The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Who Gave Us Justice Ginsburg?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

“Her mind is shot.”

That was the crisp diagnosis of Donald Trump on hearing the opinion of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the possibility he might become president.

It all began with an interview last week when the justice was asked for her thoughts on a Trump presidency. Ginsburg went on a tear.

“I can’t imagine what this place (the Supreme Court) would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

Yet she had contemplated the horror of it all, as she quoted her late husband as saying of such a catastrophe, “It’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

This week, Ginsburg doubled down.

“Trump is a faker,” she vented in chambers on Monday, “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head. … He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

Sounding like Democratic Party Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Ginsburg attacked the Senate for not voting on Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia.

“That’s their job. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

True, your honor, but there is also nothing in the Constitution that says the Senate must vote expeditiously, or at all.

Ginsburg hailed Justice Anthony Kennedy as “the great hero of this term” for his votes upholding abortion rights and affirmative action.

“Think what would have happened had Justice Scalia remained with us,” she added, which comes close to saying the death of the great jurist was not entirely unwelcome to the leading liberal on the court.

“I’d love to see Citizens United overruled,” Ginsburg volunteered, which gives us a pretty good idea how she will vote when that question comes before the court again.

As the Wall Street Journal notes, under Section 28 US Code 455, “(a)ny justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States must disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” Since “himself” and “his” refer to men, perhaps Ginsburg does not think the rules apply to her.

The federal code of judicial conduct for U.S. judges, says the Chicago Tribune, states that a “judge should not … publicly endorse a candidate for public office.”

But does not Ginsburg’s relentless trashing of Trump constitute a political attack on him, to help his opponent Hillary Clinton?

Ginsburg “should resign from the Court before she does the reputation of the judiciary more harm,” says the Journal.

There is a precedent. Justice Abe Fortas resigned in 1969 in a scandal when his ties to a convicted swindler became known.

But a dissent here. Why should Ginsburg resign? Did anyone doubt she held these views? Did she hide her radical liberalism from the Senate that confirmed her 96-3 in 1993, with only three Republicans dissenting, led by the venerable Jesse Helms?

Ginsburg was an ACLU lawyer and feminist-activist when she was named to the appellate court by Jimmy Carter. Her views were no secret to anyone when the Senate confirmed her.

Let us not pretend we did not know. Thus, why should she step down for airing political and ideological views everyone knew she held?

Liberal angst is understandable. Ginsburg is giving away the game.

ORDER IT NOW

How can liberals credibly uphold the pretense that Supreme Court decisions, where the left is the majority, represent judgments based on the Constitution, when Ginsburg, the leading leftist, has revealed herself to be a rabid partisan who can’t wait to use her judicial power to impose her ideology upon the United States?

Ginsburg detests Trump. She wants to kill super PACs. She thinks discrimination against white males is fine if it advances diversity. She thinks Republican Senators are blockheads who do not know their duties.

She thinks the death penalty is barbaric, and that abortion on demand and same-sex marriage are progressive. She is waiting for a case to come before her so she can restrict gun rights.

In a democratic republic, she has a right to hold and air these views.

But a democratic republic no longer exists when justices of the mindset of Ginsburg, who have never been elected, but serve for life, can impose these views, anti-democratically, upon the country.

Since the Earl Warren era, the Supreme Court has usurped the legislative power and imposed social policies, and Congress, which has the power under Article III to shackle the Ruth Bader Ginsburgs and restrict the court’s jurisdiction, has lacked the courage to do so.

This is the problem, not Ginsburg. She does what leftist ideologues do. The problem is elsewhere.

Pogo said it best, “We have met the enemy — and he is us.”

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2016 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: Donald Trump, Supreme Court 
Hide 101 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    Don’t call her a ‘liberal’.

    She is a Jewish Supremacist Globalist Radical.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Penguinchip
    Why can't a Jew just be a liberal asshole without being part of a vast global supremacist conspiracy?
    , @Joe Franklin
    All Jews are class supremacist, specifically protected class supremacist.

    Both the US and Israel implement a protected class supremacy scheme.

    The protected class supremacy scheme designates the Nazi or alternatively the white supremacist as the protected class enemy.

    The scheme defines a profile of a Nazi based on who is and who is not entitled to central government granted privileges:


    Women are entitled because of Male oppression
    Jewish are entitled because of Gentile oppression
    Queers are entitled because of Straight oppression
    Muslims are entitled because of Christian oppression
    Disabled are entitled because of Healthy oppression
    Afro-blacks are entitled because of White oppression
    Latinos are entitled because of Gringo oppression
    Hispanics are entitled because of Gringo oppression
    Military Veteran are entitled because of Militia oppression
    2-party System Dependents are entitled because of Independent oppression
    Aboriginals are entitled because of Paleface oppression
    Asians are entitled because of Occidental oppression
    National Socialist are entitled because of local-state Government oppression
    Crony Capitalist are entitled because of honest Businessmen oppression
    Ex-cons are entitled because of Law-Abiding people oppression
    Zionist are entitled because of anti-Fascist oppression
    , @TJM
    THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!

    Affirmative action is just racism in disguise, and she is all about open borders another globalist desire.

    It is time to stop lumping Zionist Jews, or Zionists like Clinton with liberals in general.

    Interesting how issues like abortion, affirmative action, open borders are all NOW priorities of the democratic establishment, and not issues like worker's rights, the environment, STOPPING WAR, protecting American worker's jobs...

    You see a pattern here, social issues, are at the top of the list, they are just to distract, divide Americans, while core issues that effect all Americans, like war, are brushed aside because they ARE tangible, issues that bring us together.

    Zionists have worked for decades to destroy the fabric of America, and have been quite effective.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. tbraton says:

    I never understood the “love affair” the late Justice Antonin Scalia had with Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Their legal views were so diametrically opposed that it was difficult to understand the appreciation Scalia had for Ginsberg. Judging from her recent remarks, the admiration was clearly not mutual. What is also abundantly clear is that Justice Ginsberg was blowing smoke when she declared a number of years ago that “Roe v. Wade” was a political mistake since it unnecessarily intruded on the political process and addressed an issue that should have been left for the states to resolve. (I happen to agree. I am probably the only person who thinks “Roe v. Wade” was wrongly decided and still supports a woman’s right to choose. BTW Justice Scalia apparently agreed with my position.) Her position was shown to be utter hypocrisy by her recent decision to recognize same-sex marriage as constitutional. When given an opportunity to put her money where her mouth was she failed the test. If “Roe v. Wade” was wrongly decided, then the same can be said about the same-sex marriage decision. Both decisions find absolutely no support in the Constitution as written. What I also find totally hypocritical of Justice Ginsberg is her recognition of affirmative action based on diversity while criticizing the Senate for its failure to approve the nomination of Judge Garland to the Supreme Court, a fourth Jewish justice (44.4% of the 9 justices) when Jews comprise only 2% of the U.S. population. Diversity for thee, not for me.

    I notice that Justice Ginsberg is 83 years old so Trump’s questioning of her mental status is not far-fetched. That’s why I have suggested a mandatory retirement age of 75 to 80 (max) for all federal judges and Supreme Court justices. I recall reading that Chief Justice Rehnquist, who died while still on the bench just shy of age 81, was less than clear minded in his last few years as Justice. I am not near age 80, but I have lived among many people who were 80 or older, and my judgment is that age is a terrible thing that affects all people regardless of sex, religion and ethnicity. There are very few who live past 80 in full possession of their mental faculties. I think it is clearly time for Justice Ginsberg to retire from the Court.

    Read More
    • Agree: pink_point, NickG
    • Replies: @Barnard
    The length of retirement for Chief Justices has not been long historically either with roughly half dying on the court. In addition to the mandatory retirement age, it may have been better to put a maximum length of service on Supreme Court Justices. The whole appointment for life process obviously hasn't kept politics out of the court.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States
    , @Hibernian
    I think Scalia and Ginsburg both grew up in NYC, although IIRC Scalia is a native of New Jersey.
    , @Dave Pinsen
    The admiration appeared mutual in her comments about him after he passed away: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/statements-from-supreme-court-justices/#more-238328

    Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: “We are different, we are one,” different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the “applesauce” and “argle bargle”—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his “energetic fervor,” “astringent intellect,” “peppery prose,” “acumen,” and “affability,” all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.
     

    Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend.

     

    , @Avery
    {That’s why I have suggested a mandatory retirement age of 75 to 80 (max) for all federal judges and Supreme Court justices. }

    At the time the Constitution was written, no one could possibly expect justices to live to the age of incipient senility. Average life expectancy was around 40 or so then. Does no people died at 40. But I am guessing framers figured "lifetime" appointment meant max to age 60 or thereabouts.

    My observation too of watching relatives reach 80 or so, is that their minds are not as sharp by then. There are exceptions, of course, but nature takes its toll on the mind.

    Since changing the Constitution would be near impossible, judges should voluntarily resign under social pressure. You get appointed to SCOTUS around age 50, you stay there 25 years or so, and step down at 75 (not 80). 25 years is more than enough time to make an impact that the POTUS selecting him/her intended.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Realist says:

    “Who Gave Us Justice Ginsburg?”

    Ultimately it was the American voters….in their infinite wisdom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    Yeah, and you probably believe the people control the government too. Allow me to relieve you of that fantasy; we had nothing to do with it. The elections and appointments are rigged and have been for years. Our country is run by a fascist corporate oligarchy.

    Ginsberg is at least right to want to do away with super pacs. Corporations should not be able to give money either. They can't vote and they should not be able to sway elections. I am all for limiting political donations to $25 maximum from any domestic source, and eliminating all foreign sources, and the media should be required to provide unedited time and space to candidates to promote their platforms.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. As Pat notes, the ravings of an increasingly senile Supreme Court Justice constitute useful insights (as if any were really needed) of the mental processes by which they reach their decisions. Interpretation of the Constitution has nothing to do with it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "As Pat notes, the ravings of an increasingly senile Supreme Court Justice constitute useful insights (as if any were really needed) of the mental processes by which they reach their decisions."

    The level of sophistication in the writing of the current Justices is anything less than senile. Do you even know what that word means?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. Rehmat says:

    Like a typical Zionist Jew justice Ginsburg is not happy even though her tribe makes less than 2% of American population it has three red-blooded Jew judges out of current eight at the Supreme Court. The rest are committed Zionist Christians.

    However, I must admit Ginsburg was right about moving to New Zealand – and Pat Buchanan should consider it seriously too. After all, New Zealand is a White Christian occupied country – and like United States, is ruled by a tiny Jewish minority.

    In September 2014, John Phillip Key, son of a Austrian Jewish immigrant won his third term as prime minister of New Zealand. Key, in fact is the third prime minister of the country with Jewish family roots. Julius Vogel served in the 1870s and Sir Francis Henry Dillon Bell, who later converted to Christianity, was at the helm for two weeks in 1925. In addition to that Auckland had seven Mayors throughout its history. New Zealand is home to only 7,000 Jews.

    Key is a blind supporter of Israel. His top two propagandists, David Farrar and Cameron Slater have close links with Netanyahu’s Likud Jewish racist party. Their websites are consistently pro-Israel and follow the Zionist narrative of the bad Hamas raining bombs on the poor Israelis while in fact the IDF bombed the Gaza strip killing thousands of civilians, destroying over 80.000 homes and infrastructure…..

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/12/24/new-zealand-occupied-by-jewish-minority/

    Read More
    • Replies: @iSteveFan

    After all, New Zealand is a White Christian occupied country
     
    Can you elaborate on that statement?
    , @TJM
    I read the comments section precisely to read comments like your's. We live in a world of pure propaganda and manipulation, predominately controlled by Zionist Jews, so it is refreshing to see that some people see through the lies and the control. Americans have for the most part accepted the Zionist world view, hook line and sinker: We are divided, scared, petty, and shockingly ignorant to the pain and suffering our governemnt causes around the world.

    America is like a big powerful man who is kept drunk and delusional as to be easily manipulated to doing its controller's bidding.

    There is no greater evil on earth than the zionists, so much war and human suffering is caused because of their activities, I only hope people wake up and put an end to their tyranny over the lives of so many.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. There was a push a few years ago to get her to resign so Obama could appoint her replacement,

    She demurred.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    The only good thing she ever did.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. If only she could be pure as the driven snow like the Republican justices. Right Pat?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TJM
    Two sides of the same zionist coin
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. woodNfish says:
    @Realist
    "Who Gave Us Justice Ginsburg?"

    Ultimately it was the American voters....in their infinite wisdom.

    Yeah, and you probably believe the people control the government too. Allow me to relieve you of that fantasy; we had nothing to do with it. The elections and appointments are rigged and have been for years. Our country is run by a fascist corporate oligarchy.

    Ginsberg is at least right to want to do away with super pacs. Corporations should not be able to give money either. They can’t vote and they should not be able to sway elections. I am all for limiting political donations to $25 maximum from any domestic source, and eliminating all foreign sources, and the media should be required to provide unedited time and space to candidates to promote their platforms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dahoit
    Yes,Citizens United(hahahahaha) is an affront to democracy,and never should have been approved by the Zionist SC,but being Zionists,it was in their interests to approve it.
    And we all know what nation turns its lonely eyes to you Ms.Ginsburg.
    They say Garland is a big survelliance booster,a typical ziocrud.
    , @Realist
    The people allow the situation as it is.
    , @Drapetomaniac
    99% of the people want government. Being free of it is something they are not wired for - something they can barely comprehend.

    That 99% is responsible for the litany of problems that government causes. Ten thousand years of abject failure by government and the Celebrated Moron in the Street is still totally clueless .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. @Priss Factor
    Don't call her a 'liberal'.

    She is a Jewish Supremacist Globalist Radical.

    Why can’t a Jew just be a liberal asshole without being part of a vast global supremacist conspiracy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Why can’t a Jew just be a liberal asshole without being part of a vast global supremacist conspiracy?

    Why? Indeed. That would tear down so many houses if true.

    [[[They]]] will tell you that the Jews can't help themselves, it's fixed, in the blood, yada, yada.
    , @TJM
    What a joke, time for the "nothing to see here" snakes in the grass, has long since past. George Soros, AIPAC, AEI, Council of Foreign Relations, basically most of the lobbying foreign and domestic apparatus in America lobby for Zionists, and since America is a global force, one should see Zionist as a global threat. Not to mention Global Central banking is most certainly Zionist, sooo sort of a conspiracy fact.

    Sounds like you have a bit of Zionist in you!

    Liberals don't want open borders, Zionists do, liberals don't want TPP, Zionists do, liberals don't want war in the Middle East, filthy Zionist most definitely do, liberals don't want bank bailouts, Zionist do, so you see "asshole", there is a huge difference between liberals, and warmongering, money grubbing freedom hating Zionists. Does that clear it up for you?!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Wade says:

    Congress, which has the power under Article III to shackle the Ruth Bader Ginsburgs and restrict the court’s jurisdiction, has lacked the courage to do so.

    Then that should be one of first tasks of a President Trump, to lead Congress to do these things. Even if she’s on the way out shortly, if they were successful in this it would set a very good precedent to future congresses.

    And see how Congress’s refusal to appoint Judge Merrick Garland has not met with any outrage from the public that was widely predicted if they refused to appoint a 9th justice. It’s largely been forgotten which is a victory for Senate Republicans.

    Read More
    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Any literate American can read the constitution and know what it says. But only nine people on earth are capable of knowing what it means.

    The court should be replaced by a jury. Can you imagine a jury concluding that money is speech and corporations are people? Let the Roberts Court die by attrition. Lets NEVER appoint another supreme court justice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Penguinchip
    Citizens United decided nothing of the kind. It ruled that forming a corporation for the purpose of engaging in speech could not be construed to oblige the citizens in question to first seek government permission before engaging in speech. Don't rely on MSNBC for your legal analysis.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. dahoit says:
    @woodNfish
    Yeah, and you probably believe the people control the government too. Allow me to relieve you of that fantasy; we had nothing to do with it. The elections and appointments are rigged and have been for years. Our country is run by a fascist corporate oligarchy.

    Ginsberg is at least right to want to do away with super pacs. Corporations should not be able to give money either. They can't vote and they should not be able to sway elections. I am all for limiting political donations to $25 maximum from any domestic source, and eliminating all foreign sources, and the media should be required to provide unedited time and space to candidates to promote their platforms.

    Yes,Citizens United(hahahahaha) is an affront to democracy,and never should have been approved by the Zionist SC,but being Zionists,it was in their interests to approve it.
    And we all know what nation turns its lonely eyes to you Ms.Ginsburg.
    They say Garland is a big survelliance booster,a typical ziocrud.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Barnard says:
    @tbraton
    I never understood the "love affair" the late Justice Antonin Scalia had with Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Their legal views were so diametrically opposed that it was difficult to understand the appreciation Scalia had for Ginsberg. Judging from her recent remarks, the admiration was clearly not mutual. What is also abundantly clear is that Justice Ginsberg was blowing smoke when she declared a number of years ago that "Roe v. Wade" was a political mistake since it unnecessarily intruded on the political process and addressed an issue that should have been left for the states to resolve. (I happen to agree. I am probably the only person who thinks "Roe v. Wade" was wrongly decided and still supports a woman's right to choose. BTW Justice Scalia apparently agreed with my position.) Her position was shown to be utter hypocrisy by her recent decision to recognize same-sex marriage as constitutional. When given an opportunity to put her money where her mouth was she failed the test. If "Roe v. Wade" was wrongly decided, then the same can be said about the same-sex marriage decision. Both decisions find absolutely no support in the Constitution as written. What I also find totally hypocritical of Justice Ginsberg is her recognition of affirmative action based on diversity while criticizing the Senate for its failure to approve the nomination of Judge Garland to the Supreme Court, a fourth Jewish justice (44.4% of the 9 justices) when Jews comprise only 2% of the U.S. population. Diversity for thee, not for me.

    I notice that Justice Ginsberg is 83 years old so Trump's questioning of her mental status is not far-fetched. That's why I have suggested a mandatory retirement age of 75 to 80 (max) for all federal judges and Supreme Court justices. I recall reading that Chief Justice Rehnquist, who died while still on the bench just shy of age 81, was less than clear minded in his last few years as Justice. I am not near age 80, but I have lived among many people who were 80 or older, and my judgment is that age is a terrible thing that affects all people regardless of sex, religion and ethnicity. There are very few who live past 80 in full possession of their mental faculties. I think it is clearly time for Justice Ginsberg to retire from the Court.

    The length of retirement for Chief Justices has not been long historically either with roughly half dying on the court. In addition to the mandatory retirement age, it may have been better to put a maximum length of service on Supreme Court Justices. The whole appointment for life process obviously hasn’t kept politics out of the court.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    I have no basic objection to a limitation based on years of service, but I think the age limitation (preferably 75) is cleaner and goes to the heart of the problem, which is that virtually all people ultimately lose their brain cells as they get old. It is especially noticeable after 80 in my experience, although there are a few notable exceptions. I believe we are in agreement that the concept of "lifetime appointments" has pretty much lost its purpose and should be jettisoned.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. @WorkingClass
    Any literate American can read the constitution and know what it says. But only nine people on earth are capable of knowing what it means.

    The court should be replaced by a jury. Can you imagine a jury concluding that money is speech and corporations are people? Let the Roberts Court die by attrition. Lets NEVER appoint another supreme court justice.

    Citizens United decided nothing of the kind. It ruled that forming a corporation for the purpose of engaging in speech could not be construed to oblige the citizens in question to first seek government permission before engaging in speech. Don’t rely on MSNBC for your legal analysis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. iffen says:
    @Penguinchip
    Why can't a Jew just be a liberal asshole without being part of a vast global supremacist conspiracy?

    Why can’t a Jew just be a liberal asshole without being part of a vast global supremacist conspiracy?

    Why? Indeed. That would tear down so many houses if true.

    [[[They]]] will tell you that the Jews can’t help themselves, it’s fixed, in the blood, yada, yada.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TJM
    Tear down houses like what, Hollywood (or do you wish to lie and say Jews don't control it, even they say so themselves), or perhaps Wall Street, of course just looking at the list of CEOs and executives pretty mush seals off any denial there, how about Washington DC, boy with AIPAC, AEI, CFR...and on and on, really hard not to say Zionist run US foreign policy.

    The reality is, things like you, hasbara trolls, are being obsolete, more and more people see the activities of the Zionist Jews, and no matter how easy it is for you to lie, and boy is it easy for Zionist to lie, blue is still blue, and Zionist Jews are indeed a surge on Earth. Answer, stop making money off of other's misfortune, respect all cultures not just your own, and STOP MAKING WAR!!!!!!!!!!!
    , @Art
    [[[They]]] will tell you that the Jews can’t help themselves, it’s fixed, in the blood, yada, yada.

    So iffen,

    What is your explanation for Jew behavior – why are they so greedy, so duplicitous, why do all their holidays celebrate death?

    Of course it is true – there is a list on the internet of 109 geography locations where they have been cast out in the last 2000 years.

    Is genetics, is it culture – space aliens maybe?

    You are a smart guy Jew wanabe – tell us.

    Art

    p.s. Please no hasbara 101.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. tbraton says:
    @Barnard
    The length of retirement for Chief Justices has not been long historically either with roughly half dying on the court. In addition to the mandatory retirement age, it may have been better to put a maximum length of service on Supreme Court Justices. The whole appointment for life process obviously hasn't kept politics out of the court.

