The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewGregory Hood Archive
“RBG” and the Death of the Constitution
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on Friday at age 87. NPR reported that her dying wish was that she not be replaced “until a new president is installed.” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will not grant that wish. “President Trump’s nominee will receive a vote on the floor of the United States Senate,” he said.

In recent years, Justice Ginsburg was a cult figure to progressives. Literally a cult. You can buy Ginsburg devotional candles. She is a heroine in movies, children’s books, and even fitness regimens. As I write this, crowds gather at the Supreme Court, lighting candles, leaving bouquets of flowers, and posing for the media. Twitter is filled with accounts of progressives falling into hysteria.

In contrast, President Trump made a gracious, dignified statement.

It probably won’t do him any good. Progressives are threatening “war,” if Mr. Trump puts another justice on the bench. War is almost to be expected after riots, attacks on police and conservatives, a rising murder rate, and open threats of insurrection from “mainstream” outlets. It was just a few years ago that a Bernie Sanders supporter tried to assassinate Republican congressmen, but this is practically forgotten. American Renaissance does not have an account on Twitter. These progressives do, though, and they won’t be censored.

The departed had metastatic pancreatic cancer. A middle-aged office worker would find it almost impossible to perform any job under these conditions, let alone an 87-year-old who was supposed to analyze complex legal questions. Justice Ginsburg hung on as long as she could because she knew she was a political operative.

In theory, we already have a “conservative” Supreme Court. However, most Republican appointees become left-wing once they make it onto the Court. Chief Justice John Roberts voted to save Obamacare and the DACA amnesty. Both decisions have less to do with the law than with protecting the Court’s “apolitical” reputation. The Chief Justice’s job will be harder if President Trump and the Republican Senate can replace the most progressive justice with a conservative.

Still, the fact that millions seem to believe the fate of the Republic hinged on the fate of an elderly, cancer-stricken woman shows how badly our constitutional system has gone wrong. In theory, Congress passes laws, the President enforces them, and the Supreme Court judges their constitutionality. However, for decades, courts have been the most important branch of government, with the purpose of the other two branches reduced to fighting over Supreme Court nominees.

That is why a dying woman clung to her position like the Emperor in Dark Crystal. She clearly feared that without her, President Trump could change the balance of the Court for decades. But there is no “constitutional crisis.” President Trump will nominate someone, the Senate will vote and that will be it. That is how the system works.

Leftists are clearly unhinged, but so are some conservatives. When Justice Antonin Scalia (who had a personal friendship with Justice Ginsburg that transcended politics) died, many conservatives thought he was murdered.

Many conservatives who disliked or even despised Donald Trump in 2016 voted for him because they didn’t want the Democrats packing the courts. Justice Ginsburg’s death may have the same effect on reluctant Republicans this year. It may also make far-left progressives who didn’t want to vote for the Joe BidenKamala Harris ticket decide that President Trump must be driven from office before he can appoint any more justices.

This isn’t the way the Constitution is supposed to work. Alexander Hamilton thought the Judicial Branch would be the weakest of the three branches. The Framers remembered the institutional struggles that fueled the English Civil War. The Framers assumed that the battles between branches of government would drive American politics. They did not predict that party loyalty would be more important than loyalty to an institution.

Arguably, the Constitution failed in 1803, when Federalist Justice John Marshall asserted the power of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of any act by the White House or Congress. Marbury v. Madison’s ruling was a tactical victory for President Jefferson, but the larger principle horrified him. Jefferson had previously written in the Kentucky Resolutions that states could nullify federal laws. However, with the notable exception of Andrew Jackson, few politicians have bucked Supreme Court rulings. The Supreme Court commands no armies, but the litigious system we inherited from Britain endures. A poll last month shows almost 60 percent of Americans think the Supreme Court is doing a good job.

Image Credit: Wikimedia
Image Credit: Wikimedia

Why does the Supreme Court have such powers? Congress could, in theory, impeach judges and justices, but almost never does. The Framers didn’t fail only to see the growth of party politics. They failed to anticipate that the Court would let self-centered, cowardly politicians avoid taking firm stands. When the Supreme Court imposes a new radical policy, the Left wins without having to campaign and persuade legislators. Conservatism, Inc. can throw up its hands and say, “We must respect the court’s ruling.” The grassroots may be mad, but they can blame the Court, not the GOP.

Judicial supremacy has been a terrible blow against race realism. In Brown v. Board, the justices decided to desegregate schools all by themselves. The law itself was irrelevant. Thurgood Marshall may be the “hero” in the desegregation story, but it was former clerk Philip Elman who plotted with Justice Felix Frankfurter to deliver the decision.

Mr. Elman said Marshall could have recited nursery rhymes during the arguments and the justices would have ruled in his favor. Marshall relied heavily on “doll studies” from sociologist Kenneth Clark to show segregation made blacks feel inferior and therefore needed integration. The studies showed the opposite, but the fix was in. Some say President Trump doesn’t have the authority to send in troops or the National Guard to put down disturbances, but President Dwight Eisenhower forced white students into integrated schools at bayonet point.

The Supreme Court has upheld desegregation, mandated congressional districts be modified so non-whites can win office, invented a right to abortion, discovered homosexual marriage, and read transgenderism into the 1964 Civil Rights Act. During the Trump Administration, federal judges have imposed nationwide injunctions to stop the president from enforcing immigration laws. Federal judge Mariana Pfaelzer was responsible for throwing out Proposition 187 in California, which could have stopped the Golden State from becoming the Third World state it is today. When it comes to the most important issues, Americans’ wishes don’t matter, and neither does the Constitution.

A few months ago, reporters called VDARE.com “anti-Semitic” because it used the word “kritarchy.” It’s a Greek word that means rule by judges. If liberal reporters want to insert Judaism into that, it says more about them than about VDARE. The term is accurate: America is ruled by judges. Thus, Ruth Ginsburg’s replacement has suddenly become the most important issue of the campaign. National policy depends on whether elderly judges can last until a president of their party can appoint successors.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh has been disappointing for conservatives. He ruled with the liberal bloc on immigration. However, who can forget the disgusting smears the Left used to try to stop his confirmation? One Georgetown professor called Justice Kavanaugh a “rapist” and said senators who voted for him deserve miserable deaths and desecration of their corpses. Some opponents held his race against him. Ginsburg’s replacement will probably get it even worse, even if President Trump appoints a woman, as he says he will.

President looks on as Anthony M. Kennedy, retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, swears in Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to be the Supreme Court’s 114th justice Monday, Oct. 8, 2018, in the East Room of the White House. Justice Kavanaugh is joined by his wife Ashley, holding the Bible, and their daughters Liza and Margaret. (Credit Image: Official White House Photo / Joyce N. Boghosian)
President looks on as Anthony M. Kennedy, retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, swears in Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh to be the Supreme Court’s 114th justice Monday, Oct. 8, 2018, in the East Room of the White House. Justice Kavanaugh is joined by his wife Ashley, holding the Bible, and their daughters Liza and Margaret. (Credit Image: Official White House Photo / Joyce N. Boghosian)

The radical transformation of what used to be our country was largely imposed by the Supreme Court. Partly, this is because Republicans usually look at the credentials of an appointee, while the Democrats just want to have justices that rule their way, no matter what the law says.

Journalists and their pet Democrats are already saying they will pack the court with new justices. In recent years, we’ve seen Robert Bork denied a seat because Democrats made outrageous charges. Brett Kavanaugh was smeared. Some leftists want to impeach Justice Neil Gorsuch, despite his soft position on immigration. Clearly, playing fair and showing weakness doesn’t work.

The Supreme Court rules America. It is a kritarchy. Let us hear no platitudes about the “rule of law.” Justices are no different from Congressmen, except they are not accountable to the people.

President Trump and the Senate should recognize the Court as just another political battlefield. The GOP should consider only whether its nominee will vote reliably. The Democrats expect obedience from their judges; the GOP should too. It can’t afford any more Earl Warrens, David Souters, or John Roberts. We can’t either. If there is a progressive majority on the court, say goodbye to our borders, gun rights, and whatever freedom of speech is left. The election just became even more interesting.

(Republished from American Renaissance by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 99 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. BriTex says:

    Unless I am stupidly missing some subtlety, I believe you mean to say “RBG” instead of “RGB”.

    • Replies: @El Dato
  2. Kavanaugh voted for immigration because conservative Big Business supporters (and that is all conservatives are, sorry, you people who think you have “principles” [hardehar], rubber stamps for what used to be called Big Business) pretend they don’t like immigration to get votes, but never do anything about it, because their real supporters, their “donors,” like to pay people less than peanuts and keep them at loggerheads. I’ll put it more simply. Conservatives secretly love immigration because Big Business thrives on it. So don’t say he voted “with the liberals.” The liberals voted with him. They all belong to the same club, anyhow. Toadies to Big Business.

    • Replies: @Donald A Thomson
  3. In 2000, when the Presidential election results got held up in Florida on hanging chads or some such, James Baker tapped the Supreme Court and the justices showed their party loyalty. Rather than a proper recount in Florida, rather than recognize the popular vote for Al Gore, the Supreme court selected GW Bush Jr. to be President. Lot a good that did the planet.

    True, Mossad may still have gone ahead with the mass murders on September 11, and President Gore may also have been dragged into that war against Iraq and other atrocious conflicts in the Mid East at the behest of Israel. Or maybe not. Gore was way smarter, way more qualified to be our national leader, and actually had a conscience and capacity for self correction. Unlike that knuckle dragging lowbrow Bush.

    Obozo, Obummer and a casino pimp later, what is the criteria for who to replace RBG? Simply overturn Roe, or end these infernal for profit prisons? Shut the Fed? Break up the treasonous MSM conglomerates? Anything else? Poo. I doubt either side is expecting very much.

  4. meamjojo says:

    RBG should have anticipated that McConnell and Trump wouldn’t stand by whatever was said in the past. Wishes are great but you’ll still need to pay to get that cup of coffee.

    What RBG should have done when her MD’s told her the end was very near was to get herself put into a medical coma that would have kept her technically alive until Jan 21, 2021.

    Or they could have embalmed her and did a “Weekend At Bernie’s” stretched out to 4 months. If only they had checked with me!

  5. Seems that the 865 USA federal and supreme court judges are sometimes chosen with flawed backgrounds on purpose, because they are then blackmailable.

