surprised, and in fact am fully expecting, more James Hodgkinson-type would-be assassins and/or Weather Underground-type bombings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @midtown
    I agree. It is very possible some leftists will conclude that this must be stopped and the only way to do that would be assassination. I would advise Trump (and Pence) to lay low over the summer.
    , @Polynikes
    Hardiman is weak on immigration and loves Mexico. Worst possible candidate for this blog.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. midtown says:
    @Anonymous Jew
    Isn't Ann Coulter a lawyer?

    Yes. Wow, you would have to get in your bunker if she were to actually be nominated! Although, come to think of it, I really don’t know what her stances are on a lot of issues.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dr kill
    NB, a law degree is not required to be a Supreme Court Justice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Good grief. Trump gets to name a second justice (requirements: from his list and preferably under 40) and some of you are already braying about how this could be bad.

    Do y’all ever tire of being wrong?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Good grief. Trump gets to name a second justice (requirements: from his list and preferably under 40) and some of you are already braying about how this could be bad.

    Guy, learn from the left.

    You can celebrate your guy winning office.

    Once in, be never happy with any outcome (except privately) if there is a further rightward point that he might take that (so long as it is an intelligent route to take, you don't want to head to SJW territory and we are far, far from that point).

    Apply pressure to achieve the promises.

    Lament loudly and publicly all compromises and backwards steps.

    No enemy to the right.

    BTW Trump should get detailed info on the longevity of parents and grandparents of prospective SCJ candidates. Some sort of weighted average with elimination of any with a history of dying or dementia under age 80 would be suitable., and aim for a 90+ average. Of course, the constitutionality of the judges is also a key objective but I suggest the above as a constraint.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. res says:
    @artichoke
    Kennedy was clearly hanging on, hoping to flip the Travel Ban or Public Employee Union decisions, but he lost both 5-4! And now he's outta there!

    (emphasis mine)

    Kennedy was clearly hanging on, hoping to flip the Travel Ban or Public Employee Union decisions, but he lost both 5-4! And now he’s outta there!

    What? Didn’t he rule with the majority on both of those cases?

    http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-unions-fees-20180627-story.html

    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/06/anthony-kennedys-travel-ban-vote-shows-hes-done-playing-the-wise-centrist.html

    Read More
    • Agree: Twinkie
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. midtown says:
    @Thomas

    Susan Collins. McCain. Problems.
     
    The Democrats have even bigger problems, namely: Joe Manchin, Sherrod Brown, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Joe Donnelly, and Claire McCaskill, among them. The Senate map is brutal for the Democrats, and there's no way McConnell isn't going to force them into a no-win confirmation vote right before November. Somehow managing to drag the vote past then will be sure to undermine any relative advantage in turnout the Democrats are counting on in November, with a Supreme Court seat, this Supreme Court seat, in play.

    Trump is on track to leave a very deep mark on the federal bench. The odds aren't bad that he's going to get at least one more appointment (Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is 85, has had two bouts with cancer, and a coronary artery stent), which would make him the first President since Reagan to appoint three or more Supreme Court justices.

    Problems: no guarantees Trump doesn't nominate another Souter-type that turns out to be a liberal in disguise (though that's probably less likely than it was in 1990). My best guess for now: Thomas Hardiman from the 3rd Circuit, who was Trump's second choice for Scalia's seat after Gorsuch, and who sits on the same court as Trump's sister.

    Also, the Democrats and the left are going to go absolutely apeshit this summer, especially with this coming on top of the horrid last week of the Court's term they've just had (losing the travel ban, abortion speech, and mandatory union dues cases back-to-back) and the border juvenile hysteria. I would not be surprised, and in fact am fully expecting, more James Hodgkinson-type would-be assassins and/or Weather Underground-type bombings.

    I agree. It is very possible some leftists will conclude that this must be stopped and the only way to do that would be assassination. I would advise Trump (and Pence) to lay low over the summer.

    Read More
    • Agree: kaganovitch
    • Replies: @Thomas
    I'm guessing ICE is going to be a target, either their offices or individual agents. Democrats have been all but smearing them as the second coming of the Waffen-SS, 1,500 ICE employees were doxxed last week, and with the anti-law enforcement trend already there and already past the threshold of murdering cops from Black Lives Matter, they would be the perfect "intersectional" target. They're also typically the most commonly encountered and easily identified federal law enforcement agency in most Democratic cities on a day-to-day basis.
    , @Hhsiii
    There was a sign on a lamppost near my daughter’s school that read “Please someone shoot him in the head.” Didn’t have to say who. I took it down.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. mr. wild says:
    @Tyrion 2
    They should move the Supreme Court to Mesa, Arizona or Oklahoma City. Old people often start to get a bit confused and forgetful. Surrounding your Supreme Court justices with the Washington DC type is likely to nudge them astray.

    Forget that. Move all three branches of government to some midwestern town: Tulsa, Kansas City, Lincoln. We can keep edifice’s like the Smithsonian in DC. This struggle is as geographical as anything else.

    Read More
    • Replies: @benjaminl
    Matt Yglesias actually agrees...

    https://www.vox.com/new-money/2016/12/9/13881712/move-government-to-midwest
    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    I think we've had this exact thread:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/vox-lets-relocate-a-bunch-of-federal-agencies-to-the-midwest/

    I still recommend Sioux City, IA.

    , @Thomm
    The population center of the 48 states is currently in Missouri, and seems to be stabilizing there. Moving major parts of the Federal Govt. to Southern Missouri makes sense in terms of servicing the US population.

    Washington DC was the population center back when it was designated the Capital.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @David Helveticka
    I am afraid he'll nominate another libertarian...

    Yeah, the left is freaking out over the possibility of a reversal on Roe v. Wade, but I don’t see Trump nominating a hardcore pro-lifer – Ivanka wouldn’t like that. I’d be even more surprised if there was a reversal on same sex marriage.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chief Seattle
    Please, dear God, keep the new SC Justice away from the lame abortion and marriage culture wars. Those don’t affect anyone who is minding their own business. Stick to substance like affirmative action, guns, immigration, taxes, and disparate impact.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Oh boy, that perennial boogeyman Ivanka when it comes time to bray.

    Gonna sign DACA? Ivanka. War with Iran? Ivanka. Sign TPP? IVANKA!

    Its like some refined form of Whiskey's blame white women monomania.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Luke Lea says:
    @Jake
    It works that way because WASP culture is a revolutionary one, specifically a revolutionary culture born of a Judaizing heresy.

    “It works that way because WASP culture is a revolutionary one, specifically a revolutionary culture born of a Judaizing heresy.”

    I believe there is only one WASP on the court. The four are Catholic and three Jewish. Not sure about Thomas’s religious background..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomas

    Not sure about Thomas’s religious background..
     
    Lapsed then returned Catholic.
    , @Hank Archer
    Thomas studied for the Catholic priesthood for a while, lapsed and is now a faithful Catholic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. This guy seems like he was one of the decent ones, a true Libertarian that may have actually read the US Constitution. It’ll be great to see the anguish of the cntrl-left, but I hope Trump can find a guy at least as good, who will not turn on us (“how to know that?” is a tough question).

    I’m hoping we get Ginsburg out of there within short order – it’ll not be difficult to replace her with someone better … even the 1st 100 names in the Boston phone book will all beat hell out of her, and that’s Boston, mind you … of course, they’ll all be kinda old, as when did the last phone book come out again??

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie
    Achmed,

    On behalf of White American women voters, you're welcome! If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, you can show your appreciation to us for saving you from Hilldawg and her SCOTUS appointees by not advocating for our disenfranchisement for a few days, mmmkay?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @Jake
    Trump should float the names of the most culturally conservative people the Left can imagine to hate.

    Does Stephen Miller have a law degree? If not, can he get one by September?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hank Archer
    Just FWIW - the is no Constitutional requirement that SC judges have a law degree. Someone who understands, for example, economics or engineering would be useful in that body.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Svigor says:

    setting the stage for a furious fight over the future direction of the Supreme Court.

    Translation: the Democrats are going to do everything within their power to block the democratic process, prevent Trump from appointing anyone to the right of Stalin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. Thomas says:
    @Luke Lea
    "It works that way because WASP culture is a revolutionary one, specifically a revolutionary culture born of a Judaizing heresy."

    I believe there is only one WASP on the court. The four are Catholic and three Jewish. Not sure about Thomas's religious background..

    Not sure about Thomas’s religious background..

    Lapsed then returned Catholic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident

    Luke Lea:
    Not sure about Thomas’s religious background..

    Thomas:
    Lapsed then returned Catholic.
     
    You or the Justice? Or both?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Steve Sailer
    Maybe football star Justice Whizzer White in the 1960s.

    Maybe football star Justice Whizzer White in the 1960s.

    What is it with judges and those great names? Whizzer White? Easily as good as Learned Hand, Bushrod Washington, and Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar II (seriously, the second?).

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    ***

    White was an All-American halfback[3] for the Colorado Buffaloes, where a newspaper columnist gave him the nickname "Whizzer",[9] which to his chagrin followed him throughout his legal and Supreme Court careers.[3] As a senior, White led Colorado to an undefeated 8–0 regular season in 1937, but they lost to favored Rice Institute of Houston 28–14 in the Cotton Bowl in Dallas on New Year's Day.[10] He was the runner-up (behind Yale quarterback Clint Frank) for the Heisman Trophy,[11] and also played basketball and baseball at CU. The basketball team advanced to the finals of the inaugural National Invitation Tournament at Madison Square Garden in March 1938.[12][13].


    ***

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_White#College_sports
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Anonymous Jew
    Isn't Ann Coulter a lawyer?

    Ann would be excellent. She’s a bomb-throwing spotlight seeker, but she has an great legal mind when she writes seriously about the law. Check out her essay on Miranda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    Ann Coulter would be so awesome as a SC Justice that something would have to go wrong (e.g., she comes out as a man and a leftist after confirmation).

    No chance though, the GOPcucks would never stand for it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Thomas says:
    @midtown
    I agree. It is very possible some leftists will conclude that this must be stopped and the only way to do that would be assassination. I would advise Trump (and Pence) to lay low over the summer.

    I’m guessing ICE is going to be a target, either their offices or individual agents. Democrats have been all but smearing them as the second coming of the Waffen-SS, 1,500 ICE employees were doxxed last week, and with the anti-law enforcement trend already there and already past the threshold of murdering cops from Black Lives Matter, they would be the perfect “intersectional” target. They’re also typically the most commonly encountered and easily identified federal law enforcement agency in most Democratic cities on a day-to-day basis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thea
    Going after ICE may just sink them actually. Going after cops was a big part of the 2016 results.

    Also this new weathermen style bombing campaign they are bragging about. I say this could help their opponents because it will cost them more than they will gain. They are too full of hubris to pull off many successful strikes.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Luke Lea
    "It works that way because WASP culture is a revolutionary one, specifically a revolutionary culture born of a Judaizing heresy."

    I believe there is only one WASP on the court. The four are Catholic and three Jewish. Not sure about Thomas's religious background..

    Thomas studied for the Catholic priesthood for a while, lapsed and is now a faithful Catholic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Twinkie says:
    @BenKenobi
    Winning bigly this week.

    I think someone around here said a few months ago "if all Trump does is get to pick two Supremes, it will all have been worth it." We're well past that now.

    What is this emotion I'm feeling? Is this what they call optimism?

    I think someone around here said a few months ago “if all Trump does is get to pick two Supremes, it will all have been worth it.” We’re well past that now.

    I was one of those people. I also wrote that if he built even just one more mile of the border fence, he’d have proven to be a better president than anyone else running.

    I supported Ted Cruz during the primary, but once Trump was the candidate, I supported him as I pledged (as a member of the Republican Party). I also admitted that I was disappointed by Cruz’s sore loser behavior since the primary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Saint Louis
    Same here. Supported Cruz in the primary (though I almost went Trump) and got behind Trump in the general. Some of Cruz's sore loser behavior might be forgivable considering Trump called his wife ugly and accused his father of being involved with Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Just to see a total meltdown from the left, I'd love to see Trump float a list of possible SCOTUS picks including Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Rick Santorum, and Roy Moore.
    , @Ian M.
    I don't much like Cruz (more because of his personality than anything else), but I can't really get upset with him being a sore loser after Trump slandered his father. What I think is more of a problem is that Cruz had anything to do with Trump after that incident.

    I lost whatever respect I had for Cruz after that. He would have been within his rights to sock Trump in the face. In earlier times, such a slander would have been grounds for a duel.

    At minimum, he should have demanded a public apology, and if he didn't get it, he should have refused to have anything to do with Trump, for example, by refusing to attend the GOP convention. The fact that he played passive-aggressive with Trump made me think the man is just another venal politician who has no sense of honor.
    , @Johann Ricke

    I also admitted that I was disappointed by Cruz’s sore loser behavior since the primary.
     
    I wasn't disappointed, given that Trump was signaling that he might go 3rd party if he lost the primary. I was also concerned that Trump might be a closet liberal. Now that he's proven to be (mostly) conservative. I am mostly satisfied with his political stances, and can say for sure that he is a much better president for conservatives than Hillary would have been.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Cagey Beast
    Does Stephen Miller have a law degree? If not, can he get one by September?

    Just FWIW – the is no Constitutional requirement that SC judges have a law degree. Someone who understands, for example, economics or engineering would be useful in that body.

    Read More
    • Agree: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @Olorin
    I've waited my entire life to see an engineer on SCOTUS.

    From your lips to our ancestors' ears, Hank.
    , @Thomas

    Just FWIW – the is no Constitutional requirement that SC judges have a law degree. Someone who understands, for example, economics or engineering would be useful in that body.
     
    Would never happen at this point, in part because an easy majority of people involved in the decision to appoint and confirm judges are lawyers themselves. And also because, frankly, anyone smart enough to be a first-rate mind in economics or engineering is more than smart enough to make it through law school as well. It would be borderline radical given the current composition of the Court to have one who didn't go to either Harvard or Yale.

    Incidentally, it wasn't until the 20th century that it started to become expected for Supreme Court justices (and lawyers in general) to have postgraduate legal educations. Robert Jackson, who died on the Court in 1954, was the last "country lawyer" justice.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended_by_United_States_Supreme_Court_Justices#University_or_college_trained

    , @Saint Louis
    No offense to engineers, but that's a terrible idea.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. Corvinus says:
    @Space Ghost
    The left are going to absolutely lose their minds this summer. The nominee needs to be confirmed before the election, so Dems can't use it as a get-out-the-vote issue.

    “The nominee needs to be confirmed before the election…”

    Not according to the McConnell Rule.

    Read More
    • Troll: IHTG
    • Replies: @Hank Archer
    The McConnell Rule pertains to the situation where there could potentially be a change in the Presidency, since that is the office that nominates SC judges. There will be no change in that office after the 2016 elections.
    , @sleeping noticer
    "Not according to the McConnell Rule."

    No, that was concerning a presidential election year, not a midterm. Recall that Kagan was confirmed in August 2010 - in a midterm year.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Janus says:

    Eisenhower also nominated Brennan, who turned out to be one of the most liberal justices of all time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Highlander
    Ike only became a Republican in 1951 the year before he sought the Republican presidential nomination.
    , @ScarletNumber
    Yes, but that was a reelection ploy. He knew Brennan was liberal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Berty says:
    @artichoke
    Why would it help? As get-out-the-vote for the Republican candidates? Space Ghost in comment #3 thinks it is a better issue for the Democrats.

    In case you haven’t noticed Trump isn’t popular, the Democrats have maintained a clear edge in the generic ballot albeit not a gigantic one, and the healthcare issue is a dead weight on the GOP’s neck. So it’s in the party’s best interests to take people’s minds off of all that and get them focused on a hugely high-stakes issue that isn’t related to Trump, at least not directly. It’s the one issue that unites all factions of the GOP and gets conservative-leaning independent motivated as well. There might be many conservative voters in Tennessee for example who like Phil Bredeson (who has been leading in all the polls) and don’t like Trump or Marsha Blackburn, but they’ll vote Blackburn if they believe the court is at stake. Same for Texas voters who hate Ted Cruz, of which there are many. As you say there are some places where the court issue hurts Republicans but by and large they’re not where the major races are this year and certainly not the Senate races.

    If they confirm the nominee too quickly then the issue immediately goes away and voters are back to thinking about how worried they are about healthcare and how much they don’t like Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @CapitalistRoader

    ...and voters are back to thinking about how worried they are about healthcare and how much they don’t like Trump.
     
    According to Gallup, Trump's approval rating is about the same as Obama's was, 2.5 years into his presidency. And, similarly, back in mid-2010 voters were worried about healthcare and how much they didn't like Obama.
    , @Jack Hanson
    The most autistic, mendacious, eeyore take on the situation .

    Another day on eye stevia dawt comma.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. benjaminl says:
    @mr. wild
    Forget that. Move all three branches of government to some midwestern town: Tulsa, Kansas City, Lincoln. We can keep edifice's like the Smithsonian in DC. This struggle is as geographical as anything else.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. D. K. says:
    @Daniel Williams

    Maybe football star Justice Whizzer White in the 1960s.
     
    What is it with judges and those great names? Whizzer White? Easily as good as Learned Hand, Bushrod Washington, and Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar II (seriously, the second?).

    ***

    White was an All-American halfback[3] for the Colorado Buffaloes, where a newspaper columnist gave him the nickname “Whizzer”,[9] which to his chagrin followed him throughout his legal and Supreme Court careers.[3] As a senior, White led Colorado to an undefeated 8–0 regular season in 1937, but they lost to favored Rice Institute of Houston 28–14 in the Cotton Bowl in Dallas on New Year’s Day.[10] He was the runner-up (behind Yale quarterback Clint Frank) for the Heisman Trophy,[11] and also played basketball and baseball at CU. The basketball team advanced to the finals of the inaugural National Invitation Tournament at Madison Square Garden in March 1938.[12][13].

    ***

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_White#College_sports

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    If you are going to steal from Wikipedia, at least remove the cites.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Bugg says:
    @bjondo
    Appoint Mel Gibson to replace Kennedy.

    Maybe a 3rd soon. Heard Bader Ginsburg stuck in a revolving door. She keeps pushing. Door keeps turning.

    Obama is probably not happy Ginsburg did not retire on his watch. At 85, they will prop her up even if she stops breathing until a Dem is president.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    Weekend at Bernies 3, starring Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
    , @Anon
    It is not possible to kick mouthy Jewish women out of the room. They hate it when no one takes their opinion and advice seriously, or if someone tries to silence them, and they'll resist any attempt to do so. It's an ego thing. It's also very likely that Ginsberg was absolutely convinced Hillary would win, so she decided to stick around.
    , @candid_observer
    Kennedy is retiring at age 81. Bader Ginsburg was 81 in 2014, when, of course, Obama was still President, and well before anybody had any confidence (even mistaken) who would win in 2016.

    Bader Ginsburg knew her health wasn't likely to be the greatest, and age 81 was a perfectly fine time to hand off the baton to someone else.

    But no: she had to stay. She loved the limelight and the power too much.

    If I were a progressive, I wouldn't be celebrating her. I'd be furious with her. Her narcissism very likely will damage the progressive movement for a long, long, time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Bugg
    Obama is probably not happy Ginsburg did not retire on his watch. At 85, they will prop her up even if she stops breathing until a Dem is president.

    Weekend at Bernies 3, starring Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Read More
    • LOL: Anonym
    • Replies: @Kylie
    Psycho V, starring Ruth Bader Ginsburg as Mrs. Bates. She should take up permanent residence in a fruit cellar.
    , @Thomm
    Well, her appearance under decomposition would change less than that of most people.

    "I am Scare Glow, the ghost of Skeletor!!!!"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Corvinus
    "The nominee needs to be confirmed before the election..."

    Not according to the McConnell Rule.

    The McConnell Rule pertains to the situation where there could potentially be a change in the Presidency, since that is the office that nominates SC judges. There will be no change in that office after the 2016 elections.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "The McConnell Rule pertains to the situation where there could potentially be a change in the Presidency, since that is the office that nominates SC judges. There will be no change in that office after the 2016 elections."

    No, it pertained to an election year, and no vote on a Supreme Court nominee until after the new Congress is seated. That "distinction" of a "during a presidential campaign" is now being put into play. Now, of course, had the Democrats had made that this "rule", the Republicans would have also charged obstruction. But hypocrisy rules the day.

    Obama's nomination should have been vetted. Period. And so should Trump's nominee, unfortunately. But McConnell is undoubtedly being a weasel here. He ought to honor "giv[ing] the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy", considering the Senate’s constitutionally defined role is to provide advice and consent is as important as the president’s role in proposing a nominee.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Enochian says:

    Why not nominate Ted Cruz, and start putting an end to allegorical readings of the constitution? Or better yet, since you don’t have to be an actual lawyer to serve on the supreme court, how about Stephen Miller? He’s only 32 and could leave a very long mark on the court.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. @Corvinus
    "The nominee needs to be confirmed before the election..."

    Not according to the McConnell Rule.

    “Not according to the McConnell Rule.”

    No, that was concerning a presidential election year, not a midterm. Recall that Kagan was confirmed in August 2010 – in a midterm year.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    This guy seems like he was one of the decent ones, a true Libertarian that may have actually read the US Constitution. It'll be great to see the anguish of the cntrl-left, but I hope Trump can find a guy at least as good, who will not turn on us ("how to know that?" is a tough question).

    I'm hoping we get Ginsburg out of there within short order - it'll not be difficult to replace her with someone better ... even the 1st 100 names in the Boston phone book will all beat hell out of her, and that's Boston, mind you ... of course, they'll all be kinda old, as when did the last phone book come out again??

    Achmed,

    On behalf of White American women voters, you’re welcome! If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, you can show your appreciation to us for saving you from Hilldawg and her SCOTUS appointees by not advocating for our disenfranchisement for a few days, mmmkay?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    On behalf of White American women voters, you’re welcome!
     
    I don't recall thanking white woman for anything regarding politics, with the exception of Ann Coulter (our next non-SCROTAL SCOTUS, if all goes well). Why should I? Should I be grateful white women barely went for Trump against the Hildabeast? Unless white women voted, as a whole I mean, just the same as white men, then you all are still dragging the cause down.

    You are no example yourself, anyway, as I read your ode to Socialism in reply to my comment yesterday or so. Advocating for armed representatives of the government to forcibly extract money from other people to give to you is what Socialism is, and I don't want any part of it. You can't be both a Socialist AND a Conservative, Rosie.

