The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
NYT: Trump Competently Reassured Justice Kennedy It Was Safe 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

It turns out that President Trump conducted a highly competent campaign to reassure Justice Anthony Kennedy that, contrary to his portrayals in the media, he wouldn’t nominate, say, Judge Judy to replace him. From the New York Times:

Inside the White House’s Quiet Campaign to Create a Supreme Court Opening

WASHINGTON — President Trump singled him out for praise even while attacking other members of the Supreme Court. The White House nominated people close to him to important judicial posts. And members of the Trump family forged personal connections.

Their goal was to assure Justice Anthony M. Kennedy that his judicial legacy would be in good hands should he step down at the end of the court’s term this week, as he was rumored to be considering. Allies of the White House were more blunt, warning the 81-year-old justice that time was of the essence. There was no telling, they said, what would happen if Democrats gained control of the Senate after the November elections and had the power to block the president’s choice as his successor.

There were no direct efforts to pressure or lobby Justice Kennedy to announce his resignation on Wednesday, and it was hardly the first time a president had done his best to create a court opening. …

But in subtle and not so subtle ways, the White House waged a quiet campaign to ensure that Mr. Trump had a second opportunity in his administration’s first 18 months to fulfill one of his most important campaign promises to his conservative followers — that he would change the complexion and direction of the Supreme Court.

In contrast, Obama failed to get the even older and sicker Ginsburg out the door.

Justice Kennedy’s son is a corporate banker who has personally taken the lead in loaning Trump’s real estate enterprises a lot of the bank’s money over the years, so the Kennedy family has had in-depth exposure to the more substantive side of Trump than what you see on TV.

It would be interesting to see an objective evaluation of what Presidential skills Trump has proven adept at and where he has proven weakest. Comments?

 
Hide 290 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Anonymous[374] • Disclaimer says:

    I wanted to leave an interesting and constructive comment. But I’m still reeling from seeing “objective evaluation” and “Trump” in the same sentence. I doubt it’s possible currently.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    That smug, superior attitude us the principal reason you Leftists are getting you rear ends handed to you on a platter.
    , @TTSSYF
    Good. Then don't even speculate with a comment.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    I wanted to leave an interesting and constructive comment... I doubt it’s possible currently.
     
    You certainly haven't.
    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. Trump’s greatest strength, it seems to me, is masking what he is really doing behind bluster, misdirection, baiting of the media, and skillful reading and manipulation of personalities.

    Read More
    • Disagree: gate666
    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    Much agreed. As I've also said, his longtime business as a Manhattan developer, having to bully, cajole, wheedle numerous antagonistic public and private parties to get a project to completion colors everything he does.

    Simultaneously, his weakest point is that what's par for the course in the brutal NYC real estate market is often extremely off-putting in other settings. On the other hand, everybody keeps saying oh horrors this abrasive literally-Hitler is going to blow everything up, and he just keeps getting things done.

    But another conservative Justice, my gosh, this is sweet.
    , @Svigor
    It seems to be down to being a hard-nosed SOB. He doesn't have to try at all to misdirect the media; they're like a retriever with a tennis ball. He just has to be willing to ignore or endure their vitriol.

    OT: I just tumbled to this one a few days ago. Big Media's talking points on Trump's Awful Trade War:

    Protectionist measures don't work and are counter-productive. Each time Trump erects a protectionist measure, he makes himself an idiot afresh.

    Every country Trump has used protectionist measures against has retaliated.

    So, if they don't work, and Trump is an idiot for using them, doesn't that mean that every country that has retaliated is run by idiots?

    Mightn't we get to the bottom of this by figuring out which bodies haven't retaliated in kind? (Hint: not China, Canada, or the EU)

    Is this another example of Whitey/America being the only entities on the planet with agency?

    , @Chase
    It’s so strange that no one on the Left seems to understand (except, of course, the ones that understand too well and are completely terrified) this.

    People don’t luck into becoming a billionaire, having success in multiple different sectors (real estate, television, politics) then - again - luck into becoming president. If at this point you don’t understand that The Donald is a character designed to create exactly the reaction it creates, well, I don’t think it’s worth taking your opinion seriously.
    , @Jack Hanson
    I've only been saying this the whole time but here in autism town the idea that someone has multiple demeanors is just a step too far for the Biggest Brains on the Internet.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Rob McX says:

    This must mean Trump has someone lined up to replace him, no?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Zlat

    This must mean Trump has someone lined up to replace him, no?
     
    Surely, you’re acquainted with Ivanka Trump?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Just find the most pro-life male WASP, heterosexual justice you can find, pro-death penalty, ram him in. Democrats can’t do a thing about it.

    White guys should have representation on the Court, also.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Where would a nominee come out on birthright citizenship? The importance of that issue dwarfs these other issues.
    , @Anonymous
    I give you 49-year old Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule (B.A., Harvard, J.D., Harvard) Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. He clerked for Scalia and holds the same views. Pro-life conservative Catholic (convert). He grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Mother was a classical scholar and professor of classics at Radcliffe/Harvard. His father was a classicist as well and his sister is a professor of English Lit at Stanford.
    , @Anonymous
    I don't give an F if a woman wants to terminate her thugspawn, or for that matter if two dudes want to bone each other. Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles? I want the SC to preserve gun rights, overrule racial preferences, overrule any deference to international law, preserve the freedom of association, and preserve speech rights, and not legislate from the bench.
    , @Olorin
    SCOTUS is not the venue for legislating specific issues--especially where this would involve demands like yours for a pro-life candidate who is pro-death and has a sore spot for a political party. That sounds to me more like the resume from the 1980s.

    Especially focusing as you do on a political party already drowning in the social, economic, and moral bloodbaths it created over the past half century and demanding we all participate in their noisy, angry, last-stand heme-gargle.

    I'd like to see an engineer on the high court. I want reason exercised within the framing established by the best and brightest of our founding legal thinkers, carried forward with devoted navigation by that pole star...and the robust grace of The Law of Conservation of Genetics.

    An aeronautical, physics, or electrical/silicon-lightning engineer would have individual capacities like being forward thinking and grounded in cool reason. He would have the good sense not to legislate from the bench. (Good engineers know that the laws of nature are the laws of nature, no matter how you feel about them, and voting on it makes not a whit of difference.)

    Even more to the point, SCOTUS's caseload increasingly involves judgments on legal matters and precedents involving emerging "intellectual property" issues around rapidly evolving technical innovations. This area of the law is burgeoning at warp speed.

    I continually shudder to imagine it being considered by a dimwit like Sotomayor, whose only engineering experience is in demographic tinkering for Dem party votes, and whose dissents run to page after page of lefty cringe.

    The Dems have long viewed SCOTUS as mainly concerned with the latest Bolshie Grievance, Inc., microaggression. For them, SCOTUS is the court of last resort for their Long March Through The Institutions and its Frankfurt School innovations.

    Just another example of their failed leadership.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Appreciate your sentiment, but would broaden the nominees we're looking for.

    I'd go for simply normal, heterosexual white Americans who have their own children and can read and enforce the ENTIRE Constitution (including the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments). Including a healthy number of Protestants and people of primarily NW European and UK background, but including white people from the many other ethnic and Christian backgrounds.

    As for "pro-life", it's not clear that we need "justices" who will uphold federal criminalization of abortion -- just people who can read the Tenth Amendment, reverse Roe v. Wade and PPFA v. Casey, and return the issue to the people of each State. Along with homosexual "marriage" and every other hot-button issue that is not covered by an expressly enumerated power of the federal government.
    , @AndrewR
    "ram him in"

    This isn't really the post for you to be sharing your graphic sexual fantasies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Justice Kennedy’s son is a corporate banker who has personally taken the lead in loaning Trump’s real estate enterprises a lot of the bank’s money over the years…

    There are quite a few bankers like this. I knew one in Newark in the 90s who even bleached his formerly-blond hair — a bank president who was there when Trump got bailed out. Guess what. It turned out to be a good thing for everyone except the contractors who got screwed (and that’s not good, admittedly.)

    You pick your horse and you bet on him. What else can you do?

    Anyway, this Supreme Court turn of events is a very good thing. There will be one or two more new justices in the months and years ahead. Trump could, once-and-for-all, end the activist court that has been legislating from the bench and return it to its rightful, Constitutional place.

    Hell, the Supreme Court in our lifetimes has been amending the damned Constitution, not just legislating. It is an outrage and must stop.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Trump could, once-and-for-all, end the activist court that has been legislating from the bench and return it to its rightful, Constitutional place.
     
    Good luck with that.

    You're right the courts are outrageous. But for it to stop, the other branches must *act*. Stop treating their rulings as holy writ. Ignore them when they are wrong. Impeach justices who legislate. Abolish lower courts that are out of line. And Congress can use it's jurisdiction stripping authority. Courts are only worthy of respect when they follow the law.

    What's the chance conservatives, constitutionalists, federalists are going to do any of that?

    ~~

    Hate to keep going back here ... but it's where the road leads. We have been colonized by an elite that does not much like the idea of republican governance. It does not trust "the will of the people". It much prefers elite dispensation. And it has relentlessly propagandized that all this is normal, "constitutional" and good.

    If you don't have a people who insist on their right to govern themselves, then you won't have self-government. It's arguable whether we still have such a people.
    , @MB
    Art.3, Sect. 2 US Constitution

    In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    Arguably the contraints for our very own infallible Delphic oracle already exist, but Congress is too anemic to enforce them and "The People" too stupid to insist upon it.
    , @Cloudbuster
    even bleached his formerly-blond hair

    What? When you bleach blonde hair, you get ... blonder hair.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Ruth Bader Ginsburg looks like Allan Greenspan.

    I wonder if Ruth Bader Ginsburg is using steroids.

    Will Ruth Bader Ginsburg have a steroid rage incident on the bench?

    I hereby challenge Ruth Bader Ginsburg to a weight lifting contest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Barnard says:

    The assumption on Ginsberg has long been she wanted Crooked Hillary, as the first woman President, to nominate her replacement. I doubt Obama was astute enough to give Ginsberg the deference and flattery she would have wanted to step down during his term. There very likely could have been a mutual lack of respect between the two of them. There may be an addiction to power element to it as well. Ginsberg sees legislating from the bench as the proper role of the Supreme Court. It has to be difficult to give up that kind of power.

    I see Trump’s biggest weakness as being to easily influenced by people who opposed him through the campaign and don’t want his agenda to be implemented.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    I doubt Obama was astute enough to give Ginsberg the deference and flattery ...
     
    Right. The only deference and flattery BHO was interested in was that which was directed at him. There is no evidence he gives a rat's ass about anybody besides himself.
    , @NOTA
    I think the main difficulty is that RBG wasn't ready to step down and didn't want to let go of the immense power and prestige she had. The kind of person who gets to the supreme court is probably also the kind that will want to stay there till they're too old and feeble to continue.
    , @Prof. Woland
    Had Merrick Garland been nominated to SCOTUS that would have made 3 out of 9 Justices Jewish. With RBG off the bench it will be 1 out of 9, still way over represented but looking a lot more like America. With the old crone eventually leaving, possibly in a box, this might be Trump's opportunity to make what Chuck Schumer and HRC would have made into a permanent Jewish seat into an Asian seat replacing a past elite with a new one. It would probably shake up the Democrats to the core on things like Affirmative Action and all the gib-me-dats that heretofore were being handed out as guilt reparations. Just a thought.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    I was thinking something similar. I suspect some highly intelligent leftists, like RBG, were not taken in by Obama.

    In considering Obama, you have to consider Michelle. What kind of man would choose her? Can you imagine Michelle Obama bonding with Scalia over opera, like RBG?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Highlander says: • Website

    This visage is certainly striking the fear of God (or is it the goddess?) into the hearts of Democrats this morning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corn
    Who are they?
    , @AnotherDad
    I'm always leery of female judges, because of their less logical orientation and especially approval seeking. Sandra Day O'Connor's drift and the weird kludgy reasoning and essentially legislative pronouncement--ex. the 25 years after which affirmation action becomes unnecessary--a case study. To nominate any gal who's supposedly "conservative" i'd really want her to be "based".

    But i got to say, i looked up this Amy Coney Barrett and she's a conservative with 7 kids. In today's day and age, that's pretty based behavior right there. Though whether she's really "based", hard to tell. But you gotta love a gal who's had seven kids. That's someone in touch with biological reality. (Unless she's adopted a bunch from Africa--in that case keep her as far from the court as possible!)

    ~~

    I will say the Catholic thing strikes me as a negative given the current makeup of the court. Even as a Catholic schooled, Jesuit educated guy, I thought this deal where the court was 6 Catholics and 3 Jews was ridiculous in an Anglo-Protestant created nation.

    Note, this should make absolutely no difference because the court shouldn't be doing any legislating, it should routinely be rendering the same judgements that an AI program loaded with the constitution and federal law should come to. (Or a space alien who'd read our stuff.)

    But with the judicial tyranny we have going on, a "representative" court should have no more than 3 Catholics--outside 4, and never more than a single Jew. The rest should be Protestant background of various shades of practice/non-practice, belief/non-belief.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    She is the perfect Justice. If she wins the prize, leftists will suffer an eternity of darkness.
    , @Luke Lea
    Aren't five Catholics on the court enough already? Or is it six?
    , @Prester John
    Just scoped her out on Wiki. And on top of everything else, a member of the Federalist Society.

    Sign her up NOW!!!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Anon[931] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Christian
    Just find the most pro-life male WASP, heterosexual justice you can find, pro-death penalty, ram him in. Democrats can't do a thing about it.

    White guys should have representation on the Court, also.

    Where would a nominee come out on birthright citizenship? The importance of that issue dwarfs these other issues.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L Woods
    I think we all know that we're never getting rid of that one.
    , @KenH
    Really. People think outlawing abortion is the key to national and interracial amity. It will just give us more blacks and Latinos who commit crimes, join gangs and need welfare benefits.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. tyrone says:

    TRUMP WINNING!!! by the way Judge Judy would be better than many present and former justices.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Enochian
    Judge Judy could be the greatest supreme court judge ever. Future generations would look back and call it the Judy era. By the way, is it possible to get a poll going here so our readers can vote for their favorite Kennedy-replacement?

    And I forgot - she's jewish too. And a woman! What better way for Trump to diversify the supreme court?

    , @Abe
    I happened to be watching a PBS documentary and it mentioned Justice William O. Douglass so I looked him up on Wikipedia. Well, give thanks for the small graces I guess. As much as we LUUUV hating on today’s SJWs, at least they are not killing anyone (directly, BLM egging on is a different matter). At least they are not killing anyone while robbing banks to buy guns and bombs to kill more anyones. At least they are not killing anyone to jail-break someone who killed anyone while robbing a bank to buy more bombs and guns to kill anyones. At least they are not killing anyone to jailbreak someone who killed anyone while robbing a bank to buy more guns and bombs to kill anyones in order to emulate someone in East Asia whose revolution has killed millions of anyones by now.

    Point being, today’s leftists are decidedly less crazy than 2 generations prior. And as activist as they are, it still does not remotely compare to Justice Douglass’s hearing a petition from some Congresssoman to stop the Vietnam War, granting it SOLO, then forcing the 8 other members of the Court to emergency convene to overrule him. After which Douglass went to see DEEP THROAT at the local cineplex.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @Antlitz Grollheim
    Trump's greatest strength, it seems to me, is masking what he is really doing behind bluster, misdirection, baiting of the media, and skillful reading and manipulation of personalities.

    Much agreed. As I’ve also said, his longtime business as a Manhattan developer, having to bully, cajole, wheedle numerous antagonistic public and private parties to get a project to completion colors everything he does.

    Simultaneously, his weakest point is that what’s par for the course in the brutal NYC real estate market is often extremely off-putting in other settings. On the other hand, everybody keeps saying oh horrors this abrasive literally-Hitler is going to blow everything up, and he just keeps getting things done.

    But another conservative Justice, my gosh, this is sweet.

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

    OT: So how about that Henry Kerner fellow?

    Special Investigations: One ring to rule them all, one ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Tiny Duck says:

    This seat was STOLEN from Merrick Garland

    McConnnell made the rule so now he has to abide by it

    NO JUDGE UNTIL AFTER THE MIDTERMS

    How come you guys don’t want to talk about the white trmump supporter who killed 5 journalists at the Maryland newspapaer

    Read More
    • Troll: IHTG
    • Replies: @Simon Tugmutton
    Learn at the feet of the Master.

    https://youtu.be/fzkBfTfiXS0
    , @MBlanc46
    Maxine Waters made him do it TD.
    , @tyrone
    You should be happy tiny, now you won't have to live by the consequences of your own nutty beliefs.
    , @Precious
    This seat was STOLEN from Merrick Garland. McConnnell made the rule so now he has to abide by it

    Biden made the rule, not McConnell, back in 1992. It was clever at the time, but it came back to bite them. Tough break.

    How come you guys don’t want to talk about the white trmump supporter who killed 5 journalists at the Maryland newspapaer

    No such person exists. But we can talk about the hispanic guy who had a personal vendetta against the Maryland newspaper and killed 5 journalists yesterday if you like.

    , @Thirdtwin
    Lol, Tiny D, your typos used to be plausible fat fingers. Now you're just trolling us with obviously contrived typos. Having said that, "marginal Atkins" was a pretty good one.
    , @anon
    No fair! No respect for history.
    , @Chase
    There will be a judge before the midterms, but part of me thinks Trunp should give a choice between two: tell them I’m going to nominate a staunch conservative before the midterms of a fanatical conservative afterward. I’m quite sure the GOP will be licking up seats.
    , @Eric Novak
    He's a bit of a dope, Tiny Duck, that's why we're not talking about him-we told him to hit the New York Times, not the damn Annapolis Post-Intelligencer, or whatever it was. He could have taken out at least 50 NYT reporters in the cafeteria, including Paul Krugman, caught unawares by an AR-15 while stuffing a Hungarian cabbage roll in his mouth. What was this shooter's third choice? The Kalamazoo Tribune-Pickayune? What a wannabe.
    , @Brutusale
    He's one of yours, Teeny. Well, half of him anyway.

    https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/screen-shot-2018-06-28-at-11-40-27-pm-e1530250938815.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=541&strip=all
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Thirdtwin says:

    The Justice Mike Lee trolling was great. If Romney wasn’t so close to getting a Senate seat, we’d probably be hearing about potential Justice Romney.

    Read More
    • Replies: @athEIst
    I know you don't have to be a lawyer, but a corporate-raider?
    , @TTSSYF
    Romney's too old. We need someone under 50 if at all possible. Willett strikes me as being too creative and thus too much of a wild card...I can see someone like that flipping once given a life-time appointment.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. peterike says:

    I’d say Trump’s greatest strength is his ability to troll the media, Dems and NeverTrump Republicans. This puncturing of the false sanctity of “the news” and politics is all to the good. Hard-nosed mockery used to be a pretty regular feature of American media and politics ohhh a hundred years or so ago. Now it’s all sanctimonious phoniness upfront, while knives are stabbed in your back. Trump has revealed it all for what it is.

    His biggest weakness is he still pays FAR too much attention to process and procedure. He really does seem to want to work within the established guidelines. He could be way more Obama-like and just issue orders left and right. He should have fired Mueller six months ago at least. When his travel ban was first blocked by a judge he should have told the judge to shove it, and just gone ahead and ordered it done anyway. Anyone refusing to implement should have been fired on the spot.

    For goodness sake, we NEED a Constitutional crisis to break the backs of activist judges. If we can’t get it from Trump, who will we ever get it from? And he needs to break the bureaucracy. He has done very little in this regard.

    Hell, the Left already (insanely) calls him a dictator. Might as well prove them right.

    Read More
    • Agree: Svigor, Svigor, BB753
    • Replies: @res
    Svigor, how did you get two Agree's? I thought the current behavior was to only take the most recent button press? Once upon a time you could have Disagree, LOL, Troll (and Agree,but why) all active at once.
    , @The preferred nomenclature is...
    Look at Scott Pruitt (God bless that man. BTW he called me at home when he was running for OK AG and we discussed immigration for 15 minutes) if you want to see what Trump is doing toe reign in the bureaucracy.

    Trump is doing a great in reducing the number of Federal employees.

    He doesn't have magic wand. This shit takes time.
    , @tyrone
    Aye aye captain I like the cut of your jibe.
    , @RadicalCenter
    It is past time to show disrespect for the activists and propagandists who legislate from the federal bench. Start impeachment of judges who decree things that are clearly beyond their constitutional authority, which they do every day. Push for an amendment to end life tenure for federal judges.
    , @ben tillman
    Excellent comment. I must have used up my "agree" already.
    , @Neil Templeton
    To break the bureaucracy, you first need to break the spell of the priesthood, the moral prescribers of society. You need to show the populace that the priesthood is without credibility, self-serving, and that its prescriptions are toxic. The great majority of professionals, including the judiciary, have been raised to believe that their success in this life, e.g. success in love, work, and family, is conditioned on their fealty to a scripture of allegiance to falsehoods. The solvent is working, fealty is dissolving.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. One thing I’ve rarely seen mentioned, even here, is the obliteration of ISIS. Obama obviously created a huge mess by supporting the “moderate” rebels. Removing our support for the rebels mysteriously coincided with ISIS’s downfall. You hardly see any reporting on Syria at all anymore, just journos claiming Trump’s policy has been “all over the place” (it hasn’t.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @MB
    Ahem.

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/08/roger-stone/isis-made-usa/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Tiny Duck
    This seat was STOLEN from Merrick Garland

    McConnnell made the rule so now he has to abide by it

    NO JUDGE UNTIL AFTER THE MIDTERMS

    How come you guys don't want to talk about the white trmump supporter who killed 5 journalists at the Maryland newspapaer

    Learn at the feet of the Master.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. MBlanc46 says:
    @Anonymous
    I wanted to leave an interesting and constructive comment. But I'm still reeling from seeing "objective evaluation" and "Trump" in the same sentence. I doubt it's possible currently.

    That smug, superior attitude us the principal reason you Leftists are getting you rear ends handed to you on a platter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Not sure why you think he's a "Leftist." One thing everyone should be able to agree on is that Trump is polarizing figure who stirs up a lot of emotion in people and whom it's very difficult to analyze dispassionately. Even (or especially) his most ardent supporters should readily admit that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Barnard
    The assumption on Ginsberg has long been she wanted Crooked Hillary, as the first woman President, to nominate her replacement. I doubt Obama was astute enough to give Ginsberg the deference and flattery she would have wanted to step down during his term. There very likely could have been a mutual lack of respect between the two of them. There may be an addiction to power element to it as well. Ginsberg sees legislating from the bench as the proper role of the Supreme Court. It has to be difficult to give up that kind of power.

    I see Trump's biggest weakness as being to easily influenced by people who opposed him through the campaign and don't want his agenda to be implemented.

    I doubt Obama was astute enough to give Ginsberg the deference and flattery …

    Right. The only deference and flattery BHO was interested in was that which was directed at him. There is no evidence he gives a rat’s ass about anybody besides himself.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pyrrhus
    Obama has had a life long love for the image in the mirror...flattery of another (inferior) being would never occur to him....
    , @Redman
    Spot on.

    Who the hell thinks Obama would lift a finger for anything? He offshored foreign policy to HRC because he was uninterested in it and didn’t want to take any blame for bad decisions.

    Why else was Benghazi/Libya all about Hillary?

    Obama even had to be guilted into campaigning for “Obamacare” by Pelosi when it wasnt getting support. Remember that?
    , @AndrewR
    The corporate media is claiming that Obama asked Trump to "rename" Obamacare to Trumpcare while keeping it intact. "Oh, look how selfless and humble Barack Obama is!!!"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. MBlanc46 says:
    @Tiny Duck
    This seat was STOLEN from Merrick Garland

    McConnnell made the rule so now he has to abide by it

    NO JUDGE UNTIL AFTER THE MIDTERMS

    How come you guys don't want to talk about the white trmump supporter who killed 5 journalists at the Maryland newspapaer

    Maxine Waters made him do it TD.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Pat Boyle says:

    Trump continues to astonish. He’s always doing something I didn’t expect.

    Bye the way this conflating of Trump with Hitler is bizarre. I am reading a book by Delorenzo currently. He points out that Fascism differs from classical socialism in that whereas in garden variety socialism the government simply expropriates the means of production, Fascism allows private factories and businesses to exist but insists on state control through regulation. So Hitler allowed Krupp and Rheinmetal to stay in business but be smothered them in regulations. They were organs of the state – an early form of “crony capitalism”. This is what Fascism meant to Mussolini. He published this economic theory of statism. It is also what Hitler meant with his brand of National Socialism.

    Trump brags shamelessly about how many regulations he has abolished. This is not how a Fascist or Nazi goes about government. Trump is the consummate anti-Fascist. That style of government did get some traction in America with Barrack Obama but Trump is a free market guy (yes I know about his tariffs).

    Read More
    • Agree: ben tillman, EdwardM
    • Replies: @Svigor

    Bye the way this conflating of Trump with Hitler is bizarre. I am reading a book by Delorenzo currently. He points out that Fascism differs from classical socialism in that whereas in garden variety socialism the government simply expropriates the means of production, Fascism allows private factories and businesses to exist but insists on state control through regulation.
     
    This is probably the explanation I've heard the most on forums and other social media, through the years. It's pretty much the conventional wisdom, when people aren't busy gnashing their teeth.
    , @D. K.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#/media/File%3ABruttosozialprodukt_im_dt._Reich_1925-1939.svg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. Corn says:
    @Highlander
    This visage is certainly striking the fear of God (or is it the goddess?) into the hearts of Democrats this morning.

    http://wavemagazineonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-JUPPI-Amy-Barrett-071A-Deremer-Studios-LLC-e1478811952362-660x330.jpg

    Who are they?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Highlander
    It is 46 year old Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the 7th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals who is near or even at the top of Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees. You will be hearing the continual hysterical screams of the Democrats starting today.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Pyrrhus says:

    Time for a Protestant Justice who plays golf and thinks all illegals should be rounded up and deported…William Pryor, maybe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Kick Jeff Sessions up and out.
    , @Hibernian
    Pryor is Catholic.
    , @Anon
    Where would Pryor come out on birthright citizenship?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Pyrrhus says:
    @Jim Don Bob

    I doubt Obama was astute enough to give Ginsberg the deference and flattery ...
     
    Right. The only deference and flattery BHO was interested in was that which was directed at him. There is no evidence he gives a rat's ass about anybody besides himself.

    Obama has had a life long love for the image in the mirror…flattery of another (inferior) being would never occur to him….

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. tyrone says:
    @Tiny Duck
    This seat was STOLEN from Merrick Garland

    McConnnell made the rule so now he has to abide by it

    NO JUDGE UNTIL AFTER THE MIDTERMS

    How come you guys don't want to talk about the white trmump supporter who killed 5 journalists at the Maryland newspapaer

    You should be happy tiny, now you won’t have to live by the consequences of your own nutty beliefs.

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

    But in subtle and not so subtle ways, the White House waged a quiet campaign to ensure that

    …that Kennedy got plenty of opportunity to get to know the actual president and his administration, to compare to Big Media’s caricatures.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman
    LOL -- I didn't see that coming! You are right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Anonymous[266] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Christian
    Just find the most pro-life male WASP, heterosexual justice you can find, pro-death penalty, ram him in. Democrats can't do a thing about it.

    White guys should have representation on the Court, also.

    I give you 49-year old Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule (B.A., Harvard, J.D., Harvard) Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. He clerked for Scalia and holds the same views. Pro-life conservative Catholic (convert). He grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Mother was a classical scholar and professor of classics at Radcliffe/Harvard. His father was a classicist as well and his sister is a professor of English Lit at Stanford.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old Palo Altan
    He would be magnificent.

    But I wonder if he shouldn't be left alone to write a few more seminal works of legal theory. I particularly like his interest in Carl Schmitt.

    He would be, as well, the socially most exalted Supreme Court justice in quite some time: both his own and his mother's families are not only intellectually distinguished but also denizens of the New York Social Register for many decades.

    , @drahthaar
    Vermeule would be an excellent choice. He has written some very fine essays on culture. Would be too good to be true, I'm afraid. Would flip out the Trump-is-a-moron set.
    , @GU
    I’ve always seen Vermeule as a big government, pro-adiministrative state cuck. What makes you think he’d ram through a conservative agenda? Do you know who makes the administrative decisions that Vermuele wants us to defer to? Not conservative white men, I can tell you that.

    Abortion is a symbolic issue, keep your eye on the ball.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    Harvard domination of the Supreme Court is not healthy! I'm not saying that the next SCOTUS justice has to have a JD from Drake or Brigham Young, but Stanford or the University of Michigan should be considered.
    , @Seneca44
    There may be several opportunities in the near future to populate the SC with candidates of this ilk, if you think about it. Justice Methuselah--er, I mean Ginsburg looks every minute of the 85 years she has lived and could croak any minute. Breyer has already expressed a desire to retire and is 79. Sotomayor is a 64 year old type 1 diabetic and is far from the picture of health. My suggestion, FWIW, would be merely to get a justice who actually uses constitutional law to make decisions. The leftist/statist justices seem more likely to use specious arguments to support their decisions. If you don't believe this, read Justice Kagan's decision in the Janus case in which her main point is that the SC should not overturn precedent cases.
    , @Eagle Eye
    I give you 49-year old Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule (B.A., Harvard, J.D., Harvard) .....

    Pro-life conservative Catholic (convert).

    Absolutely no more Harvard guys, and no more Catholics, converted or native. On the other hand, an Orthodox Jewish justice would be worth it, if only to enjoy the screams of horror in the NYT.

    The problem with elite education is that the elitist invariably thinks himself superior to mere mortals. This in turn produces judges who are not content with interpreting the law and instead compete to discover penumbrae in the Constitution allowing them to legislate from the bench on abortion, immigration, and whatever topic du jour catches their fancy.

    Having everything handed to them on a silver platter makes judges self-indulgent.

    America has plenty of smart, educated attorneys who are able to handle the law in a workmanlike fashion while remaining vigilant against legislative overreach.

    We want someone who has worked his way up, and who has spent at least a few years doing real work in the private sector and/or the military before becoming a lawyer and judge.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Svigor says:
    @Pat Boyle
    Trump continues to astonish. He's always doing something I didn't expect.

    Bye the way this conflating of Trump with Hitler is bizarre. I am reading a book by Delorenzo currently. He points out that Fascism differs from classical socialism in that whereas in garden variety socialism the government simply expropriates the means of production, Fascism allows private factories and businesses to exist but insists on state control through regulation. So Hitler allowed Krupp and Rheinmetal to stay in business but be smothered them in regulations. They were organs of the state - an early form of "crony capitalism". This is what Fascism meant to Mussolini. He published this economic theory of statism. It is also what Hitler meant with his brand of National Socialism.

