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 ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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
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.

    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    , @TTSSYF
    , @Reg Cæsar
  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.

  3. Rob McX says:

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

    • Replies: @Zlat
  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.

  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.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    , @MB
    , @Cloudbuster
  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.

  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.

  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.

  9. Anon[931] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Christian

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

  10. tyrone says:

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

    • Replies: @Enochian
    , @Abe
  11. @Antlitz Grollheim

    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.

  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.

  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

  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.

    • Replies: @athEIst
    , @TTSSYF
  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.

  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.)

    • Replies: @MB
  17. @Tiny Duck

    Learn at the feet of the Master.

  18. MBlanc46 says:
    @Anonymous

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

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  19. @Barnard

    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.

    • Replies: @Pyrrhus
    , @Redman
    , @AndrewR
  20. MBlanc46 says:
    @Tiny Duck

    Maxine Waters made him do it TD.

  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).

    • Agree: ben tillman, EdwardM
    • Replies: @Svigor
    , @D. K.
  22. Pyrrhus says:

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

    • Replies: @anon
    , @Hibernian
    , @Anon
  23. Pyrrhus says:
    @Jim Don Bob

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

  24. tyrone says:
    @Tiny Duck

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

  25. 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.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  26. Anonymous[266] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Christian

    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.

  27. Svigor says:
    @Pat Boyle

    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.

    • Replies: @Pat Boyle
  28. L Woods says:
    @Anon

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

  29. @Buzz Mohawk

    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.

  30. Precious says:
    @Tiny Duck

    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.

  31. Svigor says:
    @Antlitz Grollheim

    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?

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
  32. 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.

  33. Zlat says:
    @Rob McX

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

    Surely, you’re acquainted with Ivanka Trump?

  34. 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.

  35. Thirdtwin says:
    @Tiny Duck

    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.

  36. 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).

    • Replies: @Precious
    , @Jack Hanson
    , @Anonym
  37. Anonymous[286] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Christian

    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.

  38. Olorin says:
    @Jim Christian

    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.

    • Replies: @iffen
    , @TomSchmidt
  39. Rob McX says:
    @Zlat

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

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @MarkinLA
    , @Russ
  40. NOTA says:
    @Barnard

    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.

    • Replies: @Alec Leamas
    , @athEIst
  41. res says:
    @peterike

    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.

  42. 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.

    • Replies: @Fredrik
  43. NOTA says:
    @Anonymous

    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.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  44. @res

    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.

    • Agree: res
    • Replies: @res
  45. Highlander says: • Website
    @Corn

    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.

  46. anon[488] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pyrrhus

    Kick Jeff Sessions up and out.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    , @FPD72
  47. anon[197] • Disclaimer says:
    @Tiny Duck

    No fair! No respect for history.

  48. anonymous[488] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rob McX

    She still has a license.

  49. Fredrik says:
    @NOTA

    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.

    • Replies: @EdwardM
  50. @Buffalo Joe

    … 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.

  51. 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.

    • Agree: TTSSYF
  52. Chase says:
    @Antlitz Grollheim

    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.

    • Agree: Cagey Beast
  53. Chase says:
    @Tiny Duck

    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.

  54. Precious says:
    @D. K.

    “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.

    • Replies: @EdwardM
  55. @Antlitz Grollheim

    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.

  56. …. 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?

    • Replies: @Cagey Beast
  57. @peterike

    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.

  58. tyrone says:
    @peterike

    Aye aye captain I like the cut of your jibe.

  59. Alfa158 says:
    @Highlander

    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.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  60. @Buffalo Joe

    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.

    • Replies: @Buffalo Joe
  61. 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

  62. @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!

    • Replies: @Antlitz Grollheim
  63. MB says: • Website
    @Buzz Mohawk

    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.

    • Replies: @Highlander
  64. @Jack Hanson

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

  65. MB says: • Website
    @Anonymous

    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.

  66. @Anonymous

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

  67. @Anonymous

    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.

  68. Dan Hayes says:
    @Highlander

    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.

    • Replies: @Highlander
  69. @Barnard

    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.

  70. @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 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.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
  71. drahthaar says:
    @Anonymous

    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.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  72. 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.

  73. Enochian says:
    @tyrone

    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?

  74. Abe says: • Website
    @tyrone

    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.