    Sometimes it seems judges are even encouraged to engage in bribery by top DOJ officials, because they are then ‘owned’ and must do what the Deep State says. That was a take-away from the report on Robert Mueller’s role in the bribery of two federal judges, that helped shut down his impeachment game against Trump

    And sometimes US judges are shot dead or mysteriously found dead when not cooperative. After rulings against Obama, Federal Judge John Roll was shot dead on the street in Arizona in 2011, and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead with a pillow over his face in 2016.

    Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is said to be blackmailed, because of his 1990s international ‘child-trafficking’ when he adopted two children from Ireland in violation of Irish law. Roberts had the children flown to South America where the purchase of the children was completed. And guess whose name is on Epsein’s Lolita Express flight log –

    The US Constitution was clearly dead by 1993, when the Supreme Court made this satanic decision 6-3, with old Justice Blackmun denouncing his colleagues as ‘murderous’

    • Thanks: Ilya G Poimandres
    • Replies: @Realist
    , @El Dato
    , @Rich
    , @Lee
    , @Lee
  6. Realist says:
    @brabantian

    The US Constitution was clearly dead by 1993, when the Supreme Court made this satanic decision 6-3, with old Justice Blackmun denouncing his colleagues as ‘murderous’

    The SCOTUS killed the Constitution long before that…at least as early as 1976…if not before.

    The SCOTUS has passed down egregious decisions that abridge the First Amendment and show contempt for the concept of a representative democracy. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1976 and exacerbated by continuing stupid SCOTUS decisions First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission.
    These decisions have codified that money is free speech thereby giving entities of wealth and power almost total influence in elections.

  7. Wow, un-filtered Trump was that gracious? I wish un-filtered Trump would channel his inner-Zen a little more often.

    When Justice Antonin Scalia (who had a personal friendship with Justice Ginsburg that transcended politics) died, many conservatives thought he was murdered.

    What unimpeachable evidence do you have to prove he wasn’t 😉

    Just because it is a conspiracy theory does not mean that it is not a conspiracy fact.

    What America desperately needs are term-limits for all federal judges and a State veto or over-ride of SCOTUS decisions where two-thirds of State legislatures can overturn unpopular decisions. It would also help for the other two branches to occasionally flex their constitutional muscles and tell the Kritarchy when their rulings are ultra vires and will not be followed. Trump could have done that rightfully and lawfully many times in the past 3 1/2 years.

    Lady justice is not blind … She is being held hostage !

  8. polistra says:

    The constitution died in 1803 when the Supremes declared themselves to be the entire government. Since then none of these details matter.

    • Agree: Rich
    • Replies: @onebornfree
  9. @thotmonger

    Rather than a proper recount in Florida, rather than recognize the popular vote for Al Gore, the Supreme court selected GW Bush Jr. to be President. Lot a good that did the planet.

    Your point is moot. The Florida State legislature had the final word on the certification of the election and the choice of Electors, and almost certainly would have gone for the Shrub. SCOTUS and many others lost their nerve with the media circus and did not trust that the Constitutional processes in place would be followed.

    To a point Hood makes here …

    Arguably, the Constitution failed in 1803, when Federalist Justice John Marshall asserted the power of the Supreme Court to determine the constitutionality of any act by the White House or Congress.

    Judicial review was well embodied and respected in English Common Law by the time of the American War for Independence, so if the founding fathers had any issues with it, they would have outright proscribed it. The “check and balance” thing was what failed, as the other two branches are always at liberty to tell the judiciary when their pronouncements are ultra vires and will not be followed.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  10. RBG: just a clump of cells; a biology experiment, now finished, now become only biohazard.

    No reason for the left to mourn.

  11. “Republicans care about credentials.”

    That old hag received 96 yeas and only 3 nays BECAUSE OF HER RABID FEMINISM, BECAUSE SHE WAS AN EVIL JEWESS.

  12. @Realist

    Supreme Court Associate Justice James Clark McReynods declared the Constitution dead from the bench as a result of the Court’s decisions in the Gold cases in the 1930s. Wickard v. Filburn, which upheld the right of the national government of wheat grown by a farmer for personal consumption, under the guise that it affected interstate comment was another death blow.

    • Agree: Realist
    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @SolontoCroesus
  13. Read HOLOGRAM OF LIBERTY by Kenneth Royce, if you can find a copy. The fix was in at the Constitutional Convention, courtesy of Hamilton and the (((Banksters))). When Charles Beard documented the same in THE ECONOMIC INTERPRETATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES at the turn of the last century, Columbia University fired him. Then you have the well-documented THE CREATURE FROM JEKYLL ISLAND. Nothing has changed. Follow the money.
    Nothing will change in this corrupt, syphilitic, Godless country until there is a massive “economic correction” or some other Deus ex Machina event. Empires rise and empires fall. That is the way of things. Get out of the Blue Hives, if you can. Remember this: If you look like food, you will be eaten. Bleib ubrig.

    • Agree: Exalted Cyclops
  14. MarkinLA says:
    @thotmonger

    What was a “proper” recount? Recounting 100 times until one gives Gore the lead is not proper.

  15. MarkinLA says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    The use of the interstate commerce clause for just about everything is one of the most glaring examples of twisting words to arrive at a conclusion. The 1934 NFA regulating machine guns, silencers, and sawed off shotguns is based on it.

    People have tried to challenge it based on producing a weapon that has never crossed state lines but the federal courts have created a circular reasoning logic where if they can’t enforce it intra-state then it loses its punch inter state (or something along those lines) and have put people in jail with this reasoning.

    • Replies: @Diversity Heretic
  16. ‘Muh Constitution’ has been dead so long the carcass barely stinks any more. It was already dead by 1942 when the blackrobed philospher-kangz decided you cannot grow food on land you own to feed your own family without government permission ‘because interstate commerce’ (Wickard v. Filburn). The Notorious RBG was merely a nasty old buzzard picking away at the rotten carcass – and she even looked the part.

    If you really want to get technical, the blackrobed Llords of flies adorned themselves with their de-facto titles of lifetime nobility when they declared themselves to be the supreme arbiters of what what the constitution means in the 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison. Congress, already a sorry collection of looters and other opportunists, failed to take the proper remedy for such arrogance – which would have been impeachment and removal of the entire court for their action.

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
  17. Svevlad says:

    Anglo-Saxon (civil) law is really, REALLY bad for big countries like America. The Napoleonic system is much better, hence used by everyone.

  18. El Dato says:
    @brabantian

    Why would the plane’s logbook contain the passenger name? Highly unusual.

    (Flight between Palm Beach and Teterboro btw).

    • Replies: @Reactionary Utopian
  19. @The Alarmist

    Slightly off topic, but under the British Parliamentary System, Parliament is (or was) supreme. The “Law Lords” (Supreme Court) could only interpret law, not declare law to be “unconstitutional”. Under that system (now much abused) you didn’t need to state what rights you had, because you had every right, unless specifically prohibited by law.

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
  20. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:

    This isn’t the way the Constitution is supposed to work. Alexander Hamilton thought the Judicial Branch would be the weakest of the three branches.

    Alex Hamilton said a lot of things, usually whatever suited his purposes at a given moment in time.

    This is Hamilton when he is attempting to hijack governance along with his well-financed allies –

    ”It seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.”

    This is Hamilton once he knows that his efforts can no longer be opposed and ratification cannot be blocked –

    “I know there are Citizens, who, to gain their own private ends, enflame the minds of the well-meaning, tho’ less intelligent parts of the community, by sating their vanity with that cordial and unfailing specific, that all power is seated in the people.”

    “I am not much attached to the majesty of the multitude, and therefore waive all pretensions to their countenance. I consider them in general as very ill qualified to judge for themselves what government will best suit their peculiar situations; nor is this to be wondered at.”

    “I know this is blunt and ungracious reasoning; it is the best, however, which I am prepared to offer on this momentous business; and, since my own heart does not reproach me, I shall not be very solicitous about its reception. If truth, then, is permitted to speak, the mass of the people of America cannot judge with any degree of precision concerning the fitness of this New Constitution to the peculiar situation of America.”

    Hamilton partnered with John Jay in the Federalist papers, seeking to sell the Constitution with a hijacked court system to New York, which had ample support NOT to ratify it. This was outmaneuvered, by ensuring that 9 other states ratified before NY, making the final approval a done-deal, and breaking down the NY opposition who would otherwise be excluded from the trade networks and debt assumption.

    Jay becomes the first Supreme Court Justice, and all other major offices are staffed by what become Federalist cronies, with the exception of Jefferson. Hamilton becomes the first Secretary of the Treasury. The main goal of Jay and Hamilton, along with Morris was the creation of a system of a ‘investor’ owned (Private) US bank, which was basically a Federal Reserve.

    The public in NY was warned of Hamilton’s intent by Robert Yates / ‘Brutus’, to create a hijacked system through a court without any review, which was intentionally omitted in adapting the British system that Hamilton claimed to idealize.

    This ensures that the Federalists come to have a veto-proof court control over pretty much everything as long as they hold onto power, which was basically ensured at the time as no other embryonic party structure existed.

    Small Govt is not compatible in any way with central Govt., then or now.
    A population of balkanized, opposed and alien peoples is an EMPIRE, not a Republic.

    • Agree: Kratoklastes
  21. El Dato says:
    @BriTex

    Technicolor, you are correct.