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

    I have no basic objection to a limitation based on years of service, but I think the age limitation (preferably 75) is cleaner and goes to the heart of the problem, which is that virtually all people ultimately lose their brain cells as they get old. It is especially noticeable after 80 in my experience, although there are a few notable exceptions. I believe we are in agreement that the concept of “lifetime appointments” has pretty much lost its purpose and should be jettisoned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Hibernian says:
    @Si1ver1ock
    There was a push a few years ago to get her to resign so Obama could appoint her replacement,


    She demurred.

    The only good thing she ever did.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dr. X

    The only good thing she ever did.
     
    Don't be so sure. She held on because she's such a rabid feminist that she wanted Hillary to nominate her replacement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Hibernian says:
    @tbraton
    I never understood the "love affair" the late Justice Antonin Scalia had with Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Their legal views were so diametrically opposed that it was difficult to understand the appreciation Scalia had for Ginsberg. Judging from her recent remarks, the admiration was clearly not mutual. What is also abundantly clear is that Justice Ginsberg was blowing smoke when she declared a number of years ago that "Roe v. Wade" was a political mistake since it unnecessarily intruded on the political process and addressed an issue that should have been left for the states to resolve. (I happen to agree. I am probably the only person who thinks "Roe v. Wade" was wrongly decided and still supports a woman's right to choose. BTW Justice Scalia apparently agreed with my position.) Her position was shown to be utter hypocrisy by her recent decision to recognize same-sex marriage as constitutional. When given an opportunity to put her money where her mouth was she failed the test. If "Roe v. Wade" was wrongly decided, then the same can be said about the same-sex marriage decision. Both decisions find absolutely no support in the Constitution as written. What I also find totally hypocritical of Justice Ginsberg is her recognition of affirmative action based on diversity while criticizing the Senate for its failure to approve the nomination of Judge Garland to the Supreme Court, a fourth Jewish justice (44.4% of the 9 justices) when Jews comprise only 2% of the U.S. population. Diversity for thee, not for me.

    I notice that Justice Ginsberg is 83 years old so Trump's questioning of her mental status is not far-fetched. That's why I have suggested a mandatory retirement age of 75 to 80 (max) for all federal judges and Supreme Court justices. I recall reading that Chief Justice Rehnquist, who died while still on the bench just shy of age 81, was less than clear minded in his last few years as Justice. I am not near age 80, but I have lived among many people who were 80 or older, and my judgment is that age is a terrible thing that affects all people regardless of sex, religion and ethnicity. There are very few who live past 80 in full possession of their mental faculties. I think it is clearly time for Justice Ginsberg to retire from the Court.

    I think Scalia and Ginsburg both grew up in NYC, although IIRC Scalia is a native of New Jersey.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Realist says:
    @woodNfish
    Yeah, and you probably believe the people control the government too. Allow me to relieve you of that fantasy; we had nothing to do with it. The elections and appointments are rigged and have been for years. Our country is run by a fascist corporate oligarchy.

    Ginsberg is at least right to want to do away with super pacs. Corporations should not be able to give money either. They can't vote and they should not be able to sway elections. I am all for limiting political donations to $25 maximum from any domestic source, and eliminating all foreign sources, and the media should be required to provide unedited time and space to candidates to promote their platforms.

    The people allow the situation as it is.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Dr. X says:
    @Hibernian
    The only good thing she ever did.

    The only good thing she ever did.

    Don’t be so sure. She held on because she’s such a rabid feminist that she wanted Hillary to nominate her replacement.

    Read More
    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @tbraton
    I never understood the "love affair" the late Justice Antonin Scalia had with Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Their legal views were so diametrically opposed that it was difficult to understand the appreciation Scalia had for Ginsberg. Judging from her recent remarks, the admiration was clearly not mutual. What is also abundantly clear is that Justice Ginsberg was blowing smoke when she declared a number of years ago that "Roe v. Wade" was a political mistake since it unnecessarily intruded on the political process and addressed an issue that should have been left for the states to resolve. (I happen to agree. I am probably the only person who thinks "Roe v. Wade" was wrongly decided and still supports a woman's right to choose. BTW Justice Scalia apparently agreed with my position.) Her position was shown to be utter hypocrisy by her recent decision to recognize same-sex marriage as constitutional. When given an opportunity to put her money where her mouth was she failed the test. If "Roe v. Wade" was wrongly decided, then the same can be said about the same-sex marriage decision. Both decisions find absolutely no support in the Constitution as written. What I also find totally hypocritical of Justice Ginsberg is her recognition of affirmative action based on diversity while criticizing the Senate for its failure to approve the nomination of Judge Garland to the Supreme Court, a fourth Jewish justice (44.4% of the 9 justices) when Jews comprise only 2% of the U.S. population. Diversity for thee, not for me.

    I notice that Justice Ginsberg is 83 years old so Trump's questioning of her mental status is not far-fetched. That's why I have suggested a mandatory retirement age of 75 to 80 (max) for all federal judges and Supreme Court justices. I recall reading that Chief Justice Rehnquist, who died while still on the bench just shy of age 81, was less than clear minded in his last few years as Justice. I am not near age 80, but I have lived among many people who were 80 or older, and my judgment is that age is a terrible thing that affects all people regardless of sex, religion and ethnicity. There are very few who live past 80 in full possession of their mental faculties. I think it is clearly time for Justice Ginsberg to retire from the Court.

    The admiration appeared mutual in her comments about him after he passed away: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/statements-from-supreme-court-justices/#more-238328

    Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: “We are different, we are one,” different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the “applesauce” and “argle bargle”—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his “energetic fervor,” “astringent intellect,” “peppery prose,” “acumen,” and “affability,” all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.

    Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles
    But that was then (February) and this is now (July).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. I’ve noticed that women in particular become incredibly outspoken and unrestrained shortly before their ultimate demise, as if the felt approach of imminent doom gives them license to let it all hang out.

    RBG is probably not long for this world. I would not be surprised if it’s just a matter of months.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "I’ve noticed that women in particular become incredibly outspoken and unrestrained shortly before their ultimate demise, as if the felt approach of imminent doom gives them license to let it all hang out."

    I've noticed that it's men who are more likely to take this course of action. Interesting.
    , @FLgeezer
    >RBG is probably not long for this world. I would not be surprised if it’s just a matter of months.

    We can but hope.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. @woodNfish
    Yeah, and you probably believe the people control the government too. Allow me to relieve you of that fantasy; we had nothing to do with it. The elections and appointments are rigged and have been for years. Our country is run by a fascist corporate oligarchy.

    Ginsberg is at least right to want to do away with super pacs. Corporations should not be able to give money either. They can't vote and they should not be able to sway elections. I am all for limiting political donations to $25 maximum from any domestic source, and eliminating all foreign sources, and the media should be required to provide unedited time and space to candidates to promote their platforms.

    99% of the people want government. Being free of it is something they are not wired for – something they can barely comprehend.

    That 99% is responsible for the litany of problems that government causes. Ten thousand years of abject failure by government and the Celebrated Moron in the Street is still totally clueless .

    Read More
    • Replies: @woodNfish
    You may be right about the first part. It is one of the reasons cops still murder unarmed people with almost total immunity - because people are okay with it.

    Representative democracy is fairly new, so you can't lay all of history at the feet of the "Celebrated Moron in the Street". People who have never known true freedom don't understand what you are talking about, and even you and I have never known true freedom. So you and I and our fellow travellers could all be accused of not knowing true freedom, and in that respect the accusers would be correct. It is an ideal and probably a pipe dream because I don't think our police state will go quietly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. At the end of the day, the U.S. Supreme Shysters–nine unelected, unaccountable, ethics-free megalomaniacs–impose their political and religious views on 320 million Americans. “Constitutional law” no longer has anything to do with the Constitution.

    Ever notice how few of these hacks retire? Do any of them ever say, “Shit, I’m too damn old. I’m over 80, and I just can’t hack it any longer. Time to retire.”? No, these megalomaniacs hang on until they die.

    As for Ginsburg, she’s nothing but a goofy feminist posing as a judge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "At the end of the day, the U.S. Supreme Shysters–nine unelected, unaccountable, ethics-free megalomaniacs–impose their political and religious views on 320 million Americans. “Constitutional law” no longer has anything to do with the Constitution."

    You are correct in stating that the Justices were not elected, but they were nominated, vetted, and voted into their position. Regarding accountability, there is a process involved. It's called checks and balances. Should the Senate find fault with a Court ruling, they are able to pass legislation to circumvent that ruling OR offer a constitutional amendment (which the people also have this discretion). Regarding whether or not the Justices are unethical and full of themselves, you are going to submit some sort of proof here. Finally, it is common for both sides of the political aisle to lament about "constitutional law" no longer having anything to do with the "constitution", especially if a decision does not go their way.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. It is a shame Ginsberg seems to think that an unconvicted war criminal would be beneficial to the US legal system. In addition, the corrupt criminal baggage carried by the Clintons what with the foundation (the real reason the emails were kept secret, in all likelihood) and the multi-millions in disguised bribes given as “speaking fees” and the decades long record of intimidation against people who knew too much about the Clinton activities as chronicled in books by Roger Stone and elsewhere reveal the unfitness for high office of the harpy. She should instead be put on trial for war crimes and for treason, since the war crimes were engaged in to benefit el qaeda factions similar to the one which bombed New York in 2001.

    Read More
    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Avery says:
    @tbraton
    I never understood the "love affair" the late Justice Antonin Scalia had with Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Their legal views were so diametrically opposed that it was difficult to understand the appreciation Scalia had for Ginsberg. Judging from her recent remarks, the admiration was clearly not mutual. What is also abundantly clear is that Justice Ginsberg was blowing smoke when she declared a number of years ago that "Roe v. Wade" was a political mistake since it unnecessarily intruded on the political process and addressed an issue that should have been left for the states to resolve. (I happen to agree. I am probably the only person who thinks "Roe v. Wade" was wrongly decided and still supports a woman's right to choose. BTW Justice Scalia apparently agreed with my position.) Her position was shown to be utter hypocrisy by her recent decision to recognize same-sex marriage as constitutional. When given an opportunity to put her money where her mouth was she failed the test. If "Roe v. Wade" was wrongly decided, then the same can be said about the same-sex marriage decision. Both decisions find absolutely no support in the Constitution as written. What I also find totally hypocritical of Justice Ginsberg is her recognition of affirmative action based on diversity while criticizing the Senate for its failure to approve the nomination of Judge Garland to the Supreme Court, a fourth Jewish justice (44.4% of the 9 justices) when Jews comprise only 2% of the U.S. population. Diversity for thee, not for me.

    I notice that Justice Ginsberg is 83 years old so Trump's questioning of her mental status is not far-fetched. That's why I have suggested a mandatory retirement age of 75 to 80 (max) for all federal judges and Supreme Court justices. I recall reading that Chief Justice Rehnquist, who died while still on the bench just shy of age 81, was less than clear minded in his last few years as Justice. I am not near age 80, but I have lived among many people who were 80 or older, and my judgment is that age is a terrible thing that affects all people regardless of sex, religion and ethnicity. There are very few who live past 80 in full possession of their mental faculties. I think it is clearly time for Justice Ginsberg to retire from the Court.

    {That’s why I have suggested a mandatory retirement age of 75 to 80 (max) for all federal judges and Supreme Court justices. }

    At the time the Constitution was written, no one could possibly expect justices to live to the age of incipient senility. Average life expectancy was around 40 or so then. Does no people died at 40. But I am guessing framers figured “lifetime” appointment meant max to age 60 or thereabouts.

    My observation too of watching relatives reach 80 or so, is that their minds are not as sharp by then. There are exceptions, of course, but nature takes its toll on the mind.

    Since changing the Constitution would be near impossible, judges should voluntarily resign under social pressure. You get appointed to SCOTUS around age 50, you stay there 25 years or so, and step down at 75 (not 80). 25 years is more than enough time to make an impact that the POTUS selecting him/her intended.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    Good point. By way of reference, the great Chief Justice John Marshall, the longest serving Chief Justice in U.S. history, lived to be 80 (just shy of 81) and served 34 years on the Court. Arguably, the last of his great landmark cases, Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) was decided 11 years before his death, when he was 69. Ironically, he was succeeded by Roger Taney who lived to be 87 and wrote the Dred Scott decision, which many argue contributed to the Civil War, in 1857, seven years before he died.
    , @Corvinus
    "At the time the Constitution was written, no one could possibly expect justices to live to the age of incipient senility."

    Please offer specific instances by which current Supreme Court Justices meet the criteria for "incipient senility".

    "Since changing the Constitution would be near impossible, judges should voluntarily resign under social pressure."

    Right, because shaming works. Judges, like anyone, should work until they personally want to retire.
    , @tbraton
    Avery, it seems, while the average age of a normal American was much lower in the early days of the Republic than at present, our upper class Americans seemed to have had relatively long lives. Here is what I found about one very prominent American and the first seven Presidents of the U.S.:

    Ben Franklin---lived to 84 or 85, depending on the calendar used;

    G. Washington--lived to 67, probably because he spent his life in much more active physical pursuits than the others;

    J. Adams--lived to 90+, shy of 91;

    T. Jefferson---lived to 83;

    J. Madison---lived to 85;

    J. Monroe---lived to 73;

    JQ Adams--lived to 81;

    A. Jackson---lived to 78.

    Ben Franklin attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787 when he was roughly 81. By all accounts, this acknowledged genius made little contribution to the debate because his mental skills had withered by the time he passed 80.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. woodNfish says:
    @Drapetomaniac
    99% of the people want government. Being free of it is something they are not wired for - something they can barely comprehend.

    That 99% is responsible for the litany of problems that government causes. Ten thousand years of abject failure by government and the Celebrated Moron in the Street is still totally clueless .

    You may be right about the first part. It is one of the reasons cops still murder unarmed people with almost total immunity – because people are okay with it.

    Representative democracy is fairly new, so you can’t lay all of history at the feet of the “Celebrated Moron in the Street”. People who have never known true freedom don’t understand what you are talking about, and even you and I have never known true freedom. So you and I and our fellow travellers could all be accused of not knowing true freedom, and in that respect the accusers would be correct. It is an ideal and probably a pipe dream because I don’t think our police state will go quietly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Corvinus says:
    @Orville H. Larson
    At the end of the day, the U.S. Supreme Shysters--nine unelected, unaccountable, ethics-free megalomaniacs--impose their political and religious views on 320 million Americans. "Constitutional law" no longer has anything to do with the Constitution.

    Ever notice how few of these hacks retire? Do any of them ever say, "Shit, I'm too damn old. I'm over 80, and I just can't hack it any longer. Time to retire."? No, these megalomaniacs hang on until they die.

    As for Ginsburg, she's nothing but a goofy feminist posing as a judge.

    “At the end of the day, the U.S. Supreme Shysters–nine unelected, unaccountable, ethics-free megalomaniacs–impose their political and religious views on 320 million Americans. “Constitutional law” no longer has anything to do with the Constitution.”

    You are correct in stating that the Justices were not elected, but they were nominated, vetted, and voted into their position. Regarding accountability, there is a process involved. It’s called checks and balances. Should the Senate find fault with a Court ruling, they are able to pass legislation to circumvent that ruling OR offer a constitutional amendment (which the people also have this discretion). Regarding whether or not the Justices are unethical and full of themselves, you are going to submit some sort of proof here. Finally, it is common for both sides of the political aisle to lament about “constitutional law” no longer having anything to do with the “constitution”, especially if a decision does not go their way.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    " . . . Regarding whether or not the justices are unethical and full of themselves, you are going to submit some sort of proof here. . . ."

    Well, when and if the Supreme Shysters are "unethical and full of themselves," it's in the knowledge that they'll suffer no consequences. Ginsburg's comments about Trump are a violation of judicial ethics. Will she have the decency to resign? Not this arrogant hack. Will she be impeached? Exceedingly unlikely. Will any bar association(s) get on her ass? They should, but they won't.

    See what I mean?

    Many years ago, I read "The Brethren" by Woodward and Bernstein. If memory serves me correctly, it quoted Warren Burger as saying, "We're the Supreme Court and we can do what we want."

    Need I say more?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Corvinus says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    I've noticed that women in particular become incredibly outspoken and unrestrained shortly before their ultimate demise, as if the felt approach of imminent doom gives them license to let it all hang out.

    RBG is probably not long for this world. I would not be surprised if it's just a matter of months.

    “I’ve noticed that women in particular become incredibly outspoken and unrestrained shortly before their ultimate demise, as if the felt approach of imminent doom gives them license to let it all hang out.”

    I’ve noticed that it’s men who are more likely to take this course of action. Interesting.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Corvinus says:
    @Diversity Heretic
    As Pat notes, the ravings of an increasingly senile Supreme Court Justice constitute useful insights (as if any were really needed) of the mental processes by which they reach their decisions. Interpretation of the Constitution has nothing to do with it.

    “As Pat notes, the ravings of an increasingly senile Supreme Court Justice constitute useful insights (as if any were really needed) of the mental processes by which they reach their decisions.”

    The level of sophistication in the writing of the current Justices is anything less than senile. Do you even know what that word means?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. tbraton says:
    @Avery
    {That’s why I have suggested a mandatory retirement age of 75 to 80 (max) for all federal judges and Supreme Court justices. }

    At the time the Constitution was written, no one could possibly expect justices to live to the age of incipient senility. Average life expectancy was around 40 or so then. Does no people died at 40. But I am guessing framers figured "lifetime" appointment meant max to age 60 or thereabouts.

    My observation too of watching relatives reach 80 or so, is that their minds are not as sharp by then. There are exceptions, of course, but nature takes its toll on the mind.

    Since changing the Constitution would be near impossible, judges should voluntarily resign under social pressure. You get appointed to SCOTUS around age 50, you stay there 25 years or so, and step down at 75 (not 80). 25 years is more than enough time to make an impact that the POTUS selecting him/her intended.

    Good point. By way of reference, the great Chief Justice John Marshall, the longest serving Chief Justice in U.S. history, lived to be 80 (just shy of 81) and served 34 years on the Court. Arguably, the last of his great landmark cases, Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) was decided 11 years before his death, when he was 69. Ironically, he was succeeded by Roger Taney who lived to be 87 and wrote the Dred Scott decision, which many argue contributed to the Civil War, in 1857, seven years before he died.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Corvinus says:
    @Avery
    {That’s why I have suggested a mandatory retirement age of 75 to 80 (max) for all federal judges and Supreme Court justices. }

    At the time the Constitution was written, no one could possibly expect justices to live to the age of incipient senility. Average life expectancy was around 40 or so then. Does no people died at 40. But I am guessing framers figured "lifetime" appointment meant max to age 60 or thereabouts.

    My observation too of watching relatives reach 80 or so, is that their minds are not as sharp by then. There are exceptions, of course, but nature takes its toll on the mind.

    Since changing the Constitution would be near impossible, judges should voluntarily resign under social pressure. You get appointed to SCOTUS around age 50, you stay there 25 years or so, and step down at 75 (not 80). 25 years is more than enough time to make an impact that the POTUS selecting him/her intended.

    “At the time the Constitution was written, no one could possibly expect justices to live to the age of incipient senility.”

    Please offer specific instances by which current Supreme Court Justices meet the criteria for “incipient senility”.

    “Since changing the Constitution would be near impossible, judges should voluntarily resign under social pressure.”

    Right, because shaming works. Judges, like anyone, should work until they personally want to retire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Judges, like anyone, should work until they personally want to retire.}

    Really?
    You want to be in an airplane piloted by a 90 year old, who does not want to retire?
    I could list a whole lot of other occupations: 80 year old police officer? firefighter?........


    {Please offer specific instances by which current Supreme Court Justices meet the criteria for “incipient senility”.}

    Since medical records of SCOTUS are not public information, I regret that I will not be able to offer specific instances.

    But SCOTUS members are appointed from the population of Americans.
    They are not alien beings immune to medical conditions affecting everybody else.

    Specific statistics argue against your argument:
    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/147/6/574.full.pdf
    TABLE 2, Page 4.

    Age category Men No of cases Men Incidence rate
    55-59..............1......................1.4
    60-64..............1......................0.9
    65-69 1 0.8
    70-74 5 4.5
    75-79 12 14.8
    80-84 12 25.1
    85-89 6 28.6

    Age category Women No of cases Women Incidence rate
    55-59..............0........................0.0
    60-64..............2........................1.2
    65-69 3 1.9
    70-74 6 3.6
    75-79 25 17.8
    80-84 26 25.2
    85-89 35 50.4

    (UNZ.com software flushed the spaces in the table I tried to reproduce)

    Please notice the dramatic rise in Incidence rate starting 75.

    _________
    And......
    {In a difficult footnote to the Reagan Centennial celebration, questions persist about Ronald Reagan's mental status during his White House days.

    When did the Alzheimer's disease start? The debate has provoked the latest Reagan family feud. In his new book "My Father at 100," Ron Reagan contends his father showed signs of Alzheimer's Disease three years into his first term. He said he noticed it in the president's performance in the Oct.7, 1984, campaign debate with Democratic challenger Walter Mondale.

    He writes, "My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered."