    Trump brags shamelessly about how many regulations he has abolished. This is not how a Fascist or Nazi goes about government. Trump is the consummate anti-Fascist. That style of government did get some traction in America with Barrack Obama but Trump is a free market guy (yes I know about his tariffs).

    Bye the way this conflating of Trump with Hitler is bizarre. I am reading a book by Delorenzo currently. He points out that Fascism differs from classical socialism in that whereas in garden variety socialism the government simply expropriates the means of production, Fascism allows private factories and businesses to exist but insists on state control through regulation.

    This is probably the explanation I’ve heard the most on forums and other social media, through the years. It’s pretty much the conventional wisdom, when people aren’t busy gnashing their teeth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
    You say that as if to disparage that account. In the little econ book I was quoting DiLorenzo cites original sources. This is apparently what the author (Mussolini) of Fascism meant by the term, and it was also Hitler's understanding. On TV or on blogs the term is used by many people in many ways. This is the most original understanding - state (socialist) control of the means of production through regulation rather than direct expropriation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. L Woods says:
    @Anon
    Where would a nominee come out on birthright citizenship? The importance of that issue dwarfs these other issues.

    I think we all know that we’re never getting rid of that one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Buzz Mohawk

    Justice Kennedy’s son is a corporate banker who has personally taken the lead in loaning Trump’s real estate enterprises a lot of the bank’s money over the years...
     
    There are quite a few bankers like this. I knew one in Newark in the 90s who even bleached his formerly-blond hair -- a bank president who was there when Trump got bailed out. Guess what. It turned out to be a good thing for everyone except the contractors who got screwed (and that's not good, admittedly.)

    You pick your horse and you bet on him. What else can you do?

    Anyway, this Supreme Court turn of events is a very good thing. There will be one or two more new justices in the months and years ahead. Trump could, once-and-for-all, end the activist court that has been legislating from the bench and return it to its rightful, Constitutional place.

    Hell, the Supreme Court in our lifetimes has been amending the damned Constitution, not just legislating. It is an outrage and must stop.

    Trump could, once-and-for-all, end the activist court that has been legislating from the bench and return it to its rightful, Constitutional place.

    Good luck with that.

    You’re right the courts are outrageous. But for it to stop, the other branches must *act*. Stop treating their rulings as holy writ. Ignore them when they are wrong. Impeach justices who legislate. Abolish lower courts that are out of line. And Congress can use it’s jurisdiction stripping authority. Courts are only worthy of respect when they follow the law.

    What’s the chance conservatives, constitutionalists, federalists are going to do any of that?

    ~~

    Hate to keep going back here … but it’s where the road leads. We have been colonized by an elite that does not much like the idea of republican governance. It does not trust “the will of the people”. It much prefers elite dispensation. And it has relentlessly propagandized that all this is normal, “constitutional” and good.

    If you don’t have a people who insist on their right to govern themselves, then you won’t have self-government. It’s arguable whether we still have such a people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    Also, we need to bring back localism. I'm all for self-governing people. Emphasis on self. Several million leftists in California weighing in on how I should live is unacceptable.
    , @Diversity Heretic
    Other branches give way too much deference to black-robed kritarchs. At least some states force judges and justices to face the voters periodically. In Iowa the three state Supreme Court justices who were up for a retention election after "legislating" homosexual marriage within the state lost their jobs.
    , @ben tillman

    You’re right the courts are outrageous. But for it to stop, the other branches must *act*. Stop treating their rulings as holy writ. Ignore them when they are wrong.
     
    The members of the executive and legislative branches are every bit as entitled to interpret the Constitution as any judge is. Moreover, the President's oath of office effectively requires him to ignore unconstitutional judicial rulings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Precious says:
    @Tiny Duck
    This seat was STOLEN from Merrick Garland

    McConnnell made the rule so now he has to abide by it

    NO JUDGE UNTIL AFTER THE MIDTERMS

    How come you guys don't want to talk about the white trmump supporter who killed 5 journalists at the Maryland newspapaer

    This seat was STOLEN from Merrick Garland. McConnnell made the rule so now he has to abide by it

    Biden made the rule, not McConnell, back in 1992. It was clever at the time, but it came back to bite them. Tough break.

    How come you guys don’t want to talk about the white trmump supporter who killed 5 journalists at the Maryland newspapaer

    No such person exists. But we can talk about the hispanic guy who had a personal vendetta against the Maryland newspaper and killed 5 journalists yesterday if you like.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Svigor says:
    @Antlitz Grollheim
    Trump's greatest strength, it seems to me, is masking what he is really doing behind bluster, misdirection, baiting of the media, and skillful reading and manipulation of personalities.

    It seems to be down to being a hard-nosed SOB. He doesn’t have to try at all to misdirect the media; they’re like a retriever with a tennis ball. He just has to be willing to ignore or endure their vitriol.

    OT: I just tumbled to this one a few days ago. Big Media’s talking points on Trump’s Awful Trade War:

    Protectionist measures don’t work and are counter-productive. Each time Trump erects a protectionist measure, he makes himself an idiot afresh.

    Every country Trump has used protectionist measures against has retaliated.

    So, if they don’t work, and Trump is an idiot for using them, doesn’t that mean that every country that has retaliated is run by idiots?

    Mightn’t we get to the bottom of this by figuring out which bodies haven’t retaliated in kind? (Hint: not China, Canada, or the EU)

    Is this another example of Whitey/America being the only entities on the planet with agency?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    Is this another example of Whitey/America being the only entities on the planet with agency?

    Clearly another case of systemic agency.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. I guess there is a method in the madness, but I hate the constant back and forth tweeting and name calling. Rise above all that and more people will come on board.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    ... I hate the constant back and forth tweeting and name calling. Rise above all that and more people will come on board.
     
    Nah, that’s one of the best attributes of Trump, and probably his greatest tactical strength. The left can’t handle it, Deplorables love it, and fence sitters who don’t appreciate jocular aggression will always be fickle allies (not you—I’m talking about ‘normies’). Trump’s aggression is necessary because this a real fight. Plus it’s fun. :)

    Remember this pathetic Hillary ad with the po-faced child actors? You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrX3Ql31URA
    , @The preferred nomenclature is...
    Man, Buffalo, I never thought I'd disagree with one of your posts (which I always try to read because you have good things to say) but this time I'm gonna have to. I like Trump busting their balls and he is showing the way for future deplorables.

    But, I do understand what you are saying. God Bless and have a great 4th of July.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Zlat says:
    @Rob McX
    This must mean Trump has someone lined up to replace him, no?

    This must mean Trump has someone lined up to replace him, no?

    Surely, you’re acquainted with Ivanka Trump?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    Ann Coulter would a great choice, but not having practised law for years would probably disqualify her.
    , @Cloudbuster
    Ivanka is a lovely lady and seems to be a good businesswoman, wife and mother, but she is also quite obviously a pretty standard urban liberal, maybe with a dash of realism bestowed by Daddy. She's not a good Presidential candidate.

    At the risk (and joy) of sounding sexist, women suitable for the Presidency are as rare as hen's teeth. Maggie Thatcher was a very rare creature. Hillary is not in that lofty company, and neither are Carly Fiorina, Elizabeth Warren, Nikki Haley or Kamala Harris.
    , @TTSSYF
    He would more likely nominate his sister, who's a federal judge in New York, but he's already said he'd never do that.
    , @Buck Turgidson
    Ivanka as president? Ah, no. Ivanka is a Manhattan liberal and appears to be left-leaning on a large number of issues. It's not clear to me what she ever has done without working under her father and the Trump name. I don't dislike her but she's overrated, she isn't her father, and enough of political dynasties already.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Berty says:

    I’ve been dumping on Trump somewhat lately, but I’ll admit his ability to disregard norms and precedents and basically conquer the Republican Party is amazing in so many ways. He’s humiliated and defeated most of his enemies in the party, something even Reagan couldn’t do.

    With that said, I’ll repeat what I said before and say that I think the GOP should hold off on confirming anyone until next year and allow the issue to linger on through the election. The party badly needs the election to be about judges and not Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @a boy and his dog
    A lot of people are complaining that Trump is buddying up to his detractors. But the ability to burn a bridge and then rebuild it in a more favorable position is a huge asset in business and statecraft. Trump's been taking Never Trumpers and converting them one by one to the point where the GOP will be solidly his own party soon. Former enemies are faced with the choice of taking a deal from an 'enemy' that may be advantageous for them, or fighting all over again and likely being humiliated. They either take the deal and become at least some kind of ally, or give up and quit in the face of Trump's seemingly endless energy. This offers a strategic lesson for everyone.


    On a side note, people are noticing Trump's drive and energy and are copying some of his habits like waking early and not drinking. So there may be a knock-on Trump effect years down the road of these people running everything simply due to having more vitality.
    , @David Davenport
    With that said, I’ll repeat what I said before and say that I think the GOP should hold off on confirming anyone until next year and allow the issue to linger on through the election. The party badly needs the election to be about judges and not Trump.

    You don't sincerely mean that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Thirdtwin says:
    @Tiny Duck
    This seat was STOLEN from Merrick Garland

    McConnnell made the rule so now he has to abide by it

    NO JUDGE UNTIL AFTER THE MIDTERMS

    How come you guys don't want to talk about the white trmump supporter who killed 5 journalists at the Maryland newspapaer

    Lol, Tiny D, your typos used to be plausible fat fingers. Now you’re just trolling us with obviously contrived typos. Having said that, “marginal Atkins” was a pretty good one.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. D. K. says:

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/02/personnel_is_policy.html

    ***

    Back in the Reagan Administration, we had a saying that always drew sneers from the press and from the Washington establishment: “Personnel is policy.” What we meant, of course, is that to execute the President’s policies it was necessary to hire officials who supported these policies, and who would work to achieve the President’s objectives rather than to undermine them.

    ***

    From the very start— the choice of Reince Priebus as his (first) White House Chief of Staff— Donald Trump has failed this test, much more often than he has passed it. I had very low expectations for what President Trump would be able to accomplish— other than keeping the loathsome Clintons out of the White House!— because the majority of his own majority party in Congress was opposed to the majority of what got him elected: transitioning the United States’ political culture from globalism and elitism to nationalism and populism. Nonetheless, he has utterly failed to meet even my own modest hopes for his presidency. I see no sign that the wall ever will be built, nor even genuinely begun; and, his endless longing to amnesty the DREAMers, rather than to keep his explicit promise, cited on his campaign’s Web site, to cancel the unconstitutional DACA scheme instituted by the Obama regime, and to do so on Day 1 of the Trump Administration, is perhaps the most galling lie that he told in order to get himself elected. Before the inane “First 100 Days!” even ran out, it was utterly clear to me that Donald Trump intended to run for re-election, come 2020, on the same platform as Reagan did, in 1984: pointing to a burgeoning economy (minus the re-industrialization of the Rust Belt— one of the two basic promises that actually got him elected!), while wrapping himself in the American flag (and continuing our eternal war on the Middle East, contra his campaign promises, while flirting with major new wars against several other countries). Whether this trajectory continues for the next six and a half years, or only for the next six and a half months, I think the aforementioned Reince Priebus summed it up, recently: Apres Trump, the Republican Party reverts to form (as the globalist un-American party of the overclass, even if Reince and his pal, Speaker Ryan, see it otherwise).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Precious
    “Personnel is policy.” What we meant, of course, is that to execute the President’s policies it was necessary to hire officials who supported these policies, and who would work to achieve the President’s objectives rather than to undermine them. From the very start...Donald Trump has failed this test,

    But you don't mention why in your post. The reason is that, unlike Reagan, almost no one in Washington DC supported most of Trump's policies. The Plum book outlines the thousands of direct hires the President has to make. How many people does Trump know and trust? Not thousands. And of the people he knows and trusts, the majority don't live in DC.

    And getting someone with a family to move to DC isn't easy. They have to uproot their family and buy into a higher housing market(unless they live in NYC or similar market). And the average time spent in a Plum book job is about 2 years. Many people aren't willing to do that.

    I understood what Trump was getting into from the start, and what he could possibly do as opposed to what he would like to do. Apparently my expectations were even lower than yours because I understood what I have just mentioned above. So I am very happy with what Trump has accomplished so far.
    , @Jack Hanson
    "BLUMPF!" cried the eeyore as Trump mercs his way to victory .
    , @Anonym
    Reince was likely a quid pro quo for not screwing Trump with the delegate situation at the convention. In my view.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/17/priebus-to-anti-trump-delegates-time-to-give-it-up/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Anonymous[286] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Christian
    Just find the most pro-life male WASP, heterosexual justice you can find, pro-death penalty, ram him in. Democrats can't do a thing about it.

    White guys should have representation on the Court, also.

    I don’t give an F if a woman wants to terminate her thugspawn, or for that matter if two dudes want to bone each other. Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles? I want the SC to preserve gun rights, overrule racial preferences, overrule any deference to international law, preserve the freedom of association, and preserve speech rights, and not legislate from the bench.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NOTA
    I often like the policy decisions the Supreme Court makes (for example, I think legally recognized gay marriage is a good policy). But they aren't the right people to make policy--their job is to rule on cases according to the law and the constitution. The supreme court is the right place for some over broad law restricting speech or guns or intruding on everyone's privacy to be shot down, but it's not the place to change or make laws.
    , @MB
    Family is the bedrock of culture and law, which is why messing with it via Roe Wade and Obergefel in the long run is not a good thing.
    , @Alec Leamas

    Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles? I want the SC to [insert the old/cultural legal battles].
     
    , @Daniel Williams

    I don’t give an F if a woman wants to terminate her thugspawn, or for that matter if two dudes want to bone each other. Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles? I want the SC to preserve gun rights, overrule racial preferences, overrule any deference to international law, preserve the freedom of association, and preserve speech rights, and not legislate from the bench.
     
    "Doc, I don't care about my kidney failure or colon cancer. But I do want you to fix my high blood pressure, brain tumors, and broken leg. After all, I want to live."

    It's all connected.

    , @Cloudbuster
    The top ten most important issues facing the nation:

    1. Immigration
    2. Immigration
    3. Immigration
    4. Immigration
    5. Immigration
    6. Immigration
    7. Immigration
    8. Immigration
    9. Immigration
    10. Entitlement spending
    , @David Davenport
    I don’t give an F if a woman wants to terminate her thugspawn, or for that matter if two dudes want to bone each other. Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles?

    In other words, you're a Leftist.
    , @TTSSYF
    I also don't care if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages or what two consenting males do behind closed doors, but do I have to applaud it and, in the latter case, approve of gay "marriage" or else be excoriated as a homophobe?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Olorin says:
    @Jim Christian
    Just find the most pro-life male WASP, heterosexual justice you can find, pro-death penalty, ram him in. Democrats can't do a thing about it.

    White guys should have representation on the Court, also.

    SCOTUS is not the venue for legislating specific issues–especially where this would involve demands like yours for a pro-life candidate who is pro-death and has a sore spot for a political party. That sounds to me more like the resume from the 1980s.

    Especially focusing as you do on a political party already drowning in the social, economic, and moral bloodbaths it created over the past half century and demanding we all participate in their noisy, angry, last-stand heme-gargle.

    I’d like to see an engineer on the high court. I want reason exercised within the framing established by the best and brightest of our founding legal thinkers, carried forward with devoted navigation by that pole star…and the robust grace of The Law of Conservation of Genetics.

    An aeronautical, physics, or electrical/silicon-lightning engineer would have individual capacities like being forward thinking and grounded in cool reason. He would have the good sense not to legislate from the bench. (Good engineers know that the laws of nature are the laws of nature, no matter how you feel about them, and voting on it makes not a whit of difference.)

    Even more to the point, SCOTUS’s caseload increasingly involves judgments on legal matters and precedents involving emerging “intellectual property” issues around rapidly evolving technical innovations. This area of the law is burgeoning at warp speed.

    I continually shudder to imagine it being considered by a dimwit like Sotomayor, whose only engineering experience is in demographic tinkering for Dem party votes, and whose dissents run to page after page of lefty cringe.

    The Dems have long viewed SCOTUS as mainly concerned with the latest Bolshie Grievance, Inc., microaggression. For them, SCOTUS is the court of last resort for their Long March Through The Institutions and its Frankfurt School innovations.

    Just another example of their failed leadership.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    An aeronautical, physics, or electrical/silicon-lightning engineer would have individual capacities like being forward thinking and grounded in cool reason.


    Can we do a turn-around and replace all NASA employees with lawyers? Maybe we could just make NASA a sub-unit of the Supreme Court.
    , @TomSchmidt
    Peter Thiel, maybe?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Rob McX says:
    @Zlat

    This must mean Trump has someone lined up to replace him, no?
     
    Surely, you’re acquainted with Ivanka Trump?

    Ann Coulter would a great choice, but not having practised law for years would probably disqualify her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    She still has a license.
    , @MarkinLA
    but not having practised law for years would probably disqualify her


    That is the most compelling reason. She knows enough about the law so would counter the claims made against an engineer. She has seen enough of the garbage decisions in her life and can pick them apart. She actually isn't full of herself as a legal professional. She knows what a farce the SC and the federal judicial system has become.
    , @Russ
    A reasonable point; however, did that Elena Kagan person whom Obama appointed ever do anything more than organize the Harvard Law School softball games?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. NOTA says:
    @Barnard
    The assumption on Ginsberg has long been she wanted Crooked Hillary, as the first woman President, to nominate her replacement. I doubt Obama was astute enough to give Ginsberg the deference and flattery she would have wanted to step down during his term. There very likely could have been a mutual lack of respect between the two of them. There may be an addiction to power element to it as well. Ginsberg sees legislating from the bench as the proper role of the Supreme Court. It has to be difficult to give up that kind of power.

    I see Trump's biggest weakness as being to easily influenced by people who opposed him through the campaign and don't want his agenda to be implemented.

    I think the main difficulty is that RBG wasn’t ready to step down and didn’t want to let go of the immense power and prestige she had. The kind of person who gets to the supreme court is probably also the kind that will want to stay there till they’re too old and feeble to continue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alec Leamas

    I think the main difficulty is that RBG wasn’t ready to step down and didn’t want to let go of the immense power and prestige she had. The kind of person who gets to the supreme court is probably also the kind that will want to stay there till they’re too old and feeble to continue.
     
    I think it's more likely that Ginsburg simply absorbed the DC conventional wisdom which held that Republicans would forever be unable to win the Presidency after 2008. She wasn't ready to go in the early Obama years, and the Senate flipped to the GOP in 2010 so I figure she was waiting until a year when HRC was President and the Senate was under Democrat control so that her successor could be as hard left as she was (not the sort of phony moderate like Garland, but a gender warrior firebrand).

    But there is a whiff of the old bag believing her press and embracing her newfound folk hero status among Millennial women as the Notorious RBG. It's just that - angel of death willing - she badly miscalculated and you'd have to presume that the odds are that her successor will be appointed by Trump and will be diametrically opposed to her vision of the Court and the nation.
    , @athEIst
    William O Douglas stayed too long too, but he needed the money. RGB is very wealthy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. res says:
    @peterike
    I'd say Trump's greatest strength is his ability to troll the media, Dems and NeverTrump Republicans. This puncturing of the false sanctity of "the news" and politics is all to the good. Hard-nosed mockery used to be a pretty regular feature of American media and politics ohhh a hundred years or so ago. Now it's all sanctimonious phoniness upfront, while knives are stabbed in your back. Trump has revealed it all for what it is.

    His biggest weakness is he still pays FAR too much attention to process and procedure. He really does seem to want to work within the established guidelines. He could be way more Obama-like and just issue orders left and right. He should have fired Mueller six months ago at least. When his travel ban was first blocked by a judge he should have told the judge to shove it, and just gone ahead and ordered it done anyway. Anyone refusing to implement should have been fired on the spot.

    For goodness sake, we NEED a Constitutional crisis to break the backs of activist judges. If we can't get it from Trump, who will we ever get it from? And he needs to break the bureaucracy. He has done very little in this regard.

    Hell, the Left already (insanely) calls him a dictator. Might as well prove them right.

    Svigor, how did you get two Agree’s? I thought the current behavior was to only take the most recent button press? Once upon a time you could have Disagree, LOL, Troll (and Agree,but why) all active at once.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    AFAIK if you wait out the timer, you can hit a button as much as you want. Greasy Williams once patiently hit "troll" on a post for over four hours for not agreeing that Taylor Swift was the most beautiful goddess-woman in the world.
    , @Svigor
    Glitch in the Matrix. I clicked it once, nothing happened, I clicked it again, got the "slow down" page, hit back button, reloaded, voila.
    , @jim jones
    There needs to be a "nutcase" button on Unz
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. NOTA says:

    Most stories about Trump’s white house have looked pretty dysfunctional, and Trump + GOP haven’t managed to get a lot done in Congress.

    Perhaps this is different because it could be done by a few people actually trusted by Trump, rather than something requiring a whole bureaucracy full of sociopathic political climbers to accomplish. Or maybe the difference is that this kind of thing is something Trump is good at, whereas details of managing the presidents office and the executive branch is something he’s still learning to do.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fredrik
    Additionally you'd think that a list of SCOTUS candidates must have been drawn up a long, long time ago. Trump would only need to rearrange the list if he wants to.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. NOTA says:
    @Anonymous
    I don't give an F if a woman wants to terminate her thugspawn, or for that matter if two dudes want to bone each other. Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles? I want the SC to preserve gun rights, overrule racial preferences, overrule any deference to international law, preserve the freedom of association, and preserve speech rights, and not legislate from the bench.

    I often like the policy decisions the Supreme Court makes (for example, I think legally recognized gay marriage is a good policy). But they aren’t the right people to make policy–their job is to rule on cases according to the law and the constitution. The supreme court is the right place for some over broad law restricting speech or guns or intruding on everyone’s privacy to be shot down, but it’s not the place to change or make laws.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor

    I often like the policy decisions the Supreme Court makes (for example, I think legally recognized gay marriage is a good policy).
     
    It's awful because that ain't marriage. It's not the Courts' mandate to redefine institutions that predate civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @res
    Svigor, how did you get two Agree's? I thought the current behavior was to only take the most recent button press? Once upon a time you could have Disagree, LOL, Troll (and Agree,but why) all active at once.

    AFAIK if you wait out the timer, you can hit a button as much as you want. Greasy Williams once patiently hit “troll” on a post for over four hours for not agreeing that Taylor Swift was the most beautiful goddess-woman in the world.

    Read More
    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @res
    Interesting. I Disagree/Troll/LOLed someone once when I was annoyed, but that stopped working (and IIRC changed in the archive as well). Last time I tried hitting a different button after waiting out the timer the display just reset to (only) the most recent. Which is actually a good way of doing it IMHO to deal with people hitting the wrong button by accident. I'll try playing with this on your comment. First a LOL and then two agrees.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. D. K. says:
    @Pat Boyle
    Trump continues to astonish. He's always doing something I didn't expect.

    Bye the way this conflating of Trump with Hitler is bizarre. I am reading a book by Delorenzo currently. He points out that Fascism differs from classical socialism in that whereas in garden variety socialism the government simply expropriates the means of production, Fascism allows private factories and businesses to exist but insists on state control through regulation. So Hitler allowed Krupp and Rheinmetal to stay in business but be smothered them in regulations. They were organs of the state - an early form of "crony capitalism". This is what Fascism meant to Mussolini. He published this economic theory of statism. It is also what Hitler meant with his brand of National Socialism.

    Trump brags shamelessly about how many regulations he has abolished. This is not how a Fascist or Nazi goes about government. Trump is the consummate anti-Fascist. That style of government did get some traction in America with Barrack Obama but Trump is a free market guy (yes I know about his tariffs).
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Highlander says: • Website
    @Corn
    Who are they?

    It is 46 year old Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the 7th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals who is near or even at the top of Trump’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees. You will be hearing the continual hysterical screams of the Democrats starting today.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    Problem with a woman nominee is the question of whether she is more likely to “grow” on the bench than a man would. Hard to say. I will say this, unlike his establishment Republican predecessors, Trump seems so far to have done pretty well with Gorsuch being a non-“grower”.
    Being a woman also does nothing for reducing hysterical opposition from the Left. They simply declare her an honorary non-woman, and hideously White, and pretend she wears swastika emblazoned undies.
    , @Dan Hayes
    Highlander:

    Judge Barrett has 7 biological children. How is she able to simultaneously perform both her maternal and judicial duties? The same question can be posed about mother of eight Clara Lejeune-Gaymard, the daughter of the French Geneticist Jerome Lejeune and the top executive of GE France.

    Let me add that I hold both individuals in my highest regard.
    , @Lucas McCrudy
    I heard she has 2 adopted Haitian children. Sounds like a bit of a bleeding heart. Let's stick with a safe choice this time- a stale, pale male.
    , @BB753
    Women should make no decidisions at all, judicial or otherwise, during menopause.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. anon[488] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pyrrhus
    Time for a Protestant Justice who plays golf and thinks all illegals should be rounded up and deported...William Pryor, maybe?

    Kick Jeff Sessions up and out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman
    Yes, that could be a good idea.
    , @FPD72
    Sessions is too old. We need somebody young, healthy, and unlikely to “grow.”

    Barrett seems to me to meet all three criteria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. anon[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tiny Duck
    This seat was STOLEN from Merrick Garland

    McConnnell made the rule so now he has to abide by it

    NO JUDGE UNTIL AFTER THE MIDTERMS

    How come you guys don't want to talk about the white trmump supporter who killed 5 journalists at the Maryland newspapaer

    No fair! No respect for history.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. anonymous[488] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rob McX
    Ann Coulter would a great choice, but not having practised law for years would probably disqualify her.

    She still has a license.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Fredrik says:
    @NOTA
    Most stories about Trump's white house have looked pretty dysfunctional, and Trump + GOP haven't managed to get a lot done in Congress.

    Perhaps this is different because it could be done by a few people actually trusted by Trump, rather than something requiring a whole bureaucracy full of sociopathic political climbers to accomplish. Or maybe the difference is that this kind of thing is something Trump is good at, whereas details of managing the presidents office and the executive branch is something he's still learning to do.

    Additionally you’d think that a list of SCOTUS candidates must have been drawn up a long, long time ago. Trump would only need to rearrange the list if he wants to.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EdwardM
    He made it public. It has around 25 names on it (Gorsuch was one).

    The left has already come out and said that all 25 are literally Hitler, etc. It shows their true agenda and makes them look silly, as opposed to their usual tactic of saying that this guy that the president nominated is singularly unacceptable and he must nominate someone else, in an effort to wear him down.

    It was a smart move politically (giving the left this reaction and reassuring conservatives) and procedurally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @Buffalo Joe
    I guess there is a method in the madness, but I hate the constant back and forth tweeting and name calling. Rise above all that and more people will come on board.

    … I hate the constant back and forth tweeting and name calling. Rise above all that and more people will come on board.

    Nah, that’s one of the best attributes of Trump, and probably his greatest tactical strength. The left can’t handle it, Deplorables love it, and fence sitters who don’t appreciate jocular aggression will always be fickle allies (not you—I’m talking about ‘normies’). Trump’s aggression is necessary because this a real fight. Plus it’s fun. :)

    Remember this pathetic Hillary ad with the po-faced child actors? You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh.

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

    In contrast, Obama failed to get the even older and sicker Ginsburg out the door.

    A perceptive comment by our host.

    The main reason I voted for Trump and supported his candidacy from the moment of his announcement was my perception that, more than anything else, whether I agreed or disagreed with him on particular points of policy, the man has been an apt chief executive.

    One of a chief executive’s toughest, most delicate jobs is encouraging someone in a position of power and influence to move on while they can feel good about it. Even in the best circumstances, this can involve or can raise conflict, it’s not likely to make him popular, and it requires strength of character and solid experience managing people. To captain such a transition and leave the individual feeling good about it, while openly lining up successors is big lig.

    I said back in ’15 and through the election cycle and into ’17 that DJT was offering the equivalent of a bachelor’s in communications, for free, to anyone who wanted it as he demonstrated how the mass media work, what their agendas are, how to get or stay free of those, and get involved in pamphleteering yourownselves.

    I see him doing the same with business administration now. We have had weak, pandering chief executives for so long that most people don’t even know what a solid chief exec looks like in practice. Especially since guys like that would not lower themselves to public service other than slapping their names on a pricey building in the name of “philanthropy.” Meaning the ones who DO go into public service are the worst and least who taint the calling for genuine civil servants. Also it’s not in the MSM’s interest to recognize or elevate competence and excellence. Their leaders tend to be lower quality people in the business of monetarizing amygdala hijacks.

    My curse for Obama, the crown prince of emotion masking as action, is that he one day wake up to what a destructive waste his presidency was. The opportunity he had and blew.

    But I doubt he is a high-enough-quality person to realize it. Nor does it seem likely he possesses the human feeling required for it to haunt or hurt him in the least.

    Read More
    • Agree: TTSSYF
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  54. Chase says:
    @Antlitz Grollheim
    Trump's greatest strength, it seems to me, is masking what he is really doing behind bluster, misdirection, baiting of the media, and skillful reading and manipulation of personalities.

    It’s so strange that no one on the Left seems to understand (except, of course, the ones that understand too well and are completely terrified) this.

    People don’t luck into becoming a billionaire, having success in multiple different sectors (real estate, television, politics) then – again – luck into becoming president. If at this point you don’t understand that The Donald is a character designed to create exactly the reaction it creates, well, I don’t think it’s worth taking your opinion seriously.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cagey Beast
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. Chase says:
    @Tiny Duck
    This seat was STOLEN from Merrick Garland

    McConnnell made the rule so now he has to abide by it

    NO JUDGE UNTIL AFTER THE MIDTERMS

    How come you guys don't want to talk about the white trmump supporter who killed 5 journalists at the Maryland newspapaer

    There will be a judge before the midterms, but part of me thinks Trunp should give a choice between two: tell them I’m going to nominate a staunch conservative before the midterms of a fanatical conservative afterward. I’m quite sure the GOP will be licking up seats.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Precious says:
    @D. K.
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/02/personnel_is_policy.html

    ***

    Back in the Reagan Administration, we had a saying that always drew sneers from the press and from the Washington establishment: "Personnel is policy." What we meant, of course, is that to execute the President's policies it was necessary to hire officials who supported these policies, and who would work to achieve the President's objectives rather than to undermine them.