  22. Jews like Ruth Baird Ginsburg can be better understood by comparison to figures like Richard Spencer. They seem to be ideological opposites, but they are merely two sides of the same coin. Ginsburg is thought to be a ‘far-leftist’ but, at her core, was essentially a die-hard Jewish Supremacist Zionist. The only true Jewish Liberals are those who apply the same rules to everyone and every group, Jews included. In contrast, Jewish ‘liberals’ like Alan Dershowitz and RBG use ‘liberalism’ as a ploy to undermine goy power(especially that of whites and Christians) in order to boost Jewish Power. They are essentially far-right Jewish Identitarians who merely use ‘liberalism’ as a tool, a weapon.
    So, in the political arena, we must ask if a certain person or group is using an idea as a mere tool or embracing it as a principle, a universal value system. There are genuine Jewish Liberals, but most Jewish ‘liberals’ are really Jewish Supremacist Zionists who’ve adopted ‘progressive’ values and agendas as the most effective weapon against goyim. Likewise, the US support of radical Islamists is merely a tool of foreign policy. The core of US values and worldview has NOTHING to do with Islam. But the Jewish-controlled US will support ISIS and Alqaeda elements when they’re useful against the Syrian regime, Iraqi government, and Iran. Just because US worked with Red China during the Cold War against the USSR doesn’t mean the US was Maoist. Rather, it merely used one form of communism against another, the one that seemed dominant in the world.
    Likewise, most Jewish ‘liberals’ merely use ‘liberalism’ as a tool to push deracination, guilt-complex, and host of other neuroses & pathology on goyim, especially whites. In the 60s, Jews ranted endlessly about Segregation in the South and white ‘racism’, but they rarely discussed Jewish-Black problems. Jews ripped off many blacks, and tougher blacks often terrorized Jews… which led to Jew Flew(or Jewish White Flight) that led to segregation between Jews and blacks far beyond anything in the Deep South. And speaking of ‘racism’, Jews hardly ever discussed the Zionist treatment of Palestinians. The very Jews who were so vocal in their condemnation of ‘white racism’ could be the most fanatical supporters of Zionism who felt zero sympathy for the plight of Palestinians. The very Jews who could go on and on about the burden of guilt among all Germans for what happened in World War II were utterly silent about Jewish Bolshevik mass killings of Christian Slavs. The very Jews who were hysterically calling for the condemnation and blacklisting of ‘white supremacist’ groups and other ‘anti-American’ elements were the ones defending both Jewish Zionist imperialists and Jewish communist subversives who slipped atomic secrets to Stalin. This is why Jewish Liberal Moral Outrage has been mostly bogus. Your typical Jewish ‘liberal’ is the kind to hound South Africa about its Apartheid Past while admonishing all of us to look the other way when Zionists crack heads in West Bank. Jews still kvetch about the McCarthy Era blacklist(because it affected some Jews), but they are so blase about the seemingly endless blacklists in US institutions and industries against pro-Palestinian voices and white voices that call for divorce from ugly Jewish supremacism. Indeed, what chance does someone have in Hollywood or Wall Street if he or she comes out in favor of Palestinians and wants to make a movie about the Nakba?

    It is for this reason that RBG and Richard Spencer are so much alike. Both RBG and Spencer could come across as rational, intellectual, logical, and even moderate. RBG could pass herself as a lawyer and judge who could hear all sides, judiciously weigh the evidence, and decide on the basis of the Constitution. A person who works with her mind than gives into her passions. Likewise, Richard Spencer arrived on the scene as a new kind of ‘white nationalist’. Not the cliched neo-nazi skinhead type drunk on beer and screaming ‘Sieg Heil’ and making a fool of himself as a brain-dead street thug. Rather, he presented himself as an intellectual who, though committed to the right, could empathize with all sides, prioritize reason over rage, and come to terms with anyone who would talk with him, debate with him, or deal with him. But even as the Thought-Spencer was real to an extent — he seems reasonably intelligent and well-read/educated — , there was also the Gut Spencer. No matter how many books he read, how many ideas he could pontificate on, how many people he could debate with on basis of mutual respect, and how much he could at least empathize with opposing sides, he was at his core a white supremacist imperialist egotist(at times verging on megalomania depending on how many drinks or drugs he had). This Gut Spencer was a raging and resentful Anglo-White Supremacist who believes his kind should rule the world like Darth Vader. Richard the Id(or Idiot) wanted to be 007 + Hitler. (Jeffrey Epstein who wanted to seed the world with his semen was even nuttier.) Blacks and browns should look up at a face like his and ho-de-do and pick cotton. Jewish guys should kiss his ass and Jewish girls should suck his dic*. At most times, especially in dealing with the media, Spencer tried to come across as genteel, soft-spoken, curious, sympathetic, and reasonable to deal with. A gentleman diplomat, a counselor, even a scholar. But scratch the surface of Thought Spencer and there was this raging Gut Spencer, a steaming morass of egotism and rage against whatever stifled his individual and racial ‘destiny’. And of course, as Jews controlled the media, they had a field day exposing this side of Spencer. The Id Spencer, the Gut Spencer, or Raging Richie, so at odds with the carefully rehearsed image of Thought Spencer, the man of reason and principles.

    But the same goes for Jews. Because of Jewish Media Control, most Americans have this image of Jews as a Thought People who are primarily guided by knowledge, thought, contemplation, curiosity, philosophy, wisdom, and commitment to principles of justice, equality, & fairness. Even the ghastly Jonathan Pollard was featured with a christ-like image in the Jewish-controlled Media. We’ve been led to believe most Jews are ‘liberal’, implying that Jews are a Mind People who reject and oppose the ‘atavistic’ and ‘tribal’ urges of mankind. (This is rather odd since Jews have been among the ‘porniest’ people on Earth, using vulgar Freudianism to argue that we are just animals driven by lusts emanating from the groins. In a way, ‘sexual liberation’ could be characterized as ‘liberal’ for allowing more freedom and choice, but it is also more bestial and ‘atavistic’ in leading to reversion to apelike behavior.) So, RBG has been made into an icon of ‘progressive’ values and concern for social justice for all, i.e. she’s been associated with the cause of the underdogs who’ve been ill-served by the Power. But, this is bogus. RBG has been nothing more and nothing less than a zealous Jewish Supremacist Zionist. Her idea of morality was NEVER to point fingers at powerful Jews or Israeli imperialism but to always beat up on whites and Christians. And why? Because her ilk believes that whites must be browbeaten(and even literally beaten) into submission in order to be rendered useful to Jews as their new masters.

    Scratch the surface of most Thought Jews and you get the Gut Jew. It could be Alan Dershowitz, Ruth Baird Ginsburg, Woody Allen, Chuck Schumer, Rachel Maddow, Jeffrey Epstein, Philip Roth, Victor Maymudes, Barbra Streisand, Harvey Weinstein, editors at NYT and most magazines, and etc. And when Jews pretend to be ‘conservatives’, it has NOTHING to do with preserving White/Christian America. Most Neocons work hand in glove with Jewish ‘liberals’ to push the interests of Zionism and Jewish Hegemony. Neocons’ only role is to fool American Conservatives that Holy Holocaust Jews are on THEIR SIDE. If indeed ALL Jews were Democratic and ‘liberal’, the GOP and American Conservatives would have no choice but to be anti-Jewish. But as long as SOME ‘conservative’ Jews pretend to side with the American Right, so many white sucker conzos have this fantastical idea that, golly gee, maybe Jews will embrace their whiteness and become fellow whites if the GOP goes all out for Israel. In reality, the ONLY thing Jewish ‘conservatives’ are truly conservative about is the preservation of Jewishness and expansion of Jewish power, wealth, privilege, and advantages.

    Also, Jewish ‘conservatives’ don’t believe that a stronger white conservatism is synonymous with stronger Jewish conservatism. Rather, the White Right must be weakened in order for the Jewish Right to be strengthened. Jews understand that rightism is essentially -centric, so white right would be naturally white-centric. But if white rightists were white-centric, they would favor white interests over Jewish ones and indeed may even see Jews as HOSTILE to whites. So, Jewish rightists feel they must weaken the white right into generic individual libertarianism of cucks and then steer these cucky-wucks to support Israel Uber Alles. (Again, most Jewish ‘liberals’ are really part of the Jewish Right as their core Gut Passion is about “Is it good for Jews?”) Hollywood passes itself as ‘liberal’, but how many movies has it made about the plight of Palestinians? How many movies about the Nakba? How many movies about the horrible suffering of Russians in the 1990s at the hands of ultra-capitalist Jewish oligarchs? How many movies about Israel’s alliance with Apartheid South Africa and provision of atomic secrets to the latter? Jewish ‘liberals’ would have us believe that they are Great Americans who were falsely accused of communist subversion, but when will Jewish Hollywood admit that many commie spies and agents were Jews and that these people worked for mass killer Josef Stalin?

    If ‘antisemitic’ forces controlled the Media, they could expose the Gut Jew behind the veil of all these phony Jewish ‘liberals’, just like Jewish-controlled media exposed the Gut Spencer that hid behind the facade of Thought Spencer. Now, this isn’t to say that Jewish ‘liberals’ like Ruth Baird Ginsburg and the likes of Richard Spencer are not interested in ideas or lacking in basic curiosity about the world. Most surely, they are not all about the Gut. But when push comes to shove, when passions run high, and when the mask comes off, we need to acknowledge that RBG and Spencer are the same kind of creature. They are driven by Gut Feelings that fuel and shape their rational faculties. So, the ultimate motivator of Ginsburg’s decisions as both individual and judge was “Is it good for Jews?” Why do Jews like her want to take rifles away from white people when most gun deaths are by handguns, often by blacks? It’s because Jewish Power fears a well-armed white goy public that may rise up and resist when the Jewish Power push things too far. Notice these Jews have no problem with guns and other weapons used by Antifa Janissary thugs. Jewish-controlled media called it ‘mostly peaceful protests’. (If whites held mass protests against Jewish Power and 10% were violent, would the Jewish-run media call it ‘mostly peaceful protests’?) And why did Jews like RBG push the ‘gay’ agenda? LGBTQXYZ nonsense was nothing but a Jewish proxy culture war on the world. Homos are vain toadies who suck up to power, and naturally many homos work for Jews, the richest people who dominate media, entertainment, finance, fashion, and the Deep State that is in ultra-imperialist mode.

    Anyway, just like the Jewish media effectively exposed the Gut Spencer hiding behind Thought Spencer, it is imperative for goyim to expose the Gut Jew behind the Thought Jew. Whenever Jewish ‘liberals’ and Neocons yammer about ‘justice’, ‘equality’, ‘fighting hate’, and yadda yadda, confront them with the problem of Jewish Privilege, Jewish Wealth, Jewish Gentrification, Jewish use of Stop-and-Frisk, Jewish involvement in communism & mass-killings, Zionist Nakba pogroms, IDF death squads mowing down Palestinian children, Israel’s support of ISIS & Alqaeda, the history of Jewish organized crime, Jewish exploitation of black athletes & entertainers, and etc. Ask the Jews why they don’t bring up THOSE matters as issues of injustice, unfairness, and evils?

    Against Mitzvah, there must be Counter-Mitzvah. Mitzvah is the Blitzvah or Mitzkrieg of the Jews against whites and rest of humanity, especially Arabs and Iranians. Whites can change things ONLY IF they cut ties with the Jews and side with Iranians and Palestinians who should be hailed by all White Liberationists as “America’s greatest allies”.

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
  23. @Curmudgeon

    Under the British Constitution pre Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Law Lords were a part of the Crown in Parliament that passed all Acts of Parliament, so declaring laws unconstitutional would have been odd. At most, certain actions of key players might be questioned on constitutional grounds, but anything run through all the procedures to become an Act of Parliament was constitutional on its face.