    "Knowing what we know now, about the nature of Alzheimer's disease, we know that, decades before symptoms begin arriving, changes are happening in the brain," Ron Reagan adds.} ( By Peter Maer CBS News February 6, 2011, 12:00 PM)

    , @tbraton
    You are obviously ignorant of the great jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who lived to be just two days shy of 93 but retired from the Supreme Court at 90, the oldest Justice in our history. It was generally recognized by his colleagues on the Court that Holmes' great mental faculties had clearly deteriorated in his later years, as evidenced by the short, cryptic opinions he wrote when assigned an opinion to write. The story is told about how in his later years on the Supreme Court a couple of his colleagues on the Court approached him and politely suggested that he might want to retire. They evoked an early incident that occurred during Holmes early years on the Court (he served from 1902 to 1932) when the task fell to him, being the most recent Court appointee, to approach an elderly Justice whose mental faculties were clearly on the wane to politely suggest that the Justice might want to step down. Justice Holmes' immediate response to the Justices who were approaching him suggesting the very same thing was "and a nastier piece of business I never did in my life." So, it is human nature to deny our own deterioration of skills, and a great resistance to retiring from is a pretty prestigious job. That's why I have suggested a mandatory retirement age of 75 for all Federal judges and Justices. By speaking out so openly on a matter that any judge should refrain from discussing, Justice Ginsberg has established that at age 83 she is losing command over her mental faculties. BTW I have suggested in another post that the word was the former Chief Justice Rehnquist had a less than clear mind during the last couple of years on the Court, and he died just a month shy of 81 while still sitting on the Court.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Avery says:
    @Corvinus
    "At the time the Constitution was written, no one could possibly expect justices to live to the age of incipient senility."

    Please offer specific instances by which current Supreme Court Justices meet the criteria for "incipient senility".

    "Since changing the Constitution would be near impossible, judges should voluntarily resign under social pressure."

    Right, because shaming works. Judges, like anyone, should work until they personally want to retire.

    {Judges, like anyone, should work until they personally want to retire.}

    Really?
    You want to be in an airplane piloted by a 90 year old, who does not want to retire?
    I could list a whole lot of other occupations: 80 year old police officer? firefighter?……..


    {Please offer specific instances by which current Supreme Court Justices meet the criteria for “incipient senility”.}

    Since medical records of SCOTUS are not public information, I regret that I will not be able to offer specific instances.

    But SCOTUS members are appointed from the population of Americans.
    They are not alien beings immune to medical conditions affecting everybody else.

    Specific statistics argue against your argument:

    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/147/6/574.full.pdf

    TABLE 2, Page 4.

    Age category Men No of cases Men Incidence rate
    55-59…………..1………………….1.4
    60-64…………..1………………….0.9
    65-69 1 0.8
    70-74 5 4.5
    75-79 12 14.8
    80-84 12 25.1
    85-89 6 28.6

    Age category Women No of cases Women Incidence rate
    55-59…………..0……………………0.0
    60-64…………..2……………………1.2
    65-69 3 1.9
    70-74 6 3.6
    75-79 25 17.8
    80-84 26 25.2
    85-89 35 50.4

    (UNZ.com software flushed the spaces in the table I tried to reproduce)

    Please notice the dramatic rise in Incidence rate starting 75.

    _________
    And……
    {In a difficult footnote to the Reagan Centennial celebration, questions persist about Ronald Reagan’s mental status during his White House days.

    When did the Alzheimer’s disease start? The debate has provoked the latest Reagan family feud. In his new book “My Father at 100,” Ron Reagan contends his father showed signs of Alzheimer’s Disease three years into his first term. He said he noticed it in the president’s performance in the Oct.7, 1984, campaign debate with Democratic challenger Walter Mondale.

    He writes, “My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered.”

    “Knowing what we know now, about the nature of Alzheimer’s disease, we know that, decades before symptoms begin arriving, changes are happening in the brain,” Ron Reagan adds.} ( By Peter Maer CBS News February 6, 2011, 12:00 PM)

    Read More
    • Agree: tbraton
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You want to be in an airplane piloted by a 90 year old, who does not want to retire? I could list a whole lot of other occupations: 80 year old police officer? firefighter?"

    The occupations you listed are decidedly more physical in nature compared to a judge, although these three fields do require mental acumen.

    "Since medical records of SCOTUS are not public information, I regret that I will not be able to offer specific instances."

    Actually, you are able to offer particular examples of their "incipient senility" by looking at the rationale of their legal decisions and to what extent their reasoning meets the criteria.

    "They are not alien beings immune to medical conditions affecting everybody else."

    Absolutely, but you do NOT have the requisite proof to demonstrate that the justices are suffering from dementia or are in the early stages of Alzheimer's which is clearly hampering their ability to perform their judicial responsibilities. You have in essence, a hunch.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. tbraton says:
    @Corvinus
    "At the time the Constitution was written, no one could possibly expect justices to live to the age of incipient senility."

    Please offer specific instances by which current Supreme Court Justices meet the criteria for "incipient senility".

    "Since changing the Constitution would be near impossible, judges should voluntarily resign under social pressure."

    Right, because shaming works. Judges, like anyone, should work until they personally want to retire.

    You are obviously ignorant of the great jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who lived to be just two days shy of 93 but retired from the Supreme Court at 90, the oldest Justice in our history. It was generally recognized by his colleagues on the Court that Holmes’ great mental faculties had clearly deteriorated in his later years, as evidenced by the short, cryptic opinions he wrote when assigned an opinion to write. The story is told about how in his later years on the Supreme Court a couple of his colleagues on the Court approached him and politely suggested that he might want to retire. They evoked an early incident that occurred during Holmes early years on the Court (he served from 1902 to 1932) when the task fell to him, being the most recent Court appointee, to approach an elderly Justice whose mental faculties were clearly on the wane to politely suggest that the Justice might want to step down. Justice Holmes’ immediate response to the Justices who were approaching him suggesting the very same thing was “and a nastier piece of business I never did in my life.” So, it is human nature to deny our own deterioration of skills, and a great resistance to retiring from is a pretty prestigious job. That’s why I have suggested a mandatory retirement age of 75 for all Federal judges and Justices. By speaking out so openly on a matter that any judge should refrain from discussing, Justice Ginsberg has established that at age 83 she is losing command over her mental faculties. BTW I have suggested in another post that the word was the former Chief Justice Rehnquist had a less than clear mind during the last couple of years on the Court, and he died just a month shy of 81 while still sitting on the Court.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    One example of an allegedly decrepit Justice does not mean current federal judges of a certain age are in or will fall to his level of mental faculty.

    "By speaking out so openly on a matter that any judge should refrain from discussing, Justice Ginsberg has established that at age 83 she is losing command over her mental faculties."

    That's ridiculous. She spoke out freely on a matter that she indeed she should have refrained from commenting in light of Supreme Court tradition. Generally speaking, Justices are to keep their political opinions to themselves. I do not fault ANY Justice, not even Scalia, however, when they have spoken candidly about their own personal political leanings during a university commencement or at a speaking engagement. Her breach of etiquette does NOT mean she is "losing command over her mental faculties", it just means she made a poor decision in light of the political firestorm known as the Election of 2016.

    "So, it is human nature to deny our own deterioration of skills, and a great resistance to retiring from is a pretty prestigious job."

    Except there is scant evidence to suggest her mental sharpness and focus as a Justice is indeed deteriorating.
    , @Orville H. Larson
    There's nothing wrong with your suggestion that federal judges pack it in at age 75. Here in Minnesota, judicial retirement age is 70. Minnesota's courts get along just fine.

    " . . . By speaking out so openly on a matter that any judge should refrain from discussing, Justice Ginsburg has established that at age 83 she is losing command over her mental faculties. . . ."

    Maybe, but I'm inclined to think she's an arrogant Supreme Shyster. . . .
    , @Anon
    We've gotten along for over 200 years without mandatory Supreme Court retirement. When they get old and doddery, everyone knows their law clerks do all the opinion writing. The clerks just ask their Justice for a yes or no and take it from there. The old dears scarcely have to do anything.

    One problem with a mandatory retirement age has to do with age clustering. By the time any Justice has achieved enough stature to be appointed to the Supreme Court, they tend to be old. If this law is in place, it's very possible that one President serving an 8-year term could end up seeing the whole bench retire, and end up replacing every single Justice. No way do I want someone like Hillary Clinton having this sort of opportunity. If it weren't for Justices who hang on, the Republic would not survive certain administrations, especially ones with radicalized, nutjob leftist presidents. The latter may become more common with time if we can't stop immigration.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Darth Vader Ginsburg has recanted. Turns out she was a faker who said whatever came into her head.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Darth Vader Ginsburg. That's a keeper.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Art says:

    The Jews control most all of national government except the Supreme Court.

    There are three Jews on the court – with Merrick Garland it would be four. On every political case before them, they would vote as a block.

    If a fifth Jew justice was to come about, America would be totally over as a free republic. Free speech and the right to bear arms would die – that is 100% for sure.

    People are total fools to think that the Jews have any other plan of action.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "There are three Jews on the court"

    Sotomayor is part Jewish.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    Ginsburg: aggressive Jewish ‘progressive’.

    Kennedy: recessive White ‘progressive’(posing as ‘conservative’)

    The difference between Jewish Progs(‘progressives’) and White Progs is the former are nasty, aggressive, judgmental, accusatory, and self-righteous whereas the latter are self-critical, redemptive, apologetic, and sympathetic.

    For Jews, ‘progressivism’ is the hand to slap whites with. For whites, ‘progressivism’ is the cheek to be slapped upon(usually by Jews and Negroes).

    Progotry is different things for different people.

    It makes some people critically examine their own power and privilege.
    It makes other people blatantly promote and elevate their own power and privilege.

    Ginsburg is a nasty Jewish Supremacist who uses ‘progressive’ in the most ill-mannered way. Her kind pretend to furthering ‘progress’ when in fact they move pieces on the chessboard to secure Jewish supremacism.

    After all, if Ginsburg is really for ‘diversity’ and ‘affirmative action’, she should call for Jews being categorized as a separate group than included among whites since Jewish whites do so much better than gentile whites.

    But no word on that from her kind.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website
    @Art
    The Jews control most all of national government except the Supreme Court.

    There are three Jews on the court – with Merrick Garland it would be four. On every political case before them, they would vote as a block.

    If a fifth Jew justice was to come about, America would be totally over as a free republic. Free speech and the right to bear arms would die – that is 100% for sure.

    People are total fools to think that the Jews have any other plan of action.

    “There are three Jews on the court”

    Sotomayor is part Jewish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    Sotomayor is part Jewish.

    Anonymny,

    I did not know - I'm slipping - then Garland makes five Jews - every political decision will be come down Jew centric - Jew centered Social Justice Warrior will win everything. Speech and guns will go away.

    Art

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Corvinus says:
    @Avery
    {Judges, like anyone, should work until they personally want to retire.}

    Really?
    You want to be in an airplane piloted by a 90 year old, who does not want to retire?
    I could list a whole lot of other occupations: 80 year old police officer? firefighter?........


    {Please offer specific instances by which current Supreme Court Justices meet the criteria for “incipient senility”.}

    Since medical records of SCOTUS are not public information, I regret that I will not be able to offer specific instances.

    But SCOTUS members are appointed from the population of Americans.
    They are not alien beings immune to medical conditions affecting everybody else.

    Specific statistics argue against your argument:
    http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/147/6/574.full.pdf
    TABLE 2, Page 4.

    Age category Men No of cases Men Incidence rate
    55-59..............1......................1.4
    60-64..............1......................0.9
    65-69 1 0.8
    70-74 5 4.5
    75-79 12 14.8
    80-84 12 25.1
    85-89 6 28.6

    Age category Women No of cases Women Incidence rate
    55-59..............0........................0.0
    60-64..............2........................1.2
    65-69 3 1.9
    70-74 6 3.6
    75-79 25 17.8
    80-84 26 25.2
    85-89 35 50.4

    (UNZ.com software flushed the spaces in the table I tried to reproduce)

    Please notice the dramatic rise in Incidence rate starting 75.

    _________
    And......
    {In a difficult footnote to the Reagan Centennial celebration, questions persist about Ronald Reagan's mental status during his White House days.

    When did the Alzheimer's disease start? The debate has provoked the latest Reagan family feud. In his new book "My Father at 100," Ron Reagan contends his father showed signs of Alzheimer's Disease three years into his first term. He said he noticed it in the president's performance in the Oct.7, 1984, campaign debate with Democratic challenger Walter Mondale.

    He writes, "My heart sank as he floundered his way through his responses, fumbling with his notes, uncharacteristically lost for words. He looked tired and bewildered."

    "Knowing what we know now, about the nature of Alzheimer's disease, we know that, decades before symptoms begin arriving, changes are happening in the brain," Ron Reagan adds.} ( By Peter Maer CBS News February 6, 2011, 12:00 PM)

    “You want to be in an airplane piloted by a 90 year old, who does not want to retire? I could list a whole lot of other occupations: 80 year old police officer? firefighter?”

    The occupations you listed are decidedly more physical in nature compared to a judge, although these three fields do require mental acumen.

    “Since medical records of SCOTUS are not public information, I regret that I will not be able to offer specific instances.”

    Actually, you are able to offer particular examples of their “incipient senility” by looking at the rationale of their legal decisions and to what extent their reasoning meets the criteria.

    “They are not alien beings immune to medical conditions affecting everybody else.”

    Absolutely, but you do NOT have the requisite proof to demonstrate that the justices are suffering from dementia or are in the early stages of Alzheimer’s which is clearly hampering their ability to perform their judicial responsibilities. You have in essence, a hunch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Actually, you are able to offer particular examples of their “incipient senility” by looking at the rationale of their legal decisions and to what extent their reasoning meets the criteria."

    Reading the decisions may tell you a lot more about the mental status of their law clerks than of the Justices. It was long reputed that the late Justice Thurgood Marshall left the writing of the decisions that were assigned to him to his law clerks. The one way to judge their mental faculties is to observe the Justices during oral arguments or during private interviews with the Justices, but the only persons who do that on a regular basis are the reporters assigned to the Supreme Court. They have little incentive to "spill the beans" on a mentally-wobbly Justice since it might affect their status and relationships with the Justices, especially a very liberal Justice like Justice Ginsberg.
    , @Avery
    {The occupations you listed are decidedly more physical in nature compared to a judge, although these three fields do require mental acumen.}

    This is exactly what you wrote:
    {Judges, like anyone, should work until they personally want to retire.}

    No qualifiers. "like anyone".
    Yes? Yes.
    So you either don't know what you are writing about, or you got caught in an illogical statement and are trying to dance out of it: Which is it?

    And, Yes: police officers and firefighters definitely require physical strength, stamina, speed,..
    But hardly an airline pilot: with fly-by-fire technology, hardy any physical strength is required.
    Sharp eyes and a sharp mind to handle any emergencies that the computers cannot handle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    The nature of ‘free speech’ changes from group to group, situation to situation, with each side saying “We believe in free speech but not hate speech”, which really means “Free speech for me, but not for thee.”

    After all, ‘hate speech’ is a subjective concept. What is ‘hate’ to one group is justice to another. Zionism may be historical justice for Jews, but it is imperialist hatred to Palestinians.

    And who should decide which groups should be especially protected and on what criteria?

    Would Jews support ‘hate speech’ laws IF they could be formulated by Palestinian-Americans? Would Jews support ‘hate speech’ laws IF they could be formulated by Christian Conservatives or White Nationalists?

    No, Jews will only support ‘hate speech’ laws of their own devising that favors and protects. their own interests.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Corvinus says:
    @tbraton
    You are obviously ignorant of the great jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who lived to be just two days shy of 93 but retired from the Supreme Court at 90, the oldest Justice in our history. It was generally recognized by his colleagues on the Court that Holmes' great mental faculties had clearly deteriorated in his later years, as evidenced by the short, cryptic opinions he wrote when assigned an opinion to write. The story is told about how in his later years on the Supreme Court a couple of his colleagues on the Court approached him and politely suggested that he might want to retire. They evoked an early incident that occurred during Holmes early years on the Court (he served from 1902 to 1932) when the task fell to him, being the most recent Court appointee, to approach an elderly Justice whose mental faculties were clearly on the wane to politely suggest that the Justice might want to step down. Justice Holmes' immediate response to the Justices who were approaching him suggesting the very same thing was "and a nastier piece of business I never did in my life." So, it is human nature to deny our own deterioration of skills, and a great resistance to retiring from is a pretty prestigious job. That's why I have suggested a mandatory retirement age of 75 for all Federal judges and Justices. By speaking out so openly on a matter that any judge should refrain from discussing, Justice Ginsberg has established that at age 83 she is losing command over her mental faculties. BTW I have suggested in another post that the word was the former Chief Justice Rehnquist had a less than clear mind during the last couple of years on the Court, and he died just a month shy of 81 while still sitting on the Court.

    One example of an allegedly decrepit Justice does not mean current federal judges of a certain age are in or will fall to his level of mental faculty.

    “By speaking out so openly on a matter that any judge should refrain from discussing, Justice Ginsberg has established that at age 83 she is losing command over her mental faculties.”

    That’s ridiculous. She spoke out freely on a matter that she indeed she should have refrained from commenting in light of Supreme Court tradition. Generally speaking, Justices are to keep their political opinions to themselves. I do not fault ANY Justice, not even Scalia, however, when they have spoken candidly about their own personal political leanings during a university commencement or at a speaking engagement. Her breach of etiquette does NOT mean she is “losing command over her mental faculties”, it just means she made a poor decision in light of the political firestorm known as the Election of 2016.

    “So, it is human nature to deny our own deterioration of skills, and a great resistance to retiring from is a pretty prestigious job.”

    Except there is scant evidence to suggest her mental sharpness and focus as a Justice is indeed deteriorating.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "Her breach of etiquette does NOT mean she is “losing command over her mental faculties”, it just means she made a poor decision in light of the political firestorm known as the Election of 2016."

    Her remarks were a clear breach of the ethical rules which apply to all federal judges. http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#f (see especially Canon 5: "A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity") Her remarks would have been considered out of line by a sitting Justice regardless of the election and regardless of the party. Your defense of Judge Ginsberg's actions is beyond silly. When the NY Times agrees with Donald Trump on this issue, you can be certain that Justice Ginsberg breached the rules in a blatant manner. I think it's a clear sign that she is at an age (83) when the mind starts to go if it hasn't gone already.
    , @Art
    Say Corvinus,

    No matter what the Jews do - you make excuses for them - what are we to think?

    Hmm - Art
    , @Former Darfur
    I have a friend whose father is in his mid-80s and regularly flies several aircraft including a King Air and a T-6. He is at this moment perfectly safe, in my opinion, but I would not support his or anyone else's being allowed to fly commercial airliners at that age. Airline pilots must retire at 65-it used to be 60, and was stretched five years after decades of lobbying-and this is a good thing.

    Retiring creates slots for new people, and allows the retired to do other things, such as sharing their experience with others in educational or other settings. It also gets the great and rebarbative alike out of the way, to be replaced by fresh choices, for good or ill.

    All Federal judges should be required to retire at a certain age or after a certain length of service.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. tbraton says:
    @Avery
    {That’s why I have suggested a mandatory retirement age of 75 to 80 (max) for all federal judges and Supreme Court justices. }

    At the time the Constitution was written, no one could possibly expect justices to live to the age of incipient senility. Average life expectancy was around 40 or so then. Does no people died at 40. But I am guessing framers figured "lifetime" appointment meant max to age 60 or thereabouts.

    My observation too of watching relatives reach 80 or so, is that their minds are not as sharp by then. There are exceptions, of course, but nature takes its toll on the mind.

    Since changing the Constitution would be near impossible, judges should voluntarily resign under social pressure. You get appointed to SCOTUS around age 50, you stay there 25 years or so, and step down at 75 (not 80). 25 years is more than enough time to make an impact that the POTUS selecting him/her intended.

    Avery, it seems, while the average age of a normal American was much lower in the early days of the Republic than at present, our upper class Americans seemed to have had relatively long lives. Here is what I found about one very prominent American and the first seven Presidents of the U.S.:

    Ben Franklin—lived to 84 or 85, depending on the calendar used;

    G. Washington–lived to 67, probably because he spent his life in much more active physical pursuits than the others;

    J. Adams–lived to 90+, shy of 91;

    T. Jefferson—lived to 83;

    J. Madison—lived to 85;

    J. Monroe—lived to 73;

    JQ Adams–lived to 81;

    A. Jackson—lived to 78.

    Ben Franklin attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787 when he was roughly 81. By all accounts, this acknowledged genius made little contribution to the debate because his mental skills had withered by the time he passed 80.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    tbraton:

    yes, the life expectancy was around 40, but from what I understand, the upper limit for humans has not changed much in 1,000s of years. It is estimated to be 110-120.

    Newton died at 84 in 1727.
    Galileo died at 77 in 1642.