    ***

    From the very start— the choice of Reince Priebus as his (first) White House Chief of Staff— Donald Trump has failed this test, much more often than he has passed it. I had very low expectations for what President Trump would be able to accomplish— other than keeping the loathsome Clintons out of the White House!— because the majority of his own majority party in Congress was opposed to the majority of what got him elected: transitioning the United States’ political culture from globalism and elitism to nationalism and populism. Nonetheless, he has utterly failed to meet even my own modest hopes for his presidency. I see no sign that the wall ever will be built, nor even genuinely begun; and, his endless longing to amnesty the DREAMers, rather than to keep his explicit promise, cited on his campaign’s Web site, to cancel the unconstitutional DACA scheme instituted by the Obama regime, and to do so on Day 1 of the Trump Administration, is perhaps the most galling lie that he told in order to get himself elected. Before the inane “First 100 Days!” even ran out, it was utterly clear to me that Donald Trump intended to run for re-election, come 2020, on the same platform as Reagan did, in 1984: pointing to a burgeoning economy (minus the re-industrialization of the Rust Belt— one of the two basic promises that actually got him elected!), while wrapping himself in the American flag (and continuing our eternal war on the Middle East, contra his campaign promises, while flirting with major new wars against several other countries). Whether this trajectory continues for the next six and a half years, or only for the next six and a half months, I think the aforementioned Reince Priebus summed it up, recently: Apres Trump, the Republican Party reverts to form (as the globalist un-American party of the overclass, even if Reince and his pal, Speaker Ryan, see it otherwise).

    “Personnel is policy.” What we meant, of course, is that to execute the President’s policies it was necessary to hire officials who supported these policies, and who would work to achieve the President’s objectives rather than to undermine them. From the very start…Donald Trump has failed this test,

    But you don’t mention why in your post. The reason is that, unlike Reagan, almost no one in Washington DC supported most of Trump’s policies. The Plum book outlines the thousands of direct hires the President has to make. How many people does Trump know and trust? Not thousands. And of the people he knows and trusts, the majority don’t live in DC.

    And getting someone with a family to move to DC isn’t easy. They have to uproot their family and buy into a higher housing market(unless they live in NYC or similar market). And the average time spent in a Plum book job is about 2 years. Many people aren’t willing to do that.

    I understood what Trump was getting into from the start, and what he could possibly do as opposed to what he would like to do. Apparently my expectations were even lower than yours because I understood what I have just mentioned above. So I am very happy with what Trump has accomplished so far.

    Read More
    • Replies: @EdwardM
    Agree that this is the core of the problem. The assistant secretaries of X, Y, and Z, appointed by the president and confirmed the senate, and the Schedule C aides to cabinet secretaries, are the keys in implementing an agenda, controlling the bureaucracy, and building links to constituencies. Most of the people who aspire to these roles are part of the revolving door Beltway crowd who probably oppose Trump's agenda and/or would be in it for the wrong reasons.

    Trump must understand this, but maybe he underestimated the challenge; he has experience knowing how important the project manager on a mid-sized building or the deputy general counsel responsible for commercial agreements are to the success of his empire. But in the private sector it's easier for the CEO to dictate an agenda and have these types of people go along. Of course it still takes tremendous leadership skill, but the public sector is a different animal including, as you mention, the difficulty in attracting people of a high calibre.

    Bill Clinton once said, to the chagrin of Al Gore, that no one was really qualified to president, even someone who had been vice president for eight years. I think that's right, and certainly a sign at how out of control our government is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @Antlitz Grollheim
    Trump's greatest strength, it seems to me, is masking what he is really doing behind bluster, misdirection, baiting of the media, and skillful reading and manipulation of personalities.

    I’ve only been saying this the whole time but here in autism town the idea that someone has multiple demeanors is just a step too far for the Biggest Brains on the Internet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Antlitz Grollheim
    Prescience is a curse; unless you're Donald Trump.
    , @ScarletNumber
    Yes iSteve does get quite spergy.
    , @Neil Templeton
    We'll see after the midterms. If Trump-sympathetic Congressors obtain a 50+ majority in the House, and 60+ in the Senate, I'll be thinking he's got hold of a hurricane.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. …. so the Kennedy family has had in-depth exposure to the more substantive side of Trump than what you see on TV.

    Putin says here that Trump is very different from his public persona when one meets him privately. Perhaps the younger Kennedy relayed to his father the same impressions Putin had of Trump?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
    Here's Putin answering a question on Oliver Stone's documentary at the same event. Boy, they have some pretty girls working at iron ore processing plants in Russia!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWyyxwO8WAA
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @peterike
    I'd say Trump's greatest strength is his ability to troll the media, Dems and NeverTrump Republicans. This puncturing of the false sanctity of "the news" and politics is all to the good. Hard-nosed mockery used to be a pretty regular feature of American media and politics ohhh a hundred years or so ago. Now it's all sanctimonious phoniness upfront, while knives are stabbed in your back. Trump has revealed it all for what it is.

    His biggest weakness is he still pays FAR too much attention to process and procedure. He really does seem to want to work within the established guidelines. He could be way more Obama-like and just issue orders left and right. He should have fired Mueller six months ago at least. When his travel ban was first blocked by a judge he should have told the judge to shove it, and just gone ahead and ordered it done anyway. Anyone refusing to implement should have been fired on the spot.

    For goodness sake, we NEED a Constitutional crisis to break the backs of activist judges. If we can't get it from Trump, who will we ever get it from? And he needs to break the bureaucracy. He has done very little in this regard.

    Hell, the Left already (insanely) calls him a dictator. Might as well prove them right.

    Look at Scott Pruitt (God bless that man. BTW he called me at home when he was running for OK AG and we discussed immigration for 15 minutes) if you want to see what Trump is doing toe reign in the bureaucracy.

    Trump is doing a great in reducing the number of Federal employees.

    He doesn’t have magic wand. This shit takes time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. tyrone says:
    @peterike
    I'd say Trump's greatest strength is his ability to troll the media, Dems and NeverTrump Republicans. This puncturing of the false sanctity of "the news" and politics is all to the good. Hard-nosed mockery used to be a pretty regular feature of American media and politics ohhh a hundred years or so ago. Now it's all sanctimonious phoniness upfront, while knives are stabbed in your back. Trump has revealed it all for what it is.

    His biggest weakness is he still pays FAR too much attention to process and procedure. He really does seem to want to work within the established guidelines. He could be way more Obama-like and just issue orders left and right. He should have fired Mueller six months ago at least. When his travel ban was first blocked by a judge he should have told the judge to shove it, and just gone ahead and ordered it done anyway. Anyone refusing to implement should have been fired on the spot.

    For goodness sake, we NEED a Constitutional crisis to break the backs of activist judges. If we can't get it from Trump, who will we ever get it from? And he needs to break the bureaucracy. He has done very little in this regard.

    Hell, the Left already (insanely) calls him a dictator. Might as well prove them right.

    Aye aye captain I like the cut of your jibe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Alfa158 says:
    @Highlander
    It is 46 year old Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the 7th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals who is near or even at the top of Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees. You will be hearing the continual hysterical screams of the Democrats starting today.

    Problem with a woman nominee is the question of whether she is more likely to “grow” on the bench than a man would. Hard to say. I will say this, unlike his establishment Republican predecessors, Trump seems so far to have done pretty well with Gorsuch being a non-“grower”.
    Being a woman also does nothing for reducing hysterical opposition from the Left. They simply declare her an honorary non-woman, and hideously White, and pretend she wears swastika emblazoned undies.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @Svigor
    Women don't make good dissidents, and that's what any good rightist/nationalist is now, and for the foreseeable future - a dissident. Women are better at staying loyal than men when the wider culture and their peers are on-side, but they are much worse at staying the course in the face of societal disapproval.

    On the plus side, SCotUS has a reputation for being quite the cloister, so if she's in a stable marriage to a strong conservative, she could work out.

    I say all this knowing nothing whatsoever about her. She is quite the looker, though, which is a marker for Alpha Chick, which is better than the alternative.

    She has seven kids with her current husband, which is also a good sign.

    , @iffen
    whether she is more likely to “grow” on the bench than a man would


    What a sexist!

    Everybody knows that maternal biological mechanisms explain why females put on weight more readily than men.
    , @Carol
    That's the first thing I thought. We gals yearn to be popular doncha know.

    BTW Gorsuch has lots of time yet to "grow."
    , @Father O'Hara
    Indeed. Better a "shower" than a "grower."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @Buffalo Joe
    I guess there is a method in the madness, but I hate the constant back and forth tweeting and name calling. Rise above all that and more people will come on board.

    Man, Buffalo, I never thought I’d disagree with one of your posts (which I always try to read because you have good things to say) but this time I’m gonna have to. I like Trump busting their balls and he is showing the way for future deplorables.

    But, I do understand what you are saying. God Bless and have a great 4th of July.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
    Preferred, Thank you, I'm from a different time and the tweet shit annoys me, but if it rubs salt then I'm good.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. David says:

    This is why Freedom of Association should be re-established. Of the 13 doctors and healthcare workers whose names we currently know of the 600 Sessions just announced charges against, not one is of historic American stock.

    https://www.justice.gov/usao-edny/pr/five-doctors-and-eight-healthcare-professionals-charged-part-national-healthcare-fraud

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  64. @Cagey Beast
    .... so the Kennedy family has had in-depth exposure to the more substantive side of Trump than what you see on TV.

    Putin says here that Trump is very different from his public persona when one meets him privately. Perhaps the younger Kennedy relayed to his father the same impressions Putin had of Trump?

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpTvJmdHOow

    Here’s Putin answering a question on Oliver Stone’s documentary at the same event. Boy, they have some pretty girls working at iron ore processing plants in Russia!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Antlitz Grollheim
    Such composure, too
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. MB says: • Website
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Justice Kennedy’s son is a corporate banker who has personally taken the lead in loaning Trump’s real estate enterprises a lot of the bank’s money over the years...
     
    There are quite a few bankers like this. I knew one in Newark in the 90s who even bleached his formerly-blond hair -- a bank president who was there when Trump got bailed out. Guess what. It turned out to be a good thing for everyone except the contractors who got screwed (and that's not good, admittedly.)

    You pick your horse and you bet on him. What else can you do?

    Anyway, this Supreme Court turn of events is a very good thing. There will be one or two more new justices in the months and years ahead. Trump could, once-and-for-all, end the activist court that has been legislating from the bench and return it to its rightful, Constitutional place.

    Hell, the Supreme Court in our lifetimes has been amending the damned Constitution, not just legislating. It is an outrage and must stop.

    Art.3, Sect. 2 US Constitution

    In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    Arguably the contraints for our very own infallible Delphic oracle already exist, but Congress is too anemic to enforce them and “The People” too stupid to insist upon it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Highlander
    Indeed. If one actually reads the Constitution one realizes that this "three equal branches" trope is utter nonsense. Almost all the federal power allowed in the document is given to Congress and in particular the House of Representatives. Alas they are a bunch of whores who have readily given up their prerogatives to the executive and the courts even as to go so far to abrogate their duty to declare war (or not) in order to keep those federal dollars being spent in their states.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. MB says: • Website
    @Anthony Wayne
    One thing I’ve rarely seen mentioned, even here, is the obliteration of ISIS. Obama obviously created a huge mess by supporting the “moderate” rebels. Removing our support for the rebels mysteriously coincided with ISIS’s downfall. You hardly see any reporting on Syria at all anymore, just journos claiming Trump’s policy has been “all over the place” (it hasn’t.)
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Jack Hanson
    I've only been saying this the whole time but here in autism town the idea that someone has multiple demeanors is just a step too far for the Biggest Brains on the Internet.

    Prescience is a curse; unless you’re Donald Trump.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. MB says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    I don't give an F if a woman wants to terminate her thugspawn, or for that matter if two dudes want to bone each other. Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles? I want the SC to preserve gun rights, overrule racial preferences, overrule any deference to international law, preserve the freedom of association, and preserve speech rights, and not legislate from the bench.

    Family is the bedrock of culture and law, which is why messing with it via Roe Wade and Obergefel in the long run is not a good thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...
    Bingo. Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @Anonymous
    I don't give an F if a woman wants to terminate her thugspawn, or for that matter if two dudes want to bone each other. Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles? I want the SC to preserve gun rights, overrule racial preferences, overrule any deference to international law, preserve the freedom of association, and preserve speech rights, and not legislate from the bench.

    Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles? I want the SC to [insert the old/cultural legal battles].

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Anonymous
    I give you 49-year old Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule (B.A., Harvard, J.D., Harvard) Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. He clerked for Scalia and holds the same views. Pro-life conservative Catholic (convert). He grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Mother was a classical scholar and professor of classics at Radcliffe/Harvard. His father was a classicist as well and his sister is a professor of English Lit at Stanford.

    He would be magnificent.

    But I wonder if he shouldn’t be left alone to write a few more seminal works of legal theory. I particularly like his interest in Carl Schmitt.

    He would be, as well, the socially most exalted Supreme Court justice in quite some time: both his own and his mother’s families are not only intellectually distinguished but also denizens of the New York Social Register for many decades.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Dan Hayes says:
    @Highlander
    It is 46 year old Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the 7th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals who is near or even at the top of Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees. You will be hearing the continual hysterical screams of the Democrats starting today.

    Highlander:

    Judge Barrett has 7 biological children. How is she able to simultaneously perform both her maternal and judicial duties? The same question can be posed about mother of eight Clara Lejeune-Gaymard, the daughter of the French Geneticist Jerome Lejeune and the top executive of GE France.

    Let me add that I hold both individuals in my highest regard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Highlander
    Surely not! How on earth does she keep her figure? LOL

    Not only that but she still teaches at her law school! A veritable Wonder Woman and truly a dame that has done it all. She should be a shoe-in for the feminists except for the fact that she is a "traditional' Roman Catholic (presumably more so than the pope), has publicly stated that Obamacare is indeed unconstitutional due to the fact that it imposes a tax that was originated in the US Senate in contradiction to the Chief Justice's majority opinion on the matter, and at her last hearing when appointed to the federal bench has tussled with Dianne Feinstein (the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee) when challenged over the impossibility of her being an impartial judge due to her Catholic faith.

    I find it rather churlish of Dianne to have done so given that Dianne herself is an alumna of the Convent of the Sacred Heart High School, San Francisco class of 1951. I wonder if Trump should nominate her straight out of the box this week or put forward someone even more conservative knowing that the left will have shot their wad opposing the first nominee knowing that he will immediately hit them with her from the second barrel if his first nominee fails.

    Lord knows we need to add some Aryan pulchritude given the downright ugliness of the three present horrors sitting on the court. I read that Amy is highly regarded by many political activists in the Protestant religious right despite her religion.

    According to Real Clear Politics there are 44 safe and/or not running this time Democratic senators and 48 Republican ones with 8 seats up for grabs this time. The net effect of Kennedy resigning is going to be an increase in Republican enthusiasm this year. I can't imagine the Democrats becoming more hysterical than they already are. The GOP may very well end up increasing its slim majority in that chamber should the Democrats attempt to stop a Trump nomination.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @Barnard
    The assumption on Ginsberg has long been she wanted Crooked Hillary, as the first woman President, to nominate her replacement. I doubt Obama was astute enough to give Ginsberg the deference and flattery she would have wanted to step down during his term. There very likely could have been a mutual lack of respect between the two of them. There may be an addiction to power element to it as well. Ginsberg sees legislating from the bench as the proper role of the Supreme Court. It has to be difficult to give up that kind of power.

    I see Trump's biggest weakness as being to easily influenced by people who opposed him through the campaign and don't want his agenda to be implemented.

    Had Merrick Garland been nominated to SCOTUS that would have made 3 out of 9 Justices Jewish. With RBG off the bench it will be 1 out of 9, still way over represented but looking a lot more like America. With the old crone eventually leaving, possibly in a box, this might be Trump’s opportunity to make what Chuck Schumer and HRC would have made into a permanent Jewish seat into an Asian seat replacing a past elite with a new one. It would probably shake up the Democrats to the core on things like Affirmative Action and all the gib-me-dats that heretofore were being handed out as guilt reparations. Just a thought.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    Garland would have made it four with Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan.
    , @Anon
    Bit off, Garland would have made 4 out of 9 Jewish, and if she retires and is replaced by a non-jew it would be 2 on the Supreme Court. Right now its 5 Catholics, 3 Jews, and Gorusch who was raised Catholic but converted to his Wife's Episcopalianism.
    , @D. K.
    Judge Garland WAS nominated to sit on the Supreme Court; had he been confirmed by the Senate and seated, he would have become the FOURTH Jewish justice on the current Court.
    , @Simple Psuedonym
    3 actually. Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer. I think its the table stakes for Democrats now as most of the funding for the party is from affluent Jews. There will still be poc periodically, but they will be well versed in the "narrative" and likely dependent on the tribe for funding at various levels.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @NOTA
    I think the main difficulty is that RBG wasn't ready to step down and didn't want to let go of the immense power and prestige she had. The kind of person who gets to the supreme court is probably also the kind that will want to stay there till they're too old and feeble to continue.

    I think the main difficulty is that RBG wasn’t ready to step down and didn’t want to let go of the immense power and prestige she had. The kind of person who gets to the supreme court is probably also the kind that will want to stay there till they’re too old and feeble to continue.

    I think it’s more likely that Ginsburg simply absorbed the DC conventional wisdom which held that Republicans would forever be unable to win the Presidency after 2008. She wasn’t ready to go in the early Obama years, and the Senate flipped to the GOP in 2010 so I figure she was waiting until a year when HRC was President and the Senate was under Democrat control so that her successor could be as hard left as she was (not the sort of phony moderate like Garland, but a gender warrior firebrand).

    But there is a whiff of the old bag believing her press and embracing her newfound folk hero status among Millennial women as the Notorious RBG. It’s just that – angel of death willing – she badly miscalculated and you’d have to presume that the odds are that her successor will be appointed by Trump and will be diametrically opposed to her vision of the Court and the nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    All Alito has to do is accidently bump into her in the hallway. Tap her cane with his toe. Down she goes, broken hip, surgery, pneumonia... Trump nomination #3!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. drahthaar says:
    @Anonymous
    I give you 49-year old Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule (B.A., Harvard, J.D., Harvard) Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. He clerked for Scalia and holds the same views. Pro-life conservative Catholic (convert). He grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Mother was a classical scholar and professor of classics at Radcliffe/Harvard. His father was a classicist as well and his sister is a professor of English Lit at Stanford.

    Vermeule would be an excellent choice. He has written some very fine essays on culture. Would be too good to be true, I’m afraid. Would flip out the Trump-is-a-moron set.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    I didn't notice the provision in the Constitution where all Supreme Court seats are reserved for Catholics and Jews. This fellow is Catholic. Enough already.

    For whatever reason, there seems to have been a concerted effort to exclude the historic white protestant population from the highest court, and it should be stopped and reversed.

    Protestant, Catholic, and other Christians from every white European ethnic group -- including people with Italian, Greek, Slavic, French background etc., not just people named Barrett or Pryor or Roberts -- should be particularly nominated to the federal courts. This should include the occasional Orthodox Christian and the more-than-occasional non-denominational Christian too.

    I'm sure to hear criticism that I'm calling for an ethnic spoils system, and that we shouldn't be "hyphenated Americans." If so, why the incessant calls for specifically and seemingly only "WASP" nominees by some here? The nominees should include a lot more WASPs than Obama put up, to be sure, but we should all be together and demanding judicial seats for ALL white Americans of ALL the many European and Christian backgrounds.

    Needless to say, no religious or ethnic group that constitutes less than two percent of the national population should often have more one member of the Supreme Court, if ever. Not referring to anyone in particular, just a general rule of thumb to spread those powerful positions around more widely.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. I’d say Trump’s biggest strength is recognizing that these days A Good Offense is the Best Defense (and relatedly, but perhaps only intuitively, understanding how the 24 Hour Newscycle has altered human understanding/interaction at the most basic level. Whatever happens, it will be old news in a few days anyway, so no matter what happens, attackAttackATTACK, no matter whether the attack is crude, nonsensical, etc. and if you can stick it out for 48-72 hours, everyone will be on to something else, allowing you to get a decent bit done).

    Biggest weakness (and this isn’t really so much on him as it is just a consequence of where we are as a country) is having to rely on a number of unsavory “misfit toys” of the Manafort type to fill key positions and get things done, since his campaign was basically anathema to the normal Pub’ “hired hands” from Reagan/BushI/BushII admins.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. Enochian says:
    @tyrone
    TRUMP WINNING!!! by the way Judge Judy would be better than many present and former justices.

    Judge Judy could be the greatest supreme court judge ever. Future generations would look back and call it the Judy era. By the way, is it possible to get a poll going here so our readers can vote for their favorite Kennedy-replacement?

    And I forgot – she’s jewish too. And a woman! What better way for Trump to diversify the supreme court?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Abe says: • Website
    @tyrone
    TRUMP WINNING!!! by the way Judge Judy would be better than many present and former justices.

    I happened to be watching a PBS documentary and it mentioned Justice William O. Douglass so I looked him up on Wikipedia. Well, give thanks for the small graces I guess. As much as we LUUUV hating on today’s SJWs, at least they are not killing anyone (directly, BLM egging on is a different matter). At least they are not killing anyone while robbing banks to buy guns and bombs to kill more anyones. At least they are not killing anyone to jail-break someone who killed anyone while robbing a bank to buy more bombs and guns to kill anyones. At least they are not killing anyone to jailbreak someone who killed anyone while robbing a bank to buy more guns and bombs to kill anyones in order to emulate someone in East Asia whose revolution has killed millions of anyones by now.

    Point being, today’s leftists are decidedly less crazy than 2 generations prior. And as activist as they are, it still does not remotely compare to Justice Douglass’s hearing a petition from some Congresssoman to stop the Vietnam War, granting it SOLO, then forcing the 8 other members of the Court to emergency convene to overrule him. After which Douglass went to see DEEP THROAT at the local cineplex.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    Japan's PM watches PBS? Who knew?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Flip says:
    @Prof. Woland
    Had Merrick Garland been nominated to SCOTUS that would have made 3 out of 9 Justices Jewish. With RBG off the bench it will be 1 out of 9, still way over represented but looking a lot more like America. With the old crone eventually leaving, possibly in a box, this might be Trump's opportunity to make what Chuck Schumer and HRC would have made into a permanent Jewish seat into an Asian seat replacing a past elite with a new one. It would probably shake up the Democrats to the core on things like Affirmative Action and all the gib-me-dats that heretofore were being handed out as guilt reparations. Just a thought.

    Garland would have made it four with Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Everybody assumes that Trump’s nominee will be confirmed before the election. I very much hope that’s the case, but I would be willing to lay a small bet that the Senate, with Flake, McCain and Collins, will prove more difficult than anyone is anticipating. Tim

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. Anon[117] • Disclaimer says:
    @Prof. Woland
    Had Merrick Garland been nominated to SCOTUS that would have made 3 out of 9 Justices Jewish. With RBG off the bench it will be 1 out of 9, still way over represented but looking a lot more like America. With the old crone eventually leaving, possibly in a box, this might be Trump's opportunity to make what Chuck Schumer and HRC would have made into a permanent Jewish seat into an Asian seat replacing a past elite with a new one. It would probably shake up the Democrats to the core on things like Affirmative Action and all the gib-me-dats that heretofore were being handed out as guilt reparations. Just a thought.

    Bit off, Garland would have made 4 out of 9 Jewish, and if she retires and is replaced by a non-jew it would be 2 on the Supreme Court. Right now its 5 Catholics, 3 Jews, and Gorusch who was raised Catholic but converted to his Wife’s Episcopalianism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. D. K. says:
    @Prof. Woland
    Had Merrick Garland been nominated to SCOTUS that would have made 3 out of 9 Justices Jewish. With RBG off the bench it will be 1 out of 9, still way over represented but looking a lot more like America. With the old crone eventually leaving, possibly in a box, this might be Trump's opportunity to make what Chuck Schumer and HRC would have made into a permanent Jewish seat into an Asian seat replacing a past elite with a new one. It would probably shake up the Democrats to the core on things like Affirmative Action and all the gib-me-dats that heretofore were being handed out as guilt reparations. Just a thought.

    Judge Garland WAS nominated to sit on the Supreme Court; had he been confirmed by the Senate and seated, he would have become the FOURTH Jewish justice on the current Court.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Yeah, that would have been fair. Only a bigot wouldn't want a group comprising less than 2% of the population to constantly have 3-4 of the Supreme Court's nine seats.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Slayer says:

    Trump also apparently mentioned their shared Hebridian ancestry during the process and ceremonies confirming his former clerk Neil Gorsuch.

    Anthony McLeod Kennedy being his full name, and Maryanne MacLeod, Trumps mother.

    Well handled and whatever happens with Korea etc a certain legacy that will survive him

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  83. You are right. thank you. I will double down on what I just said.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  84. @Highlander
    This visage is certainly striking the fear of God (or is it the goddess?) into the hearts of Democrats this morning.

    http://wavemagazineonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-JUPPI-Amy-Barrett-071A-Deremer-Studios-LLC-e1478811952362-660x330.jpg

    I’m always leery of female judges, because of their less logical orientation and especially approval seeking. Sandra Day O’Connor’s drift and the weird kludgy reasoning and essentially legislative pronouncement–ex. the 25 years after which affirmation action becomes unnecessary–a case study. To nominate any gal who’s supposedly “conservative” i’d really want her to be “based”.

    But i got to say, i looked up this Amy Coney Barrett and she’s a conservative with 7 kids. In today’s day and age, that’s pretty based behavior right there. Though whether she’s really “based”, hard to tell. But you gotta love a gal who’s had seven kids. That’s someone in touch with biological reality. (Unless she’s adopted a bunch from Africa–in that case keep her as far from the court as possible!)

    ~~

    I will say the Catholic thing strikes me as a negative given the current makeup of the court. Even as a Catholic schooled, Jesuit educated guy, I thought this deal where the court was 6 Catholics and 3 Jews was ridiculous in an Anglo-Protestant created nation.

    Note, this should make absolutely no difference because the court shouldn’t be doing any legislating, it should routinely be rendering the same judgements that an AI program loaded with the constitution and federal law should come to. (Or a space alien who’d read our stuff.)

    But with the judicial tyranny we have going on, a “representative” court should have no more than 3 Catholics–outside 4, and never more than a single Jew. The rest should be Protestant background of various shades of practice/non-practice, belief/non-belief.

    Read More
    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Jews should only be about 2% of SCOTUS justices, which comes out to fewer than one per century. But that would be "antisemitic"...
    , @Morris Applebaum IV
    "But you gotta love a gal who’s had seven kids. That’s someone in touch with biological reality. (Unless she’s adopted a bunch from Africa–in that case keep her as far from the court as possible!)"

    Barrett is a mother of seven children, including a special needs child and two children adopted from Haiti.
     
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/meet-trumps-candidates-for-upcoming-supreme-court-vacancy_2578316.html
    , @J1234

    I’m always leery of female judges, because of their less logical orientation and especially approval seeking. Sandra Day O’Connor’s drift and the weird kludgy reasoning and essentially legislative pronouncement–ex. the 25 years after which affirmation action becomes unnecessary–a case study.
     
    At least Sandra knew when to quit. Anyone smart enough to be a judge should be smart enough to know that advanced age affects cognitive ability in a negative way. She's only two or three years older than Ruth, but quit a dozen years ago, and that was a year or two after she wanted to quit (one of the other justices dropped out unexpectedly, as I recall, so she let her confirmed replacement take his place.)

    So what's the policy if Ruth gets crazier and weirder but refuses to leave, like an octogenarian on a park bench? Has any SC justice ever been removed under such circumstances?
    , @Anon
    Would she have the fortitude to decide correctly on birthright citizenship?
    , @Bardon Kaldian

    But with the judicial tyranny we have going on, a “representative” court should have no more than 3 Catholics–outside 4, and never more than a single Jew. The rest should be Protestant background of various shades of practice/non-practice, belief/non-belief.
     
    Agreed, but considering that most WASP candidates are irredeemably liberal ... And this is not carved in stone, Gorsuch was a Catholic who became some kind of Protestant (Episcopalian?).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. athEIst says:
    @Thirdtwin
    The Justice Mike Lee trolling was great. If Romney wasn't so close to getting a Senate seat, we'd probably be hearing about potential Justice Romney.

    I know you don’t have to be a lawyer, but a corporate-raider?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. Svigor says:
    @res
    Svigor, how did you get two Agree's? I thought the current behavior was to only take the most recent button press? Once upon a time you could have Disagree, LOL, Troll (and Agree,but why) all active at once.

    Glitch in the Matrix. I clicked it once, nothing happened, I clicked it again, got the “slow down” page, hit back button, reloaded, voila.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thanks. I just hit my second agree on Daniel's comment and I still see only one displayed. So it looks like you are correct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Svigor says:
    @NOTA
    I often like the policy decisions the Supreme Court makes (for example, I think legally recognized gay marriage is a good policy). But they aren't the right people to make policy--their job is to rule on cases according to the law and the constitution. The supreme court is the right place for some over broad law restricting speech or guns or intruding on everyone's privacy to be shot down, but it's not the place to change or make laws.

    I often like the policy decisions the Supreme Court makes (for example, I think legally recognized gay marriage is a good policy).

    It’s awful because that ain’t marriage. It’s not the Courts’ mandate to redefine institutions that predate civilization.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Highlander says: • Website
    @Dan Hayes
    Highlander:

    Judge Barrett has 7 biological children. How is she able to simultaneously perform both her maternal and judicial duties? The same question can be posed about mother of eight Clara Lejeune-Gaymard, the daughter of the French Geneticist Jerome Lejeune and the top executive of GE France.

    Let me add that I hold both individuals in my highest regard.

    Surely not! How on earth does she keep her figure? LOL

    Not only that but she still teaches at her law school! A veritable Wonder Woman and truly a dame that has done it all. She should be a shoe-in for the feminists except for the fact that she is a “traditional’ Roman Catholic (presumably more so than the pope), has publicly stated that Obamacare is indeed unconstitutional due to the fact that it imposes a tax that was originated in the US Senate in contradiction to the Chief Justice’s majority opinion on the matter, and at her last hearing when appointed to the federal bench has tussled with Dianne Feinstein (the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee) when challenged over the impossibility of her being an impartial judge due to her Catholic faith.

    I find it rather churlish of Dianne to have done so given that Dianne herself is an alumna of the Convent of the Sacred Heart High School, San Francisco class of 1951. I wonder if Trump should nominate her straight out of the box this week or put forward someone even more conservative knowing that the left will have shot their wad opposing the first nominee knowing that he will immediately hit them with her from the second barrel if his first nominee fails.

    Lord knows we need to add some Aryan pulchritude given the downright ugliness of the three present horrors sitting on the court. I read that Amy is highly regarded by many political activists in the Protestant religious right despite her religion.

    According to Real Clear Politics there are 44 safe and/or not running this time Democratic senators and 48 Republican ones with 8 seats up for grabs this time. The net effect of Kennedy resigning is going to be an increase in Republican enthusiasm this year. I can’t imagine the Democrats becoming more hysterical than they already are. The GOP may very well end up increasing its slim majority in that chamber should the Democrats attempt to stop a Trump nomination.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Svigor says:
    @Alfa158
    Problem with a woman nominee is the question of whether she is more likely to “grow” on the bench than a man would. Hard to say. I will say this, unlike his establishment Republican predecessors, Trump seems so far to have done pretty well with Gorsuch being a non-“grower”.
    Being a woman also does nothing for reducing hysterical opposition from the Left. They simply declare her an honorary non-woman, and hideously White, and pretend she wears swastika emblazoned undies.