    Since then, the SCUK has been testing the waters to assert more power in the game. The most eggregious case, in my view, was nullifying BoJo’s prorogation of Parliament last year, which by all rights was a prerogative of her Majesty and was exercised on the advice of her government, and the legal fiction they used to cover this dangerous encroachment was to say that BoJo had essentially misled her Majesty.

    In the UK constitutional system, the Crown in Westminster Parliament is sovereign in the UK, which is the underpinning of the Internal Markets bill currently ruffling Remainers’ feathers, and they will no doubt try to use the SCUK to try to unravel anything that BoJo manages to get passed that might give the UK real leverage in Brexit negotiations. Remainers, like US Demonrats, are like Werewolves, and nobody, certainly not Leavers in the UK nor Repubes in the US, has yet figured out what might be the silver bullet to put and keep them down.

    Australia is at the forefront of how unenumerated rights can be blatantly destroyed in such a system.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    , @Curmudgeon
  24. @MarkinLA

    IIRC the National Firearms Act imposed a transfer tax on the type of weapons and equipment that you describe. Later legislation in the mid-1980s limited machine guns and at least some other weapons to the numbers already subject to the tax.

    The Gun Control Act of 1968 and the later magazine bans may be based on the interstate commerce clause. As you note, the interstate commerce clause has been twisted beyond recognition to justify any national government action that “affects” commerce, which is basically any human activity.

    Obamacare was declared constitutional (in an absurd decisiion) on the basis that it merely levied a tax.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
  25. KenH says:

    Obamacare was declared constitutional (in an absurd decisiion) on the basis that it merely levied a tax.

    The plain text of the law specifically called for fines on people who did not purchase healthcare plans. Roberts knew the fine would invalidate the law so rewrote it as a ‘tax” in his majority decision upholding it. Judicial activism at its finest.

  26. KenH says:

    SCOTUS is now the Supreme Kangaroo Court since most of their major rulings conform to the latest ideological fads and dominant political trends. “Conservatives” Gorsuch and Roberts flipping to rewrite the 1964 Civil Rights Acts to include homosexuals and transgendered and Roberts joining the leftist bloc to keep DACA in place because he claimed Trump was supposed to follow the Administrative Procedures Act in ending it (even though Obama didn’t follow it when he imposed DACA) are the two most recent examples.

    Gorusch even joined the left in vacating a black murderers conviction because he never had a black on any of the six juries that convicted him. There is no Constitutional requirement that an accused must have at least one member of their race on the jury or that DA’s can’t strike a certain number of potential jurors for any reason. But Gorsuch made sure that the post 1965 Constitution prevailed.

    And we can expect any number of “conservatives” to flip on issues important to most of us. About the only two justices who can be counted on to deliver originalist rulings are Clarence Thomas and Sam Alito. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are a little less flaky than Roberts but not by much.

    • Agree: GazaPlanet
    • Replies: @GazaPlanet
  27. MarkinLA says:
    @Diversity Heretic

    There was a case of a guy in Oklahoma (I think because it was handled by the 5th Circuit) in which the guy took a legal AR-15, converted it to full auto and basically told the local police he had a legal machine gun since the NFA was based on the Commerce Clause and he would destroy it if he ever had to leave the state. The 5th came up with the loopy justification that the NFA still applied because if this exemption was allowed the law would basically be useless per its original intent.

    The guy got 10 years in a federal prison. The case is so old I can’t get a link with simple searches.

  28. The United States Extreme–er, Supreme Court is made up of nine unelected, unaccountable, appointed-for-life megalomaniacs. Sure, they like to maintain the fiction that they’re The True Upholders of the Constitution, but that’s bullshit. They write their personal views and prejudices into their rulings.

    Ol’ Ruthie Ginsburg–that cling-to-power fanatic–was a radical feminist and ERA supporter before she became a judge. In 1996, when she was on the court, she wrote the opinion ordering the venerable Virginia Military Institute (the “West Point of the South,” as John J. Pershing called it) to admit females. She was overjoyed. . . .

  29. Rich says:
    @brabantian

    Herrera was identified by the victim, there was the same type A blood on his pants as the victim , his car was spotted at the murder scene and his social security card was found at the scene of the crime. You don’t get much guiltier than that. His brother trying to take the rap doesn’t make him innocent. Why not find an innocent guy somewhere to make your argument? You sound like those blm clowns trying to make a hero out of the rapist and woman assaulter Jacob Blake in Wisconsin.

    • Replies: @Anon
  30. @The Alarmist

    Australia is at the forefront of how unenumerated rights can be blatantly destroyed in such a system.

    It’s more of an example of the impossibility of getting government to ‘bind itself’.

    If rights are enumerated, then it allows two things to happen:
    ① the list eventually becomes viewed as exhaustive (i.e., there are your only rights); and
    ② the BlackRobes are tasked with parsing away any enumerated right that is inconvenient.

    If rights are not enumerated, the BlackRobes get to say whether or not a right exists – and part of the test is the “public policy test”, i.e., whether or not proscribing government infringement of the (putative) right would impede the smooth functioning of government.

    The ‘public policy’ test is the main sophistry underpinning the UK BlackRobes’ declaration that UK pigs cannot be held accountable for failing to protect the citizenry: Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1987] UKHL 12, [1989] AC 53, wherein the plaintiff sought to hold the police responsible for failing to prevent the murder of the Yorkshire Ripper’s neighbour (and last victim) after being informed that the victim told the police that West ought to be investigated. The decision: “If we hold the police accountable for failing to protect a given peon, it will make it more difficult for police to do their job. Now fuck off.” (The second sentence is implied in any BlackRobe decision, given the absence of any venue of higher appeal).

    Australia’s BlackRobes should be more famous for overturning a unanimous jury verdict of a serial child molester and paedophile protector (George Pell – the Catholic ‘made man’ who makes Epstein look like an amateur). They decided the case just as Australia was being locked down as a result of the Overlord’s exploitation of the trivial SARS-nCoV2 scamdemic, which just shows that they are opportunistic political operatives first and foremost.

    The sophistry underpinning their decision in Pell’s case: “The jury unanimously found Pell guilty beyond reasonable doubt – but we the BlackRobes think they shouldn’t have found him guilty. End of story, now fuck off and take 800 years of jury trials with you.

    One thing you can take to the bank: the Pell standard (that it was not reasonable for the jury to find the defendant guilty based on the evidence) will never be applied in an appeal of a criminal conviction for a peon, no matter how weak the evidence.

    The BlackRobes are not there to help keep government in check; they are not there to help We the Livestock. They are power’s handmaidens, and State lickspittles – and always have been. Anyone who genuinely thinks otherwise is a dupe.

    • Replies: @Curmudgeon
  31. Anonymous[188] • Disclaimer says:

    Since the Warren years the Court has been indispensable to the Left’s mission to transform the nation. More so than women’s suffrage or any other “flaw” Conservatives might be inclined to identify in our system of government as the cause of this, the Court really has been our Achilles heel.
    The question is, what to do? Clearly the long-standing proposed remedy of Republican presidents appointing conservative jurists has not worked; rather than reigning in the court we’ve just ended up with duds like Souter, Roberts and O’Connor.
    When I was in middle school we were taught that we have three co-equal branches of government, but it’s clear we don’t. The Court is far and away the most important branch and at the same time the one with the least accountability and check and balances.

    If Conservatives really want to end “kritarchy” I propose an constitutional amendment that states the following:

    1) Any law that has been on the books for ten years or more is off limits for potential judicial termination unless there has been an amendment or amendments to the Constitution in the past decade and that amendment(s) is used as the primary (although not necessarily the sole) justification for terminating the law.
    Why was there suddenly a constitutional right to abortion in 1973 but not in 1972 or 1963 or 1914? Did the Justices miss some hidden clause in all of their previous sessions only to suddenly discover one in circa 1973? If this amendment had been present since the Warren years just imagine how much more constrained the Court would’ve been. Any drastic changes to the law should always be done in a slow, methodical manner with the consent of The People.

    2) Since we have 3 co-equal branches of gov’t SCOTUS cannot overturn a law unless it’s decision is “affirmed” by one of the other branches; either the president affirms consent or Congress does by a simple majority in both chambers.

    3) TERM LIMITS. Maybe set them at 15 years, maybe 20, but this should be the lesson of Ginsberg’s hanging on despite her increasingly decrepit state; This can work for both sides- obviously a Justice that’s a right-wing ideologue could just as easily try hanging on like Ginsberg despite being a total basketcase.

  32. @thotmonger

    That’s nog the way the 2000 really happened, like most other things you probably believe.

  33. @Priss Factor

    Your comments are great, always among the best. More like entire articles.

    You really nail the small hats for their evil hypocrisy, pushing a universal morality on the goyim while observing a particularist morality for their tribe. IMHO, this is where “racism” actually originates and reverberates out into humanity at large causing untold misery and suffering.

    While it might be fair to characterize Spencer as a “white supremacist” that is not a term I would ever use simply because it’s a jew term that supports the jew narrative.

    The big difference between RS and RBG is their level of power, RBG having massive influence while RS has none. So I don’t feel bad that he goes on a drunken rant to decry how whites are being fucked over because this is something I do on a regular basis. For some reason he was blamed for C’ville going wrong (not remotely his fault) and then the tribe even went after his mother and tried to steal her property.

    Still….your comment is a brilliant analysis of jewish power and it’s detrimental effect on unsuspecting white people. You encapsulated “The Culture of Critique.”

    • Replies: @Parsnipitous
    , @Happy Tapir
  34. Lee says:
    @brabantian

    Bra said:

    Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead with a pillow over his face in 2016.

    The ranch owner, John Poindexter, tried to clarify his comments, telling “CBS This Morning” that Scalia “had a pillow over his head, not over his face as some have been saying. The pillow was against the headboard.”

    Judge Cinderela Guevara said investigators found no signs of foul play or struggle. She added Scalia’s personal physician believed “the death was due to natural causes.”

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-death-conspiracy-theories-texas-ranch-owner-clarifies/

  35. @Diversity Heretic

    Supreme Court Justice James Clark McReynolds, so thoroughly vilified by zionists that his life’s work was reduced to the scandal-mongering of a disgruntled, or paid off, clerk, and his death was not appropriately mourned.
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?171132-1/the-forgotten-memoir-john-knox

    A relative, Ann McReynolds Bush, attempted to right that wrong, explain the Constitutional offenses McReynolds attempted to prevent or resist, and clear his name.
    James Clark McReynolds: Defender of the Constitution

    McReynolds was appointed to Supreme Court by Woodrow Wilson, who also appointed Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter. Admittedly, McReynolds was openly “antisemitic” toward both. McReynolds and Brandeis were both from Kentucky, in their days, a mecca for scholarship and high intellectual achievement, an atmosphere in which McReynolds thrived.