    Yes, I've read recently a couple of other (I'm assuming) men commenters also pushing Socialism on here, but if you want to keep the vote, you've got to be a role model. From your comments, you are not the role model that we are (not really) looking for.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Anonymous[346] • Disclaimer says:

    California, Oregon, and Washington (COW) will secede from the union eventually. This pushes along the process. America can then be reclaimed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Highlander
    Outside of populous Portland and Eugene, Oregon is far from being a monolithic Democrat state. The countryside even in the Willamette Valley is pretty conservative. Two of its congressmen are somewhat moderate Democrats and the Secretary of State is a Republican. The Democratic legislature dare not impose much more gun control nor impose a sales tax. It will pick up another congressional district after the 2020 census and that will likely go GOP resulting in a 4-2 blue-red split.

    Same with Washington which has a 6-4 blue-red split and has no state income tax nor one on the horizon.
    , @Carbon blob
    I don't understand why China isn't working 24/7 to instigate a secession movement in California by now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Dr. Doom says:

    This foul Rump Court NEEDS to be abolished. It has so far exceeded its authority in the past that it has morphed into a French Revolutionary Tribunal rather than a court of law. Its past revisions of Constitutional Rights and the ridiculous fiction of sophistry where things like abortion and homosexuality is put in as some sort of natural law WITH NO BASIS in statute or precedent makes this foul monstrous 9 member autocracy a danger to the very concept of law itself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    This foul Rump Court NEEDS to be abolished. It has so far exceeded its authority in the past that it has morphed into a French Revolutionary Tribunal rather than a court of law. Its past revisions of Constitutional Rights and the ridiculous fiction of sophistry where things like abortion and homosexuality is put in as some sort of natural law WITH NO BASIS in statute or precedent makes this foul monstrous 9 member autocracy a danger to the very concept of law itself.
     
    On the whole, I agree, but the Court was correct about the right to privacy existing in the penumbra of other amendments. But for the right to privacy, the US government could give American homeschoolers the Wunderlich treatment, which I'm sure they would very much like to do.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/03/team-obama-wins-fight-to-have-christian-home-school-family-deported.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Olorin says:
    @Hank Archer
    Just FWIW - the is no Constitutional requirement that SC judges have a law degree. Someone who understands, for example, economics or engineering would be useful in that body.

    I’ve waited my entire life to see an engineer on SCOTUS.

    From your lips to our ancestors’ ears, Hank.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. @larry lurker
    Yeah, the left is freaking out over the possibility of a reversal on Roe v. Wade, but I don't see Trump nominating a hardcore pro-lifer - Ivanka wouldn't like that. I'd be even more surprised if there was a reversal on same sex marriage.

    Please, dear God, keep the new SC Justice away from the lame abortion and marriage culture wars. Those don’t affect anyone who is minding their own business. Stick to substance like affirmative action, guns, immigration, taxes, and disparate impact.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob, dwb
    • Disagree: Daniel Chieh
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    You may not be interested in the culture wars, but the culture wars are interested in you.
    , @rob
    I’d have to make 7 comments to agree with yours, so I’m just replying. All those are far more important. Leave last century’s culture war behind.
    , @Pericles

    Please, dear God, keep the new SC Justice away from the lame abortion and marriage culture wars. Those don’t affect anyone who is minding their own business. Stick to substance like affirmative action, guns, immigration, taxes, and disparate impact.

     

    And that's how the ratchet moves, folks.
    , @Dissident

    Please, dear God, keep the new SC Justice away from the lame abortion and marriage culture wars. Those don’t affect anyone who is minding their own business.
     
    Just some of the ways that is not true:

    LGBTQ
    - Extraordinarily high costs to the public
    - Typical male homosexual behavior is inordinately disease and injury promoting
    - Normalization (as well as promotion and even celebration) of homosexuality perniciously influences impressionable youth, at least some of whose sexuality may still be fluid
    - Indulging "transgender" delusions and fantasies by mutilating and hormonally altering confused and mentally ill individuals-- including and especially children and adolescents-- is highly unethical and does great harm
    - If things continue at current rate, posts such as this one of mine will be made illegal as "hate speech"

    ABORTION
    - Obviously affects nascent life in the womb
    - Having elective abortion-on-demand be perfectly legal also sends the message that human life is expendable and arguably encourages promiscuity

    , @Ian M.
    Just like how easy divorce and the sexual revolution haven't affected anyone who is minding their own business, amirite?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. @Jake
    Trump should float the names of the most culturally conservative people the Left can imagine to hate.

    Ann Coulter. Steve King. Tom Tancredo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Excellent picks, Buck. I'd really like to watch Miss Coulter at the confirmation hearings. She can hold her own in an argument like nobody I've seen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Hibernian says:
    @Jake
    It works that way because WASP culture is a revolutionary one, specifically a revolutionary culture born of a Judaizing heresy.

    Sounding like a broken record isn’t good for the cause, Jake.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Hibernian says:
    @Anonymous Jew
    Isn't Ann Coulter a lawyer?

    Of sorts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Hibernian says:
    @Roflstiltskin
    Yes but Whizzer was bad, bad, on race / affirmative action. Signed Whitey right up for more punishment, please!

    He waited for a Democratic President, Slick Willie, to be inaugurated, before he retired.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Roflstiltskin
    That was to be expected, as White was a Kennedy Democrat. But what a legacy to excrete by an untimely departure: the incessantly querulous Bishop of Cathedral liberalism, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Of course, Whizzer was Kennedy’s replacement for the prematurely retired Charles Whittaker, an Eisenhower appointee who was intellectually outgunned by the first rate mediocrities on the Court in the late 50s and broke down and quit after only five years of getting manhandled by Bill Brennan et al. If/when President Literally Hitler gets to nominate RBG’s replacement, Eisenhower will be shooting him a Heil Thank You from the great beyond.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Not Raul says:
    @AnonAnon

    Nominate Rudy Guliani, then when defeated, nominate Roy Moore.
     
    Nah, we want another 50 year old youngin’ like Gorsuch who will make rulings for decades.

    Supreme Court picks was my number one reason to vote for Trump. I hope Ginsberg kicks the bucket soon, too. Hopefully libs would commit mass suicide. Who’s got the pillow guy’s number?

    How about former Attorney General of Alabama, Bill Pryor; or Georgia Supreme Court Justice Keith Blackwell?

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    Pryor appeared in gay porn as a college student.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Highlander says: • Website
    @Janus
    Eisenhower also nominated Brennan, who turned out to be one of the most liberal justices of all time.

    Ike only became a Republican in 1951 the year before he sought the Republican presidential nomination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. KenH says:

    I hope Trump doesn’t virtue signal and nominate a centrist justice from the rainbow coalition. A centrist just shifts with the political winds.

    But if Trump nominates another strong rightist and plain language Constitutionalist then the left will be wailing about judicial activism when SCOTUS cases near and dear to their hearts go our way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    I predict he won't. He's gonna go hard at it. He's not the sort to cuck for a mess of pottage, and Big Media hasn't even given him that. Now he has a shot at some payback.
    , @Anon
    Mueller may well generate something that will go up to the Supreme Court. Trump needs them on his side if that happens, and he knows it. He's not going to appoint a centrist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Hibernian says:
    @Chief Seattle
    Please, dear God, keep the new SC Justice away from the lame abortion and marriage culture wars. Those don’t affect anyone who is minding their own business. Stick to substance like affirmative action, guns, immigration, taxes, and disparate impact.

    You may not be interested in the culture wars, but the culture wars are interested in you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chief Seattle
    We've got to pick our battles and avoid those that energize our enemies. 60 years of mass media and university indoctrination isn't going to roll back overnight. Let's focus on making productive members of society richer, safer, and more fecund. And on giving the parasites a choice of emulating the successful or sinking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. After much reflection, well an hour anyhow, in a Perfect Dem world there would be no need for a Supreme Court. All their laws would be politically correct with no need to review. Notice I didn’t say constitutionally correct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  87. Thomas says:
    @Hank Archer
    Just FWIW - the is no Constitutional requirement that SC judges have a law degree. Someone who understands, for example, economics or engineering would be useful in that body.

    Just FWIW – the is no Constitutional requirement that SC judges have a law degree. Someone who understands, for example, economics or engineering would be useful in that body.

    Would never happen at this point, in part because an easy majority of people involved in the decision to appoint and confirm judges are lawyers themselves. And also because, frankly, anyone smart enough to be a first-rate mind in economics or engineering is more than smart enough to make it through law school as well. It would be borderline radical given the current composition of the Court to have one who didn’t go to either Harvard or Yale.

    Incidentally, it wasn’t until the 20th century that it started to become expected for Supreme Court justices (and lawyers in general) to have postgraduate legal educations. Robert Jackson, who died on the Court in 1954, was the last “country lawyer” justice.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_schools_attended_by_United_States_Supreme_Court_Justices#University_or_college_trained

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Corvinus says:
    @Hank Archer
    The McConnell Rule pertains to the situation where there could potentially be a change in the Presidency, since that is the office that nominates SC judges. There will be no change in that office after the 2016 elections.

    “The McConnell Rule pertains to the situation where there could potentially be a change in the Presidency, since that is the office that nominates SC judges. There will be no change in that office after the 2016 elections.”

    No, it pertained to an election year, and no vote on a Supreme Court nominee until after the new Congress is seated. That “distinction” of a “during a presidential campaign” is now being put into play. Now, of course, had the Democrats had made that this “rule”, the Republicans would have also charged obstruction. But hypocrisy rules the day.

    Obama’s nomination should have been vetted. Period. And so should Trump’s nominee, unfortunately. But McConnell is undoubtedly being a weasel here. He ought to honor “giv[ing] the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy”, considering the Senate’s constitutionally defined role is to provide advice and consent is as important as the president’s role in proposing a nominee.

    Read More
    • Troll: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @res
    Even that bastion of deplorables the WaPo disagrees with you: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/06/27/democrats-bogus-argument-about-what-the-gop-said-about-supreme-court-nominees-in-an-election-year/

    The GOP did argue in 2016 that a Supreme Court vacancy shouldn't be filled until after voters had their say in the coming election, but their argument was about who gets to nominate the justice — not who gets to confirm him or her. It was clearly about presidential election years, not midterms.

    Here's Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), immediately after Garland was nominated: “A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination during a presidential election year, with millions of votes having been cast in highly charged contests.”

    Here's what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said: “I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president.”
     
    , @ScarletNumber
    There is certainly a weasel here but it isn't McConnell.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    Obama’s nomination should have been vetted. Period.
     
    Wrong. Any such concession would have been foolish, unwarranted and bad for the country. Democrats are bad for the country, as your opinions repeatedly demonstrate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Thirdtwin says:

    I reckon Stormy won’t be going to the border, after all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  90. dr kill says:
    @midtown
    Yes. Wow, you would have to get in your bunker if she were to actually be nominated! Although, come to think of it, I really don't know what her stances are on a lot of issues.

    NB, a law degree is not required to be a Supreme Court Justice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Thea says:
    @candid_observer
    Since Trump became President, liberal judges have made it painfully clear that they have no basic respect for the law or precedent.

    Controlling the Supreme Court is now an existential battle for the soul of the country. There is no other redoubt.

    They’ve been doing this for much much longer than that!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. snorlax says:
    @Not Raul
    How about former Attorney General of Alabama, Bill Pryor; or Georgia Supreme Court Justice Keith Blackwell?

    Pryor appeared in gay porn as a college student.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Not Raul
    I guess he’s out.

    All joking aside, are you sure it’s the same guy?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Highlander says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    California, Oregon, and Washington (COW) will secede from the union eventually. This pushes along the process. America can then be reclaimed.

    Outside of populous Portland and Eugene, Oregon is far from being a monolithic Democrat state. The countryside even in the Willamette Valley is pretty conservative. Two of its congressmen are somewhat moderate Democrats and the Secretary of State is a Republican. The Democratic legislature dare not impose much more gun control nor impose a sales tax. It will pick up another congressional district after the 2020 census and that will likely go GOP resulting in a 4-2 blue-red split.

    Same with Washington which has a 6-4 blue-red split and has no state income tax nor one on the horizon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Svigor says:
    @candid_observer
    Since Trump became President, liberal judges have made it painfully clear that they have no basic respect for the law or precedent.

    Controlling the Supreme Court is now an existential battle for the soul of the country. There is no other redoubt.

    Controlling the Supreme Court is now an existential battle for the soul of the country. There is no other redoubt.

    Congress controls the federal judiciary, in almost every respect (and in every meaningful one). The idea that this control is a dead letter (because the entire political class says so) is valid, but since so few people seem to understand these facts, I like to belabor the issue.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @mr. wild
    Forget that. Move all three branches of government to some midwestern town: Tulsa, Kansas City, Lincoln. We can keep edifice's like the Smithsonian in DC. This struggle is as geographical as anything else.

    I think we’ve had this exact thread:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/vox-lets-relocate-a-bunch-of-federal-agencies-to-the-midwest/

    I still recommend Sioux City, IA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Not Raul
    Cedar Rapids.

    Sioux City is too small.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    I still recommend Sioux City, IA.
     
    Yes. And the best part is that I-29 construction is perpetual, so the bureaucrats will have to wait in traffic even in the heartland!
    , @stillCARealist
    LRC:

    Did you see Trump's appearance in SC the other day? Derek Thomas prayed before the governor spoke, and he prayed in Jesus's name. I can't remember the last time I heard that happen on a national stage.

    check him out:

    https://www.ligonier.org/blog/teacher/derek-thomas/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. @Berty
    In case you haven't noticed Trump isn't popular, the Democrats have maintained a clear edge in the generic ballot albeit not a gigantic one, and the healthcare issue is a dead weight on the GOP's neck. So it's in the party's best interests to take people's minds off of all that and get them focused on a hugely high-stakes issue that isn't related to Trump, at least not directly. It's the one issue that unites all factions of the GOP and gets conservative-leaning independent motivated as well. There might be many conservative voters in Tennessee for example who like Phil Bredeson (who has been leading in all the polls) and don't like Trump or Marsha Blackburn, but they'll vote Blackburn if they believe the court is at stake. Same for Texas voters who hate Ted Cruz, of which there are many. As you say there are some places where the court issue hurts Republicans but by and large they're not where the major races are this year and certainly not the Senate races.

    If they confirm the nominee too quickly then the issue immediately goes away and voters are back to thinking about how worried they are about healthcare and how much they don't like Trump.

    …and voters are back to thinking about how worried they are about healthcare and how much they don’t like Trump.

    According to Gallup, Trump’s approval rating is about the same as Obama’s was, 2.5 years into his presidency. And, similarly, back in mid-2010 voters were worried about healthcare and how much they didn’t like Obama.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Berty
    Exactly
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Anon[275] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bugg
    Obama is probably not happy Ginsburg did not retire on his watch. At 85, they will prop her up even if she stops breathing until a Dem is president.

    It is not possible to kick mouthy Jewish women out of the room. They hate it when no one takes their opinion and advice seriously, or if someone tries to silence them, and they’ll resist any attempt to do so. It’s an ego thing. It’s also very likely that Ginsberg was absolutely convinced Hillary would win, so she decided to stick around.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Not Raul says:
    @snorlax
    Pryor appeared in gay porn as a college student.

    I guess he’s out.

    All joking aside, are you sure it’s the same guy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    Around 69% sure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Why do democrats get so worked up over concern that Row v Wade would be over turned? Very few states would make abortion illegal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Why do democrats get so worked up over concern that Row v Wade would be over turned?
     
    Democrat politicians don't give a damn about abortion, but they know it's a hot button issue for many many women, even, surprisingly, post menopausal women who have no, er, skin in the game anymore.

    Expect to hear a lot about protecting a "woman's right to choose" in the coming months. They bang on about it because it works.

    There is no way in hell Roe v Wade even makes it to SCOTUS, much less gets over-turned.

    , @Lucas McCrudy
    The Dems are using it as an election ploy to get low-info female voters in places where abortion will remain legal even if Roe's overturned to show up at the polls and vote for them. Last night Rachel Maddow was implying that if Roe's overturned abortion will be illegal in the United States- presumably in all 50 states, from coast-to-coast!
    IMO Trump (or maybe his surrogates) should make the point repeatedly between now and Nov. that even if he appoints 9 Antonin Scalia clones to the Supreme Court, all that would happen is the issue of abortion would go back to each of the states. Keep saying till you're blue in the face that even if Roe is overturned, states like NY, CT, IL, CA, MA, OR, WA and VT can ALL KEEP HAVING ABORTION ON DEMAND since there's nothing in the Constitution that forbids (or requires) a state -any state- to allow for legal abortion on demand. Same for gay marriage. I think this might be the key to help Trump make inroad with white voters in places like New England and the Pacific Northwest even. "If your state likes its abortion (laws), it can keep them!" Roe doesn't matter.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Not Raul says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist
    I think we've had this exact thread:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/vox-lets-relocate-a-bunch-of-federal-agencies-to-the-midwest/

    I still recommend Sioux City, IA.

    Cedar Rapids.

    Sioux City is too small.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    Hmmmmm. Eastern Iowa is worryingly purple; there might be too much sympathy in CR for the DC types. How about Sioux Falls, SD?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Thomm says:
    @mr. wild
    Forget that. Move all three branches of government to some midwestern town: Tulsa, Kansas City, Lincoln. We can keep edifice's like the Smithsonian in DC. This struggle is as geographical as anything else.

    The population center of the 48 states is currently in Missouri, and seems to be stabilizing there. Moving major parts of the Federal Govt. to Southern Missouri makes sense in terms of servicing the US population.

    Washington DC was the population center back when it was designated the Capital.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    If I recall correctly, there was another thread on this topic in which we zeroed in on Branson, MO, as the best possible spot to move the federal government. It's very close to this population center, and it's got an airport and some infrastructure -- plus, lots of wholesome entertainment options for the lobbyists!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Thea says:
    @Thomas
    I'm guessing ICE is going to be a target, either their offices or individual agents. Democrats have been all but smearing them as the second coming of the Waffen-SS, 1,500 ICE employees were doxxed last week, and with the anti-law enforcement trend already there and already past the threshold of murdering cops from Black Lives Matter, they would be the perfect "intersectional" target. They're also typically the most commonly encountered and easily identified federal law enforcement agency in most Democratic cities on a day-to-day basis.

    Going after ICE may just sink them actually. Going after cops was a big part of the 2016 results.

    Also this new weathermen style bombing campaign they are bragging about. I say this could help their opponents because it will cost them more than they will gain. They are too full of hubris to pull off many successful strikes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Anonym says:
    @Flip
    Have there been any leftist justices who have moved right over time? It mostly seems like it has been Republican appointees who have moved left such as Warren, Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, and O'Connor. The current four leftists are clearly now voting in a results oriented way regardless of the law.

    Kennedy in retiring arguably has moved right, since he knows what sort of candidate will be put forward to replace him.

    Jewish twitter is apparently having a collective aneurysm, judging by MSM articles on the subject. Hilarity is ensuing as we speak. Liberals had better be quick to have some unprotected sex, conceive an embryo and murder the fetus to take advantage of Roe vs Wade before that runs out. (As it will, apparently.)

    I have to say that while I am quick to criticize Trump for lethargy in moving forward on immigration (does that make me an eeyore?), this makes me happier than I have ever been to have voted for any candidate, ever. This is pure awesome, and to think that Trump may get to replace RBG as well! Not only that, he got to renew an old and worn out Scalia, like one might replace a car part.

    I’m sure you’ve heard the rumors that Scalia was murdered, I guess to ensure that a SCJ would be liberal, assuming HRC won. It would make a good Christmas movie type of thing, to see that all that skullduggery resulted in a young conservative SCJ being appointed, but not without a lot of tension before the resolution in the third act.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Thomm says:
    @David Helveticka
    I am afraid he'll nominate another libertarian...

    I am afraid he’ll nominate another libertarian…

    Oh! That would be fantastic!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Svigor says:
    @Hank Archer
    Ann would be excellent. She's a bomb-throwing spotlight seeker, but she has an great legal mind when she writes seriously about the law. Check out her essay on Miranda.

    Ann Coulter would be so awesome as a SC Justice that something would have to go wrong (e.g., she comes out as a man and a leftist after confirmation).

    No chance though, the GOPcucks would never stand for it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Hibernian
    He waited for a Democratic President, Slick Willie, to be inaugurated, before he retired.

    That was to be expected, as White was a Kennedy Democrat. But what a legacy to excrete by an untimely departure: the incessantly querulous Bishop of Cathedral liberalism, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Of course, Whizzer was Kennedy’s replacement for the prematurely retired Charles Whittaker, an Eisenhower appointee who was intellectually outgunned by the first rate mediocrities on the Court in the late 50s and broke down and quit after only five years of getting manhandled by Bill Brennan et al. If/when President Literally Hitler gets to nominate RBG’s replacement, Eisenhower will be shooting him a Heil Thank You from the great beyond.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. Svigor says:
    @KenH
    I hope Trump doesn't virtue signal and nominate a centrist justice from the rainbow coalition. A centrist just shifts with the political winds.

    But if Trump nominates another strong rightist and plain language Constitutionalist then the left will be wailing about judicial activism when SCOTUS cases near and dear to their hearts go our way.

    I predict he won’t. He’s gonna go hard at it. He’s not the sort to cuck for a mess of pottage, and Big Media hasn’t even given him that. Now he has a shot at some payback.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    I predict he won’t. He’s gonna go hard at it. He’s not the sort to cuck for a mess of pottage, and Big Media hasn’t even given him that. Now he has a shot at some payback.
     
    Exactly. Trump is sui generis because his supposed cucking is always aimed toward the big picture. It isn't n-dimensional chess; it is street smart positioning, and then the win.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Mitleser says:
    @Space Ghost
    The left are going to absolutely lose their minds this summer. The nominee needs to be confirmed before the election, so Dems can't use it as a get-out-the-vote issue.

    The left are going to absolutely lose their minds this summer.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Hibernian
    You may not be interested in the culture wars, but the culture wars are interested in you.

    We’ve got to pick our battles and avoid those that energize our enemies. 60 years of mass media and university indoctrination isn’t going to roll back overnight. Let’s focus on making productive members of society richer, safer, and more fecund. And on giving the parasites a choice of emulating the successful or sinking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @blank-misgivings
    The trouble with that is that the parasites are at the top as well as the bottom. And the ones at the top will respond to your (presumably somewhat Reaganite policy prescriptions) by furthering the culture war against nationalism, against men, etc, in the (correct) belief that a multicultural, globalized, open-borders empire will suit their interests better than the nation state.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Doing this, you failed to conserve the ladies restroom.