    People died in those days from causes that are routinely treated today: broken legs, infections, bleeding, food poisoning, bad hygiene, minor cuts leading to fatal infections, ....
    So the life expectancy was quite low.
    -------------------------------------------
    The Age of the Delegates in 1787

    Age — 20s
    Jonathon Dayton (NJ) — (1760 — 1824) — Age: 26
    John F. Mercer (MD) — (1759 – 1821) — Age: 28
    Richard Dobbs Spaight (NC) — (1758 – 1802) — Age: 29
    Charles Pinckney (SC) — (1757 – 1824) — Age: 29

    Age – 30s
    William R. Davie (NC) — (1756 – 1820) — Age: 30
    Alexander Hamilton (NY) — (1757 – 1804) — Age: 30
    Nicholas Gilman (NH) — (1755 – 1814) — Age: 32
    William Houstoun (GA) — (1755 – 1813) — Age: 32
    Rufus King (MA) — (1755 – 1827) — Age: 32
    John Lansing, Jr. (NY) — (1754 – 1829) — Age: 32
    Abraham Baldwin (GA) — (1754 – 1807) — Age: 33
    Edmund J. Randolph (VA) — (1753 – 1813) — Age: 34
    Gouverneur Morris (PA) — (1752 – 1816) — Age: 35
    Jacob Broom (DE) — (1752 – 1810) — Age: 35
    James Madison Jr. (VA) — (1751 – 1836) — Age: 36
    Jared Ingersoll (PA) — (1749 – 1822) — Age: 37
    William Few (GA) — (1748 – 1828) — Age: 39
    Luther Martin (MD) — (1748 – 1826) — Age: 39

    Age – 40s
    Gunning Bedford, Jr. (DE) — (1747 – 1812) — Age: 40
    Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (SC) — (1746 – 1825) — Age: 41
    William C. Houston (NJ) — (1746 – 1788) — Age: 41
    James McClurg (VA) — (1746 – 1823) — Age: 41
    William Paterson (NJ) — (1745 – 1806) — Age: 41
    Richard Bassett (DE) — (1745 – 1815) — Age: 42
    Oliver Ellsworth (CT) — (1745 – 1807) — Age: 42
    David Brearly (NJ) — (1745 – 1790) — Age: 42
    Caleb Strong (MA) — (1745 – 1819) — Age: 42
    Pierce Butler (SC) — (1744 – 1822) — Age: 43
    William Blount (NC) — (1744 – 1800) — Age: 43
    Elbridge Gerry (MA) — (1744 – 1814) — Age: 43
    Thomas Mifflin (PA) — (1744 – 1800) — Age: 43
    James McHenry (MD) — (1743 – 1816) — Age: 44
    James Wilson (PA) — (1742 – 1798) — Age: 45
    John Langdon (NH) — (1741 – 1818) — Age: 46
    Thomas Fitzsimons (PA) — (1741 – 1811) — Age: 46
    Alexander Martin (NC) — (1740 – 1807) — Age: 47
    William L. Pierce (GA) — (1740 – 1789) — Age: 47
    George Clymer (PA) — (1739 – 1813) — Age: 48
    John Rutledge (SC) — (1739 – 1800) — Age: 48
    Nathaniel Gorham (MA) — (1738 – 1796) — Age: 49
    Robert Yates (NY) — (1738 – 1801) — Age: 49

    Age – 50+
    Hugh Williamson (NC) — (1735 – 1819) — Age: 52
    Robert Morris (PA) — (1734 – 1806) — Age: 53
    George Read (DE) — (1733 – 1798) — Age: 53
    John Blair (VA) — (1732 – 1800) — Age: 55
    John Dickinson (DE) — (1732 – 1808) — Age: 55
    George Washington (VA) — (1732 – 1799) — Age: 55
    Daniel Carroll (MD) — (1730 – 1796) — Age: 57
    William Samuel Johnson (CT) — (1727 – 1819) — Age: 59
    George Wythe (VA) — (1726 – 1806) — Age: 61
    George Mason (VA) — (1725 – 1792) — Age: 62
    William Livingston (NJ) — (1723 – 1790) — Age: 63
    Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer (MD) — (1723 – 1790) — Age: 64
    Roger Sherman (CT) — (1721 – 1793) — Age: 66
    Benjamin Franklin (PA) — (1706 – 1790) — Age: 81
    -----------------------
    {By all accounts, this acknowledged genius made little contribution to the debate because his mental skills had withered by the time he passed 80.}

    Exactly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. tbraton says:
    @Corvinus
    One example of an allegedly decrepit Justice does not mean current federal judges of a certain age are in or will fall to his level of mental faculty.

    "By speaking out so openly on a matter that any judge should refrain from discussing, Justice Ginsberg has established that at age 83 she is losing command over her mental faculties."

    That's ridiculous. She spoke out freely on a matter that she indeed she should have refrained from commenting in light of Supreme Court tradition. Generally speaking, Justices are to keep their political opinions to themselves. I do not fault ANY Justice, not even Scalia, however, when they have spoken candidly about their own personal political leanings during a university commencement or at a speaking engagement. Her breach of etiquette does NOT mean she is "losing command over her mental faculties", it just means she made a poor decision in light of the political firestorm known as the Election of 2016.

    "So, it is human nature to deny our own deterioration of skills, and a great resistance to retiring from is a pretty prestigious job."

    Except there is scant evidence to suggest her mental sharpness and focus as a Justice is indeed deteriorating.

    “Her breach of etiquette does NOT mean she is “losing command over her mental faculties”, it just means she made a poor decision in light of the political firestorm known as the Election of 2016.”

    Her remarks were a clear breach of the ethical rules which apply to all federal judges. http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#f (see especially Canon 5: “A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity”) Her remarks would have been considered out of line by a sitting Justice regardless of the election and regardless of the party. Your defense of Judge Ginsberg’s actions is beyond silly. When the NY Times agrees with Donald Trump on this issue, you can be certain that Justice Ginsberg breached the rules in a blatant manner. I think it’s a clear sign that she is at an age (83) when the mind starts to go if it hasn’t gone already.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Her remarks were a clear breach of the ethical rules which apply to all federal judges..."

    Which I duly noted.

    "Her remarks would have been considered out of line by a sitting Justice regardless of the election and regardless of the party."

    Yes.

    "Your defense of Judge Ginsberg’s actions is beyond silly."

    I stated that she made a poor decision, that her statement was a clear violation of those standards. My "defense" of her is based on YOUR conclusion that this one incident is a tell-tale sign of her mind being "gone".

    "It was long reputed that the late Justice Thurgood Marshall left the writing of the decisions that were assigned to him to his law clerks. "

    Reputed, as in reported or alleged. You do not know for certain.

    "They have little incentive to “spill the beans” on a mentally-wobbly Justice since it might affect their status and relationships with the Justices, especially a very liberal Justice like Justice Ginsberg."

    Assuming that the reporters have something to hide or are covering something up. What you are doing is speculating, but making it appear that it is entirely factual.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. tbraton says:
    @Corvinus
    "You want to be in an airplane piloted by a 90 year old, who does not want to retire? I could list a whole lot of other occupations: 80 year old police officer? firefighter?"

    The occupations you listed are decidedly more physical in nature compared to a judge, although these three fields do require mental acumen.

    "Since medical records of SCOTUS are not public information, I regret that I will not be able to offer specific instances."

    Actually, you are able to offer particular examples of their "incipient senility" by looking at the rationale of their legal decisions and to what extent their reasoning meets the criteria.

    "They are not alien beings immune to medical conditions affecting everybody else."

    Absolutely, but you do NOT have the requisite proof to demonstrate that the justices are suffering from dementia or are in the early stages of Alzheimer's which is clearly hampering their ability to perform their judicial responsibilities. You have in essence, a hunch.

    “Actually, you are able to offer particular examples of their “incipient senility” by looking at the rationale of their legal decisions and to what extent their reasoning meets the criteria.”

    Reading the decisions may tell you a lot more about the mental status of their law clerks than of the Justices. It was long reputed that the late Justice Thurgood Marshall left the writing of the decisions that were assigned to him to his law clerks. The one way to judge their mental faculties is to observe the Justices during oral arguments or during private interviews with the Justices, but the only persons who do that on a regular basis are the reporters assigned to the Supreme Court. They have little incentive to “spill the beans” on a mentally-wobbly Justice since it might affect their status and relationships with the Justices, especially a very liberal Justice like Justice Ginsberg.

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

    I am very unhappy with liberals and see them as very destructive towards Torah values and objective morality. The fact that she is Jewish does not help in the slightest since her view oppose the Law of Moses. In the Torah you will find that Jewish people do not get a pass when they transgress the law of God.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Art says:
    @Corvinus
    One example of an allegedly decrepit Justice does not mean current federal judges of a certain age are in or will fall to his level of mental faculty.

    "By speaking out so openly on a matter that any judge should refrain from discussing, Justice Ginsberg has established that at age 83 she is losing command over her mental faculties."

    That's ridiculous. She spoke out freely on a matter that she indeed she should have refrained from commenting in light of Supreme Court tradition. Generally speaking, Justices are to keep their political opinions to themselves. I do not fault ANY Justice, not even Scalia, however, when they have spoken candidly about their own personal political leanings during a university commencement or at a speaking engagement. Her breach of etiquette does NOT mean she is "losing command over her mental faculties", it just means she made a poor decision in light of the political firestorm known as the Election of 2016.

    "So, it is human nature to deny our own deterioration of skills, and a great resistance to retiring from is a pretty prestigious job."

    Except there is scant evidence to suggest her mental sharpness and focus as a Justice is indeed deteriorating.

    Say Corvinus,

    No matter what the Jews do – you make excuses for them – what are we to think?

    Hmm – Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    BOO! The Jews are everywhere, infiltrating American society. They are responsible for EVERY problem the United States currently faces.

    Maybe, just maybe, you are Jewish yourself and are jealous of the success of your brethren, but take it out on them.

    So, Art, what are you doing about this travesty of justice? Why not actually get out there and inform the masses through a grass roots effort about the "Jewish conspiracy"? Or, are you just that impotent?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Art says:
    @Priss Factor
    "There are three Jews on the court"

    Sotomayor is part Jewish.

    Sotomayor is part Jewish.

    Anonymny,

    I did not know – I’m slipping – then Garland makes five Jews – every political decision will be come down Jew centric – Jew centered Social Justice Warrior will win everything. Speech and guns will go away.

    Art

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. iSteveFan says:
    @Rehmat
    Like a typical Zionist Jew justice Ginsburg is not happy even though her tribe makes less than 2% of American population it has three red-blooded Jew judges out of current eight at the Supreme Court. The rest are committed Zionist Christians.

    However, I must admit Ginsburg was right about moving to New Zealand - and Pat Buchanan should consider it seriously too. After all, New Zealand is a White Christian occupied country - and like United States, is ruled by a tiny Jewish minority.

    In September 2014, John Phillip Key, son of a Austrian Jewish immigrant won his third term as prime minister of New Zealand. Key, in fact is the third prime minister of the country with Jewish family roots. Julius Vogel served in the 1870s and Sir Francis Henry Dillon Bell, who later converted to Christianity, was at the helm for two weeks in 1925. In addition to that Auckland had seven Mayors throughout its history. New Zealand is home to only 7,000 Jews.

    Key is a blind supporter of Israel. His top two propagandists, David Farrar and Cameron Slater have close links with Netanyahu’s Likud Jewish racist party. Their websites are consistently pro-Israel and follow the Zionist narrative of the bad Hamas raining bombs on the poor Israelis while in fact the IDF bombed the Gaza strip killing thousands of civilians, destroying over 80.000 homes and infrastructure.....

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/12/24/new-zealand-occupied-by-jewish-minority/

    After all, New Zealand is a White Christian occupied country

    Can you elaborate on that statement?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Avery says:
    @tbraton
    Avery, it seems, while the average age of a normal American was much lower in the early days of the Republic than at present, our upper class Americans seemed to have had relatively long lives. Here is what I found about one very prominent American and the first seven Presidents of the U.S.:

    Ben Franklin---lived to 84 or 85, depending on the calendar used;

    G. Washington--lived to 67, probably because he spent his life in much more active physical pursuits than the others;

    J. Adams--lived to 90+, shy of 91;

    T. Jefferson---lived to 83;

    J. Madison---lived to 85;

    J. Monroe---lived to 73;

    JQ Adams--lived to 81;

    A. Jackson---lived to 78.

    Ben Franklin attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787 when he was roughly 81. By all accounts, this acknowledged genius made little contribution to the debate because his mental skills had withered by the time he passed 80.

    tbraton:

    yes, the life expectancy was around 40, but from what I understand, the upper limit for humans has not changed much in 1,000s of years. It is estimated to be 110-120.

    Newton died at 84 in 1727.
    Galileo died at 77 in 1642.

    People died in those days from causes that are routinely treated today: broken legs, infections, bleeding, food poisoning, bad hygiene, minor cuts leading to fatal infections, ….
    So the life expectancy was quite low.
    ——————————————-
    The Age of the Delegates in 1787

    [MORE]

    Age — 20s
    Jonathon Dayton (NJ) — (1760 — 1824) — Age: 26
    John F. Mercer (MD) — (1759 – 1821) — Age: 28
    Richard Dobbs Spaight (NC) — (1758 – 1802) — Age: 29
    Charles Pinckney (SC) — (1757 – 1824) — Age: 29

    Age – 30s
    William R. Davie (NC) — (1756 – 1820) — Age: 30
    Alexander Hamilton (NY) — (1757 – 1804) — Age: 30
    Nicholas Gilman (NH) — (1755 – 1814) — Age: 32
    William Houstoun (GA) — (1755 – 1813) — Age: 32
    Rufus King (MA) — (1755 – 1827) — Age: 32
    John Lansing, Jr. (NY) — (1754 – 1829) — Age: 32
    Abraham Baldwin (GA) — (1754 – 1807) — Age: 33
    Edmund J. Randolph (VA) — (1753 – 1813) — Age: 34
    Gouverneur Morris (PA) — (1752 – 1816) — Age: 35
    Jacob Broom (DE) — (1752 – 1810) — Age: 35
    James Madison Jr. (VA) — (1751 – 1836) — Age: 36
    Jared Ingersoll (PA) — (1749 – 1822) — Age: 37
    William Few (GA) — (1748 – 1828) — Age: 39
    Luther Martin (MD) — (1748 – 1826) — Age: 39

    Age – 40s
    Gunning Bedford, Jr. (DE) — (1747 – 1812) — Age: 40
    Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (SC) — (1746 – 1825) — Age: 41
    William C. Houston (NJ) — (1746 – 1788) — Age: 41
    James McClurg (VA) — (1746 – 1823) — Age: 41
    William Paterson (NJ) — (1745 – 1806) — Age: 41
    Richard Bassett (DE) — (1745 – 1815) — Age: 42
    Oliver Ellsworth (CT) — (1745 – 1807) — Age: 42
    David Brearly (NJ) — (1745 – 1790) — Age: 42
    Caleb Strong (MA) — (1745 – 1819) — Age: 42
    Pierce Butler (SC) — (1744 – 1822) — Age: 43
    William Blount (NC) — (1744 – 1800) — Age: 43
    Elbridge Gerry (MA) — (1744 – 1814) — Age: 43
    Thomas Mifflin (PA) — (1744 – 1800) — Age: 43
    James McHenry (MD) — (1743 – 1816) — Age: 44
    James Wilson (PA) — (1742 – 1798) — Age: 45
    John Langdon (NH) — (1741 – 1818) — Age: 46
    Thomas Fitzsimons (PA) — (1741 – 1811) — Age: 46
    Alexander Martin (NC) — (1740 – 1807) — Age: 47
    William L. Pierce (GA) — (1740 – 1789) — Age: 47
    George Clymer (PA) — (1739 – 1813) — Age: 48
    John Rutledge (SC) — (1739 – 1800) — Age: 48
    Nathaniel Gorham (MA) — (1738 – 1796) — Age: 49
    Robert Yates (NY) — (1738 – 1801) — Age: 49

    Age – 50+
    Hugh Williamson (NC) — (1735 – 1819) — Age: 52
    Robert Morris (PA) — (1734 – 1806) — Age: 53
    George Read (DE) — (1733 – 1798) — Age: 53
    John Blair (VA) — (1732 – 1800) — Age: 55
    John Dickinson (DE) — (1732 – 1808) — Age: 55
    George Washington (VA) — (1732 – 1799) — Age: 55
    Daniel Carroll (MD) — (1730 – 1796) — Age: 57
    William Samuel Johnson (CT) — (1727 – 1819) — Age: 59
    George Wythe (VA) — (1726 – 1806) — Age: 61
    George Mason (VA) — (1725 – 1792) — Age: 62
    William Livingston (NJ) — (1723 – 1790) — Age: 63
    Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer (MD) — (1723 – 1790) — Age: 64
    Roger Sherman (CT) — (1721 – 1793) — Age: 66
    Benjamin Franklin (PA) — (1706 – 1790) — Age: 81
    ———————–
    {By all accounts, this acknowledged genius made little contribution to the debate because his mental skills had withered by the time he passed 80.}

    Exactly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "yes, the life expectancy was around 40, but from what I understand, the upper limit for humans has not changed much in 1,000s of years. It is estimated to be 110-120."

    Avery, thanks for all that information re the ages of the delegates to the CC. I didn't realize what a relatively youngish group that was.

    BTW I have read in a very popular book that one Methuselah actually lived to an age of 969 and that one of the foundational characters, Sarah, actually gave birth to Isaac when she was about 90 years old. Should I just discard that valuable information?
    , @tsotha

    People died in those days from causes that are routinely treated today: broken legs, infections, bleeding, food poisoning, bad hygiene, minor cuts leading to fatal infections, ….
    So the life expectancy was quite low.
     
    That's true, but the analysis is complicated by the fact that infant mortality was so much higher than it is today. It wasn't uncommon for people who survived to adulthood to reach advanced age.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Corvinus
    "At the end of the day, the U.S. Supreme Shysters–nine unelected, unaccountable, ethics-free megalomaniacs–impose their political and religious views on 320 million Americans. “Constitutional law” no longer has anything to do with the Constitution."

    You are correct in stating that the Justices were not elected, but they were nominated, vetted, and voted into their position. Regarding accountability, there is a process involved. It's called checks and balances. Should the Senate find fault with a Court ruling, they are able to pass legislation to circumvent that ruling OR offer a constitutional amendment (which the people also have this discretion). Regarding whether or not the Justices are unethical and full of themselves, you are going to submit some sort of proof here. Finally, it is common for both sides of the political aisle to lament about "constitutional law" no longer having anything to do with the "constitution", especially if a decision does not go their way.

    ” . . . Regarding whether or not the justices are unethical and full of themselves, you are going to submit some sort of proof here. . . .”

    Well, when and if the Supreme Shysters are “unethical and full of themselves,” it’s in the knowledge that they’ll suffer no consequences. Ginsburg’s comments about Trump are a violation of judicial ethics. Will she have the decency to resign? Not this arrogant hack. Will she be impeached? Exceedingly unlikely. Will any bar association(s) get on her ass? They should, but they won’t.

    See what I mean?

    Many years ago, I read “The Brethren” by Woodward and Bernstein. If memory serves me correctly, it quoted Warren Burger as saying, “We’re the Supreme Court and we can do what we want.”

    Need I say more?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {If memory serves me correctly, it quoted Warren Burger as saying, “We’re the Supreme Court and we can do what we want.”}

    Your memory serves you correctly:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2005/01/12/the_supreme_court_vs_the_constitution
    {But as former Chief Justice Warren Burger once stated, "We're the Supreme Court, and we can do what we want."}

    The unelected SCOTUS dictators are no different than Supreme Ayatollahs of Islamic Republic of Iran.

    Basically, one unelected black robed witch or evil wizard - 5-4 decision - forces 320 million Americans to obey some incipient senility addled decision.
    , @Corvinus
    "Well, when and if the Supreme Shysters are “unethical and full of themselves,” it’s in the knowledge that they’ll suffer no consequences."

    Obviously, Ginsberg is receiving tremendous heat for her statements, so there are consequences.

    "Will she have the decency to resign? Not this arrogant hack."

    There is no need to resign.

    "Will she be impeached? Exceedingly unlikely."

    For speaking her mind?

    "Will any bar association(s) get on her ass? They should, but they won’t."

    Read and get educated.

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/did_justice_ginsburgs_comments_on_donald_trump_violate_ethics_rules
    , @Corvinus
    "Well, when and if the Supreme Shysters are “unethical and full of themselves,” it’s in the knowledge that they’ll suffer no consequences."

    Obviously, Ginsberg is receiving tremendous heat for her statements, so there are consequences.

    "Will she have the decency to resign? Not this arrogant hack."

    There is no need to resign.

    "Will she be impeached? Exceedingly unlikely."

    Is there precedence here?

    "Will any bar association(s) get on her ass? They should, but they won’t."

    Read and get educated.

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/did_justice_ginsburgs_comments_on_donald_trump_violate_ethics_rules
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Avery says:
    @Corvinus
    "You want to be in an airplane piloted by a 90 year old, who does not want to retire? I could list a whole lot of other occupations: 80 year old police officer? firefighter?"

    The occupations you listed are decidedly more physical in nature compared to a judge, although these three fields do require mental acumen.

    "Since medical records of SCOTUS are not public information, I regret that I will not be able to offer specific instances."

    Actually, you are able to offer particular examples of their "incipient senility" by looking at the rationale of their legal decisions and to what extent their reasoning meets the criteria.

    "They are not alien beings immune to medical conditions affecting everybody else."

    Absolutely, but you do NOT have the requisite proof to demonstrate that the justices are suffering from dementia or are in the early stages of Alzheimer's which is clearly hampering their ability to perform their judicial responsibilities. You have in essence, a hunch.

    {The occupations you listed are decidedly more physical in nature compared to a judge, although these three fields do require mental acumen.}

    This is exactly what you wrote:
    {Judges, like anyone, should work until they personally want to retire.}

    No qualifiers. “like anyone“.
    Yes? Yes.
    So you either don’t know what you are writing about, or you got caught in an illogical statement and are trying to dance out of it: Which is it?

    And, Yes: police officers and firefighters definitely require physical strength, stamina, speed,..
    But hardly an airline pilot: with fly-by-fire technology, hardy any physical strength is required.
    Sharp eyes and a sharp mind to handle any emergencies that the computers cannot handle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "So you either don’t know what you are writing about, or you got caught in an illogical statement and are trying to dance out of it: Which is it?"

    There is nothing illogical about my statement. A person should decide for themselves when they want to retire. It goes without saying that he or she is generally and acutely aware of their "shelf life" for their occupation, and leave on their own volition.

    An airplane pilot, compared to a judge, engages in more physical exertion.