    But if one realizes the degree of treachery engaged in by Brandeis & Frankfurter, the real tragedy of McReynolds’ s life is that he was unable to turn his animus to better purpose, a purpose that might have prevented the Balfour declaration and WWI.

  36. @KenH

    If any of these “conservatives” had publicly admitted how they were disposed to rule on such issues before confirmations, those selections and confirmations never would have happened. Each new “precedent” becomes HOLY WRIT for the judicial dictatorship’s new “Constitution.” Every radical, unprecedented innovation since the Warren Court was planned long in advance and furtively accepted by these black-robed snake pretenders, their appointments to the Court NEVER would have been approved if the public was apprised ahead of time of their intentions. What they have done is diametrically opposed to representative government, and really, to Constitutional government. There is a new religious TEST in our Constitution for judges. You must accept that ABORTION RIGHTS et al (whatever insane crap they have cooked up since then and will in the future!) is OUR FUNDAMENTAL LAW or you are against the “CONSTITUTION.” It is wholly opposed to Republican government, the court packing schemes being announced do not merely remove an obstacle to this or that social policy a strong President and Congress wants to see enacted. No, it will become an unlimited judicial dictatorship. There will be nothing to stop them but the refusal to recognize their legitimacy and that will be the end of the Constitutional system.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  37. @Robert Dolan

    Any idea why Richard Spencer is endorsing Biden?

    • Replies: @GazaPlanet
    , @Robert Dolan
  38. @Parsnipitous

    Contrary to Prissy’s analysis, Spencer was always a shitlib under the surface. The wannabe-Hitler pomposity isn’t incompatible with waspy prissiness, it’s a cover for it. Spencer supports WASP causes, and today’s extreme and frankly bizarre “social liberalism” is how these people “identify.” It has nothing to do with competence. It has to do with waspy rainbow flags like the ones at Gorsuch’s Episcopalian cat-lady church.

    • Replies: @Parsnipitous
  39. Rosie says:

    Judicial supremacy has been a terrible blow against race realism. In Brown v. Board, the justices decided to desegregate schools all by themselves. The law itself was irrelevant. Thurgood Marshall may be the “hero” in the desegregation story, but it was former clerk Philip Elman who plotted with Justice Felix Frankfurter to deliver the decision.

    The judiciary is no more or less corrupt than any other Western institution. At most, you could say the judiciary has provided political cover for the other corrupt branches of government.

    Without an independent judiciary to reign in the political branches, I’m not exactly sure how the Bill of Rights is suopposed to have teeth. If Congress passed a law banning guns wholesale, that would violate the 2nd Amendment, but without “judicial supremacy,” not a damned thing could be done about it.

    The problem is not judicial independence (or welfare or universities or whatever), the problem is who us running these institutions and in whose interests.

  40. Rosie says:
    @GazaPlanet

    . You must accept that ABORTION RIGHTS et al (whatever insane crap they have cooked up since then and will in the future!)

    The right to an abortion is not “insane crap.” It is a right that the Supreme Court held to be implied in various explicit provisions of the Constitution (the penumbrae of the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments). This right is usually called “privacy” or “substantive due process.” Whatever you call it, without that whole line of cases, you don’t have the right to have children let alone homeschool them, or even take them to church. How about having the state take your kids because you’re a “racist”? Justice O’Connor’s penumbrae are the only thing standing between you and the government on these issues.

    It’s one thing to disagree with a policy, but at a minimum, we need to be careful what we wish for, or we might just get it good and hard. Of course, that might happen anyway, but that has to do with our corrupt and hostile elite, not the very concept of a right to privacy that isn’t spelled out in so many words.

  41. @Parsnipitous

    I don’t know why Spencer endorsed Biden, but many in the dissident right feel that Trump has not delivered on his promises.

    Under Trump’s DOJ, Antifa and BLM have run wild, have been allowed to attack, assault, and kill whites, while whites are not even allowed to defend themselves.

    Anarcho-tyranny has been implemented under Trump and Barr.

    We still face an inevitable demographic disaster that will give the left permanent power, and Trump has done little to help in this matter. We have 30 million illegals that will probably get amnesty and voting rights as each state turns blue just like California. Texas and Florida are turning blue and from the looks of it most states will fall like dominoes all across America. It does not look like Trump has any intention of addressing this.

    Now….Trump is in campaign mode now and he’s trying to throw a few bones to traditional white Americans, and this is good….sort of too little too late.

    I’ll hold my nose and vote for Trump but I have lost my enthusiasm for him. Zion Don is not really on our side.

    Maybe Spencer thinks that a Biden win will bring acceleration and wake up more whites, but from the looks of it BLM has already accomplished that.

    • Agree: GazaPlanet
    • Replies: @GazaPlanet
    , @Parsnipitous
  42. @Rosie

    “It is a right that the Supreme Court held to be implied in various explicit provisions of the Constitution”

    You mean it is something they invented out of whole cloth in 1973, after more than a century of those laws being on the books. Had the justices who made those decisions announced their intention to legalize abortion by judicial fiat before nomination and confirmation, they never would have been appointed.

    It is 100% insane crap to call that representative government. It is judicial tyranny – the tyranny of those who give immunity to Jew abortionists to play their part in our ethnocide.

    We need the same intolerance for people who support Roe in our movement as the Left has against those who oppose Roe. If you support Roe, practically speaking, you can always be expected to accept everything else in time. Nobody can accept Roe and actually believe in anything like a Republican government, you just believe in judeo-masonic diktats – you people are the reason this country is in this position. We must have zero tolerance.

    We need a situation in this country where people who support so-called “abortion rights” are ashamed to show their faces in public.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  43. @Robert Dolan

    All these people who believe Kushner is what is standing between themselves and the Jews running wild. Is Trump really opposed to these radicals? I just don’t see it at all. We’re back to counting on grabbing some of those black votes! Trump is a win-win for the Zionist Left. Biden-Harris means permanent division in this country. The normal whites in this country are going to be a permanently aggrieved disenfranchised plurality. It will be a disaster and will lead to collapse. The rainbow cult that rallies around these crazed old hags like Ginsburg is getting totalitarian fast, you think you can run this country with just your corporate biddies who don’t mind the bullshit – you can’t.

  44. Lee says:
    @brabantian

    Bra said:

    Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is said to be blackmailed, because of his 1990s international ‘child-trafficking’ when he adopted two children from Ireland in violation of Irish law. Roberts had the children flown to South America where the purchase of the children was completed. And guess whose name is on Epsein’s Lolita Express flight log –

    Looks like another bit of fake news.

    The logs, which were handwritten by the pilot to document his work, do not include any mention of Chief Justice Roberts as a passenger on March 22, 2010, and February 10, 2011, as alleged by the meme.

    The theory that Chief Justice Roberts was blackmailed into voting to affirm Obamacare has been around for several years. It was expressed in an article published by TheBlaze.com on June 25, 2016, titled “Was Supreme Court Justice John Roberts Blackmailed?”

    The illegal adoption story has been around awhile too.

    IMO JR wasn’t blackmailed to do anything. He’s spineless and couldn’t stomach the idea of being impugned by the left for a negative vote on Obama Care and LGBT issues.Simple really.

    https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2019/08/fake-news-john-roberts-not-fly-with-epstein-on-at-least-2-occasions.html

    • Disagree: GazaPlanet
  45. Rosie says:
    @GazaPlanet

    We need the same intolerance for people who support Roe in our movement as the Left has against those who oppose Roe. If you support Roe, practically speaking, you can always be expected to accept everything else in time. Nobody can accept Roe and actually believe in anything like a Republican government, you just believe in judeo-masonic diktats – you people are the reason this country is in this position. We must have zero tolerance.

    We need a situation in this country where people who support so-called “abortion rights” are ashamed to show their faces in public.

    And they say women are hysterical! Please, pull yourself together, so we can have a rational discussion.

    You mean it is something they invented out of whole cloth in 1973,

    No, they didn’t invent it out of whole cloth. The idea of substantive due process goes back at least to the early 20th Century, and probably a great deal earlier than that. May I suggest reading the opinion to learn more about the precedents cited to support the right to privacy?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meyer_v._Nebraska

    I actually quite agree that something like a right to privacy is implied in the Bill of Rights. Whether a fetus is a person with a right to life that should take precedence over the mother’s (and father’s, as the decision is often made as a couple) right to privacy is another question altogether. Since you feel so strongly about this issue, consider that an argument along those lines might be less likely to backfire on the White population.

    We need the same intolerance for people who support Roe in our movement as the Left has against those who oppose Roe.

    I’m glad you don’t get to make that decision.

    • Troll: GazaPlanet
  46. Anyone who thinks our rights are more secure because of Roe vs Wade is an absolute fool. That decision means there are no rights, there is no law, because the people who keep getting their way no matter how we vote don’t recognize the concepts. Homeschooling will be under attack soon. Sooner than you think. Protecting their insane agenda REQUIRES taking children out from under their parents’ authority. When the Freemasons in Oregon (notice this is ground zero for the rioters today, no coincidence) tried to abolish Catholic schools, it was an attempt to destroy the free exercise of religion. You cannot demand children be educated in a secular school where their parents beliefs are derided and respect the freedom of religion.

  47. Hibernian says:
    @Rosie

    How about having the state take your kids because you’re a “racist”?

    When your executive and legislative branches descend to that level, a piece of paper and the judicial branch probably won’t help you. You have to have people who understand what’s going on and care, and translate that into votes as well as their own lives. Politics is downstream of culture.

    As for abortion, it depends on whether you believe that both mother and child exist before birth, or mother and fetus. I can and do respect people who believe that fetus becomes child somewhere between conception and birth, preferably more towards the former than the latter.

  48. @GazaPlanet

    Interesting points. “Competence” is exactly the word Spencer used to elevate dems/liberals over Trump.

    I obviously think Spencer is a turd, but I don’t buy mere class arrogance as the reason. After all, he’s the organizer of Charlottesville, and how well has all that worked for our enemies!

    Also, for a “neo-nazi”, he merrily tweets on, while pretty much everyone with any influence has been shut down.