    Sit down.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @Anonymous
    California, Oregon, and Washington (COW) will secede from the union eventually. This pushes along the process. America can then be reclaimed.

    I don’t understand why China isn’t working 24/7 to instigate a secession movement in California by now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    I don’t understand why China isn’t working 24/7 to instigate a secession movement in California by now.
     
    How do you know they aren't?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. I nominate Vladimir Putin!

    And I eagerly await the day it is discovered Ruth Vader isn’t really sleeping.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  112. Anon[275] • Disclaimer says:
    @KenH
    I hope Trump doesn't virtue signal and nominate a centrist justice from the rainbow coalition. A centrist just shifts with the political winds.

    But if Trump nominates another strong rightist and plain language Constitutionalist then the left will be wailing about judicial activism when SCOTUS cases near and dear to their hearts go our way.

    Mueller may well generate something that will go up to the Supreme Court. Trump needs them on his side if that happens, and he knows it. He’s not going to appoint a centrist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. Rapparee says:
    @Bardon Kaldian
    Anyone mentally healthy & nationally conscious. Just- avoid the abortion iceberg. It's not worth it.

    Just- avoid the abortion iceberg. It’s not worth it.

    As a short-run political calculation, that may or may not be true, but institutionalized Moloch-worship certainly isn’t doing any favours for the long-term health and safety of the Republic. It didn’t work out great for Carthage or the Aztec Empire- Satan always devours his own servants.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dissident
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Agree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Not Raul
    Cedar Rapids.

    Sioux City is too small.

    Hmmmmm. Eastern Iowa is worryingly purple; there might be too much sympathy in CR for the DC types. How about Sioux Falls, SD?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Not Raul
    That would probably work.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Anonym says:
    @Jack Hanson
    Good grief. Trump gets to name a second justice (requirements: from his list and preferably under 40) and some of you are already braying about how this could be bad.

    Do y'all ever tire of being wrong?

    Good grief. Trump gets to name a second justice (requirements: from his list and preferably under 40) and some of you are already braying about how this could be bad.

    Guy, learn from the left.

    You can celebrate your guy winning office.

    Once in, be never happy with any outcome (except privately) if there is a further rightward point that he might take that (so long as it is an intelligent route to take, you don’t want to head to SJW territory and we are far, far from that point).

    Apply pressure to achieve the promises.

    Lament loudly and publicly all compromises and backwards steps.

    No enemy to the right.

    BTW Trump should get detailed info on the longevity of parents and grandparents of prospective SCJ candidates. Some sort of weighted average with elimination of any with a history of dying or dementia under age 80 would be suitable., and aim for a 90+ average. Of course, the constitutionality of the judges is also a key objective but I suggest the above as a constraint.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax

    Once in, be never happy with any outcome (except privately) if there is a further rightward point that he might take that (so long as it is an intelligent route to take, you don’t want to head to SJW territory and we are far, far from that point).

    Apply pressure to achieve the promises.

    Lament loudly and publicly all compromises and backwards steps.
     
    Sure, but when rightists lament compromises they typically also pair it with "ZOMG TRUMP'S A LIBRUL NEVER VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS AGAIN!!!!" which is, literally, self-defeating. You will notice that the left does not do this.
    , @Jack Hanson
    Yeah guy, except that's not what's going on here. Its 90% people handwringing so hard theyve worn their fingers down to nubs.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. @Thomm
    The population center of the 48 states is currently in Missouri, and seems to be stabilizing there. Moving major parts of the Federal Govt. to Southern Missouri makes sense in terms of servicing the US population.

    Washington DC was the population center back when it was designated the Capital.

    If I recall correctly, there was another thread on this topic in which we zeroed in on Branson, MO, as the best possible spot to move the federal government. It’s very close to this population center, and it’s got an airport and some infrastructure — plus, lots of wholesome entertainment options for the lobbyists!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Thomm

    If I recall correctly, there was another thread on this topic in which we zeroed in on Branson, MO, as the best possible spot to move the federal government.
     
    I am saying the same thing.

    Of course, the real purpose of this exercise is to expose how unproductive a large Federal government is, and how it should be so small as to not have a distortive effect on the real-estate prices within a 50-mile radius of the most important government buildings.

    Shrinking the Federal budget expenditure by 50% is the best action.

    Moving Leviathan to Southern MO is the second-best course of action.

    The WH and Capitol can exist as monuments. The Pentagon can become an office building that incubates hundreds of tech startups (Apple's Spaceship is even larger in diameter). There need to be many apartment towers built within a mile of the Pentagon.

    DC should cease to be its own entity, and the three EVs it has should be eliminated.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. … to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps….
    Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. Comments?

    I think if these “right wing judges” were even half as activist–and half as “right wing”–as the left’s actual judges it would be hilarious.

    Think of the world we’d have if someone like Antonine Scalia was legislating from the bench they way a Ruth Bader Ginsburg is willing to do.

    (Note, i don’t advocate that–i want the courts to butt out and return us to a constitutional republic where we decide public policy with elections and the elected legislators legislating. But it darn sure would be hilarious.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  119. Corn says:
    @JohnnyD
    Why not Kris Kobach? Elena Kagan has already shown that you can be a Supreme Court Judge without any actual judicial experience...

    https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126764692

    Nominating Kris Kobach would be worth it just to see the Open Borders types immolating themselves on the Capitol steps.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JohnnyD
    It would be a good way to rally his base.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Flip
    Have there been any leftist justices who have moved right over time? It mostly seems like it has been Republican appointees who have moved left such as Warren, Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, and O'Connor. The current four leftists are clearly now voting in a results oriented way regardless of the law.

    Republican appointees who have moved left

    You left out Harry Blackmun. Brennan was an Eisenhower appointee, but he was always liberal.

    Have there been any leftist justices who have moved right over time?

    Well there haven’t been too many leftist justices who have been appointed in the first place. Out of the last 17 justices appointed, 13 have been by Republican presidents. The 4 exceptions are the 4 who are currently serving. Remember, that from 1969 to 1992 a Democrat was only president for only 4 years, and no one retired during that time. Steve is correct that that last liberal justice to go right was probably Whizzer White. Hell he literally wrote the decision that criminalized sodomy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. as the guy who commented, not that long ago, with a strong recommendation for Gorsuch , before almost anyone had heard of the guy (unfortunately he has turned out to be not as smart, in his first year or so, as I thought, but he is 95 per cent of the way there, and, being the devoted legal scholar you might be, you will understand that 95 is as good as 100) I have this to say:
    no Catholics should be nominated, unless they are affiliated with the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter or the Society of Pius X …
    no evangelicals who have not publicly disassociated themselves with the Billy Graham wing of that sad wordly, although of course wonderful in its way, version of Christianity (Graham was not as pro-life as he should have been, to the great disappointment of his guardian angel – trust me, don’t get mad at me, trust me)….

    we do not need another Scalia, we need another Alito

    or another Clarence Thomas

    Pryor would be fine. I have not researched the intellectual honesty of Senator Lee. I am guessing he is a standard deviation smarter than Romney, so – and yes, I understand Mormon theology – no good Mormon will hesitate for a second to overrule Roe v Wade, giving the question back to the states (I myself would not give the question to the states, but that is another story). And the smarter fraction of Mormons will overrule Roe v Wade and tell the states no they do not have the right to authorize abortions, if they want that right they are gonna have to start another country with another constitution, the constitution me and millions of other good Americans have fought for absolutely says you cannot deprive others of life without due process, and who could support abortion on demand, knowing that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. snorlax says:
    @Anonym
    Good grief. Trump gets to name a second justice (requirements: from his list and preferably under 40) and some of you are already braying about how this could be bad.

    Guy, learn from the left.

    You can celebrate your guy winning office.

    Once in, be never happy with any outcome (except privately) if there is a further rightward point that he might take that (so long as it is an intelligent route to take, you don't want to head to SJW territory and we are far, far from that point).

    Apply pressure to achieve the promises.

    Lament loudly and publicly all compromises and backwards steps.

    No enemy to the right.

    BTW Trump should get detailed info on the longevity of parents and grandparents of prospective SCJ candidates. Some sort of weighted average with elimination of any with a history of dying or dementia under age 80 would be suitable., and aim for a 90+ average. Of course, the constitutionality of the judges is also a key objective but I suggest the above as a constraint.

    Once in, be never happy with any outcome (except privately) if there is a further rightward point that he might take that (so long as it is an intelligent route to take, you don’t want to head to SJW territory and we are far, far from that point).

    Apply pressure to achieve the promises.

    Lament loudly and publicly all compromises and backwards steps.

    Sure, but when rightists lament compromises they typically also pair it with “ZOMG TRUMP’S A LIBRUL NEVER VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS AGAIN!!!!” which is, literally, self-defeating. You will notice that the left does not do this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Thomm says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist
    If I recall correctly, there was another thread on this topic in which we zeroed in on Branson, MO, as the best possible spot to move the federal government. It's very close to this population center, and it's got an airport and some infrastructure -- plus, lots of wholesome entertainment options for the lobbyists!

    If I recall correctly, there was another thread on this topic in which we zeroed in on Branson, MO, as the best possible spot to move the federal government.

    I am saying the same thing.

    Of course, the real purpose of this exercise is to expose how unproductive a large Federal government is, and how it should be so small as to not have a distortive effect on the real-estate prices within a 50-mile radius of the most important government buildings.

    Shrinking the Federal budget expenditure by 50% is the best action.

    Moving Leviathan to Southern MO is the second-best course of action.

    The WH and Capitol can exist as monuments. The Pentagon can become an office building that incubates hundreds of tech startups (Apple’s Spaceship is even larger in diameter). There need to be many apartment towers built within a mile of the Pentagon.

    DC should cease to be its own entity, and the three EVs it has should be eliminated.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Berty says:
    @CapitalistRoader

    ...and voters are back to thinking about how worried they are about healthcare and how much they don’t like Trump.
     
    According to Gallup, Trump's approval rating is about the same as Obama's was, 2.5 years into his presidency. And, similarly, back in mid-2010 voters were worried about healthcare and how much they didn't like Obama.

    Exactly

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Can we maybe, just maybe, get a nominee who obtained his legal education at an institution other than Harvard or Yale? Or is that kind of diversity impermissible?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  126. @Flip
    Have there been any leftist justices who have moved right over time? It mostly seems like it has been Republican appointees who have moved left such as Warren, Souter, Stevens, Kennedy, and O'Connor. The current four leftists are clearly now voting in a results oriented way regardless of the law.

    Perhaps Byron White, who was a Kennedy nominee, moved somewhat to the right during his Supreme Court tenure; he generally voted with the conservative justices. But John Kennedy would be a right-wing conservative by the standards of today’s Democratic party, so I’m not sure the comparison is apt.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Tyrion 2
    They should move the Supreme Court to Mesa, Arizona or Oklahoma City. Old people often start to get a bit confused and forgetful. Surrounding your Supreme Court justices with the Washington DC type is likely to nudge them astray.

    Absolutely agree–there’s no reason for the Supreme Court to be in Washington DC. I might personally choose Kansas City, but anywhere outside the Beltway is better than what we’ve got now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Moving the entire Capital to Kansas City would make sense.

    There's a perfect place for it: the old P&W engine plant on Bannister Road, for years holding the GSA, the Marine Corps finance and the GO-CO nuclear weapons parts facility, extended out and past the Kansas state line.

    It would be bi-inconvenient to bicoastals, the single biggest real world advantage. It has two seasons of sucky weather, and is, after all, centrally located.

    I suggest calling it the District of Truman and Pendergast.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Steve Richter
    Why do democrats get so worked up over concern that Row v Wade would be over turned? Very few states would make abortion illegal.

    Why do democrats get so worked up over concern that Row v Wade would be over turned?

    Democrat politicians don’t give a damn about abortion, but they know it’s a hot button issue for many many women, even, surprisingly, post menopausal women who have no, er, skin in the game anymore.

    Expect to hear a lot about protecting a “woman’s right to choose” in the coming months. They bang on about it because it works.

    There is no way in hell Roe v Wade even makes it to SCOTUS, much less gets over-turned.

    Read More
    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    It’s a hot button issue for a lot of ordinary women because they don’t want to be forced to carry genetically deformed fetuses to term, especially with family sizes being so small these days.

    I am conservative but I’ll always support some measure of abortion rights for that reason alone.
    Plus I don’t think girls under 16 should have kids. Rape is not a big factor in my thinking because the morning after pill would be the most effective treatment for dealing with that problem.

    And for some reason the more fanatical pro-lifers are more obsessed (as in Ohio recently) with women preventing birth defects than the abortion of unwanted healthy children who could be adopted. They, like many so-called conservatives, worship illness and abnormalities.

    So yeah, a conservative Supreme Court should definitely leave abortion alone, since they’ve declined with time anyway. An anti-abortion stance won’t stop me from voting for someone if they share my values on other issues, but it’s a dealbreaker for some more moderate women. Would probably be more harmful if the Democrats were even remotely sane, and not so anti-white. But they aren’t so republicans have been able to gradually get away with more extreme pro-life rhetoric.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Kylie says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Weekend at Bernies 3, starring Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Psycho V, starring Ruth Bader Ginsburg as Mrs. Bates. She should take up permanent residence in a fruit cellar.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Polynikes says:
    @Thomas

    Susan Collins. McCain. Problems.
     
    The Democrats have even bigger problems, namely: Joe Manchin, Sherrod Brown, Heidi Heitkamp, Jon Tester, Joe Donnelly, and Claire McCaskill, among them. The Senate map is brutal for the Democrats, and there's no way McConnell isn't going to force them into a no-win confirmation vote right before November. Somehow managing to drag the vote past then will be sure to undermine any relative advantage in turnout the Democrats are counting on in November, with a Supreme Court seat, this Supreme Court seat, in play.

    Trump is on track to leave a very deep mark on the federal bench. The odds aren't bad that he's going to get at least one more appointment (Ruth Bader-Ginsburg is 85, has had two bouts with cancer, and a coronary artery stent), which would make him the first President since Reagan to appoint three or more Supreme Court justices.

    Problems: no guarantees Trump doesn't nominate another Souter-type that turns out to be a liberal in disguise (though that's probably less likely than it was in 1990). My best guess for now: Thomas Hardiman from the 3rd Circuit, who was Trump's second choice for Scalia's seat after Gorsuch, and who sits on the same court as Trump's sister.

    Also, the Democrats and the left are going to go absolutely apeshit this summer, especially with this coming on top of the horrid last week of the Court's term they've just had (losing the travel ban, abortion speech, and mandatory union dues cases back-to-back) and the border juvenile hysteria. I would not be surprised, and in fact am fully expecting, more James Hodgkinson-type would-be assassins and/or Weather Underground-type bombings.

    Hardiman is weak on immigration and loves Mexico. Worst possible candidate for this blog.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Jack Hanson
    Tester. Manchin.

    Heitkamp. McCaskill.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. @Janus
    Eisenhower also nominated Brennan, who turned out to be one of the most liberal justices of all time.

    Yes, but that was a reelection ploy. He knew Brennan was liberal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:

    IMO, Trump should start this bargaining super-hard: first, nominate the most openly leftist-hating conservative judge in the country and just sit back for a couple of months watching the hysteria. During this time, leftists will do something outrageously stupid. After that, they will eventually be softened enough and would have to accept someone they still love to hate, having no other choice. That someone should be relatively young.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    nominate the most openly leftist-hating conservative judge
     
    No.

    One step beyond: nominate Ann Coulter, as Buck and Svigor recommend. She won't be an easy target for the Left, but she will be their darkest nightmare. And not being a judge will be a feature, not a bug.

    Otherwise, I LOVE your idea - it is a center shot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @D. K.
    ***

    White was an All-American halfback[3] for the Colorado Buffaloes, where a newspaper columnist gave him the nickname "Whizzer",[9] which to his chagrin followed him throughout his legal and Supreme Court careers.[3] As a senior, White led Colorado to an undefeated 8–0 regular season in 1937, but they lost to favored Rice Institute of Houston 28–14 in the Cotton Bowl in Dallas on New Year's Day.[10] He was the runner-up (behind Yale quarterback Clint Frank) for the Heisman Trophy,[11] and also played basketball and baseball at CU. The basketball team advanced to the finals of the inaugural National Invitation Tournament at Madison Square Garden in March 1938.[12][13].


    ***

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byron_White#College_sports

    If you are going to steal from Wikipedia, at least remove the cites.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Jack Hanson
    Good grief I thought your political instincts couldn't get worst.

    One of the few times I've been wrong around here.

    LOL.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Let’s hope Trump gets to nominate three more members of the supreme court: successors to Kennedy, Ruth “Weekend at Bader’s” Ginsburg (85), and Breyer (about to turn 80).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  137. @Anon7
    Every time some pathetic refugee single mom with three little kids in tow shows up on the local news, all I can think about is the 1981 Supreme Court ruling, Plyler vs. Doe, which requires local taxpayers to pony up $10,000 per year per child, K-12.

    If only some of these past judgements could be revisited. Until then, the Wall is the only solution.

    If only some of these past judgements could be revisited. Until then, the Wall is the only solution.

    Actually, I think e-Verify would do it. Assuming the fines were sufficient to dissuade the violators.

    After that, solve the anchor baby problem.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident
    Actually, I think e-Verify would do it. Assuming the fines were sufficient to dissuade the violators.

    https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/gop-base-unmoved-by-msms-big-lie-on-the-border-build-the-wall/#comment-2391043

    The only thing that can stop a flow of illegals is their inability to find employment in the US. If every employer hiring illegals is fined to the tune of $50,000 per an illegal employee, this whole circus would stop.
    [...]
    As the main donors of both so-called Republicans and Democrats are employers, the politicians of both parties engage in disingenuous song and dance about the wall (Republicans) or open borders (Democrats), totally ignoring the real solution.
     
    , @RadicalCenter
    Actually fully enforcing everify would help a lot, you’re right, as would daily ICE raids of construction sites, restaurants, and day labor sites where illegal aliens congregate en masse.

    But none of that will affect people who don’t care about working, and we know there are millions of those among our recent waves of colonists. The guy who’s here to rape or steal or deal meth, doesn’t get deterred by everify. The guy who is content to live off his wife or girlfriend’s “benefits” and let “his” kids be fed by the rest of us via food stamps from birth to age 18, doesn’t care about workplace enforcement.

    There is no substitute for a serious physical barrier and armed troops killing all invaders as many times as necessary to stop the invasion. And yes, ending birthright Citizenship and chain migration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Anonym says:

    I’m finding it hard to get the smile off my face today.

    https://youtu.be/6PQ6335puOc

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  139. JimB says:

    Trump should nominate Wayne LaPierre just for grins and giggles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  140. @The Last Real Calvinist
    I think we've had this exact thread:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/vox-lets-relocate-a-bunch-of-federal-agencies-to-the-midwest/

    I still recommend Sioux City, IA.

    I still recommend Sioux City, IA.

    Yes. And the best part is that I-29 construction is perpetual, so the bureaucrats will have to wait in traffic even in the heartland!

    Read More
    • Replies: @EdwardM
    And the airport code, which they have tried to change, is SUX.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Svigor
    I predict he won't. He's gonna go hard at it. He's not the sort to cuck for a mess of pottage, and Big Media hasn't even given him that. Now he has a shot at some payback.

    I predict he won’t. He’s gonna go hard at it. He’s not the sort to cuck for a mess of pottage, and Big Media hasn’t even given him that. Now he has a shot at some payback.

    Exactly. Trump is sui generis because his supposed cucking is always aimed toward the big picture. It isn’t n-dimensional chess; it is street smart positioning, and then the win.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @Carbon blob
    I don't understand why China isn't working 24/7 to instigate a secession movement in California by now.

    I don’t understand why China isn’t working 24/7 to instigate a secession movement in California by now.

    How do you know they aren’t?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Rapparee

    Just- avoid the abortion iceberg. It’s not worth it.
     
    As a short-run political calculation, that may or may not be true, but institutionalized Moloch-worship certainly isn't doing any favours for the long-term health and safety of the Republic. It didn't work out great for Carthage or the Aztec Empire- Satan always devours his own servants.

    Agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. +1 on nominating Ted Cruz. Supposedly the rest of the Senate finds him so insufferable that he’d sail through just so they could be rid of him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  145. @Anonymous
    IMO, Trump should start this bargaining super-hard: first, nominate the most openly leftist-hating conservative judge in the country and just sit back for a couple of months watching the hysteria. During this time, leftists will do something outrageously stupid. After that, they will eventually be softened enough and would have to accept someone they still love to hate, having no other choice. That someone should be relatively young.

    nominate the most openly leftist-hating conservative judge

    No.

    One step beyond: nominate Ann Coulter, as Buck and Svigor recommend. She won’t be an easy target for the Left, but she will be their darkest nightmare. And not being a judge will be a feature, not a bug.

    Otherwise, I LOVE your idea – it is a center shot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. snorlax says:
    @Not Raul
    I guess he’s out.

    All joking aside, are you sure it’s the same guy?

    Around 69% sure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. snorlax says:

    Read More
    • LOL: Dan Hayes
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  148. I’m hoping abortion won’t be front and center, but I know it will be. Myself, and I’d like to think most sensible conservatives, find gun control, immigration, and affirmative action to be way more important than overturning Roe v Wade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bugg
    All true. There are fewer and fewer anti-abortion voters with each passing year. The Catholic Church is bleeding middle and working class typical white people between their idiotic stance on illegals, this moron socialist pope and the abuse scandals. When you ask old time Catholics , will you adopt these unwanted mostly brown children, simply there is no response. Nobody likes abortion, and the left's elevation of it to a secular sacrament is disgusting. But it's not going anywhere. Would needlessly antagonize and energize the left, and it's not going to be overturned. Want to throw it back to the states, as with marijuana, drug enforcement, etc., or discuss paying for it yourself, fair.

    The GOP should stay away from this. Recall George Stephanopolous derailing a GOP presidential debate with such nonsense.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Rosie
    Achmed,

    On behalf of White American women voters, you're welcome! If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion, you can show your appreciation to us for saving you from Hilldawg and her SCOTUS appointees by not advocating for our disenfranchisement for a few days, mmmkay?

    On behalf of White American women voters, you’re welcome!

    I don’t recall thanking white woman for anything regarding politics, with the exception of Ann Coulter (our next non-SCROTAL SCOTUS, if all goes well). Why should I? Should I be grateful white women barely went for Trump against the Hildabeast? Unless white women voted, as a whole I mean, just the same as white men, then you all are still dragging the cause down.