    "Basically, one unelected black robed witch or evil wizard – 5-4 decision – forces 320 million Americans to obey some incipient senility addled decision."

    Do you even comprehend our checks and balances system? Because that is what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Now, you have to prove that these "wizards" have "incipient senility" rather than repeating it for added effect. Where is YOUR proof?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Avery says:
    @Orville H. Larson
    " . . . Regarding whether or not the justices are unethical and full of themselves, you are going to submit some sort of proof here. . . ."

    Well, when and if the Supreme Shysters are "unethical and full of themselves," it's in the knowledge that they'll suffer no consequences. Ginsburg's comments about Trump are a violation of judicial ethics. Will she have the decency to resign? Not this arrogant hack. Will she be impeached? Exceedingly unlikely. Will any bar association(s) get on her ass? They should, but they won't.

    See what I mean?

    Many years ago, I read "The Brethren" by Woodward and Bernstein. If memory serves me correctly, it quoted Warren Burger as saying, "We're the Supreme Court and we can do what we want."

    Need I say more?

    {If memory serves me correctly, it quoted Warren Burger as saying, “We’re the Supreme Court and we can do what we want.”}

    Your memory serves you correctly:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2005/01/12/the_supreme_court_vs_the_constitution

    {But as former Chief Justice Warren Burger once stated, “We’re the Supreme Court, and we can do what we want.”}

    The unelected SCOTUS dictators are no different than Supreme Ayatollahs of Islamic Republic of Iran.

    Basically, one unelected black robed witch or evil wizard – 5-4 decision – forces 320 million Americans to obey some incipient senility addled decision.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    Thank you. The supreme court is an abomination. So is the Senate.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @tbraton
    You are obviously ignorant of the great jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who lived to be just two days shy of 93 but retired from the Supreme Court at 90, the oldest Justice in our history. It was generally recognized by his colleagues on the Court that Holmes' great mental faculties had clearly deteriorated in his later years, as evidenced by the short, cryptic opinions he wrote when assigned an opinion to write. The story is told about how in his later years on the Supreme Court a couple of his colleagues on the Court approached him and politely suggested that he might want to retire. They evoked an early incident that occurred during Holmes early years on the Court (he served from 1902 to 1932) when the task fell to him, being the most recent Court appointee, to approach an elderly Justice whose mental faculties were clearly on the wane to politely suggest that the Justice might want to step down. Justice Holmes' immediate response to the Justices who were approaching him suggesting the very same thing was "and a nastier piece of business I never did in my life." So, it is human nature to deny our own deterioration of skills, and a great resistance to retiring from is a pretty prestigious job. That's why I have suggested a mandatory retirement age of 75 for all Federal judges and Justices. By speaking out so openly on a matter that any judge should refrain from discussing, Justice Ginsberg has established that at age 83 she is losing command over her mental faculties. BTW I have suggested in another post that the word was the former Chief Justice Rehnquist had a less than clear mind during the last couple of years on the Court, and he died just a month shy of 81 while still sitting on the Court.

    There’s nothing wrong with your suggestion that federal judges pack it in at age 75. Here in Minnesota, judicial retirement age is 70. Minnesota’s courts get along just fine.

    ” . . . By speaking out so openly on a matter that any judge should refrain from discussing, Justice Ginsburg has established that at age 83 she is losing command over her mental faculties. . . .”

    Maybe, but I’m inclined to think she’s an arrogant Supreme Shyster. . . .

    Read More
    • Replies: @tbraton
    "There’s nothing wrong with your suggestion that federal judges pack it in at age 75. Here in Minnesota, judicial retirement age is 70. Minnesota’s courts get along just fine."

    I don't understand where all these age limitations come from. If you were to believe Corvinus, they are pulled out of thin air, like a magician's handerchief or rabbit. For as long as I can remember, major publicly-owned corporations have had a mandatory retirement age of 65 for their CEOs. (I can remember back in the 60's when Bill Paley, the former owner of CBS, forced his number 2 man, Frank Stanton, who was widely respected, to step down as CBS's CEO when he reached 65, although Stanton thought Paley would grant him a waiver.) As another poster pointed out, there used to be a mandatory retirement age of 60 for commercial airline pilots, which was only recently increased to 65 as a result of lobbying pressure from older pilots. I venture to say these mandatory retirement ages are based on society's collective knowledge that peoples' mental faculties deteriorate as they approach the mid to upper 60's and that requiring people to step down when they hit that magic age works to society's benefit, even though there are numerous examples of people remaining clear-minded to age 90. As I recall from history, the great Greek dramatist Sophocles was accused by his sons of being senile when he reached 90 and taken to court. Sophocles, in his defense, read from his final, as yet unproduced play, "Oedipus at Colonus," now considered one of the great plays of western civilization, and the judges promptly acquitted him of the charge of senility. Sophocles died shortly thereafter. There is also the famous example of the 90-year doge of Venice (blind to boot), Enrico Dandelo, who led the victorious forces during the Fourth Crusade in conquering Constantinople. But we can't build a social policy on the basis of exceptions.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. FLgeezer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein
    I've noticed that women in particular become incredibly outspoken and unrestrained shortly before their ultimate demise, as if the felt approach of imminent doom gives them license to let it all hang out.

    RBG is probably not long for this world. I would not be surprised if it's just a matter of months.

    >RBG is probably not long for this world. I would not be surprised if it’s just a matter of months.

    We can but hope.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Ozymandias
    Darth Vader Ginsburg has recanted. Turns out she was a faker who said whatever came into her head.

    Darth Vader Ginsburg. That’s a keeper.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Corvinus says:
    @tbraton
    "Her breach of etiquette does NOT mean she is “losing command over her mental faculties”, it just means she made a poor decision in light of the political firestorm known as the Election of 2016."

    Her remarks were a clear breach of the ethical rules which apply to all federal judges. http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#f (see especially Canon 5: "A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity") Her remarks would have been considered out of line by a sitting Justice regardless of the election and regardless of the party. Your defense of Judge Ginsberg's actions is beyond silly. When the NY Times agrees with Donald Trump on this issue, you can be certain that Justice Ginsberg breached the rules in a blatant manner. I think it's a clear sign that she is at an age (83) when the mind starts to go if it hasn't gone already.

    “Her remarks were a clear breach of the ethical rules which apply to all federal judges…”

    Which I duly noted.

    “Her remarks would have been considered out of line by a sitting Justice regardless of the election and regardless of the party.”

    Yes.

    “Your defense of Judge Ginsberg’s actions is beyond silly.”

    I stated that she made a poor decision, that her statement was a clear violation of those standards. My “defense” of her is based on YOUR conclusion that this one incident is a tell-tale sign of her mind being “gone”.

    “It was long reputed that the late Justice Thurgood Marshall left the writing of the decisions that were assigned to him to his law clerks. ”

    Reputed, as in reported or alleged. You do not know for certain.

    “They have little incentive to “spill the beans” on a mentally-wobbly Justice since it might affect their status and relationships with the Justices, especially a very liberal Justice like Justice Ginsberg.”

    Assuming that the reporters have something to hide or are covering something up. What you are doing is speculating, but making it appear that it is entirely factual.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. Corvinus says:
    @Art
    Say Corvinus,

    No matter what the Jews do - you make excuses for them - what are we to think?

    Hmm - Art

    BOO! The Jews are everywhere, infiltrating American society. They are responsible for EVERY problem the United States currently faces.

    Maybe, just maybe, you are Jewish yourself and are jealous of the success of your brethren, but take it out on them.

    So, Art, what are you doing about this travesty of justice? Why not actually get out there and inform the masses through a grass roots effort about the “Jewish conspiracy”? Or, are you just that impotent?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    The Jews are everywhere, infiltrating American society. They are responsible for EVERY problem the United States currently faces.

    So Corvinus --- there you go again – giving yourself away – good typical whine (hasbara 101) – poor poor Jews – victims victims – always victims, victims forever. (You should ask for a bonus. (I’ll put in a good word for you (your welcome.)))

    You got that right about Jews and our problems in America. Every problem event in America that gets reported on, goes through a Jew filter. The Jew MSM tells America what to think.

    Left think (CNN) and right think (FOX JEWS) - are both dictated to by Jews. The extreme positions are only options given to us in America. That is why we can never solve things. Dirty isn't it!

    p.s. It was a sad day at FOX JEWS - another big killing and no conspiracy to scream about - another lone gunman. It is a dead give away - lone gunman kill because their people have been killed. No one in the Jew media will use those words - bastards!

    p.s. Poor "The Five" had a dud of a show today. they couldn't get the Jews - Gorka or Krauthammer - on their show, so they didn't know what to say or think. (The women only screamed for someone's blood five times (they have to prove that they are meaner then the men (It’s a NY kind of thing.)))
    , @anonymous

    So . . . what are you doing about this travesty of justice? Why not actually get out there and inform the masses through a grass roots effort about the “Jewish conspiracy”? Or, are you just that impotent?
     
    TOO DOO re JOO:

    1. Jews gotta write. It's almost a compulsion -- Jewish lecturers say so.

    2. Jewish writing is like the Tell-tale Heart: they project and telegraph the guilt they cannot otherwise acknowledge: the more Jews write (and make movies about, etc.) the holocaust and also about attacks on Jews by the imprisoned and defenseless people of Gaza, the more is revealed about what Jews know deep down inside is their complicity in the destruction of Europe, and the destruction of Palestine, the destruction of the Middle East, as as that little fart Royce Mann just poesied, the wished-for destruction of USA.

    Therefore,

    3. As long as Newton's Third Law of Motion remains in effect, persons who are concerned about the "Jewish conspiracy" need to do precisely nothing; or even more precisely, they should get out of the way and let Jews self-destruct, for they surely will, by their own words and deeds.

    4. Sit back and watch it happen in real time: simply to record and report on what Jews write about themselves in order to draw the attention of the great mass of Deluded Ones to the ineffably self-destructive traits of Jews is all that is really necessary.

    5. If you feel you must do something, pop corn.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. Corvinus says:
    @Avery
    {The occupations you listed are decidedly more physical in nature compared to a judge, although these three fields do require mental acumen.}

    This is exactly what you wrote:
    {Judges, like anyone, should work until they personally want to retire.}

    No qualifiers. "like anyone".
    Yes? Yes.
    So you either don't know what you are writing about, or you got caught in an illogical statement and are trying to dance out of it: Which is it?

    And, Yes: police officers and firefighters definitely require physical strength, stamina, speed,..
    But hardly an airline pilot: with fly-by-fire technology, hardy any physical strength is required.
    Sharp eyes and a sharp mind to handle any emergencies that the computers cannot handle.

    “So you either don’t know what you are writing about, or you got caught in an illogical statement and are trying to dance out of it: Which is it?”

    There is nothing illogical about my statement. A person should decide for themselves when they want to retire. It goes without saying that he or she is generally and acutely aware of their “shelf life” for their occupation, and leave on their own volition.

    An airplane pilot, compared to a judge, engages in more physical exertion.

    “Basically, one unelected black robed witch or evil wizard – 5-4 decision – forces 320 million Americans to obey some incipient senility addled decision.”

    Do you even comprehend our checks and balances system? Because that is what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Now, you have to prove that these “wizards” have “incipient senility” rather than repeating it for added effect. Where is YOUR proof?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    This is exactly what you wrote:
    {Judges, like anyone, should work until they personally want to retire.}

    Again: don't change the subject; don't misdirect; don't BS.
    Admit YOUR statement is illogical.
    Stating "There is nothing illogical about my statement" does not make it so.

    It is illogical: "anyone" leaves no room for misinterpretation.
    "until they personally want to" leaves no room for misinterpretation.
    According to your illogical assertion, a 90 year old cannot be denied the job of flying a planeload of 300 passengers if he or she personally wants it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. Corvinus says:
    @Orville H. Larson
    " . . . Regarding whether or not the justices are unethical and full of themselves, you are going to submit some sort of proof here. . . ."

    Well, when and if the Supreme Shysters are "unethical and full of themselves," it's in the knowledge that they'll suffer no consequences. Ginsburg's comments about Trump are a violation of judicial ethics. Will she have the decency to resign? Not this arrogant hack. Will she be impeached? Exceedingly unlikely. Will any bar association(s) get on her ass? They should, but they won't.

    See what I mean?

    Many years ago, I read "The Brethren" by Woodward and Bernstein. If memory serves me correctly, it quoted Warren Burger as saying, "We're the Supreme Court and we can do what we want."

    Need I say more?

    “Well, when and if the Supreme Shysters are “unethical and full of themselves,” it’s in the knowledge that they’ll suffer no consequences.”

    Obviously, Ginsberg is receiving tremendous heat for her statements, so there are consequences.

    “Will she have the decency to resign? Not this arrogant hack.”

    There is no need to resign.

    “Will she be impeached? Exceedingly unlikely.”

    For speaking her mind?

    “Will any bar association(s) get on her ass? They should, but they won’t.”

    Read and get educated.

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/did_justice_ginsburgs_comments_on_donald_trump_violate_ethics_rules

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Corvinus says:
    @Orville H. Larson
    " . . . Regarding whether or not the justices are unethical and full of themselves, you are going to submit some sort of proof here. . . ."

    Well, when and if the Supreme Shysters are "unethical and full of themselves," it's in the knowledge that they'll suffer no consequences. Ginsburg's comments about Trump are a violation of judicial ethics. Will she have the decency to resign? Not this arrogant hack. Will she be impeached? Exceedingly unlikely. Will any bar association(s) get on her ass? They should, but they won't.

    See what I mean?

    Many years ago, I read "The Brethren" by Woodward and Bernstein. If memory serves me correctly, it quoted Warren Burger as saying, "We're the Supreme Court and we can do what we want."

    Need I say more?

    “Well, when and if the Supreme Shysters are “unethical and full of themselves,” it’s in the knowledge that they’ll suffer no consequences.”

    Obviously, Ginsberg is receiving tremendous heat for her statements, so there are consequences.

    “Will she have the decency to resign? Not this arrogant hack.”

    There is no need to resign.

    “Will she be impeached? Exceedingly unlikely.”

    Is there precedence here?

    “Will any bar association(s) get on her ass? They should, but they won’t.”

    Read and get educated.

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/did_justice_ginsburgs_comments_on_donald_trump_violate_ethics_rules

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @tbraton
    You are obviously ignorant of the great jurist, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. who lived to be just two days shy of 93 but retired from the Supreme Court at 90, the oldest Justice in our history. It was generally recognized by his colleagues on the Court that Holmes' great mental faculties had clearly deteriorated in his later years, as evidenced by the short, cryptic opinions he wrote when assigned an opinion to write. The story is told about how in his later years on the Supreme Court a couple of his colleagues on the Court approached him and politely suggested that he might want to retire. They evoked an early incident that occurred during Holmes early years on the Court (he served from 1902 to 1932) when the task fell to him, being the most recent Court appointee, to approach an elderly Justice whose mental faculties were clearly on the wane to politely suggest that the Justice might want to step down. Justice Holmes' immediate response to the Justices who were approaching him suggesting the very same thing was "and a nastier piece of business I never did in my life." So, it is human nature to deny our own deterioration of skills, and a great resistance to retiring from is a pretty prestigious job. That's why I have suggested a mandatory retirement age of 75 for all Federal judges and Justices. By speaking out so openly on a matter that any judge should refrain from discussing, Justice Ginsberg has established that at age 83 she is losing command over her mental faculties. BTW I have suggested in another post that the word was the former Chief Justice Rehnquist had a less than clear mind during the last couple of years on the Court, and he died just a month shy of 81 while still sitting on the Court.

    We’ve gotten along for over 200 years without mandatory Supreme Court retirement. When they get old and doddery, everyone knows their law clerks do all the opinion writing. The clerks just ask their Justice for a yes or no and take it from there. The old dears scarcely have to do anything.

    One problem with a mandatory retirement age has to do with age clustering. By the time any Justice has achieved enough stature to be appointed to the Supreme Court, they tend to be old. If this law is in place, it’s very possible that one President serving an 8-year term could end up seeing the whole bench retire, and end up replacing every single Justice. No way do I want someone like Hillary Clinton having this sort of opportunity. If it weren’t for Justices who hang on, the Republic would not survive certain administrations, especially ones with radicalized, nutjob leftist presidents. The latter may become more common with time if we can’t stop immigration.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Avery says:
    @Corvinus
    "So you either don’t know what you are writing about, or you got caught in an illogical statement and are trying to dance out of it: Which is it?"

    There is nothing illogical about my statement. A person should decide for themselves when they want to retire. It goes without saying that he or she is generally and acutely aware of their "shelf life" for their occupation, and leave on their own volition.

    An airplane pilot, compared to a judge, engages in more physical exertion.

    "Basically, one unelected black robed witch or evil wizard – 5-4 decision – forces 320 million Americans to obey some incipient senility addled decision."

    Do you even comprehend our checks and balances system? Because that is what the Founding Fathers envisioned. Now, you have to prove that these "wizards" have "incipient senility" rather than repeating it for added effect. Where is YOUR proof?

    This is exactly what you wrote:
    {Judges, like anyone, should work until they personally want to retire.}

    Again: don’t change the subject; don’t misdirect; don’t BS.
    Admit YOUR statement is illogical.
    Stating “There is nothing illogical about my statement” does not make it so.

    It is illogical: “anyone” leaves no room for misinterpretation.
    “until they personally want to” leaves no room for misinterpretation.
    According to your illogical assertion, a 90 year old cannot be denied the job of flying a planeload of 300 passengers if he or she personally wants it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "“anyone” leaves no room for misinterpretation."

    Anyone, meaning you or me.

    "until they personally want to".

    Referring to themselves.

    "According to your illogical assertion, a 90 year old cannot be denied the job of flying a planeload of 300 passengers if he or she personally wants it.'

    And that's where you fall flat on your face. Just because a 90-year-old SEEKS the job of flying does NOT mean they automatically will be given that position, considering they are competing from a pool of applicants.

    Now, a 62-year-old insurance salesman at his firm who has been there for 40 years can decide for himself if and when he wants to retire should there be no mandatory retirement provision at his place of business. Should there be some sort of rules in place, he understands he will have to retire there, but he can certainly choose to continue to work in his field until he personally wants to stop. He may work for another firm, or he may go into business for himself.

    Are you done being binary?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. tbraton says:
    @Avery
    tbraton:

    yes, the life expectancy was around 40, but from what I understand, the upper limit for humans has not changed much in 1,000s of years. It is estimated to be 110-120.

    Newton died at 84 in 1727.
    Galileo died at 77 in 1642.

    People died in those days from causes that are routinely treated today: broken legs, infections, bleeding, food poisoning, bad hygiene, minor cuts leading to fatal infections, ....
    So the life expectancy was quite low.
    -------------------------------------------
    The Age of the Delegates in 1787

    Age — 20s
    Jonathon Dayton (NJ) — (1760 — 1824) — Age: 26
    John F. Mercer (MD) — (1759 – 1821) — Age: 28
    Richard Dobbs Spaight (NC) — (1758 – 1802) — Age: 29
    Charles Pinckney (SC) — (1757 – 1824) — Age: 29

    Age – 30s
    William R. Davie (NC) — (1756 – 1820) — Age: 30
    Alexander Hamilton (NY) — (1757 – 1804) — Age: 30
    Nicholas Gilman (NH) — (1755 – 1814) — Age: 32
    William Houstoun (GA) — (1755 – 1813) — Age: 32
    Rufus King (MA) — (1755 – 1827) — Age: 32
    John Lansing, Jr. (NY) — (1754 – 1829) — Age: 32
    Abraham Baldwin (GA) — (1754 – 1807) — Age: 33
    Edmund J. Randolph (VA) — (1753 – 1813) — Age: 34
    Gouverneur Morris (PA) — (1752 – 1816) — Age: 35
    Jacob Broom (DE) — (1752 – 1810) — Age: 35
    James Madison Jr. (VA) — (1751 – 1836) — Age: 36
    Jared Ingersoll (PA) — (1749 – 1822) — Age: 37
    William Few (GA) — (1748 – 1828) — Age: 39
    Luther Martin (MD) — (1748 – 1826) — Age: 39

    Age – 40s
    Gunning Bedford, Jr. (DE) — (1747 – 1812) — Age: 40
    Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (SC) — (1746 – 1825) — Age: 41
    William C. Houston (NJ) — (1746 – 1788) — Age: 41
    James McClurg (VA) — (1746 – 1823) — Age: 41
    William Paterson (NJ) — (1745 – 1806) — Age: 41
    Richard Bassett (DE) — (1745 – 1815) — Age: 42
    Oliver Ellsworth (CT) — (1745 – 1807) — Age: 42
    David Brearly (NJ) — (1745 – 1790) — Age: 42
    Caleb Strong (MA) — (1745 – 1819) — Age: 42
    Pierce Butler (SC) — (1744 – 1822) — Age: 43
    William Blount (NC) — (1744 – 1800) — Age: 43
    Elbridge Gerry (MA) — (1744 – 1814) — Age: 43
    Thomas Mifflin (PA) — (1744 – 1800) — Age: 43
    James McHenry (MD) — (1743 – 1816) — Age: 44
    James Wilson (PA) — (1742 – 1798) — Age: 45
    John Langdon (NH) — (1741 – 1818) — Age: 46
    Thomas Fitzsimons (PA) — (1741 – 1811) — Age: 46
    Alexander Martin (NC) — (1740 – 1807) — Age: 47
    William L. Pierce (GA) — (1740 – 1789) — Age: 47
    George Clymer (PA) — (1739 – 1813) — Age: 48
    John Rutledge (SC) — (1739 – 1800) — Age: 48
    Nathaniel Gorham (MA) — (1738 – 1796) — Age: 49
    Robert Yates (NY) — (1738 – 1801) — Age: 49

    Age – 50+
    Hugh Williamson (NC) — (1735 – 1819) — Age: 52
    Robert Morris (PA) — (1734 – 1806) — Age: 53
    George Read (DE) — (1733 – 1798) — Age: 53
    John Blair (VA) — (1732 – 1800) — Age: 55
    John Dickinson (DE) — (1732 – 1808) — Age: 55
    George Washington (VA) — (1732 – 1799) — Age: 55
    Daniel Carroll (MD) — (1730 – 1796) — Age: 57
    William Samuel Johnson (CT) — (1727 – 1819) — Age: 59
    George Wythe (VA) — (1726 – 1806) — Age: 61
    George Mason (VA) — (1725 – 1792) — Age: 62
    William Livingston (NJ) — (1723 – 1790) — Age: 63
    Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer (MD) — (1723 – 1790) — Age: 64
    Roger Sherman (CT) — (1721 – 1793) — Age: 66
    Benjamin Franklin (PA) — (1706 – 1790) — Age: 81
    -----------------------
    {By all accounts, this acknowledged genius made little contribution to the debate because his mental skills had withered by the time he passed 80.}

    Exactly.