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  49. Exile says: • Website
    @thotmonger

    I yield to no one in my contempt for the Bush fam but the idea that Al Gore was anything but a bone stupid political hack with Clinton’s morals but not his charisma is laughable.

    And just as Bill appointed two Jews to the Supreme Court, Gore would have given Shlomo anything he asked for. To say nothing of selling China the keys to the kingdom even while he was just Vice-President.

  50. @Robert Dolan

    Spencer explicitly rejects “accelerationism” as the reason he endorses Biden. He says dems are more “competent”, a weird reason to back a senile-demented bankster stooge.

    I understand the disillusion with Trump. The question is how much better he could have done with all the traitors around him, Barr being a prime example.

    Of course he brought these traitors in, but what else could he have done? I firmly believe that shilling to the Zio-Right is the only thing that kept him in the saddle.

  51. Anon[108] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    The man was 100% innocent. Jesus Christ is going to personally sodomize you at the gates of Heaven before deporting you to Hell to become Satan’s fucktoy for Eternity. All that emanates from white women’s mouths is the root of all Evil.

    • Replies: @Rich
  52. @Rosie

    You could just as easily argue that the Constitution provides a right to infanticide and it isn’t manufactured out of whole cloth. It is ludicrous.

    You are a child murder apologist, there is no future for the Right without purging you people.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  53. Rich says:
    @Anon

    Wow, you’ve got some really twisted fantasies going on in your head, don’t you? You might want to see someone about that.

    • LOL: Rosie
  54. @El Dato

    Good point. Besides, obviously the entry “John Roberts” could refer to no one else besides the judge. After all, it’s a terribly unusual name, isn’t it? I doubt if there’s another John Roberts anywhere.

    Not to say that “Justice” Roberts isn’t a scumbag who could well have been a patron of the Lolita Express. But … evidence, and all that.

  55. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Instead of a supermajority of the states ratifying an amendment to the Constitution in accordance with its terms, could the Court have simply penumbralated women’s suffrage into existence?

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @unit472
  56. The left has used the court brilliantly. So much so, the right has been fixated with it to its own peril. The conservative effort should have always been directed towards school boards, towns, townships, and counties. Give credit to Soros for going after the local DA positions.

    I laugh at both sides of the life argument for getting their knickers knotted over abortion. Abortion is here, and it will stay here. No lawyer turn judge will ever go and destroy a legal precedent. It would mean too much work to deal with the subsequent legal mess. Judges have clerks just so they don’t have to work.

  57. anarchyst says:

    Congress has the right to limit the jurisdiction of the “supreme court” as well as any inferior court and can specifically forbid them from ruling on any subject.

  58. Rosie says:
    @GazaPlanet

    You could just as easily argue that the Constitution provides a right to infanticide and it isn’t manufactured out of whole cloth. It is ludicrous.

    No, because once the child is born (and in my opinion, much earlier), there is no privacy interest sufficient to override the infant’s now indisputable right to life.

    You are a child murder apologist, there is no future for the Right without purging you people.

    An early term fetus is not a child. Reasonable minds can disagree on when a fetus becomes a child, but it is not the moment of conception and everyone knows it. I had several miscarriages when I was building my family and noone sent me any flowers, gave my husband a day off, or suggested having an expensive funeral.

    You are clearly too emotional to discuss this matter rationally.

    • Replies: @GazaPlanet
    , @GazaPlanet
    , @Rich
  59. Rosie says:
    @anonymous

    Instead of a supermajority of the states ratifying an amendment to the Constitution in accordance with its terms, could the Court have simply penumbralated women’s suffrage into existence?

    There would have been no need for “penumbralating.” The 14th Amendment lays it out quite clearly.

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    Now, you’re not going to deny that women are “persons,” are you?

    All that aside, you quite rightly point out that there are procedures in place to amend the Constitution, and indeed the Constitution was amended to restore men’s right to booze it up. Evidently, people don’t agree with Gazaplanet’s absolutist position (or just don’t care enough). Otherwise, Roe would have been overturned by constitutional amendment. That is the only check on judicial power that is needed.

    Of course, amending the Constitution depends very much on public opinion. Hence, the centrality of media power. Alas, the media is in the hands of a hostile elite. Therein lies the real problem. I see no reason to attack an essential safeguard of individual rights (judicial independence), when the real problem is elite manipulation of public opinion. The implications of a holding that the people have no rights not explicitly enumerated in the Bill if Rights sends a cold chill down my spine. The drafters knew better. Hence, the Ninth Amendment:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  60. @Robert Dolan

    I agree, and the amazing part is that Priss’s film studies analysis is even better than his political analysis. He’s literally one of the best minds on the web on those two subjects.

  61. @Parsnipitous

    Spencer was not the organizer of C’ville.

    Jason Kessler was the organizer. Spencer was supposed to be a speaker at the rally.

    An in depth study showed that the city and police department were 100% at fault for the problems at the rally. The police forced Antifa and the UTR together and caused the friction.

    None of the UTR guys were at fault for anything. Antifa attacked them and some of them defended themselves and went to jail, while Antifa went free.

    UTR was nothing compared to the BLM riots we have seen for the last four months. Of course, UTR scared the fuck out of the jews and they’ve whined about it ever since.

    Poor James Fields sits in jail for 400 years for simply trying to get away from Antifa attackers. Field’s car never exceeded 26 MPH. And the two cops that were supposedly “killed” at the rally were actually in a helicopter crash miles way and had nothing to do with the rally.

    UTR established the pattern of anarcho-tyranny that we see today, where whites can be attacked and are not supposed to fight back. And this happened under Trump’s DOJ. They’ve passed reg flag laws, anti-semitism laws, and made claims that “white supremacists” are the greatest threat to America’s security.

    • Thanks: Parsnipitous
  62. unit472 says:
    @anonymous

    Probably and likely would have given women the vote under some legal reasoning. It wouldn’t have been that controversial either since both Congress and the States did ratify the 19th Amendment. It takes raw judicial power and conceit to do things like ban the death penalty when the 5th amendment explicitly states “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law”. Obviously the framers understood that such due process would lead to people forfeiting their life, liberty or property upon criminal conviction. If the taking of life is ‘unconstitutional’ then so too must the taking of liberty or property as they are all part of the same clause.

  63. @Rosie

    How about having the state take your kids because you’re a “racist”?

    Before or after they’re injected with 30+ vaccines including one not yet produced but of questionable need, content or effect?

    Anyway, according to Melissa Boteach, Vice President of the National Women’s Law Center, “childcare is a public good” . . . that government has an obligation to invest in/provide:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?474245-4/washington-journal-melissa-boteach-discusses-covid-19s-impact-child-care

    “Childcare has been seen as a personal responsibility, something you have got to figure out on your own, and unfortunately, that has resulted in a disinvestment and a ‘you are on your own’ mentality. We know that childcare is a public good, something that provides for the ability for parents to go to work and employers to have a workforce . . .

    {snip}

    “Unless you think that your tax dollars should not go for clean water, roads, infrastructure, public schools, just because you are not using something in real time, the whole ideas of a public good is that we are making investments that benefit all of us.
    Childcare allows businesses to flourish and the next generation of children to be prepared for school. Childcare is a basic infrastructure for economic growth. And so, similar to roads and bridges, and clean water, and all of the other things that we collectively see as public investments, childcare falls in that category. “

    • Replies: @Rosie
  64. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rosie

    Well, thanks for answering substantially. But your dismissal of concerns about judicial tyranny seems pretty glib.

    So, some follow up: Should unelected politicians in robes be able to stretch the Constitution farther because the states — by supermajority — can always “overturn” their decrees by amendment? That hasn’t worked well in California, where the amendment process is much simpler and democratic.

    P. S. – In addition to being non-analogous (the Court didn’t impose Prohibition), your example of “restore men’s right to booze it up” seems odd. Are you against men drinking?

  65. Dumbo says:

    I don’t get all the interest in this woman. Even iSteve made something like 400 posts just about her. She is dead and she will be forgotten in a few years, like most of us. Her cult among liberals is silly and meaningless. Just another liberal judge, from a long line of liberal (and mostly Jewish) judges, determining what’s “in the Constitution” and what isn’t. (Apparently, unisex bathrooms and gay marriage were in the Constitution… )

    Anyway, I almost worked as an extra in that movie “On the basis of sex”, but in the end didn’t, thank God. Felicity Jones as the very Jewish-looking Ginsburg? Only in Hollywood.

    • Replies: @GazaPlanet
  66. Rosie says:

    Well, thanks for answering substantially.

    Likewise, and you’re quite welcome.

    But your dismissal of concerns about judicial tyranny seems pretty glib.

    Perhaps, but I assure you, I understand the gravity of the issue. It’s just that I don’t think it needs it’s own solution. The broader issue of hostile elite control of government, media, and finance needs to be addressed, and then the judicial tyranny problem will resolve on it’s own.

    So, some follow up: Should unelected politicians in robes be able to stretch the Constitution farther because the states — by supermajority — can always “overturn” their decrees by amendment? That hasn’t worked well in California, where the amendment process is much simpler and democratic.

    I don’t know if you’ve read Roe or not, but I think if you did, it would resolve your understandable but ultimately unwarranted concerns about opening the floodgates. If the Ninth Amendment is to have any significance at all, it must be found where a particular government policy seems to threaten several interests explicitly protected by various provisions in the constitution without violating them outright. In any case, the inquiry must start there: Is any explicitly protected constitutional interest at sake? If the answer is no, then that is the end of it.

    And remember, I’m not necessarily opposed to the prolife position. I would be fine with a ban on abortion, for reasons I’ve gone into elsewhere. My chief concern is the overall question of the legitimacy of the idea of a right to privacy. One could argue that such a right, though not explicit, is nonetheless implied in the constitution, but that the fetus has an overriding right to life from the moment of conception.

    P. S. – In addition to being non-analogous (the Court didn’t impose Prohibition), your example of “restore men’s right to booze it up” seems odd. Are you against men drinking?

    Let’s just say I sympathize with the motives, if not the strategy, of the Temperance Movement.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jan/03/women-alcohol-drink-culture-prohibition-temperance

  67. Rosie says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Anyway, according to Melissa Boteach, Vice President of the National Women’s Law Center, “childcare is a public good” . . . that government has an obligation to invest in/provide:

    Indeed. I wouldn’t think this would be controversial in nationalist circles. As long as it doesn’t discriminate against stay-at-home moms like me, I’m fine with that. How about a big fat tax credit to help more couples afford a one-paycheck lifestyle?