    Women don’t make good dissidents, and that’s what any good rightist/nationalist is now, and for the foreseeable future – a dissident. Women are better at staying loyal than men when the wider culture and their peers are on-side, but they are much worse at staying the course in the face of societal disapproval.

    On the plus side, SCotUS has a reputation for being quite the cloister, so if she’s in a stable marriage to a strong conservative, she could work out.

    I say all this knowing nothing whatsoever about her. She is quite the looker, though, which is a marker for Alpha Chick, which is better than the alternative.

    She has seven kids with her current husband, which is also a good sign.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Where would she come out on birthright citizenship?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. athEIst says:
    @NOTA
    I think the main difficulty is that RBG wasn't ready to step down and didn't want to let go of the immense power and prestige she had. The kind of person who gets to the supreme court is probably also the kind that will want to stay there till they're too old and feeble to continue.

    William O Douglas stayed too long too, but he needed the money. RGB is very wealthy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. @MB
    Family is the bedrock of culture and law, which is why messing with it via Roe Wade and Obergefel in the long run is not a good thing.

    Bingo. Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @peterike
    I'd say Trump's greatest strength is his ability to troll the media, Dems and NeverTrump Republicans. This puncturing of the false sanctity of "the news" and politics is all to the good. Hard-nosed mockery used to be a pretty regular feature of American media and politics ohhh a hundred years or so ago. Now it's all sanctimonious phoniness upfront, while knives are stabbed in your back. Trump has revealed it all for what it is.

    His biggest weakness is he still pays FAR too much attention to process and procedure. He really does seem to want to work within the established guidelines. He could be way more Obama-like and just issue orders left and right. He should have fired Mueller six months ago at least. When his travel ban was first blocked by a judge he should have told the judge to shove it, and just gone ahead and ordered it done anyway. Anyone refusing to implement should have been fired on the spot.

    For goodness sake, we NEED a Constitutional crisis to break the backs of activist judges. If we can't get it from Trump, who will we ever get it from? And he needs to break the bureaucracy. He has done very little in this regard.

    Hell, the Left already (insanely) calls him a dictator. Might as well prove them right.

    It is past time to show disrespect for the activists and propagandists who legislate from the federal bench. Start impeachment of judges who decree things that are clearly beyond their constitutional authority, which they do every day. Push for an amendment to end life tenure for federal judges.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    I think impeachment needs 2/3 of the Senate. Not likely getting rid of a far left looney.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. iffen says:
    @Olorin
    SCOTUS is not the venue for legislating specific issues--especially where this would involve demands like yours for a pro-life candidate who is pro-death and has a sore spot for a political party. That sounds to me more like the resume from the 1980s.

    Especially focusing as you do on a political party already drowning in the social, economic, and moral bloodbaths it created over the past half century and demanding we all participate in their noisy, angry, last-stand heme-gargle.

    I'd like to see an engineer on the high court. I want reason exercised within the framing established by the best and brightest of our founding legal thinkers, carried forward with devoted navigation by that pole star...and the robust grace of The Law of Conservation of Genetics.

    An aeronautical, physics, or electrical/silicon-lightning engineer would have individual capacities like being forward thinking and grounded in cool reason. He would have the good sense not to legislate from the bench. (Good engineers know that the laws of nature are the laws of nature, no matter how you feel about them, and voting on it makes not a whit of difference.)

    Even more to the point, SCOTUS's caseload increasingly involves judgments on legal matters and precedents involving emerging "intellectual property" issues around rapidly evolving technical innovations. This area of the law is burgeoning at warp speed.

    I continually shudder to imagine it being considered by a dimwit like Sotomayor, whose only engineering experience is in demographic tinkering for Dem party votes, and whose dissents run to page after page of lefty cringe.

    The Dems have long viewed SCOTUS as mainly concerned with the latest Bolshie Grievance, Inc., microaggression. For them, SCOTUS is the court of last resort for their Long March Through The Institutions and its Frankfurt School innovations.

    Just another example of their failed leadership.

    An aeronautical, physics, or electrical/silicon-lightning engineer would have individual capacities like being forward thinking and grounded in cool reason.

    Can we do a turn-around and replace all NASA employees with lawyers? Maybe we could just make NASA a sub-unit of the Supreme Court.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    As a friend of mine who went to UCLA Law after working at Hughes Aircraft Company said after his first year at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom when they tried to set up an LA office:

    Any engineer could do what these guys do but none of these guys could do what an engineer does.
    , @Olorin
    I'm flashing to some recent photo that's been making the memery rounds of some NASA mission control room occupied by a gigundo number of ostensibly scientific ladies all individually mugging as if for an OKCupid selfie. ("Likes: Science! It works, bitches! Dislikes: Mansplaining and patriarchal use of logic; manspreading.") Odd to reflect that all lawyers might not be that Cringe, comparatively.

    Though fwiw, not all NASA employees are engineers, and not even all whose job title suggests that. For instance a current opening at Moffatt for an engineering technician appears to my eye to be what we used to call a welder.

    Mark greps my jist. I'm of the view that we have too many gd lawyers in politics and on benches, but then I'm partial to engineers. Welders too, but I have met only one of those whom I wouldn't have minded sitting on SCOTUS, and who would have been equal to the reading load.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @drahthaar
    Vermeule would be an excellent choice. He has written some very fine essays on culture. Would be too good to be true, I'm afraid. Would flip out the Trump-is-a-moron set.

    I didn’t notice the provision in the Constitution where all Supreme Court seats are reserved for Catholics and Jews. This fellow is Catholic. Enough already.

    For whatever reason, there seems to have been a concerted effort to exclude the historic white protestant population from the highest court, and it should be stopped and reversed.

    Protestant, Catholic, and other Christians from every white European ethnic group — including people with Italian, Greek, Slavic, French background etc., not just people named Barrett or Pryor or Roberts — should be particularly nominated to the federal courts. This should include the occasional Orthodox Christian and the more-than-occasional non-denominational Christian too.

    I’m sure to hear criticism that I’m calling for an ethnic spoils system, and that we shouldn’t be “hyphenated Americans.” If so, why the incessant calls for specifically and seemingly only “WASP” nominees by some here? The nominees should include a lot more WASPs than Obama put up, to be sure, but we should all be together and demanding judicial seats for ALL white Americans of ALL the many European and Christian backgrounds.

    Needless to say, no religious or ethnic group that constitutes less than two percent of the national population should often have more one member of the Supreme Court, if ever. Not referring to anyone in particular, just a general rule of thumb to spread those powerful positions around more widely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I didn’t notice the provision in the Constitution where all Supreme Court seats are reserved for Catholics and Jews. This fellow is Catholic. Enough already."

    And I didn't notice the provision in the Constitution where the Supreme Court must fall along strict demographic lines.

    "For whatever reason, there seems to have been a concerted effort to exclude the historic white protestant population from the highest court, and it should be stopped and reversed."

    There is no such "concerted effort" taking place here. You are acting like an SJW. The prospective candidates are chosen for their experience and ideology.

    Protestant, Catholic, and other Christians from every white European ethnic group — including people with Italian, Greek, Slavic, French background etc., not just people named Barrett or Pryor or Roberts — should be particularly nominated to the federal courts. This should include the occasional Orthodox Christian and the more-than-occasional non-denominational Christian too.

    I’m sure to hear criticism that I’m calling for an ethnic spoils system, and that we shouldn’t be “hyphenated Americans.” If so, why the incessant calls for specifically and seemingly only “WASP” nominees by some here?

    "The nominees should include a lot more WASPs than Obama put up, to be sure, but we should all be together and demanding judicial seats for ALL white Americans of ALL the many European and Christian backgrounds."

    Grow up, the nominees are at the discretion of the President.

    "Needless to say, no religious or ethnic group that constitutes less than two percent of the national population should often have more one member of the Supreme Court, if ever."

    And the Constitution makes this stipulation where?

    "Not referring to anyone in particular, just a general rule of thumb to spread those powerful positions around more widely."

    Like spreading the wealth, right? Glad to see you are taking a (gasp) liberal position here. You know, it's based on equality, not merit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Rob McX says:

    Note, this should make absolutely no difference because the court shouldn’t be doing any legislating, it should routinely be rendering the same judgements that an AI program loaded with the constitution and federal law should come to. (Or a space alien who’d read our stuff.)

    Only whites view the law that way. Non-whites generally serve their own ethnic interests. In fact, if you want a judge most likely to go against the interests of his own race, a white one is your best bet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  96. @D. K.
    Judge Garland WAS nominated to sit on the Supreme Court; had he been confirmed by the Senate and seated, he would have become the FOURTH Jewish justice on the current Court.

    Yeah, that would have been fair. Only a bigot wouldn’t want a group comprising less than 2% of the population to constantly have 3-4 of the Supreme Court’s nine seats.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. iffen says:
    @Alfa158
    Problem with a woman nominee is the question of whether she is more likely to “grow” on the bench than a man would. Hard to say. I will say this, unlike his establishment Republican predecessors, Trump seems so far to have done pretty well with Gorsuch being a non-“grower”.
    Being a woman also does nothing for reducing hysterical opposition from the Left. They simply declare her an honorary non-woman, and hideously White, and pretend she wears swastika emblazoned undies.

    whether she is more likely to “grow” on the bench than a man would

    What a sexist!

    Everybody knows that maternal biological mechanisms explain why females put on weight more readily than men.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @D. K.
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/02/personnel_is_policy.html

    ***

    Back in the Reagan Administration, we had a saying that always drew sneers from the press and from the Washington establishment: "Personnel is policy." What we meant, of course, is that to execute the President's policies it was necessary to hire officials who supported these policies, and who would work to achieve the President's objectives rather than to undermine them.

    ***

    From the very start— the choice of Reince Priebus as his (first) White House Chief of Staff— Donald Trump has failed this test, much more often than he has passed it. I had very low expectations for what President Trump would be able to accomplish— other than keeping the loathsome Clintons out of the White House!— because the majority of his own majority party in Congress was opposed to the majority of what got him elected: transitioning the United States’ political culture from globalism and elitism to nationalism and populism. Nonetheless, he has utterly failed to meet even my own modest hopes for his presidency. I see no sign that the wall ever will be built, nor even genuinely begun; and, his endless longing to amnesty the DREAMers, rather than to keep his explicit promise, cited on his campaign’s Web site, to cancel the unconstitutional DACA scheme instituted by the Obama regime, and to do so on Day 1 of the Trump Administration, is perhaps the most galling lie that he told in order to get himself elected. Before the inane “First 100 Days!” even ran out, it was utterly clear to me that Donald Trump intended to run for re-election, come 2020, on the same platform as Reagan did, in 1984: pointing to a burgeoning economy (minus the re-industrialization of the Rust Belt— one of the two basic promises that actually got him elected!), while wrapping himself in the American flag (and continuing our eternal war on the Middle East, contra his campaign promises, while flirting with major new wars against several other countries). Whether this trajectory continues for the next six and a half years, or only for the next six and a half months, I think the aforementioned Reince Priebus summed it up, recently: Apres Trump, the Republican Party reverts to form (as the globalist un-American party of the overclass, even if Reince and his pal, Speaker Ryan, see it otherwise).

    “BLUMPF!” cried the eeyore as Trump mercs his way to victory .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Jim Christian
    Just find the most pro-life male WASP, heterosexual justice you can find, pro-death penalty, ram him in. Democrats can't do a thing about it.

    White guys should have representation on the Court, also.

    Appreciate your sentiment, but would broaden the nominees we’re looking for.

    I’d go for simply normal, heterosexual white Americans who have their own children and can read and enforce the ENTIRE Constitution (including the Second, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments). Including a healthy number of Protestants and people of primarily NW European and UK background, but including white people from the many other ethnic and Christian backgrounds.

    As for “pro-life”, it’s not clear that we need “justices” who will uphold federal criminalization of abortion — just people who can read the Tenth Amendment, reverse Roe v. Wade and PPFA v. Casey, and return the issue to the people of each State. Along with homosexual “marriage” and every other hot-button issue that is not covered by an expressly enumerated power of the federal government.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Frank G says:

    Love him or hate him, you have to admit it’s nice to see a president actually politicking, for a change.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  101. @Anonymous
    I don't give an F if a woman wants to terminate her thugspawn, or for that matter if two dudes want to bone each other. Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles? I want the SC to preserve gun rights, overrule racial preferences, overrule any deference to international law, preserve the freedom of association, and preserve speech rights, and not legislate from the bench.

    I don’t give an F if a woman wants to terminate her thugspawn, or for that matter if two dudes want to bone each other. Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles? I want the SC to preserve gun rights, overrule racial preferences, overrule any deference to international law, preserve the freedom of association, and preserve speech rights, and not legislate from the bench.

    “Doc, I don’t care about my kidney failure or colon cancer. But I do want you to fix my high blood pressure, brain tumors, and broken leg. After all, I want to live.”

    It’s all connected.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. jim jones says:
    @res
    Svigor, how did you get two Agree's? I thought the current behavior was to only take the most recent button press? Once upon a time you could have Disagree, LOL, Troll (and Agree,but why) all active at once.

    There needs to be a “nutcase” button on Unz

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Berty
    I've been dumping on Trump somewhat lately, but I'll admit his ability to disregard norms and precedents and basically conquer the Republican Party is amazing in so many ways. He's humiliated and defeated most of his enemies in the party, something even Reagan couldn't do.

    With that said, I'll repeat what I said before and say that I think the GOP should hold off on confirming anyone until next year and allow the issue to linger on through the election. The party badly needs the election to be about judges and not Trump.

    A lot of people are complaining that Trump is buddying up to his detractors. But the ability to burn a bridge and then rebuild it in a more favorable position is a huge asset in business and statecraft. Trump’s been taking Never Trumpers and converting them one by one to the point where the GOP will be solidly his own party soon. Former enemies are faced with the choice of taking a deal from an ‘enemy’ that may be advantageous for them, or fighting all over again and likely being humiliated. They either take the deal and become at least some kind of ally, or give up and quit in the face of Trump’s seemingly endless energy. This offers a strategic lesson for everyone.

    On a side note, people are noticing Trump’s drive and energy and are copying some of his habits like waking early and not drinking. So there may be a knock-on Trump effect years down the road of these people running everything simply due to having more vitality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    A lot of people are complaining that Trump is buddying up to his detractors.


    Yes, because he is cucking on immigration, the only thing besides Supreme Court nominations that I voted for him about.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. res says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    AFAIK if you wait out the timer, you can hit a button as much as you want. Greasy Williams once patiently hit "troll" on a post for over four hours for not agreeing that Taylor Swift was the most beautiful goddess-woman in the world.

    Interesting. I Disagree/Troll/LOLed someone once when I was annoyed, but that stopped working (and IIRC changed in the archive as well). Last time I tried hitting a different button after waiting out the timer the display just reset to (only) the most recent. Which is actually a good way of doing it IMHO to deal with people hitting the wrong button by accident. I’ll try playing with this on your comment. First a LOL and then two agrees.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. By any objective measure, Trump has been a fantastically competent, effective President, but you’d never know that talking to the average person at the grocery store or coffee shop because the mainstream media is almost entirely obscuring it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...
    Agreed. Had a conversation with a co-worker today (a typical late 50's working woman that is totally clueless except for the relentless MSM propaganda that seeps into her consciousness). Lord, have mercy. She's someone that knows how right-wing I am, I mean the full extent of my right-wingness and knows how informed I am. She still went on a rant about Trump and his anti-environmentalism because of fracking and opening up coal mines. Mind you she and her husband benefit from these industries' growth (via their jobs, both in management I might add) and she was still going on about Trump.

    I shut her up pretty quick with the some facts, then the mantra, "I love Trump. He's the greatest."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Svigor
    It seems to be down to being a hard-nosed SOB. He doesn't have to try at all to misdirect the media; they're like a retriever with a tennis ball. He just has to be willing to ignore or endure their vitriol.

    OT: I just tumbled to this one a few days ago. Big Media's talking points on Trump's Awful Trade War:

    Protectionist measures don't work and are counter-productive. Each time Trump erects a protectionist measure, he makes himself an idiot afresh.

    Every country Trump has used protectionist measures against has retaliated.

    So, if they don't work, and Trump is an idiot for using them, doesn't that mean that every country that has retaliated is run by idiots?

    Mightn't we get to the bottom of this by figuring out which bodies haven't retaliated in kind? (Hint: not China, Canada, or the EU)

    Is this another example of Whitey/America being the only entities on the planet with agency?

    Is this another example of Whitey/America being the only entities on the planet with agency?

    Clearly another case of systemic agency.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Zlat

    This must mean Trump has someone lined up to replace him, no?
     
    Surely, you’re acquainted with Ivanka Trump?

    Ivanka is a lovely lady and seems to be a good businesswoman, wife and mother, but she is also quite obviously a pretty standard urban liberal, maybe with a dash of realism bestowed by Daddy. She’s not a good Presidential candidate.

    At the risk (and joy) of sounding sexist, women suitable for the Presidency are as rare as hen’s teeth. Maggie Thatcher was a very rare creature. Hillary is not in that lofty company, and neither are Carly Fiorina, Elizabeth Warren, Nikki Haley or Kamala Harris.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @Anonymous
    I don't give an F if a woman wants to terminate her thugspawn, or for that matter if two dudes want to bone each other. Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles? I want the SC to preserve gun rights, overrule racial preferences, overrule any deference to international law, preserve the freedom of association, and preserve speech rights, and not legislate from the bench.

    The top ten most important issues facing the nation:

    1. Immigration
    2. Immigration
    3. Immigration
    4. Immigration
    5. Immigration
    6. Immigration
    7. Immigration
    8. Immigration
    9. Immigration
    10. Entitlement spending

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman
    I love your comment, but let's not forget that we can be replaced in the absence of further immigration if the government continues to subsidize the breeding of non-productive non-whites in this country.
    , @AnotherDad
    You got 9 out of 10 right!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Buzz Mohawk

    Justice Kennedy’s son is a corporate banker who has personally taken the lead in loaning Trump’s real estate enterprises a lot of the bank’s money over the years...
     
    There are quite a few bankers like this. I knew one in Newark in the 90s who even bleached his formerly-blond hair -- a bank president who was there when Trump got bailed out. Guess what. It turned out to be a good thing for everyone except the contractors who got screwed (and that's not good, admittedly.)

    You pick your horse and you bet on him. What else can you do?

    Anyway, this Supreme Court turn of events is a very good thing. There will be one or two more new justices in the months and years ahead. Trump could, once-and-for-all, end the activist court that has been legislating from the bench and return it to its rightful, Constitutional place.

    Hell, the Supreme Court in our lifetimes has been amending the damned Constitution, not just legislating. It is an outrage and must stop.

    even bleached his formerly-blond hair

    What? When you bleach blonde hair, you get … blonder hair.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    As a blond man ages, his hair turns a darker shade of blond and then subtly goes gray (where it hasn't disappeared). The grayness is not as noticeable as it is with dark hair and is best left to nature. Don't ask me how I know this.

    The man can try to keep his hair blond, but it looks ridiculous if he's not careful, thus Donald Trump's obviously-colored yellow hair. In the case of that bank president, it was equally obvious up close. Bleach, color, whatever he was using, he was struggling with his formerly golden mane, like the developer whose debts he had forgiven and refinanced.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @AnotherDad

    Trump could, once-and-for-all, end the activist court that has been legislating from the bench and return it to its rightful, Constitutional place.
     
    Good luck with that.

    You're right the courts are outrageous. But for it to stop, the other branches must *act*. Stop treating their rulings as holy writ. Ignore them when they are wrong. Impeach justices who legislate. Abolish lower courts that are out of line. And Congress can use it's jurisdiction stripping authority. Courts are only worthy of respect when they follow the law.

    What's the chance conservatives, constitutionalists, federalists are going to do any of that?

    ~~

    Hate to keep going back here ... but it's where the road leads. We have been colonized by an elite that does not much like the idea of republican governance. It does not trust "the will of the people". It much prefers elite dispensation. And it has relentlessly propagandized that all this is normal, "constitutional" and good.

    If you don't have a people who insist on their right to govern themselves, then you won't have self-government. It's arguable whether we still have such a people.

    Also, we need to bring back localism. I’m all for self-governing people. Emphasis on self. Several million leftists in California weighing in on how I should live is unacceptable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. Carol says:
    @Alfa158
    Problem with a woman nominee is the question of whether she is more likely to “grow” on the bench than a man would. Hard to say. I will say this, unlike his establishment Republican predecessors, Trump seems so far to have done pretty well with Gorsuch being a non-“grower”.
    Being a woman also does nothing for reducing hysterical opposition from the Left. They simply declare her an honorary non-woman, and hideously White, and pretend she wears swastika emblazoned undies.

    That’s the first thing I thought. We gals yearn to be popular doncha know.

    BTW Gorsuch has lots of time yet to “grow.”

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

    Could someone define “legislating from the bench” for me, and provide some clear examples where this occurred?

    Obviously the SC can’t literally legislate, so what does this really mean?

    Clearly declaring a law unconstitutional can’t be considered a bad thing – that is their job, no?

    Is it just a way of expressing one’s opinion that judicial overreach is occurring? Presumably in a way that one doesn’t like?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Could someone define “legislating from the bench” for me, and provide some clear examples where this occurred?
     
    Roe v. Wade is the best example, because Blackmun flat-out stated that they were making the decision that clerics. philosophers, and legislators were too uninformed to make. But Plyler v. Doe and countless others are examples of this.
    , @Sabril
    Suppose you think it would be good policy for the law to be changed so that same sex couples can marry.

    The normal way that laws are changed is that Congress or the state legislature votes to change the law and the president or governor signs off on it. This process is called legislation.

    So the normal thing to do would be to lobby the legislature to change the law so that same sex couples can marry.

    But what if the legislature won't change the law? In that case, there is another possible avenue, which is to convince the courts to invent a constitutional right to same sex marriage, ie to usurp the legislative process.

    That's legislating from the bench, and the Left loves it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. MarkinLA says:
    @Rob McX
    Ann Coulter would a great choice, but not having practised law for years would probably disqualify her.

    but not having practised law for years would probably disqualify her

    That is the most compelling reason. She knows enough about the law so would counter the claims made against an engineer. She has seen enough of the garbage decisions in her life and can pick them apart. She actually isn’t full of herself as a legal professional. She knows what a farce the SC and the federal judicial system has become.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Russ says:
    @Rob McX
    Ann Coulter would a great choice, but not having practised law for years would probably disqualify her.

    A reasonable point; however, did that Elena Kagan person whom Obama appointed ever do anything more than organize the Harvard Law School softball games?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. The same legal system that includes the SCOTUS process also provides for the likes of Alan Dershowitz to subvert the course of justice. Epstein takes one for the team, the other guys stay out of jail. See the linked Memory Hole item and get some edification about how the law is only an ass for some.

    https://memoryholeblog.org/2018/06/26/the-president-is-missing-from-orgy-island/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. Anonym says:
    @D. K.
    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/02/personnel_is_policy.html

    ***

    Back in the Reagan Administration, we had a saying that always drew sneers from the press and from the Washington establishment: "Personnel is policy." What we meant, of course, is that to execute the President's policies it was necessary to hire officials who supported these policies, and who would work to achieve the President's objectives rather than to undermine them.

    ***

    From the very start— the choice of Reince Priebus as his (first) White House Chief of Staff— Donald Trump has failed this test, much more often than he has passed it. I had very low expectations for what President Trump would be able to accomplish— other than keeping the loathsome Clintons out of the White House!— because the majority of his own majority party in Congress was opposed to the majority of what got him elected: transitioning the United States’ political culture from globalism and elitism to nationalism and populism. Nonetheless, he has utterly failed to meet even my own modest hopes for his presidency. I see no sign that the wall ever will be built, nor even genuinely begun; and, his endless longing to amnesty the DREAMers, rather than to keep his explicit promise, cited on his campaign’s Web site, to cancel the unconstitutional DACA scheme instituted by the Obama regime, and to do so on Day 1 of the Trump Administration, is perhaps the most galling lie that he told in order to get himself elected. Before the inane “First 100 Days!” even ran out, it was utterly clear to me that Donald Trump intended to run for re-election, come 2020, on the same platform as Reagan did, in 1984: pointing to a burgeoning economy (minus the re-industrialization of the Rust Belt— one of the two basic promises that actually got him elected!), while wrapping himself in the American flag (and continuing our eternal war on the Middle East, contra his campaign promises, while flirting with major new wars against several other countries). Whether this trajectory continues for the next six and a half years, or only for the next six and a half months, I think the aforementioned Reince Priebus summed it up, recently: Apres Trump, the Republican Party reverts to form (as the globalist un-American party of the overclass, even if Reince and his pal, Speaker Ryan, see it otherwise).

    Reince was likely a quid pro quo for not screwing Trump with the delegate situation at the convention. In my view.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/17/priebus-to-anti-trump-delegates-time-to-give-it-up/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @Highlander
    It is 46 year old Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the 7th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals who is near or even at the top of Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees. You will be hearing the continual hysterical screams of the Democrats starting today.

    I heard she has 2 adopted Haitian children. Sounds like a bit of a bleeding heart. Let’s stick with a safe choice this time- a stale, pale male.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Lucas McCrudy:

    Confirming what you heard I noticed that there were some black children at her Notre Dame appointment celebration. Despite Amy Barrett's other sterling qualities, that's playing with dynamite.
    , @MEH 0910
    http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378643-dems-refuse-to-recognize-trumps-first-rate-federal-court-picks

    Judge Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana is a mother to seven children, two adopted from Haiti and one with special needs;
     
    Uh oh.
    , @Brutusale
    Which will make her that much more palatable to the Dems. It's hard to call a woman with a special needs kid and two Haitian adoptees a heartless Republican bitch, though I have total faith that there are those who will anyway.
    , @roo_ster
    That disqualifies her. There is little of her to go around what with 7 bio kids and a career. And it bodes ill for the family that cuckold hubby allowed it to happen.

    Nope, nopeity nope. Adopters of little brown or black squatlings are to be kept far away from leadership or levers of power.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @Barnard
    The assumption on Ginsberg has long been she wanted Crooked Hillary, as the first woman President, to nominate her replacement. I doubt Obama was astute enough to give Ginsberg the deference and flattery she would have wanted to step down during his term. There very likely could have been a mutual lack of respect between the two of them. There may be an addiction to power element to it as well. Ginsberg sees legislating from the bench as the proper role of the Supreme Court. It has to be difficult to give up that kind of power.

    I see Trump's biggest weakness as being to easily influenced by people who opposed him through the campaign and don't want his agenda to be implemented.

    I was thinking something similar. I suspect some highly intelligent leftists, like RBG, were not taken in by Obama.

    In considering Obama, you have to consider Michelle. What kind of man would choose her? Can you imagine Michelle Obama bonding with Scalia over opera, like RBG?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Highlander
    This visage is certainly striking the fear of God (or is it the goddess?) into the hearts of Democrats this morning.

    http://wavemagazineonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-JUPPI-Amy-Barrett-071A-Deremer-Studios-LLC-e1478811952362-660x330.jpg

    She is the perfect Justice. If she wins the prize, leftists will suffer an eternity of darkness.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Abe
    I happened to be watching a PBS documentary and it mentioned Justice William O. Douglass so I looked him up on Wikipedia. Well, give thanks for the small graces I guess. As much as we LUUUV hating on today’s SJWs, at least they are not killing anyone (directly, BLM egging on is a different matter). At least they are not killing anyone while robbing banks to buy guns and bombs to kill more anyones. At least they are not killing anyone to jail-break someone who killed anyone while robbing a bank to buy more bombs and guns to kill anyones. At least they are not killing anyone to jailbreak someone who killed anyone while robbing a bank to buy more guns and bombs to kill anyones in order to emulate someone in East Asia whose revolution has killed millions of anyones by now.

    Point being, today’s leftists are decidedly less crazy than 2 generations prior. And as activist as they are, it still does not remotely compare to Justice Douglass’s hearing a petition from some Congresssoman to stop the Vietnam War, granting it SOLO, then forcing the 8 other members of the Court to emergency convene to overrule him. After which Douglass went to see DEEP THROAT at the local cineplex.

    Japan’s PM watches PBS? Who knew?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. TTSSYF says:
    @Anonymous
    I wanted to leave an interesting and constructive comment. But I'm still reeling from seeing "objective evaluation" and "Trump" in the same sentence. I doubt it's possible currently.

    Good. Then don’t even speculate with a comment.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. @Alec Leamas

    I think the main difficulty is that RBG wasn’t ready to step down and didn’t want to let go of the immense power and prestige she had. The kind of person who gets to the supreme court is probably also the kind that will want to stay there till they’re too old and feeble to continue.
     
    I think it's more likely that Ginsburg simply absorbed the DC conventional wisdom which held that Republicans would forever be unable to win the Presidency after 2008. She wasn't ready to go in the early Obama years, and the Senate flipped to the GOP in 2010 so I figure she was waiting until a year when HRC was President and the Senate was under Democrat control so that her successor could be as hard left as she was (not the sort of phony moderate like Garland, but a gender warrior firebrand).

    But there is a whiff of the old bag believing her press and embracing her newfound folk hero status among Millennial women as the Notorious RBG. It's just that - angel of death willing - she badly miscalculated and you'd have to presume that the odds are that her successor will be appointed by Trump and will be diametrically opposed to her vision of the Court and the nation.

    All Alito has to do is accidently bump into her in the hallway. Tap her cane with his toe. Down she goes, broken hip, surgery, pneumonia… Trump nomination #3!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Chrisnonymous:

    I'm ashamed to admit that I'm LOL.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. Redman says:
    @Jim Don Bob

    I doubt Obama was astute enough to give Ginsberg the deference and flattery ...
     
    Right. The only deference and flattery BHO was interested in was that which was directed at him. There is no evidence he gives a rat's ass about anybody besides himself.

    Spot on.

    Who the hell thinks Obama would lift a finger for anything? He offshored foreign policy to HRC because he was uninterested in it and didn’t want to take any blame for bad decisions.

    Why else was Benghazi/Libya all about Hillary?

    Obama even had to be guilted into campaigning for “Obamacare” by Pelosi when it wasnt getting support. Remember that?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. GU says:
    @Anonymous
    I give you 49-year old Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule (B.A., Harvard, J.D., Harvard) Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. He clerked for Scalia and holds the same views. Pro-life conservative Catholic (convert). He grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Mother was a classical scholar and professor of classics at Radcliffe/Harvard. His father was a classicist as well and his sister is a professor of English Lit at Stanford.

