The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Amy Wax on Ruth Bader Ginsburg
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
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

Amy Wax of the U. of Pennsylvania law school wrote an insightful article about RBG earlier this year for the Claremont Review of Books. In Wax’s telling, Ginsburg was a brilliant workaholic, able to go head to head with the smartest men, but most women (like most men) are not brilliant workaholics. This meant that Ginsburg was increasingly irrelevant during the Great Awokening when the issue became how to dumb down American life to the level at which black women could compete equally with Jewish men:

The tensions between Ginsburg’s example and the reality, between feminist aspirations and most women’s lives, and between incremental progress and dramatic transformation, are indicative of larger fault lines in feminism that Ginsburg has barely addressed in her career, writings, or opinions. Ginsburg has always been primarily an “equity feminist.” She has pushed for formal equality and for greater access to arenas from which women were previously excluded, expecting greater access to yield greater parity. She proceeded in this way because she envisioned women as a match for men not just in legal formalisms, but in outcomes and roles. Yet despite pushing conventional limits and challenging gender stereotypes at home and at work, she favored a targeted legal path to fixing gender inequality, not a revolutionary transformation of all aspects of society. She had little interest in recasting basic institutional design or disrupting workplace hierarchies: she accepted longstanding, conventionally masculine standards for education, legal procedure, analysis, and argumentation. In a speech to women judges in 1986, she argued against preferences and special treatment for women in such areas as pregnancy and child rearing, warning that those efforts would reinforce stereotypes. In these respects, at least, she wanted women to be more like men.

And though she is frequently billed as a pragmatist, Ginsburg in her writings reveals an optimistic, idealistic vision of harmoniously egalitarian families, political precincts, and workplaces. Without ever confronting the question deeply or directly, she implicitly accepts the basic premises of blank-slate progressivism: that the present realities of gender, including women’s and men’s differing preferences, choices, capacities, and desires, are the remnants of a benighted and oppressive past that can be vanquished and eliminated by getting law and policy right. She has often asserted that such reforms would benefit both sexes, so that her quest for women’s rights is also one for human rights. But this win-win conception carries limitations and creates blind spots. Fueled by her own fortunate situation and the insular elite domains she occupies, Ginsburg has failed to confront the real tradeoffs that might be entailed in expanding women’s rights. She has never stopped to consider that the nature of womanhood and the intricacies of family relations might impede equality of outcomes, or that interchangeable roles for men and women might not be attainable, or even desirable, for the great majority of people of either sex.

In recognition of these insights, there emerged in the 1980s a different strain of feminism from the one Ginsburg championed. Designated “difference feminism,” this alternative philosophy acknowledges women’s unique vulnerabilities, traits, and needs, calling upon society to recognize, accommodate, and even cater to the ways in which women are not exactly like men. Within the legal profession itself, the contrast between equity and difference feminism was presaged, strikingly, by the government’s argument in the VMI case. The state proposed that a separate military education program be developed at Mary Washington College as a gentler and less “adversative” substitute for the rigorous demands of a VMI education. In his counterargument, Deputy Solicitor General Paul Bender cast aspersions on the state’s assertion that women couldn’t handle the harsh regime at VMI. On the very same logic, he suggested, “a new women’s law school” would have to be set up with “a much warmer, a much more embracing environment”—a notion, he implied, both risible and demeaning.

But ironically, quite similar proposals were advanced in the same year by feminist Lani Guinier, now a Harvard Law professor, in a University of Pennsylvania Law Review article. According to Guinier, the Socratic method, with its emphasis on logic, rigor, fine analytic distinctions, and public performance, was personally intimidating and psychologically traumatic for women. Male-oriented pedagogical techniques interfered with women’s ability to learn and accounted for the then-measured gaps between males and females in law school performance, class participation, and subjective self-evaluations. Guinier urged law schools to adopt more “female-friendly” educational methods that were better suited to women’s wants and needs. Unlike Ginsburg, who demanded entry to male precincts and permission to perform on men’s terms, Guinier asked that the contours of the field, and the playbook for the game, be radically revised. This same impulse has now motivated calls to revise basic rules in politics, science, the entertainment industry, the military, journalism, and other male-dominated workplaces.

The future of women in American society will undeniably be shaped by how it responds to these demands, and how that response affects men’s and women’s lives. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for her part, has mostly avoided grappling with difficult questions about the nature and source of sex differences, their malleability or intransigence, and their implications for the world of work, sexual relations, and family. Despite RBG’s many successes, these questions remain her legacy for future generations to address. They will be with us for a long time.

Amy L. Wax is the Robert Mundheim Professor of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

 
Hide 258 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was born in 1933. Same year the original King Kong was released.

    The Amy Wax article don’t mention this, but the relevance is obvious. “The girl in the hairy palm” was and still is a cultural trope in American life. The whole point of human sexual bipolarity is that each sex sees the other as both attractive/threatening as the situation warrants.

    Ruth B.G. came out of the Red Thirties with the essential commie notion that humans are malleable to such an extreme degree that we can skip all the complicated stuff and just become “persons” if not precisely identical.

    Old Kong knew better. The feminist beast wants to kill beauty but it won’t succeed.

    • Agree: NickG
  2. Anon[205] • Disclaimer says:

    Wax, who has an MD as well as a JD, and who held her own in prestigious clerkships and law firms, as well as the federal government, is sharp as a tack, but presents as an amiable grandmother. She appears frequently on the Glenn Loury Bloggingheads podcast. She’s also the expert on disparate impact law, and her writing on it is very readable.

    The Socratic method dustup actually resulted in a precipitous decline in its use in law schools, although for the most part this was to protect blacks and other affirmative action admittees, not women. It is truly cringeworthy to witness an unprepared law student get ambushed in a Socratic method taught class in law school. No mercy is shown. And these victims tend to be BIPOC’s, at least after the first two weeks of classes.

    • Replies: @James O'Meara
    @Anon

    The "Socratic Method" has nothing to do with Socrates or reasoning or teaching. It's a way for law school professors, most all of whom have never entered a courtroom, to spend decades teaching nothing of value (which is why 2nd and 3rd year students never bother to go to class, and graduates need to take "bar prep" courses to actually pass the bar and be licensed to practice); in fact, teaching literally "nothing" but how to intuit the answer the professor wants you to give.

    If it gives you a thrill because it trips up BIPOC's then I don't know what to do for you.

    Of course the British system is no better. John "Rumpole" Mortimer said that after graduating from Oxford with a law degree he knew how to adopt a Senator and grant manumission to a slave, but nothing else.

    Replies: @Anon, @Jim Brewer

  3. I keep hearing Ginsburg was brilliant, but where’s the evidence? How hard is it to interpret the Constitution as meaning whatever the editors of the New York Times say it means? Was anyone really convinced by these arguments? The Left likes these arguments for obvious reasons. But does anyone believe crap like gay marriage is in the Constitution,

    • Replies: @SimpleSong
    @Castlereagh

    She built an entire elaborate legal edifice on top of a defective foundation. Men and women are profoundly different biologically; any legal system that fails to acknowledge this will result in a profoundly unhealthy society.

    Stupid is as stupid does. She did a very stupid thing, she is stupid.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    , @hOUSTON 1992
    @Castlereagh

    The liberal consensus has made her a cultural icon, and that consensus has momentum and is being transmitted down to to the next generations

    Google search "books for children ruth bader ginsburg..."
    there are many such books in high end boutique stores with soft toys for kids
    e.g.
    https://www.amazon.com/Dissent-Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-Makes/dp/1481465597

    2)Steve: what is the name and resume of the sole African American who breached The Ginsburg Ceiling ( to coin a term)?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @res, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @kaganovitch

    , @James B. Shearer
    @Castlereagh

    "I keep hearing Ginsburg was brilliant, but where’s the evidence? ..."

    What did Scalia see in her?

    , @Anonymous
    @Castlereagh


    I keep hearing Ginsburg was brilliant, but where’s the evidence?
     
    There's no evidence. There was never any evidence that she was any more brilliant than countless other jurists who toil in obscurity or are unknown or forgotten.

    What there is, however, is a media, academic, legal, political, and popular culture in which Jews with similar backgrounds to Ginsburg (i.e. Ashkenazi Jewish American from New York with advanced educational and professional attainment) are prominent and overrepresented. It's understandable and natural that Jewish Americans would strongly identify with and promote her memory over others, but her elevation in the broader culture has more to do with ethnic narcissism and nepotism via Jewish American prominence and overrepresentation in the culture than with any unique brilliance on her part. Aspirational gentiles basically follow the tone set by Jewish Americans in these cultures.

    Replies: @Jack d

    , @Prester John
    @Castlereagh

    "But does anyone believe crap like gay marriage is in the Constitution,"

    Oh but it is! It's in the "orbs and penumbras". Or something.

    , @Hibernian
    @Castlereagh


    How hard is it to interpret the Constitution as meaning whatever the editors of the New York Times say it means?
     
    It takes a fair amount of talent to do that in the requisite Ivy League Law School Language.
    , @Dumbo
    @Castlereagh

    She isn't very smart, or only in a very technical way.


    when the issue became how to dumb down American life to the level at which black women could compete equally with Jewish men:
     
    No one wants to make black women compete with Jewish men, assuming that it is even possible. They want to screw over the white non-Jewish middle class. Then as now, just the methods vary.
    , @Element59
    @Castlereagh

    Reminds me of Bruce Charlton's "Clever Sillies" hypotheses, or when Jared Taylor mentions that it takes a very intelligent person to convince themselves that race is only a social construct. Very intelligent people often lack common sense and come up with nonsensical Rube Goldberg-like ideas on everyday issues.

    Replies: @James B. Shearer

    , @J.Ross
    @Castlereagh

    Stop that. You heard Jack D. Heydrich's test scores mean that killing innocent people is cool. That's, like, how it works. IQ is literally everything.

    Replies: @Jack D

  4. Apparently no brilliant feminist writer or opinionist has ever conceived of my simple advice to young women : you can always get a job, but the window for having children is narrow and brief. Have children early and enter your exciting career after they have grown.

    • Agree: SimpleSong, Travis
    • Replies: @SimpleSong
    @Elmer T. Jones

    While you can certainly have a career after you have children, interestingly enough it seems most women are much less interested in a career after motherhood.

    Replies: @bruce county, @TheJester

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Elmer T. Jones


    ...the window for having children is narrow and brief.
     
    If she stands at the window in narrow briefs, she might get a child that way.



    https://imgc.artprintimages.com/img/print/woman-in-underwear-looking-out-bedroom-window-rear-view_u-l-p9nckr0.jpg?h=550&p=0&w=550
    , @Chrisnonymous
    @Elmer T. Jones

    This is not correct, which is why no brilliant female has pursued the strategy. If you want to be a secretary, you can start when you're 28, but if you want to be a federal judge, you better get focused by 18 if not earlier.

    Replies: @Elmer T. Jones

    , @anonymous as usual
    @Elmer T. Jones

    wwebd said - Elmer, life itself is brief.
    For example, take the best possible counterexamples - Clint Eastwood and William Shatner. Both were leading men, or Hollywood alpha males, in the late 50s and both still seem to exhibit an interest in women, here and now in the 2020s.

    But neither one of them has gotten any quality pussy in the last 20 years, at least quality pussy that was happy to be with them and would have been happy to be with them if they were not rich. You know that, I know that, everybody knows that. So, even if you are at the Eastwood Shatner level, your window, as a man, for getting quality pussy is at most four decades.