    You are no example yourself, anyway, as I read your ode to Socialism in reply to my comment yesterday or so. Advocating for armed representatives of the government to forcibly extract money from other people to give to you is what Socialism is, and I don’t want any part of it. You can’t be both a Socialist AND a Conservative, Rosie.

    Yes, I’ve read recently a couple of other (I’m assuming) men commenters also pushing Socialism on here, but if you want to keep the vote, you’ve got to be a role model. From your comments, you are not the role model that we are (not really) looking for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    Should I be grateful white women barely went for Trump against the Hildabeast?
     
    Yes, considering ridiculous propaganda we were able to resist, absent which we would have voted for Trump by a landslide. To drive home the point, compare the non-college educated woman Trump vote (63%) to the college-educated woman vote (44%). Again, the hostile elite are the problem, not women.

    Advocating for armed representatives of the government to forcibly extract money from other people to give to you is what Socialism is, and I don’t want any part of it. You can’t be both a Socialist AND a Conservative, Rosie.
     
    Whatever. I'm for whatever's good for White people, conservative or not.

    And this isn't about me. I don't need any handouts.

    It's like this, Achmed: You can't be both a nationalist and an individualist.
    , @Rosie

    It’s like this, Achmed: You can’t be both a nationalist and an individualist.
     
    To clarify:

    Group allegiance imposes duties on the individual:

    Restrict yourself to ingroup mating prospects.
    Prefer your own in hiring, even if they are more expensive.
    Go to war to defend your group's interests.
    Have children for the group, even at the expense of your own freedom and security.

    The chief benefits of group membership are social security and a sense of belonging. The two of these go hand in hand, because without solidarity there's no belonging. Yet your anti socialism would deny these benefits, which begs the question as to how you would command the loyalty of the individual.

    You can't have one-for-all without also having the all-for-one. The heart of conservativism is not free market capitalism, but reciprocal duty.
    , @27 year old

    You can’t be both a Socialist AND a Conservative
     
    Totally wrong.

    But doesn't matter.

    American Conservatism has utterly failed at achieving its alleged objectives.

    Not a brand name worth fighting over at this point.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Buck Turgidson
    Ann Coulter. Steve King. Tom Tancredo.

    Excellent picks, Buck. I’d really like to watch Miss Coulter at the confirmation hearings. She can hold her own in an argument like nobody I’ve seen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Edwhy says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Maybe football star Justice Whizzer White in the 1960s.

    Kennedy appt, maybe didn’t move right so much as remain in place as the country moved left.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Anonym
    Good grief. Trump gets to name a second justice (requirements: from his list and preferably under 40) and some of you are already braying about how this could be bad.

    Guy, learn from the left.

    You can celebrate your guy winning office.

    Once in, be never happy with any outcome (except privately) if there is a further rightward point that he might take that (so long as it is an intelligent route to take, you don't want to head to SJW territory and we are far, far from that point).

    Apply pressure to achieve the promises.

    Lament loudly and publicly all compromises and backwards steps.

    No enemy to the right.

    BTW Trump should get detailed info on the longevity of parents and grandparents of prospective SCJ candidates. Some sort of weighted average with elimination of any with a history of dying or dementia under age 80 would be suitable., and aim for a 90+ average. Of course, the constitutionality of the judges is also a key objective but I suggest the above as a constraint.

    Yeah guy, except that’s not what’s going on here. Its 90% people handwringing so hard theyve worn their fingers down to nubs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @larry lurker
    Yeah, the left is freaking out over the possibility of a reversal on Roe v. Wade, but I don't see Trump nominating a hardcore pro-lifer - Ivanka wouldn't like that. I'd be even more surprised if there was a reversal on same sex marriage.

    Oh boy, that perennial boogeyman Ivanka when it comes time to bray.

    Gonna sign DACA? Ivanka. War with Iran? Ivanka. Sign TPP? IVANKA!

    Its like some refined form of Whiskey’s blame white women monomania.

    Read More
    • Replies: @rob
    Or Jake’s Cromwell bashing!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Chief Seattle
    We've got to pick our battles and avoid those that energize our enemies. 60 years of mass media and university indoctrination isn't going to roll back overnight. Let's focus on making productive members of society richer, safer, and more fecund. And on giving the parasites a choice of emulating the successful or sinking.

    The trouble with that is that the parasites are at the top as well as the bottom. And the ones at the top will respond to your (presumably somewhat Reaganite policy prescriptions) by furthering the culture war against nationalism, against men, etc, in the (correct) belief that a multicultural, globalized, open-borders empire will suit their interests better than the nation state.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rosie
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. “I’m really hoping McConnell doesn’t actually schedule a vote until after the election. ”

    I don’t know what idiot said this, but what an idiot.

    On Plyler:

    People don’t read Plyler anymore, but it doesn’t say what people think. First, it specifically did not declare that education was a right. Second, it said that Texas did not prove that educating illegal citizens was a significant burden. Third, it said that there was no rationale for giving *legal* immigrants free education and then banning illegal immigrants.

    It would be a simple matter to attack that reasoning in court today. First, educating all non-citizens is a significant burden. Second, there’s nothing stopping us from making k-12 schools citizens only.

    Now, I’m a bit worried at the elite judges and their lax attitudes to immigration. But Plyler vs Doe should be challenged and it never said illegal aliens had a constitutional right to education.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  156. @Berty
    In case you haven't noticed Trump isn't popular, the Democrats have maintained a clear edge in the generic ballot albeit not a gigantic one, and the healthcare issue is a dead weight on the GOP's neck. So it's in the party's best interests to take people's minds off of all that and get them focused on a hugely high-stakes issue that isn't related to Trump, at least not directly. It's the one issue that unites all factions of the GOP and gets conservative-leaning independent motivated as well. There might be many conservative voters in Tennessee for example who like Phil Bredeson (who has been leading in all the polls) and don't like Trump or Marsha Blackburn, but they'll vote Blackburn if they believe the court is at stake. Same for Texas voters who hate Ted Cruz, of which there are many. As you say there are some places where the court issue hurts Republicans but by and large they're not where the major races are this year and certainly not the Senate races.

    If they confirm the nominee too quickly then the issue immediately goes away and voters are back to thinking about how worried they are about healthcare and how much they don't like Trump.

    The most autistic, mendacious, eeyore take on the situation .

    Another day on eye stevia dawt comma.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. res says:
    @Corvinus
    "The McConnell Rule pertains to the situation where there could potentially be a change in the Presidency, since that is the office that nominates SC judges. There will be no change in that office after the 2016 elections."

    No, it pertained to an election year, and no vote on a Supreme Court nominee until after the new Congress is seated. That "distinction" of a "during a presidential campaign" is now being put into play. Now, of course, had the Democrats had made that this "rule", the Republicans would have also charged obstruction. But hypocrisy rules the day.

    Obama's nomination should have been vetted. Period. And so should Trump's nominee, unfortunately. But McConnell is undoubtedly being a weasel here. He ought to honor "giv[ing] the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy", considering the Senate’s constitutionally defined role is to provide advice and consent is as important as the president’s role in proposing a nominee.

    Even that bastion of deplorables the WaPo disagrees with you: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2018/06/27/democrats-bogus-argument-about-what-the-gop-said-about-supreme-court-nominees-in-an-election-year/

    The GOP did argue in 2016 that a Supreme Court vacancy shouldn’t be filled until after voters had their say in the coming election, but their argument was about who gets to nominate the justice — not who gets to confirm him or her. It was clearly about presidential election years, not midterms.

    Here’s Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), immediately after Garland was nominated: “A majority of the Senate has decided to fulfill its constitutional role of advice and consent by withholding support for the nomination during a presidential election year, with millions of votes having been cast in highly charged contests.”

    Here’s what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said: “I believe the overwhelming view of the Republican Conference in the Senate is that this nomination should not be filled, this vacancy should not be filled by this lame duck president.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. @Corvinus
    "The McConnell Rule pertains to the situation where there could potentially be a change in the Presidency, since that is the office that nominates SC judges. There will be no change in that office after the 2016 elections."

    No, it pertained to an election year, and no vote on a Supreme Court nominee until after the new Congress is seated. That "distinction" of a "during a presidential campaign" is now being put into play. Now, of course, had the Democrats had made that this "rule", the Republicans would have also charged obstruction. But hypocrisy rules the day.

    Obama's nomination should have been vetted. Period. And so should Trump's nominee, unfortunately. But McConnell is undoubtedly being a weasel here. He ought to honor "giv[ing] the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy", considering the Senate’s constitutionally defined role is to provide advice and consent is as important as the president’s role in proposing a nominee.

    There is certainly a weasel here but it isn’t McConnell.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @Chief Seattle
    We've got to pick our battles and avoid those that energize our enemies. 60 years of mass media and university indoctrination isn't going to roll back overnight. Let's focus on making productive members of society richer, safer, and more fecund. And on giving the parasites a choice of emulating the successful or sinking.

    Doing this, you failed to conserve the ladies restroom.

    Sit down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @larry lurker
    That's great that you're all principled and shit, but the fact is there aren't enough trannies out there to make your average citizen care about bathroom bills one way or the other.

    It wasn't trannies that were shooting up my neighborhood in Chicago in the 90's when my parents were down on their luck and had moved into a majority Puerto Rican area. Trannies didn't shoot out our friends' rear window when they took a wrong turn and ended up in Cabrini Green. Pick your battles.

    , @Twinkie
    I don't agree with you often, but I am with you on this. It's not this or that. It's both. The country and its people need both immigration restriction AND restoration of traditional - dare I say it - Christian morality and culture. The culture won't survive if the people are lost, but the people won't survive either if the culture is lost.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Everyone talking about RBG but Sotomayor ain’t exactly a pillar of health. She’s easily over 2 bills, possibly pushing 3, diabetic, and had a vague “episode” a few months ago.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump gets four picks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    How's Clarence Thomas's health?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. @Jack Hanson
    Everyone talking about RBG but Sotomayor ain't exactly a pillar of health. She's easily over 2 bills, possibly pushing 3, diabetic, and had a vague "episode" a few months ago.

    I wouldn't be surprised if Trump gets four picks.

    How’s Clarence Thomas’s health?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Antlitz Grollheim
    black don't crack
    , @midtown
    I don't know, but the rumors are that he wishes to retire.
    , @Jack Hanson
    "Clarence Thomas health" talks about Thomas's rulings on health care. "Soto mayor health" gets you multiple stories about her plural health issues,

    So IDK. Yeah he's a large black man but looks like an aging linebacker sans head injuries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @Twinkie

    I think someone around here said a few months ago “if all Trump does is get to pick two Supremes, it will all have been worth it.” We’re well past that now.
     
    I was one of those people. I also wrote that if he built even just one more mile of the border fence, he’d have proven to be a better president than anyone else running.

    I supported Ted Cruz during the primary, but once Trump was the candidate, I supported him as I pledged (as a member of the Republican Party). I also admitted that I was disappointed by Cruz’s sore loser behavior since the primary.

    Same here. Supported Cruz in the primary (though I almost went Trump) and got behind Trump in the general. Some of Cruz’s sore loser behavior might be forgivable considering Trump called his wife ugly and accused his father of being involved with Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Just to see a total meltdown from the left, I’d love to see Trump float a list of possible SCOTUS picks including Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Rick Santorum, and Roy Moore.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dissident

    Some of Cruz’s sore loser behavior might be forgivable considering Trump called his wife ugly and accused his father of being involved with Lee Harvey Oswald.
     
    Glad to see someone else feel this way. Trump also threatened the Cruzs' during the campaign.

    Just to see a total meltdown from the left, I’d love to see Trump float a list of possible SCOTUS picks including Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Rick Santorum, and Roy Moore.
     
    In the same vein, I echo the suggestion of others that it would be great to see Trump nominate, first, someone like Ann Coulter who has no chance of getting approved. The strategy being that the eventual viable nominee would then, in contrast, appear relatively acceptable to the Respectables (on both sides of the aisle) whose votes would be needed.
    , @Inquiring Mind
    Appoint John Yoo?

    By far the smartest legal mind of our generation and a "war criminal" too!


    Yeah, yeah, I know that "W" regret is a "thing" on iSteve these days, but is anyone (apart from TD or maybe Ross) for soft treatment of terrorist masterminds?

    Think the Gina Haspel thing was fun with Joe-from-West-Virginia having to pick sides? Liberal heads would explode on this nomination.
    , @Twinkie

    Some of Cruz’s sore loser behavior might be forgivable considering Trump called his wife ugly and accused his father of being involved with Lee Harvey Oswald.
     
    I found Trump's attacks on Cruz's wife and father dishonorable, but I expected that having been exposed to Trump in my NYC days. Cruz was supposed to be the more moral candidate, the bigger man, for lack of a better word. He turned out not to be. I like Trump's policies, not Trump the man. I thought I liked Cruz the man better, but I was wrong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Hank Archer
    Just FWIW - the is no Constitutional requirement that SC judges have a law degree. Someone who understands, for example, economics or engineering would be useful in that body.

    No offense to engineers, but that’s a terrible idea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jbwilson24
    Have to agree, the idea that an engineer could just sit down and become competent in case analysis is a stretch. It takes time to read enough case lines, to come to a theory about the role of law and the role of the courts (etc etc). At the level of the SC it is not enough just to have basic competence, but one has to be able to deal with the myriad issues at play in a case, including political ones.

    Engineers are ill suited to deal with those subtle issues of multiple stakeholders, policy, interpretation, analogical reasoning, etc. Sorry, but I have significant credentials in both law and STEM, and I cannot see the average engineer succeeding without legal training. I would rather have an economists or social scientist, to be brutally honest, since they would understand policy analysis and legal argumentation much more readily.
    , @res
    How about someone who did engineering undergrad with an economics concentration and followed that up with a law degree? Are there any (near qualified for SC) judges with a background like that?
    , @Ian M.
    Agree. And I'm an engineer.

    Trump should pick a factory worker from the Midwest who lost his job to a Hispanic immigrant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @Steve Sailer
    How's Clarence Thomas's health?

    black don’t crack

    Read More
    • LOL: Anonymous Jew
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Saint Louis
    No offense to engineers, but that's a terrible idea.

    Have to agree, the idea that an engineer could just sit down and become competent in case analysis is a stretch. It takes time to read enough case lines, to come to a theory about the role of law and the role of the courts (etc etc). At the level of the SC it is not enough just to have basic competence, but one has to be able to deal with the myriad issues at play in a case, including political ones.

    Engineers are ill suited to deal with those subtle issues of multiple stakeholders, policy, interpretation, analogical reasoning, etc. Sorry, but I have significant credentials in both law and STEM, and I cannot see the average engineer succeeding without legal training. I would rather have an economists or social scientist, to be brutally honest, since they would understand policy analysis and legal argumentation much more readily.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonym
    Why not both? You say STEM, I would think you would be STM but not E to say that.

    Just because you are an engineer doesn't mean you are incapable of understanding policy or argumentation. We always used to say lim (Engineering) as GPA -> 0 = Computer Science. And lim (CS) as GPA -> 0 = Econ. If you are a marginal engineer you'll kick ass at most other disciplines.

    You still need to learn them though.
    , @27 year old
    Womp womp

    An engineer who is reliably right wing will reliably make the correct decisions.

    I'd rather have a reliably right wing 97IQ janitor on scotus than a cuck legal theorist (with extensive law and "STEM" credentials lmao) prattling on about nuance.

    A social scientist? FOH

    , @res

    Sorry, but I have significant credentials in both law and STEM, and I cannot see the average engineer succeeding without legal training.
     
    Agreed about that, but:
    1. Hopefully we aren't talking about average engineers (SC judges are hardly average lawyers either).
    2. What about lawyers with backgrounds like yours? Just having someone who understands statistics and quantitative argument as well as the law would be great. Do any of the current SC justices have those abilities (sincere question, I don't know the detailed backgrounds)?

    I would rather have an economists or social scientist, to be brutally honest, since they would understand policy analysis and legal argumentation much more readily.
     
    To be honest myself, I think that speaks poorly of "policy analysis and legal argumentation."
    , @MarkinLA
    At the level of the SC it is not enough just to have basic competence, but one has to be able to deal with the myriad issues at play in a case, including political ones.


    Isn't this the problem? The purpose of the SC is not to make law from the bench based on what their personal politics are but to faithfully interpret the law as written so to determine if the law under review is consistent with the constitution and if not how to bring it into consistency.

    That we have 5-4 decisions shows that the SC is a f-ing disaster and every thing that Thomas Jefferson was afraid it would become. IF these so-called legal experts were actually doing their jobs there should be almost always unanimous decisions - maybe a few 8-1s and 7-2s thrown in there. We might have an occasional situation where there are legitimate issues where it might be a debate such as arguing whether separate can be equal. However, this garbage about deciding that everybody has a right to marry when there is no such federal law and marriage is a state issue is why we have this disgusting creeping judiciary that thinks it can remove Constitutional powers expressly given to the President because of some tweet he put out at 3 AM.

    Give me somebody like an engineer who understands that up really is up and down really is down rather than somebody so full of his supposed intellect and background that thinks if he words it correctly that up really can be down.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. rob says:
    @Chief Seattle
    Please, dear God, keep the new SC Justice away from the lame abortion and marriage culture wars. Those don’t affect anyone who is minding their own business. Stick to substance like affirmative action, guns, immigration, taxes, and disparate impact.

    I’d have to make 7 comments to agree with yours, so I’m just replying. All those are far more important. Leave last century’s culture war behind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. rob says:
    @Jack Hanson
    Oh boy, that perennial boogeyman Ivanka when it comes time to bray.

    Gonna sign DACA? Ivanka. War with Iran? Ivanka. Sign TPP? IVANKA!

    Its like some refined form of Whiskey's blame white women monomania.

    Or Jake’s Cromwell bashing!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Tyrion 2
    They should move the Supreme Court to Mesa, Arizona or Oklahoma City. Old people often start to get a bit confused and forgetful. Surrounding your Supreme Court justices with the Washington DC type is likely to nudge them astray.

    You must live in California if you think those are remotely centrally located for the older population. Missouri, southern Illinois and western Kentucky fit that bill better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Close, or at least correct in spirit, I'm from the UK and I just quickly Googled "most conservative cities US." Those were the top two. After all, Washington DC is the least conservative so it would bring a bit of balance.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Jack Hanson
    Doing this, you failed to conserve the ladies restroom.

    Sit down.

    That’s great that you’re all principled and shit, but the fact is there aren’t enough trannies out there to make your average citizen care about bathroom bills one way or the other.

    It wasn’t trannies that were shooting up my neighborhood in Chicago in the 90′s when my parents were down on their luck and had moved into a majority Puerto Rican area. Trannies didn’t shoot out our friends’ rear window when they took a wrong turn and ended up in Cabrini Green. Pick your battles.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Its all part of the same battle, you ridiculous woman. Stop cucking because you re either a pervert or scared of confrontation with the left.
    , @Dissident

    the fact is there aren’t enough trannies out there to make your average citizen care about bathroom bills one way or the other.
     
    What about confused children being harmed with puberty-blocking hormones and even mutilation?

    4thWaveNow
    A community of parents & others concerned about the medicalization of gender-atypical youth and rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD)

    A lot more "your average citizen" should care about:
    The Costs of Homosex
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Anonymous[506] • Disclaimer says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Absolutely agree--there's no reason for the Supreme Court to be in Washington DC. I might personally choose Kansas City, but anywhere outside the Beltway is better than what we've got now.

    Moving the entire Capital to Kansas City would make sense.

    There’s a perfect place for it: the old P&W engine plant on Bannister Road, for years holding the GSA, the Marine Corps finance and the GO-CO nuclear weapons parts facility, extended out and past the Kansas state line.

    It would be bi-inconvenient to bicoastals, the single biggest real world advantage. It has two seasons of sucky weather, and is, after all, centrally located.

    I suggest calling it the District of Truman and Pendergast.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @Jim Don Bob

    Why do democrats get so worked up over concern that Row v Wade would be over turned?
     
    Democrat politicians don't give a damn about abortion, but they know it's a hot button issue for many many women, even, surprisingly, post menopausal women who have no, er, skin in the game anymore.

    Expect to hear a lot about protecting a "woman's right to choose" in the coming months. They bang on about it because it works.

    There is no way in hell Roe v Wade even makes it to SCOTUS, much less gets over-turned.

    It’s a hot button issue for a lot of ordinary women because they don’t want to be forced to carry genetically deformed fetuses to term, especially with family sizes being so small these days.

    I am conservative but I’ll always support some measure of abortion rights for that reason alone.
    Plus I don’t think girls under 16 should have kids. Rape is not a big factor in my thinking because the morning after pill would be the most effective treatment for dealing with that problem.

    And for some reason the more fanatical pro-lifers are more obsessed (as in Ohio recently) with women preventing birth defects than the abortion of unwanted healthy children who could be adopted. They, like many so-called conservatives, worship illness and abnormalities.

    So yeah, a conservative Supreme Court should definitely leave abortion alone, since they’ve declined with time anyway. An anti-abortion stance won’t stop me from voting for someone if they share my values on other issues, but it’s a dealbreaker for some more moderate women. Would probably be more harmful if the Democrats were even remotely sane, and not so anti-white. But they aren’t so republicans have been able to gradually get away with more extreme pro-life rhetoric.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    I am conservative but I’ll always support some measure of abortion rights for that reason alone.
     
    Me, too. I think the reason many pro-life people hate abortion is that poor people use it as birth control and they are forced to pay for it.

    Abortion was slowly being handled at the state level, just like gay marriage, by the people through that quaint thing called voting when SCOTUS handed down the tablets, and left a political wound that still festers today.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. Pericles says:
    @Chief Seattle
    Please, dear God, keep the new SC Justice away from the lame abortion and marriage culture wars. Those don’t affect anyone who is minding their own business. Stick to substance like affirmative action, guns, immigration, taxes, and disparate impact.

    Please, dear God, keep the new SC Justice away from the lame abortion and marriage culture wars. Those don’t affect anyone who is minding their own business. Stick to substance like affirmative action, guns, immigration, taxes, and disparate impact.

    And that’s how the ratchet moves, folks.

    Read More
    • Agree: Ian M.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. eah says:

    Read More
    • LOL: BB753
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  174. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @S. Anonyia
    You must live in California if you think those are remotely centrally located for the older population. Missouri, southern Illinois and western Kentucky fit that bill better.

    Close, or at least correct in spirit, I’m from the UK and I just quickly Googled “most conservative cities US.” Those were the top two. After all, Washington DC is the least conservative so it would bring a bit of balance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Doug says:
    @Jake
    Trump should float the names of the most culturally conservative people the Left can imagine to hate.