    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
  75. Flip says:
    @Prof. Woland

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

  76. 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

  77. Anon[117] • Disclaimer says:
    @Prof. Woland

    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.

  78. D. K. says:
    @Prof. Woland

    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.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  79. 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

  80. You are right. thank you. I will double down on what I just said.

  81. @Highlander

    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.

  82. athEIst says:
    @Thirdtwin

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

  83. Svigor says:
    @res

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

    • Replies: @res
  84. 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).

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

  85. Highlander says: • Website
    @Dan Hayes

    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.

  86. Svigor says:
    @Alfa158

    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.

    • Replies: @Anon
  87. athEIst says:
    @NOTA

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

  88. @MB

    Bingo. Winner, winner, chicken dinner.

  89. @peterike

    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.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  90. iffen says:
    @Olorin

    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.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @Olorin
  91. @drahthaar

    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.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  92. 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.

  93. @D. K.

    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.

  94. iffen says:
    @Alfa158

    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.

  95. @D. K.

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

  96. @Jim Christian

    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.

  97. Frank G says:

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

  98. @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.

    “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.

  99. jim jones says:
    @res

    There needs to be a “nutcase” button on Unz

  100. @Berty

    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.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  101. res says:
    @Daniel Chieh

    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.

  102. 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.

  103. @Svigor

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

    Clearly another case of systemic agency.

  104. @Zlat

    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.

  105. @Anonymous

    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

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    , @AnotherDad
  106. @Buzz Mohawk

    even bleached his formerly-blond hair

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

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  107. @AnotherDad

    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.

  108. Carol says:
    @Alfa158

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

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

  109. 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?

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    , @Sabril
  110. MarkinLA says:
    @Rob McX

    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.

  111. Russ says:
    @Rob McX

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

  112. 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/

  113. Anonym says:
    @D. K.

    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/

  114. @Highlander

    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.

  115. @Barnard

    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?

  116. @Highlander

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

  117. @Abe

    Japan’s PM watches PBS? Who knew?

  118. TTSSYF says:
    @Anonymous

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

  119. @Alec Leamas

    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!

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  120. Redman says:
    @Jim Don Bob

    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?

  121. GU says:
    @Anonymous

    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.

  122. donut says:

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

  123. BB753 says:
    @Highlander

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

    • Replies: @dr kill
    , @L Woods
  124. @Jack Hanson

    Yes iSteve does get quite spergy.

  125. 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.

  126. 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).

    • Replies: @Canadian Observer
  127. @The preferred nomenclature is...

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

    • Replies: @Brutusale
  128. Dan Hayes says:
    @Lucas McCrudy

    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.

  129. Dan Hayes says:
    @Chrisnonymous

    Chrisnonymous:

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

  130. Luke Lea says:
    @Highlander

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

    • Replies: @AndrewR
  131. @peterike

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

  132. @Cloudbuster

    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.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  133. @Svigor

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

  134. @Olorin

    Peter Thiel, maybe?

    • Replies: @Olorin
  135. @Anonymous

    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.

    • Replies: @Slayer
  136. @Cloudbuster

    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.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    , @Rob McX
  137. @AnotherDad

    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.

  138. 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.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  139. @anon

    Yes, that could be a good idea.

  140. @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.”

  141. @RCB

    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.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
  142. @ben tillman

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

    Imma count that as an offshoot of entitlement spending.

  143. @Cloudbuster

    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.”

  144. @Berty

    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.

    • Replies: @Berty
  145. @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?

    In other words, you’re a Leftist.

    • Replies: @Felix.....
    , @dr kill
  146. MEH 0910 says:
    @Lucas McCrudy

    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.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    , @AnotherDad
    , @Svigor
  147. 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:

  148. @Jack Hanson

    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.

  149. @peterike

    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.

  150. EdwardM says:
    @Fredrik

    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.

  151. Rob McX says:
    @ben tillman

    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.

  152. AndrewR says:
    @MBlanc46

    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.

  153. EdwardM says:
    @Precious

    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.

    • Replies: @Prester John
  154. AndrewR says:
    @Jim Christian

    “ram him in”

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

  155. AndrewR says:
    @Jim Don Bob

    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!!!”

  156. AndrewR says:
    @AnotherDad

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

  157. AndrewR says:
    @Luke Lea

    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.

    • Replies: @ANon
    , @Luke Lea
  158. @Tiny Duck

    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.