    Note, this is not a constitutional right, but let’s be honest. It’s unfair to expect Whites to manage this burden while they’re wages are being ground into the dirt by immigration and outsourcing.

    • Disagree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @Sin City Milla
  68. Dumbo says:

    I think Laura Wood said it best:

    In the interest of bracing candor, I should add that RBG was undoubtedly the beneficiary of a great deal of Jewish privilege (as well as feminist privilege for merely being a woman) and that she, or rather, her reputation, is a beneficiary of it even now after her death, as we can see from the over-the-top encomiums in the Jewish-controlled media — similar to the way Albert Einstein has been idolized for years by the same media organs and made into a legend.

    Her reputation for being a brilliant jurist is, I suspect, largely hype (and I believe she doesn’t inspire women anywhere near as much as they are saying she does.)

    https://www.thinkinghousewife.com/2020/09/a-world-without-ruth/#more-122711

    Just another hyped up ideologue, promoting radical changes.

  69. @Rosie

    Except the right to life to an infant isn’t disputable. Ask the “bio-ethicists” out there. As the Haitian Voodoo practitioners says when they sacrifice infants, it came from the mother’s body so it is hers to give when she gives it up for ritual murder. The only difference for a caved in head Roe supporter like you is whether or not the baby has come out. Fair game inside the mother, fair game for being harvested for organs. You’re very sick.

    The justiced who voted through Roe should have been lynched, it is not law, it is pure judicial tyranny. They would have been if the religious bodies had not already been suborned. Our system of “judicial activist” tyranny was created by Anti-Christian judges hiding their real opinions and conspiring to force their will on the people. It completely opposed to representative government, completely opposed to Constitutional government. A Constitution that can mean anything they want is no Constitution at all: it is rule by the Jews, Freemasons, and those in that milieu.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  70. @Dumbo

    “(Apparently, unisex bathrooms and gay marriage were in the Constitution… ) ”

    Because they got away with overturning Plessy vs Ferguson (did they announce that before they were selected they were willing to a “precedent”), because they got away with
    Roe, they believe they can legislate “our Constitution” according to whatever insanely perverted fad the Jews are entertaining at the moment. It is incipient totalitarianism, and we can see we are moving to the next phase soon unless we have a lot of guys like that kid in Kenosha who are willing to judiciously defend our rights.

  71. @Rosie

    Life begins when it begins, it doesn’t begin when it’s convenient to a woman. Destroying a life is destroying a life, whether at the beginning of life or the end of life. However, this discussion is about Roe vs. Wade. Which removes the power of states to regulate abortion. You are in favor of taking the issue of life and death away from the state legislatures and giving it to the pregnant woman, and claiming that that is what the Constitution supports. It is a ludicrous position. One hundred years of abortion laws in most of the states, struck down by judicial fiat because of an Anti-Christian anti-natal agenda. That is not law, that is tyranny. It is no different than if they legalized child sacrifice with the mother’s consent, and at the rate things are going, we might closer to that than anyone imagines

    Moral sensibility in humans has a relation with our emotions. It is normal to be outraged by women claiming, with zero basis, that our supreme Law sanctifies their “right” to murder their offspring. It’s also normal to be disgusted by feminine obtuseness and dishonesty when it comes to getting what they want. They will say anything, do anything, praise that disgusting yenta to the heavens. That is why they didn’t have the right to vote when our Constitution was drafted. It was perfectly understood the reason why. We won’t get our country back without putting women back in their proper place. There won’t be a future if we don’t.

  72. Rich says:
    @Rosie

    In 1973 it may have been possible to argue that a fetus isn’t a human being at conceptiin, but we have had far too many scientific advances in the study of genetics to argue that anymore. The argument now becomes should a woman have the right to kill her baby, you can make that argument,and there is something to be said for arguing that the type of woman who would kill her own flesh and blood, probably shouldn’t be having a child. But there is no longer any doubt that a fetus is human at conception, unless you’re “anti-science”.

    The fact that abortion was always illegal in the US,from the day the Constitution was approved, shows that the men who wrote the document, never intended abortion to be a constitutional right. Come on, we’re not on the floor of the Senate here we can argue honestly.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  73. onebornfree says: • Website
    @polistra

    “The constitution died in 1803 ”

    You’re off by 14 years. The constitution actually died in 1789 when the Judiciary Act became law [before the Bill of Rights was even ratified!].

    Paragraph 25 of the Act specifically gave the Supreme Court the power to “interpret” the constitution.

    See: “The Bill of Rights Scam – [aka The 1789 Judiciary Act Scam]”:
    http://onebornfree-mythbusters.blogspot.com/2010/05/1789-judiciary-act-scam.html

    Regards, onebornfree

  74. @Priss Factor

    ” Homos are vain toadies who suck up to power, ”

    Too bad Ernst Rohm didn’t have you as a defense counsel. “Plotting a coup? Nonsense! Homos only suck up to the powers that be, the bigger the better!”

  75. Rosie says:
    @Rich

    In 1973 it may have been possible to argue that a fetus isn’t a human being at conceptiin, but we have had far too many scientific advances in the study of genetics to argue that anymore. The argument now becomes should a woman have the right to kill her baby, you can make that argument,and there is something to be said for arguing that the type of woman who would kill her own flesh and blood, probably shouldn’t be having a child. But there is no longer any doubt that a fetus is human at conception, unless you’re “anti-science”.

    This line of argument confuses facts with moral judgments about the significance of those facts. There was never any question that the fetus is human. It is a human fetus, as opposed to, say, a gorilla fetus. That doesn’t answer the question. The question is whether the fetus has the same moral standing as a child. I don’t think so, and neither do you.

    The fact that abortion was always illegal in the US,from the day the Constitution was approved, shows that the men who wrote the document, never intended abortion to be a constitutional right. Come on, we’re not on the floor of the Senate here we can argue honestly.

    First of all, I’m not sure that abortion always was illegal. Rather, as I understand it, the common sense view that human life begins in earnest at “quickening” and termination of a pregnancy before that was not criminalized. That said, I am not an expert on this matter, and others may know more about it than me. In any event, your argument assumes that the intent of the Framers, assuming it could be ascertained, should be dispositive. That is not at all self-evident.

    • Replies: @Rosie
    , @Rich
  76. Rosie says:
    @Rosie

    The first antiabortion statute was passed in Connecticut in 1821, per this timeline from students for life. It banned abortion only after “quickening,” or first fetal movement (early second trimester). This is consistent with my understanding of the common law approach.

    This timeline also details feminist involvement in antiabortion activism, starting with Susan B. Anthony. (Yes, there is a feminist case for an abortion ban!)

    https://studentsforlife.org/med-law/legalities-of-abortion/

  77. @Realist

    Proud legacy of the “Four Horsewomen of the Apocalypse” on SCOTUS: Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan, n Stephen Breyer. Who needs a Constitution when we had these dictators in robes?

    • Agree: Realist
  78. @obwandiyag

    The US is divided politically into 2 groups.

    Those whose politicians depend on donations from billionaires and believe that’s what good for billionaires is good for the USA. Those politicians get rich.

    Those whose politicians depend on donations from billionaires and don’t believe that what’s good for billionaires is good for the USA. Those politicians get rich.

    The oligarchs are strong in every country but the USA makes a good example of how far it can go. Biden was reported in the US MSM when he told a meeting of billionaire donors that, if he won, nothing would change for them. For supporters who believe in censorship by billionaires and legislation created by lawyers, it made no difference whatsoever. [email protected]

  79. @Rosie

    I’m for it. Raising the next generation is the most important job there is n should be subsidized. Children are not Cadillacs.

  80. @Rosie

    Substantive due process is a fraud as is all talk of prenumbras n any right to privacy. These are voodoo doctrines invented by ideological hit men on SCOTUS. They do not exist in the Constitution, only in the minds of activist justices, to bolster their ambitious goals of socially engineering society without having to win any elections.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  81. @Robert Dolan

    I agree with everything, save for the integrity of Richard Spencer.

    • Replies: @Parsnipitous
  82. @Parsnipitous

    As far as ‘fighting back’ goes, I admit I have no clue. It sounds right, but poor Rittenhouse, who did nothing wrong ethically, could still be in big trouble for the first asshole he shot without clear footage.

  83. Rosie says:
    @Sin City Milla

    They do not exist in the Constitution, only in the minds of activist justices, to bolster their ambitious goals of socially engineering society without having to win any elections.

    The Bill of Rights itself rules out the exclusio alterius principle. (See Ninth Amendment above.) This argument is therefore self-defeating.

  84. @Robert Dolan

    This is explained by the fact that DC, like the MSM, is occupied by a foreign tribe that is openly hostile to American interests.

  85. Rosie says:
    @GazaPlanet

    We won’t get our country back without putting women back in their proper place.

    And the mask comes off. (It always does.)

    The only difference for a caved in head Roe supporter like you is whether or not the baby has come out.

    Not at all. Whether the baby has come out is totally irrelevant as far as I’m concerned.

    Our system of “judicial activist” tyranny was created by Anti-Christian judges hiding their real opinions and conspiring to force their will on the people.

    Genetic fallacy. Where are the logic police?

    Because they got away with overturning Plessy vs Ferguson

    Right. Plessy v. Ferguson proves the point. If the judiciary were necessarily and inherently antagonistic to White racial solidarity, how did we ever get Plessy?

    • Replies: @GazaPlanet
  86. Rich says:
    @Rosie

    To a primitive people without the advantage of modern science, I suppose “quickening ” would be considered the beginning of “life”. We don’t treat diseases with leaches or use whiskey as an anesthetic anymore, though, we’ve advanced just a bit. You may be the first pro-abortionist I’ve ever seen admit that a human fetus is actually human, so I suppose progress is being made.

    That our degeneracy began in Connecticut in 1821, that they were the first forced to forbid women from killing their babies, doesn’t mean abortion was ever legal, it means people had decided to try to avoid the consequences of their actions at a noticable rate. And I’m not surprised that early “feminists” were against abortion, in my idealized version of women, they’d all be against murdering their own children. But that’s just my idealized version, I know a lot of gals want to get their masters degree, or travel a bit, “experience ” life and going to a doctor or pharmacist for some birth control can be inconvenient.

    • Replies: @Rosie
  87. @Rosie

    There was never any mask. It is just common sense that was believed by all sensible men in the past. That women are unfit to exercise political power that they invariably use to rule over us. The masks today are being worn by these men who pretend women are fit to make crucial decisions (they serve as figure-heads to rubber-stamp the agenda of those who know female politicians are the most servile by nature), who pretend that abortion is part of our Constitution because they are afraid of these God-damned baby-killing women. It’s good to see the mask has come off of you, that yes indeed, you are a feminist who believes it is so essential for women to be protecting their “right” to slaughter. Look at all the hysterical women marching for negro criminals in the streets, look at the way they vote.