    No. The Senate vote is going to be razor-thin as it is. (Partly because Alabama Republicans insisted on playing the same “trigger leftists” game, and lost the Senate seat.) There’s at least four Republican Senators who despise Trump and will look for any excuse to backstab him. They’ll never have political cover to deep six a candidate because of their conservatism.

    But if Trump picks someone gimmicky like Ann Coulter or Jeanine Pirro, then it will be the Harriet Miers debacle all over again. Pick a reliable, young, well-mannered, well-vetted conservative who’s already a qualified Federal judge and isn’t some sort of public lightning rod. It might feel good to really rub it in the left’s face, but don’t snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Read More
    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    On behalf of White American women voters, you’re welcome!
     
    I don't recall thanking white woman for anything regarding politics, with the exception of Ann Coulter (our next non-SCROTAL SCOTUS, if all goes well). Why should I? Should I be grateful white women barely went for Trump against the Hildabeast? Unless white women voted, as a whole I mean, just the same as white men, then you all are still dragging the cause down.

    You are no example yourself, anyway, as I read your ode to Socialism in reply to my comment yesterday or so. Advocating for armed representatives of the government to forcibly extract money from other people to give to you is what Socialism is, and I don't want any part of it. You can't be both a Socialist AND a Conservative, Rosie.

    Yes, I've read recently a couple of other (I'm assuming) men commenters also pushing Socialism on here, but if you want to keep the vote, you've got to be a role model. From your comments, you are not the role model that we are (not really) looking for.

    Should I be grateful white women barely went for Trump against the Hildabeast?

    Yes, considering ridiculous propaganda we were able to resist, absent which we would have voted for Trump by a landslide. To drive home the point, compare the non-college educated woman Trump vote (63%) to the college-educated woman vote (44%). Again, the hostile elite are the problem, not women.

    Advocating for armed representatives of the government to forcibly extract money from other people to give to you is what Socialism is, and I don’t want any part of it. You can’t be both a Socialist AND a Conservative, Rosie.

    Whatever. I’m for whatever’s good for White people, conservative or not.

    And this isn’t about me. I don’t need any handouts.

    It’s like this, Achmed: You can’t be both a nationalist and an individualist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. Rosie says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    On behalf of White American women voters, you’re welcome!
     
    I don't recall thanking white woman for anything regarding politics, with the exception of Ann Coulter (our next non-SCROTAL SCOTUS, if all goes well). Why should I? Should I be grateful white women barely went for Trump against the Hildabeast? Unless white women voted, as a whole I mean, just the same as white men, then you all are still dragging the cause down.

    You are no example yourself, anyway, as I read your ode to Socialism in reply to my comment yesterday or so. Advocating for armed representatives of the government to forcibly extract money from other people to give to you is what Socialism is, and I don't want any part of it. You can't be both a Socialist AND a Conservative, Rosie.

    Yes, I've read recently a couple of other (I'm assuming) men commenters also pushing Socialism on here, but if you want to keep the vote, you've got to be a role model. From your comments, you are not the role model that we are (not really) looking for.

    It’s like this, Achmed: You can’t be both a nationalist and an individualist.

    To clarify:

    Group allegiance imposes duties on the individual:

    Restrict yourself to ingroup mating prospects.
    Prefer your own in hiring, even if they are more expensive.
    Go to war to defend your group’s interests.
    Have children for the group, even at the expense of your own freedom and security.

    The chief benefits of group membership are social security and a sense of belonging. The two of these go hand in hand, because without solidarity there’s no belonging. Yet your anti socialism would deny these benefits, which begs the question as to how you would command the loyalty of the individual.

    You can’t have one-for-all without also having the all-for-one. The heart of conservativism is not free market capitalism, but reciprocal duty.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anonym
    • Replies: @Ian M.
    Agree with your last line.

    But socialism destroys group solidarity because it undermines the role of the family and replaces personal dependency with impersonal dependency, the very things that generate group solidarity.

    The choice between socialism and capitalism is a false one. Reject both.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Rosie, I'm running out of time, and the thread's getting old, for a good reply right now. We can take this up under another applicable thread. I'd also like to write a blog post about it, if I'm going to spend time explaining what's inherently wrong and un-conservative about Socialism.

    See you on a further post!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Dissident says:
    @anony-mouse
    His first choice-step forward Judith Susan Blum Sheindlin.

    1/ Very good on TV


    2/ Pure New York 'tude


    3/ Rich

    “His first choice-step forward Judith Susan Blum Sheindlin.”

    a.k.a. “Judge Judy”.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Sheindlin

    (All emphasis in below quote mine- Dis.)

    She is a supporter of same-sex marriage[46] and, although she has said that she is not a supporter of “big government,” she believes that the issue of same-sex marriage should be handled at the federal level rather than on a state-by-state basis.[91] Sheindlin has stated that she is in favor of increasing requirements for gun ownership.[92] She prefers not to be labelled by political terms, and states that she is not registered with any political party. When asked about the 2012 presidential elections, Sheindlin stated that while she voted for President Barack Obama in 2008 (as well as voting for Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton respectively in 1980 and 1984, and 1992 and 1996), she did not care for either of the leading candidates in the 2012 United States presidential election.[93]

    What’s not to love?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Dissident says:
    @Thomas

    Not sure about Thomas’s religious background..
     
    Lapsed then returned Catholic.

    Luke Lea:
    Not sure about Thomas’s religious background..

    Thomas:
    Lapsed then returned Catholic.

    You or the Justice? Or both?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Hhsiii says:
    @midtown
    I agree. It is very possible some leftists will conclude that this must be stopped and the only way to do that would be assassination. I would advise Trump (and Pence) to lay low over the summer.

    There was a sign on a lamppost near my daughter’s school that read “Please someone shoot him in the head.” Didn’t have to say who. I took it down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Dissident says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    If only some of these past judgements could be revisited. Until then, the Wall is the only solution.
     
    Actually, I think e-Verify would do it. Assuming the fines were sufficient to dissuade the violators.

    After that, solve the anchor baby problem.

    Actually, I think e-Verify would do it. Assuming the fines were sufficient to dissuade the violators.

    https://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/gop-base-unmoved-by-msms-big-lie-on-the-border-build-the-wall/#comment-2391043

    The only thing that can stop a flow of illegals is their inability to find employment in the US. If every employer hiring illegals is fined to the tune of $50,000 per an illegal employee, this whole circus would stop.
    [...]
    As the main donors of both so-called Republicans and Democrats are employers, the politicians of both parties engage in disingenuous song and dance about the wall (Republicans) or open borders (Democrats), totally ignoring the real solution.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Anonym says:
    @jbwilson24
    Have to agree, the idea that an engineer could just sit down and become competent in case analysis is a stretch. It takes time to read enough case lines, to come to a theory about the role of law and the role of the courts (etc etc). At the level of the SC it is not enough just to have basic competence, but one has to be able to deal with the myriad issues at play in a case, including political ones.

    Engineers are ill suited to deal with those subtle issues of multiple stakeholders, policy, interpretation, analogical reasoning, etc. Sorry, but I have significant credentials in both law and STEM, and I cannot see the average engineer succeeding without legal training. I would rather have an economists or social scientist, to be brutally honest, since they would understand policy analysis and legal argumentation much more readily.

    Why not both? You say STEM, I would think you would be STM but not E to say that.

    Just because you are an engineer doesn’t mean you are incapable of understanding policy or argumentation. We always used to say lim (Engineering) as GPA -> 0 = Computer Science. And lim (CS) as GPA -> 0 = Econ. If you are a marginal engineer you’ll kick ass at most other disciplines.

    You still need to learn them though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Dissident says:
    @Saint Louis
    Same here. Supported Cruz in the primary (though I almost went Trump) and got behind Trump in the general. Some of Cruz's sore loser behavior might be forgivable considering Trump called his wife ugly and accused his father of being involved with Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Just to see a total meltdown from the left, I'd love to see Trump float a list of possible SCOTUS picks including Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Rick Santorum, and Roy Moore.

    Some of Cruz’s sore loser behavior might be forgivable considering Trump called his wife ugly and accused his father of being involved with Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Glad to see someone else feel this way. Trump also threatened the Cruzs’ during the campaign.

    Just to see a total meltdown from the left, I’d love to see Trump float a list of possible SCOTUS picks including Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Rick Santorum, and Roy Moore.

    In the same vein, I echo the suggestion of others that it would be great to see Trump nominate, first, someone like Ann Coulter who has no chance of getting approved. The strategy being that the eventual viable nominee would then, in contrast, appear relatively acceptable to the Respectables (on both sides of the aisle) whose votes would be needed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. midtown says:
    @Steve Sailer
    How's Clarence Thomas's health?

    I don’t know, but the rumors are that he wishes to retire.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @jbwilson24
    Have to agree, the idea that an engineer could just sit down and become competent in case analysis is a stretch. It takes time to read enough case lines, to come to a theory about the role of law and the role of the courts (etc etc). At the level of the SC it is not enough just to have basic competence, but one has to be able to deal with the myriad issues at play in a case, including political ones.

    Engineers are ill suited to deal with those subtle issues of multiple stakeholders, policy, interpretation, analogical reasoning, etc. Sorry, but I have significant credentials in both law and STEM, and I cannot see the average engineer succeeding without legal training. I would rather have an economists or social scientist, to be brutally honest, since they would understand policy analysis and legal argumentation much more readily.

    Womp womp

    An engineer who is reliably right wing will reliably make the correct decisions.

    I’d rather have a reliably right wing 97IQ janitor on scotus than a cuck legal theorist (with extensive law and “STEM” credentials lmao) prattling on about nuance.

    A social scientist? FOH

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    An engineer who is reliably right wing will reliably make the correct decisions.
     
    True. I thought you were a socialist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @Achmed E. Newman

    On behalf of White American women voters, you’re welcome!
     
    I don't recall thanking white woman for anything regarding politics, with the exception of Ann Coulter (our next non-SCROTAL SCOTUS, if all goes well). Why should I? Should I be grateful white women barely went for Trump against the Hildabeast? Unless white women voted, as a whole I mean, just the same as white men, then you all are still dragging the cause down.

    You are no example yourself, anyway, as I read your ode to Socialism in reply to my comment yesterday or so. Advocating for armed representatives of the government to forcibly extract money from other people to give to you is what Socialism is, and I don't want any part of it. You can't be both a Socialist AND a Conservative, Rosie.

    Yes, I've read recently a couple of other (I'm assuming) men commenters also pushing Socialism on here, but if you want to keep the vote, you've got to be a role model. From your comments, you are not the role model that we are (not really) looking for.

    You can’t be both a Socialist AND a Conservative

    Totally wrong.

    But doesn’t matter.

    American Conservatism has utterly failed at achieving its alleged objectives.

    Not a brand name worth fighting over at this point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Yes, you're one of the 2 Socialists on here I was thinking of. Just go ahead and hope for the best from your Big-Gov. As I will write to Rosie (I do mean to reply ... it'll be a while though, because I'd like to explain this in more detail), there are people that just can't imagine that the general population is smarter than these somehow-brightest-of-the-brightest that work for Big Government and are empowered to take parts of our lives (or labor that is) and give it to whomever they want to. There are people who are either just too unimaginative to understand free markets and other aspects of liberty or they are cowards - to scared of making their own way in the world. Those people are called "Socialists" until they get really mad at us for pointing this out and turn into flat-out Communists.

    "American Conservatism" is just a poliltical class and organization. I'm talking about Conservatism as principles. They can in no way work alongside Big Government - that's completely stupid. All it takes is to read the last 60 years of American history to know this from observation, even if you can't get the theory of it.

    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    American Conservatism has utterly failed at achieving its alleged objectives.
     
    False.

    Conservatives have thwarted the Liberal project for over a century.

    Liberals have been on a crusade to destroy the Constitution since before the turn of the 20th century. The progressive era brought us the first perpetual warmonger Woodrow Wilson, followed by FDR who struggled mightily to figure out how to surrender to Stalin. Truman, because he wasn't an aristocrat, was accidentally better than FDR, but he started the series of no-win wars with Korea. Eisenhower had the good sense to end the Korean stupidity, but JFK listened to the CIA idiots that murdered Diem. LBJ continued the no-win war strategy, and Nixon was too busy trying to endear himself to the socialists to stop the Democrats from ensuring defeat through betraying our allies after the Vietnam victory was already complete. (80,000 political prisoners murdered in the first year after the Communists came into power, BTW.) Carter followed FDR's surrender strategy but could not quite figure out how to bring America into the Soviet sphere as a Soviet satellite.

    American Conservative Reagan turned the tide and crushed the Soviet Union, which destroyed all the Democrat fantasies of surrender to communism (think about Teddy Kennedy colluding with the Soviets to try to defeat Reagan).

    Then the Leftist George H. W. Bush was elected to usher in a new world order of kinder, gentler, stupid wars. Clinton was pretty good on avoiding stupid wars, but Mogadishu was an unforced error that enabled Osama Bin Laden.

    The Leftist George W. Bush buddied up to the Saudi Arabian problem, and had Saddam killed for family honor - even though the Saudis were (and are) the problem and Saddam was a useful tool. Obama continued the stupid Dubya policies and worked to bring in the utopia world government worshipped by all Leftists. Democrats and Liberals hate the Constitution because it interferes with their social engineering - and because their utopia is just one murder away from realization (100 million wasn't enough).

    If it weren't for American Conservative resistance to the globalist stupidity you would have a ball tethered to your ankle by a chain. You would be swinging an eight-pound sledge hammer breaking rocks. And you would be better off than the rest of us because you are a socialist, and therefore a sheep. But the rest of us are not. Because you are already enslaved by a pernicious ideology, and we were born free, and Liberty is our orienting principle.

    You are an advocate for slavery, which is totally appropriate for a sheep. American conservatives are advocates for freedom, which is totally appropriate for a man.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. JohnnyD says:
    @Corn
    Nominating Kris Kobach would be worth it just to see the Open Borders types immolating themselves on the Capitol steps.

    It would be a good way to rally his base.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @Steve Richter
    Why do democrats get so worked up over concern that Row v Wade would be over turned? Very few states would make abortion illegal.

    The Dems are using it as an election ploy to get low-info female voters in places where abortion will remain legal even if Roe’s overturned to show up at the polls and vote for them. Last night Rachel Maddow was implying that if Roe’s overturned abortion will be illegal in the United States- presumably in all 50 states, from coast-to-coast!
    IMO Trump (or maybe his surrogates) should make the point repeatedly between now and Nov. that even if he appoints 9 Antonin Scalia clones to the Supreme Court, all that would happen is the issue of abortion would go back to each of the states. Keep saying till you’re blue in the face that even if Roe is overturned, states like NY, CT, IL, CA, MA, OR, WA and VT can ALL KEEP HAVING ABORTION ON DEMAND since there’s nothing in the Constitution that forbids (or requires) a state -any state- to allow for legal abortion on demand. Same for gay marriage. I think this might be the key to help Trump make inroad with white voters in places like New England and the Pacific Northwest even. “If your state likes its abortion (laws), it can keep them!” Roe doesn’t matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    All very true, Lucas. Federalism rocks!

    Too bad Trump wastes a good portion of time tweeting about personal sleights. If he's gonna tweet, those points you made would make good tweets.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. @Saint Louis
    Same here. Supported Cruz in the primary (though I almost went Trump) and got behind Trump in the general. Some of Cruz's sore loser behavior might be forgivable considering Trump called his wife ugly and accused his father of being involved with Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Just to see a total meltdown from the left, I'd love to see Trump float a list of possible SCOTUS picks including Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Rick Santorum, and Roy Moore.

    Appoint John Yoo?

    By far the smartest legal mind of our generation and a “war criminal” too!

    Yeah, yeah, I know that “W” regret is a “thing” on iSteve these days, but is anyone (apart from TD or maybe Ross) for soft treatment of terrorist masterminds?

    Think the Gina Haspel thing was fun with Joe-from-West-Virginia having to pick sides? Liberal heads would explode on this nomination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. @Steve Sailer
    How's Clarence Thomas's health?

    “Clarence Thomas health” talks about Thomas’s rulings on health care. “Soto mayor health” gets you multiple stories about her plural health issues,

    So IDK. Yeah he’s a large black man but looks like an aging linebacker sans head injuries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. @anony-mouse
    His first choice-step forward Judith Susan Blum Sheindlin.

    1/ Very good on TV


    2/ Pure New York 'tude


    3/ Rich

    Uh, her name makes her sound pretty pro-pervert/deviant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @larry lurker
    That's great that you're all principled and shit, but the fact is there aren't enough trannies out there to make your average citizen care about bathroom bills one way or the other.

    It wasn't trannies that were shooting up my neighborhood in Chicago in the 90's when my parents were down on their luck and had moved into a majority Puerto Rican area. Trannies didn't shoot out our friends' rear window when they took a wrong turn and ended up in Cabrini Green. Pick your battles.

    Its all part of the same battle, you ridiculous woman. Stop cucking because you re either a pervert or scared of confrontation with the left.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. Bugg says:
    @Hapalong Cassidy
    I’m hoping abortion won’t be front and center, but I know it will be. Myself, and I’d like to think most sensible conservatives, find gun control, immigration, and affirmative action to be way more important than overturning Roe v Wade.

    All true. There are fewer and fewer anti-abortion voters with each passing year. The Catholic Church is bleeding middle and working class typical white people between their idiotic stance on illegals, this moron socialist pope and the abuse scandals. When you ask old time Catholics , will you adopt these unwanted mostly brown children, simply there is no response. Nobody likes abortion, and the left’s elevation of it to a secular sacrament is disgusting. But it’s not going anywhere. Would needlessly antagonize and energize the left, and it’s not going to be overturned. Want to throw it back to the states, as with marijuana, drug enforcement, etc., or discuss paying for it yourself, fair.

    The GOP should stay away from this. Recall George Stephanopolous derailing a GOP presidential debate with such nonsense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. Actually, Kennedy not that bad
    Good this term
    Good on Obamacare(Roberts caved)
    Gay marriage and abortion weak
    But who gives a shit on those
    Lost causes
    Could have been way worse

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Excellent! SCOTUS HAIKUS. What will they think of next?

    Desanex, what've you got in Limerick form. I'll see if I can put one in later.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. George says:

    Having destroyed the Union by making it constitutional for states to impose tariffs on each other (S Dakota v Wayfair) his work on earth is done. Sadly he will not be able to use the ‘Internet changed everything’* argument to eliminate the bill of rights, but he may still live to see it.

    Majority: Kennedy, joined by supposedly conservative: Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch and the likely senile Ginsburg.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Wayfair,_Inc.

    * given how easy it is to organize lynch mobs and genocides with twitter how can freedom of Speech/Press/travel ect be unregulated. I mean freedom of the press is meaningless in the no physical press internet world we live in today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  196. @Bugg
    Obama is probably not happy Ginsburg did not retire on his watch. At 85, they will prop her up even if she stops breathing until a Dem is president.

    Kennedy is retiring at age 81. Bader Ginsburg was 81 in 2014, when, of course, Obama was still President, and well before anybody had any confidence (even mistaken) who would win in 2016.

    Bader Ginsburg knew her health wasn’t likely to be the greatest, and age 81 was a perfectly fine time to hand off the baton to someone else.

    But no: she had to stay. She loved the limelight and the power too much.

    If I were a progressive, I wouldn’t be celebrating her. I’d be furious with her. Her narcissism very likely will damage the progressive movement for a long, long, time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @snorlax
    She couldn't not be replaced by the First Female President!
    , @res
    Yet another sign of how much the Democrats thought they had achieved a permanent electoral majority.

    It is hard to imagine what the Supreme Court would have looked like if Hillary had won. I wonder if we would have gotten a justice as moderate as Garland (any thoughts?) to replace Scalia (of all people). And if Kennedy did retire (hard to know what would have happened) all decisions would have been 6-3 (or more) going forward. Even with Kennedy's replacement we are still looking at 5-4 even though some of the outcomes will change.

    This is a fun sample (from this week) of leftist thinking on the SC: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/in-hindsight-obama-shouldnt-have-appointed-merrick-garland.html

    For example, imagine if Barack Obama had nominated the first African-American woman to the Supreme Court — one who was young, and unabashedly progressive in her jurisprudence. When McConnell subsequently vetoed her appointment — and thereby nullified Obama’s attempt to give a modicum of representation in the halls of high power to the Democratic Party’s most loyal constituency — wouldn’t it have been easier to mobilize the Democratic base in outrage, than it was to rally them behind Merrick Garland?
     
    , @Corn
    I don’t know if this is true but it was rumored that if Romney had beat Obama back in 2012 Ginsburg would have retired so the then Dem controlled Senate could appoint a replacement before the inauguration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    If only some of these past judgements could be revisited. Until then, the Wall is the only solution.
     
    Actually, I think e-Verify would do it. Assuming the fines were sufficient to dissuade the violators.

    After that, solve the anchor baby problem.

    Actually fully enforcing everify would help a lot, you’re right, as would daily ICE raids of construction sites, restaurants, and day labor sites where illegal aliens congregate en masse.

    But none of that will affect people who don’t care about working, and we know there are millions of those among our recent waves of colonists. The guy who’s here to rape or steal or deal meth, doesn’t get deterred by everify. The guy who is content to live off his wife or girlfriend’s “benefits” and let “his” kids be fed by the rest of us via food stamps from birth to age 18, doesn’t care about workplace enforcement.

    There is no substitute for a serious physical barrier and armed troops killing all invaders as many times as necessary to stop the invasion. And yes, ending birthright Citizenship and chain migration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    I like your ideas, but with e-Verify you reduce the open space that all the malefactors you have identified can operate in. I am not against the wall, and I would prefer both. But given a binary choice, I'd take e-Verify in a minute.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @artichoke
    Not Mesa, that's turning hispanic.

    Better put the “justices” outside the USA, then.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @27 year old

    You can’t be both a Socialist AND a Conservative
     
    Totally wrong.

    But doesn't matter.

    American Conservatism has utterly failed at achieving its alleged objectives.

    Not a brand name worth fighting over at this point.

    Yes, you’re one of the 2 Socialists on here I was thinking of. Just go ahead and hope for the best from your Big-Gov. As I will write to Rosie (I do mean to reply … it’ll be a while though, because I’d like to explain this in more detail), there are people that just can’t imagine that the general population is smarter than these somehow-brightest-of-the-brightest that work for Big Government and are empowered to take parts of our lives (or labor that is) and give it to whomever they want to. There are people who are either just too unimaginative to understand free markets and other aspects of liberty or they are cowards – to scared of making their own way in the world. Those people are called “Socialists” until they get really mad at us for pointing this out and turn into flat-out Communists.