    I’ve always seen Vermeule as a big government, pro-adiministrative state cuck. What makes you think he’d ram through a conservative agenda? Do you know who makes the administrative decisions that Vermuele wants us to defer to? Not conservative white men, I can tell you that.

    Abortion is a symbolic issue, keep your eye on the ball.

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

    I’m sorry I was on the phone . Is there a burning issue Steve ?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  126. BB753 says:
    @Highlander
    It is 46 year old Judge Amy Coney Barrett of the 7th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals who is near or even at the top of Trump's list of potential Supreme Court nominees. You will be hearing the continual hysterical screams of the Democrats starting today.

    Women should make no decidisions at all, judicial or otherwise, during menopause.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dr kill
    If you actually meant menorrhea, then I suppose for some percentage of women you are correct. Otherwise, this is irrational thinking.
    , @L Woods
    You can go ahead and leave out the “menopause” qualifier
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @Jack Hanson
    I've only been saying this the whole time but here in autism town the idea that someone has multiple demeanors is just a step too far for the Biggest Brains on the Internet.

    Yes iSteve does get quite spergy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. It turns out that President Trump conducted a highly competent campaign to reassure Justice Anthony Kennedy that, contrary to his portrayals in the media, he wouldn’t nominate, say, Judge Judy to replace him.

    LOL — that was an excellent punch line.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  129. Beenes says:

    Obama didn’t get Ginsburg out the door (in 2013, the last real year when Democrats controlled the senate), but he did get two Justices appointed by Republicans out the door, now didn’t he? (No, I don’t mean Scalia).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Canadian Observer
    How did Justice Scalia die again?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @The preferred nomenclature is...
    Man, Buffalo, I never thought I'd disagree with one of your posts (which I always try to read because you have good things to say) but this time I'm gonna have to. I like Trump busting their balls and he is showing the way for future deplorables.

    But, I do understand what you are saying. God Bless and have a great 4th of July.

    Preferred, Thank you, I’m from a different time and the tweet shit annoys me, but if it rubs salt then I’m good.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Brutusale
    Joe, the Republicans didn't coin "Punch back twice as hard" or "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun".

    I'll take the guy calling someone an asshole over the guy telling his supporters to assault me.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Dan Hayes says:
    @Lucas McCrudy
    I heard she has 2 adopted Haitian children. Sounds like a bit of a bleeding heart. Let's stick with a safe choice this time- a stale, pale male.

    Lucas McCrudy:

    Confirming what you heard I noticed that there were some black children at her Notre Dame appointment celebration. Despite Amy Barrett’s other sterling qualities, that’s playing with dynamite.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Dan Hayes says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    All Alito has to do is accidently bump into her in the hallway. Tap her cane with his toe. Down she goes, broken hip, surgery, pneumonia... Trump nomination #3!

    Chrisnonymous:

    I’m ashamed to admit that I’m LOL.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Luke Lea says:
    @Highlander
    This visage is certainly striking the fear of God (or is it the goddess?) into the hearts of Democrats this morning.

    http://wavemagazineonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-JUPPI-Amy-Barrett-071A-Deremer-Studios-LLC-e1478811952362-660x330.jpg

    Aren’t five Catholics on the court enough already? Or is it six?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AndrewR
    What does it even mean to be a Catholic these days? John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo and Jerry Brown: all papists. Pelosi even kissed Pope Ratzinger's ring.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @peterike
    I'd say Trump's greatest strength is his ability to troll the media, Dems and NeverTrump Republicans. This puncturing of the false sanctity of "the news" and politics is all to the good. Hard-nosed mockery used to be a pretty regular feature of American media and politics ohhh a hundred years or so ago. Now it's all sanctimonious phoniness upfront, while knives are stabbed in your back. Trump has revealed it all for what it is.

    His biggest weakness is he still pays FAR too much attention to process and procedure. He really does seem to want to work within the established guidelines. He could be way more Obama-like and just issue orders left and right. He should have fired Mueller six months ago at least. When his travel ban was first blocked by a judge he should have told the judge to shove it, and just gone ahead and ordered it done anyway. Anyone refusing to implement should have been fired on the spot.

    For goodness sake, we NEED a Constitutional crisis to break the backs of activist judges. If we can't get it from Trump, who will we ever get it from? And he needs to break the bureaucracy. He has done very little in this regard.

    Hell, the Left already (insanely) calls him a dictator. Might as well prove them right.

    Excellent comment. I must have used up my “agree” already.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Cloudbuster
    even bleached his formerly-blond hair

    What? When you bleach blonde hair, you get ... blonder hair.

    As a blond man ages, his hair turns a darker shade of blond and then subtly goes gray (where it hasn’t disappeared). The grayness is not as noticeable as it is with dark hair and is best left to nature. Don’t ask me how I know this.

    The man can try to keep his hair blond, but it looks ridiculous if he’s not careful, thus Donald Trump’s obviously-colored yellow hair. In the case of that bank president, it was equally obvious up close. Bleach, color, whatever he was using, he was struggling with his formerly golden mane, like the developer whose debts he had forgiven and refinanced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    I should add, because it's funny, that I wasn't the one who noticed at first that the banker was coloring his hair. At my first meeting with him I was accompanied by a female associate. After we left the building she laughed and said, "that's the first bottle-blond bank president I've ever seen."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @Svigor

    But in subtle and not so subtle ways, the White House waged a quiet campaign to ensure that
     
    ...that Kennedy got plenty of opportunity to get to know the actual president and his administration, to compare to Big Media's caricatures.

    LOL — I didn’t see that coming! You are right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Olorin
    SCOTUS is not the venue for legislating specific issues--especially where this would involve demands like yours for a pro-life candidate who is pro-death and has a sore spot for a political party. That sounds to me more like the resume from the 1980s.

    Especially focusing as you do on a political party already drowning in the social, economic, and moral bloodbaths it created over the past half century and demanding we all participate in their noisy, angry, last-stand heme-gargle.

    I'd like to see an engineer on the high court. I want reason exercised within the framing established by the best and brightest of our founding legal thinkers, carried forward with devoted navigation by that pole star...and the robust grace of The Law of Conservation of Genetics.

    An aeronautical, physics, or electrical/silicon-lightning engineer would have individual capacities like being forward thinking and grounded in cool reason. He would have the good sense not to legislate from the bench. (Good engineers know that the laws of nature are the laws of nature, no matter how you feel about them, and voting on it makes not a whit of difference.)

    Even more to the point, SCOTUS's caseload increasingly involves judgments on legal matters and precedents involving emerging "intellectual property" issues around rapidly evolving technical innovations. This area of the law is burgeoning at warp speed.

    I continually shudder to imagine it being considered by a dimwit like Sotomayor, whose only engineering experience is in demographic tinkering for Dem party votes, and whose dissents run to page after page of lefty cringe.

    The Dems have long viewed SCOTUS as mainly concerned with the latest Bolshie Grievance, Inc., microaggression. For them, SCOTUS is the court of last resort for their Long March Through The Institutions and its Frankfurt School innovations.

    Just another example of their failed leadership.

    Peter Thiel, maybe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    I'd think he has been somewhat too exposed on the political front. More likely someone few have ever heard of. For elected positions, recognition among the electorate is a benefit. For the high judiciary, not so much.

    I'm thinking more like say someone with experience with the Army Corps chief counsel office.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. @Anonymous
    I give you 49-year old Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule (B.A., Harvard, J.D., Harvard) Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. He clerked for Scalia and holds the same views. Pro-life conservative Catholic (convert). He grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Mother was a classical scholar and professor of classics at Radcliffe/Harvard. His father was a classicist as well and his sister is a professor of English Lit at Stanford.

    Harvard domination of the Supreme Court is not healthy! I’m not saying that the next SCOTUS justice has to have a JD from Drake or Brigham Young, but Stanford or the University of Michigan should be considered.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Slayer
    Its massively taboo in Academia. Equivalent of intellectual inbreeding. Youve to pursue graduate studies and your professorship among other faculty. Very rarely will be asked to return to an appointment and share what is discussed in a well rounded career.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. @Cloudbuster
    The top ten most important issues facing the nation:

    1. Immigration
    2. Immigration
    3. Immigration
    4. Immigration
    5. Immigration
    6. Immigration
    7. Immigration
    8. Immigration
    9. Immigration
    10. Entitlement spending

    I love your comment, but let’s not forget that we can be replaced in the absence of further immigration if the government continues to subsidize the breeding of non-productive non-whites in this country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    subsidize the breeding of non-productive non-whites in this country

    Imma count that as an offshoot of entitlement spending.
    , @Rob McX
    Unfortunately, it's hard to control their fecundity, because any changes in the law will have to affect whites too. It's best to devote as much energy as possible to keeping out any more non-whites, and deporting every last illegal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @AnotherDad

    Trump could, once-and-for-all, end the activist court that has been legislating from the bench and return it to its rightful, Constitutional place.
     
    Good luck with that.

    You're right the courts are outrageous. But for it to stop, the other branches must *act*. Stop treating their rulings as holy writ. Ignore them when they are wrong. Impeach justices who legislate. Abolish lower courts that are out of line. And Congress can use it's jurisdiction stripping authority. Courts are only worthy of respect when they follow the law.

    What's the chance conservatives, constitutionalists, federalists are going to do any of that?

    ~~

    Hate to keep going back here ... but it's where the road leads. We have been colonized by an elite that does not much like the idea of republican governance. It does not trust "the will of the people". It much prefers elite dispensation. And it has relentlessly propagandized that all this is normal, "constitutional" and good.

    If you don't have a people who insist on their right to govern themselves, then you won't have self-government. It's arguable whether we still have such a people.

    Other branches give way too much deference to black-robed kritarchs. At least some states force judges and justices to face the voters periodically. In Iowa the three state Supreme Court justices who were up for a retention election after “legislating” homosexual marriage within the state lost their jobs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Justice Kennedy’s son is a corporate banker who has personally taken the lead in loaning Trump’s real estate enterprises a lot of the bank’s money over the years

    I’m told this is getting him investigated by Mueller.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    Somebody should investigate that shitbird. Nobody gets to the top echelons of the FBI without some dirt on him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @anon
    Kick Jeff Sessions up and out.

    Yes, that could be a good idea.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @Buzz Mohawk
    As a blond man ages, his hair turns a darker shade of blond and then subtly goes gray (where it hasn't disappeared). The grayness is not as noticeable as it is with dark hair and is best left to nature. Don't ask me how I know this.

    The man can try to keep his hair blond, but it looks ridiculous if he's not careful, thus Donald Trump's obviously-colored yellow hair. In the case of that bank president, it was equally obvious up close. Bleach, color, whatever he was using, he was struggling with his formerly golden mane, like the developer whose debts he had forgiven and refinanced.

    I should add, because it’s funny, that I wasn’t the one who noticed at first that the banker was coloring his hair. At my first meeting with him I was accompanied by a female associate. After we left the building she laughed and said, “that’s the first bottle-blond bank president I’ve ever seen.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. @RCB
    Could someone define “legislating from the bench” for me, and provide some clear examples where this occurred?

    Obviously the SC can’t literally legislate, so what does this really mean?

    Clearly declaring a law unconstitutional can’t be considered a bad thing - that is their job, no?

    Is it just a way of expressing one’s opinion that judicial overreach is occurring? Presumably in a way that one doesn’t like?

    Could someone define “legislating from the bench” for me, and provide some clear examples where this occurred?

    Roe v. Wade is the best example, because Blackmun flat-out stated that they were making the decision that clerics. philosophers, and legislators were too uninformed to make. But Plyler v. Doe and countless others are examples of this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    One of the first pieces of legislating from the bench was the 1962 (?) SCOTUS decision striking down Connecticut's law against, IIRC, birth control because of a "right to privacy" the Warren court found in their copy of the Constitution. Then there was Miranda, etc, but they really outdid themselves with Roe vs. Wade.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @ben tillman
    I love your comment, but let's not forget that we can be replaced in the absence of further immigration if the government continues to subsidize the breeding of non-productive non-whites in this country.

    subsidize the breeding of non-productive non-whites in this country

    Imma count that as an offshoot of entitlement spending.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Cloudbuster
    By any objective measure, Trump has been a fantastically competent, effective President, but you'd never know that talking to the average person at the grocery store or coffee shop because the mainstream media is almost entirely obscuring it.

    Agreed. Had a conversation with a co-worker today (a typical late 50′s working woman that is totally clueless except for the relentless MSM propaganda that seeps into her consciousness). Lord, have mercy. She’s someone that knows how right-wing I am, I mean the full extent of my right-wingness and knows how informed I am. She still went on a rant about Trump and his anti-environmentalism because of fracking and opening up coal mines. Mind you she and her husband benefit from these industries’ growth (via their jobs, both in management I might add) and she was still going on about Trump.

    I shut her up pretty quick with the some facts, then the mantra, “I love Trump. He’s the greatest.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Berty
    I've been dumping on Trump somewhat lately, but I'll admit his ability to disregard norms and precedents and basically conquer the Republican Party is amazing in so many ways. He's humiliated and defeated most of his enemies in the party, something even Reagan couldn't do.

    With that said, I'll repeat what I said before and say that I think the GOP should hold off on confirming anyone until next year and allow the issue to linger on through the election. The party badly needs the election to be about judges and not Trump.

    With that said, I’ll repeat what I said before and say that I think the GOP should hold off on confirming anyone until next year and allow the issue to linger on through the election. The party badly needs the election to be about judges and not Trump.

    You don’t sincerely mean that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Berty
    I most certainly do, because Trump isn't popular and the party needs an issue that can motivate their voters. And the evangelical vote will make the crucial difference both in the states they needs to hold and the ones they hope to gain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Anonymous
    I don't give an F if a woman wants to terminate her thugspawn, or for that matter if two dudes want to bone each other. Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles? I want the SC to preserve gun rights, overrule racial preferences, overrule any deference to international law, preserve the freedom of association, and preserve speech rights, and not legislate from the bench.

    I don’t give an F if a woman wants to terminate her thugspawn, or for that matter if two dudes want to bone each other. Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles?

    In other words, you’re a Leftist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix.....
    I prefer to fight my enemies today when they're still in the womb rather than 20 years from now at the ballot box or 30 years from now in the streets. Only a pathetic cuck would go through the trouble of seizing control of the government only to use its power to raise the black and hispanic birth rate. Are you a pathetic cuck, David Davenport?
    , @dr kill
    He's a Realist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. MEH 0910 says:
    @Lucas McCrudy
    I heard she has 2 adopted Haitian children. Sounds like a bit of a bleeding heart. Let's stick with a safe choice this time- a stale, pale male.

    http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378643-dems-refuse-to-recognize-trumps-first-rate-federal-court-picks

    Judge Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana is a mother to seven children, two adopted from Haiti and one with special needs;

    Uh oh.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    MEH 0910:

    Do Gooders have many good qualities but these same qualities are disastrous in justices of the SCOTUS.

    , @AnotherDad


    Judge Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana is a mother to seven children, two adopted from Haiti and one with special needs;
     
    Uh oh.
     
    Good catch MEH.

    "Uh oh" is right! She's no longer a based white woman with 7 kids. She's one of these religious cucks--Catholic variety--"saving" the the world ... by screwing America.

    Christian virtue signaling, save the worldism, is one of the six or seven key elements destroying the West. And "the woman problem"--female misplaced nurturing instinct and conformity--is another. She's a two-fer.

    Scratch her from the list. Trump can find someone truly based, Protestant background, with a passle of kids and no cuckoo's eggs in the nest.
    , @Svigor
    *#@$!

    Amy Coney Barrett

    #^@&ing Cuckstians.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. In contrast, Obama failed to get the even older and sicker Ginsburg out the door.

    She is rather suspiciously overdressed for the climate in this pic:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  151. @Jack Hanson
    I've only been saying this the whole time but here in autism town the idea that someone has multiple demeanors is just a step too far for the Biggest Brains on the Internet.

    We’ll see after the midterms. If Trump-sympathetic Congressors obtain a 50+ majority in the House, and 60+ in the Senate, I’ll be thinking he’s got hold of a hurricane.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. @Cagey Beast
    Here's Putin answering a question on Oliver Stone's documentary at the same event. Boy, they have some pretty girls working at iron ore processing plants in Russia!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWyyxwO8WAA

    Such composure, too

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @peterike
    I'd say Trump's greatest strength is his ability to troll the media, Dems and NeverTrump Republicans. This puncturing of the false sanctity of "the news" and politics is all to the good. Hard-nosed mockery used to be a pretty regular feature of American media and politics ohhh a hundred years or so ago. Now it's all sanctimonious phoniness upfront, while knives are stabbed in your back. Trump has revealed it all for what it is.

    His biggest weakness is he still pays FAR too much attention to process and procedure. He really does seem to want to work within the established guidelines. He could be way more Obama-like and just issue orders left and right. He should have fired Mueller six months ago at least. When his travel ban was first blocked by a judge he should have told the judge to shove it, and just gone ahead and ordered it done anyway. Anyone refusing to implement should have been fired on the spot.

    For goodness sake, we NEED a Constitutional crisis to break the backs of activist judges. If we can't get it from Trump, who will we ever get it from? And he needs to break the bureaucracy. He has done very little in this regard.

    Hell, the Left already (insanely) calls him a dictator. Might as well prove them right.

    To break the bureaucracy, you first need to break the spell of the priesthood, the moral prescribers of society. You need to show the populace that the priesthood is without credibility, self-serving, and that its prescriptions are toxic. The great majority of professionals, including the judiciary, have been raised to believe that their success in this life, e.g. success in love, work, and family, is conditioned on their fealty to a scripture of allegiance to falsehoods. The solvent is working, fealty is dissolving.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. EdwardM says:
    @Fredrik
    Additionally you'd think that a list of SCOTUS candidates must have been drawn up a long, long time ago. Trump would only need to rearrange the list if he wants to.

    He made it public. It has around 25 names on it (Gorsuch was one).

    The left has already come out and said that all 25 are literally Hitler, etc. It shows their true agenda and makes them look silly, as opposed to their usual tactic of saying that this guy that the president nominated is singularly unacceptable and he must nominate someone else, in an effort to wear him down.

    It was a smart move politically (giving the left this reaction and reassuring conservatives) and procedurally.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. Rob McX says:
    @ben tillman
    I love your comment, but let's not forget that we can be replaced in the absence of further immigration if the government continues to subsidize the breeding of non-productive non-whites in this country.

    Unfortunately, it’s hard to control their fecundity, because any changes in the law will have to affect whites too. It’s best to devote as much energy as possible to keeping out any more non-whites, and deporting every last illegal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Cloudbuster
    The top ten most important issues facing the nation:

    1. Immigration
    2. Immigration
    3. Immigration
    4. Immigration
    5. Immigration
    6. Immigration
    7. Immigration
    8. Immigration
    9. Immigration
    10. Entitlement spending

    You got 9 out of 10 right!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. AndrewR says:
    @MBlanc46
    That smug, superior attitude us the principal reason you Leftists are getting you rear ends handed to you on a platter.

    Not sure why you think he’s a “Leftist.” One thing everyone should be able to agree on is that Trump is polarizing figure who stirs up a lot of emotion in people and whom it’s very difficult to analyze dispassionately. Even (or especially) his most ardent supporters should readily admit that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. EdwardM says:
    @Precious
    “Personnel is policy.” What we meant, of course, is that to execute the President’s policies it was necessary to hire officials who supported these policies, and who would work to achieve the President’s objectives rather than to undermine them. From the very start...Donald Trump has failed this test,

    But you don't mention why in your post. The reason is that, unlike Reagan, almost no one in Washington DC supported most of Trump's policies. The Plum book outlines the thousands of direct hires the President has to make. How many people does Trump know and trust? Not thousands. And of the people he knows and trusts, the majority don't live in DC.

    And getting someone with a family to move to DC isn't easy. They have to uproot their family and buy into a higher housing market(unless they live in NYC or similar market). And the average time spent in a Plum book job is about 2 years. Many people aren't willing to do that.

    I understood what Trump was getting into from the start, and what he could possibly do as opposed to what he would like to do. Apparently my expectations were even lower than yours because I understood what I have just mentioned above. So I am very happy with what Trump has accomplished so far.

    Agree that this is the core of the problem. The assistant secretaries of X, Y, and Z, appointed by the president and confirmed the senate, and the Schedule C aides to cabinet secretaries, are the keys in implementing an agenda, controlling the bureaucracy, and building links to constituencies. Most of the people who aspire to these roles are part of the revolving door Beltway crowd who probably oppose Trump’s agenda and/or would be in it for the wrong reasons.

    Trump must understand this, but maybe he underestimated the challenge; he has experience knowing how important the project manager on a mid-sized building or the deputy general counsel responsible for commercial agreements are to the success of his empire. But in the private sector it’s easier for the CEO to dictate an agenda and have these types of people go along. Of course it still takes tremendous leadership skill, but the public sector is a different animal including, as you mention, the difficulty in attracting people of a high calibre.

    Bill Clinton once said, to the chagrin of Al Gore, that no one was really qualified to president, even someone who had been vice president for eight years. I think that’s right, and certainly a sign at how out of control our government is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Prester John
    Did Clinton say that? Well....one of the few times that I agree with him. And one of the best examples was---Bill Clinton!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. AndrewR says:
    @Jim Christian
    Just find the most pro-life male WASP, heterosexual justice you can find, pro-death penalty, ram him in. Democrats can't do a thing about it.

    White guys should have representation on the Court, also.

    “ram him in”

    This isn’t really the post for you to be sharing your graphic sexual fantasies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. AndrewR says:
    @Jim Don Bob

    I doubt Obama was astute enough to give Ginsberg the deference and flattery ...
     
    Right. The only deference and flattery BHO was interested in was that which was directed at him. There is no evidence he gives a rat's ass about anybody besides himself.

    The corporate media is claiming that Obama asked Trump to “rename” Obamacare to Trumpcare while keeping it intact. “Oh, look how selfless and humble Barack Obama is!!!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. AndrewR says:
    @AnotherDad
    I'm always leery of female judges, because of their less logical orientation and especially approval seeking. Sandra Day O'Connor's drift and the weird kludgy reasoning and essentially legislative pronouncement--ex. the 25 years after which affirmation action becomes unnecessary--a case study. To nominate any gal who's supposedly "conservative" i'd really want her to be "based".

    But i got to say, i looked up this Amy Coney Barrett and she's a conservative with 7 kids. In today's day and age, that's pretty based behavior right there. Though whether she's really "based", hard to tell. But you gotta love a gal who's had seven kids. That's someone in touch with biological reality. (Unless she's adopted a bunch from Africa--in that case keep her as far from the court as possible!)

    ~~

    I will say the Catholic thing strikes me as a negative given the current makeup of the court. Even as a Catholic schooled, Jesuit educated guy, I thought this deal where the court was 6 Catholics and 3 Jews was ridiculous in an Anglo-Protestant created nation.

    Note, this should make absolutely no difference because the court shouldn't be doing any legislating, it should routinely be rendering the same judgements that an AI program loaded with the constitution and federal law should come to. (Or a space alien who'd read our stuff.)

    But with the judicial tyranny we have going on, a "representative" court should have no more than 3 Catholics--outside 4, and never more than a single Jew. The rest should be Protestant background of various shades of practice/non-practice, belief/non-belief.

    Jews should only be about 2% of SCOTUS justices, which comes out to fewer than one per century. But that would be “antisemitic”…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. AndrewR says:
    @Luke Lea
    Aren't five Catholics on the court enough already? Or is it six?

    What does it even mean to be a Catholic these days? John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo and Jerry Brown: all papists. Pelosi even kissed Pope Ratzinger’s ring.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ANon

    As he was yet speaking, behold a multitude; and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near to Jesus, for to kiss him.
     
    , @Luke Lea
    "What does it even mean to be a Catholic these days?"

    I mean in terms of cultural background.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @Tiny Duck
    This seat was STOLEN from Merrick Garland

    McConnnell made the rule so now he has to abide by it

    NO JUDGE UNTIL AFTER THE MIDTERMS

    How come you guys don't want to talk about the white trmump supporter who killed 5 journalists at the Maryland newspapaer

    He’s a bit of a dope, Tiny Duck, that’s why we’re not talking about him-we told him to hit the New York Times, not the damn Annapolis Post-Intelligencer, or whatever it was. He could have taken out at least 50 NYT reporters in the cafeteria, including Paul Krugman, caught unawares by an AR-15 while stuffing a Hungarian cabbage roll in his mouth. What was this shooter’s third choice? The Kalamazoo Tribune-Pickayune? What a wannabe.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. @AnotherDad
    I'm always leery of female judges, because of their less logical orientation and especially approval seeking. Sandra Day O'Connor's drift and the weird kludgy reasoning and essentially legislative pronouncement--ex. the 25 years after which affirmation action becomes unnecessary--a case study. To nominate any gal who's supposedly "conservative" i'd really want her to be "based".

    But i got to say, i looked up this Amy Coney Barrett and she's a conservative with 7 kids. In today's day and age, that's pretty based behavior right there. Though whether she's really "based", hard to tell. But you gotta love a gal who's had seven kids. That's someone in touch with biological reality. (Unless she's adopted a bunch from Africa--in that case keep her as far from the court as possible!)

    ~~

    I will say the Catholic thing strikes me as a negative given the current makeup of the court. Even as a Catholic schooled, Jesuit educated guy, I thought this deal where the court was 6 Catholics and 3 Jews was ridiculous in an Anglo-Protestant created nation.

    Note, this should make absolutely no difference because the court shouldn't be doing any legislating, it should routinely be rendering the same judgements that an AI program loaded with the constitution and federal law should come to. (Or a space alien who'd read our stuff.)

    But with the judicial tyranny we have going on, a "representative" court should have no more than 3 Catholics--outside 4, and never more than a single Jew. The rest should be Protestant background of various shades of practice/non-practice, belief/non-belief.

    “But you gotta love a gal who’s had seven kids. That’s someone in touch with biological reality. (Unless she’s adopted a bunch from Africa–in that case keep her as far from the court as possible!)”

    Barrett is a mother of seven children, including a special needs child and two children adopted from Haiti.

    https://www.theepochtimes.com/meet-trumps-candidates-for-upcoming-supreme-court-vacancy_2578316.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Morris Applebaum IV:

    Judge Barrett has served less than a year. This is way too short a time to establish her judicial track record. This judicial review criterion should hold for all SCOTUS nominees.

    For example, before being nominated Gorsuch and Alito had well established judicial records of not displaying overt liberal tendencies.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Sabril says:
    @RCB
    Could someone define “legislating from the bench” for me, and provide some clear examples where this occurred?

    Obviously the SC can’t literally legislate, so what does this really mean?

    Clearly declaring a law unconstitutional can’t be considered a bad thing - that is their job, no?

    Is it just a way of expressing one’s opinion that judicial overreach is occurring? Presumably in a way that one doesn’t like?

    Suppose you think it would be good policy for the law to be changed so that same sex couples can marry.

    The normal way that laws are changed is that Congress or the state legislature votes to change the law and the president or governor signs off on it. This process is called legislation.

    So the normal thing to do would be to lobby the legislature to change the law so that same sex couples can marry.

    But what if the legislature won’t change the law? In that case, there is another possible avenue, which is to convince the courts to invent a constitutional right to same sex marriage, ie to usurp the legislative process.

    That’s legislating from the bench, and the Left loves it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. I am retrieving my Ruth Bader Ginsburg Voodoo doll and will be furiously sticking pins in it. With some luck she will be going room temperature very soon and the lefties will be in a state of complete fecal incontinence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  167. TTSSYF says:
    @Thirdtwin
    The Justice Mike Lee trolling was great. If Romney wasn't so close to getting a Senate seat, we'd probably be hearing about potential Justice Romney.

    Romney’s too old. We need someone under 50 if at all possible. Willett strikes me as being too creative and thus too much of a wild card…I can see someone like that flipping once given a life-time appointment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Romney’s too old.
     
    Not to mention completely untrustworthy.
    , @Dan Hayes
    Thirdtwin:

    Only someone blind would not be able to see Romney "flipping". Actually, like his father, Romney has always publicly laid out his duplicitous cards on the table.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. FPD72 says:
    @anon
    Kick Jeff Sessions up and out.

    Sessions is too old. We need somebody young, healthy, and unlikely to “grow.”

    Barrett seems to me to meet all three criteria.

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

    It seems most, if not all, of the justices have huge egos and feel they are personally indispensable to the institution long past the point that a reasonable person would hang it up. But liberals most be kicking themselves for their silly idolization of Ginsberg (like calling the Notorious RBG like she’s some kind of cool thug jurist), whose ego prevented her from doing the sensible thing and retiring while Obama could still name her successor.

    Now the left’s hopes hang on the health of an 85 lb, 85 year old woman who has to survive 2 1/2 more years at a minimum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  170. ANon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @AndrewR
    What does it even mean to be a Catholic these days? John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo and Jerry Brown: all papists. Pelosi even kissed Pope Ratzinger's ring.

    As he was yet speaking, behold a multitude; and he that was called Judas, one of the twelve, went before them, and drew near to Jesus, for to kiss him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. TTSSYF says:
    @Zlat

    This must mean Trump has someone lined up to replace him, no?
     
    Surely, you’re acquainted with Ivanka Trump?

    He would more likely nominate his sister, who’s a federal judge in New York, but he’s already said he’d never do that.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. TTSSYF says:
    @Anonymous
    I don't give an F if a woman wants to terminate her thugspawn, or for that matter if two dudes want to bone each other. Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles? I want the SC to preserve gun rights, overrule racial preferences, overrule any deference to international law, preserve the freedom of association, and preserve speech rights, and not legislate from the bench.

    I also don’t care if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages or what two consenting males do behind closed doors, but do I have to applaud it and, in the latter case, approve of gay “marriage” or else be excoriated as a homophobe?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    I also don’t care if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages or what two consenting males do behind closed doors, but do I have to applaud it and, in the latter case, approve of gay “marriage” or else be excoriated as a homophobe?
     
    All that and they are clearly issues which the Supreme Court has absolutely no business weighing in on at all. And in fact is expressely prohibited from deciding by the 10th ammendment.
    , @Anonymous
    Exactly. And that is why SCOTUS should be protecting rights such as freedom of association and freedom of speech - not outlawing abortion or gay sex.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. Brutusale says:
    @Tiny Duck
    This seat was STOLEN from Merrick Garland

    McConnnell made the rule so now he has to abide by it

    NO JUDGE UNTIL AFTER THE MIDTERMS

    How come you guys don't want to talk about the white trmump supporter who killed 5 journalists at the Maryland newspapaer

    He’s one of yours, Teeny. Well, half of him anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
    Dad was also in the NSA. Crazy how all these sons of Deep State assets keep going bonkers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Brutusale says:
    @Lucas McCrudy
    I heard she has 2 adopted Haitian children. Sounds like a bit of a bleeding heart. Let's stick with a safe choice this time- a stale, pale male.