    Women can pop out little human babies for three decades.

    Elmer, my young friend, the biological clock works for all of us at similar rates. Four decades, three decades, what is the difference?

    I, for one, regret having spent so much of my youth building up a resume as a highly (well, maybe not highly, but still....) decorated veteran and a serious scholar of civilizing ideas, when I could have been a bartender banging a different beautiful woman every month.

    Proverbs 8 is the key to the sarcasm in this comment.

    Replies: @Elmer T. Jones

    , @Jesse
    @Elmer T. Jones

    You're an idiot. And live where? On one income, remember. Plus, it's incredibly difficult to get (back) into a career in your thirties and beyond - and no, employers are *not* impressed if your extended gap in the CV was due to childrearing and volunteer work. Why would they be? The labor market is so slack there's no reason to take any risks.

    You *can't* underestimate the need for two incomes to have anything resembling a good life. And what happens if your breadwinner dies or leaves, especially before the woman's had a chance to establish herself? There's a reason the daughters of divorced parents are so famously career focused - and also why elderly divorced or widowed women have such catastrophic poverty rates.

    Periodically, some midwit will say, like it's a brand new piece of knowledge, that hey maybe women should have kids in their early 20s and THEN focus on careers, as though there are no structural issues preventing that. Focus on the structural issues, and that might change. However, I fully understand that it's easier and more gratifying to carp at individual women who are doing their best.

    Replies: @anon, @MarkinLA, @3g4me

  5. This meant that Ginsburg was increasingly irrelevant during the Great Awokening when the issue became how to dumb down American life to the level at which black women could compete equally with Jewish men:

    Because we have a really clever plan by the Jewish establishment to push anti-White policies, mass 3rd world immigration and Black resentment.

    I mean, how could it backfire? What a deal!

    Check out the big brain on the Ashkenazi.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @RichardTaylor


    Black resentment.
     
    Black resentment is fast apporaching its sixth century. Don't kid yourself.


    La Española: the earliest recorded Blacks in the Colonial Americas

    America's History of Slavery Began Long Before Jamestown

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @RichardTaylor

    , @Anonymous
    @RichardTaylor

    ummm Germany and allied peoples circa 1935-45

    Badly backfired.

  6. According to Guinier, the Socratic method, with its emphasis on logic, rigor, fine analytic distinctions, and public performance, was personally intimidating and psychologically traumatic for women. Male-oriented pedagogical techniques interfered with women’s ability to learn and accounted for the then-measured gaps between males and females in law school performance, class participation, and subjective self-evaluations. Guinier urged law schools to adopt more “female-friendly” educational methods that were better suited to women’s wants and needs. Unlike Ginsburg, who demanded entry to male precincts and permission to perform on men’s terms, Guinier asked that the contours of the field, and the playbook for the game, be radically revised.

    Not only has this come to fruition, but the current “wokeness” is demanding that the same thing be applied to race. You could replace all references to “men” and “women” in that paragraph with “whites” and “blacks” and it would be an accurate description of the “woke” movement.

  7. Good article.

    I’ve noticed that truly talented minorities often have undramatic rises to the top. When given an opportunity, they succeed, as many talented people would. So it’s not surprising that they feel that inequality of opportunity is the issue to be solved.

    Unfortunately, it doesn’t solve the overall gaps.

    • Replies: @Percy Gryce
    @megabar

    That, said E. Digby Baltzell, was the genius of the American ruling class. Note: class, not caste. Caste is an impermeable social body, based on blood. Class is an elite based on a mixture of blood and merit, allowing the talented tenth (or whatever percentage of strivers) to share power.

    He lays this theory out--and even quantifies it in an entertaining way--in The Protestant Establishment (1964).

    Replies: @GoRedWings!

    , @TWS
    @megabar

    If anyone needs the circumstances to be changed to compete, there are real differences and there's no equality.

    Also no reason to make accommodation.

    , @Ben tillman
    @megabar


    So it’s not surprising that they feel that inequality of opportunity is the issue to be solved.
     
    It’s always surprising to hear that someone thinks, or is presumed to think, that everyone is equally gifted in all things. I do not believe anyone thinks that, and I do not believe successful blacks think their success proves that others are being held back.
  8. VMI, The Women, wound up at Mary Baldwin College (now University).

  9. …she argued against preferences and special treatment for women in such areas as pregnancy and child rearing, warning that those efforts would reinforce stereotypes.

    As if life itself wasn’t doing it already.

    She has never stopped to consider…

    The hallmark of a progressive.

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Thanks: Calvin Hobbes, ic1000, bomag
  10. “Ginsburg was increasingly irrelevant during the Great Awokening when the issue became how to dumb down American life to the level at which black women could compete equally with Jewish men:”

    Or Wise Latinas being equal to Jewish female Justices.

    • Replies: @Ben tillman
    @Ron Mexico

    Let’s not overlook the likelihood that Sotomayor is Racially Jewish.

  11. The Left has arranged the deck chairs so that the Chinese eventually will have an easy time making the West its plaything. The Chinese also have a history of acting to prevent Jewish mischief.

    • Replies: @Currahee
    @Jake

    "The Chinese also have a history of acting to prevent Jewish mischief."
    Please elucidate or provide reference.

  12. According to Guinier, the Socratic method, with its emphasis on logic, rigor, fine analytic distinctions, and public performance, was personally intimidating and psychologically traumatic for women.

    Hypatia wept.

  13. Designated “difference feminism,” this alternative philosophy acknowledges women’s unique vulnerabilities, traits, and needs, calling upon society to recognize, accommodate, and even cater to the ways in which women are not exactly like men. Within the legal profession itself,

    ‘Society’ does that through the institution of labor markets and socialization of the cost of schooling. There are certain aspects of how that is implemented which can be improved. So long as transparency in labor market transactions is typical, the intervention of officious nuisances like RBG is injurious to the common good.

  14. According to Guinier, the Socratic method, with its emphasis on logic, rigor, fine analytic distinctions, and public performance, was personally intimidating and psychologically traumatic for women. Male-oriented pedagogical techniques interfered with women’s ability to learn and accounted for the then-measured gaps between males and females in law school performance, class participation, and subjective self-evaluations. Guinier urged law schools to adopt more “female-friendly” educational methods that were better suited to women’s wants and needs.

    Much of K-12 is run in “female-friendly” ways. Not surprisingly, this has “interfered with [men’s] ability to learn and accounted for [large and increasing] gaps between males and females in … school performance”.

    I look forward to Professor Guinier’s call for reform of K-12.

    • Agree: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Roger Sweeny

    Lani Guinier is an old college friend of the Clintons.

    She was Bill's original nominee for Associate Attorney General for Civil Rights. But she was a strong, outspoken proponent of racial quotas, and in 1993 that was enough to derail her nomination.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/04/us/clinton-abandons-his-nominee-for-rights-post-amid-opposition.html


    The Guinier nomination was a cascading political problem for Mr. Clinton since he nominated her to be Assistant Attorney General for civil rights on April 29.

    At issue were the scholarly writings of Ms. Guinier, a 43-year-old law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, in which she has argued that majority rule is often insufficient to provide blacks with a fair share of political power. She has proposed a variety of voting schemes to enhance the power of black voters and black lawmakers.
     
    Sounds like the 2020 Democratic platform, doesn't it?

    In response to a question, Mr. Clinton said that his wife played no role in either the selection of Ms. Guinier for the post or the decision to withdraw the nomination. White House officials earlier credited Mrs. Clinton with selecting Ms. Guinier.
     
    Some things never change.
  15. Ginsburg reminds me of a woman partner in a Wall Street firm where I worked in the 1990s, straight out of law school. She was mean and smart; she smoked in her office and no one dared tell her not to. She was a terror — and an absolute terror on female associates, whom she despised as coddled. . . .

    RBG made an acquaintance of mine, who was clerking for her, work on Thanksgiving because she wanted to get the opinion out on Friday, notwithstanding the fact that no one was at the Court.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    @Al Levine

    I always enjoyed working on Thanksgiving, while co-workers with families got the day off. No brass hanging around the newsroom, and I got to pick my favorite Macy's parade balloon for the big front-page photo. Usually Bullwinkle.

  16. I don’t understand how Romania, admittedly a second world country, can afford to pay its highest-tier judges enough to eat out, but American Supreme Court Judge Ginsburg had to make do with her husband’s dishes. \s

  17. I am more radical than these wacky n-th wave feminists in some matters: for instance, I would give married working women twice as much as to men, i.e. basically the same amount of money for 4 hours long work as men get for 8 hours, just to promote fertility increase among functioning white race (which would benefit other races’ functioning females). No money for lazy dumb baby mommas; no money for single moms who are evidently leeches (but yes to single moms who are technically single, but work & are socially stable and mentally sane).

    Other than that, women should not serve in the military- except in a few carefully selected areas; the rest is nonsense.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Bardon Kaldian


    I would give married working women twice as much as to men, i.e. basically the same amount of money for 4 hours long work as men get for 8 hours, just to promote fertility increase among functioning white race (which would benefit other races’ functioning females).
     
    Alternatively you could give the husbands more money so that the wives could stay home and raise the children.

    If you seriously want higher birth rates you would need to strongly discourage married women from working.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    , @ScarletNumber
    @Bardon Kaldian


    women should not serve in the military- except in a few carefully selected areas
     
    Well we'll always need nurses.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    , @Not Raul
    @Bardon Kaldian

    Women shouldn’t serve in the infantry unless they can meet the same standards as the men.

  18. I would prefer that, in future, Steve and iSteve commenters refer to Professor Amy L. Wax as Darth Wax…

  19. Fueled by her own fortunate situation and the insular elite domains she occupie… She has never stopped to consider that… or that….

    This passage is not accurate. Ginsburg’s life is written on her face. If you Google photos of her, you can see her smiling as a child, then pursing her lips in young womanhood, and finally full-on scowling by her later years. This is her real self. She was not a misguided hopeful universalist, she was simply angry over whatever and it turned her into an old, cold bitch who wanted to tear down what wasn’t consonant with her resentments.

    • Agree: Father O'Hara
    • Replies: @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia
    @Chrisnonymous

    Yep.

    She was almost lovely in her youth, but she turned into an osteoporotic Golem, despite the dumbbell workouts.

    A bitter Nana at the end, almost replicating the Jewish hook nose caricatures you see in the propaganda drawings.

    Angry leftist activism takes its toll.

    , @ThreeCranes
    @Chrisnonymous

    "The face you have at age 25 is the face God gave you, but the face you have after 50 is the face you earned." supposedly said by Cindy Crawford but it sounds like something someone would have said a lot earlier:

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  20. @megabar
    Good article.

    I've noticed that truly talented minorities often have undramatic rises to the top. When given an opportunity, they succeed, as many talented people would. So it's not surprising that they feel that inequality of opportunity is the issue to be solved.

    Unfortunately, it doesn't solve the overall gaps.

    Replies: @Percy Gryce, @TWS, @Ben tillman

    That, said E. Digby Baltzell, was the genius of the American ruling class. Note: class, not caste. Caste is an impermeable social body, based on blood. Class is an elite based on a mixture of blood and merit, allowing the talented tenth (or whatever percentage of strivers) to share power.

    He lays this theory out–and even quantifies it in an entertaining way–in The Protestant Establishment (1964).

    • Replies: @GoRedWings!
    @Percy Gryce


    That, said E. Digby Baltzell, was the genius of the American ruling class.
     