    “yes, the life expectancy was around 40, but from what I understand, the upper limit for humans has not changed much in 1,000s of years. It is estimated to be 110-120.”

    Avery, thanks for all that information re the ages of the delegates to the CC. I didn’t realize what a relatively youngish group that was.

    BTW I have read in a very popular book that one Methuselah actually lived to an age of 969 and that one of the foundational characters, Sarah, actually gave birth to Isaac when she was about 90 years old. Should I just discard that valuable information?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. tsotha says:
    @Avery
    tbraton:

    yes, the life expectancy was around 40, but from what I understand, the upper limit for humans has not changed much in 1,000s of years. It is estimated to be 110-120.

    Newton died at 84 in 1727.
    Galileo died at 77 in 1642.

    People died in those days from causes that are routinely treated today: broken legs, infections, bleeding, food poisoning, bad hygiene, minor cuts leading to fatal infections, ....
    So the life expectancy was quite low.
    -------------------------------------------
    The Age of the Delegates in 1787

    Age — 20s
    Jonathon Dayton (NJ) — (1760 — 1824) — Age: 26
    John F. Mercer (MD) — (1759 – 1821) — Age: 28
    Richard Dobbs Spaight (NC) — (1758 – 1802) — Age: 29
    Charles Pinckney (SC) — (1757 – 1824) — Age: 29

    Age – 30s
    William R. Davie (NC) — (1756 – 1820) — Age: 30
    Alexander Hamilton (NY) — (1757 – 1804) — Age: 30
    Nicholas Gilman (NH) — (1755 – 1814) — Age: 32
    William Houstoun (GA) — (1755 – 1813) — Age: 32
    Rufus King (MA) — (1755 – 1827) — Age: 32
    John Lansing, Jr. (NY) — (1754 – 1829) — Age: 32
    Abraham Baldwin (GA) — (1754 – 1807) — Age: 33
    Edmund J. Randolph (VA) — (1753 – 1813) — Age: 34
    Gouverneur Morris (PA) — (1752 – 1816) — Age: 35
    Jacob Broom (DE) — (1752 – 1810) — Age: 35
    James Madison Jr. (VA) — (1751 – 1836) — Age: 36
    Jared Ingersoll (PA) — (1749 – 1822) — Age: 37
    William Few (GA) — (1748 – 1828) — Age: 39
    Luther Martin (MD) — (1748 – 1826) — Age: 39

    Age – 40s
    Gunning Bedford, Jr. (DE) — (1747 – 1812) — Age: 40
    Charles Cotesworth Pinckney (SC) — (1746 – 1825) — Age: 41
    William C. Houston (NJ) — (1746 – 1788) — Age: 41
    James McClurg (VA) — (1746 – 1823) — Age: 41
    William Paterson (NJ) — (1745 – 1806) — Age: 41
    Richard Bassett (DE) — (1745 – 1815) — Age: 42
    Oliver Ellsworth (CT) — (1745 – 1807) — Age: 42
    David Brearly (NJ) — (1745 – 1790) — Age: 42
    Caleb Strong (MA) — (1745 – 1819) — Age: 42
    Pierce Butler (SC) — (1744 – 1822) — Age: 43
    William Blount (NC) — (1744 – 1800) — Age: 43
    Elbridge Gerry (MA) — (1744 – 1814) — Age: 43
    Thomas Mifflin (PA) — (1744 – 1800) — Age: 43
    James McHenry (MD) — (1743 – 1816) — Age: 44
    James Wilson (PA) — (1742 – 1798) — Age: 45
    John Langdon (NH) — (1741 – 1818) — Age: 46
    Thomas Fitzsimons (PA) — (1741 – 1811) — Age: 46
    Alexander Martin (NC) — (1740 – 1807) — Age: 47
    William L. Pierce (GA) — (1740 – 1789) — Age: 47
    George Clymer (PA) — (1739 – 1813) — Age: 48
    John Rutledge (SC) — (1739 – 1800) — Age: 48
    Nathaniel Gorham (MA) — (1738 – 1796) — Age: 49
    Robert Yates (NY) — (1738 – 1801) — Age: 49

    Age – 50+
    Hugh Williamson (NC) — (1735 – 1819) — Age: 52
    Robert Morris (PA) — (1734 – 1806) — Age: 53
    George Read (DE) — (1733 – 1798) — Age: 53
    John Blair (VA) — (1732 – 1800) — Age: 55
    John Dickinson (DE) — (1732 – 1808) — Age: 55
    George Washington (VA) — (1732 – 1799) — Age: 55
    Daniel Carroll (MD) — (1730 – 1796) — Age: 57
    William Samuel Johnson (CT) — (1727 – 1819) — Age: 59
    George Wythe (VA) — (1726 – 1806) — Age: 61
    George Mason (VA) — (1725 – 1792) — Age: 62
    William Livingston (NJ) — (1723 – 1790) — Age: 63
    Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer (MD) — (1723 – 1790) — Age: 64
    Roger Sherman (CT) — (1721 – 1793) — Age: 66
    Benjamin Franklin (PA) — (1706 – 1790) — Age: 81
    -----------------------
    {By all accounts, this acknowledged genius made little contribution to the debate because his mental skills had withered by the time he passed 80.}

    Exactly.

    People died in those days from causes that are routinely treated today: broken legs, infections, bleeding, food poisoning, bad hygiene, minor cuts leading to fatal infections, ….
    So the life expectancy was quite low.

    That’s true, but the analysis is complicated by the fact that infant mortality was so much higher than it is today. It wasn’t uncommon for people who survived to adulthood to reach advanced age.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    If you are interested in a more quantitative look, there are English historical mortality curves (from age 50 to 85 only) at
    http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Books/Monograph2/a%20note.htm
    http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Books/Monograph2/figure110.htm
    and American mortality curves from 1900-2020 at
    http://www.fis.org/public/survivalcurve-2020.html
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. The bigger issue is the lifetime appointment of Supreme Court justices. It was a mistake on the part of the Founding Fathers, made worse by modern medicine and general living conditions that make a person’s living into senescence so much more prevalent than in those days.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  66. @Corvinus
    One example of an allegedly decrepit Justice does not mean current federal judges of a certain age are in or will fall to his level of mental faculty.

    "By speaking out so openly on a matter that any judge should refrain from discussing, Justice Ginsberg has established that at age 83 she is losing command over her mental faculties."

    That's ridiculous. She spoke out freely on a matter that she indeed she should have refrained from commenting in light of Supreme Court tradition. Generally speaking, Justices are to keep their political opinions to themselves. I do not fault ANY Justice, not even Scalia, however, when they have spoken candidly about their own personal political leanings during a university commencement or at a speaking engagement. Her breach of etiquette does NOT mean she is "losing command over her mental faculties", it just means she made a poor decision in light of the political firestorm known as the Election of 2016.

    "So, it is human nature to deny our own deterioration of skills, and a great resistance to retiring from is a pretty prestigious job."

    Except there is scant evidence to suggest her mental sharpness and focus as a Justice is indeed deteriorating.

    I have a friend whose father is in his mid-80s and regularly flies several aircraft including a King Air and a T-6. He is at this moment perfectly safe, in my opinion, but I would not support his or anyone else’s being allowed to fly commercial airliners at that age. Airline pilots must retire at 65-it used to be 60, and was stretched five years after decades of lobbying-and this is a good thing.

    Retiring creates slots for new people, and allows the retired to do other things, such as sharing their experience with others in educational or other settings. It also gets the great and rebarbative alike out of the way, to be replaced by fresh choices, for good or ill.

    All Federal judges should be required to retire at a certain age or after a certain length of service.

    Read More
    • Agree: tbraton
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "All Federal judges should be required to retire at a certain age or after a certain length of service."

    They should retire when they are ready to retire, or there is a mountain of evidence presented that their decisions reach the standard of "“incipient senility”.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. @Priss Factor
    Don't call her a 'liberal'.

    She is a Jewish Supremacist Globalist Radical.

    All Jews are class supremacist, specifically protected class supremacist.

    Both the US and Israel implement a protected class supremacy scheme.

    The protected class supremacy scheme designates the Nazi or alternatively the white supremacist as the protected class enemy.

    The scheme defines a profile of a Nazi based on who is and who is not entitled to central government granted privileges:

    [MORE]

    Women are entitled because of Male oppression
    Jewish are entitled because of Gentile oppression
    Queers are entitled because of Straight oppression
    Muslims are entitled because of Christian oppression
    Disabled are entitled because of Healthy oppression
    Afro-blacks are entitled because of White oppression
    Latinos are entitled because of Gringo oppression
    Hispanics are entitled because of Gringo oppression
    Military Veteran are entitled because of Militia oppression
    2-party System Dependents are entitled because of Independent oppression
    Aboriginals are entitled because of Paleface oppression
    Asians are entitled because of Occidental oppression
    National Socialist are entitled because of local-state Government oppression
    Crony Capitalist are entitled because of honest Businessmen oppression
    Ex-cons are entitled because of Law-Abiding people oppression
    Zionist are entitled because of anti-Fascist oppression

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. res says:
    @tsotha

    People died in those days from causes that are routinely treated today: broken legs, infections, bleeding, food poisoning, bad hygiene, minor cuts leading to fatal infections, ….
    So the life expectancy was quite low.
     
    That's true, but the analysis is complicated by the fact that infant mortality was so much higher than it is today. It wasn't uncommon for people who survived to adulthood to reach advanced age.

    If you are interested in a more quantitative look, there are English historical mortality curves (from age 50 to 85 only) at

    http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Books/Monograph2/a%20note.htm

    http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/Books/Monograph2/figure110.htm

    and American mortality curves from 1900-2020 at

    http://www.fis.org/public/survivalcurve-2020.html

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website

    Trump acts like Gekko but sounds like the Martin Sheen character in Wall Street.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. Pericles says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    The admiration appeared mutual in her comments about him after he passed away: http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/statements-from-supreme-court-justices/#more-238328

    Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: “We are different, we are one,” different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the “applesauce” and “argle bargle”—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his “energetic fervor,” “astringent intellect,” “peppery prose,” “acumen,” and “affability,” all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.
     

    Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend.

     

    But that was then (February) and this is now (July).

    Read More
    • Agree: tbraton
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Avery
    {If memory serves me correctly, it quoted Warren Burger as saying, “We’re the Supreme Court and we can do what we want.”}

    Your memory serves you correctly:

    http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2005/01/12/the_supreme_court_vs_the_constitution
    {But as former Chief Justice Warren Burger once stated, "We're the Supreme Court, and we can do what we want."}

    The unelected SCOTUS dictators are no different than Supreme Ayatollahs of Islamic Republic of Iran.

    Basically, one unelected black robed witch or evil wizard - 5-4 decision - forces 320 million Americans to obey some incipient senility addled decision.

    Thank you. The supreme court is an abomination. So is the Senate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. tbraton says:
    @Orville H. Larson
    There's nothing wrong with your suggestion that federal judges pack it in at age 75. Here in Minnesota, judicial retirement age is 70. Minnesota's courts get along just fine.

    " . . . By speaking out so openly on a matter that any judge should refrain from discussing, Justice Ginsburg has established that at age 83 she is losing command over her mental faculties. . . ."

    Maybe, but I'm inclined to think she's an arrogant Supreme Shyster. . . .

    “There’s nothing wrong with your suggestion that federal judges pack it in at age 75. Here in Minnesota, judicial retirement age is 70. Minnesota’s courts get along just fine.”

    I don’t understand where all these age limitations come from. If you were to believe Corvinus, they are pulled out of thin air, like a magician’s handerchief or rabbit. For as long as I can remember, major publicly-owned corporations have had a mandatory retirement age of 65 for their CEOs. (I can remember back in the 60′s when Bill Paley, the former owner of CBS, forced his number 2 man, Frank Stanton, who was widely respected, to step down as CBS’s CEO when he reached 65, although Stanton thought Paley would grant him a waiver.) As another poster pointed out, there used to be a mandatory retirement age of 60 for commercial airline pilots, which was only recently increased to 65 as a result of lobbying pressure from older pilots. I venture to say these mandatory retirement ages are based on society’s collective knowledge that peoples’ mental faculties deteriorate as they approach the mid to upper 60′s and that requiring people to step down when they hit that magic age works to society’s benefit, even though there are numerous examples of people remaining clear-minded to age 90. As I recall from history, the great Greek dramatist Sophocles was accused by his sons of being senile when he reached 90 and taken to court. Sophocles, in his defense, read from his final, as yet unproduced play, “Oedipus at Colonus,” now considered one of the great plays of western civilization, and the judges promptly acquitted him of the charge of senility. Sophocles died shortly thereafter. There is also the famous example of the 90-year doge of Venice (blind to boot), Enrico Dandelo, who led the victorious forces during the Fourth Crusade in conquering Constantinople. But we can’t build a social policy on the basis of exceptions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Corvinus says:
    @Avery
    This is exactly what you wrote:
    {Judges, like anyone, should work until they personally want to retire.}

    Again: don't change the subject; don't misdirect; don't BS.
    Admit YOUR statement is illogical.
    Stating "There is nothing illogical about my statement" does not make it so.

    It is illogical: "anyone" leaves no room for misinterpretation.
    "until they personally want to" leaves no room for misinterpretation.
    According to your illogical assertion, a 90 year old cannot be denied the job of flying a planeload of 300 passengers if he or she personally wants it.

    ““anyone” leaves no room for misinterpretation.”

    Anyone, meaning you or me.

    “until they personally want to”.

    Referring to themselves.

    “According to your illogical assertion, a 90 year old cannot be denied the job of flying a planeload of 300 passengers if he or she personally wants it.’

    And that’s where you fall flat on your face. Just because a 90-year-old SEEKS the job of flying does NOT mean they automatically will be given that position, considering they are competing from a pool of applicants.

    Now, a 62-year-old insurance salesman at his firm who has been there for 40 years can decide for himself if and when he wants to retire should there be no mandatory retirement provision at his place of business. Should there be some sort of rules in place, he understands he will have to retire there, but he can certainly choose to continue to work in his field until he personally wants to stop. He may work for another firm, or he may go into business for himself.

    Are you done being binary?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Anyone, meaning you or me.}
    When you are illogical and desperate, you can spin what you wrote into anything your desperate, illogical mind randomly decides. Keep spinning.

    {Are you done being binary?}
    Sure thing: when all else fails, in desperation, start insulting.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Corvinus says:
    @Former Darfur
    I have a friend whose father is in his mid-80s and regularly flies several aircraft including a King Air and a T-6. He is at this moment perfectly safe, in my opinion, but I would not support his or anyone else's being allowed to fly commercial airliners at that age. Airline pilots must retire at 65-it used to be 60, and was stretched five years after decades of lobbying-and this is a good thing.

    Retiring creates slots for new people, and allows the retired to do other things, such as sharing their experience with others in educational or other settings. It also gets the great and rebarbative alike out of the way, to be replaced by fresh choices, for good or ill.

    All Federal judges should be required to retire at a certain age or after a certain length of service.

    “All Federal judges should be required to retire at a certain age or after a certain length of service.”

    They should retire when they are ready to retire, or there is a mountain of evidence presented that their decisions reach the standard of ““incipient senility”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    Frankly, I agree with Corvinus on this one. Mandatory retirement age is a bad idea, not to mention a rather slippery slope. I'm a little unhappy to see this thread devolve into an argument over that point, especially when we all know it's rather politically motivated. I hate RBG as much as anyone else here, but there are better ways of getting rid of her sort than dealing the Age Card from the bottom of the deck. The best way would have been to not have a rubber stamp Senate confirm her in the first place, which I believe was the point of Pat's article.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @Corvinus
    "All Federal judges should be required to retire at a certain age or after a certain length of service."

    They should retire when they are ready to retire, or there is a mountain of evidence presented that their decisions reach the standard of "“incipient senility”.

    Frankly, I agree with Corvinus on this one. Mandatory retirement age is a bad idea, not to mention a rather slippery slope. I’m a little unhappy to see this thread devolve into an argument over that point, especially when we all know it’s rather politically motivated. I hate RBG as much as anyone else here, but there are better ways of getting rid of her sort than dealing the Age Card from the bottom of the deck. The best way would have been to not have a rubber stamp Senate confirm her in the first place, which I believe was the point of Pat’s article.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. Avery says:
    @Corvinus
    "“anyone” leaves no room for misinterpretation."

    Anyone, meaning you or me.

    "until they personally want to".

    Referring to themselves.

    "According to your illogical assertion, a 90 year old cannot be denied the job of flying a planeload of 300 passengers if he or she personally wants it.'

    And that's where you fall flat on your face. Just because a 90-year-old SEEKS the job of flying does NOT mean they automatically will be given that position, considering they are competing from a pool of applicants.

    Now, a 62-year-old insurance salesman at his firm who has been there for 40 years can decide for himself if and when he wants to retire should there be no mandatory retirement provision at his place of business. Should there be some sort of rules in place, he understands he will have to retire there, but he can certainly choose to continue to work in his field until he personally wants to stop. He may work for another firm, or he may go into business for himself.

    Are you done being binary?

    {Anyone, meaning you or me.}
    When you are illogical and desperate, you can spin what you wrote into anything your desperate, illogical mind randomly decides. Keep spinning.

    {Are you done being binary?}
    Sure thing: when all else fails, in desperation, start insulting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Sure thing: when all else fails, in desperation, start insulting."

    Binary refers to thinking only in two ways to look at a situation. If you find that "insulting", you should start with yourself to look at things from multiple situations. That's all on you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Art says:
    @Corvinus
    BOO! The Jews are everywhere, infiltrating American society. They are responsible for EVERY problem the United States currently faces.

    Maybe, just maybe, you are Jewish yourself and are jealous of the success of your brethren, but take it out on them.

    So, Art, what are you doing about this travesty of justice? Why not actually get out there and inform the masses through a grass roots effort about the "Jewish conspiracy"? Or, are you just that impotent?

    The Jews are everywhere, infiltrating American society. They are responsible for EVERY problem the United States currently faces.

    So Corvinus — there you go again – giving yourself away – good typical whine (hasbara 101) – poor poor Jews – victims victims – always victims, victims forever. (You should ask for a bonus. (I’ll put in a good word for you (your welcome.)))

    You got that right about Jews and our problems in America. Every problem event in America that gets reported on, goes through a Jew filter. The Jew MSM tells America what to think.

    Left think (CNN) and right think (FOX JEWS) – are both dictated to by Jews. The extreme positions are only options given to us in America. That is why we can never solve things. Dirty isn’t it!

    p.s. It was a sad day at FOX JEWS – another big killing and no conspiracy to scream about – another lone gunman. It is a dead give away – lone gunman kill because their people have been killed. No one in the Jew media will use those words – bastards!

    p.s. Poor “The Five” had a dud of a show today. they couldn’t get the Jews – Gorka or Krauthammer – on their show, so they didn’t know what to say or think. (The women only screamed for someone’s blood five times (they have to prove that they are meaner then the men (It’s a NY kind of thing.)))

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    I get that you are anti-Jew. I get that you (foolishly) believe Jews control education, the media, politics, etc.

    Ok, so now that we got that out of the way, what are YOU doing about it? Are you going door to door to inform citizens that they are being duped? Are you going to run for political office on an anti-Jew campaign?

    Or you simply impotent? That is, are you powerless other than writing your sentiments on a blog and NOT actually do something constructive about it?
    , @TJM
    What other group in America has as much control as the jews do, yet you are not allowed to question their goals or even point out how much control they have .

    If you even dare to point out their influence (but its OK for them to point out their influence) you are called a hater, anti-Semite (even though they are NOT Semites!).

    They lie as easily as breath, as long as it is a Gentile they lie to.

    Wall Street, Entertainment Industry, MSM, Hollywood, Washington are all heavily controlled by Zionist Jews, yet to say even that is considered "anti-Semitic", why? The answer of course is if we accepted the reality that Zionist Jews controlled these industries, they would have to take responsibility for the actions and CONSEQUENCES of their control.

    Paul Wolfowitz was the primary architect of the war ON Iraq, and what was his punishment for his lies and poor judgement, made the head of the World Bank, he should have been HUNG!