    Which will make her that much more palatable to the Dems. It’s hard to call a woman with a special needs kid and two Haitian adoptees a heartless Republican bitch, though I have total faith that there are those who will anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    In the current year the Left will call Haitian adoption cultural appropriation when done by whites. For HBD folks and border control proponents, Haitian adoption should be a big red flag. Better to nominate someone else.
    , @Lucas McCrudy
    But how will she vote on issues most important to people on sites like this -not abortion and gay marriage where we're all over the map-
    Meaning, affirmative action, plyler v. doe (a 1982 5-4 decision forcing schools to give illegal alien kids free education), anchor babies, etc.
    , @MarkinLA
    And much more likely to be an O'Connor on affirmative action.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Brutusale says:
    @Buffalo Joe
    Preferred, Thank you, I'm from a different time and the tweet shit annoys me, but if it rubs salt then I'm good.

    Joe, the Republicans didn’t coin “Punch back twice as hard” or “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun”.

    I’ll take the guy calling someone an asshole over the guy telling his supporters to assault me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Highlander
    This visage is certainly striking the fear of God (or is it the goddess?) into the hearts of Democrats this morning.

    http://wavemagazineonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-JUPPI-Amy-Barrett-071A-Deremer-Studios-LLC-e1478811952362-660x330.jpg

    Just scoped her out on Wiki. And on top of everything else, a member of the Federalist Society.

    Sign her up NOW!!!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @EdwardM
    Agree that this is the core of the problem. The assistant secretaries of X, Y, and Z, appointed by the president and confirmed the senate, and the Schedule C aides to cabinet secretaries, are the keys in implementing an agenda, controlling the bureaucracy, and building links to constituencies. Most of the people who aspire to these roles are part of the revolving door Beltway crowd who probably oppose Trump's agenda and/or would be in it for the wrong reasons.

    Trump must understand this, but maybe he underestimated the challenge; he has experience knowing how important the project manager on a mid-sized building or the deputy general counsel responsible for commercial agreements are to the success of his empire. But in the private sector it's easier for the CEO to dictate an agenda and have these types of people go along. Of course it still takes tremendous leadership skill, but the public sector is a different animal including, as you mention, the difficulty in attracting people of a high calibre.

    Bill Clinton once said, to the chagrin of Al Gore, that no one was really qualified to president, even someone who had been vice president for eight years. I think that's right, and certainly a sign at how out of control our government is.

    Did Clinton say that? Well….one of the few times that I agree with him. And one of the best examples was—Bill Clinton!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Pat Boyle says:
    @Svigor

    Bye the way this conflating of Trump with Hitler is bizarre. I am reading a book by Delorenzo currently. He points out that Fascism differs from classical socialism in that whereas in garden variety socialism the government simply expropriates the means of production, Fascism allows private factories and businesses to exist but insists on state control through regulation.
     
    This is probably the explanation I've heard the most on forums and other social media, through the years. It's pretty much the conventional wisdom, when people aren't busy gnashing their teeth.

    You say that as if to disparage that account. In the little econ book I was quoting DiLorenzo cites original sources. This is apparently what the author (Mussolini) of Fascism meant by the term, and it was also Hitler’s understanding. On TV or on blogs the term is used by many people in many ways. This is the most original understanding – state (socialist) control of the means of production through regulation rather than direct expropriation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfa158
    China is also now functionally a National Socialist state as well, including the militarism and racial jingoism, despite clinging to the terminology of the Communist Party and all it’s trappings. Foxconn and Geely are the IG Farben and Daimler-Benz of the new China, and the former European colonial areas of East Africa are now a supply of raw materials for China instead of England and Germany.
    , @Svigor
    No, I don't. Just making it clear it's kinda common knowledge.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. MEH 0910 says:
    @Brutusale
    Which will make her that much more palatable to the Dems. It's hard to call a woman with a special needs kid and two Haitian adoptees a heartless Republican bitch, though I have total faith that there are those who will anyway.

    In the current year the Left will call Haitian adoption cultural appropriation when done by whites. For HBD folks and border control proponents, Haitian adoption should be a big red flag. Better to nominate someone else.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Brutusale
    Which will make her that much more palatable to the Dems. It's hard to call a woman with a special needs kid and two Haitian adoptees a heartless Republican bitch, though I have total faith that there are those who will anyway.

    But how will she vote on issues most important to people on sites like this -not abortion and gay marriage where we’re all over the map-
    Meaning, affirmative action, plyler v. doe (a 1982 5-4 decision forcing schools to give illegal alien kids free education), anchor babies, etc.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. Berty says:
    @David Davenport
    With that said, I’ll repeat what I said before and say that I think the GOP should hold off on confirming anyone until next year and allow the issue to linger on through the election. The party badly needs the election to be about judges and not Trump.

    You don't sincerely mean that.

    I most certainly do, because Trump isn’t popular and the party needs an issue that can motivate their voters. And the evangelical vote will make the crucial difference both in the states they needs to hold and the ones they hope to gain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. @ben tillman

    Could someone define “legislating from the bench” for me, and provide some clear examples where this occurred?
     
    Roe v. Wade is the best example, because Blackmun flat-out stated that they were making the decision that clerics. philosophers, and legislators were too uninformed to make. But Plyler v. Doe and countless others are examples of this.

    One of the first pieces of legislating from the bench was the 1962 (?) SCOTUS decision striking down Connecticut’s law against, IIRC, birth control because of a “right to privacy” the Warren court found in their copy of the Constitution. Then there was Miranda, etc, but they really outdid themselves with Roe vs. Wade.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman
    You're right. There could be worse examples that I'm simply not familiar with.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Rob McX says:

    What about Kagan? Maybe Trump should be telling her to eat more pies and let her know gym membership is unbecoming of a Supreme Court judge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    She was great in The King of Queens.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Brutusale
    He's one of yours, Teeny. Well, half of him anyway.

    https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/screen-shot-2018-06-28-at-11-40-27-pm-e1530250938815.jpg?quality=65&strip=all&w=541&strip=all

    Dad was also in the NSA. Crazy how all these sons of Deep State assets keep going bonkers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. @Beenes
    Obama didn't get Ginsburg out the door (in 2013, the last real year when Democrats controlled the senate), but he did get two Justices appointed by Republicans out the door, now didn't he? (No, I don't mean Scalia).

    How did Justice Scalia die again?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Precious
    How did Justice Scalia die again?

    In his sleep.

    I am well aware of the alternate theories, but if someone went through the trouble of assassinating a Supreme Court Justice, couldn't they at least make an effort to follow through and make sure Mitch McConnell gets the message and confirm Obama's nomination?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. @AnotherDad

    Trump could, once-and-for-all, end the activist court that has been legislating from the bench and return it to its rightful, Constitutional place.
     
    Good luck with that.

    You're right the courts are outrageous. But for it to stop, the other branches must *act*. Stop treating their rulings as holy writ. Ignore them when they are wrong. Impeach justices who legislate. Abolish lower courts that are out of line. And Congress can use it's jurisdiction stripping authority. Courts are only worthy of respect when they follow the law.

    What's the chance conservatives, constitutionalists, federalists are going to do any of that?

    ~~

    Hate to keep going back here ... but it's where the road leads. We have been colonized by an elite that does not much like the idea of republican governance. It does not trust "the will of the people". It much prefers elite dispensation. And it has relentlessly propagandized that all this is normal, "constitutional" and good.

    If you don't have a people who insist on their right to govern themselves, then you won't have self-government. It's arguable whether we still have such a people.

    You’re right the courts are outrageous. But for it to stop, the other branches must *act*. Stop treating their rulings as holy writ. Ignore them when they are wrong.

    The members of the executive and legislative branches are every bit as entitled to interpret the Constitution as any judge is. Moreover, the President’s oath of office effectively requires him to ignore unconstitutional judicial rulings.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. KenH says:
    @Anon
    Where would a nominee come out on birthright citizenship? The importance of that issue dwarfs these other issues.

    Really. People think outlawing abortion is the key to national and interracial amity. It will just give us more blacks and Latinos who commit crimes, join gangs and need welfare benefits.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Alfa158 says:
    @Pat Boyle
    You say that as if to disparage that account. In the little econ book I was quoting DiLorenzo cites original sources. This is apparently what the author (Mussolini) of Fascism meant by the term, and it was also Hitler's understanding. On TV or on blogs the term is used by many people in many ways. This is the most original understanding - state (socialist) control of the means of production through regulation rather than direct expropriation.

    China is also now functionally a National Socialist state as well, including the militarism and racial jingoism, despite clinging to the terminology of the Communist Party and all it’s trappings. Foxconn and Geely are the IG Farben and Daimler-Benz of the new China, and the former European colonial areas of East Africa are now a supply of raw materials for China instead of England and Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    "BINGO!"
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Hibernian says:
    @Pyrrhus
    Time for a Protestant Justice who plays golf and thinks all illegals should be rounded up and deported...William Pryor, maybe?

    Pryor is Catholic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Dan Hayes says:
    @MEH 0910
    http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378643-dems-refuse-to-recognize-trumps-first-rate-federal-court-picks

    Judge Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana is a mother to seven children, two adopted from Haiti and one with special needs;
     
    Uh oh.

    MEH 0910:

    Do Gooders have many good qualities but these same qualities are disastrous in justices of the SCOTUS.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. MarkinLA says:
    @a boy and his dog
    A lot of people are complaining that Trump is buddying up to his detractors. But the ability to burn a bridge and then rebuild it in a more favorable position is a huge asset in business and statecraft. Trump's been taking Never Trumpers and converting them one by one to the point where the GOP will be solidly his own party soon. Former enemies are faced with the choice of taking a deal from an 'enemy' that may be advantageous for them, or fighting all over again and likely being humiliated. They either take the deal and become at least some kind of ally, or give up and quit in the face of Trump's seemingly endless energy. This offers a strategic lesson for everyone.


    On a side note, people are noticing Trump's drive and energy and are copying some of his habits like waking early and not drinking. So there may be a knock-on Trump effect years down the road of these people running everything simply due to having more vitality.

    A lot of people are complaining that Trump is buddying up to his detractors.

    Yes, because he is cucking on immigration, the only thing besides Supreme Court nominations that I voted for him about.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. MarkinLA says:
    @Brutusale
    Which will make her that much more palatable to the Dems. It's hard to call a woman with a special needs kid and two Haitian adoptees a heartless Republican bitch, though I have total faith that there are those who will anyway.

    And much more likely to be an O’Connor on affirmative action.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. BB753 says:

    My bet was that Kennedy was convinced by strong arguments like the following:

    “-C’mon in!
    -Good to see you Sir! How can I help you?
    -please sit down, Kennedy! Justice Kennedy, you’re not getting any younger. 81 years old, fight? Are you ok healthwise?
    -My back is killing me but not too bad. Thanks fpr your concern, Sir!
    -Aren’t you tired of working? I’m Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg are a huge pain in the ass to work with.
    - There are worse bullies in there, believe me! (laughs nervously).
    -When I turn your age Ill be long out of politics, and playing golf at Mar-a-Lago, if I’m still in shape, you know.
    -I wish I could. (sighs)
    -Is there something or someone holding you back?
    -(Kennedy mutters unintelligibly)
    -No need to explain my friend. I know those bastards play hard. Bigly. I should know.
    -Why would they be screwing with me, if I may ask, Sir?
    -C’mon, you and I and everybody and his dog know that you didn’t turn out to be the Justice Reagan appointed you for.
    -(Protesting) Whaat? Errr, pardon, Sir?
    -My friend, as you know I didn’t get to where I am by being the world’s greatest diplomat. I’m the best at other skills. You see, I grew up in a cut-throat city but I prospered there. Patience and knowledge is the key. Some would say I’m a big bully and as far as I know they might be right. But I’m a straight talker too.
    -You’re making me feel old. And tired. (looks down)
    -I know how you feel, the lying media, the DNC, the Agencies trying to find leverage against you. Trying to destroy you. As bad as those bastards are, and how tough they think they are, there are bigger sonofabitches out there, trying to make a nickel if it means selling their own mother.
    -I’m sure there are.
    -You don’t have to struggle anymore, Kennedy, or should I say Justice Kennedy.
    -You can call me Anthony, Sir.
    -Anthony? How I miss Scalia, don’t you?
    -It was a tragedy. A loss for everybody.
    -Sure, very tragic. Now, who would want to die before their time, dealing with the stress of the Supre Court? He was close to retirement age. Yours is such a thankless job! And the sad thing, nobody will remember any of you justices when you die, unlike me. Sorry tobe so blunt, but you’ll be but a name in law book. The sleepless nights, the hard work, the deserved abuse, the stress of receiving not so nice calls home. “Anthony, you owe us one! ” If I were you I’d be enjoying my old age far away, in the Maldives perhaps, surtounded by friendly boys.. and gals!
    -Boys, Sir! (panics)
    -Don’t worry, Anthony, you don’t have to go through all of this anymore. Retirement is very, very sweet, they say. Who are we to judge what you do in your retirement? Youve earned it, Tony!
    -(Sobs quietly) Tony?
    - C’mon here! (They hug).
    -(out of breath) Thanks, sir! It feels lonely in this world.
    -I know how you feel, Anthony! It feels very lonely at the top sometimes. Looming back, I’m a huuge success at everything I’ve ever done. Well, maybe not as a husband. (laughs). Nobody’s perfet. Not even me! And you, Anthony, certainly ain’t! Retirement will do you a world of good. Do you play golf, Anthony?
    -(resumes sobbing quietly)
    –Don’t worry, you wont have to face the media, those lyin’ whores and their fake news. Everything’s taken care of, Tony!
    -Err, thanks Sir!
    -Just give me a call on Monday. Now go out and have some fun! Have a nice dinner, then go to a spa or something. I own tons of similar places. Good places with nice people who don’t harass Republicans! Oh, sorry, Tony, I forget you were never a Republican. Me neither. (laughs loudly). Good night, Tony!
    -Good night, Sir! And thanks for everything!
    -Don’t even mention it, Tony! B’ye. (Pushes him out gently and closes the door) “

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    Underrated
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. D. K. says:
    @Alfa158
    China is also now functionally a National Socialist state as well, including the militarism and racial jingoism, despite clinging to the terminology of the Communist Party and all it’s trappings. Foxconn and Geely are the IG Farben and Daimler-Benz of the new China, and the former European colonial areas of East Africa are now a supply of raw materials for China instead of England and Germany.

    “BINGO!”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. roo_ster says:
    @Lucas McCrudy
    I heard she has 2 adopted Haitian children. Sounds like a bit of a bleeding heart. Let's stick with a safe choice this time- a stale, pale male.

    That disqualifies her. There is little of her to go around what with 7 bio kids and a career. And it bodes ill for the family that cuckold hubby allowed it to happen.

    Nope, nopeity nope. Adopters of little brown or black squatlings are to be kept far away from leadership or levers of power.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Prof. Woland
    Had Merrick Garland been nominated to SCOTUS that would have made 3 out of 9 Justices Jewish. With RBG off the bench it will be 1 out of 9, still way over represented but looking a lot more like America. With the old crone eventually leaving, possibly in a box, this might be Trump's opportunity to make what Chuck Schumer and HRC would have made into a permanent Jewish seat into an Asian seat replacing a past elite with a new one. It would probably shake up the Democrats to the core on things like Affirmative Action and all the gib-me-dats that heretofore were being handed out as guilt reparations. Just a thought.

    3 actually. Ginsburg, Kagan, Breyer. I think its the table stakes for Democrats now as most of the funding for the party is from affluent Jews. There will still be poc periodically, but they will be well versed in the “narrative” and likely dependent on the tribe for funding at various levels.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Svigor says:
    @Rex Little

    Justice Kennedy’s son is a corporate banker who has personally taken the lead in loaning Trump’s real estate enterprises a lot of the bank’s money over the years
     
    I'm told this is getting him investigated by Mueller.

    Somebody should investigate that shitbird. Nobody gets to the top echelons of the FBI without some dirt on him.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. @MEH 0910
    http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378643-dems-refuse-to-recognize-trumps-first-rate-federal-court-picks

    Judge Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana is a mother to seven children, two adopted from Haiti and one with special needs;
     
    Uh oh.

    Judge Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana is a mother to seven children, two adopted from Haiti and one with special needs;

    Uh oh.

    Good catch MEH.

    “Uh oh” is right! She’s no longer a based white woman with 7 kids. She’s one of these religious cucks–Catholic variety–”saving” the the world … by screwing America.

    Christian virtue signaling, save the worldism, is one of the six or seven key elements destroying the West. And “the woman problem”–female misplaced nurturing instinct and conformity–is another. She’s a two-fer.

    Scratch her from the list. Trump can find someone truly based, Protestant background, with a passle of kids and no cuckoo’s eggs in the nest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @D. K.
    Regardless, I strongly suspect that Ivanka will insist that Daddy choose a woman to replace Justice Kennedy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Svigor says:
    @MEH 0910
    http://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/378643-dems-refuse-to-recognize-trumps-first-rate-federal-court-picks

    Judge Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana is a mother to seven children, two adopted from Haiti and one with special needs;
     
    Uh oh.

    *#@$!

    Amy Coney Barrett

    #^@&ing Cuckstians.

    Read More
    • LOL: L Woods
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Olorin says:
    @TomSchmidt
    Peter Thiel, maybe?

    I’d think he has been somewhat too exposed on the political front. More likely someone few have ever heard of. For elected positions, recognition among the electorate is a benefit. For the high judiciary, not so much.

    I’m thinking more like say someone with experience with the Army Corps chief counsel office.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. D. K. says:
    @AnotherDad


    Judge Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana is a mother to seven children, two adopted from Haiti and one with special needs;
     
    Uh oh.
     
    Good catch MEH.

    "Uh oh" is right! She's no longer a based white woman with 7 kids. She's one of these religious cucks--Catholic variety--"saving" the the world ... by screwing America.

    Christian virtue signaling, save the worldism, is one of the six or seven key elements destroying the West. And "the woman problem"--female misplaced nurturing instinct and conformity--is another. She's a two-fer.

    Scratch her from the list. Trump can find someone truly based, Protestant background, with a passle of kids and no cuckoo's eggs in the nest.

    Regardless, I strongly suspect that Ivanka will insist that Daddy choose a woman to replace Justice Kennedy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. Svigor says:
    @Pat Boyle
    You say that as if to disparage that account. In the little econ book I was quoting DiLorenzo cites original sources. This is apparently what the author (Mussolini) of Fascism meant by the term, and it was also Hitler's understanding. On TV or on blogs the term is used by many people in many ways. This is the most original understanding - state (socialist) control of the means of production through regulation rather than direct expropriation.

    No, I don’t. Just making it clear it’s kinda common knowledge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    It might explain why Marxist regimes imploded, whereas fascist and national socialist ones were defeated by external forces.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Olorin says:
    @BB753
    My bet was that Kennedy was convinced by strong arguments like the following:

    "-C'mon in!
    -Good to see you Sir! How can I help you?
    -please sit down, Kennedy! Justice Kennedy, you're not getting any younger. 81 years old, fight? Are you ok healthwise?
    -My back is killing me but not too bad. Thanks fpr your concern, Sir!
    -Aren't you tired of working? I'm Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg are a huge pain in the ass to work with.
    - There are worse bullies in there, believe me! (laughs nervously).
    -When I turn your age Ill be long out of politics, and playing golf at Mar-a-Lago, if I'm still in shape, you know.
    -I wish I could. (sighs)
    -Is there something or someone holding you back?
    -(Kennedy mutters unintelligibly)
    -No need to explain my friend. I know those bastards play hard. Bigly. I should know.
    -Why would they be screwing with me, if I may ask, Sir?
    -C'mon, you and I and everybody and his dog know that you didn't turn out to be the Justice Reagan appointed you for.
    -(Protesting) Whaat? Errr, pardon, Sir?
    -My friend, as you know I didn't get to where I am by being the world's greatest diplomat. I'm the best at other skills. You see, I grew up in a cut-throat city but I prospered there. Patience and knowledge is the key. Some would say I'm a big bully and as far as I know they might be right. But I'm a straight talker too.
    -You're making me feel old. And tired. (looks down)
    -I know how you feel, the lying media, the DNC, the Agencies trying to find leverage against you. Trying to destroy you. As bad as those bastards are, and how tough they think they are, there are bigger sonofabitches out there, trying to make a nickel if it means selling their own mother.
    -I'm sure there are.
    -You don't have to struggle anymore, Kennedy, or should I say Justice Kennedy.
    -You can call me Anthony, Sir.
    -Anthony? How I miss Scalia, don't you?
    -It was a tragedy. A loss for everybody.
    -Sure, very tragic. Now, who would want to die before their time, dealing with the stress of the Supre Court? He was close to retirement age. Yours is such a thankless job! And the sad thing, nobody will remember any of you justices when you die, unlike me. Sorry tobe so blunt, but you'll be but a name in law book. The sleepless nights, the hard work, the deserved abuse, the stress of receiving not so nice calls home. "Anthony, you owe us one! " If I were you I'd be enjoying my old age far away, in the Maldives perhaps, surtounded by friendly boys.. and gals!
    -Boys, Sir! (panics)
    -Don't worry, Anthony, you don't have to go through all of this anymore. Retirement is very, very sweet, they say. Who are we to judge what you do in your retirement? Youve earned it, Tony!
    -(Sobs quietly) Tony?
    - C'mon here! (They hug).
    -(out of breath) Thanks, sir! It feels lonely in this world.
    -I know how you feel, Anthony! It feels very lonely at the top sometimes. Looming back, I'm a huuge success at everything I've ever done. Well, maybe not as a husband. (laughs). Nobody's perfet. Not even me! And you, Anthony, certainly ain't! Retirement will do you a world of good. Do you play golf, Anthony?
    -(resumes sobbing quietly)
    --Don't worry, you wont have to face the media, those lyin' whores and their fake news. Everything's taken care of, Tony!
    -Err, thanks Sir!
    -Just give me a call on Monday. Now go out and have some fun! Have a nice dinner, then go to a spa or something. I own tons of similar places. Good places with nice people who don't harass Republicans! Oh, sorry, Tony, I forget you were never a Republican. Me neither. (laughs loudly). Good night, Tony!
    -Good night, Sir! And thanks for everything!
    -Don't even mention it, Tony! B'ye. (Pushes him out gently and closes the door) "

    Underrated

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Precious says:
    @Canadian Observer
    How did Justice Scalia die again?

    How did Justice Scalia die again?

    In his sleep.

    I am well aware of the alternate theories, but if someone went through the trouble of assassinating a Supreme Court Justice, couldn’t they at least make an effort to follow through and make sure Mitch McConnell gets the message and confirm Obama’s nomination?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. @Rob McX
    What about Kagan? Maybe Trump should be telling her to eat more pies and let her know gym membership is unbecoming of a Supreme Court judge.

    She was great in The King of Queens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rob McX
    I just checked "King of Queens" - spitting image! All that guy has to do is don a black robe and he'd sail past security at the Supreme Court.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. @TTSSYF
    Romney's too old. We need someone under 50 if at all possible. Willett strikes me as being too creative and thus too much of a wild card...I can see someone like that flipping once given a life-time appointment.

    Romney’s too old.

    Not to mention completely untrustworthy.

    Read More
    • Agree: BB753
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. MarkinLA says:
    @RadicalCenter
    It is past time to show disrespect for the activists and propagandists who legislate from the federal bench. Start impeachment of judges who decree things that are clearly beyond their constitutional authority, which they do every day. Push for an amendment to end life tenure for federal judges.

    I think impeachment needs 2/3 of the Senate. Not likely getting rid of a far left looney.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. MarkinLA says:
    @iffen
    An aeronautical, physics, or electrical/silicon-lightning engineer would have individual capacities like being forward thinking and grounded in cool reason.


    Can we do a turn-around and replace all NASA employees with lawyers? Maybe we could just make NASA a sub-unit of the Supreme Court.

    As a friend of mine who went to UCLA Law after working at Hughes Aircraft Company said after his first year at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom when they tried to set up an LA office:

    Any engineer could do what these guys do but none of these guys could do what an engineer does.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  209. Luke Lea says:
    @AndrewR
    What does it even mean to be a Catholic these days? John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Andrew Cuomo and Jerry Brown: all papists. Pelosi even kissed Pope Ratzinger's ring.

    “What does it even mean to be a Catholic these days?”

    I mean in terms of cultural background.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. Dan Hayes says:
    @TTSSYF
    Romney's too old. We need someone under 50 if at all possible. Willett strikes me as being too creative and thus too much of a wild card...I can see someone like that flipping once given a life-time appointment.

    Thirdtwin:

    Only someone blind would not be able to see Romney “flipping”. Actually, like his father, Romney has always publicly laid out his duplicitous cards on the table.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Only someone blind would not be able to see Romney “flipping”. Actually, like his father, Romney has always publicly laid out his duplicitous cards on the table.
     
    Romney is so bad I can smell him from here.

    All the preening virtue signalling. The Christian cuckservatism. At the personal level he's banged out five kids and seems solid. But politically is afraid of his shadow as a white man.

    I'm embarassed i voted for the guy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Frank G says:

    Trump plays the long game so he likely figures he can wait for RBG to retire to pick this Barrett chick.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  212. res says:
    @Svigor
    Glitch in the Matrix. I clicked it once, nothing happened, I clicked it again, got the "slow down" page, hit back button, reloaded, voila.

    Thanks. I just hit my second agree on Daniel’s comment and I still see only one displayed. So it looks like you are correct.

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

    It would be interesting to see an objective evaluation of what Presidential skills Trump has proven adept at and where he has proven weakest.

    Trump has shown to be more resilient, more energetic, and savvier than I gave him credit for. In terms of not knowing very much of the objective facts of the world, in terms of being politically weak through social isolation and lack of meaningful connections, he’s every bit as bad as I thought, maybe worse.

    The bigger picture outside of Trump is still the same as a year ago: a populist/conservative coalition is a winner. Spastic populist anger is a loser. And on that score we’re significant better off now than we were a few months ago. Before we were hoping to avoid Senator Roy Moore, now we’re about ready to confirm the second SCOTUS nominee of the Trump Administration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  214. @Anonymous
    I wanted to leave an interesting and constructive comment. But I'm still reeling from seeing "objective evaluation" and "Trump" in the same sentence. I doubt it's possible currently.

    I wanted to leave an interesting and constructive comment… I doubt it’s possible currently.

    You certainly haven’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. If being reminded that Trump got rich from leverage provided by Deutche Bank makes you feel better, you need to get out more.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  216. @David Davenport
    I don’t give an F if a woman wants to terminate her thugspawn, or for that matter if two dudes want to bone each other. Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles?

    In other words, you're a Leftist.

    I prefer to fight my enemies today when they’re still in the womb rather than 20 years from now at the ballot box or 30 years from now in the streets. Only a pathetic cuck would go through the trouble of seizing control of the government only to use its power to raise the black and hispanic birth rate. Are you a pathetic cuck, David Davenport?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  217. J1234 says:
    @AnotherDad
    I'm always leery of female judges, because of their less logical orientation and especially approval seeking. Sandra Day O'Connor's drift and the weird kludgy reasoning and essentially legislative pronouncement--ex. the 25 years after which affirmation action becomes unnecessary--a case study. To nominate any gal who's supposedly "conservative" i'd really want her to be "based".

    But i got to say, i looked up this Amy Coney Barrett and she's a conservative with 7 kids. In today's day and age, that's pretty based behavior right there. Though whether she's really "based", hard to tell. But you gotta love a gal who's had seven kids. That's someone in touch with biological reality. (Unless she's adopted a bunch from Africa--in that case keep her as far from the court as possible!)

    ~~

    I will say the Catholic thing strikes me as a negative given the current makeup of the court. Even as a Catholic schooled, Jesuit educated guy, I thought this deal where the court was 6 Catholics and 3 Jews was ridiculous in an Anglo-Protestant created nation.

    Note, this should make absolutely no difference because the court shouldn't be doing any legislating, it should routinely be rendering the same judgements that an AI program loaded with the constitution and federal law should come to. (Or a space alien who'd read our stuff.)

    But with the judicial tyranny we have going on, a "representative" court should have no more than 3 Catholics--outside 4, and never more than a single Jew. The rest should be Protestant background of various shades of practice/non-practice, belief/non-belief.

    I’m always leery of female judges, because of their less logical orientation and especially approval seeking. Sandra Day O’Connor’s drift and the weird kludgy reasoning and essentially legislative pronouncement–ex. the 25 years after which affirmation action becomes unnecessary–a case study.

    At least Sandra knew when to quit. Anyone smart enough to be a judge should be smart enough to know that advanced age affects cognitive ability in a negative way. She’s only two or three years older than Ruth, but quit a dozen years ago, and that was a year or two after she wanted to quit (one of the other justices dropped out unexpectedly, as I recall, so she let her confirmed replacement take his place.)

    So what’s the policy if Ruth gets crazier and weirder but refuses to leave, like an octogenarian on a park bench? Has any SC justice ever been removed under such circumstances?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    J1234:

    Ruth Gader Ginsberg may be well on her way to becoming nuttier than a fruitcake but rest assured the media will conveniently overlook the decline of the arch priestess of unisex bathrooms.
    , @AnotherDad

    So what’s the policy if Ruth gets crazier and weirder but refuses to leave, like an octogenarian on a park bench? Has any SC justice ever been removed under such circumstances?
     
    In the mid 70s, Douglas--William O. Douglas--stroked out, but then refused to leave court despite being completely incapable of doing jack. The other justices really couldn't take on any issues where his vote might matter. After about a year they prevailed upon him--had an "intervention" i guess--and got him to retire. But even after that he pulled some weird stunt where he tried to be sort of a justice emeritus.

    I had no idea about earlier, but at the end, typical pompous, "i get to decide everything", robed jackass.

    (In contrast however the William O. Douglas Wilderness--basically between Hwy410 and US 12 SE of Mt. Ranier has some really nice, enjoyable real estate.)
    , @ScarletNumber
    O'Connor's retirement was delayed, but not as much as you think. Her replacement was supposed to be John Roberts. Roberts was nominated in July 2005, but before he could be confirmed Rehnquist died. Then Harriet Miers was nominated in October to replace O'Connor, but then was withdrawn and replaced by Alito that same month. Alito was confirmed in January.
    , @MarkinLA
    So what’s the policy if Ruth gets crazier and weirder but refuses to leave,


    Did you see the excerpts of Sotomayor's dissent in the travel ban case? I would be more worried about her nuttiness than Ginzberg's.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  218. Rob McX says:
    @Svigor
    No, I don't. Just making it clear it's kinda common knowledge.

    It might explain why Marxist regimes imploded, whereas fascist and national socialist ones were defeated by external forces.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor
    The other common knowledge distinction is that NatSoc is "SINO"; Socialist In Name Only.

    Could be that, or it could be that Communism is full retard socialist; never go full socialist, man.