    C.Wright Mills was the genius, Baltzell his most talented student.
  21. Glad to see that Prof. Wax is back. I assume she’s served a term of penance and withdrawal from public controversy. Now liberated, she’s a welcome voice.

  22. Ho hum. Do we change the rules to make it easier for blacks, womyn, and spotted owls, or would that be patronizing and limiting? You know what? I think we should change the rules so that people concerned with these questions have their mouths taped shut for 10 or 20 years.

  23. OT. There has long been speculation that cancer is associated with repressed anger.

    A number of studies have been done on the subject and Alternative Cancer Care notes the link between repressed anger and cancer….Other researchers from the University of Rochester and Harvard School of Public Health found that people who suppress anger have a 70 percent higher risk of dying from cancer. A University of Michigan study found that suppression of anger predicted earlier mortality in men and women.

    Is it possible that her raging TDS hastened Ginsburg’s demise from metastatic pancreas cancer?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Harry Baldwin

    So all the shootings are actually a healthy thing?
    Just what I've been suspecting!

    , @Cloudbuster
    @Harry Baldwin

    Is it possible that her raging TDS hastened Ginsburg’s demise from metastatic pancreas cancer?

    She was 87 years old. That's not a delayed death on any scale.

    Replies: @anon, @Harry Baldwin

    , @Buffalo Joe
    @Harry Baldwin

    Harry, swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time causes cancer. I just need a grant to further my studies.

  24. I thought Professor Wax had been banished to the Phantom Zone like the villains at the beginning of the Superman movie.

  25. @Harry Baldwin
    OT. There has long been speculation that cancer is associated with repressed anger.

    A number of studies have been done on the subject and Alternative Cancer Care notes the link between repressed anger and cancer....Other researchers from the University of Rochester and Harvard School of Public Health found that people who suppress anger have a 70 percent higher risk of dying from cancer. A University of Michigan study found that suppression of anger predicted earlier mortality in men and women.
     
    Is it possible that her raging TDS hastened Ginsburg's demise from metastatic pancreas cancer?

    Replies: @anon, @Cloudbuster, @Buffalo Joe

    So all the shootings are actually a healthy thing?
    Just what I’ve been suspecting!

  26. It would be very symbolic if Trump replaced Ginsburg with an East Asian. In effect, he would be replacing the dominant minority that has reached its high-water mark with the up and coming one. Turnabout is fair play.

    With little mention, had Merrick Garland been appointed to SCOTUS that would have made 4 of 9 justices coming from one tribe that is less than 2% of the population while there wasn’t a single WASP on the bench. Chuck Schumer was simultaneously gleefully rubbing his hands together while kvetching about how we need more diversity. We all understood what he was trying to do (help).

    While not quite putting a steak in its heart, it might be good reminder to the Lawfare – Kyriarchy golem that haunts the land that they can be cancelled and replaced too.

    • Replies: @Currahee
    @Prof. Woland

    "Stake", Professor, "stake."

    , @anon
    @Prof. Woland

    https://i.imgflip.com/1134xc.jpg

  27. Is “equity feminist” the right term? As I understand it, equity feminists believe that men’s equity – in their homes, cars, stock holdings, businesses, etc. – belongs rightfully to women.

    That may not always have been the case, but feminists are quite clear on this. “Equality” feminism is the belief that men and women should have the same legal rights, but why settle for that when you can get more? That’s where equity feminism comes in and declares that women can’t truly be equal to men unless the state takes stuff from men and gives it to them.

    • Agree: Prof. Woland, TWS
    • LOL: GazaPlanet
    • Troll: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    @Bill P

    Well said.

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @Bill P


    As I understand it, equity feminists believe that men’s equity – in their homes, cars, stock holdings, businesses, etc. – belongs rightfully to women.
     
    https://media1.giphy.com/media/ELNmnJchjJId2/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e47e5jduzf5hp7z2aszmshcoxb3fmhhcyyqk6692tkz&rid=giphy.gif
    , @anon
    @Bill P


    That may not always have been the case, but feminists are quite clear on this. “Equality” feminism is the belief that men and women should have the same legal rights, but why settle for that when you can get more? That’s where equity feminism comes in and declares that women can’t truly be equal to men unless the state takes stuff from men and gives it to them.
     
    The left has shifting definitions of the words equality and equity.
    "Equity" as used on the Left today generally means guaranteeing equality of outcomes.
    But, equality of outcomes doctrine should never be interpreted to stop a woman or minority from getting more than an equal share of something good, nor should equality of outcomes doctrine ever be used to make women or minorities get an equal share of something bad.
    Examples:
    Equity requires that women CEOs must be increased until they make up at least 50% of all CEOs, because the CEO job is something good.
    Equity does not require that women be reduced in the number of Psychology Doctorates, currently at 76%, because doctorates are something good and women do not want to give this up.
    Equity does not require that women be increased to 50% of garbage truck drivers, because that job is bad and women don't want it anyway.
    Understand?

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    , @cthulhu
    @Bill P


    Is “equity feminist” the right term? As I understand it, equity feminists believe that men’s equity – in their homes, cars, stock holdings, businesses, etc. – belongs rightfully to women.
     
    Christina Hoff Sommers used the term in her 1994 work Who Stole Feminism? in the same sense that Professor Wax does; i.e., it’s the feminist position that is largely defined by support for equality of opportunity, and emphatically not trying to mandate equality of outcome.

    As always in these discussions, Steven Pinker’s 2003 masterpiece The Blank Slate is essential reading. Another more recent book that covers some of the same ground is Charles Murray’s Human Diversity.
  28. Amy Wax is a far more insightful thinker than RBG. Too bad Trump wouldn’t put her on the Court.

    RBG at times appeared to be a IYI, unable to see the bigger picture and consequences of her divorced from reality musings. Sort of like she refused to step down in 2013 or 2014 when she could have been replaced by a extreme feminist like herself. The absolute narcissism of RBG showed her limited understanding of the implications of her positions, even with regards to herself.

    It is pure justice that Trump will place a very conservative woman in her place.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Gaius Gracchus

    At the time she was nominated, Alan Dershowitz criticised the appointment, saying she had the soul of a tax lawyer and that wasn't the person you wanted for your court of last resort.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Not Raul, @Gary in Gramercy, @Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang

  29. By the way- what did she do for women? And, her ethnicity- what did she do for (American) Jews?

    I don’t know about her career- nor do I care- but it seems to me that her relevance & influence is vastly exaggerated.

  30. Translation: RGB was a selfish feminist who could care less what collateral damage was done to ordinary women, much less men as long as she got up the ladder. There all the same she just used Jewish networking to get multiple levels above her ability, there is really nothing special about her work you always knew how she would vote. How can that be creative or original?

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Ari Silver

    There's no indication from her previous history that her ability was deficient to be an appellate judge. And if it's networking, who did she know?

    Replies: @Ben tillman

  31. @Bill P
    Is "equity feminist" the right term? As I understand it, equity feminists believe that men's equity - in their homes, cars, stock holdings, businesses, etc. - belongs rightfully to women.

    That may not always have been the case, but feminists are quite clear on this. "Equality" feminism is the belief that men and women should have the same legal rights, but why settle for that when you can get more? That's where equity feminism comes in and declares that women can't truly be equal to men unless the state takes stuff from men and gives it to them.

    Replies: @Prof. Woland, @Bardon Kaldian, @anon, @cthulhu

    Well said.

  32. @Harry Baldwin
    OT. There has long been speculation that cancer is associated with repressed anger.

    A number of studies have been done on the subject and Alternative Cancer Care notes the link between repressed anger and cancer....Other researchers from the University of Rochester and Harvard School of Public Health found that people who suppress anger have a 70 percent higher risk of dying from cancer. A University of Michigan study found that suppression of anger predicted earlier mortality in men and women.
     
    Is it possible that her raging TDS hastened Ginsburg's demise from metastatic pancreas cancer?

    Replies: @anon, @Cloudbuster, @Buffalo Joe

    Is it possible that her raging TDS hastened Ginsburg’s demise from metastatic pancreas cancer?

    She was 87 years old. That’s not a delayed death on any scale.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Cloudbuster

    She was 87 years old. That’s not a delayed death on any scale.


    https://social.infogalactic.com/images/posts/b1f66f3c-6662-46a3-aa24-8a38249db588/original-45809089f4a8cd71a8651febc6172b19.jpeg

    , @Harry Baldwin
    @Cloudbuster

    I guess I should have added a "/s" symbol.

  33. Back in the day, German sociologist wrote that the public square had bee created by men for men. But now that women were coming into the public they would adapt the public square “to suit a more feminine sensibility.”

    But what if women don’t suit, and don’t like, the open outcry of the public square? As seems pretty obvious, what with the fuss over safe spaces and microaggressions?

  34. Meanwhile, in the UK:

    The National Trust homes where colonial links are ‘umbilical’

    A stroll around a country house is, for many, the ideal way to spend a Sunday afternoon. But the National Trust is calling on visitors to view its properties with fresh eyes, as the beneficiaries of a British Empire that reflects a murky past.

    Prof Corinne Fowler “didn’t anticipate the catalyst of Black Lives Matter” when she first pitched an idea to the National Trust, back in 2017, to organise a children-led project about its properties’ colonial connections.

    The initial finding of Prof Fowler’s project was that up to a third of the National Trust’s 300 UK houses have links to colonialism. “I expected [the links] to be extensive but I didn’t expect there to be that many: the connection was umbilical.”

    At first glance, Speke is merely a spectacular Tudor manor house in Liverpool.
    But, said Prof Fowler, it is also “a great example of a really major slavery story which is not clear unless you know the background of the house”.

    Speke was owned by two families. One of them was the Norris family whose ranks included slave trader Richard Norris, who was central to improvement schemes at Liverpool’s docks that ensured access for ever-larger ships.

    “According to the historian Laurence Westgaph, ultimately Norris’s actions were an important contribution to Liverpool’s dominance of the slave trade by the 1740s,” said Prof Fowler.
    “The other owners were the Watt family. Richard Watt (1751-1803) started out as a hackney carriage driver who owned a slave ship, sold slaves to plantation owners and had a rum and sugar shipping company himself.
    “The money his nephews inherited allowed for the restoration of the family hall, which is what we see today.”

    Prof Fowler’s advice for anyone visiting these houses and seeking to find the colonial connections is:
    Look out for properties that were built or renovated during Britain’s four colonial centuries (16th – 20th)
    Look for owners who were colonial administrators at home or abroad, such as William Blathwayt of Dyrham Park in the 17th Century
    Look for former East India Company figures, such as Clive of India of Powis Castle or Sir Francis Sykes of Basildon Park, and for propertied families with known slavery connections such as the Beckfords and Vernons

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-54018340#:~:text=Buckland%20Abbey%2C%20Devonshire,Sudbury%20Hall%2C%20Ashbourne%2C%20Derbyshire

  35. @Harry Baldwin
    OT. There has long been speculation that cancer is associated with repressed anger.

    A number of studies have been done on the subject and Alternative Cancer Care notes the link between repressed anger and cancer....Other researchers from the University of Rochester and Harvard School of Public Health found that people who suppress anger have a 70 percent higher risk of dying from cancer. A University of Michigan study found that suppression of anger predicted earlier mortality in men and women.
     
    Is it possible that her raging TDS hastened Ginsburg's demise from metastatic pancreas cancer?

    Replies: @anon, @Cloudbuster, @Buffalo Joe

    Harry, swallowing small amounts of saliva over a long period of time causes cancer. I just need a grant to further my studies.