    There are numerous examples of Jewish activities leading to terrible outcomes, who is the biggest supporter of open borders in American, YET NEVER OPEN BORDERS IN ISRAEL! America wants a wall, Zionist Jew media called it racist, yet Israel builds a wall, "it needed to preserve safely and their culture".

    Hollywood LOVES to emphasize the issue with pedophilia in the Catholic Church, almost every comedy repeats it, yet Hollywood itself is the epicenter of child predators and sex slavery in America.

    sadly I could write all day on this subject, there is so much evidence to support it, but suffice it to say, thanks to the internet, the word is getting out, the question is, how long will they let us keep using it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Age per se is not the fundamental issue. Limiting the terms of all Federal judges up to and including Justices of the Supreme Court is a good idea because the present system has given us an imperial judiciary, no less partisan but corrupted with vast and permanent power.

    Having said that, age per se is relevant secondarily because we have a judiciary full of senile and near-senile gerontocrats. The effects can be seen in the Catholic Church with JPII having held on well past his time of effectiveness and in the First Presidency and Quorum of the LDS Church. A few people can effectively perform important duties in their eighties and nineties but most cannot.

    We correctly withhold alcohol, firearms and the franchise from people under a certain age because while some can handle these things responsibly, many more cannot. It is an arbitrary age we choose to set. Likewise, based on observing my own family members and the people I grew up around who now are well into geriatric age, there comes a time to say that certain positions are for people in their peak years, because they are important responsibilities.

    Judges should be either elected or appointed by Congress for a set term, thereafter to retire from the bench and live under the precedents they set.

    Actually, the biggest problem of all is the refusal of Congress to do its job and legislate in the first place, correcting and mooting bad precedents and enforcing good ones. That in turn goes back to the fact that the American electorate is less and less democracyworthy each election year, and there is no fix from within the system for that. Indeed, sometimes the imperial judiciary gets it right. But that doesn’t mean that the system is right: bad law sometimes has good results even as good law sometimes has bad results in the short term.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  79. TJM says:
    @Priss Factor
    Don't call her a 'liberal'.

    She is a Jewish Supremacist Globalist Radical.

    THANK YOU!!!!!!!!!!!

    Affirmative action is just racism in disguise, and she is all about open borders another globalist desire.

    It is time to stop lumping Zionist Jews, or Zionists like Clinton with liberals in general.

    Interesting how issues like abortion, affirmative action, open borders are all NOW priorities of the democratic establishment, and not issues like worker’s rights, the environment, STOPPING WAR, protecting American worker’s jobs…

    You see a pattern here, social issues, are at the top of the list, they are just to distract, divide Americans, while core issues that effect all Americans, like war, are brushed aside because they ARE tangible, issues that bring us together.

    Zionists have worked for decades to destroy the fabric of America, and have been quite effective.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. TJM says:
    @Rehmat
    Like a typical Zionist Jew justice Ginsburg is not happy even though her tribe makes less than 2% of American population it has three red-blooded Jew judges out of current eight at the Supreme Court. The rest are committed Zionist Christians.

    However, I must admit Ginsburg was right about moving to New Zealand - and Pat Buchanan should consider it seriously too. After all, New Zealand is a White Christian occupied country - and like United States, is ruled by a tiny Jewish minority.

    In September 2014, John Phillip Key, son of a Austrian Jewish immigrant won his third term as prime minister of New Zealand. Key, in fact is the third prime minister of the country with Jewish family roots. Julius Vogel served in the 1870s and Sir Francis Henry Dillon Bell, who later converted to Christianity, was at the helm for two weeks in 1925. In addition to that Auckland had seven Mayors throughout its history. New Zealand is home to only 7,000 Jews.

    Key is a blind supporter of Israel. His top two propagandists, David Farrar and Cameron Slater have close links with Netanyahu’s Likud Jewish racist party. Their websites are consistently pro-Israel and follow the Zionist narrative of the bad Hamas raining bombs on the poor Israelis while in fact the IDF bombed the Gaza strip killing thousands of civilians, destroying over 80.000 homes and infrastructure.....

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/12/24/new-zealand-occupied-by-jewish-minority/

    I read the comments section precisely to read comments like your’s. We live in a world of pure propaganda and manipulation, predominately controlled by Zionist Jews, so it is refreshing to see that some people see through the lies and the control. Americans have for the most part accepted the Zionist world view, hook line and sinker: We are divided, scared, petty, and shockingly ignorant to the pain and suffering our governemnt causes around the world.

    America is like a big powerful man who is kept drunk and delusional as to be easily manipulated to doing its controller’s bidding.

    There is no greater evil on earth than the zionists, so much war and human suffering is caused because of their activities, I only hope people wake up and put an end to their tyranny over the lives of so many.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. Corvinus says:
    @Art
    The Jews are everywhere, infiltrating American society. They are responsible for EVERY problem the United States currently faces.

    So Corvinus --- there you go again – giving yourself away – good typical whine (hasbara 101) – poor poor Jews – victims victims – always victims, victims forever. (You should ask for a bonus. (I’ll put in a good word for you (your welcome.)))

    You got that right about Jews and our problems in America. Every problem event in America that gets reported on, goes through a Jew filter. The Jew MSM tells America what to think.

    Left think (CNN) and right think (FOX JEWS) - are both dictated to by Jews. The extreme positions are only options given to us in America. That is why we can never solve things. Dirty isn't it!

    p.s. It was a sad day at FOX JEWS - another big killing and no conspiracy to scream about - another lone gunman. It is a dead give away - lone gunman kill because their people have been killed. No one in the Jew media will use those words - bastards!

    p.s. Poor "The Five" had a dud of a show today. they couldn't get the Jews - Gorka or Krauthammer - on their show, so they didn't know what to say or think. (The women only screamed for someone's blood five times (they have to prove that they are meaner then the men (It’s a NY kind of thing.)))

    I get that you are anti-Jew. I get that you (foolishly) believe Jews control education, the media, politics, etc.

    Ok, so now that we got that out of the way, what are YOU doing about it? Are you going door to door to inform citizens that they are being duped? Are you going to run for political office on an anti-Jew campaign?

    Or you simply impotent? That is, are you powerless other than writing your sentiments on a blog and NOT actually do something constructive about it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TJM
    If you are an American, you should be anti Jewish control, period. Not anti-Jewish per say, as long as they put America's welfare before israel's, I know shutter the thought.

    Are you seriously saying that Jews don't control the media, Hollywood, Wall street, and on what basis do you make such a ridiculousness statement, in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

    In the media there is two sides to every story save one. There is pro and anti gun, immigration, feminism, gay marriage, racism...but you will NEVER hear anyone criticize Israel, and have a job the next day, sounds like control to me.

    Zionist Jews seem to lie as easily as the rest of us breath. I believe it is because its only a lie if they do it to a fellow member of the "tribe", otherwise its perfectly fine. That was Bernie Madoff's problem, it was not that he screwed over Gentiles, all Zionist Jew Wall Street does that, But Bernie screwed over fellow jews, that's why he is in jail, and the rest of Wall Street is not.

    No one could run on an "anti-Jew campaign because the media would never let it happen. Ron Paul said Israel lobby had too much influence over Congress, and the Jew media instantly started working to paint him as insane.


    Zionists are a plague in America, note I don't say Jews, because there are more non jew Zionists than just Jewish ones. Anyone who places Israel's well being above America's has no place in public office, though in America, its the exact opposite, here support for Israel is what makes a person a candidate, just look at Hitlery Clinton and her supporters, and you see the face of Zionism.

    So spare us the tired Jew victim crap, it is rather played, here you actually have to make an argument, one that proves Zionism does not run US foreign policy and is why America has become so militarized. I don't expect you to respond, the greatest lies even from things like you, can't overcome the mountain of evidence that proves the evil that infests DC.
    , @Art
    Or you simply impotent? That is, are you powerless other than writing your sentiments on a blog and NOT actually do something constructive about it?

    Corvinus,

    What you so proudly describe is a situation of coercion – one where you benefit.

    History says that these situations go on and on – then one day there is a revolt.

    The longer it takes for the revolt – the messier it gets.

    Have a good day - Art
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Corvinus says:
    @Avery
    {Anyone, meaning you or me.}
    When you are illogical and desperate, you can spin what you wrote into anything your desperate, illogical mind randomly decides. Keep spinning.

    {Are you done being binary?}
    Sure thing: when all else fails, in desperation, start insulting.

    “Sure thing: when all else fails, in desperation, start insulting.”

    Binary refers to thinking only in two ways to look at a situation. If you find that “insulting”, you should start with yourself to look at things from multiple situations. That’s all on you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. TJM says:
    @Penguinchip
    Why can't a Jew just be a liberal asshole without being part of a vast global supremacist conspiracy?

    What a joke, time for the “nothing to see here” snakes in the grass, has long since past. George Soros, AIPAC, AEI, Council of Foreign Relations, basically most of the lobbying foreign and domestic apparatus in America lobby for Zionists, and since America is a global force, one should see Zionist as a global threat. Not to mention Global Central banking is most certainly Zionist, sooo sort of a conspiracy fact.

    Sounds like you have a bit of Zionist in you!

    Liberals don’t want open borders, Zionists do, liberals don’t want TPP, Zionists do, liberals don’t want war in the Middle East, filthy Zionist most definitely do, liberals don’t want bank bailouts, Zionist do, so you see “asshole”, there is a huge difference between liberals, and warmongering, money grubbing freedom hating Zionists. Does that clear it up for you?!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. TJM says:
    @WorkingClass
    If only she could be pure as the driven snow like the Republican justices. Right Pat?

    Two sides of the same zionist coin

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. TJM says:
    @iffen
    Why can’t a Jew just be a liberal asshole without being part of a vast global supremacist conspiracy?

    Why? Indeed. That would tear down so many houses if true.

    [[[They]]] will tell you that the Jews can't help themselves, it's fixed, in the blood, yada, yada.

    Tear down houses like what, Hollywood (or do you wish to lie and say Jews don’t control it, even they say so themselves), or perhaps Wall Street, of course just looking at the list of CEOs and executives pretty mush seals off any denial there, how about Washington DC, boy with AIPAC, AEI, CFR…and on and on, really hard not to say Zionist run US foreign policy.

    The reality is, things like you, hasbara trolls, are being obsolete, more and more people see the activities of the Zionist Jews, and no matter how easy it is for you to lie, and boy is it easy for Zionist to lie, blue is still blue, and Zionist Jews are indeed a surge on Earth. Answer, stop making money off of other’s misfortune, respect all cultures not just your own, and STOP MAKING WAR!!!!!!!!!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. TJM says:
    @Corvinus
    I get that you are anti-Jew. I get that you (foolishly) believe Jews control education, the media, politics, etc.

    Ok, so now that we got that out of the way, what are YOU doing about it? Are you going door to door to inform citizens that they are being duped? Are you going to run for political office on an anti-Jew campaign?

    Or you simply impotent? That is, are you powerless other than writing your sentiments on a blog and NOT actually do something constructive about it?

    If you are an American, you should be anti Jewish control, period. Not anti-Jewish per say, as long as they put America’s welfare before israel’s, I know shutter the thought.

    Are you seriously saying that Jews don’t control the media, Hollywood, Wall street, and on what basis do you make such a ridiculousness statement, in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

    In the media there is two sides to every story save one. There is pro and anti gun, immigration, feminism, gay marriage, racism…but you will NEVER hear anyone criticize Israel, and have a job the next day, sounds like control to me.

    Zionist Jews seem to lie as easily as the rest of us breath. I believe it is because its only a lie if they do it to a fellow member of the “tribe”, otherwise its perfectly fine. That was Bernie Madoff’s problem, it was not that he screwed over Gentiles, all Zionist Jew Wall Street does that, But Bernie screwed over fellow jews, that’s why he is in jail, and the rest of Wall Street is not.

    No one could run on an “anti-Jew campaign because the media would never let it happen. Ron Paul said Israel lobby had too much influence over Congress, and the Jew media instantly started working to paint him as insane.

    Zionists are a plague in America, note I don’t say Jews, because there are more non jew Zionists than just Jewish ones. Anyone who places Israel’s well being above America’s has no place in public office, though in America, its the exact opposite, here support for Israel is what makes a person a candidate, just look at Hitlery Clinton and her supporters, and you see the face of Zionism.

    So spare us the tired Jew victim crap, it is rather played, here you actually have to make an argument, one that proves Zionism does not run US foreign policy and is why America has become so militarized. I don’t expect you to respond, the greatest lies even from things like you, can’t overcome the mountain of evidence that proves the evil that infests DC.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "If you are an American, you should be anti Jewish control, period."

    You assume that EVERYWHERE, in EVERY instance, Jews abuse their authority. Let us assume it to be accurate.

    What are YOU doing as an American to stop it?

    "No one could run on an “anti-Jew campaign because the media would never let it happen. Ron Paul said Israel lobby had too much influence over Congress, and the Jew media instantly started working to paint him as insane."

    So, in other words, you are impotent, i.e. powerless, to tell your American brethren that they are being bamboozled.

    "Anyone who places Israel’s well being above America’s has no place in public office, though in America, its the exact opposite, here support for Israel is what makes a person a candidate, just look at Hitlery Clinton and her supporters, and you see the face of Zionism."

    Again, how are YOU informing your fellow Americans on a large-scale basis of this "perversion"? What campaign are YOU organizing to rid your fellow citizens of this scourge?

    "I don’t expect you to respond, the greatest lies even from things like you, can’t overcome the mountain of evidence that proves the evil that infests DC."

    So, if there is this "evil" that is so pervasive, what "good" things are you doing openly and outwardly?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Corvinus says:
    @TJM
    If you are an American, you should be anti Jewish control, period. Not anti-Jewish per say, as long as they put America's welfare before israel's, I know shutter the thought.

    Are you seriously saying that Jews don't control the media, Hollywood, Wall street, and on what basis do you make such a ridiculousness statement, in the face of incontrovertible evidence.

    In the media there is two sides to every story save one. There is pro and anti gun, immigration, feminism, gay marriage, racism...but you will NEVER hear anyone criticize Israel, and have a job the next day, sounds like control to me.

    Zionist Jews seem to lie as easily as the rest of us breath. I believe it is because its only a lie if they do it to a fellow member of the "tribe", otherwise its perfectly fine. That was Bernie Madoff's problem, it was not that he screwed over Gentiles, all Zionist Jew Wall Street does that, But Bernie screwed over fellow jews, that's why he is in jail, and the rest of Wall Street is not.

    No one could run on an "anti-Jew campaign because the media would never let it happen. Ron Paul said Israel lobby had too much influence over Congress, and the Jew media instantly started working to paint him as insane.


    Zionists are a plague in America, note I don't say Jews, because there are more non jew Zionists than just Jewish ones. Anyone who places Israel's well being above America's has no place in public office, though in America, its the exact opposite, here support for Israel is what makes a person a candidate, just look at Hitlery Clinton and her supporters, and you see the face of Zionism.

    So spare us the tired Jew victim crap, it is rather played, here you actually have to make an argument, one that proves Zionism does not run US foreign policy and is why America has become so militarized. I don't expect you to respond, the greatest lies even from things like you, can't overcome the mountain of evidence that proves the evil that infests DC.

    “If you are an American, you should be anti Jewish control, period.”

    You assume that EVERYWHERE, in EVERY instance, Jews abuse their authority. Let us assume it to be accurate.

    What are YOU doing as an American to stop it?

    “No one could run on an “anti-Jew campaign because the media would never let it happen. Ron Paul said Israel lobby had too much influence over Congress, and the Jew media instantly started working to paint him as insane.”

    So, in other words, you are impotent, i.e. powerless, to tell your American brethren that they are being bamboozled.

    “Anyone who places Israel’s well being above America’s has no place in public office, though in America, its the exact opposite, here support for Israel is what makes a person a candidate, just look at Hitlery Clinton and her supporters, and you see the face of Zionism.”

    Again, how are YOU informing your fellow Americans on a large-scale basis of this “perversion”? What campaign are YOU organizing to rid your fellow citizens of this scourge?

    “I don’t expect you to respond, the greatest lies even from things like you, can’t overcome the mountain of evidence that proves the evil that infests DC.”

    So, if there is this “evil” that is so pervasive, what “good” things are you doing openly and outwardly?

    Read More
    • Replies: @TJM
    Seriously, are you an idiot?

    What am I doing to stop it, if someone speaks against Zionism in America, would Americans ever hear about it, NO YOU FUCKING ASS< THEY CONTROL THE MEDIA!

    What is it you don't get, many great people have tried to stand up to the Jewish lobby, and have paid a very high price. When you control the media, you control information. Mel Gibson, said ALL WARS ARE CAUSED BY THE JEWS, now he has every right to his opinion, but not in America, the Zionist jew machine went to work destroying him, painting him insane.

    America went to war and killed tens of thousands of lives in Iraq, all for the Zionist Jews, and you ask what I can do. I am doing it RIGHT NOW! They may control the media, but they don't have control of the internet. though they do use filthy Hasbara trolls to try and spin their lies, I am sure YOU are more than familiar with them.

    The way to fight such infestation is by spreading the word, anyway one can.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. TJM says:
    @Art
    The Jews are everywhere, infiltrating American society. They are responsible for EVERY problem the United States currently faces.

    So Corvinus --- there you go again – giving yourself away – good typical whine (hasbara 101) – poor poor Jews – victims victims – always victims, victims forever. (You should ask for a bonus. (I’ll put in a good word for you (your welcome.)))

    You got that right about Jews and our problems in America. Every problem event in America that gets reported on, goes through a Jew filter. The Jew MSM tells America what to think.

    Left think (CNN) and right think (FOX JEWS) - are both dictated to by Jews. The extreme positions are only options given to us in America. That is why we can never solve things. Dirty isn't it!

    p.s. It was a sad day at FOX JEWS - another big killing and no conspiracy to scream about - another lone gunman. It is a dead give away - lone gunman kill because their people have been killed. No one in the Jew media will use those words - bastards!

    p.s. Poor "The Five" had a dud of a show today. they couldn't get the Jews - Gorka or Krauthammer - on their show, so they didn't know what to say or think. (The women only screamed for someone's blood five times (they have to prove that they are meaner then the men (It’s a NY kind of thing.)))

    What other group in America has as much control as the jews do, yet you are not allowed to question their goals or even point out how much control they have .

    If you even dare to point out their influence (but its OK for them to point out their influence) you are called a hater, anti-Semite (even though they are NOT Semites!).

    They lie as easily as breath, as long as it is a Gentile they lie to.

    Wall Street, Entertainment Industry, MSM, Hollywood, Washington are all heavily controlled by Zionist Jews, yet to say even that is considered “anti-Semitic”, why? The answer of course is if we accepted the reality that Zionist Jews controlled these industries, they would have to take responsibility for the actions and CONSEQUENCES of their control.

    Paul Wolfowitz was the primary architect of the war ON Iraq, and what was his punishment for his lies and poor judgement, made the head of the World Bank, he should have been HUNG!

    There are numerous examples of Jewish activities leading to terrible outcomes, who is the biggest supporter of open borders in American, YET NEVER OPEN BORDERS IN ISRAEL! America wants a wall, Zionist Jew media called it racist, yet Israel builds a wall, “it needed to preserve safely and their culture”.

    Hollywood LOVES to emphasize the issue with pedophilia in the Catholic Church, almost every comedy repeats it, yet Hollywood itself is the epicenter of child predators and sex slavery in America.

    sadly I could write all day on this subject, there is so much evidence to support it, but suffice it to say, thanks to the internet, the word is getting out, the question is, how long will they let us keep using it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. Art says:
    @iffen
    Why can’t a Jew just be a liberal asshole without being part of a vast global supremacist conspiracy?

    Why? Indeed. That would tear down so many houses if true.

    [[[They]]] will tell you that the Jews can't help themselves, it's fixed, in the blood, yada, yada.

    [[[They]]] will tell you that the Jews can’t help themselves, it’s fixed, in the blood, yada, yada.

    So iffen,

    What is your explanation for Jew behavior – why are they so greedy, so duplicitous, why do all their holidays celebrate death?

    Of course it is true – there is a list on the internet of 109 geography locations where they have been cast out in the last 2000 years.

    Is genetics, is it culture – space aliens maybe?

    You are a smart guy Jew wanabe – tell us.

    Art

    p.s. Please no hasbara 101.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Art says:
    @Corvinus
    I get that you are anti-Jew. I get that you (foolishly) believe Jews control education, the media, politics, etc.

    Ok, so now that we got that out of the way, what are YOU doing about it? Are you going door to door to inform citizens that they are being duped? Are you going to run for political office on an anti-Jew campaign?

    Or you simply impotent? That is, are you powerless other than writing your sentiments on a blog and NOT actually do something constructive about it?

    Or you simply impotent? That is, are you powerless other than writing your sentiments on a blog and NOT actually do something constructive about it?

    Corvinus,

    What you so proudly describe is a situation of coercion – one where you benefit.

    History says that these situations go on and on – then one day there is a revolt.

    The longer it takes for the revolt – the messier it gets.

    Have a good day – Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "History says that these situations go on and on – then one day there is a revolt. The longer it takes for the revolt – the messier it gets."

    Yes, the revolt. Which are inching along with these plans as we speak. Listen, you are the type to bemoan about Jews, then say they control everything, thus you only "spread the word" on the Internet in fear. Which means you are impotent, you lack the guile and gumption to actually do something about it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. TJM says:
    @Corvinus
    "If you are an American, you should be anti Jewish control, period."

    You assume that EVERYWHERE, in EVERY instance, Jews abuse their authority. Let us assume it to be accurate.