    I don't know much about NatSoc, but I don't see any particular reason that it couldn't be genuinely socialist, though; or put the other way, why socialism couldn't be genuinely nationalist.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  219. Dan Hayes says:
    @J1234

    I’m always leery of female judges, because of their less logical orientation and especially approval seeking. Sandra Day O’Connor’s drift and the weird kludgy reasoning and essentially legislative pronouncement–ex. the 25 years after which affirmation action becomes unnecessary–a case study.
     
    At least Sandra knew when to quit. Anyone smart enough to be a judge should be smart enough to know that advanced age affects cognitive ability in a negative way. She's only two or three years older than Ruth, but quit a dozen years ago, and that was a year or two after she wanted to quit (one of the other justices dropped out unexpectedly, as I recall, so she let her confirmed replacement take his place.)

    So what's the policy if Ruth gets crazier and weirder but refuses to leave, like an octogenarian on a park bench? Has any SC justice ever been removed under such circumstances?

    J1234:

    Ruth Gader Ginsberg may be well on her way to becoming nuttier than a fruitcake but rest assured the media will conveniently overlook the decline of the arch priestess of unisex bathrooms.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  220. @TTSSYF
    I also don't care if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages or what two consenting males do behind closed doors, but do I have to applaud it and, in the latter case, approve of gay "marriage" or else be excoriated as a homophobe?

    I also don’t care if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages or what two consenting males do behind closed doors, but do I have to applaud it and, in the latter case, approve of gay “marriage” or else be excoriated as a homophobe?

    All that and they are clearly issues which the Supreme Court has absolutely no business weighing in on at all. And in fact is expressely prohibited from deciding by the 10th ammendment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    As a man I cannot think of how the "right to privacy" has benefited me in any practical way. Certainly, it has not shielded men's sex lives one iota. Witness Stormy Daniels, the ultimate revenge porn on steroids. Or ditto all the false accusations surrounding 'abuse'. we shield women but not the men. Men's due process rights are completely violated at colleges, private companies, and in marital court. I have come to the conclusion that it was explicitly intended to help women only, and not just for abortion but anything else women demand.

    It should not come as any great surprise that a large portion of the country now, even those who are pro-choice, have placed abortion at about #116 on the list of national priorities. That also includes funding Planned Parenthood which is the hypergamous shit test feminists have tried to place on the country. "Not only is it my pussy, but you are going to pay for it." No I am not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  221. @Dan Hayes
    Thirdtwin:

    Only someone blind would not be able to see Romney "flipping". Actually, like his father, Romney has always publicly laid out his duplicitous cards on the table.

    Only someone blind would not be able to see Romney “flipping”. Actually, like his father, Romney has always publicly laid out his duplicitous cards on the table.

    Romney is so bad I can smell him from here.

    All the preening virtue signalling. The Christian cuckservatism. At the personal level he’s banged out five kids and seems solid. But politically is afraid of his shadow as a white man.

    I’m embarassed i voted for the guy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    I’m embarassed i voted for the guy.
     
    Oh, i forgot i voted for W. That pretty much exhausts my store of embarassment, so i don't have to be embarassed about Romney.
    , @Svigor
    I shilled for him vs. Hussein, but I'm okay with it. Better the White Cuck than the Manchurian Muslim.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  222. @AnotherDad

    Only someone blind would not be able to see Romney “flipping”. Actually, like his father, Romney has always publicly laid out his duplicitous cards on the table.
     
    Romney is so bad I can smell him from here.

    All the preening virtue signalling. The Christian cuckservatism. At the personal level he's banged out five kids and seems solid. But politically is afraid of his shadow as a white man.

    I'm embarassed i voted for the guy.

    I’m embarassed i voted for the guy.

    Oh, i forgot i voted for W. That pretty much exhausts my store of embarassment, so i don’t have to be embarassed about Romney.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  223. Yak-15 says:

    I nominate Maxine Waters.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Highlander
    Not a bad choice. Her elevation to the court would certainly speed the needed breakup of the United States along racially logical lines.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  224. @J1234

    I’m always leery of female judges, because of their less logical orientation and especially approval seeking. Sandra Day O’Connor’s drift and the weird kludgy reasoning and essentially legislative pronouncement–ex. the 25 years after which affirmation action becomes unnecessary–a case study.
     
    At least Sandra knew when to quit. Anyone smart enough to be a judge should be smart enough to know that advanced age affects cognitive ability in a negative way. She's only two or three years older than Ruth, but quit a dozen years ago, and that was a year or two after she wanted to quit (one of the other justices dropped out unexpectedly, as I recall, so she let her confirmed replacement take his place.)

    So what's the policy if Ruth gets crazier and weirder but refuses to leave, like an octogenarian on a park bench? Has any SC justice ever been removed under such circumstances?

    So what’s the policy if Ruth gets crazier and weirder but refuses to leave, like an octogenarian on a park bench? Has any SC justice ever been removed under such circumstances?

    In the mid 70s, Douglas–William O. Douglas–stroked out, but then refused to leave court despite being completely incapable of doing jack. The other justices really couldn’t take on any issues where his vote might matter. After about a year they prevailed upon him–had an “intervention” i guess–and got him to retire. But even after that he pulled some weird stunt where he tried to be sort of a justice emeritus.

    I had no idea about earlier, but at the end, typical pompous, “i get to decide everything”, robed jackass.

    (In contrast however the William O. Douglas Wilderness–basically between Hwy410 and US 12 SE of Mt. Ranier has some really nice, enjoyable real estate.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Rehnquist was nowhere near as bad as Douglas but towards the end he often couldn't attend oral arguments or conferences, and worked from home.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  225. @J1234

    I’m always leery of female judges, because of their less logical orientation and especially approval seeking. Sandra Day O’Connor’s drift and the weird kludgy reasoning and essentially legislative pronouncement–ex. the 25 years after which affirmation action becomes unnecessary–a case study.
     
    At least Sandra knew when to quit. Anyone smart enough to be a judge should be smart enough to know that advanced age affects cognitive ability in a negative way. She's only two or three years older than Ruth, but quit a dozen years ago, and that was a year or two after she wanted to quit (one of the other justices dropped out unexpectedly, as I recall, so she let her confirmed replacement take his place.)

    So what's the policy if Ruth gets crazier and weirder but refuses to leave, like an octogenarian on a park bench? Has any SC justice ever been removed under such circumstances?

    O’Connor’s retirement was delayed, but not as much as you think. Her replacement was supposed to be John Roberts. Roberts was nominated in July 2005, but before he could be confirmed Rehnquist died. Then Harriet Miers was nominated in October to replace O’Connor, but then was withdrawn and replaced by Alito that same month. Alito was confirmed in January.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  226. @Jim Don Bob
    One of the first pieces of legislating from the bench was the 1962 (?) SCOTUS decision striking down Connecticut's law against, IIRC, birth control because of a "right to privacy" the Warren court found in their copy of the Constitution. Then there was Miranda, etc, but they really outdid themselves with Roe vs. Wade.

    You’re right. There could be worse examples that I’m simply not familiar with.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
    Quite possibly the worst decision from the standpoint of constitutional law was the relatively little-known case of Baker v. Carr. It's generally called "one man, one vote," but it found federal constitutional implications in state legislature apportionment. States are no longer free to apportion their legislatures by anything but population (traditionally rural districts had had more representation in the upper houses of most state legislatures). It was a huge infringement of state sovereignty, but it generally doesn't get the infamy it deserves.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  227. @Alfa158
    Problem with a woman nominee is the question of whether she is more likely to “grow” on the bench than a man would. Hard to say. I will say this, unlike his establishment Republican predecessors, Trump seems so far to have done pretty well with Gorsuch being a non-“grower”.
    Being a woman also does nothing for reducing hysterical opposition from the Left. They simply declare her an honorary non-woman, and hideously White, and pretend she wears swastika emblazoned undies.

    Indeed. Better a “shower” than a “grower.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  228. Anon[770] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pyrrhus
    Time for a Protestant Justice who plays golf and thinks all illegals should be rounded up and deported...William Pryor, maybe?

    Where would Pryor come out on birthright citizenship?

    Read More
    • Replies: @MG
    A more fundamental question: Will Trump be informed of her adopted children? Or will Marc Koch Short keep it hidden from him?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  229. Anon[770] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    I'm always leery of female judges, because of their less logical orientation and especially approval seeking. Sandra Day O'Connor's drift and the weird kludgy reasoning and essentially legislative pronouncement--ex. the 25 years after which affirmation action becomes unnecessary--a case study. To nominate any gal who's supposedly "conservative" i'd really want her to be "based".

    But i got to say, i looked up this Amy Coney Barrett and she's a conservative with 7 kids. In today's day and age, that's pretty based behavior right there. Though whether she's really "based", hard to tell. But you gotta love a gal who's had seven kids. That's someone in touch with biological reality. (Unless she's adopted a bunch from Africa--in that case keep her as far from the court as possible!)

    ~~

    I will say the Catholic thing strikes me as a negative given the current makeup of the court. Even as a Catholic schooled, Jesuit educated guy, I thought this deal where the court was 6 Catholics and 3 Jews was ridiculous in an Anglo-Protestant created nation.

    Note, this should make absolutely no difference because the court shouldn't be doing any legislating, it should routinely be rendering the same judgements that an AI program loaded with the constitution and federal law should come to. (Or a space alien who'd read our stuff.)

    But with the judicial tyranny we have going on, a "representative" court should have no more than 3 Catholics--outside 4, and never more than a single Jew. The rest should be Protestant background of various shades of practice/non-practice, belief/non-belief.

    Would she have the fortitude to decide correctly on birthright citizenship?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  230. Anon[770] • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor
    Women don't make good dissidents, and that's what any good rightist/nationalist is now, and for the foreseeable future - a dissident. Women are better at staying loyal than men when the wider culture and their peers are on-side, but they are much worse at staying the course in the face of societal disapproval.

    On the plus side, SCotUS has a reputation for being quite the cloister, so if she's in a stable marriage to a strong conservative, she could work out.

    I say all this knowing nothing whatsoever about her. She is quite the looker, though, which is a marker for Alpha Chick, which is better than the alternative.

    She has seven kids with her current husband, which is also a good sign.

    Where would she come out on birthright citizenship?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  231. dr kill says:
    @BB753
    Women should make no decidisions at all, judicial or otherwise, during menopause.

    If you actually meant menorrhea, then I suppose for some percentage of women you are correct. Otherwise, this is irrational thinking.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  232. @Zlat

    This must mean Trump has someone lined up to replace him, no?
     
    Surely, you’re acquainted with Ivanka Trump?

    Ivanka as president? Ah, no. Ivanka is a Manhattan liberal and appears to be left-leaning on a large number of issues. It’s not clear to me what she ever has done without working under her father and the Trump name. I don’t dislike her but she’s overrated, she isn’t her father, and enough of political dynasties already.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  233. dr kill says:
    @David Davenport
    I don’t give an F if a woman wants to terminate her thugspawn, or for that matter if two dudes want to bone each other. Could we please stop fighting the old cultural/legal battles?

    In other words, you're a Leftist.

    He’s a Realist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  234. Olorin says:
    @iffen
    An aeronautical, physics, or electrical/silicon-lightning engineer would have individual capacities like being forward thinking and grounded in cool reason.


    Can we do a turn-around and replace all NASA employees with lawyers? Maybe we could just make NASA a sub-unit of the Supreme Court.

    I’m flashing to some recent photo that’s been making the memery rounds of some NASA mission control room occupied by a gigundo number of ostensibly scientific ladies all individually mugging as if for an OKCupid selfie. (“Likes: Science! It works, bitches! Dislikes: Mansplaining and patriarchal use of logic; manspreading.”) Odd to reflect that all lawyers might not be that Cringe, comparatively.

    Though fwiw, not all NASA employees are engineers, and not even all whose job title suggests that. For instance a current opening at Moffatt for an engineering technician appears to my eye to be what we used to call a welder.

    Mark greps my jist. I’m of the view that we have too many gd lawyers in politics and on benches, but then I’m partial to engineers. Welders too, but I have met only one of those whom I wouldn’t have minded sitting on SCOTUS, and who would have been equal to the reading load.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  235. Dan Hayes says:
    @Morris Applebaum IV
    "But you gotta love a gal who’s had seven kids. That’s someone in touch with biological reality. (Unless she’s adopted a bunch from Africa–in that case keep her as far from the court as possible!)"

    Barrett is a mother of seven children, including a special needs child and two children adopted from Haiti.
     
    https://www.theepochtimes.com/meet-trumps-candidates-for-upcoming-supreme-court-vacancy_2578316.html

    Morris Applebaum IV:

    Judge Barrett has served less than a year. This is way too short a time to establish her judicial track record. This judicial review criterion should hold for all SCOTUS nominees.

    For example, before being nominated Gorsuch and Alito had well established judicial records of not displaying overt liberal tendencies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Would it be enough to know a judge's views on the constituitional relevance of birthright citizenship?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  236. MG says:
    @Anon
    Where would Pryor come out on birthright citizenship?

    A more fundamental question: Will Trump be informed of her adopted children? Or will Marc Koch Short keep it hidden from him?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  237. MEH 0910 says:

    https://vdare.com/articles/pro-bono-illegal-alien-volunteer-judge-thomas-hardiman-should-be-non-starter-for-scotus

    PRO BONO Illegal Alien Volunteer Judge Thomas Hardiman Should Be Non-Starter for SCOTUS
    John Reid
    January 28, 2017

    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/30/14439220/thomas-hardiman-souter

    Why some conservatives fear Donald Trump is about to betray them on the Supreme Court
    By Dylan Matthews
    Jan 30, 2017
    ……
    There are a handful of Hardiman decisions, flagged by SCOTUSblog’s Howe, that defy conservative orthodoxy by siding with claims of discrimination from marginalized groups.
    ……
    He ruled in favor of African-American firefighters challenging a fire department’s residency requirement, on the grounds that it was a form of discrimination against black firefighters not living in the overwhelmingly white area served by the fire department. He noted that while only 3.4 percent of the population covered by the department is black, 0.62 percent of the firefighting force is, concluding, “minority workforce representation that low suggests discrimination.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-thomas-hardiman/

    Potential nominee profile: Thomas Hardiman
    Amy Howe
    January 23rd, 2017
    ......
    Hardiman is a fluent Spanish speaker who studied in Mexico; while living in Washington he worked with Ayuda, a legal aid clinic representing poor Spanish-speaking immigrants, on (among others) domestic violence and political asylum cases. During his Senate confirmation hearings, he described one of his immigration cases for Ayuda as “one of the most important cases I have ever handled.”
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  238. MEH 0910 says:
    @MEH 0910
    https://vdare.com/articles/pro-bono-illegal-alien-volunteer-judge-thomas-hardiman-should-be-non-starter-for-scotus

    PRO BONO Illegal Alien Volunteer Judge Thomas Hardiman Should Be Non-Starter for SCOTUS
    John Reid
    January 28, 2017
     
    https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/1/30/14439220/thomas-hardiman-souter

    Why some conservatives fear Donald Trump is about to betray them on the Supreme Court
    By Dylan Matthews
    Jan 30, 2017
    ......
    There are a handful of Hardiman decisions, flagged by SCOTUSblog’s Howe, that defy conservative orthodoxy by siding with claims of discrimination from marginalized groups.
    ......
    He ruled in favor of African-American firefighters challenging a fire department’s residency requirement, on the grounds that it was a form of discrimination against black firefighters not living in the overwhelmingly white area served by the fire department. He noted that while only 3.4 percent of the population covered by the department is black, 0.62 percent of the firefighting force is, concluding, "minority workforce representation that low suggests discrimination."

     

    http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/01/potential-nominee-profile-thomas-hardiman/

    Potential nominee profile: Thomas Hardiman
    Amy Howe
    January 23rd, 2017
    ……
    Hardiman is a fluent Spanish speaker who studied in Mexico; while living in Washington he worked with Ayuda, a legal aid clinic representing poor Spanish-speaking immigrants, on (among others) domestic violence and political asylum cases. During his Senate confirmation hearings, he described one of his immigration cases for Ayuda as “one of the most important cases I have ever handled.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  239. Seneca44 says:
    @Anonymous
    I give you 49-year old Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule (B.A., Harvard, J.D., Harvard) Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. He clerked for Scalia and holds the same views. Pro-life conservative Catholic (convert). He grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Mother was a classical scholar and professor of classics at Radcliffe/Harvard. His father was a classicist as well and his sister is a professor of English Lit at Stanford.

    There may be several opportunities in the near future to populate the SC with candidates of this ilk, if you think about it. Justice Methuselah–er, I mean Ginsburg looks every minute of the 85 years she has lived and could croak any minute. Breyer has already expressed a desire to retire and is 79. Sotomayor is a 64 year old type 1 diabetic and is far from the picture of health. My suggestion, FWIW, would be merely to get a justice who actually uses constitutional law to make decisions. The leftist/statist justices seem more likely to use specious arguments to support their decisions. If you don’t believe this, read Justice Kagan’s decision in the Janus case in which her main point is that the SC should not overturn precedent cases.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  240. Trump’s weaknesses:
    1) Trump is a city boy, he does not care about guns. Safety is always close at hand in a city.
    2) He is a family man. He is a sucker for immigrant sob stories. He is again foreign criminals, bu cries over the children. The left understand this. This is why they are yelling about “not breaking up the family.” They never did this when BHO was in, for they knew that BHO never cared.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    Trump is Concealed Carry Licensed. For years TPTB sought to deny him a CCW permit. IIRC he has a revolver. At least one of his kids is a hunter. Now it may be true that he actually does not care for guns, and his recent foray into gun control (Bump stocks, don't-be-scared-of-NRA, etc.) do not increase my confidence in this regard, but this seems like a typical characteristic of not-so-trustworthy "pro-gun" urbanite/suburbanite types. The recent IL Republican Gov. primary pitted Rauner against Ives, with Rauner claiming he supported a ban on bump stocks. Only thing is, I noticed on Jeanne Ive's campaign website that she supported "sensible" gun control like a ban on bump stocks AND trigger cranks. In other words, all these ostensibly "pro-gun" Republicans are ready and willing to sell gun owners down the river to gather Pokemon points with the anti-gun media.

    On the other hand, Trump-Pence campaign did accept a custom Arex 9mm pistol made in his wife's birthplace, Slovenia.

    https://www.guns.com/2016/11/11/fime-group-presents-trump-pence-campaign-with-custom-pistol/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  241. @AnotherDad

    So what’s the policy if Ruth gets crazier and weirder but refuses to leave, like an octogenarian on a park bench? Has any SC justice ever been removed under such circumstances?
     
    In the mid 70s, Douglas--William O. Douglas--stroked out, but then refused to leave court despite being completely incapable of doing jack. The other justices really couldn't take on any issues where his vote might matter. After about a year they prevailed upon him--had an "intervention" i guess--and got him to retire. But even after that he pulled some weird stunt where he tried to be sort of a justice emeritus.

    I had no idea about earlier, but at the end, typical pompous, "i get to decide everything", robed jackass.

    (In contrast however the William O. Douglas Wilderness--basically between Hwy410 and US 12 SE of Mt. Ranier has some really nice, enjoyable real estate.)

    Rehnquist was nowhere near as bad as Douglas but towards the end he often couldn’t attend oral arguments or conferences, and worked from home.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  242. @ben tillman
    You're right. There could be worse examples that I'm simply not familiar with.

    Quite possibly the worst decision from the standpoint of constitutional law was the relatively little-known case of Baker v. Carr. It’s generally called “one man, one vote,” but it found federal constitutional implications in state legislature apportionment. States are no longer free to apportion their legislatures by anything but population (traditionally rural districts had had more representation in the upper houses of most state legislatures). It was a huge infringement of state sovereignty, but it generally doesn’t get the infamy it deserves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Right, and it shifted much power to the blue cities in red states.
    , @Jim Don Bob
    Right, and it shifted much power to the blue cities in red states.
    , @Flip
    Well, if the Senate is allowed you'd think the states could do something similar.
    , @Corvinus
    "Quite possibly the worst decision from the standpoint of constitutional law was the relatively little-known case of Baker v. Carr."

    You are super-duper ignorant here.

    http://law.jrank.org/pages/24894/Baker-v-Carr-Significance.html
    , @ScarletNumber
    Score one for New Jersey's Bill Brennan, who wrote the opinion in Baker v. Carr. You are mistaken when you call this case "little known" and you are even more mistaken when you call this ruling "the worst decision". There was no good reason why someone's vote in a rural county should count more than someone's vote in an urban county, so thank God for Brennan putting an end to that nonsense.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  243. Anonymous[612] • Disclaimer says:
    @TTSSYF
    I also don't care if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages or what two consenting males do behind closed doors, but do I have to applaud it and, in the latter case, approve of gay "marriage" or else be excoriated as a homophobe?

    Exactly. And that is why SCOTUS should be protecting rights such as freedom of association and freedom of speech – not outlawing abortion or gay sex.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  244. Eagle Eye says:
    @Anonymous
    I give you 49-year old Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule (B.A., Harvard, J.D., Harvard) Tyler Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School. He clerked for Scalia and holds the same views. Pro-life conservative Catholic (convert). He grew up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Mother was a classical scholar and professor of classics at Radcliffe/Harvard. His father was a classicist as well and his sister is a professor of English Lit at Stanford.

    I give you 49-year old Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule (B.A., Harvard, J.D., Harvard) …..

    Pro-life conservative Catholic (convert).

    Absolutely no more Harvard guys, and no more Catholics, converted or native. On the other hand, an Orthodox Jewish justice would be worth it, if only to enjoy the screams of horror in the NYT.

    The problem with elite education is that the elitist invariably thinks himself superior to mere mortals. This in turn produces judges who are not content with interpreting the law and instead compete to discover penumbrae in the Constitution allowing them to legislate from the bench on abortion, immigration, and whatever topic du jour catches their fancy.

    Having everything handed to them on a silver platter makes judges self-indulgent.

    America has plenty of smart, educated attorneys who are able to handle the law in a workmanlike fashion while remaining vigilant against legislative overreach.

    We want someone who has worked his way up, and who has spent at least a few years doing real work in the private sector and/or the military before becoming a lawyer and judge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    Due to identity politics, SCOTUS is under pressure to integrate 'affirmatively' the way the rest of society has. Their are no seats reserved for the majority so any new identity group that gets on the court has to come out of white Protestants which is why there are none left except Gorsuch who is a late addition. It does not seem like a big deal to add another _________ but to do so it certainly cannot come out of the precious slots reserved for identity groups already on the bench so the pressure is relentlessly in one direction. In the end, the only way up and coming identity groups can get on the bench will be by replacing a Jew, black, or Hispanic. Ironically, by always claiming to not have an in-group strategy, Jews are in the least defensible position. Since they were never picked because of their religion (at least all three of them) all they can do is claim to be better than everyone else, something that will become harder to hold water as politics and society continue to evolve.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  245. @AnotherDad

    I also don’t care if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy in the early stages or what two consenting males do behind closed doors, but do I have to applaud it and, in the latter case, approve of gay “marriage” or else be excoriated as a homophobe?
     
    All that and they are clearly issues which the Supreme Court has absolutely no business weighing in on at all. And in fact is expressely prohibited from deciding by the 10th ammendment.

    As a man I cannot think of how the “right to privacy” has benefited me in any practical way. Certainly, it has not shielded men’s sex lives one iota. Witness Stormy Daniels, the ultimate revenge porn on steroids. Or ditto all the false accusations surrounding ‘abuse’. we shield women but not the men. Men’s due process rights are completely violated at colleges, private companies, and in marital court. I have come to the conclusion that it was explicitly intended to help women only, and not just for abortion but anything else women demand.

    It should not come as any great surprise that a large portion of the country now, even those who are pro-choice, have placed abortion at about #116 on the list of national priorities. That also includes funding Planned Parenthood which is the hypergamous shit test feminists have tried to place on the country. “Not only is it my pussy, but you are going to pay for it.” No I am not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  246. @Eagle Eye
    I give you 49-year old Cornelius Adrian Comstock Vermeule (B.A., Harvard, J.D., Harvard) .....

    Pro-life conservative Catholic (convert).

    Absolutely no more Harvard guys, and no more Catholics, converted or native. On the other hand, an Orthodox Jewish justice would be worth it, if only to enjoy the screams of horror in the NYT.

    The problem with elite education is that the elitist invariably thinks himself superior to mere mortals. This in turn produces judges who are not content with interpreting the law and instead compete to discover penumbrae in the Constitution allowing them to legislate from the bench on abortion, immigration, and whatever topic du jour catches their fancy.

    Having everything handed to them on a silver platter makes judges self-indulgent.

    America has plenty of smart, educated attorneys who are able to handle the law in a workmanlike fashion while remaining vigilant against legislative overreach.

    We want someone who has worked his way up, and who has spent at least a few years doing real work in the private sector and/or the military before becoming a lawyer and judge.

    Due to identity politics, SCOTUS is under pressure to integrate ‘affirmatively’ the way the rest of society has. Their are no seats reserved for the majority so any new identity group that gets on the court has to come out of white Protestants which is why there are none left except Gorsuch who is a late addition. It does not seem like a big deal to add another _________ but to do so it certainly cannot come out of the precious slots reserved for identity groups already on the bench so the pressure is relentlessly in one direction. In the end, the only way up and coming identity groups can get on the bench will be by replacing a Jew, black, or Hispanic. Ironically, by always claiming to not have an in-group strategy, Jews are in the least defensible position. Since they were never picked because of their religion (at least all three of them) all they can do is claim to be better than everyone else, something that will become harder to hold water as politics and society continue to evolve.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    all they can do is claim to be better than everyone else, something that will become harder to hold water as politics and society continue to evolve.


    And as Kagan continues to prove that she really is the mediocrity that everybody said she was before confirmation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  247. @Diversity Heretic
    Quite possibly the worst decision from the standpoint of constitutional law was the relatively little-known case of Baker v. Carr. It's generally called "one man, one vote," but it found federal constitutional implications in state legislature apportionment. States are no longer free to apportion their legislatures by anything but population (traditionally rural districts had had more representation in the upper houses of most state legislatures). It was a huge infringement of state sovereignty, but it generally doesn't get the infamy it deserves.

    Right, and it shifted much power to the blue cities in red states.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  248. @Diversity Heretic
    Quite possibly the worst decision from the standpoint of constitutional law was the relatively little-known case of Baker v. Carr. It's generally called "one man, one vote," but it found federal constitutional implications in state legislature apportionment. States are no longer free to apportion their legislatures by anything but population (traditionally rural districts had had more representation in the upper houses of most state legislatures). It was a huge infringement of state sovereignty, but it generally doesn't get the infamy it deserves.

    Right, and it shifted much power to the blue cities in red states.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  249. Flip says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Quite possibly the worst decision from the standpoint of constitutional law was the relatively little-known case of Baker v. Carr. It's generally called "one man, one vote," but it found federal constitutional implications in state legislature apportionment. States are no longer free to apportion their legislatures by anything but population (traditionally rural districts had had more representation in the upper houses of most state legislatures). It was a huge infringement of state sovereignty, but it generally doesn't get the infamy it deserves.

    Well, if the Senate is allowed you’d think the states could do something similar.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman
    Yes, you would. And so would I.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  250. @AnotherDad
    I'm always leery of female judges, because of their less logical orientation and especially approval seeking. Sandra Day O'Connor's drift and the weird kludgy reasoning and essentially legislative pronouncement--ex. the 25 years after which affirmation action becomes unnecessary--a case study. To nominate any gal who's supposedly "conservative" i'd really want her to be "based".

    But i got to say, i looked up this Amy Coney Barrett and she's a conservative with 7 kids. In today's day and age, that's pretty based behavior right there. Though whether she's really "based", hard to tell. But you gotta love a gal who's had seven kids. That's someone in touch with biological reality. (Unless she's adopted a bunch from Africa--in that case keep her as far from the court as possible!)

    ~~

    I will say the Catholic thing strikes me as a negative given the current makeup of the court. Even as a Catholic schooled, Jesuit educated guy, I thought this deal where the court was 6 Catholics and 3 Jews was ridiculous in an Anglo-Protestant created nation.

    Note, this should make absolutely no difference because the court shouldn't be doing any legislating, it should routinely be rendering the same judgements that an AI program loaded with the constitution and federal law should come to. (Or a space alien who'd read our stuff.)

    But with the judicial tyranny we have going on, a "representative" court should have no more than 3 Catholics--outside 4, and never more than a single Jew. The rest should be Protestant background of various shades of practice/non-practice, belief/non-belief.

    But with the judicial tyranny we have going on, a “representative” court should have no more than 3 Catholics–outside 4, and never more than a single Jew. The rest should be Protestant background of various shades of practice/non-practice, belief/non-belief.

    Agreed, but considering that most WASP candidates are irredeemably liberal … And this is not carved in stone, Gorsuch was a Catholic who became some kind of Protestant (Episcopalian?).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  251. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Quite possibly the worst decision from the standpoint of constitutional law was the relatively little-known case of Baker v. Carr. It's generally called "one man, one vote," but it found federal constitutional implications in state legislature apportionment. States are no longer free to apportion their legislatures by anything but population (traditionally rural districts had had more representation in the upper houses of most state legislatures). It was a huge infringement of state sovereignty, but it generally doesn't get the infamy it deserves.

    “Quite possibly the worst decision from the standpoint of constitutional law was the relatively little-known case of Baker v. Carr.”

    You are super-duper ignorant here.

    http://law.jrank.org/pages/24894/Baker-v-Carr-Significance.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  252. MarkinLA says:
    @J1234

    I’m always leery of female judges, because of their less logical orientation and especially approval seeking. Sandra Day O’Connor’s drift and the weird kludgy reasoning and essentially legislative pronouncement–ex. the 25 years after which affirmation action becomes unnecessary–a case study.
     
    At least Sandra knew when to quit. Anyone smart enough to be a judge should be smart enough to know that advanced age affects cognitive ability in a negative way. She's only two or three years older than Ruth, but quit a dozen years ago, and that was a year or two after she wanted to quit (one of the other justices dropped out unexpectedly, as I recall, so she let her confirmed replacement take his place.)

    So what's the policy if Ruth gets crazier and weirder but refuses to leave, like an octogenarian on a park bench? Has any SC justice ever been removed under such circumstances?

    So what’s the policy if Ruth gets crazier and weirder but refuses to leave,

    Did you see the excerpts of Sotomayor’s dissent in the travel ban case? I would be more worried about her nuttiness than Ginzberg’s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Did you see the excerpts of Sotomayor’s dissent in the travel ban case? I would be more worried about her nuttiness than Ginzberg’s.
     