  36. I don’t know anything about her and can’t quite connect the different things I read about her.
    Even her detractors seem to admit that she was (a) gifted as a lawyer and (b) industrious. On the other hand she was an activist judge – and what’s the use of being gifted in law if you feel free to alter laws and their interpretation according to the needs of the time? And does that require such an amount of time and work?
    I could perhaps guess that she was very gifted and industrious in persuading more conservative judges that the law meant just what she herself deemed good. But was she very persuasive? Otherwise, how can we judge how gifted and industrious she really was?

  37. “a new women’s law school” would have to be set up with “a much warmer, a much more embracing environment”—a notion, [Paul Bender] implied, both risible and demeaning

    I think Bender would be surprised how much in the last 24 years at groups would be willing to demean themselves in order to get a place at the affirmative-action trough.

    Fun Fact: Bender and RBG were high school classmates. The decision wasn’t close, though. Even though she wrote the opinion, it was 7-1 with Scalia dissenting and Thomas recusing, as his son was a student at VMI.

    • Replies: @JimDandy
    @ScarletNumber

    I think the fact that Colby Covington and Jon Jones were college roommates is an even more fun fact. Covington claims Jones' roidrage was so bad he would order Covington to wash his dishes.

  38. @ScarletNumber

    “a new women’s law school” would have to be set up with “a much warmer, a much more embracing environment”—a notion, [Paul Bender] implied, both risible and demeaning
     
    I think Bender would be surprised how much in the last 24 years at groups would be willing to demean themselves in order to get a place at the affirmative-action trough.

    Fun Fact: Bender and RBG were high school classmates. The decision wasn't close, though. Even though she wrote the opinion, it was 7-1 with Scalia dissenting and Thomas recusing, as his son was a student at VMI.

    Replies: @JimDandy

    I think the fact that Colby Covington and Jon Jones were college roommates is an even more fun fact. Covington claims Jones’ roidrage was so bad he would order Covington to wash his dishes.

  39. In Wax’s telling, Ginsburg was a brilliant workaholic, able to go head to head with the smartest men

    Wax is telling the truth. Ginsburg was number one in her class at Harvard Law School while managing not only her course load but also attending her husband’s classes to take notes for him, as he had been diagnosed with cancer. I can tell you that being #1 at Harvard Law School (which at the time had only a handful of female students) even without attending your spouse’s courses to boot is no small feat – it requires not only high intelligence but a prodigious work ethic. As for the workaholic, she showed up at the Supreme Court the day after her husband’s funeral.

    This explains why she did not retire under Obama – what was she going to do – stay home and watch soap operas? Even knowing that she was ill, she must have found the work to be distracting. She had been “hitting the books” literally every day since childhood.

    The other reason that she did not retire is that she (along with most people) felt certain that Hillary was going to win. So not only would she able to get in another couple of years of work but then she would have the honor of having a woman President name her replacement. Of all the disappointed households on Election Night 2016, hers must have ranked near the top. Of course at that point she was stuck and had no choice but to cling to her seat to the bitter end.

    You can see why black law clerks were out of the question for her – even most whites except for the ones at the very tippy top could never meet her standards. There are a lot of blacks in Ivy League law schools nowadays thanks to AA, but as Wax has mentioned elsewhere, they are almost always clustered at the bottom of the class.

    This also explains her unwillingness to go along with the Current Year ethic, which requires a certain degree of protective stupidity. Stupidity of any kind was just not on the menu at the Ginsburg household. The Ginsburgs represented sort of the high water mark of meritocracy in America, rising from modest roots (her father immigrated at age 13 and operated a small hat shop) to the pinnacle of American society based purely on their fierce intelligence.

    In the new Idiocratic BLMerica, I don’t get the feeling that we are going to see a lot of folks who were #1 in their class at Harvard seated on the Supreme Court. Your ethnic identity is going to be of primary importance, not your class rank. It’s just as well, because that kind of fierce intelligence as a tool for upward mobility is just not available for the vast majority of blacks and Latinxs. I suppose the closest parallel is found among Asian immigrants but very few Asians have Ginsburg’s level of verbal intelligence – their strengths tend to lie more in the mathematical realm.

    • Thanks: Harry Baldwin, Escher, ic1000
    • LOL: GazaPlanet
    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Jack D


    based purely on their fierce intelligence.
     
    Don't use "fierce".

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZY24kXn4y8

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oehc9Vy1Ic0

    , @Deadite
    @Jack D

    Wonderful comment. Mentioned it to my daughter and said that even if I disagreed with her politics that RGB was someone that she should try to use as a roll model for. And to get that damn music out of her ears and study.

    Now she’s angry at me again. Oh well!

    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    This explains why she did not retire under Obama – what was she going to do – stay home and watch soap operas?

    Elderhostel, Chautauqua, time at the library, time with grandchildren. She was 76 years old in 2009 and her life expectancy was about two years given that she'd had a Whipple procedure. This isn't that difficult to understand. Dame was a fanatic.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Wilkey
    @Jack D


    Ginsburg was number one in her class at Harvard Law School while managing not only her course load but also attending her husband’s classes to take notes for him, as he had been diagnosed with cancer...As for the workaholic, she showed up at the Supreme Court the day after her husband’s funeral.
     
    This is certainly admirable in some respects. Smart and powerful people still only have 24 hours in a day. If she was attending her husband's classes while he was fighting cancer then she probably wasn't spending much time taking care of her husband in his illness. If she showed up to work the day after his funeral then she probably wasn't managing much of the details of his funeral.

    I'm not saying her choices were right or wrong. I'm just saying that there are plenty of other people in this world who work their tails off, but who make different choices about what work is more important.

    Replies: @GazaPlanet

    , @TomSchmidt
    @Jack D

    A recommendation on this site led me to the book The Golden Passport, about Harvard Business School, and how its graduates have basically wrecked the country.

    I'm hoping a lot fewer people who attended Harvard and Yale law schools get seated on the court in the future. Harvard and Yale graduated every President from Bush 1 through Obama. They had 28 years, along with their friends from the HYPS schools, to run the country. To paraphrase from Michigan (forgive me, o my Latin teachers) si Quæris Patris non Amœnam, Circumspice (if you seek an unpleasant country, look about you). Bush 2, the Harvard Business School graduate, was probably the worst, but the Harvard and Yale Law graduates did not help.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @epebble

  40. @Percy Gryce
    @megabar

    That, said E. Digby Baltzell, was the genius of the American ruling class. Note: class, not caste. Caste is an impermeable social body, based on blood. Class is an elite based on a mixture of blood and merit, allowing the talented tenth (or whatever percentage of strivers) to share power.

    He lays this theory out--and even quantifies it in an entertaining way--in The Protestant Establishment (1964).

    Replies: @GoRedWings!

    That, said E. Digby Baltzell, was the genius of the American ruling class.

    C.Wright Mills was the genius, Baltzell his most talented student.

  41. Steve, thanks for linking the Amy Wax piece — great article.

    It takes a super high IQ female Jewish careerist to truly understand another, though Wax is, and always been, much more clearheaded about social and racial realities.

    Time will show that the later Ginsburg was an anachronism — progressivism as a movement had already moved beyond her to its current level of delusional insanity while she was still on the court.

    Everyone, including those ostensibly on the right, will call her an “icon” — but she will devolve into a prop. It’s already happening.

    • Replies: @A British Indian
    @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia

    A lot of people with exceptionally high IQs are drawn to the cognitive ability and organisational and industrial psychology literature.

    Wax also likes talking about her exceptionally smart husband who works in academic medicine. He happens to be Roger B. Cohen, a distinguished medical oncologist, and like Wax is a graduate of Harvard Medical School (indeed, they met there).

    Their son and daughter are also accomplished. Wax even wrote an article entitled ‘And We Shall Not All Be Dentists’ with her son, Isaac B. Cohen, who attended Yale.

  42. @11 Jack D: Typical myopic finklethink. Ginsberg was appointed BECAUSE of her sex and ethnic identity, not because of her ‘fierce intelligence.’ As far as meritocracy versus ethnic identity, that only applied when Jews were working to oust the country’s founding elite. Once they did so, everything became all about ethnic identity under the skin suit of meritocracy.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @3g4me

    @11 Jack D: Typical myopic finklethink. Ginsberg was appointed BECAUSE of her sex and ethnic identity, not because of her ‘fierce intelligence.’

    Her resume looks like that of every other appointment to the court in the last 40-odd years.

    , @Jack D
    @3g4me

    Right - the Jew Female Bill Clinton appointed Ginsburg to replace the Jew Female Whizzer White on the Supreme Court (and she was confirmed by the Jew Female Senate 96-3). That White and Ginsburg were both #1 in their respective law school classes at Yale and Harvard was just a coincidence. Any Jew Female would have done as long as she swore an oath to destroy White Christianity.

    Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter

  43. @Jack D

    In Wax’s telling, Ginsburg was a brilliant workaholic, able to go head to head with the smartest men
     
    Wax is telling the truth. Ginsburg was number one in her class at Harvard Law School while managing not only her course load but also attending her husband’s classes to take notes for him, as he had been diagnosed with cancer. I can tell you that being #1 at Harvard Law School (which at the time had only a handful of female students) even without attending your spouse's courses to boot is no small feat - it requires not only high intelligence but a prodigious work ethic. As for the workaholic, she showed up at the Supreme Court the day after her husband's funeral.

    This explains why she did not retire under Obama - what was she going to do - stay home and watch soap operas? Even knowing that she was ill, she must have found the work to be distracting. She had been "hitting the books" literally every day since childhood.

    The other reason that she did not retire is that she (along with most people) felt certain that Hillary was going to win. So not only would she able to get in another couple of years of work but then she would have the honor of having a woman President name her replacement. Of all the disappointed households on Election Night 2016, hers must have ranked near the top. Of course at that point she was stuck and had no choice but to cling to her seat to the bitter end.

    You can see why black law clerks were out of the question for her - even most whites except for the ones at the very tippy top could never meet her standards. There are a lot of blacks in Ivy League law schools nowadays thanks to AA, but as Wax has mentioned elsewhere, they are almost always clustered at the bottom of the class.

    This also explains her unwillingness to go along with the Current Year ethic, which requires a certain degree of protective stupidity. Stupidity of any kind was just not on the menu at the Ginsburg household. The Ginsburgs represented sort of the high water mark of meritocracy in America, rising from modest roots (her father immigrated at age 13 and operated a small hat shop) to the pinnacle of American society based purely on their fierce intelligence.

    In the new Idiocratic BLMerica, I don't get the feeling that we are going to see a lot of folks who were #1 in their class at Harvard seated on the Supreme Court. Your ethnic identity is going to be of primary importance, not your class rank. It's just as well, because that kind of fierce intelligence as a tool for upward mobility is just not available for the vast majority of blacks and Latinxs. I suppose the closest parallel is found among Asian immigrants but very few Asians have Ginsburg's level of verbal intelligence - their strengths tend to lie more in the mathematical realm.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Deadite, @Art Deco, @Wilkey, @TomSchmidt

    based purely on their fierce intelligence.

    Don’t use “fierce”.

  44. According to Guinier, the Socratic method, with its emphasis on logic, rigor, fine analytic distinctions, and public performance, was personally intimidating and psychologically traumatic for women.

    Why, it’s almost as if males and females are biologically and psychologically different, and do, in fact, think differently, as Steve Jobs famously almost said.