    “American Conservatism” is just a poliltical class and organization. I’m talking about Conservatism as principles. They can in no way work alongside Big Government – that’s completely stupid. All it takes is to read the last 60 years of American history to know this from observation, even if you can’t get the theory of it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. MarkinLA says:

    That cuck Hugh Hewitt was talking about who should be appointed and he mentioned a female name on Trump’s list and another cuck agreed since it would put the Dems in a bind when they have to ratify. Didn’t we learn a damned thing about “conservative women” with Sandra Day O’Affirmative Action?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    MarkinLA:

    At the time of their nominations there were warnings about the pseudo-conservatism of both O'Connor and Kennedy. All to no avail. The rest was (and is) history.

    I hope that history does not repeat. Although it has not been repeated with Gorsuch's judgeship.
    , @riches
    Given Hewitt's rabid Judeophilea, his favorite from Trump's short list was probably the ex-Mrs. Charlie Sykes.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Hugh Hewitt's recommendation should be immediately disqualified. Why? Harriet Miers.

    Hewitt was wrong then, and is wrong now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Dissident says:
    @larry lurker
    That's great that you're all principled and shit, but the fact is there aren't enough trannies out there to make your average citizen care about bathroom bills one way or the other.

    It wasn't trannies that were shooting up my neighborhood in Chicago in the 90's when my parents were down on their luck and had moved into a majority Puerto Rican area. Trannies didn't shoot out our friends' rear window when they took a wrong turn and ended up in Cabrini Green. Pick your battles.

    the fact is there aren’t enough trannies out there to make your average citizen care about bathroom bills one way or the other.

    What about confused children being harmed with puberty-blocking hormones and even mutilation?

    4thWaveNow
    A community of parents & others concerned about the medicalization of gender-atypical youth and rapid-onset gender dysphoria (ROGD)

    A lot more “your average citizen” should care about:
    The Costs of Homosex

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. snorlax says:
    @candid_observer
    Kennedy is retiring at age 81. Bader Ginsburg was 81 in 2014, when, of course, Obama was still President, and well before anybody had any confidence (even mistaken) who would win in 2016.

    Bader Ginsburg knew her health wasn't likely to be the greatest, and age 81 was a perfectly fine time to hand off the baton to someone else.

    But no: she had to stay. She loved the limelight and the power too much.

    If I were a progressive, I wouldn't be celebrating her. I'd be furious with her. Her narcissism very likely will damage the progressive movement for a long, long, time.

    She couldn’t not be replaced by the First Female President!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Dissident says:
    @Chief Seattle
    Please, dear God, keep the new SC Justice away from the lame abortion and marriage culture wars. Those don’t affect anyone who is minding their own business. Stick to substance like affirmative action, guns, immigration, taxes, and disparate impact.

    Please, dear God, keep the new SC Justice away from the lame abortion and marriage culture wars. Those don’t affect anyone who is minding their own business.

    Just some of the ways that is not true:

    LGBTQ
    - Extraordinarily high costs to the public
    - Typical male homosexual behavior is inordinately disease and injury promoting
    - Normalization (as well as promotion and even celebration) of homosexuality perniciously influences impressionable youth, at least some of whose sexuality may still be fluid
    - Indulging “transgender” delusions and fantasies by mutilating and hormonally altering confused and mentally ill individuals– including and especially children and adolescents– is highly unethical and does great harm
    - If things continue at current rate, posts such as this one of mine will be made illegal as “hate speech”

    ABORTION
    - Obviously affects nascent life in the womb
    - Having elective abortion-on-demand be perfectly legal also sends the message that human life is expendable and arguably encourages promiscuity

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    I see your points but nothing is to be gained fighting last century's wars now.

    1. Address the costs of LGBTQ behavior as health costs, period.
    2. Address bizarre sexual inclinations categorically as aberrations, rather than fighting the moving goal posts.
    3. Work to allow dissent from "normalization" in workplaces like education and social work, for there is more disagreement with the PC views of such matters than currently allowed to surface. And it is based on experience, not Rainbowtopia.

    4. Legal abortion emptied out a large part of the (mostly Jewish in the Northeast anyway) illegal abortionist's trade, which led to many white children being trafficked out of their birth families and into others'.
    5. Legal abortion in the first two or three trimesters prevented tens, even hundreds, of thousands of post-birth abortions such as those of us who have worked in ER or EMT have seen in spades as the natural way some populations treat their r-reproductive strategy offspring. This relates as well to item 1. above. Which is hard to comprehend concretely till you've spent two to twelve months patching back together these offspring who have been beaten, burnt, gangraped, and otherwise tortured.
    6. r-reproductive strategy humans will ALWAYS be promiscuous and expend human life cheaply; banning legal abortion is not going to change their biological strategies...or their incapacity to evolve into "our" way of viewing life. It's just going to produce more of them.
    7. Every unwanted infant had a sperm donor. Where the hell was he?

    , @Pat Boyle
    I'm not quiet sure what you mean by the 'Extraordinarily high costs". Standard everyday homosexuality doesn't seem to burden the public treasury all that much. You refer to LGBTQ. Maybe you mean one of the more exotic varieties?

    But let's say for sake of argument the average male homosexual costs the taxpayers an extra $10,000 annually. I remember a gas station attendant in 1960 (the year I graduated from high school) saying how he liked to beat up homosexuals. In those days gay-bashing was common and accepted.

    Maybe - again for the sake of argument - let's say that that was appropriate behavior back then because those gay men were such a burdensome public expense. But by my quick calculation based on Federal Tax revenues we are six and a half times richer today than we were in 1960. We are so damn rich today, we can now afford homosexuality. Maybe that explains part of the reason we seem more tolerant today. If we were so poor that dozens of families lived in the same house I could see how we might try to enforce uniform sexual mores. But if we all have private homes and private cars, who cares what those others across town are doing to each other?

    Wealth breeds tolerance.
    , @Pat Boyle
    You say - Indulging “transgender” delusions and fantasies. I don't know why you would characterize transgenders as delusional. These things have always been with us. They are a form of developmental disorder. The human fetus starts off in a roughly female form. But if it has male sex chromosomes it undergoes a whole complex series of stages, many of which are initiated by testosterone, that result in a male baby. There are many ways for this process to go wrong so there have always been some intersex babies who have ambiguous genitalia. Formerly these were exposed by ancient people. With modern medicine and surgery someone would chose a sex role for the baby and assign a sex. Some of these unfortunate kids looked normal on the outside but felt alienated internally in their self image and their desire to have a sex role more congruent with their feelings.

    The best evidence is that these people are no more prevalent today than formerly to these developmental problems but we can do more medically and surgically now. I have an uncle-in-law who had a prefrontal lobotomy. At one time 'modern medicine' thought that was a good idea. Sexual reassignment surgery may also go out of fashion. In any case these are tiny populations. It's just that media distorts our sense of magnitudes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. EdwardM says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    I still recommend Sioux City, IA.
     
    Yes. And the best part is that I-29 construction is perpetual, so the bureaucrats will have to wait in traffic even in the heartland!

    And the airport code, which they have tried to change, is SUX.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    And the airport code, which they have tried to change, is SUX.
     
    Perfect!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. Don’t get too excited guys about Ginsburg dying; you actually have a very low probablity of dying in any given year even if you are really old. Looking at the social security actuarial tables, she has a 84% chance of not-dying in the next 2 years. If Trump wins re-election, she’ll still have a better than 50% chance of holding it together till 2024.

    As a gambling man, I’d put money on Thomas dropping out next.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  206. res says:
    @Saint Louis
    No offense to engineers, but that's a terrible idea.

    How about someone who did engineering undergrad with an economics concentration and followed that up with a law degree? Are there any (near qualified for SC) judges with a background like that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. res says:
    @jbwilson24
    Have to agree, the idea that an engineer could just sit down and become competent in case analysis is a stretch. It takes time to read enough case lines, to come to a theory about the role of law and the role of the courts (etc etc). At the level of the SC it is not enough just to have basic competence, but one has to be able to deal with the myriad issues at play in a case, including political ones.

    Engineers are ill suited to deal with those subtle issues of multiple stakeholders, policy, interpretation, analogical reasoning, etc. Sorry, but I have significant credentials in both law and STEM, and I cannot see the average engineer succeeding without legal training. I would rather have an economists or social scientist, to be brutally honest, since they would understand policy analysis and legal argumentation much more readily.

    Sorry, but I have significant credentials in both law and STEM, and I cannot see the average engineer succeeding without legal training.

    Agreed about that, but:
    1. Hopefully we aren’t talking about average engineers (SC judges are hardly average lawyers either).
    2. What about lawyers with backgrounds like yours? Just having someone who understands statistics and quantitative argument as well as the law would be great. Do any of the current SC justices have those abilities (sincere question, I don’t know the detailed backgrounds)?

    I would rather have an economists or social scientist, to be brutally honest, since they would understand policy analysis and legal argumentation much more readily.

    To be honest myself, I think that speaks poorly of “policy analysis and legal argumentation.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. res says:
    @candid_observer
    Kennedy is retiring at age 81. Bader Ginsburg was 81 in 2014, when, of course, Obama was still President, and well before anybody had any confidence (even mistaken) who would win in 2016.

    Bader Ginsburg knew her health wasn't likely to be the greatest, and age 81 was a perfectly fine time to hand off the baton to someone else.

    But no: she had to stay. She loved the limelight and the power too much.

    If I were a progressive, I wouldn't be celebrating her. I'd be furious with her. Her narcissism very likely will damage the progressive movement for a long, long, time.

    Yet another sign of how much the Democrats thought they had achieved a permanent electoral majority.

    It is hard to imagine what the Supreme Court would have looked like if Hillary had won. I wonder if we would have gotten a justice as moderate as Garland (any thoughts?) to replace Scalia (of all people). And if Kennedy did retire (hard to know what would have happened) all decisions would have been 6-3 (or more) going forward. Even with Kennedy’s replacement we are still looking at 5-4 even though some of the outcomes will change.

    This is a fun sample (from this week) of leftist thinking on the SC: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/06/in-hindsight-obama-shouldnt-have-appointed-merrick-garland.html

    For example, imagine if Barack Obama had nominated the first African-American woman to the Supreme Court — one who was young, and unabashedly progressive in her jurisprudence. When McConnell subsequently vetoed her appointment — and thereby nullified Obama’s attempt to give a modicum of representation in the halls of high power to the Democratic Party’s most loyal constituency — wouldn’t it have been easier to mobilize the Democratic base in outrage, than it was to rally them behind Merrick Garland?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Olorin says:
    @Dissident

    Please, dear God, keep the new SC Justice away from the lame abortion and marriage culture wars. Those don’t affect anyone who is minding their own business.
     
    Just some of the ways that is not true:

    LGBTQ
    - Extraordinarily high costs to the public
    - Typical male homosexual behavior is inordinately disease and injury promoting
    - Normalization (as well as promotion and even celebration) of homosexuality perniciously influences impressionable youth, at least some of whose sexuality may still be fluid
    - Indulging "transgender" delusions and fantasies by mutilating and hormonally altering confused and mentally ill individuals-- including and especially children and adolescents-- is highly unethical and does great harm
    - If things continue at current rate, posts such as this one of mine will be made illegal as "hate speech"

    ABORTION
    - Obviously affects nascent life in the womb
    - Having elective abortion-on-demand be perfectly legal also sends the message that human life is expendable and arguably encourages promiscuity

    I see your points but nothing is to be gained fighting last century’s wars now.

    1. Address the costs of LGBTQ behavior as health costs, period.
    2. Address bizarre sexual inclinations categorically as aberrations, rather than fighting the moving goal posts.
    3. Work to allow dissent from “normalization” in workplaces like education and social work, for there is more disagreement with the PC views of such matters than currently allowed to surface. And it is based on experience, not Rainbowtopia.

    4. Legal abortion emptied out a large part of the (mostly Jewish in the Northeast anyway) illegal abortionist’s trade, which led to many white children being trafficked out of their birth families and into others’.
    5. Legal abortion in the first two or three trimesters prevented tens, even hundreds, of thousands of post-birth abortions such as those of us who have worked in ER or EMT have seen in spades as the natural way some populations treat their r-reproductive strategy offspring. This relates as well to item 1. above. Which is hard to comprehend concretely till you’ve spent two to twelve months patching back together these offspring who have been beaten, burnt, gangraped, and otherwise tortured.
    6. r-reproductive strategy humans will ALWAYS be promiscuous and expend human life cheaply; banning legal abortion is not going to change their biological strategies…or their incapacity to evolve into “our” way of viewing life. It’s just going to produce more of them.
    7. Every unwanted infant had a sperm donor. Where the hell was he?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rapparee

    6. r-reproductive strategy humans will ALWAYS be promiscuous and expend human life cheaply; banning legal abortion is not going to change their biological strategies…or their incapacity to evolve into “our” way of viewing life. It’s just going to produce more of them.
     
    Hey, why stop at abortion when you can have the Air Force hit the ghettoes with napalm? You can send in the Army to finish off anyone who isn't sufficiently crispy afterward.

    (I should probably specify that this is sarcasm, because a few ghouls around here think it would be a great idea).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. MarkinLA says:
    @jbwilson24
    Have to agree, the idea that an engineer could just sit down and become competent in case analysis is a stretch. It takes time to read enough case lines, to come to a theory about the role of law and the role of the courts (etc etc). At the level of the SC it is not enough just to have basic competence, but one has to be able to deal with the myriad issues at play in a case, including political ones.

    Engineers are ill suited to deal with those subtle issues of multiple stakeholders, policy, interpretation, analogical reasoning, etc. Sorry, but I have significant credentials in both law and STEM, and I cannot see the average engineer succeeding without legal training. I would rather have an economists or social scientist, to be brutally honest, since they would understand policy analysis and legal argumentation much more readily.

    At the level of the SC it is not enough just to have basic competence, but one has to be able to deal with the myriad issues at play in a case, including political ones.

    Isn’t this the problem? The purpose of the SC is not to make law from the bench based on what their personal politics are but to faithfully interpret the law as written so to determine if the law under review is consistent with the constitution and if not how to bring it into consistency.

    That we have 5-4 decisions shows that the SC is a f-ing disaster and every thing that Thomas Jefferson was afraid it would become. IF these so-called legal experts were actually doing their jobs there should be almost always unanimous decisions – maybe a few 8-1s and 7-2s thrown in there. We might have an occasional situation where there are legitimate issues where it might be a debate such as arguing whether separate can be equal. However, this garbage about deciding that everybody has a right to marry when there is no such federal law and marriage is a state issue is why we have this disgusting creeping judiciary that thinks it can remove Constitutional powers expressly given to the President because of some tweet he put out at 3 AM.

    Give me somebody like an engineer who understands that up really is up and down really is down rather than somebody so full of his supposed intellect and background that thinks if he words it correctly that up really can be down.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Pat Boyle says:
    @bjondo
    Appoint Mel Gibson to replace Kennedy.

    Maybe a 3rd soon. Heard Bader Ginsburg stuck in a revolving door. She keeps pushing. Door keeps turning.

    I had a cat by the name of Max. He like Ginsburg got very old. He was 22. I never found out what happened to him. I figure he just evaporated. Here’s hoping.

    Read More
    • LOL: Chrisnonymous
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  212. Dan Hayes says:
    @MarkinLA
    That cuck Hugh Hewitt was talking about who should be appointed and he mentioned a female name on Trump's list and another cuck agreed since it would put the Dems in a bind when they have to ratify. Didn't we learn a damned thing about "conservative women" with Sandra Day O'Affirmative Action?

    MarkinLA:

    At the time of their nominations there were warnings about the pseudo-conservatism of both O’Connor and Kennedy. All to no avail. The rest was (and is) history.

    I hope that history does not repeat. Although it has not been repeated with Gorsuch’s judgeship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    We do know the propensity of women to want to be part of the group over most other concerns (except the wellbeing of their children). O'Conner thought that her role was that of consensus maker and not an independent interpreter of the Constitution. That meant going along with the politics of the day on close issues. She cajoled other Justices into coming to a consens which has more to do with a Congressional Whip than a judge.

    I would put the likelihood of this happening with a woman much higher than with a man.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. e says:
    @artichoke
    Yeah but there's Joe Manchin, it'll be interesting.

    And in addition to Collins and McCain, we have to worry about the other AZ asshole, Flake. Oh, and there’s always the ugly Lisa Murkowski.

    True, Manchin’s in a vice. Good.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. Brutusale says:
    @AnonAnon

    Nominate Rudy Guliani, then when defeated, nominate Roy Moore.
     
    Nah, we want another 50 year old youngin’ like Gorsuch who will make rulings for decades.

    Supreme Court picks was my number one reason to vote for Trump. I hope Ginsberg kicks the bucket soon, too. Hopefully libs would commit mass suicide. Who’s got the pillow guy’s number?

    Eugene Volokh. Scalia cited him in the Heller decision.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. Ian M. says:
    @Twinkie

    I think someone around here said a few months ago “if all Trump does is get to pick two Supremes, it will all have been worth it.” We’re well past that now.
     
    I was one of those people. I also wrote that if he built even just one more mile of the border fence, he’d have proven to be a better president than anyone else running.

    I supported Ted Cruz during the primary, but once Trump was the candidate, I supported him as I pledged (as a member of the Republican Party). I also admitted that I was disappointed by Cruz’s sore loser behavior since the primary.

    I don’t much like Cruz (more because of his personality than anything else), but I can’t really get upset with him being a sore loser after Trump slandered his father. What I think is more of a problem is that Cruz had anything to do with Trump after that incident.

    I lost whatever respect I had for Cruz after that. He would have been within his rights to sock Trump in the face. In earlier times, such a slander would have been grounds for a duel.

    At minimum, he should have demanded a public apology, and if he didn’t get it, he should have refused to have anything to do with Trump, for example, by refusing to attend the GOP convention. The fact that he played passive-aggressive with Trump made me think the man is just another venal politician who has no sense of honor.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Refresh my memory but who did what first? Did Trump attack his dad first or did Cruz use the Fields incident to demand that Trump cuck? I think there was a lot of bad blood when Cruz realized that his strategy of triangulating between the uber-cucks and Trump wasn't working.

    My search shows the Lewandowski thing on March 11 and the Trump accusation May 3. Cruz should not have taken sides. He was trying to get Trump to make a statement that would look bad either way. Trump either hated women or he was a wuss when it came to stupid accusations. Cruz was pissed he cucked over one of those campaign accusations and Trump backed his guy (until given real proof) like a real man would do.

    I would like Cruz or Lee to be the SC nominee.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. riches says:
    @MarkinLA
    That cuck Hugh Hewitt was talking about who should be appointed and he mentioned a female name on Trump's list and another cuck agreed since it would put the Dems in a bind when they have to ratify. Didn't we learn a damned thing about "conservative women" with Sandra Day O'Affirmative Action?

    Given Hewitt’s rabid Judeophilea, his favorite from Trump’s short list was probably the ex-Mrs. Charlie Sykes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. Ian M. says:
    @Chief Seattle
    Please, dear God, keep the new SC Justice away from the lame abortion and marriage culture wars. Those don’t affect anyone who is minding their own business. Stick to substance like affirmative action, guns, immigration, taxes, and disparate impact.

    Just like how easy divorce and the sexual revolution haven’t affected anyone who is minding their own business, amirite?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. MarkinLA says:
    @Dan Hayes
    MarkinLA:

    At the time of their nominations there were warnings about the pseudo-conservatism of both O'Connor and Kennedy. All to no avail. The rest was (and is) history.

    I hope that history does not repeat. Although it has not been repeated with Gorsuch's judgeship.

    We do know the propensity of women to want to be part of the group over most other concerns (except the wellbeing of their children). O’Conner thought that her role was that of consensus maker and not an independent interpreter of the Constitution. That meant going along with the politics of the day on close issues. She cajoled other Justices into coming to a consens which has more to do with a Congressional Whip than a judge.

    I would put the likelihood of this happening with a woman much higher than with a man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Markin LA:

    O'Connor's deficiencies were brought up in the nominating process. But these were glossed over. If they again let Leonard Leo of The Federalist Society do his top-notch vetting job it is very unlikely that another O'Connor or Souter will slip through (or so to be fervently hoped).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. MarkinLA says:
    @AnonAnon

    Nominate Rudy Guliani, then when defeated, nominate Roy Moore.
     
    Nah, we want another 50 year old youngin’ like Gorsuch who will make rulings for decades.

    Supreme Court picks was my number one reason to vote for Trump. I hope Ginsberg kicks the bucket soon, too. Hopefully libs would commit mass suicide. Who’s got the pillow guy’s number?

    If Ginsberg retires or kicks when Trump is President, I am going to open that 25 year old bottle of Single Malt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Ok, I'll be over to help you celebrate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. Pat Boyle says:
    @Dissident

    Please, dear God, keep the new SC Justice away from the lame abortion and marriage culture wars. Those don’t affect anyone who is minding their own business.
     
    Just some of the ways that is not true:

    LGBTQ
    - Extraordinarily high costs to the public
    - Typical male homosexual behavior is inordinately disease and injury promoting
    - Normalization (as well as promotion and even celebration) of homosexuality perniciously influences impressionable youth, at least some of whose sexuality may still be fluid
    - Indulging "transgender" delusions and fantasies by mutilating and hormonally altering confused and mentally ill individuals-- including and especially children and adolescents-- is highly unethical and does great harm
    - If things continue at current rate, posts such as this one of mine will be made illegal as "hate speech"

    ABORTION
    - Obviously affects nascent life in the womb
    - Having elective abortion-on-demand be perfectly legal also sends the message that human life is expendable and arguably encourages promiscuity

    I’m not quiet sure what you mean by the ‘Extraordinarily high costs”. Standard everyday homosexuality doesn’t seem to burden the public treasury all that much. You refer to LGBTQ. Maybe you mean one of the more exotic varieties?

    But let’s say for sake of argument the average male homosexual costs the taxpayers an extra $10,000 annually. I remember a gas station attendant in 1960 (the year I graduated from high school) saying how he liked to beat up homosexuals. In those days gay-bashing was common and accepted.