    Sotomayor is nutty and stupid. She is a complete embarrassment, even if you agree with her. Wise Latina, my ass.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  253. Corvinus says:
    @RadicalCenter
    I didn't notice the provision in the Constitution where all Supreme Court seats are reserved for Catholics and Jews. This fellow is Catholic. Enough already.

    For whatever reason, there seems to have been a concerted effort to exclude the historic white protestant population from the highest court, and it should be stopped and reversed.

    Protestant, Catholic, and other Christians from every white European ethnic group -- including people with Italian, Greek, Slavic, French background etc., not just people named Barrett or Pryor or Roberts -- should be particularly nominated to the federal courts. This should include the occasional Orthodox Christian and the more-than-occasional non-denominational Christian too.

    I'm sure to hear criticism that I'm calling for an ethnic spoils system, and that we shouldn't be "hyphenated Americans." If so, why the incessant calls for specifically and seemingly only "WASP" nominees by some here? The nominees should include a lot more WASPs than Obama put up, to be sure, but we should all be together and demanding judicial seats for ALL white Americans of ALL the many European and Christian backgrounds.

    Needless to say, no religious or ethnic group that constitutes less than two percent of the national population should often have more one member of the Supreme Court, if ever. Not referring to anyone in particular, just a general rule of thumb to spread those powerful positions around more widely.

    “I didn’t notice the provision in the Constitution where all Supreme Court seats are reserved for Catholics and Jews. This fellow is Catholic. Enough already.”

    And I didn’t notice the provision in the Constitution where the Supreme Court must fall along strict demographic lines.

    “For whatever reason, there seems to have been a concerted effort to exclude the historic white protestant population from the highest court, and it should be stopped and reversed.”

    There is no such “concerted effort” taking place here. You are acting like an SJW. The prospective candidates are chosen for their experience and ideology.

    Protestant, Catholic, and other Christians from every white European ethnic group — including people with Italian, Greek, Slavic, French background etc., not just people named Barrett or Pryor or Roberts — should be particularly nominated to the federal courts. This should include the occasional Orthodox Christian and the more-than-occasional non-denominational Christian too.

    I’m sure to hear criticism that I’m calling for an ethnic spoils system, and that we shouldn’t be “hyphenated Americans.” If so, why the incessant calls for specifically and seemingly only “WASP” nominees by some here?

    “The nominees should include a lot more WASPs than Obama put up, to be sure, but we should all be together and demanding judicial seats for ALL white Americans of ALL the many European and Christian backgrounds.”

    Grow up, the nominees are at the discretion of the President.

    “Needless to say, no religious or ethnic group that constitutes less than two percent of the national population should often have more one member of the Supreme Court, if ever.”

    And the Constitution makes this stipulation where?

    “Not referring to anyone in particular, just a general rule of thumb to spread those powerful positions around more widely.”

    Like spreading the wealth, right? Glad to see you are taking a (gasp) liberal position here. You know, it’s based on equality, not merit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Svigor

    And I didn’t notice the provision in the Constitution where the Supreme Court must fall along strict demographic lines.
     
    Pedants are bad enough when they're smart. But you're within 5 points of the mean, at best.

    We're talking about who we'd support as an appointment, a subject on which the Constitution is silent, you mental mendicant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  254. MarkinLA says:
    @Prof. Woland
    Due to identity politics, SCOTUS is under pressure to integrate 'affirmatively' the way the rest of society has. Their are no seats reserved for the majority so any new identity group that gets on the court has to come out of white Protestants which is why there are none left except Gorsuch who is a late addition. It does not seem like a big deal to add another _________ but to do so it certainly cannot come out of the precious slots reserved for identity groups already on the bench so the pressure is relentlessly in one direction. In the end, the only way up and coming identity groups can get on the bench will be by replacing a Jew, black, or Hispanic. Ironically, by always claiming to not have an in-group strategy, Jews are in the least defensible position. Since they were never picked because of their religion (at least all three of them) all they can do is claim to be better than everyone else, something that will become harder to hold water as politics and society continue to evolve.

    all they can do is claim to be better than everyone else, something that will become harder to hold water as politics and society continue to evolve.

    And as Kagan continues to prove that she really is the mediocrity that everybody said she was before confirmation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  255. @Flip
    Well, if the Senate is allowed you'd think the states could do something similar.

    Yes, you would. And so would I.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  256. Slayer says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    Harvard domination of the Supreme Court is not healthy! I'm not saying that the next SCOTUS justice has to have a JD from Drake or Brigham Young, but Stanford or the University of Michigan should be considered.

    Its massively taboo in Academia. Equivalent of intellectual inbreeding. Youve to pursue graduate studies and your professorship among other faculty. Very rarely will be asked to return to an appointment and share what is discussed in a well rounded career.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  257. @Diversity Heretic
    Quite possibly the worst decision from the standpoint of constitutional law was the relatively little-known case of Baker v. Carr. It's generally called "one man, one vote," but it found federal constitutional implications in state legislature apportionment. States are no longer free to apportion their legislatures by anything but population (traditionally rural districts had had more representation in the upper houses of most state legislatures). It was a huge infringement of state sovereignty, but it generally doesn't get the infamy it deserves.

    Score one for New Jersey’s Bill Brennan, who wrote the opinion in Baker v. Carr. You are mistaken when you call this case “little known” and you are even more mistaken when you call this ruling “the worst decision”. There was no good reason why someone’s vote in a rural county should count more than someone’s vote in an urban county, so thank God for Brennan putting an end to that nonsense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    Score one for New Jersey’s Bill Brennan, who wrote the opinion in Baker v. Carr. You are mistaken when you call this case “little known” and you are even more mistaken when you call this ruling “the worst decision”. There was no good reason why someone’s vote in a rural county should count more than someone’s vote in an urban county, so thank God for Brennan putting an end to that nonsense.
     
    1. There are plenty of reasons, and I don't believe for a second that you could not think of any of them.

    2. It's not up to a judge to decide whether a reason is good. That's the job of the legislature and executive.

    3. This is purely an internal matter, and the central government has no Constitutional authority to interfere.

    , @Jack D
    Why doesn't one man/one vote apply to the US Senate then? The vote of each Wyoming resident counts dozens of times more than that of each Californian. Why is that OK?

    The later jurisprudence on one man/one vote is ridiculous - even a tiny difference in population between districts is not allowed. Meanwhile, it is based on census count so in immigrant heavy districts you have rotten boroughs with very few eligible voters. Why not allocate according to eligible voters and not just head count?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  258. BB753 says:

    We need a Chinaman in the Supreme Court! There, I said it! A Confucian-American if you prefer. A fancy Asian.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  259. L Woods says:
    @BB753
    Women should make no decidisions at all, judicial or otherwise, during menopause.

    You can go ahead and leave out the “menopause” qualifier

    Read More
    • Replies: @BB753
    Women go through their crazy (or should I say crazier) phase during menopause. But the reason they make poor judges in general is that there's no such thing as objetivity in a female mind. They're built that way. You can't rule on feelz, particularly not during menopause.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  260. @ScarletNumber
    Score one for New Jersey's Bill Brennan, who wrote the opinion in Baker v. Carr. You are mistaken when you call this case "little known" and you are even more mistaken when you call this ruling "the worst decision". There was no good reason why someone's vote in a rural county should count more than someone's vote in an urban county, so thank God for Brennan putting an end to that nonsense.

    Score one for New Jersey’s Bill Brennan, who wrote the opinion in Baker v. Carr. You are mistaken when you call this case “little known” and you are even more mistaken when you call this ruling “the worst decision”. There was no good reason why someone’s vote in a rural county should count more than someone’s vote in an urban county, so thank God for Brennan putting an end to that nonsense.

    1. There are plenty of reasons, and I don’t believe for a second that you could not think of any of them.

    2. It’s not up to a judge to decide whether a reason is good. That’s the job of the legislature and executive.

    3. This is purely an internal matter, and the central government has no Constitutional authority to interfere.

    Read More
    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    1) I said there were no good reasons. I can think of plenty of reasons.

    2) Judges are empowered with the authority to overturn bad reasons when those bad reasons are unconstitutional.

    3) The central government has perfect authority to interfere with a state's internal affairs when said state is violating the constitutional rights of its citizens.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  261. @MarkinLA
    So what’s the policy if Ruth gets crazier and weirder but refuses to leave,


    Did you see the excerpts of Sotomayor's dissent in the travel ban case? I would be more worried about her nuttiness than Ginzberg's.

    Did you see the excerpts of Sotomayor’s dissent in the travel ban case? I would be more worried about her nuttiness than Ginzberg’s.

    Sotomayor is nutty and stupid. She is a complete embarrassment, even if you agree with her. Wise Latina, my ass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  262. @flyingtiger
    Trump's weaknesses:
    1) Trump is a city boy, he does not care about guns. Safety is always close at hand in a city.
    2) He is a family man. He is a sucker for immigrant sob stories. He is again foreign criminals, bu cries over the children. The left understand this. This is why they are yelling about "not breaking up the family." They never did this when BHO was in, for they knew that BHO never cared.

    Trump is Concealed Carry Licensed. For years TPTB sought to deny him a CCW permit. IIRC he has a revolver. At least one of his kids is a hunter. Now it may be true that he actually does not care for guns, and his recent foray into gun control (Bump stocks, don’t-be-scared-of-NRA, etc.) do not increase my confidence in this regard, but this seems like a typical characteristic of not-so-trustworthy “pro-gun” urbanite/suburbanite types. The recent IL Republican Gov. primary pitted Rauner against Ives, with Rauner claiming he supported a ban on bump stocks. Only thing is, I noticed on Jeanne Ive’s campaign website that she supported “sensible” gun control like a ban on bump stocks AND trigger cranks. In other words, all these ostensibly “pro-gun” Republicans are ready and willing to sell gun owners down the river to gather Pokemon points with the anti-gun media.

    On the other hand, Trump-Pence campaign did accept a custom Arex 9mm pistol made in his wife’s birthplace, Slovenia.

    https://www.guns.com/2016/11/11/fime-group-presents-trump-pence-campaign-with-custom-pistol/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    "A 2002 Newsday article reported that private citizens licensed to pack heat on the streets of Manhattan included Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel, Howard Stern, Donald Trump, Steven Seagal, William F. Buckley, Chazz Palminteri, Winthrop Rockefeller, Don Imus, and Buddy Hackett."

    http://takimag.com/article/guns_and_whites_steve_sailer/print#ixzz5K4Jg6fwv

    , @Svigor
    2A is way too much of a no-brainer for Trump to cuck on it. Bump-stocks are a non-issue, even among gun fanatics. It's a thing among some doctrinaire 2A fanatics, but not all; I count myself in this group, frankly, and sure, on principle I say it's infringement (I would repeal the NFA), but even I can't be bothered to care. At all. Bump-stocks are kind of a joke anyway.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  263. @ben tillman

    Score one for New Jersey’s Bill Brennan, who wrote the opinion in Baker v. Carr. You are mistaken when you call this case “little known” and you are even more mistaken when you call this ruling “the worst decision”. There was no good reason why someone’s vote in a rural county should count more than someone’s vote in an urban county, so thank God for Brennan putting an end to that nonsense.
     
    1. There are plenty of reasons, and I don't believe for a second that you could not think of any of them.

    2. It's not up to a judge to decide whether a reason is good. That's the job of the legislature and executive.

    3. This is purely an internal matter, and the central government has no Constitutional authority to interfere.

    1) I said there were no good reasons. I can think of plenty of reasons.

    2) Judges are empowered with the authority to overturn bad reasons when those bad reasons are unconstitutional.

    3) The central government has perfect authority to interfere with a state’s internal affairs when said state is violating the constitutional rights of its citizens.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    What Constitutional right is being violated by leaving it to the state how it's republican form of government is structured? I thought that is all the Constitution guarantees that each state has a republican form of government.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  264. Jack D says:
    @ScarletNumber
    Score one for New Jersey's Bill Brennan, who wrote the opinion in Baker v. Carr. You are mistaken when you call this case "little known" and you are even more mistaken when you call this ruling "the worst decision". There was no good reason why someone's vote in a rural county should count more than someone's vote in an urban county, so thank God for Brennan putting an end to that nonsense.

    Why doesn’t one man/one vote apply to the US Senate then? The vote of each Wyoming resident counts dozens of times more than that of each Californian. Why is that OK?

    The later jurisprudence on one man/one vote is ridiculous – even a tiny difference in population between districts is not allowed. Meanwhile, it is based on census count so in immigrant heavy districts you have rotten boroughs with very few eligible voters. Why not allocate according to eligible voters and not just head count?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    As Bob Whitaker noted, states had to rework their Senates because rural counties had disproportionate representation, but that exact same logic was never applied to the US Senate. It was a study in hypocrisy.

    States had a Senate rigged in favor of rural areas for the exact same reason the US Senate also was so rigged. But what is permitted Jupiter is not permitted the cow.


    Supreme Court Worship Comes First With Respectable Conservatives
    Posted by Bob on August 29th, 2009 under Coaching Session, How Things Work, Politics


    People asked Ben Franklin what the Constitutional Convention had given them and Ben is supposed to have replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” There used to be a slogan, “This is a republic, not a democracy, let’s keep it that way.”

    Actually, like most conservative statements, this is simply no longer true. The same Supreme Court that made the holy decision to strike down all state laws against interracial marriage which no conservative dares question also decided that the United States is NOT a republic.

    The only phrase in the Constitution that gives the Feds the right to interfere with the FORM of state government is the one which requires that all states must maintain “a republican form of government.” Since the outset every state allowed one senator per county, regardless of its size, just as states were allowed equal Senate representation regardless of their population.

    This is, in fact, the only part of the Constitution which cannot be changed by amendment.

    The Holy Court of Miscegenation ruled that this provision in in all but one (unicameral) state legislature in the fifty states was unconstitutional. The Holy Court ruled that if a state is not a democracy, it is not a republic, so all legislative bodies must be based on population.

    Except the Federal one.

    So the Federal Government is not, and cannot be, a republic.
     
    , @ScarletNumber

    Why doesn’t one man/one vote apply to the US Senate then? The vote of each Wyoming resident counts dozens of times more than that of each Californian. Why is that OK?
     
    Sigh, are you being obtuse, or were you out sick that day in 5th grade?
    , @MarkinLA
    Why doesn't one man one vote apply to the House of Representative? Even though the census determines how many votes in the House a state gets, it isn't a purely mathematical calculation since there are no half or across state lines seats. For true one man one vote representation the districts would have to cross state lines.
    , @Highlander
    Learn to count. The population of Wyoming is 580,000 while the ideal US Congressional district is 710,000. This is an over representation of merely 20%. In the Senate it is over-represented by 11 times. Neither of these figures even reaches one dozen let alone "dozens."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  265. @Joe Stalin
    Trump is Concealed Carry Licensed. For years TPTB sought to deny him a CCW permit. IIRC he has a revolver. At least one of his kids is a hunter. Now it may be true that he actually does not care for guns, and his recent foray into gun control (Bump stocks, don't-be-scared-of-NRA, etc.) do not increase my confidence in this regard, but this seems like a typical characteristic of not-so-trustworthy "pro-gun" urbanite/suburbanite types. The recent IL Republican Gov. primary pitted Rauner against Ives, with Rauner claiming he supported a ban on bump stocks. Only thing is, I noticed on Jeanne Ive's campaign website that she supported "sensible" gun control like a ban on bump stocks AND trigger cranks. In other words, all these ostensibly "pro-gun" Republicans are ready and willing to sell gun owners down the river to gather Pokemon points with the anti-gun media.

    On the other hand, Trump-Pence campaign did accept a custom Arex 9mm pistol made in his wife's birthplace, Slovenia.

    https://www.guns.com/2016/11/11/fime-group-presents-trump-pence-campaign-with-custom-pistol/

    “A 2002 Newsday article reported that private citizens licensed to pack heat on the streets of Manhattan included Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel, Howard Stern, Donald Trump, Steven Seagal, William F. Buckley, Chazz Palminteri, Winthrop Rockefeller, Don Imus, and Buddy Hackett.”

    http://takimag.com/article/guns_and_whites_steve_sailer/print#ixzz5K4Jg6fwv

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  266. Anon[261] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dan Hayes
    Morris Applebaum IV:

    Judge Barrett has served less than a year. This is way too short a time to establish her judicial track record. This judicial review criterion should hold for all SCOTUS nominees.

    For example, before being nominated Gorsuch and Alito had well established judicial records of not displaying overt liberal tendencies.

    Would it be enough to know a judge’s views on the constituitional relevance of birthright citizenship?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Anon[261]:

    Views on birthright citizenship would help but more important is the nominee's actions on the judicial firing line.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  267. MarkinLA says:
    @ScarletNumber
    1) I said there were no good reasons. I can think of plenty of reasons.

    2) Judges are empowered with the authority to overturn bad reasons when those bad reasons are unconstitutional.

    3) The central government has perfect authority to interfere with a state's internal affairs when said state is violating the constitutional rights of its citizens.

    What Constitutional right is being violated by leaving it to the state how it’s republican form of government is structured? I thought that is all the Constitution guarantees that each state has a republican form of government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber

    What Constitutional right is being violated by leaving it to the state how it’s [sic] republican form of government is structured?
     
    Amendment XIV, Section 1. Ironically New Jersey never ratified it, even though Brennan is from NJ.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  268. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    Why doesn't one man/one vote apply to the US Senate then? The vote of each Wyoming resident counts dozens of times more than that of each Californian. Why is that OK?

    The later jurisprudence on one man/one vote is ridiculous - even a tiny difference in population between districts is not allowed. Meanwhile, it is based on census count so in immigrant heavy districts you have rotten boroughs with very few eligible voters. Why not allocate according to eligible voters and not just head count?

    As Bob Whitaker noted, states had to rework their Senates because rural counties had disproportionate representation, but that exact same logic was never applied to the US Senate. It was a study in hypocrisy.

    States had a Senate rigged in favor of rural areas for the exact same reason the US Senate also was so rigged. But what is permitted Jupiter is not permitted the cow.

    Supreme Court Worship Comes First With Respectable Conservatives
    Posted by Bob on August 29th, 2009 under Coaching Session, How Things Work, Politics

    People asked Ben Franklin what the Constitutional Convention had given them and Ben is supposed to have replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” There used to be a slogan, “This is a republic, not a democracy, let’s keep it that way.”

    Actually, like most conservative statements, this is simply no longer true. The same Supreme Court that made the holy decision to strike down all state laws against interracial marriage which no conservative dares question also decided that the United States is NOT a republic.

    The only phrase in the Constitution that gives the Feds the right to interfere with the FORM of state government is the one which requires that all states must maintain “a republican form of government.” Since the outset every state allowed one senator per county, regardless of its size, just as states were allowed equal Senate representation regardless of their population.

    This is, in fact, the only part of the Constitution which cannot be changed by amendment.

    The Holy Court of Miscegenation ruled that this provision in in all but one (unicameral) state legislature in the fifty states was unconstitutional. The Holy Court ruled that if a state is not a democracy, it is not a republic, so all legislative bodies must be based on population.

    Except the Federal one.

    So the Federal Government is not, and cannot be, a republic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  269. Dan Hayes says:
    @Anon
    Would it be enough to know a judge's views on the constituitional relevance of birthright citizenship?

    Anon[261]:

    Views on birthright citizenship would help but more important is the nominee’s actions on the judicial firing line.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  270. @Jack D
    Why doesn't one man/one vote apply to the US Senate then? The vote of each Wyoming resident counts dozens of times more than that of each Californian. Why is that OK?

    The later jurisprudence on one man/one vote is ridiculous - even a tiny difference in population between districts is not allowed. Meanwhile, it is based on census count so in immigrant heavy districts you have rotten boroughs with very few eligible voters. Why not allocate according to eligible voters and not just head count?

    Why doesn’t one man/one vote apply to the US Senate then? The vote of each Wyoming resident counts dozens of times more than that of each Californian. Why is that OK?

    Sigh, are you being obtuse, or were you out sick that day in 5th grade?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  271. @MarkinLA
    What Constitutional right is being violated by leaving it to the state how it's republican form of government is structured? I thought that is all the Constitution guarantees that each state has a republican form of government.

    What Constitutional right is being violated by leaving it to the state how it’s [sic] republican form of government is structured?

    Amendment XIV, Section 1. Ironically New Jersey never ratified it, even though Brennan is from NJ.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    Explain how. If a state has two houses as does the US, one is representative strictly by population and the other (for lack of a better word) by county same as our Senate. Making both of them based on population essentially makes one redundant even if you play games like California does where we have 80 Assembly districts and 40 Senate districts.
    , @ben tillman
    It's duly noted that after all this time you still haven't made an argument.

    What part of that section, and how?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  272. Rob McX says:
    @ScarletNumber
    She was great in The King of Queens.

    I just checked “King of Queens” – spitting image! All that guy has to do is don a black robe and he’d sail past security at the Supreme Court.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  273. Rob McX says:

    I wonder which prevented more white births over the last forty-odd years, abortion or mass immigration?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  274. Svigor says:
    @Rob McX
    It might explain why Marxist regimes imploded, whereas fascist and national socialist ones were defeated by external forces.

    The other common knowledge distinction is that NatSoc is “SINO”; Socialist In Name Only.

    Could be that, or it could be that Communism is full retard socialist; never go full socialist, man.

    I don’t know much about NatSoc, but I don’t see any particular reason that it couldn’t be genuinely socialist, though; or put the other way, why socialism couldn’t be genuinely nationalist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  275. Svigor says:
    @AnotherDad

    Only someone blind would not be able to see Romney “flipping”. Actually, like his father, Romney has always publicly laid out his duplicitous cards on the table.
     
    Romney is so bad I can smell him from here.

    All the preening virtue signalling. The Christian cuckservatism. At the personal level he's banged out five kids and seems solid. But politically is afraid of his shadow as a white man.

    I'm embarassed i voted for the guy.

    I shilled for him vs. Hussein, but I’m okay with it. Better the White Cuck than the Manchurian Muslim.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  276. Svigor says:
    @Corvinus
    "I didn’t notice the provision in the Constitution where all Supreme Court seats are reserved for Catholics and Jews. This fellow is Catholic. Enough already."

    And I didn't notice the provision in the Constitution where the Supreme Court must fall along strict demographic lines.

    "For whatever reason, there seems to have been a concerted effort to exclude the historic white protestant population from the highest court, and it should be stopped and reversed."

    There is no such "concerted effort" taking place here. You are acting like an SJW. The prospective candidates are chosen for their experience and ideology.

    Protestant, Catholic, and other Christians from every white European ethnic group — including people with Italian, Greek, Slavic, French background etc., not just people named Barrett or Pryor or Roberts — should be particularly nominated to the federal courts. This should include the occasional Orthodox Christian and the more-than-occasional non-denominational Christian too.

    I’m sure to hear criticism that I’m calling for an ethnic spoils system, and that we shouldn’t be “hyphenated Americans.” If so, why the incessant calls for specifically and seemingly only “WASP” nominees by some here?

    "The nominees should include a lot more WASPs than Obama put up, to be sure, but we should all be together and demanding judicial seats for ALL white Americans of ALL the many European and Christian backgrounds."

    Grow up, the nominees are at the discretion of the President.

    "Needless to say, no religious or ethnic group that constitutes less than two percent of the national population should often have more one member of the Supreme Court, if ever."

    And the Constitution makes this stipulation where?

    "Not referring to anyone in particular, just a general rule of thumb to spread those powerful positions around more widely."

    Like spreading the wealth, right? Glad to see you are taking a (gasp) liberal position here. You know, it's based on equality, not merit.

    And I didn’t notice the provision in the Constitution where the Supreme Court must fall along strict demographic lines.

    Pedants are bad enough when they’re smart. But you’re within 5 points of the mean, at best.

    We’re talking about who we’d support as an appointment, a subject on which the Constitution is silent, you mental mendicant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  277. Svigor says:
    @Joe Stalin
    Trump is Concealed Carry Licensed. For years TPTB sought to deny him a CCW permit. IIRC he has a revolver. At least one of his kids is a hunter. Now it may be true that he actually does not care for guns, and his recent foray into gun control (Bump stocks, don't-be-scared-of-NRA, etc.) do not increase my confidence in this regard, but this seems like a typical characteristic of not-so-trustworthy "pro-gun" urbanite/suburbanite types. The recent IL Republican Gov. primary pitted Rauner against Ives, with Rauner claiming he supported a ban on bump stocks. Only thing is, I noticed on Jeanne Ive's campaign website that she supported "sensible" gun control like a ban on bump stocks AND trigger cranks. In other words, all these ostensibly "pro-gun" Republicans are ready and willing to sell gun owners down the river to gather Pokemon points with the anti-gun media.

    On the other hand, Trump-Pence campaign did accept a custom Arex 9mm pistol made in his wife's birthplace, Slovenia.

    https://www.guns.com/2016/11/11/fime-group-presents-trump-pence-campaign-with-custom-pistol/

    2A is way too much of a no-brainer for Trump to cuck on it. Bump-stocks are a non-issue, even among gun fanatics. It’s a thing among some doctrinaire 2A fanatics, but not all; I count myself in this group, frankly, and sure, on principle I say it’s infringement (I would repeal the NFA), but even I can’t be bothered to care. At all. Bump-stocks are kind of a joke anyway.

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

    What Constitutional right is being violated by leaving it to the state how it’s [sic] republican form of government is structured?
     
    Amendment XIV, Section 1. Ironically New Jersey never ratified it, even though Brennan is from NJ.

    Explain how. If a state has two houses as does the US, one is representative strictly by population and the other (for lack of a better word) by county same as our Senate. Making both of them based on population essentially makes one redundant even if you play games like California does where we have 80 Assembly districts and 40 Senate districts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber

    Making both of them based on population essentially makes one redundant
     
    Yes. Tradition makes 49 states keep both state houses. Nebraska got rid of its house pre-Baker.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  279. MarkinLA says:
    @Jack D
    Why doesn't one man/one vote apply to the US Senate then? The vote of each Wyoming resident counts dozens of times more than that of each Californian. Why is that OK?

    The later jurisprudence on one man/one vote is ridiculous - even a tiny difference in population between districts is not allowed. Meanwhile, it is based on census count so in immigrant heavy districts you have rotten boroughs with very few eligible voters. Why not allocate according to eligible voters and not just head count?

    Why doesn’t one man one vote apply to the House of Representative? Even though the census determines how many votes in the House a state gets, it isn’t a purely mathematical calculation since there are no half or across state lines seats. For true one man one vote representation the districts would have to cross state lines.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  280. @MarkinLA
    Explain how. If a state has two houses as does the US, one is representative strictly by population and the other (for lack of a better word) by county same as our Senate. Making both of them based on population essentially makes one redundant even if you play games like California does where we have 80 Assembly districts and 40 Senate districts.

    Making both of them based on population essentially makes one redundant

    Yes. Tradition makes 49 states keep both state houses. Nebraska got rid of its house pre-Baker.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  281. Highlander says: • Website
    @MB
    Art.3, Sect. 2 US Constitution

    In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

    Arguably the contraints for our very own infallible Delphic oracle already exist, but Congress is too anemic to enforce them and "The People" too stupid to insist upon it.

    Indeed. If one actually reads the Constitution one realizes that this “three equal branches” trope is utter nonsense. Almost all the federal power allowed in the document is given to Congress and in particular the House of Representatives. Alas they are a bunch of whores who have readily given up their prerogatives to the executive and the courts even as to go so far to abrogate their duty to declare war (or not) in order to keep those federal dollars being spent in their states.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  282. Highlander says: • Website
    @Yak-15
    I nominate Maxine Waters.

    Not a bad choice. Her elevation to the court would certainly speed the needed breakup of the United States along racially logical lines.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  283. Highlander says: • Website
    @Jack D
    Why doesn't one man/one vote apply to the US Senate then? The vote of each Wyoming resident counts dozens of times more than that of each Californian. Why is that OK?

    The later jurisprudence on one man/one vote is ridiculous - even a tiny difference in population between districts is not allowed. Meanwhile, it is based on census count so in immigrant heavy districts you have rotten boroughs with very few eligible voters. Why not allocate according to eligible voters and not just head count?

    Learn to count. The population of Wyoming is 580,000 while the ideal US Congressional district is 710,000. This is an over representation of merely 20%. In the Senate it is over-represented by 11 times. Neither of these figures even reaches one dozen let alone “dozens.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  284. BB753 says:
    @L Woods
    You can go ahead and leave out the “menopause” qualifier

    Women go through their crazy (or should I say crazier) phase during menopause. But the reason they make poor judges in general is that there’s no such thing as objetivity in a female mind. They’re built that way. You can’t rule on feelz, particularly not during menopause.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  285. @ScarletNumber

    What Constitutional right is being violated by leaving it to the state how it’s [sic] republican form of government is structured?
     
    Amendment XIV, Section 1. Ironically New Jersey never ratified it, even though Brennan is from NJ.

    It’s duly noted that after all this time you still haven’t made an argument.

    What part of that section, and how?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    I quoted where in the Constitution it is. Go read it, or better yet read Brennan's decision. If you STILL don't understand it, come back and ask.

    Duly note that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  286. MEH 0910 says:

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1014595255474311170

    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1014596302502539266
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  287. MEH 0910 says:
    @MEH 0910
    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1014558022033723397

    https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/1014568715097198592

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  288. @ben tillman
    It's duly noted that after all this time you still haven't made an argument.

    What part of that section, and how?

    I quoted where in the Constitution it is. Go read it, or better yet read Brennan’s decision. If you STILL don’t understand it, come back and ask.

    Duly note that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    You obviously can't think for yourself. You made the claim and you can't back it up. Who cares what Brennan's decision was. The SC makes stupid decisions all the time that turn the Constitution on its head.

    The Constitution only provides that each state is guaranteed a republican form of government. Tying the 14th amendment equal protection garbage to individual states voting policies is only something idiot judges would think makes sense. This is especially true when the SC already knows that through the electoral college one man one vote doesn't apply to the election of the President.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  289. MarkinLA says:
    @ScarletNumber
    I quoted where in the Constitution it is. Go read it, or better yet read Brennan's decision. If you STILL don't understand it, come back and ask.

    Duly note that.

    You obviously can’t think for yourself. You made the claim and you can’t back it up. Who cares what Brennan’s decision was. The SC makes stupid decisions all the time that turn the Constitution on its head.

    The Constitution only provides that each state is guaranteed a republican form of government. Tying the 14th amendment equal protection garbage to individual states voting policies is only something idiot judges would think makes sense. This is especially true when the SC already knows that through the electoral college one man one vote doesn’t apply to the election of the President.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  290. Who cares what Brennan’s decision was [sic]

    Considering he was writing for the majority, you should. Also, just because I don’t agree with you doesn’t mean I can’t think for myself. You’re just upset because your way of thinking was repudiated by the Supreme Court.

    I backed up my claims by explicitly citing Brennan’s opinion and implicitly citing the Connecticut Compromise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter 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?