    Male-oriented pedagogical techniques interfered with women’s ability to learn and accounted for the then-measured gaps between males and females in law school performance, class participation, and subjective self-evaluations.

    Ahhh, the First Law of Female Jurisprudence: Come the revolution the law will require you to regard me as highly as I think I should be regarded!

  45. I’m curious–was there a time when the decisions of the SCOTUS were based on the constitutionality of legislation rather than the personal political preferences of the justices? If so, when did this come to an end? I know it was overly the time of FDR, whose plan to pack the court only made sense if he knew that his justices would support his policies. The current situation, with progressives seeing their agenda being totally dependent on unaccountable, appointed-for-life, progressive SCOTUS justices, is appalling and grotesque.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Harry Baldwin

    That time was never. Look at the Dred Scott case, Plessy v. Ferguson, etc. The Constitution is by its nature a loosely sketched outline. The Supreme Court fills in the picture according to its own preferences and those preferences are and have always been influenced by the political view of the Justices. The difference is that in the past those views tended toward the reactionary (no politically unbiased person could have accepted that Jim Crow was compatible with the 14th Amendment) and so were displeasing to progressives, but post WWII the opposite has been mostly true. But this does not meant that it was non-political before and political now. It was always political but its politics changed.


    It should be noted that Constitutional questions with partisan political implications form only a small part of the Court's work and that most of its decisions do not fall on clear partisan lines.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @Hibernian, @mark green

  46. @Jack D

    In Wax’s telling, Ginsburg was a brilliant workaholic, able to go head to head with the smartest men
     
    Wax is telling the truth. Ginsburg was number one in her class at Harvard Law School while managing not only her course load but also attending her husband’s classes to take notes for him, as he had been diagnosed with cancer. I can tell you that being #1 at Harvard Law School (which at the time had only a handful of female students) even without attending your spouse's courses to boot is no small feat - it requires not only high intelligence but a prodigious work ethic. As for the workaholic, she showed up at the Supreme Court the day after her husband's funeral.

    This explains why she did not retire under Obama - what was she going to do - stay home and watch soap operas? Even knowing that she was ill, she must have found the work to be distracting. She had been "hitting the books" literally every day since childhood.

    The other reason that she did not retire is that she (along with most people) felt certain that Hillary was going to win. So not only would she able to get in another couple of years of work but then she would have the honor of having a woman President name her replacement. Of all the disappointed households on Election Night 2016, hers must have ranked near the top. Of course at that point she was stuck and had no choice but to cling to her seat to the bitter end.

    You can see why black law clerks were out of the question for her - even most whites except for the ones at the very tippy top could never meet her standards. There are a lot of blacks in Ivy League law schools nowadays thanks to AA, but as Wax has mentioned elsewhere, they are almost always clustered at the bottom of the class.

    This also explains her unwillingness to go along with the Current Year ethic, which requires a certain degree of protective stupidity. Stupidity of any kind was just not on the menu at the Ginsburg household. The Ginsburgs represented sort of the high water mark of meritocracy in America, rising from modest roots (her father immigrated at age 13 and operated a small hat shop) to the pinnacle of American society based purely on their fierce intelligence.

    In the new Idiocratic BLMerica, I don't get the feeling that we are going to see a lot of folks who were #1 in their class at Harvard seated on the Supreme Court. Your ethnic identity is going to be of primary importance, not your class rank. It's just as well, because that kind of fierce intelligence as a tool for upward mobility is just not available for the vast majority of blacks and Latinxs. I suppose the closest parallel is found among Asian immigrants but very few Asians have Ginsburg's level of verbal intelligence - their strengths tend to lie more in the mathematical realm.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Deadite, @Art Deco, @Wilkey, @TomSchmidt

    Wonderful comment. Mentioned it to my daughter and said that even if I disagreed with her politics that RGB was someone that she should try to use as a roll model for. And to get that damn music out of her ears and study.

    Now she’s angry at me again. Oh well!

  47. @Bill P
    Is "equity feminist" the right term? As I understand it, equity feminists believe that men's equity - in their homes, cars, stock holdings, businesses, etc. - belongs rightfully to women.

    That may not always have been the case, but feminists are quite clear on this. "Equality" feminism is the belief that men and women should have the same legal rights, but why settle for that when you can get more? That's where equity feminism comes in and declares that women can't truly be equal to men unless the state takes stuff from men and gives it to them.

    Replies: @Prof. Woland, @Bardon Kaldian, @anon, @cthulhu

    As I understand it, equity feminists believe that men’s equity – in their homes, cars, stock holdings, businesses, etc. – belongs rightfully to women.

  48. @Jack D

    In Wax’s telling, Ginsburg was a brilliant workaholic, able to go head to head with the smartest men
     
    Wax is telling the truth. Ginsburg was number one in her class at Harvard Law School while managing not only her course load but also attending her husband’s classes to take notes for him, as he had been diagnosed with cancer. I can tell you that being #1 at Harvard Law School (which at the time had only a handful of female students) even without attending your spouse's courses to boot is no small feat - it requires not only high intelligence but a prodigious work ethic. As for the workaholic, she showed up at the Supreme Court the day after her husband's funeral.

    This explains why she did not retire under Obama - what was she going to do - stay home and watch soap operas? Even knowing that she was ill, she must have found the work to be distracting. She had been "hitting the books" literally every day since childhood.

    The other reason that she did not retire is that she (along with most people) felt certain that Hillary was going to win. So not only would she able to get in another couple of years of work but then she would have the honor of having a woman President name her replacement. Of all the disappointed households on Election Night 2016, hers must have ranked near the top. Of course at that point she was stuck and had no choice but to cling to her seat to the bitter end.

    You can see why black law clerks were out of the question for her - even most whites except for the ones at the very tippy top could never meet her standards. There are a lot of blacks in Ivy League law schools nowadays thanks to AA, but as Wax has mentioned elsewhere, they are almost always clustered at the bottom of the class.

    This also explains her unwillingness to go along with the Current Year ethic, which requires a certain degree of protective stupidity. Stupidity of any kind was just not on the menu at the Ginsburg household. The Ginsburgs represented sort of the high water mark of meritocracy in America, rising from modest roots (her father immigrated at age 13 and operated a small hat shop) to the pinnacle of American society based purely on their fierce intelligence.

    In the new Idiocratic BLMerica, I don't get the feeling that we are going to see a lot of folks who were #1 in their class at Harvard seated on the Supreme Court. Your ethnic identity is going to be of primary importance, not your class rank. It's just as well, because that kind of fierce intelligence as a tool for upward mobility is just not available for the vast majority of blacks and Latinxs. I suppose the closest parallel is found among Asian immigrants but very few Asians have Ginsburg's level of verbal intelligence - their strengths tend to lie more in the mathematical realm.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Deadite, @Art Deco, @Wilkey, @TomSchmidt

    This explains why she did not retire under Obama – what was she going to do – stay home and watch soap operas?

    Elderhostel, Chautauqua, time at the library, time with grandchildren. She was 76 years old in 2009 and her life expectancy was about two years given that she’d had a Whipple procedure. This isn’t that difficult to understand. Dame was a fanatic.

    • Thanks: J.Ross
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Art Deco

    She stated that the doctors told her that the form of pancreatic cancer that she had in 2009 was a less aggressive form than typical and was found at an early stage so her life expectancy was much longer than 2 years. They (and she) were not lying - she lived 11 years more, which would have been impossible if she had the usual form and staging at discovery for this disease. Had she taken your advice and retired then, she would have had to sit in the library for 11 years, not 2.

    In any case, I was referring to 2016, when her pancreatic cancer was supposedly in remission, not 2009. I don't think you would have called Scalia a fanatic if he had made the same decision. Your view of her personal decision is clearly colored by your view of her politics.

  49. Idiots debating things that have already been caste in stone

    In a sane World rbg would have been laughed out Of the room

  50. The other reason that she did not retire is that she (along with most people) felt certain that Hillary was going to win.

    Again, that was on the edge of the radar screen in 2009.

  51. The lowering sympathy for this kind of attitude towards life is just as much down to men as women, and comes very strongly from Whites. Most people, male and female, are unwilling and/or unable to gun as hard as this, and resent that it’s increasingly the *only* way to have a decent life. Socialism is attractive in that, at its best, it scoffs at the idea of paid employment being your main/only source of meaning in life.

    And that, of course, assumes that most people have the opportunity for those kind of jobs, with that kind of payoff. For most people, the Supreme Court (or upper Big Tech, or Wall Street managmemt) kind of jobs just aren’t an option. That kind of work ethic is reserved, in mainstream society, for the jobs that are increasingly being offshored or given to immigrants, with no possibility of advancement – or even comfort – for those performing them. The average White person feels no sense of pride or recognition in seeing someone give themselves over to paid employment to that extent. It seems sick and perverse.

    What that means is that offering equity (name your movement here) isn’t compelling if it leads to living the kind of lives you see the economic/social elites living. Aside from the considerable financial gains, no one really envies them. And that doesn’t even address that it offers nothing to the average White gentile or, more importantly, their kids who can’t compete with the Oriental work ethic and shouldn’t have to. If you want to change the system, you need to acknowledge that (1) The Way Things Were isn’t an attractive alternative and (2) the left has a point in treating social norms as strategies rather than religious commandments.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @Jesse

    There’s a lot of food for thought here. Thank you.

  52. @Jack D

    In Wax’s telling, Ginsburg was a brilliant workaholic, able to go head to head with the smartest men
     
    Wax is telling the truth. Ginsburg was number one in her class at Harvard Law School while managing not only her course load but also attending her husband’s classes to take notes for him, as he had been diagnosed with cancer. I can tell you that being #1 at Harvard Law School (which at the time had only a handful of female students) even without attending your spouse's courses to boot is no small feat - it requires not only high intelligence but a prodigious work ethic. As for the workaholic, she showed up at the Supreme Court the day after her husband's funeral.

    This explains why she did not retire under Obama - what was she going to do - stay home and watch soap operas? Even knowing that she was ill, she must have found the work to be distracting. She had been "hitting the books" literally every day since childhood.

    The other reason that she did not retire is that she (along with most people) felt certain that Hillary was going to win. So not only would she able to get in another couple of years of work but then she would have the honor of having a woman President name her replacement. Of all the disappointed households on Election Night 2016, hers must have ranked near the top. Of course at that point she was stuck and had no choice but to cling to her seat to the bitter end.

    You can see why black law clerks were out of the question for her - even most whites except for the ones at the very tippy top could never meet her standards. There are a lot of blacks in Ivy League law schools nowadays thanks to AA, but as Wax has mentioned elsewhere, they are almost always clustered at the bottom of the class.

    This also explains her unwillingness to go along with the Current Year ethic, which requires a certain degree of protective stupidity. Stupidity of any kind was just not on the menu at the Ginsburg household. The Ginsburgs represented sort of the high water mark of meritocracy in America, rising from modest roots (her father immigrated at age 13 and operated a small hat shop) to the pinnacle of American society based purely on their fierce intelligence.

    In the new Idiocratic BLMerica, I don't get the feeling that we are going to see a lot of folks who were #1 in their class at Harvard seated on the Supreme Court. Your ethnic identity is going to be of primary importance, not your class rank. It's just as well, because that kind of fierce intelligence as a tool for upward mobility is just not available for the vast majority of blacks and Latinxs. I suppose the closest parallel is found among Asian immigrants but very few Asians have Ginsburg's level of verbal intelligence - their strengths tend to lie more in the mathematical realm.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Deadite, @Art Deco, @Wilkey, @TomSchmidt

    Ginsburg was number one in her class at Harvard Law School while managing not only her course load but also attending her husband’s classes to take notes for him, as he had been diagnosed with cancer…As for the workaholic, she showed up at the Supreme Court the day after her husband’s funeral.