    Maybe – again for the sake of argument – let’s say that that was appropriate behavior back then because those gay men were such a burdensome public expense. But by my quick calculation based on Federal Tax revenues we are six and a half times richer today than we were in 1960. We are so damn rich today, we can now afford homosexuality. Maybe that explains part of the reason we seem more tolerant today. If we were so poor that dozens of families lived in the same house I could see how we might try to enforce uniform sexual mores. But if we all have private homes and private cars, who cares what those others across town are doing to each other?

    Wealth breeds tolerance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    Restated, tolerance is a luxury.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. @Anon7
    Every time some pathetic refugee single mom with three little kids in tow shows up on the local news, all I can think about is the 1981 Supreme Court ruling, Plyler vs. Doe, which requires local taxpayers to pony up $10,000 per year per child, K-12.

    If only some of these past judgements could be revisited. Until then, the Wall is the only solution.

    Every time some pathetic refugee single mom with three little kids in tow shows up on the local news, all I can think about is the 1981 Supreme Court ruling, Plyler vs. Doe, which requires local taxpayers to pony up $10,000 per year per child, K-12.

    If only some of these past judgements could be revisited. Until then, the Wall is the only solution.

    The rationale for Plyler included a presumption that illegal alien children would not be deported. Start deporting them, and Plyler is distinguishable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. Ian M. says:
    @Saint Louis
    No offense to engineers, but that's a terrible idea.

    Agree. And I’m an engineer.

    Trump should pick a factory worker from the Midwest who lost his job to a Hispanic immigrant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Pat Boyle says:
    @Dissident

    Please, dear God, keep the new SC Justice away from the lame abortion and marriage culture wars. Those don’t affect anyone who is minding their own business.
     
    Just some of the ways that is not true:

    LGBTQ
    - Extraordinarily high costs to the public
    - Typical male homosexual behavior is inordinately disease and injury promoting
    - Normalization (as well as promotion and even celebration) of homosexuality perniciously influences impressionable youth, at least some of whose sexuality may still be fluid
    - Indulging "transgender" delusions and fantasies by mutilating and hormonally altering confused and mentally ill individuals-- including and especially children and adolescents-- is highly unethical and does great harm
    - If things continue at current rate, posts such as this one of mine will be made illegal as "hate speech"

    ABORTION
    - Obviously affects nascent life in the womb
    - Having elective abortion-on-demand be perfectly legal also sends the message that human life is expendable and arguably encourages promiscuity

    You say – Indulging “transgender” delusions and fantasies. I don’t know why you would characterize transgenders as delusional. These things have always been with us. They are a form of developmental disorder. The human fetus starts off in a roughly female form. But if it has male sex chromosomes it undergoes a whole complex series of stages, many of which are initiated by testosterone, that result in a male baby. There are many ways for this process to go wrong so there have always been some intersex babies who have ambiguous genitalia. Formerly these were exposed by ancient people. With modern medicine and surgery someone would chose a sex role for the baby and assign a sex. Some of these unfortunate kids looked normal on the outside but felt alienated internally in their self image and their desire to have a sex role more congruent with their feelings.

    The best evidence is that these people are no more prevalent today than formerly to these developmental problems but we can do more medically and surgically now. I have an uncle-in-law who had a prefrontal lobotomy. At one time ‘modern medicine’ thought that was a good idea. Sexual reassignment surgery may also go out of fashion. In any case these are tiny populations. It’s just that media distorts our sense of magnitudes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Gross Terry
    why are you talking about people who are biologically intersex, as a way to advocate for physically normal people who want to wreck their normal, functioning reproductive systems, and instead turn them into some sort of freakish work of living taxidermy?

    this sort of pathological mendacity also characterized the anal marriage debate, which was always about being able to FORCE societal acceptance of the normalization of sodomy. Sodomy itself had already been discovered to be a constitutional right, what 30 years earlier? Anal marriage was about having legal standing against those whose dissented.

    As for the healthcare costs of political-sodomy, the differential on a AIDS patient is ~ 35k per year. Thats basically the entire tax burden on a high powered starting lawyer in Chicago... just because one sodomite has made a political ideology out of his incontinent sexual behavior.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. Ian M. says:
    @Rosie

    It’s like this, Achmed: You can’t be both a nationalist and an individualist.
     
    To clarify:

    Group allegiance imposes duties on the individual:

    Restrict yourself to ingroup mating prospects.
    Prefer your own in hiring, even if they are more expensive.
    Go to war to defend your group's interests.
    Have children for the group, even at the expense of your own freedom and security.

    The chief benefits of group membership are social security and a sense of belonging. The two of these go hand in hand, because without solidarity there's no belonging. Yet your anti socialism would deny these benefits, which begs the question as to how you would command the loyalty of the individual.

    You can't have one-for-all without also having the all-for-one. The heart of conservativism is not free market capitalism, but reciprocal duty.

    Agree with your last line.

    But socialism destroys group solidarity because it undermines the role of the family and replaces personal dependency with impersonal dependency, the very things that generate group solidarity.

    The choice between socialism and capitalism is a false one. Reject both.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    But socialism destroys group solidarity because it undermines the role of the family and replaces personal dependency with impersonal dependency, the very things that generate group solidarity.
     
    Group solidarity necessarily undermines the role of the family, but it must necessarily do so. Suppose I own a business and I'm trying to decide whether to save money by hiring cheap foreign labor. If I know there is a social safety net for my children should they ever fall on hard times, I might forego the extra profit for the sake of national solidarity. On the other hand, if no such safety net exists, then it would seem that I have no obligation to make that sacrifice, and indeed one might argue that my only duty is to maximize profits for the benefit of my family, because they are my sole responsibility.

    I agree that the family is the original economic unit, and as such, the first line social safety net, but it shouldn't be the only one, and insisting that it be so will inevitably tend to the dissolution of the nation state.

    We are not long for a time of massive economic dislocation because of technology. Bootstraps nationalism will be unthinkable at that point.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. Rosie says:
    @Dr. Doom
    This foul Rump Court NEEDS to be abolished. It has so far exceeded its authority in the past that it has morphed into a French Revolutionary Tribunal rather than a court of law. Its past revisions of Constitutional Rights and the ridiculous fiction of sophistry where things like abortion and homosexuality is put in as some sort of natural law WITH NO BASIS in statute or precedent makes this foul monstrous 9 member autocracy a danger to the very concept of law itself.

    This foul Rump Court NEEDS to be abolished. It has so far exceeded its authority in the past that it has morphed into a French Revolutionary Tribunal rather than a court of law. Its past revisions of Constitutional Rights and the ridiculous fiction of sophistry where things like abortion and homosexuality is put in as some sort of natural law WITH NO BASIS in statute or precedent makes this foul monstrous 9 member autocracy a danger to the very concept of law itself.

    On the whole, I agree, but the Court was correct about the right to privacy existing in the penumbra of other amendments. But for the right to privacy, the US government could give American homeschoolers the Wunderlich treatment, which I’m sure they would very much like to do.

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/03/03/team-obama-wins-fight-to-have-christian-home-school-family-deported.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. Thomm says:

    The only reason the lefto-faggots are in shock is that they are certain that they will win in 2020. As the incumbent rarely loses barring the presence of a third party, there was no chance that Kennedy’s successor was not going to be a Trump nominee.

    What is hilarious is that Ginsburg could have retired under Obama at age 82 and gotten another leftist. She just didn’t want to hang it up, and it backfired on her.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  227. Thomm says:
    @Steve Sailer
    Weekend at Bernies 3, starring Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    Well, her appearance under decomposition would change less than that of most people.

    “I am Scare Glow, the ghost of Skeletor!!!!”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    Is that one of the comics you read in Bangalore to polish up your English?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Lots of Moloch worshippers here at eye steve dawt comma.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  229. Re: Whizzer White, his son is Danny White, P and backup QB behind Roger Staubach, starter 80-87. Very underrated QB and a great 4th down option to pass / run from the punter’s position.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    So you are aware, while Danny's father was indeed nicknamed Whizzer, he wasn't THAT Whizzer White.

    As an aside, that Whizzer White married the daughter of the president of the University of Colorado. They met when he was in college and she was in high school.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. @Pat Boyle
    You say - Indulging “transgender” delusions and fantasies. I don't know why you would characterize transgenders as delusional. These things have always been with us. They are a form of developmental disorder. The human fetus starts off in a roughly female form. But if it has male sex chromosomes it undergoes a whole complex series of stages, many of which are initiated by testosterone, that result in a male baby. There are many ways for this process to go wrong so there have always been some intersex babies who have ambiguous genitalia. Formerly these were exposed by ancient people. With modern medicine and surgery someone would chose a sex role for the baby and assign a sex. Some of these unfortunate kids looked normal on the outside but felt alienated internally in their self image and their desire to have a sex role more congruent with their feelings.

    The best evidence is that these people are no more prevalent today than formerly to these developmental problems but we can do more medically and surgically now. I have an uncle-in-law who had a prefrontal lobotomy. At one time 'modern medicine' thought that was a good idea. Sexual reassignment surgery may also go out of fashion. In any case these are tiny populations. It's just that media distorts our sense of magnitudes.

    why are you talking about people who are biologically intersex, as a way to advocate for physically normal people who want to wreck their normal, functioning reproductive systems, and instead turn them into some sort of freakish work of living taxidermy?

    this sort of pathological mendacity also characterized the anal marriage debate, which was always about being able to FORCE societal acceptance of the normalization of sodomy. Sodomy itself had already been discovered to be a constitutional right, what 30 years earlier? Anal marriage was about having legal standing against those whose dissented.

    As for the healthcare costs of political-sodomy, the differential on a AIDS patient is ~ 35k per year. Thats basically the entire tax burden on a high powered starting lawyer in Chicago… just because one sodomite has made a political ideology out of his incontinent sexual behavior.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    As for the healthcare costs of political-sodomy, the differential on a AIDS patient is ~ 35k per year. Thats basically the entire tax burden on a high powered starting lawyer in Chicago… just because one sodomite has made a political ideology out of his incontinent sexual behavior.
     
    Is that just for ART or is that with full-blown AIDS symptoms?
    , @Pat Boyle
    I'm not advocating much of anything. I don't have an agenda and I don't have a dog in this fight. You seem very exercised about the homosexuals. I'm calmer.

    First of all I'm very secure in my sexuality. I find the idea of male and male sex to be repulsive. I think this is a natural reaction that proceeds from normal mainstream biology. People seem to have a natural abhorrence of incest. That impulse - if it indeed exists - serves to reduce consanguinity which is to the good. Homosexual males carry a lot of diseases so it is adaptive to be repelled by their presence.

    It is interesting that while normal men seem to be repulsed by depictions of male homosexuality apparently female homosexuality is popular with a substantial male audience of pornography.

    That doesn't matter to me. I was arguing that homosexuality simply isn't that important. Let's imagine that the process (probably a pathogen) that causes homosexuality also caused a dramatic lowering of the IQ. Then all the gay guys would be shiftless unemployed drifters. But that isn't the way it works. As far as I know gay people are not stupid or less capable than normals. That means they are not a burden. In fact gay men are great at adding value to real estate.

    AIDS, as you say is an expensive disease, and I am not very sympathetic towards its victims because it is so easy to avoid. But the total number of AIDS victims is not huge. The black people in this country probably cost the taxpayers more per person than the AIDS sufferers and there many more of them. I don't think worrying about AIDS makes much sense. If I were a hemophiliac I'm sure I would feel differently. But normal heterosexuals with normal life choices just don't get exposed to the AIDS virus.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. @The Last Real Calvinist
    I think we've had this exact thread:

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/vox-lets-relocate-a-bunch-of-federal-agencies-to-the-midwest/

    I still recommend Sioux City, IA.

    LRC:

    Did you see Trump’s appearance in SC the other day? Derek Thomas prayed before the governor spoke, and he prayed in Jesus’s name. I can’t remember the last time I heard that happen on a national stage.

    check him out:

    https://www.ligonier.org/blog/teacher/derek-thomas/

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    No, I didn't see that. I have seen some of Thomas's stuff on the Ligonier site, which I check sometimes. He looks pretty solid to me.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    That was courageous. The atheists, nihilists, postmodernists and Marxists will have a collective hissy fit. Count on it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. dwb says:
    @Achilles
    Because of Kennedy's decision that same-sex marriage is mandated by the constitution, I predict a media campaign that the president make this the gay seat on the court and nominate an openly-gay man to carry on Kennedy's legacy.

    Whoever occupies the gay seat on the court will be entitled to wear a special rainbow-colored robe and will be considered the moral conscience of the court.

    He could always follow former Justice Rehnquist, who designed his own costume for the Clinton impeachment hearings.

    He looked like he was auditioning for a high school production of “The HMS Pinafore.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @artichoke
    Not Mesa, that's turning hispanic.

    It is strange the things you forget. I actually had a fun night out in Mesa. I got drunk with a bunch of proto-SJW brownish types who hated the rich, white people in Scottsdale and then I got tear gassed in the street. It reminded me of Marseille, but a million times less threatening. The same strange egocentric ressentiment was there.

    Scottsdale, on the other hand, I ended up favourably comparing to Monaco. Though judging by the quizzical looks Americans give me when I mention that, perhaps I just somehow always ended up in the best places.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. TheJester says:

    Kennedy …

    Is he a conservative or a liberal Supreme? Is he a liberal conservative Supreme, given his reputation as a crossover vote that occasionally supports the liberal clique?

    Don’t know. However, he is definitely sending a message by announcing his retirement now rather than waiting until after the November elections? Announcing it now allows Trump to nominate a conservative replacement, solidifying the conservative majority.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  235. @Twinkie

    I think someone around here said a few months ago “if all Trump does is get to pick two Supremes, it will all have been worth it.” We’re well past that now.
     
    I was one of those people. I also wrote that if he built even just one more mile of the border fence, he’d have proven to be a better president than anyone else running.

    I supported Ted Cruz during the primary, but once Trump was the candidate, I supported him as I pledged (as a member of the Republican Party). I also admitted that I was disappointed by Cruz’s sore loser behavior since the primary.

    I also admitted that I was disappointed by Cruz’s sore loser behavior since the primary.

    I wasn’t disappointed, given that Trump was signaling that he might go 3rd party if he lost the primary. I was also concerned that Trump might be a closet liberal. Now that he’s proven to be (mostly) conservative. I am mostly satisfied with his political stances, and can say for sure that he is a much better president for conservatives than Hillary would have been.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I was also concerned that Trump might be a closet liberal. Now that he’s proven to be (mostly) conservative. I am mostly satisfied with his political stances, and can say for sure that he is a much better president for conservatives than Hillary would have been.
     
    Jawohl.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. @Corvinus
    "The McConnell Rule pertains to the situation where there could potentially be a change in the Presidency, since that is the office that nominates SC judges. There will be no change in that office after the 2016 elections."

    No, it pertained to an election year, and no vote on a Supreme Court nominee until after the new Congress is seated. That "distinction" of a "during a presidential campaign" is now being put into play. Now, of course, had the Democrats had made that this "rule", the Republicans would have also charged obstruction. But hypocrisy rules the day.

    Obama's nomination should have been vetted. Period. And so should Trump's nominee, unfortunately. But McConnell is undoubtedly being a weasel here. He ought to honor "giv[ing] the people a voice in the filling of this vacancy", considering the Senate’s constitutionally defined role is to provide advice and consent is as important as the president’s role in proposing a nominee.

    Obama’s nomination should have been vetted. Period.

    Wrong. Any such concession would have been foolish, unwarranted and bad for the country. Democrats are bad for the country, as your opinions repeatedly demonstrate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. Rosie says:
    @Ian M.
    Agree with your last line.

    But socialism destroys group solidarity because it undermines the role of the family and replaces personal dependency with impersonal dependency, the very things that generate group solidarity.

    The choice between socialism and capitalism is a false one. Reject both.

    But socialism destroys group solidarity because it undermines the role of the family and replaces personal dependency with impersonal dependency, the very things that generate group solidarity.

    Group solidarity necessarily undermines the role of the family, but it must necessarily do so. Suppose I own a business and I’m trying to decide whether to save money by hiring cheap foreign labor. If I know there is a social safety net for my children should they ever fall on hard times, I might forego the extra profit for the sake of national solidarity. On the other hand, if no such safety net exists, then it would seem that I have no obligation to make that sacrifice, and indeed one might argue that my only duty is to maximize profits for the benefit of my family, because they are my sole responsibility.

    I agree that the family is the original economic unit, and as such, the first line social safety net, but it shouldn’t be the only one, and insisting that it be so will inevitably tend to the dissolution of the nation state.

    We are not long for a time of massive economic dislocation because of technology. Bootstraps nationalism will be unthinkable at that point.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ian M.
    I agree that it's fine for there to be a governmental social safety net beyond the family, but socialism implies a lot more than that.

    But if all you are advocating is to have some sort of social safety net, then carry on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. MarkinLA says:
    @Ian M.
    I don't much like Cruz (more because of his personality than anything else), but I can't really get upset with him being a sore loser after Trump slandered his father. What I think is more of a problem is that Cruz had anything to do with Trump after that incident.

    I lost whatever respect I had for Cruz after that. He would have been within his rights to sock Trump in the face. In earlier times, such a slander would have been grounds for a duel.

    At minimum, he should have demanded a public apology, and if he didn't get it, he should have refused to have anything to do with Trump, for example, by refusing to attend the GOP convention. The fact that he played passive-aggressive with Trump made me think the man is just another venal politician who has no sense of honor.

    Refresh my memory but who did what first? Did Trump attack his dad first or did Cruz use the Fields incident to demand that Trump cuck? I think there was a lot of bad blood when Cruz realized that his strategy of triangulating between the uber-cucks and Trump wasn’t working.

    My search shows the Lewandowski thing on March 11 and the Trump accusation May 3. Cruz should not have taken sides. He was trying to get Trump to make a statement that would look bad either way. Trump either hated women or he was a wuss when it came to stupid accusations. Cruz was pissed he cucked over one of those campaign accusations and Trump backed his guy (until given real proof) like a real man would do.

    I would like Cruz or Lee to be the SC nominee.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ian M.
    What did Cruz say about the Fields incident?

    Regardless, how would that justify Trump slandering Cruz's father as being involved in the JFK assassination? That's outrageous.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. @27 year old
    Womp womp

    An engineer who is reliably right wing will reliably make the correct decisions.

    I'd rather have a reliably right wing 97IQ janitor on scotus than a cuck legal theorist (with extensive law and "STEM" credentials lmao) prattling on about nuance.

    A social scientist? FOH

    An engineer who is reliably right wing will reliably make the correct decisions.

    True. I thought you were a socialist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. Ian M. says:
    @MarkinLA
    Refresh my memory but who did what first? Did Trump attack his dad first or did Cruz use the Fields incident to demand that Trump cuck? I think there was a lot of bad blood when Cruz realized that his strategy of triangulating between the uber-cucks and Trump wasn't working.

    My search shows the Lewandowski thing on March 11 and the Trump accusation May 3. Cruz should not have taken sides. He was trying to get Trump to make a statement that would look bad either way. Trump either hated women or he was a wuss when it came to stupid accusations. Cruz was pissed he cucked over one of those campaign accusations and Trump backed his guy (until given real proof) like a real man would do.

    I would like Cruz or Lee to be the SC nominee.

    What did Cruz say about the Fields incident?

    Regardless, how would that justify Trump slandering Cruz’s father as being involved in the JFK assassination? That’s outrageous.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Yes, technically you are right but we all know that Trump punches back even if those punches are below the belt (which I am happy to see some times)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. @stillCARealist
    LRC:

    Did you see Trump's appearance in SC the other day? Derek Thomas prayed before the governor spoke, and he prayed in Jesus's name. I can't remember the last time I heard that happen on a national stage.

    check him out:

    https://www.ligonier.org/blog/teacher/derek-thomas/

    No, I didn’t see that. I have seen some of Thomas’s stuff on the Ligonier site, which I check sometimes. He looks pretty solid to me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. Ian M. says:
    @Rosie

    But socialism destroys group solidarity because it undermines the role of the family and replaces personal dependency with impersonal dependency, the very things that generate group solidarity.
     
    Group solidarity necessarily undermines the role of the family, but it must necessarily do so. Suppose I own a business and I'm trying to decide whether to save money by hiring cheap foreign labor. If I know there is a social safety net for my children should they ever fall on hard times, I might forego the extra profit for the sake of national solidarity. On the other hand, if no such safety net exists, then it would seem that I have no obligation to make that sacrifice, and indeed one might argue that my only duty is to maximize profits for the benefit of my family, because they are my sole responsibility.

    I agree that the family is the original economic unit, and as such, the first line social safety net, but it shouldn't be the only one, and insisting that it be so will inevitably tend to the dissolution of the nation state.

    We are not long for a time of massive economic dislocation because of technology. Bootstraps nationalism will be unthinkable at that point.

    I agree that it’s fine for there to be a governmental social safety net beyond the family, but socialism implies a lot more than that.

    But if all you are advocating is to have some sort of social safety net, then carry on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rosie

    I agree that it’s fine for there to be a governmental social safety net beyond the family, but socialism implies a lot more than that.

    But if all you are advocating is to have some sort of social safety net, then carry on.
     
    Yes, I was using the term socialism rather broadly, but then I never know what words mean half the time. It usually depends on whom you're talking to at any given moment.

    All I know is that I don't like arguing about the meanings of words, so I tend to just go along with whatever someone wants to call me so that we can move on from semantics to a discussion of the actual substance of the matter at hand.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. @27 year old

    You can’t be both a Socialist AND a Conservative
     
    Totally wrong.

    But doesn't matter.

    American Conservatism has utterly failed at achieving its alleged objectives.

    Not a brand name worth fighting over at this point.

    American Conservatism has utterly failed at achieving its alleged objectives.

    False.

    Conservatives have thwarted the Liberal project for over a century.

    Liberals have been on a crusade to destroy the Constitution since before the turn of the 20th century. The progressive era brought us the first perpetual warmonger Woodrow Wilson, followed by FDR who struggled mightily to figure out how to surrender to Stalin. Truman, because he wasn’t an aristocrat, was accidentally better than FDR, but he started the series of no-win wars with Korea. Eisenhower had the good sense to end the Korean stupidity, but JFK listened to the CIA idiots that murdered Diem. LBJ continued the no-win war strategy, and Nixon was too busy trying to endear himself to the socialists to stop the Democrats from ensuring defeat through betraying our allies after the Vietnam victory was already complete. (80,000 political prisoners murdered in the first year after the Communists came into power, BTW.) Carter followed FDR’s surrender strategy but could not quite figure out how to bring America into the Soviet sphere as a Soviet satellite.