    It is certainly true, the judges who passed Roe vs Wade were not going to leave it to the states to decide, and if it had been known publicly they had intended to make such ruling they never would have been appointed to their positions. Roe vs Wade was a coup against representative government, against federalism, against the Right to Life. It was a blow against the very concept of legitimate law. Based on nothing, admitted to be based on no substantial argument by legal scholars. And all these women are in hysteria about it, as though this is America’s fundamental law, the only reason we have a country. Yes, we can see by the Democratic threats (which are probably fake, I think we’re seeing a show) to pack the court and thereby wreck the Constitution, that Roe vs Wade represents their Kritarchic tyranny that replaced the legitimate Constitution actually drafted into law. It was an Anti-Christian conspiracy, without a doubt, which is why now the Democrats practically only appoint Jews.

    And yes, it is by no means “indisputable” that babies born should be allowed to live in today’s society. Consult the so-called “bio-ethicists” There are many, who like the Haitian voodoo doctor, assert that the baby comes from the woman’s body, so it is her decision whether it should be sacrificed. In the same way the baby nearing full term, in the womb, is plundered for fetal tissues, BY OUR MOST FUNDAMENTAL LAW, BY THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY, Roe vs Wade. There is no real difference between stating Roe vs Wade can be legitimately construed from the Constitution and asserting Kritarchs could decide “the Constitution” guarantees that infanticide is “a mother’s choice.” No reason they couldn’t permit women to sell their children to homosexuals who could have them castrated. There are no brakes because there are no principles, there is no logic, no integrity. It is arbitrary assertion that “this is what all these elite people think should be done and state laws be damned, we’re making it up as we go, think of all our slut daughters.”

    • Replies: @Rosie
  88. Rosie says:
    @Rich

    To a primitive people without the advantage of modern science, I suppose “quickening ” would be considered the beginning of “life”.

    Typical obfuscation. No one ever believed that a fetus was not “alive” on a biological sense or “human” before quickening. You continue, dishonestly, to attempt to turn a moral judgment into a scientific fact.

    You may be the first pro-abortionist I’ve ever seen admit that a human fetus is actually human, so I suppose progress is being made.

    Then you need to get out more. Judith Jarvis Thomson, author of the seminal “Defense of Abortion,” assumed (arguendo) that a fetus is a “person” with a right to life all the way back in 1971.

    By the way, I’m not really a “pro-abortionist.” As I have already said, I’m ambivalent about the issue, thoughnot because think a fetus is the moral equivalent of a child. Rather, I’m chiefly concerned (in a personal way) about homeschooling. As you know, the right to homeschool does not appear in so many words in the Bill of Rights. Nonetheless, we enjoy the cool shade of O’Connor’s penumbrae, so the legislatures cannot outlaw homeschooling as they have done in Germany. How about ten years of compulsory White guilt propaganda?

    That our degeneracy began in Connecticut in 1821

    Lol my achin’ sides. No, back in the good ole days, prostitutes had abortions all the time, but fathers were (ahem) persuaded to marry girls they knocked up. Hence, less demand for abortions. If you really want to stop abortion, let’s bring back shotgun marriage.

    https://www.brookings.edu/research/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

    that they were the first forced to forbid women from killing their babies, doesn’t mean abortion was ever legal,

    Well, yes, that is in fact precisely what it means.

    • Replies: @Rich
    , @SolontoCroesus
  89. Rosie says:
    @GazaPlanet

    It is just common sense that was believed by all sensible men in the past.

    Lol, no. In fact, the wisest men, going all the way back to the sages of the Axial Age, have always championed women’s rights.

    Look at all the hysterical women marching for negro criminals in the streets

    What about them? On what basis do you conclude that they represent mainstream women rather than a tiny fringe majority?

    And why do we have black people in this country again? Oh right. Greedy, short-sighted, psychopathic men brought them here for cheap labor.

    look at the way they vote.

    Right. You mean the two-thirds of White women who voted for Roy Moore? How about the 75% of White women who voted for pro-life Brian Kemp? The 60% of working-class White women who voted for “racist” Donald Trump?

    White men to the Grand Ole Party:

  90. Rich says:
    @Rosie

    Do you really believe that in a nation where contraception was illegal, abortion was acceptable? Do you also believe that bestiality was okay until there was a statute on the books in Massachusetts? Come on, abortion was always considered horrible. The women I’m acquainted with who’ve committed abortion are heartsick for the rest of their lives. It’s one of the saddest things in the world. Of course, I probably associate with a different kind of woman than you’re familiar with, so I don’t suppose we’ll ever agree. I am, however, heartened to see that some on the pro-abortion side are finally admitting that a human fetus is human. That’s enough for today.

  91. @Rosie

    fathers were (ahem) persuaded to marry girls they knocked up.

    Learned from Thomas Sowell on Marx the Man that The Man was an extremely unpleasant, unscrupulous, un-honest man.
    He fathered a child while his wife was recovering from the delivery of a stillborn child (or something like that). Engels took responsibility for the child, never told the truth until after Marx died.

  92. Lol, no. In fact, the wisest men, going all the way back to the sages of the Axial Age, have always championed women’s rights.

    And here we come to the “rationality” of these Roe vs Wade upholding “justices.” They think they should dictate to us our laws and they imagine they are in line with all great philosophers against the ignorant masses who actually believe in law and decency and common sense. It’s just crass stupidity. Women are intellectually inferior, and that is a hard fact of life. Yes, their “advancement” is always the prerogative of the social wreckers who maintain the pretense to “philosophy.” (because women greedily swallow flattery, so the doctrines of the Left have always elevated women)

    Igor Shafarevich quoting the Assemblywomen:

    “PRAXAGORA:
    Compulsory Universal Community Property is what I propose to propose; across-the-board Economic Equality, to fill those fissures that scar our society’s face. No more the division between Rich and Poor. …
    …We’ll wear the same clothes, and share the same food. …
    …My initial move will be to communalize land, and money, and all other property, personal and real.
    BLEPYROS:
    But take the landless man who’s invisibly wealthy…because he hides his silver and gold in his pockets. What about him?
    PRAXAGORA:
    He’ll deposit it all in the Fund. …
    …I’ll knock out walls and remodel the City into one big happy household, where all can come and go as they choose. …
    …I’m pooling the women, creating a public hoard for the use of every man who wishes to take them to bed and make babies.
    BLEPYROS:
    A system like this requires a pretty wise father to know his own children.
    PRAXAGORA:
    But why does he need to? Age is the new criterion: Children will henceforth trace their descent from all men who might have begot them. …
    BLEPYROS:
    Who’s going to work the land and produce the food?
    PRAXAGORA:
    The slaves. This leaves you just one civic function: When the shades of night draw on, slip sleekly down to dinner. …
    …The State’s not going to stint. Its hand is full and open, its heart is large, it’ll stuff its menfolk free of charge, then issue them torches when dinner’s done and send them out to hunt for fun.
    (2: pp. 43-51)

    The reader will of course already have noticed many of the features of a familiar doctrine. Let us attempt to specify the associations that arise by considering a second example–the classic statement of the Marxist program contained in the Communist Manifesto.”

    These sophists (Roe vs. Wade is pure sophistry, judicial nihilism) flattering women have always known women are fools enough to take them seriously. Our country is in danger because of unbridled women and the men frightened of offending them. It is no coincidence that the biggest issue in this country is feminism and abortion. The West is dying of Feminism. And if we want to trace the precipitation of the collapse, we only have to look at the years leading up to Roe vs Wade.

    • LOL: Rosie
  93. I could comment on the story itself but for myself it isn’t necessary. When I was growing up in the 60’s and 70’s of the last century, I remember how my dad constantly would comment on the Supreme Court. He saw what was happening clearly. He used to say derisively, “Supreme Court”, who are these people, Gods?? LOL My dad was an immigrant but began reading the American newspapers when the only words he knew coming off the ship was “hot dog” and “beer”..yet, I realized later in life that he was more politically astute than 99 percent of Americans who had family history here for centuries.

    • Thanks: GazaPlanet
    • Replies: @Dr.C. Fhandrich
  94. @Dr.C. Fhandrich

    I could comment on the story itself but for myself it isn’t necessary. When I was growing up in the 60’s and 70’s of the last century, I remember how my dad constantly would comment on the Supreme Court. He saw what was happening clearly. He used to say derisively, “Supreme Court”, who are these people, Gods?? LOL My dad was an immigrant but began reading the American newspapers when the only words he knew coming off the ship was “hot dog” and “beer”..yet, I realized later in life that he was more politically astute than 99 percent of Americans who had family history here for centuries. Before he passed away, I had a beer with him. He insisted that I go and ride with him to a beer bar he liked, where he said in a half relaxed state, You know, this is a great country.. He died a week later at 51.

  95. Rosie says:

    Hmmm. Maybe RBG was more complicated of a character than I thought.

    She also instilled the notion that women could have it all, but maybe not at the same time.

    How ’bout that?!?

    She praised her “life partner,” her husband, Marty, “the only man,” she would say, who “cared that I had a brain.”

    I feel ya.

    “The justice taught us all a thing or two about a life well lived,” said former clerk Lori Alvino McGill.

    “She was among the first mentors to tell me I could do anything — but she also told me that it would be foolish to think I could do many things well at the same time,” said McGill. “The life lessons she imparted gave me the courage to take a step back from my own career and choose, for this moment in time, to be more present for my three children.”

    Go figure! RBG the tradmom!

    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2020/09/23/politics/ginsburg-supreme-court-repose-clerks/index.html

  96. @The Alarmist

    My point was that in 1776, when the closest thing to a British Constitution was the Magna Carta, it was clear the framers of the US Constitution understood judges could not “make law”, only interpret the application of an existing law.

  97. @Kratoklastes

    If rights are not enumerated, the BlackRobes get to say whether or not a right exists – and part of the test is the “public policy test”, i.e., whether or not proscribing government infringement of the (putative) right would impede the smooth functioning of government.

    I agree that is what the situation has become. Originally, they could only interpret the law and its common application. I’m not suggesting that it was a perfect system or not corrupt, only that it was not overtly activist.

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 have been licensed to 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 Gregory Hood Comments via RSS