  159. @AnotherDad

    “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

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  160. Sabril says:
    @RCB

    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.

  161. 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.

  162. TTSSYF says:
    @Thirdtwin

    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.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    , @Dan Hayes
  163. FPD72 says:
    @anon

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

    Barrett seems to me to meet all three criteria.

  164. 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.

  165. ANon[298] • Disclaimer says:
    @AndrewR

    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.

  166. TTSSYF says:
    @Zlat

    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.

  167. TTSSYF says:
    @Anonymous

    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?

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    , @Anonymous
  168. Brutusale says:
    @Tiny Duck

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

    • Replies: @Jack Hanson
  169. Brutusale says:
    @Lucas McCrudy

    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.

  170. Brutusale says:
    @Buffalo Joe

    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.

  171. @Highlander

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

    Sign her up NOW!!!!!

  172. @EdwardM

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

  173. Pat Boyle says:
    @Svigor

    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.

    • Replies: @Alfa158
    , @Svigor
  174. MEH 0910 says:
    @Brutusale

    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.

  175. @Brutusale

    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.

  176. Berty says:
    @David Davenport

    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.

  177. @ben tillman

    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.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  178. 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.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
  179. @Brutusale

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

  180. @Beenes

    How did Justice Scalia die again?

    • Replies: @Precious
  181. @AnotherDad

    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.

  182. KenH says:
    @Anon

    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.

  183. Alfa158 says:
    @Pat Boyle

    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.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  184. Dan Hayes says:
    @MEH 0910

    MEH 0910:

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

  185. MarkinLA says:
    @a boy and his dog

    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.

  186. MarkinLA says:
    @Brutusale

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

  187. 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) “

    • Replies: @Olorin
  188. roo_ster says:
    @Lucas McCrudy

    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.

  189. @Prof. Woland

    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.

  190. Svigor says:
    @Rex Little

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

  191. @MEH 0910

    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.

    • Replies: @D. K.
  192. Svigor says:
    @MEH 0910

    *#@$!

    Amy Coney Barrett

    #^@&ing Cuckstians.

    • LOL: L Woods
  193. Olorin says:
    @TomSchmidt

    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.

  194. D. K. says:
    @AnotherDad

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

  195. Svigor says:
    @Pat Boyle

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

    • Replies: @Rob McX
  196. Precious says:
    @Canadian Observer

    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?

  197. @Rob McX

    She was great in The King of Queens.

    • Replies: @Rob McX
  198. @TTSSYF

    Romney’s too old.

    Not to mention completely untrustworthy.

    • Agree: BB753
  199. MarkinLA says:
    @RadicalCenter

    I think impeachment needs 2/3 of the Senate. Not likely getting rid of a far left looney.

  200. MarkinLA says:
    @iffen

    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.

  201. Luke Lea says:
    @AndrewR

    “What does it even mean to be a Catholic these days?”

    I mean in terms of cultural background.

  202. Dan Hayes says:
    @TTSSYF

    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.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  203. Frank G says:

    Trump plays the long game so he likely figures he can wait for RBG to retire to pick this Barrett chick.

  204. res says:
    @Svigor

    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.

  205. 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.

  206. @Anonymous

    I wanted to leave an interesting and constructive comment… I doubt it’s possible currently.

    You certainly haven’t.

  207. If being reminded that Trump got rich from leverage provided by Deutche Bank makes you feel better, you need to get out more.

  208. @David Davenport

    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?

  209. 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.

    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?

  210. Rob McX says:
    @Svigor

    It might explain why Marxist regimes imploded, whereas fascist and national socialist ones were defeated by external forces.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  211. Dan Hayes says:
    @J1234

    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.

  212. @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?

    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.

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
  213. @Dan Hayes

    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.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    , @Svigor
  214. @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.

  215. Yak-15 says:

    I nominate Maxine Waters.

    • Replies: @Highlander
  216. @J1234

    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.)

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
  217. @J1234

    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.

  218. @Jim Don Bob

    You’re right. There could be worse examples that I’m simply not familiar with.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
  219. @Alfa158

    Indeed. Better a “shower” than a “grower.”

  220. Anon[770] • Disclaimer says:
    @Pyrrhus

    Where would Pryor come out on birthright citizenship?

    • Replies: @MG
  221. Anon[770] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    Would she have the fortitude to decide correctly on birthright citizenship?