    What are YOU doing as an American to stop it?

    "No one could run on an “anti-Jew campaign because the media would never let it happen. Ron Paul said Israel lobby had too much influence over Congress, and the Jew media instantly started working to paint him as insane."

    So, in other words, you are impotent, i.e. powerless, to tell your American brethren that they are being bamboozled.

    "Anyone who places Israel’s well being above America’s has no place in public office, though in America, its the exact opposite, here support for Israel is what makes a person a candidate, just look at Hitlery Clinton and her supporters, and you see the face of Zionism."

    Again, how are YOU informing your fellow Americans on a large-scale basis of this "perversion"? What campaign are YOU organizing to rid your fellow citizens of this scourge?

    "I don’t expect you to respond, the greatest lies even from things like you, can’t overcome the mountain of evidence that proves the evil that infests DC."

    So, if there is this "evil" that is so pervasive, what "good" things are you doing openly and outwardly?

    Seriously, are you an idiot?

    What am I doing to stop it, if someone speaks against Zionism in America, would Americans ever hear about it, NO YOU FUCKING ASS< THEY CONTROL THE MEDIA!

    What is it you don't get, many great people have tried to stand up to the Jewish lobby, and have paid a very high price. When you control the media, you control information. Mel Gibson, said ALL WARS ARE CAUSED BY THE JEWS, now he has every right to his opinion, but not in America, the Zionist jew machine went to work destroying him, painting him insane.

    America went to war and killed tens of thousands of lives in Iraq, all for the Zionist Jews, and you ask what I can do. I am doing it RIGHT NOW! They may control the media, but they don't have control of the internet. though they do use filthy Hasbara trolls to try and spin their lies, I am sure YOU are more than familiar with them.

    The way to fight such infestation is by spreading the word, anyway one can.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "What am I doing to stop it, if someone speaks against Zionism in America, would Americans ever hear about it, NO YOU FUCKING ASS< THEY CONTROL THE MEDIA!"

    There are a number of people out there who have spoken their minds about Jews in the mainstream media. Look for yourself.

    "What is it you don't get, many great people have tried to stand up to the Jewish lobby, and have paid a very high price. When you control the media, you control information. Mel Gibson, said ALL WARS ARE CAUSED BY THE JEWS, now he has every right to his opinion, but not in America, the Zionist jew machine went to work destroying him, painting him insane."

    No, he was insane for his rants, just like Art, and anonomy, and a cast of tens here.

    "The way to fight such infestation is by spreading the word, anyway one can."

    But the issue is larger than yourself. You need to take one for the team. See, IF Jews are this cancer that will ultimately kill America, you take a knife to cut it out. Permanently. Spreading the word does little. It takes direct, hard hitting action. Which you are afraid to take. Impotent is the key word here.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Corvinus says:
    @Art
    Or you simply impotent? That is, are you powerless other than writing your sentiments on a blog and NOT actually do something constructive about it?

    Corvinus,

    What you so proudly describe is a situation of coercion – one where you benefit.

    History says that these situations go on and on – then one day there is a revolt.

    The longer it takes for the revolt – the messier it gets.

    Have a good day - Art

    “History says that these situations go on and on – then one day there is a revolt. The longer it takes for the revolt – the messier it gets.”

    Yes, the revolt. Which are inching along with these plans as we speak. Listen, you are the type to bemoan about Jews, then say they control everything, thus you only “spread the word” on the Internet in fear. Which means you are impotent, you lack the guile and gumption to actually do something about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    Which means you are impotent, you lack the guile and gumption to actually do something about it.
     
    Corvinus,

    You are a one trick pony - over and over you say the same thing - what trouble are you trying to foster? What is your end game here?

    I am a philosophical Christian - my game is do no harm. I believe that the truth will make us free.

    It is you Jews who are into force and coercion. Lies and intimidation is you game.

    You Jew thrive on division and hate - go for it as long as it lasts.

    Good Day --- Art
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Corvinus says:
    @TJM
    Seriously, are you an idiot?

    What am I doing to stop it, if someone speaks against Zionism in America, would Americans ever hear about it, NO YOU FUCKING ASS< THEY CONTROL THE MEDIA!

    What is it you don't get, many great people have tried to stand up to the Jewish lobby, and have paid a very high price. When you control the media, you control information. Mel Gibson, said ALL WARS ARE CAUSED BY THE JEWS, now he has every right to his opinion, but not in America, the Zionist jew machine went to work destroying him, painting him insane.

    America went to war and killed tens of thousands of lives in Iraq, all for the Zionist Jews, and you ask what I can do. I am doing it RIGHT NOW! They may control the media, but they don't have control of the internet. though they do use filthy Hasbara trolls to try and spin their lies, I am sure YOU are more than familiar with them.

    The way to fight such infestation is by spreading the word, anyway one can.

    “What am I doing to stop it, if someone speaks against Zionism in America, would Americans ever hear about it, NO YOU FUCKING ASS< THEY CONTROL THE MEDIA!"

    There are a number of people out there who have spoken their minds about Jews in the mainstream media. Look for yourself.

    "What is it you don't get, many great people have tried to stand up to the Jewish lobby, and have paid a very high price. When you control the media, you control information. Mel Gibson, said ALL WARS ARE CAUSED BY THE JEWS, now he has every right to his opinion, but not in America, the Zionist jew machine went to work destroying him, painting him insane."

    No, he was insane for his rants, just like Art, and anonomy, and a cast of tens here.

    "The way to fight such infestation is by spreading the word, anyway one can."

    But the issue is larger than yourself. You need to take one for the team. See, IF Jews are this cancer that will ultimately kill America, you take a knife to cut it out. Permanently. Spreading the word does little. It takes direct, hard hitting action. Which you are afraid to take. Impotent is the key word here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @TJM
    Don't communicate with me like you know me, or can give me advice.

    You sound like a true Zionist, first you make comments without any proof to back it up:

    "There are a number of people out there who have spoken their minds about Jews in the mainstream media. Look for yourself", no jackass, you show me, since you obviously have seen what no one else sees (increase your meds)

    Then you demonstrate for your ilk, its always about violence, all your tribe knows is hate and killing. No wonder you killed Christ, he is the true anti-Jew, and our savior.

    The pen, or in this case the key board is indeed mightier than the sword, so keep your violent nature to yourself, I know its hard, but you are barking up the wrong tree here. This site is about sharing ideas, so keep your violent nature to yourself. Zionist Jews did not take this country over with weapons but with money, weapons won't take it back, only knowledge, morality, and an end of violence will end the tyranny.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Art says:
    @Corvinus
    "History says that these situations go on and on – then one day there is a revolt. The longer it takes for the revolt – the messier it gets."

    Yes, the revolt. Which are inching along with these plans as we speak. Listen, you are the type to bemoan about Jews, then say they control everything, thus you only "spread the word" on the Internet in fear. Which means you are impotent, you lack the guile and gumption to actually do something about it.

    Which means you are impotent, you lack the guile and gumption to actually do something about it.

    Corvinus,

    You are a one trick pony – over and over you say the same thing – what trouble are you trying to foster? What is your end game here?

    I am a philosophical Christian – my game is do no harm. I believe that the truth will make us free.

    It is you Jews who are into force and coercion. Lies and intimidation is you game.

    You Jew thrive on division and hate – go for it as long as it lasts.

    Good Day — Art

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "You are a one trick pony – over and over you say the same thing – what trouble are you trying to foster? What is your end game here?"

    [Laughs] do you even realize the irony in this statement?

    You are commenting in an echo chamber. Go outside your comfort zone, this blog, and actually reach out to the people about the "Jewish menace".

    "I am a philosophical Christian – my game is do no harm. I believe that the truth will make us free."

    The Bible says in James 3:8, "But no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison." The tongue can be the most wicked weapon on earth, so use it wisely and speak your words with caution. As white Christians, we shouldn't fill our lives with deceit. We should always strive to leave honest, open lives that are full of trust and love. But, since we are all human, sometimes it is hard to avoid lying.

    "It is you Jews who are into force and coercion. Lies and intimidation is you game."

    You are going to have prove that I am Jewish, otherwise you are outright lying. So, sport, how are you going to do that considering you do not know who I am?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. TJM says:
    @Corvinus
    "What am I doing to stop it, if someone speaks against Zionism in America, would Americans ever hear about it, NO YOU FUCKING ASS< THEY CONTROL THE MEDIA!"

    There are a number of people out there who have spoken their minds about Jews in the mainstream media. Look for yourself.

    "What is it you don't get, many great people have tried to stand up to the Jewish lobby, and have paid a very high price. When you control the media, you control information. Mel Gibson, said ALL WARS ARE CAUSED BY THE JEWS, now he has every right to his opinion, but not in America, the Zionist jew machine went to work destroying him, painting him insane."

    No, he was insane for his rants, just like Art, and anonomy, and a cast of tens here.

    "The way to fight such infestation is by spreading the word, anyway one can."

    But the issue is larger than yourself. You need to take one for the team. See, IF Jews are this cancer that will ultimately kill America, you take a knife to cut it out. Permanently. Spreading the word does little. It takes direct, hard hitting action. Which you are afraid to take. Impotent is the key word here.

    Don’t communicate with me like you know me, or can give me advice.

    You sound like a true Zionist, first you make comments without any proof to back it up:

    “There are a number of people out there who have spoken their minds about Jews in the mainstream media. Look for yourself”, no jackass, you show me, since you obviously have seen what no one else sees (increase your meds)

    Then you demonstrate for your ilk, its always about violence, all your tribe knows is hate and killing. No wonder you killed Christ, he is the true anti-Jew, and our savior.

    The pen, or in this case the key board is indeed mightier than the sword, so keep your violent nature to yourself, I know its hard, but you are barking up the wrong tree here. This site is about sharing ideas, so keep your violent nature to yourself. Zionist Jews did not take this country over with weapons but with money, weapons won’t take it back, only knowledge, morality, and an end of violence will end the tyranny.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    Then you demonstrate for your ilk, its always about violence, all your tribe knows is hate and killing. No wonder you killed Christ, he is the true anti-Jew, and our savior."

    This is how far some people are willing to go with their Jewish conspiracies--EVERYONE who questions them is Jewish.

    I'm white. I'm American. I'm NOT Jewish.

    Now, if you want to perpetuate the lie, that's on you.

    "This site is about sharing ideas, so keep your violent nature to yourself. "

    Again, words mean nothing. Action does. Go out and spread the word about the Jews in your community rather than on a blog where a number of people here already agree with you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Corvinus
    BOO! The Jews are everywhere, infiltrating American society. They are responsible for EVERY problem the United States currently faces.

    Maybe, just maybe, you are Jewish yourself and are jealous of the success of your brethren, but take it out on them.

    So, Art, what are you doing about this travesty of justice? Why not actually get out there and inform the masses through a grass roots effort about the "Jewish conspiracy"? Or, are you just that impotent?

    So . . . what are you doing about this travesty of justice? Why not actually get out there and inform the masses through a grass roots effort about the “Jewish conspiracy”? Or, are you just that impotent?

    TOO DOO re JOO:

    1. Jews gotta write. It’s almost a compulsion — Jewish lecturers say so.

    2. Jewish writing is like the Tell-tale Heart: they project and telegraph the guilt they cannot otherwise acknowledge: the more Jews write (and make movies about, etc.) the holocaust and also about attacks on Jews by the imprisoned and defenseless people of Gaza, the more is revealed about what Jews know deep down inside is their complicity in the destruction of Europe, and the destruction of Palestine, the destruction of the Middle East, as as that little fart Royce Mann just poesied, the wished-for destruction of USA.

    Therefore,

    3. As long as Newton’s Third Law of Motion remains in effect, persons who are concerned about the “Jewish conspiracy” need to do precisely nothing; or even more precisely, they should get out of the way and let Jews self-destruct, for they surely will, by their own words and deeds.

    4. Sit back and watch it happen in real time: simply to record and report on what Jews write about themselves in order to draw the attention of the great mass of Deluded Ones to the ineffably self-destructive traits of Jews is all that is really necessary.

    5. If you feel you must do something, pop corn.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    As long as Newton’s Third Law of Motion remains in effect, persons who are concerned about the “Jewish conspiracy” need to do precisely nothing; or even more precisely, they should get out of the way and let Jews self-destruct, for they surely will, by their own words and deeds.
     
    Hear Hear - very well said!

    The history of the Jews is to self destruct. The Romans did a Carthage solution on them because they could not be reasonable.

    Israel's and world Jewry's demands on the world are getting more ridiculous by the day.
    , @Corvinus
    "they should get out of the way and let Jews self-destruct, for they surely will, by their own words and deeds."

    Except people have been saying that for hundreds of years, and yet Jews are still "in control" and "have power". Are you that impotent to merely sit back and cry about it, rather than take direct action?

    "the great mass of Deluded Ones to the ineffably self-destructive traits of Jews is all that is really necessary."

    As in tens of millions of white people, right? So what makes YOU other than delusional about Jews compared them? Right, I forgot, you haven't been indoctrinated, and they have been flim-flammed. That is, we white people are too stupid to make our decisions about things. We have been "programmed", while you remain unaffected. My bad...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Art says:
    @anonymous

    So . . . what are you doing about this travesty of justice? Why not actually get out there and inform the masses through a grass roots effort about the “Jewish conspiracy”? Or, are you just that impotent?
     
    TOO DOO re JOO:

    1. Jews gotta write. It's almost a compulsion -- Jewish lecturers say so.

    2. Jewish writing is like the Tell-tale Heart: they project and telegraph the guilt they cannot otherwise acknowledge: the more Jews write (and make movies about, etc.) the holocaust and also about attacks on Jews by the imprisoned and defenseless people of Gaza, the more is revealed about what Jews know deep down inside is their complicity in the destruction of Europe, and the destruction of Palestine, the destruction of the Middle East, as as that little fart Royce Mann just poesied, the wished-for destruction of USA.

    Therefore,

    3. As long as Newton's Third Law of Motion remains in effect, persons who are concerned about the "Jewish conspiracy" need to do precisely nothing; or even more precisely, they should get out of the way and let Jews self-destruct, for they surely will, by their own words and deeds.

    4. Sit back and watch it happen in real time: simply to record and report on what Jews write about themselves in order to draw the attention of the great mass of Deluded Ones to the ineffably self-destructive traits of Jews is all that is really necessary.

    5. If you feel you must do something, pop corn.

    As long as Newton’s Third Law of Motion remains in effect, persons who are concerned about the “Jewish conspiracy” need to do precisely nothing; or even more precisely, they should get out of the way and let Jews self-destruct, for they surely will, by their own words and deeds.

    Hear Hear – very well said!

    The history of the Jews is to self destruct. The Romans did a Carthage solution on them because they could not be reasonable.

    Israel’s and world Jewry’s demands on the world are getting more ridiculous by the day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Corvinus says:
    @Art

    Which means you are impotent, you lack the guile and gumption to actually do something about it.
     
    Corvinus,

    You are a one trick pony - over and over you say the same thing - what trouble are you trying to foster? What is your end game here?

    I am a philosophical Christian - my game is do no harm. I believe that the truth will make us free.

    It is you Jews who are into force and coercion. Lies and intimidation is you game.

    You Jew thrive on division and hate - go for it as long as it lasts.

    Good Day --- Art

    “You are a one trick pony – over and over you say the same thing – what trouble are you trying to foster? What is your end game here?”

    [Laughs] do you even realize the irony in this statement?

    You are commenting in an echo chamber. Go outside your comfort zone, this blog, and actually reach out to the people about the “Jewish menace”.

    “I am a philosophical Christian – my game is do no harm. I believe that the truth will make us free.”

    The Bible says in James 3:8, “But no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.” The tongue can be the most wicked weapon on earth, so use it wisely and speak your words with caution. As white Christians, we shouldn’t fill our lives with deceit. We should always strive to leave honest, open lives that are full of trust and love. But, since we are all human, sometimes it is hard to avoid lying.

    “It is you Jews who are into force and coercion. Lies and intimidation is you game.”

    You are going to have prove that I am Jewish, otherwise you are outright lying. So, sport, how are you going to do that considering you do not know who I am?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art

    You are going to have prove that I am Jewish, otherwise you are outright lying
     
    So Corvinus,

    True story, I can never prove that you are a Jew - but I can think it - I can think it, because you give me reason to think it. What I think, I can write.

    Over and over you challenge us to "do something" ---- again, what is it that you want us to do – tell us?

    Are you challenging us to do bad things to Jews? We do not need to do bad things – all we have to do is tell the truth about Jew coercion – "the truth will set us free" (Thanks Jesus).

    Bad things come to bad people – tribal things come to tribal people - it is nature’s way.

    A little something for you -- it is very simple - if Jews want to stop bad things from coming their way – then they must stop doing bad things to people (that is humanity 101).

    Art
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. Corvinus says:
    @TJM
    Don't communicate with me like you know me, or can give me advice.

    You sound like a true Zionist, first you make comments without any proof to back it up:

    "There are a number of people out there who have spoken their minds about Jews in the mainstream media. Look for yourself", no jackass, you show me, since you obviously have seen what no one else sees (increase your meds)

    Then you demonstrate for your ilk, its always about violence, all your tribe knows is hate and killing. No wonder you killed Christ, he is the true anti-Jew, and our savior.

    The pen, or in this case the key board is indeed mightier than the sword, so keep your violent nature to yourself, I know its hard, but you are barking up the wrong tree here. This site is about sharing ideas, so keep your violent nature to yourself. Zionist Jews did not take this country over with weapons but with money, weapons won't take it back, only knowledge, morality, and an end of violence will end the tyranny.

    Then you demonstrate for your ilk, its always about violence, all your tribe knows is hate and killing. No wonder you killed Christ, he is the true anti-Jew, and our savior.”

    This is how far some people are willing to go with their Jewish conspiracies–EVERYONE who questions them is Jewish.

    I’m white. I’m American. I’m NOT Jewish.

    Now, if you want to perpetuate the lie, that’s on you.

    “This site is about sharing ideas, so keep your violent nature to yourself. ”

    Again, words mean nothing. Action does. Go out and spread the word about the Jews in your community rather than on a blog where a number of people here already agree with you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Corvinus says:
    @anonymous

    So . . . what are you doing about this travesty of justice? Why not actually get out there and inform the masses through a grass roots effort about the “Jewish conspiracy”? Or, are you just that impotent?
     
    TOO DOO re JOO:

    1. Jews gotta write. It's almost a compulsion -- Jewish lecturers say so.

    2. Jewish writing is like the Tell-tale Heart: they project and telegraph the guilt they cannot otherwise acknowledge: the more Jews write (and make movies about, etc.) the holocaust and also about attacks on Jews by the imprisoned and defenseless people of Gaza, the more is revealed about what Jews know deep down inside is their complicity in the destruction of Europe, and the destruction of Palestine, the destruction of the Middle East, as as that little fart Royce Mann just poesied, the wished-for destruction of USA.

    Therefore,

    3. As long as Newton's Third Law of Motion remains in effect, persons who are concerned about the "Jewish conspiracy" need to do precisely nothing; or even more precisely, they should get out of the way and let Jews self-destruct, for they surely will, by their own words and deeds.

    4. Sit back and watch it happen in real time: simply to record and report on what Jews write about themselves in order to draw the attention of the great mass of Deluded Ones to the ineffably self-destructive traits of Jews is all that is really necessary.

    5. If you feel you must do something, pop corn.

    “they should get out of the way and let Jews self-destruct, for they surely will, by their own words and deeds.”

    Except people have been saying that for hundreds of years, and yet Jews are still “in control” and “have power”. Are you that impotent to merely sit back and cry about it, rather than take direct action?

    “the great mass of Deluded Ones to the ineffably self-destructive traits of Jews is all that is really necessary.”

    As in tens of millions of white people, right? So what makes YOU other than delusional about Jews compared them? Right, I forgot, you haven’t been indoctrinated, and they have been flim-flammed. That is, we white people are too stupid to make our decisions about things. We have been “programmed”, while you remain unaffected. My bad…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Art says:
    @Corvinus
    "You are a one trick pony – over and over you say the same thing – what trouble are you trying to foster? What is your end game here?"

    [Laughs] do you even realize the irony in this statement?

    You are commenting in an echo chamber. Go outside your comfort zone, this blog, and actually reach out to the people about the "Jewish menace".

    "I am a philosophical Christian – my game is do no harm. I believe that the truth will make us free."

    The Bible says in James 3:8, "But no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison." The tongue can be the most wicked weapon on earth, so use it wisely and speak your words with caution. As white Christians, we shouldn't fill our lives with deceit. We should always strive to leave honest, open lives that are full of trust and love. But, since we are all human, sometimes it is hard to avoid lying.

    "It is you Jews who are into force and coercion. Lies and intimidation is you game."

    You are going to have prove that I am Jewish, otherwise you are outright lying. So, sport, how are you going to do that considering you do not know who I am?

    You are going to have prove that I am Jewish, otherwise you are outright lying

    So Corvinus,

    True story, I can never prove that you are a Jew – but I can think it – I can think it, because you give me reason to think it. What I think, I can write.

    Over and over you challenge us to “do something” —- again, what is it that you want us to do – tell us?

    Are you challenging us to do bad things to Jews? We do not need to do bad things – all we have to do is tell the truth about Jew coercion – “the truth will set us free” (Thanks Jesus).

    Bad things come to bad people – tribal things come to tribal people – it is nature’s way.

    A little something for you — it is very simple – if Jews want to stop bad things from coming their way – then they must stop doing bad things to people (that is humanity 101).

    Art

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

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?