    This is certainly admirable in some respects. Smart and powerful people still only have 24 hours in a day. If she was attending her husband’s classes while he was fighting cancer then she probably wasn’t spending much time taking care of her husband in his illness. If she showed up to work the day after his funeral then she probably wasn’t managing much of the details of his funeral.

    I’m not saying her choices were right or wrong. I’m just saying that there are plenty of other people in this world who work their tails off, but who make different choices about what work is more important.

    • Replies: @GazaPlanet
    @Wilkey

    Top of her class at Harvard. This is the feminine notion of high achievement. She was just a rabid, shameless Jewess, and her sycophants and hagiographers only exist, her position on the court only existed, because of out of control Jewish power that has effectively wrecked the US Constitution and is leading this country to ruin.

  53. I’m wondering to what degree Ginsburg ever wrote anything memorable.

    I’ve seen plenty a riposte in Scalia’s rulings that were witty, charming, and utterly scathing (especially when he was penning a dissent). I don’t recall ever reading a single such sentence by Ginsburg. Granted, I do tend to hang out in the more conservative corners of the web, but I would still think that after 27 years I would have come across something.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    Ginsburg's opinions (and even her dissents - Supreme Court Justices are most free writing in dissent because there is no need to bring 4 other Justices along) tend to be closely reasoned and filled with citations but not very colorful or humorous. Sort of what you would expect from a law review nerd/ ex law professor. Perhaps her most colorful remark was in her Shelby County v. Holder dissent, where she wrote:


    "Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."
     
    And even that is not very colorful.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Peripatetic Commenter

    , @James B. Shearer
    @Wilkey

    "I’m wondering to what degree Ginsburg ever wrote anything memorable."

    This was in oral argument but I liked her put down of Sotomayor in the Byrd rental car case after Sotomayor inanely asked for the third time "... why are we here?". From the transcript:


    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And absent

    probable cause, there's no right to search. So

    why are we here?

    MR. LOEB: We agree 100 percent on

    that, Your Honor.

    JUSTICE GINSBURG: You're here because

    you lost below.

    (Laughter.)


    Of course the decision was 9-0 for Byrd so maybe Sotomayor got the last laugh.

    , @Hibernian
    @Wilkey

    She sometimes tore apart lower court ultraliberal judges who had gone totally crazy, and I have read excerpts of some of those decisions (theirs and hers) in Bench Memos at NR.

  54. @Harry Baldwin
    I'm curious--was there a time when the decisions of the SCOTUS were based on the constitutionality of legislation rather than the personal political preferences of the justices? If so, when did this come to an end? I know it was overly the time of FDR, whose plan to pack the court only made sense if he knew that his justices would support his policies. The current situation, with progressives seeing their agenda being totally dependent on unaccountable, appointed-for-life, progressive SCOTUS justices, is appalling and grotesque.

    Replies: @Jack D

    That time was never. Look at the Dred Scott case, Plessy v. Ferguson, etc. The Constitution is by its nature a loosely sketched outline. The Supreme Court fills in the picture according to its own preferences and those preferences are and have always been influenced by the political view of the Justices. The difference is that in the past those views tended toward the reactionary (no politically unbiased person could have accepted that Jim Crow was compatible with the 14th Amendment) and so were displeasing to progressives, but post WWII the opposite has been mostly true. But this does not meant that it was non-political before and political now. It was always political but its politics changed.

    It should be noted that Constitutional questions with partisan political implications form only a small part of the Court’s work and that most of its decisions do not fall on clear partisan lines.

    • Agree: epebble
    • Thanks: Harry Baldwin
    • Replies: @Coemgen
    @Jack D

    Isn't there a difference between ignoring parts of the Constitution, as a means to an end, rather than seeing rights there that are not explicitly written, have no historical provenance, and are not natural rights?

    No-one has a natural right to abortion or "healthcare." Those are "benefits" of living in our technologically advanced society.

    Ignoring parts of the Constitution is relatively easy thing to fix. Seeing things in the Constitution that aren't literally there is insanity. Insanity is not easy to fix.

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Hibernian
    @Jack D

    I'd say that over time there's been a difference of degree, if not of kind, in how political SCOTUS is. This has recently manifested itself in a totally unfounded accusation, endorsed by a cabal of sitting Senators, against a morally upright nominee, of gang rape.

    , @mark green
    @Jack D

    Actually, Plessy (and to a lesser extent, Dred Scott) demonstrated sound Constitutional reasoning for that time. The institution of slavery (as well as the calculated restrictions placed upon negro citizenship) were traditional, widespread and legal long before and long after the signing of the US Constitution.

    Similarly, the Constitution did not in any clear or indirect way prohibit 'separate but equal' facilities for negros. Even today, racial segregation remains (privately) popular and ineradicable. Modern liberal 'outrage' over these past decisions (and the embrace of modern ones such as Roe v Wade) tells us more about contemporary liberal 'groupthink' involving political results than Constitutional law or original intent.

    Legalistic 'discoveries' continue to be made by modern jurists. Many simply can't resist the temptation to legislate from the bench. As a consequence, numerous court decisions continue to usurp power from the people and their elected representatives. The dogma of radical egalitarianism has nourished this anti-democratic trend.

    Replies: @GazaPlanet

  55. @Wilkey
    I'm wondering to what degree Ginsburg ever wrote anything memorable.

    I've seen plenty a riposte in Scalia's rulings that were witty, charming, and utterly scathing (especially when he was penning a dissent). I don't recall ever reading a single such sentence by Ginsburg. Granted, I do tend to hang out in the more conservative corners of the web, but I would still think that after 27 years I would have come across something.

    Replies: @Jack D, @James B. Shearer, @Hibernian

    Ginsburg’s opinions (and even her dissents – Supreme Court Justices are most free writing in dissent because there is no need to bring 4 other Justices along) tend to be closely reasoned and filled with citations but not very colorful or humorous. Sort of what you would expect from a law review nerd/ ex law professor. Perhaps her most colorful remark was in her Shelby County v. Holder dissent, where she wrote:

    “Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet.”

    And even that is not very colorful.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    >discriminatory changes
    I see unicorns.

    , @Peripatetic Commenter
    @Jack D

    You mean like this writing in:

    https://scouting4boysorg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/us-commission-on-civil-rights-sex-bias-in-the-us-code-1977.pdf

    Recommendations
    ...
    18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of
    any female, not his wife who has not
    attained the age of sixteen years" and
    substitute a Federal, sex-neutral
    definition of the offense patterned
    after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty
    of an offense if he engages in a sexual
    act with another person, not his spouse,
    and (1) compels the other person to
    participate: (A) by force or (B) by
    threatening or placing the other person
    in fear that any person will imminently
    be subjected to death, serious bodily
    injury, or kidnapping; (2) has
    substantially impaired the other
    person's power to appraise or control
    the conduct by administering or
    employing a drug or intoxicant without
    the knowledge or against the will of
    such other person, or by other means; or
    (3) the other person is, in fact, less
    than 12 years old.

     

    I find it particularly difficult that any sane person would insert the last one or agree to the insertion of it.
     
     
     
  56. @megabar
    Good article.

    I've noticed that truly talented minorities often have undramatic rises to the top. When given an opportunity, they succeed, as many talented people would. So it's not surprising that they feel that inequality of opportunity is the issue to be solved.

    Unfortunately, it doesn't solve the overall gaps.

    Replies: @Percy Gryce, @TWS, @Ben tillman

    If anyone needs the circumstances to be changed to compete, there are real differences and there’s no equality.

    Also no reason to make accommodation.

    • Agree: Ponce Faggy
  57. anon[316] • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill P
    Is "equity feminist" the right term? As I understand it, equity feminists believe that men's equity - in their homes, cars, stock holdings, businesses, etc. - belongs rightfully to women.

    That may not always have been the case, but feminists are quite clear on this. "Equality" feminism is the belief that men and women should have the same legal rights, but why settle for that when you can get more? That's where equity feminism comes in and declares that women can't truly be equal to men unless the state takes stuff from men and gives it to them.

    Replies: @Prof. Woland, @Bardon Kaldian, @anon, @cthulhu

    That may not always have been the case, but feminists are quite clear on this. “Equality” feminism is the belief that men and women should have the same legal rights, but why settle for that when you can get more? That’s where equity feminism comes in and declares that women can’t truly be equal to men unless the state takes stuff from men and gives it to them.

    The left has shifting definitions of the words equality and equity.
    “Equity” as used on the Left today generally means guaranteeing equality of outcomes.
    But, equality of outcomes doctrine should never be interpreted to stop a woman or minority from getting more than an equal share of something good, nor should equality of outcomes doctrine ever be used to make women or minorities get an equal share of something bad.
    Examples:
    Equity requires that women CEOs must be increased until they make up at least 50% of all CEOs, because the CEO job is something good.
    Equity does not require that women be reduced in the number of Psychology Doctorates, currently at 76%, because doctorates are something good and women do not want to give this up.
    Equity does not require that women be increased to 50% of garbage truck drivers, because that job is bad and women don’t want it anyway.
    Understand?

    • Agree: Harry Baldwin, Hibernian
    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @anon

    This reminds me of Samuel Johnson's observation about equality and social leveling.


    Sir, there is one Mrs. Macaulay in this town, a great republican. One day when I was at her house, I put on a very grave countenance, and said to her, “Madam, I am now become a convert to your way of thinking. I am convinced that all mankind are upon an equal footing; and to give you unquestionable proof, Madam, that I am in earnest, here is a very sensible, civil, well-behaved fellow citizen, your footman; I desire that he may be allowed to sit down and dine with us.”

    I thus shewed her the absurdity of the leveling doctrine. She has never liked me since. Sir, your levellers wish to level down as far as themselves; but they cannot bear levelling up to themselves. They would all have some people under them; why not then have some people above them?’
     

  58. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    This explains why she did not retire under Obama – what was she going to do – stay home and watch soap operas?

    Elderhostel, Chautauqua, time at the library, time with grandchildren. She was 76 years old in 2009 and her life expectancy was about two years given that she'd had a Whipple procedure. This isn't that difficult to understand. Dame was a fanatic.

    Replies: @Jack D

    She stated that the doctors told her that the form of pancreatic cancer that she had in 2009 was a less aggressive form than typical and was found at an early stage so her life expectancy was much longer than 2 years. They (and she) were not lying – she lived 11 years more, which would have been impossible if she had the usual form and staging at discovery for this disease. Had she taken your advice and retired then, she would have had to sit in the library for 11 years, not 2.

    In any case, I was referring to 2016, when her pancreatic cancer was supposedly in remission, not 2009. I don’t think you would have called Scalia a fanatic if he had made the same decision. Your view of her personal decision is clearly colored by your view of her politics.

  59. ‘… the Socratic method, with its emphasis on logic, rigor, fine analytic distinctions, and public performance, was personally intimidating and psychologically traumatic for women…’

    Interestingly, the argument here may be perfectly valid; perhaps we do have a profoundly male-oriented public world, in which things are done in a way congenial to masculine, not feminine, tendencies.