    American Conservative Reagan turned the tide and crushed the Soviet Union, which destroyed all the Democrat fantasies of surrender to communism (think about Teddy Kennedy colluding with the Soviets to try to defeat Reagan).

    Then the Leftist George H. W. Bush was elected to usher in a new world order of kinder, gentler, stupid wars. Clinton was pretty good on avoiding stupid wars, but Mogadishu was an unforced error that enabled Osama Bin Laden.

    The Leftist George W. Bush buddied up to the Saudi Arabian problem, and had Saddam killed for family honor – even though the Saudis were (and are) the problem and Saddam was a useful tool. Obama continued the stupid Dubya policies and worked to bring in the utopia world government worshipped by all Leftists. Democrats and Liberals hate the Constitution because it interferes with their social engineering – and because their utopia is just one murder away from realization (100 million wasn’t enough).

    If it weren’t for American Conservative resistance to the globalist stupidity you would have a ball tethered to your ankle by a chain. You would be swinging an eight-pound sledge hammer breaking rocks. And you would be better off than the rest of us because you are a socialist, and therefore a sheep. But the rest of us are not. Because you are already enslaved by a pernicious ideology, and we were born free, and Liberty is our orienting principle.

    You are an advocate for slavery, which is totally appropriate for a sheep. American conservatives are advocates for freedom, which is totally appropriate for a man.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Carter followed FDR’s surrender strategy but could not quite figure out how to bring America into the Soviet sphere as a Soviet satellite.

    Defense spending went up under Carter and a lot of stupid military programs were green-lighted like the B-2 bomber. Carter was also the start of support for the Mujahedeen and the Contras. it is just that before that stupidity turned into crap, Reagan got all the credit for it. The USSR collapsed under it's own weight.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. @MarkinLA
    That cuck Hugh Hewitt was talking about who should be appointed and he mentioned a female name on Trump's list and another cuck agreed since it would put the Dems in a bind when they have to ratify. Didn't we learn a damned thing about "conservative women" with Sandra Day O'Affirmative Action?

    Hugh Hewitt’s recommendation should be immediately disqualified. Why? Harriet Miers.

    Hewitt was wrong then, and is wrong now.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. @EdwardM
    And the airport code, which they have tried to change, is SUX.

    And the airport code, which they have tried to change, is SUX.

    Perfect!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. @stillCARealist
    LRC:

    Did you see Trump's appearance in SC the other day? Derek Thomas prayed before the governor spoke, and he prayed in Jesus's name. I can't remember the last time I heard that happen on a national stage.

    check him out:

    https://www.ligonier.org/blog/teacher/derek-thomas/

    That was courageous. The atheists, nihilists, postmodernists and Marxists will have a collective hissy fit. Count on it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. @MarkinLA
    If Ginsberg retires or kicks when Trump is President, I am going to open that 25 year old bottle of Single Malt.

    Ok, I’ll be over to help you celebrate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. Corn says:
    @candid_observer
    Kennedy is retiring at age 81. Bader Ginsburg was 81 in 2014, when, of course, Obama was still President, and well before anybody had any confidence (even mistaken) who would win in 2016.

    Bader Ginsburg knew her health wasn't likely to be the greatest, and age 81 was a perfectly fine time to hand off the baton to someone else.

    But no: she had to stay. She loved the limelight and the power too much.

    If I were a progressive, I wouldn't be celebrating her. I'd be furious with her. Her narcissism very likely will damage the progressive movement for a long, long, time.

    I don’t know if this is true but it was rumored that if Romney had beat Obama back in 2012 Ginsburg would have retired so the then Dem controlled Senate could appoint a replacement before the inauguration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. Rosie says:
    @Gross Terry
    why are you talking about people who are biologically intersex, as a way to advocate for physically normal people who want to wreck their normal, functioning reproductive systems, and instead turn them into some sort of freakish work of living taxidermy?

    this sort of pathological mendacity also characterized the anal marriage debate, which was always about being able to FORCE societal acceptance of the normalization of sodomy. Sodomy itself had already been discovered to be a constitutional right, what 30 years earlier? Anal marriage was about having legal standing against those whose dissented.

    As for the healthcare costs of political-sodomy, the differential on a AIDS patient is ~ 35k per year. Thats basically the entire tax burden on a high powered starting lawyer in Chicago... just because one sodomite has made a political ideology out of his incontinent sexual behavior.

    As for the healthcare costs of political-sodomy, the differential on a AIDS patient is ~ 35k per year. Thats basically the entire tax burden on a high powered starting lawyer in Chicago… just because one sodomite has made a political ideology out of his incontinent sexual behavior.

    Is that just for ART or is that with full-blown AIDS symptoms?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. Rosie says:
    @Ian M.
    I agree that it's fine for there to be a governmental social safety net beyond the family, but socialism implies a lot more than that.

    But if all you are advocating is to have some sort of social safety net, then carry on.

    I agree that it’s fine for there to be a governmental social safety net beyond the family, but socialism implies a lot more than that.

    But if all you are advocating is to have some sort of social safety net, then carry on.

    Yes, I was using the term socialism rather broadly, but then I never know what words mean half the time. It usually depends on whom you’re talking to at any given moment.

    All I know is that I don’t like arguing about the meanings of words, so I tend to just go along with whatever someone wants to call me so that we can move on from semantics to a discussion of the actual substance of the matter at hand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. MarkinLA says:
    @Ian M.
    What did Cruz say about the Fields incident?

    Regardless, how would that justify Trump slandering Cruz's father as being involved in the JFK assassination? That's outrageous.

    Yes, technically you are right but we all know that Trump punches back even if those punches are below the belt (which I am happy to see some times)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. MarkinLA says:
    @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    American Conservatism has utterly failed at achieving its alleged objectives.
     
    False.

    Conservatives have thwarted the Liberal project for over a century.

    Liberals have been on a crusade to destroy the Constitution since before the turn of the 20th century. The progressive era brought us the first perpetual warmonger Woodrow Wilson, followed by FDR who struggled mightily to figure out how to surrender to Stalin. Truman, because he wasn't an aristocrat, was accidentally better than FDR, but he started the series of no-win wars with Korea. Eisenhower had the good sense to end the Korean stupidity, but JFK listened to the CIA idiots that murdered Diem. LBJ continued the no-win war strategy, and Nixon was too busy trying to endear himself to the socialists to stop the Democrats from ensuring defeat through betraying our allies after the Vietnam victory was already complete. (80,000 political prisoners murdered in the first year after the Communists came into power, BTW.) Carter followed FDR's surrender strategy but could not quite figure out how to bring America into the Soviet sphere as a Soviet satellite.

    American Conservative Reagan turned the tide and crushed the Soviet Union, which destroyed all the Democrat fantasies of surrender to communism (think about Teddy Kennedy colluding with the Soviets to try to defeat Reagan).

    Then the Leftist George H. W. Bush was elected to usher in a new world order of kinder, gentler, stupid wars. Clinton was pretty good on avoiding stupid wars, but Mogadishu was an unforced error that enabled Osama Bin Laden.

    The Leftist George W. Bush buddied up to the Saudi Arabian problem, and had Saddam killed for family honor - even though the Saudis were (and are) the problem and Saddam was a useful tool. Obama continued the stupid Dubya policies and worked to bring in the utopia world government worshipped by all Leftists. Democrats and Liberals hate the Constitution because it interferes with their social engineering - and because their utopia is just one murder away from realization (100 million wasn't enough).

    If it weren't for American Conservative resistance to the globalist stupidity you would have a ball tethered to your ankle by a chain. You would be swinging an eight-pound sledge hammer breaking rocks. And you would be better off than the rest of us because you are a socialist, and therefore a sheep. But the rest of us are not. Because you are already enslaved by a pernicious ideology, and we were born free, and Liberty is our orienting principle.

    You are an advocate for slavery, which is totally appropriate for a sheep. American conservatives are advocates for freedom, which is totally appropriate for a man.

    Carter followed FDR’s surrender strategy but could not quite figure out how to bring America into the Soviet sphere as a Soviet satellite.

    Defense spending went up under Carter and a lot of stupid military programs were green-lighted like the B-2 bomber. Carter was also the start of support for the Mujahedeen and the Contras. it is just that before that stupidity turned into crap, Reagan got all the credit for it. The USSR collapsed under it’s own weight.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. @S. Anonyia
    It’s a hot button issue for a lot of ordinary women because they don’t want to be forced to carry genetically deformed fetuses to term, especially with family sizes being so small these days.

    I am conservative but I’ll always support some measure of abortion rights for that reason alone.
    Plus I don’t think girls under 16 should have kids. Rape is not a big factor in my thinking because the morning after pill would be the most effective treatment for dealing with that problem.

    And for some reason the more fanatical pro-lifers are more obsessed (as in Ohio recently) with women preventing birth defects than the abortion of unwanted healthy children who could be adopted. They, like many so-called conservatives, worship illness and abnormalities.

    So yeah, a conservative Supreme Court should definitely leave abortion alone, since they’ve declined with time anyway. An anti-abortion stance won’t stop me from voting for someone if they share my values on other issues, but it’s a dealbreaker for some more moderate women. Would probably be more harmful if the Democrats were even remotely sane, and not so anti-white. But they aren’t so republicans have been able to gradually get away with more extreme pro-life rhetoric.

    I am conservative but I’ll always support some measure of abortion rights for that reason alone.

    Me, too. I think the reason many pro-life people hate abortion is that poor people use it as birth control and they are forced to pay for it.

    Abortion was slowly being handled at the state level, just like gay marriage, by the people through that quaint thing called voting when SCOTUS handed down the tablets, and left a political wound that still festers today.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  254. Dan Hayes says:
    @MarkinLA
    We do know the propensity of women to want to be part of the group over most other concerns (except the wellbeing of their children). O'Conner thought that her role was that of consensus maker and not an independent interpreter of the Constitution. That meant going along with the politics of the day on close issues. She cajoled other Justices into coming to a consens which has more to do with a Congressional Whip than a judge.

    I would put the likelihood of this happening with a woman much higher than with a man.

    Markin LA:

    O’Connor’s deficiencies were brought up in the nominating process. But these were glossed over. If they again let Leonard Leo of The Federalist Society do his top-notch vetting job it is very unlikely that another O’Connor or Souter will slip through (or so to be fervently hoped).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  255. Twinkie says:
    @Saint Louis
    Same here. Supported Cruz in the primary (though I almost went Trump) and got behind Trump in the general. Some of Cruz's sore loser behavior might be forgivable considering Trump called his wife ugly and accused his father of being involved with Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Just to see a total meltdown from the left, I'd love to see Trump float a list of possible SCOTUS picks including Ted Cruz, Jeff Sessions, Rick Santorum, and Roy Moore.

    Some of Cruz’s sore loser behavior might be forgivable considering Trump called his wife ugly and accused his father of being involved with Lee Harvey Oswald.

    I found Trump’s attacks on Cruz’s wife and father dishonorable, but I expected that having been exposed to Trump in my NYC days. Cruz was supposed to be the more moral candidate, the bigger man, for lack of a better word. He turned out not to be. I like Trump’s policies, not Trump the man. I thought I liked Cruz the man better, but I was wrong.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  256. Twinkie says:
    @Jack Hanson
    Doing this, you failed to conserve the ladies restroom.

    Sit down.

    I don’t agree with you often, but I am with you on this. It’s not this or that. It’s both. The country and its people need both immigration restriction AND restoration of traditional – dare I say it – Christian morality and culture. The culture won’t survive if the people are lost, but the people won’t survive either if the culture is lost.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Times are crazy, huh?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  257. Twinkie says:
    @Johann Ricke

    I also admitted that I was disappointed by Cruz’s sore loser behavior since the primary.
     
    I wasn't disappointed, given that Trump was signaling that he might go 3rd party if he lost the primary. I was also concerned that Trump might be a closet liberal. Now that he's proven to be (mostly) conservative. I am mostly satisfied with his political stances, and can say for sure that he is a much better president for conservatives than Hillary would have been.

    I was also concerned that Trump might be a closet liberal. Now that he’s proven to be (mostly) conservative. I am mostly satisfied with his political stances, and can say for sure that he is a much better president for conservatives than Hillary would have been.

    Jawohl.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  258. Tyrion 2 says: • Website
    @Pat Boyle
    I'm not quiet sure what you mean by the 'Extraordinarily high costs". Standard everyday homosexuality doesn't seem to burden the public treasury all that much. You refer to LGBTQ. Maybe you mean one of the more exotic varieties?

    But let's say for sake of argument the average male homosexual costs the taxpayers an extra $10,000 annually. I remember a gas station attendant in 1960 (the year I graduated from high school) saying how he liked to beat up homosexuals. In those days gay-bashing was common and accepted.

    Maybe - again for the sake of argument - let's say that that was appropriate behavior back then because those gay men were such a burdensome public expense. But by my quick calculation based on Federal Tax revenues we are six and a half times richer today than we were in 1960. We are so damn rich today, we can now afford homosexuality. Maybe that explains part of the reason we seem more tolerant today. If we were so poor that dozens of families lived in the same house I could see how we might try to enforce uniform sexual mores. But if we all have private homes and private cars, who cares what those others across town are doing to each other?

    Wealth breeds tolerance.

    Restated, tolerance is a luxury.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  259. Rapparee says:
    @Olorin
    I see your points but nothing is to be gained fighting last century's wars now.

    1. Address the costs of LGBTQ behavior as health costs, period.
    2. Address bizarre sexual inclinations categorically as aberrations, rather than fighting the moving goal posts.
    3. Work to allow dissent from "normalization" in workplaces like education and social work, for there is more disagreement with the PC views of such matters than currently allowed to surface. And it is based on experience, not Rainbowtopia.

    4. Legal abortion emptied out a large part of the (mostly Jewish in the Northeast anyway) illegal abortionist's trade, which led to many white children being trafficked out of their birth families and into others'.
    5. Legal abortion in the first two or three trimesters prevented tens, even hundreds, of thousands of post-birth abortions such as those of us who have worked in ER or EMT have seen in spades as the natural way some populations treat their r-reproductive strategy offspring. This relates as well to item 1. above. Which is hard to comprehend concretely till you've spent two to twelve months patching back together these offspring who have been beaten, burnt, gangraped, and otherwise tortured.
    6. r-reproductive strategy humans will ALWAYS be promiscuous and expend human life cheaply; banning legal abortion is not going to change their biological strategies...or their incapacity to evolve into "our" way of viewing life. It's just going to produce more of them.
    7. Every unwanted infant had a sperm donor. Where the hell was he?

    6. r-reproductive strategy humans will ALWAYS be promiscuous and expend human life cheaply; banning legal abortion is not going to change their biological strategies…or their incapacity to evolve into “our” way of viewing life. It’s just going to produce more of them.

    Hey, why stop at abortion when you can have the Air Force hit the ghettoes with napalm? You can send in the Army to finish off anyone who isn’t sufficiently crispy afterward.

    (I should probably specify that this is sarcasm, because a few ghouls around here think it would be a great idea).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  260. The NYT show its occasional usefulness today with an article describing how DJT (PBUH) courted Kennedy by appointing his clerks, etc.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/politics/trump-anthony-kennedy-retirement.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  261. Pat Boyle says:
    @Gross Terry
    why are you talking about people who are biologically intersex, as a way to advocate for physically normal people who want to wreck their normal, functioning reproductive systems, and instead turn them into some sort of freakish work of living taxidermy?

    this sort of pathological mendacity also characterized the anal marriage debate, which was always about being able to FORCE societal acceptance of the normalization of sodomy. Sodomy itself had already been discovered to be a constitutional right, what 30 years earlier? Anal marriage was about having legal standing against those whose dissented.

    As for the healthcare costs of political-sodomy, the differential on a AIDS patient is ~ 35k per year. Thats basically the entire tax burden on a high powered starting lawyer in Chicago... just because one sodomite has made a political ideology out of his incontinent sexual behavior.

    I’m not advocating much of anything. I don’t have an agenda and I don’t have a dog in this fight. You seem very exercised about the homosexuals. I’m calmer.

    First of all I’m very secure in my sexuality. I find the idea of male and male sex to be repulsive. I think this is a natural reaction that proceeds from normal mainstream biology. People seem to have a natural abhorrence of incest. That impulse – if it indeed exists – serves to reduce consanguinity which is to the good. Homosexual males carry a lot of diseases so it is adaptive to be repelled by their presence.

    It is interesting that while normal men seem to be repulsed by depictions of male homosexuality apparently female homosexuality is popular with a substantial male audience of pornography.

    That doesn’t matter to me. I was arguing that homosexuality simply isn’t that important. Let’s imagine that the process (probably a pathogen) that causes homosexuality also caused a dramatic lowering of the IQ. Then all the gay guys would be shiftless unemployed drifters. But that isn’t the way it works. As far as I know gay people are not stupid or less capable than normals. That means they are not a burden. In fact gay men are great at adding value to real estate.

    AIDS, as you say is an expensive disease, and I am not very sympathetic towards its victims because it is so easy to avoid. But the total number of AIDS victims is not huge. The black people in this country probably cost the taxpayers more per person than the AIDS sufferers and there many more of them. I don’t think worrying about AIDS makes much sense. If I were a hemophiliac I’m sure I would feel differently. But normal heterosexuals with normal life choices just don’t get exposed to the AIDS virus.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  262. I hear that Roberts is ready to become the Court’s Benedict Arnold when push comes to interpreting the Constitution.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    He already has. See his 2010(?) vote on Øb☭macare.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    I hear that Roberts is ready to become the Court’s Benedict Arnold
     
    Source please.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  263. @Lucas McCrudy
    The Dems are using it as an election ploy to get low-info female voters in places where abortion will remain legal even if Roe's overturned to show up at the polls and vote for them. Last night Rachel Maddow was implying that if Roe's overturned abortion will be illegal in the United States- presumably in all 50 states, from coast-to-coast!
    IMO Trump (or maybe his surrogates) should make the point repeatedly between now and Nov. that even if he appoints 9 Antonin Scalia clones to the Supreme Court, all that would happen is the issue of abortion would go back to each of the states. Keep saying till you're blue in the face that even if Roe is overturned, states like NY, CT, IL, CA, MA, OR, WA and VT can ALL KEEP HAVING ABORTION ON DEMAND since there's nothing in the Constitution that forbids (or requires) a state -any state- to allow for legal abortion on demand. Same for gay marriage. I think this might be the key to help Trump make inroad with white voters in places like New England and the Pacific Northwest even. "If your state likes its abortion (laws), it can keep them!" Roe doesn't matter.

    All very true, Lucas. Federalism rocks!

    Too bad Trump wastes a good portion of time tweeting about personal sleights. If he’s gonna tweet, those points you made would make good tweets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  264. @pepperinmono
    Actually, Kennedy not that bad
    Good this term
    Good on Obamacare(Roberts caved)
    Gay marriage and abortion weak
    But who gives a shit on those
    Lost causes
    Could have been way worse

    Excellent! SCOTUS HAIKUS. What will they think of next?

    Desanex, what’ve you got in Limerick form. I’ll see if I can put one in later.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  265. @Rosie

    It’s like this, Achmed: You can’t be both a nationalist and an individualist.
     
    To clarify:

    Group allegiance imposes duties on the individual:

    Restrict yourself to ingroup mating prospects.
    Prefer your own in hiring, even if they are more expensive.
    Go to war to defend your group's interests.
    Have children for the group, even at the expense of your own freedom and security.

    The chief benefits of group membership are social security and a sense of belonging. The two of these go hand in hand, because without solidarity there's no belonging. Yet your anti socialism would deny these benefits, which begs the question as to how you would command the loyalty of the individual.

    You can't have one-for-all without also having the all-for-one. The heart of conservativism is not free market capitalism, but reciprocal duty.

    Rosie, I’m running out of time, and the thread’s getting old, for a good reply right now. We can take this up under another applicable thread. I’d also like to write a blog post about it, if I’m going to spend time explaining what’s inherently wrong and un-conservative about Socialism.

    See you on a further post!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  266. @John Henry
    I hear that Roberts is ready to become the Court's Benedict Arnold when push comes to interpreting the Constitution.

    He already has. See his 2010(?) vote on Øb☭macare.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  267. Svigor says:
    @Thomm
    Well, her appearance under decomposition would change less than that of most people.

    "I am Scare Glow, the ghost of Skeletor!!!!"

    Is that one of the comics you read in Bangalore to polish up your English?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  268. Not Raul says:
    @The Last Real Calvinist
    Hmmmmm. Eastern Iowa is worryingly purple; there might be too much sympathy in CR for the DC types. How about Sioux Falls, SD?

    That would probably work.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Agree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  269. @Twinkie
    I don't agree with you often, but I am with you on this. It's not this or that. It's both. The country and its people need both immigration restriction AND restoration of traditional - dare I say it - Christian morality and culture. The culture won't survive if the people are lost, but the people won't survive either if the culture is lost.

    Times are crazy, huh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    I love you both (but for different reasons).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  270. @RadicalCenter
    Actually fully enforcing everify would help a lot, you’re right, as would daily ICE raids of construction sites, restaurants, and day labor sites where illegal aliens congregate en masse.

    But none of that will affect people who don’t care about working, and we know there are millions of those among our recent waves of colonists. The guy who’s here to rape or steal or deal meth, doesn’t get deterred by everify. The guy who is content to live off his wife or girlfriend’s “benefits” and let “his” kids be fed by the rest of us via food stamps from birth to age 18, doesn’t care about workplace enforcement.

    There is no substitute for a serious physical barrier and armed troops killing all invaders as many times as necessary to stop the invasion. And yes, ending birthright Citizenship and chain migration.

    I like your ideas, but with e-Verify you reduce the open space that all the malefactors you have identified can operate in. I am not against the wall, and I would prefer both. But given a binary choice, I’d take e-Verify in a minute.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  271. @Not Raul
    That would probably work.

    Agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  272. @John Henry
    I hear that Roberts is ready to become the Court's Benedict Arnold when push comes to interpreting the Constitution.

    I hear that Roberts is ready to become the Court’s Benedict Arnold

    Source please.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  273. @It's All Ball Bearings
    Re: Whizzer White, his son is Danny White, P and backup QB behind Roger Staubach, starter 80-87. Very underrated QB and a great 4th down option to pass / run from the punter's position.

    So you are aware, while Danny’s father was indeed nicknamed Whizzer, he wasn’t THAT Whizzer White.

    As an aside, that Whizzer White married the daughter of the president of the University of Colorado. They met when he was in college and she was in high school.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  274. anonymous[935] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack Hanson
    Times are crazy, huh?

    I love you both (but for different reasons).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?