  222. Anon[770] • Disclaimer says:
    @Svigor

    Where would she come out on birthright citizenship?

  223. dr kill says:
    @BB753

    If you actually meant menorrhea, then I suppose for some percentage of women you are correct. Otherwise, this is irrational thinking.

  224. @Zlat

    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.

  225. Olorin says:
    @iffen

    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.

  226. Dan Hayes says:
    @Morris Applebaum IV

    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.

    • Replies: @Anon
  227. MG says:
    @Anon

    A more fundamental question: Will Trump be informed of her adopted children? Or will Marc Koch Short keep it hidden from him?

  228. 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.”

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  229. MEH 0910 says:
    @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.”

  230. Seneca44 says:
    @Anonymous

    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.

  231. 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.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
  232. @AnotherDad

    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.

  233. @ben tillman

    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.

  234. Anonymous[612] • Disclaimer says:
    @TTSSYF

    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.

  235. Eagle Eye says:
    @Anonymous

    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.

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
  236. @AnotherDad

    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.

  237. @Eagle Eye

    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.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  238. @Diversity Heretic

    Right, and it shifted much power to the blue cities in red states.

  239. @Diversity Heretic

    Right, and it shifted much power to the blue cities in red states.

  240. Flip says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    Well, if the Senate is allowed you’d think the states could do something similar.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  241. @AnotherDad

    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?).

  242. 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.”

    You are super-duper ignorant here.

    http://law.jrank.org/pages/24894/Baker-v-Carr-Significance.html

  243. MarkinLA says:
    @J1234

    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.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
  244. 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.”

    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.

    • Replies: @Svigor
  245. MarkinLA says:
    @Prof. Woland

    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.

  246. @Flip

    Yes, you would. And so would I.

  247. Slayer says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    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.

  248. @Diversity Heretic

    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.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    , @Jack D
  249. BB753 says:

    We need a Chinaman in the Supreme Court! There, I said it! A Confucian-American if you prefer. A fancy Asian.

  250. L Woods says:
    @BB753

    You can go ahead and leave out the “menopause” qualifier

    • Replies: @BB753
  251. @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.

    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.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
  252. @MarkinLA

    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.

  253. @flyingtiger

    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/

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    , @Svigor
  254. @ben tillman

    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.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  255. Jack D says:
    @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?

    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?

  256. @Joe Stalin

    “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

  257. Anon[261] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dan Hayes

    Would it be enough to know a judge’s views on the constituitional relevance of birthright citizenship?

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
  258. MarkinLA says:
    @ScarletNumber

    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.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
  259. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    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.

  260. Dan Hayes says:
    @Anon

    Anon[261]:

    Views on birthright citizenship would help but more important is the nominee’s actions on the judicial firing line.

  261. @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?

    Sigh, are you being obtuse, or were you out sick that day in 5th grade?

  262. @MarkinLA

    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.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @ben tillman
  263. Rob McX says:
    @ScarletNumber

    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.

  264. Rob McX says:

    I wonder which prevented more white births over the last forty-odd years, abortion or mass immigration?

  265. Svigor says:
    @Rob McX

    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.

  266. Svigor says:
    @AnotherDad

    I shilled for him vs. Hussein, but I’m okay with it. Better the White Cuck than the Manchurian Muslim.

  267. Svigor says:
    @Corvinus

    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.

  268. Svigor says:
    @Joe Stalin

    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.

  269. MarkinLA says:
    @ScarletNumber

    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.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
  270. MarkinLA says:
    @Jack D

    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.

  271. @MarkinLA

    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.

  272. Highlander says: • Website
    @MB

    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.

  273. Highlander says: • Website
    @Yak-15

    Not a bad choice. Her elevation to the court would certainly speed the needed breakup of the United States along racially logical lines.

  274. Highlander says: • Website
    @Jack D

    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.”

  275. BB753 says:
    @L Woods

    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.

  276. @ScarletNumber

    It’s duly noted that after all this time you still haven’t made an argument.

    What part of that section, and how?

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
  277. MEH 0910 says:

    • Replies: @MEH 0910
  278. MEH 0910 says:
    @MEH 0910

  279. @ben tillman

    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.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  280. MarkinLA says:
    @ScarletNumber

    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.

  281. 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.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
Hundreds of POWs may have been left to die in Vietnam, abandoned by their government—and our media.