    The question becomes, ‘so?’ Why, actually, should we modify the world so women find it easier to compete with men? After all, I might not ideally fitted to compete in basketball in various ways. It doesn’t follow that the game should be modified to suit me.

    More practically, though, we don’t understand how all these mechanisms work — and still less can we predict the effect of altering them. Do we actually want a political arena that relies more on harmony and consensus and less on frank conflict? Is that really our vision of freedom?

    Etc. One is reminded of the bold innovations of the ‘Great Society’ — and their catastrophic effect on the black community.

    When it comes to tinkering with the mechanisms of society, we don’t know what the hell we’re doing, and we should be very cautious about changing anything.

  60. @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    Ginsburg's opinions (and even her dissents - Supreme Court Justices are most free writing in dissent because there is no need to bring 4 other Justices along) tend to be closely reasoned and filled with citations but not very colorful or humorous. Sort of what you would expect from a law review nerd/ ex law professor. Perhaps her most colorful remark was in her Shelby County v. Holder dissent, where she wrote:


    "Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."
     
    And even that is not very colorful.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Peripatetic Commenter

    >discriminatory changes
    I see unicorns.

  61. She has never stopped to consider that the nature of womanhood and the intricacies of family relations might impede equality of outcomes, or that interchangeable roles for men and women might not be attainable, or even desirable, for the great majority of people of either sex.

    From Amy Wax’s article above, re: Ginsburg.

    Yes, absolutely. If you accept the Prog. idea that gender is irrelevant (yet it is, since their quotas are often based on that) you will as Wax notes, end up acting on false assumptions. These assumptions are readily seen as false by everyone but ideologically blind “reformers” standing beside their guillotine.

    The problem with “over educated” people raised in cosseted upper middle class or elite households, who then move to equally filtered career slots, is that they end up being very naive about basic human nature. While the military draft was wrong, one benefit from military service when elites were forced into that was that you had to rub elbows with people you otherwise never knew or were around. You will learn a lot rubbing elbows and sharing close quarters with them.

    Of course no women were drafted in the US. It’s nice to protect your young from the evils of mankind and the scum to be found, but lacking exposure to the wide variety of behavior and moral standards, too much protection can blind you to reality. Women being more protected than men, white women in particular from the middle classes and up, are especially blind. Not all but many.

    Hence we see crazed feminists and sorority girl types who have no idea about criminal behavior, chronic liars, underclass morality, etc. They end up thinking that morally bankrupt criminals or chronic moochers and scamsters can be “trained” to be civilized like they are. Just like Caesar Millan and his “dog whispering.”

    I will agree with others here that Ginsburg was a dedicated worker in her career. Some judges just retire on the bench, but still collect their paychecks. In my experience hard work accounts for most of the success in one’s career, not brilliance. Some of the Jewish folks I’ve known in business or personally have a focused work ethnic that accounts for much of the much ballyhooed ‘Jewish influence’ some complain about. It isn’t unique to them, but I assume they learned from their parents. Not being lazy, quite the opposite, was her major virtue.

  62. @Wilkey
    I'm wondering to what degree Ginsburg ever wrote anything memorable.

    I've seen plenty a riposte in Scalia's rulings that were witty, charming, and utterly scathing (especially when he was penning a dissent). I don't recall ever reading a single such sentence by Ginsburg. Granted, I do tend to hang out in the more conservative corners of the web, but I would still think that after 27 years I would have come across something.

    Replies: @Jack D, @James B. Shearer, @Hibernian

    “I’m wondering to what degree Ginsburg ever wrote anything memorable.”

    This was in oral argument but I liked her put down of Sotomayor in the Byrd rental car case after Sotomayor inanely asked for the third time “… why are we here?”. From the transcript:

    JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And absent

    probable cause, there’s no right to search. So

    why are we here?

    MR. LOEB: We agree 100 percent on

    that, Your Honor.

    JUSTICE GINSBURG: You’re here because

    you lost below.

    (Laughter.)

    Of course the decision was 9-0 for Byrd so maybe Sotomayor got the last laugh.

  63. Anonymous[141] • Disclaimer says:

    Ginsburg is so damn overrated. If she was a man with the exact same record he would be known as a CRUSHING BORE. A plodder.

    She was constantly buoyed by identity politics female fandom.

    She was another leftist who hugely benefitted from the tilt of the institutions and the entire northeastern establishment.

    Once again a superstar supposed genius Jew leaving behind no actual record of greatness besides being a great zealous idealogue. No notable works no notable writings. Not an innovator not a creative thinker. Nothing remotely impressive about her mind except a capacity for hard work.

    Sorry. Strip out the feminist fandom and the Jewish tribal echo chamber and there’s not much left there but ideology.

    But the same could be said for so many of her peers. The SC has always been a embarrassing political circus. The idea that the top legal minds in the universe reside there is self serving ruling class propaganda.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @Anonymous


    Once again a superstar supposed genius Jew leaving behind no actual record of greatness besides being a great zealous idealogue. No notable works no notable writings. Not an innovator not a creative thinker. Nothing remotely impressive about her mind except a capacity for hard work.
     
    I know these are stereotypes & that any person is unique. But, in my experience- of which I am certain & which anyone can dismiss & I wouldn't give a damn about it:

    1. lawyers & doctors (MD) are generally dumb plodders. They are powerful, influential, they shape societies... but they are unimaginative, incapable of anything "higher", one-dimensional bores. Of course, there are exceptions.

    And they are not very intelligent.

    2. the most intelligent people are mathematicians, theoretical physicists & a very small portion of philosophers or scholars in these fields. Historically, the most intelligent people were philosophers with scientific inquisitiveness.

    Mathematicians are preferable to physicists because of a more humble character.

    3. technology & applied sciences people (electrical engineering etc.) are reliable, but frequently one-dimensional. Especially mechanical engineering, populated by Neanderthals. Uncultured & boring, with very few exceptions. Good thing about them- hardly anyone gay. CS people- zombies.

    4. biomedical sciences people .... depends.

    5. visual arts people. Dumb.

    6. authors, writers. Not bad, but frequently overrated. Not as smart as others consider them to be.

    7. musicians- the best performers have something ascetic around them, with the tendency of going to extreme contrary positions. Otherwise, even when highly cultured, low-average IQ. Narrow.

    8. actors... hahahhah

    9. journalists- entertainers, either spies or prostitutes.

    10. soft sciences people (sociology, psychology, linguistics, ...)- depends. Mostly conformists, but sometimes mavericks. Generally, average IQ.

  64. @Jack D
    @Harry Baldwin

    That time was never. Look at the Dred Scott case, Plessy v. Ferguson, etc. The Constitution is by its nature a loosely sketched outline. The Supreme Court fills in the picture according to its own preferences and those preferences are and have always been influenced by the political view of the Justices. The difference is that in the past those views tended toward the reactionary (no politically unbiased person could have accepted that Jim Crow was compatible with the 14th Amendment) and so were displeasing to progressives, but post WWII the opposite has been mostly true. But this does not meant that it was non-political before and political now. It was always political but its politics changed.


    It should be noted that Constitutional questions with partisan political implications form only a small part of the Court's work and that most of its decisions do not fall on clear partisan lines.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @Hibernian, @mark green

    Isn’t there a difference between ignoring parts of the Constitution, as a means to an end, rather than seeing rights there that are not explicitly written, have no historical provenance, and are not natural rights?

    No-one has a natural right to abortion or “healthcare.” Those are “benefits” of living in our technologically advanced society.

    Ignoring parts of the Constitution is relatively easy thing to fix. Seeing things in the Constitution that aren’t literally there is insanity. Insanity is not easy to fix.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Coemgen

    Both sides invent rights not explicitly written AND choose to not enforce stated rights. In Dred Scott, Taney found that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because slaves were their legal property. You could read the 5th Amendment from day to night and not see that. Conversely, for most of the last century, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias.

    If you stick only to historical rights then you are lost when it comes to technological developments. Does the right to keep and bear arms extend to nuclear weapons? Is it OK for the police to use an infrared camera to peer thru the walls of your house? The Founders were wise men but they couldn't foresee everything that was going to happen for the next 250 years.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @ScarletNumber, @stillCARealist, @BenKenobi, @Coemgen

  65. Ginsburg was a brilliant workaholic,

    This worship of the Almighty Work Ethic needs some perspective. Grinding work seldom makes progress, it fact, it’s often a sign of stagnation. A brilliant mind can do more with playfulness and the ability to make new connections.

    Thomas Edison was bullsh*tting. Genius is not 99% perspiration.

  66. @Jesse
    The lowering sympathy for this kind of attitude towards life is just as much down to men as women, and comes very strongly from Whites. Most people, male and female, are unwilling and/or unable to gun as hard as this, and resent that it's increasingly the *only* way to have a decent life. Socialism is attractive in that, at its best, it scoffs at the idea of paid employment being your main/only source of meaning in life.

    And that, of course, assumes that most people have the opportunity for those kind of jobs, with that kind of payoff. For most people, the Supreme Court (or upper Big Tech, or Wall Street managmemt) kind of jobs just aren't an option. That kind of work ethic is reserved, in mainstream society, for the jobs that are increasingly being offshored or given to immigrants, with no possibility of advancement - or even comfort - for those performing them. The average White person feels no sense of pride or recognition in seeing someone give themselves over to paid employment to that extent. It seems sick and perverse.

    What that means is that offering equity (name your movement here) isn't compelling if it leads to living the kind of lives you see the economic/social elites living. Aside from the considerable financial gains, no one really envies them. And that doesn't even address that it offers nothing to the average White gentile or, more importantly, their kids who can't compete with the Oriental work ethic and shouldn't have to. If you want to change the system, you need to acknowledge that (1) The Way Things Were isn't an attractive alternative and (2) the left has a point in treating social norms as strategies rather than religious commandments.

    Replies: @JMcG

    There’s a lot of food for thought here. Thank you.

  67. @Gaius Gracchus
    Amy Wax is a far more insightful thinker than RBG. Too bad Trump wouldn't put her on the Court.

    RBG at times appeared to be a IYI, unable to see the bigger picture and consequences of her divorced from reality musings. Sort of like she refused to step down in 2013 or 2014 when she could have been replaced by a extreme feminist like herself. The absolute narcissism of RBG showed her limited understanding of the implications of her positions, even with regards to herself.

    It is pure justice that Trump will place a very conservative woman in her place.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    At the time she was nominated, Alan Dershowitz criticised the appointment, saying she had the soul of a tax lawyer and that wasn’t the person you wanted for your court of last resort.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @Art Deco

    That's a great comment. It makes her out as someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing,

    , @Not Raul
    @Art Deco

    Who cares what Dershowitz has to say?

    , @Gary in Gramercy
    @Art Deco

    Dershowitz was surely comparing her to his judicial mentor, longtime D.C. Circuit Chief Judge David L. Bazelon, who had taken senior status about a year before Ginsburg joined the court in June 1980. Dershowitz, who had clerked for Bazelon and then Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, wrote admiringly of Bazelon's penchant for ordering him -- in cases where a defendant had no right to a writ of habeas corpus, or any other legal remedy -- to "find some ground for issuing a 'writ of rachmones.'" (Rachmones [best transliteration under the circumstances] is the Yiddish word for "compassion.")

    So for Dershowitz to have said that RBG had "the soul of a tax lawyer" was tantamount to saying she lacked rachmones. She might have made it to the High Court, but for Dershowitz, she would never be in the same league as David Bazelon.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @Art Deco

    , @Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang
    @Art Deco

    Her husband was a famous tax lawyer, which is his dig references

  68. @Ari Silver
    Translation: RGB was a selfish feminist who could care less what collateral damage was done to ordinary women, much less men as long as she got up the ladder. There all the same she just used Jewish networking to get multiple levels above her ability, there is really nothing special about her work you always knew how she would vote. How can that be creative or original?

    Replies: @Art Deco

    There’s no indication from her previous history that her ability was deficient to be an appellate judge. And if it’s networking, who did she know?

    • Replies: @Ben tillman
    @Art Deco

    You can’t get appointed to the federal bench without networking like crazy.

  69. @3g4me
    @11 Jack D: Typical myopic finklethink. Ginsberg was appointed BECAUSE of her sex and ethnic identity, not because of her 'fierce intelligence.' As far as meritocracy versus ethnic identity, that only applied when Jews were working to oust the country's founding elite. Once they did so, everything became all about ethnic identity under the skin suit of meritocracy.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Jack D

    @11 Jack D: Typical myopic finklethink. Ginsberg was appointed BECAUSE of her sex and ethnic identity, not because of her ‘fierce intelligence.’

    Her resume looks like that of every other appointment to the court in the last 40-odd years.

  70. @Anonymous
    Ginsburg is so damn overrated. If she was a man with the exact same record he would be known as a CRUSHING BORE. A plodder.

    She was constantly buoyed by identity politics female fandom.

    She was another leftist who hugely benefitted from the tilt of the institutions and the entire northeastern establishment.

    Once again a superstar supposed genius Jew leaving behind no actual record of greatness besides being a great zealous idealogue. No notable works no notable writings. Not an innovator not a creative thinker. Nothing remotely impressive about her mind except a capacity for hard work.

    Sorry. Strip out the feminist fandom and the Jewish tribal echo chamber and there's not much left there but ideology.

    But the same could be said for so many of her peers. The SC has always been a embarrassing political circus. The idea that the top legal minds in the universe reside there is self serving ruling class propaganda.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Once again a superstar supposed genius Jew leaving behind no actual record of greatness besides being a great zealous idealogue. No notable works no notable writings. Not an innovator not a creative thinker. Nothing remotely impressive about her mind except a capacity for hard work.

    I know these are stereotypes & that any person is unique. But, in my experience- of which I am certain & which anyone can dismiss & I wouldn’t give a damn about it:

    1. lawyers & doctors (MD) are generally dumb plodders. They are powerful, influential, they shape societies… but they are unimaginative, incapable of anything “higher”, one-dimensional bores. Of course, there are exceptions.

    And they are not very intelligent.

    2. the most intelligent people are mathematicians, theoretical physicists & a very small portion of philosophers or scholars in these fields. Historically, the most intelligent people were philosophers with scientific inquisitiveness.

    Mathematicians are preferable to physicists because of a more humble character.

    3. technology & applied sciences people (electrical engineering etc.) are reliable, but frequently one-dimensional. Especially mechanical engineering, populated by Neanderthals. Uncultured & boring, with very few exceptions. Good thing about them- hardly anyone gay. CS people- zombies.

    4. biomedical sciences people …. depends.

    5. visual arts people. Dumb.

    6. authors, writers. Not bad, but frequently overrated. Not as smart as others consider them to be.

    7. musicians- the best performers have something ascetic around them, with the tendency of going to extreme contrary positions. Otherwise, even when highly cultured, low-average IQ. Narrow.

    8. actors… hahahhah

    9. journalists- entertainers, either spies or prostitutes.

    10. soft sciences people (sociology, psychology, linguistics, …)- depends. Mostly conformists, but sometimes mavericks. Generally, average IQ.

  71. @Jack D
    @Wilkey

    Ginsburg's opinions (and even her dissents - Supreme Court Justices are most free writing in dissent because there is no need to bring 4 other Justices along) tend to be closely reasoned and filled with citations but not very colorful or humorous. Sort of what you would expect from a law review nerd/ ex law professor. Perhaps her most colorful remark was in her Shelby County v. Holder dissent, where she wrote:


    "Throwing out preclearance when it has worked and is continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet."
     
    And even that is not very colorful.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Peripatetic Commenter

    You mean like this writing in:

    https://scouting4boysorg.files.wordpress.com/2019/01/us-commission-on-civil-rights-sex-bias-in-the-us-code-1977.pdf

    Recommendations

    18 U.S.C. §2032 — Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of
    any female, not his wife who has not
    attained the age of sixteen years” and
    substitute a Federal, sex-neutral
    definition of the offense patterned
    after S. 1400 §1633: A person is guilty
    of an offense if he engages in a sexual
    act with another person, not his spouse,
    and (1) compels the other person to
    participate: (A) by force or (B) by
    threatening or placing the other person
    in fear that any person will imminently
    be subjected to death, serious bodily
    injury, or kidnapping; (2) has
    substantially impaired the other
    person’s power to appraise or control
    the conduct by administering or
    employing a drug or intoxicant without
    the knowledge or against the will of
    such other person, or by other means; or
    (3) the other person is, in fact, less
    than 12 years old.

    I find it particularly difficult that any sane person would insert the last one or agree to the insertion of it.

  72. @RichardTaylor

    This meant that Ginsburg was increasingly irrelevant during the Great Awokening when the issue became how to dumb down American life to the level at which black women could compete equally with Jewish men:
     
    Because we have a really clever plan by the Jewish establishment to push anti-White policies, mass 3rd world immigration and Black resentment.

    I mean, how could it backfire? What a deal!

    Check out the big brain on the Ashkenazi.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Anonymous

    Black resentment.

    Black resentment is fast apporaching its sixth century. Don’t kid yourself.

    La Española: the earliest recorded Blacks in the Colonial Americas

    America’s History of Slavery Began Long Before Jamestown

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Reg Cæsar

    'Black resentment is fast apporaching its sixth century. Don’t kid yourself.'

    Really? How much evidence of it can you find of this resentment before the founding of the NAACP, etc?

    ...that is to say, from before whites started telling blacks they should be resentful. One of the most remarkable aspects of slavery in North America is how quiescent blacks were. Compared to -- say -- their behavior now, their behavior back then were positively lamblike. Revolts were few, small, and easily suppressed.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Reg Cæsar

    , @RichardTaylor
    @Reg Cæsar


    Black resentment is fast apporaching its sixth century. Don’t kid yourself.
     
    Yeah yeah Reg, you're anti-White, we get it.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  73. @Cloudbuster
    @Harry Baldwin

    Is it possible that her raging TDS hastened Ginsburg’s demise from metastatic pancreas cancer?

    She was 87 years old. That's not a delayed death on any scale.

    Replies: @anon, @Harry Baldwin

    She was 87 years old. That’s not a delayed death on any scale.

    • LOL: Harry Baldwin
  74. @Castlereagh
    I keep hearing Ginsburg was brilliant, but where's the evidence? How hard is it to interpret the Constitution as meaning whatever the editors of the New York Times say it means? Was anyone really convinced by these arguments? The Left likes these arguments for obvious reasons. But does anyone believe crap like gay marriage is in the Constitution,

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @hOUSTON 1992, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Prester John, @Hibernian, @Dumbo, @Element59, @J.Ross

    She built an entire elaborate legal edifice on top of a defective foundation. Men and women are profoundly different biologically; any legal system that fails to acknowledge this will result in a profoundly unhealthy society.

    Stupid is as stupid does. She did a very stupid thing, she is stupid.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @SimpleSong

    Don't know about that, but her modes of legal argument manufactured excuses for her to harass people she didn't like. So, to take one example, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of South Carolina are debarred from erecting and maintaining all-male military colleges whose total enrollment accounted for about 2% of the enrollment in public 4 year colleges in those states, even though both states had maintained public women's colleges as recently as 23 years earlier. This is debarred because reasons. She was a power-mad hag and her intellect was devoted to persuading others to go along with her.

  75. @Elmer T. Jones
    Apparently no brilliant feminist writer or opinionist has ever conceived of my simple advice to young women : you can always get a job, but the window for having children is narrow and brief. Have children early and enter your exciting career after they have grown.

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @Reg Cæsar, @Chrisnonymous, @anonymous as usual, @Jesse

    While you can certainly have a career after you have children, interestingly enough it seems most women are much less interested in a career after motherhood.

    • Replies: @bruce county
    @SimpleSong


    most women are much less interested in a career after motherhood.
     
    Many get dogs or cats , are heavily medicated, anti white and support the Alphabet Zombie class.
    Its best their children have left home by then before the indoctrination begins. Some haven't made it out. They are burning cities and toppling statues while mommy sits at home and watches TYT's and CNN.
    , @TheJester
    @SimpleSong


    While you can certainly have a career after you have children, interestingly enough it seems most women are much less interested in a career after motherhood.
     
    Large numbers of professional women appear to be more than "less interested" in careers in spite of having no children. Many appear to "want out"! In my experience, a popular lament on the part of professional women in the corporate office and in our neighborhod is that they can't wait until early retirement at 62 ... and they don't know if they can last that long. As men are apt to say, they call it "work" because it is work. Many career women are disappointed to discover that fact.

    Once upon a time a career woman politely requested that she and I work together on class projects on our corporate-sponsored masters program. Time passed; she finally pressed her interest. She was unhappy in her current division, and she hoped I would hire her for an opening in my division. Sorry, but I couldn't help ... no openings. Her reply, "I'm tired of working. I guess I'll find a rich man to marry." Sigh!

    I finally retired at age 70 and it was age that made the decision, not the work. I grieve for career women who "have had it" at age 40, recognizing that at that age they are just as unlikely to find a "rich man to marry" as they are to have children.

    I've repeatedly run across aphorisms that men reach their prime in their 50s ... while women reach their prime at 18. Nature is a "bitch"! Best we learn to live with it.

    RBG appears to me to have been a very unhappy women. Nature is a "bitch"! And she couldn't deal with it.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

  76. @3g4me
    @11 Jack D: Typical myopic finklethink. Ginsberg was appointed BECAUSE of her sex and ethnic identity, not because of her 'fierce intelligence.' As far as meritocracy versus ethnic identity, that only applied when Jews were working to oust the country's founding elite. Once they did so, everything became all about ethnic identity under the skin suit of meritocracy.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Jack D

    Right – the Jew Female Bill Clinton appointed Ginsburg to replace the Jew Female Whizzer White on the Supreme Court (and she was confirmed by the Jew Female Senate 96-3). That White and Ginsburg were both #1 in their respective law school classes at Yale and Harvard was just a coincidence. Any Jew Female would have done as long as she swore an oath to destroy White Christianity.

    • LOL: Not Raul
    • Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter
    @Jack D

    Jack D wishes to disguise the fact that the (((group))) that wanted more such people on the SC use their financial power (ie, campaign funds for captive senators and presidents) to gain the result they wanted.

    We need term limits and complete disclosure of sources of campaign donations, including to super PACs.

  77. @Castlereagh
    I keep hearing Ginsburg was brilliant, but where's the evidence? How hard is it to interpret the Constitution as meaning whatever the editors of the New York Times say it means? Was anyone really convinced by these arguments? The Left likes these arguments for obvious reasons. But does anyone believe crap like gay marriage is in the Constitution,

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @hOUSTON 1992, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Prester John, @Hibernian, @Dumbo, @Element59, @J.Ross

    The liberal consensus has made her a cultural icon, and that consensus has momentum and is being transmitted down to to the next generations

    Google search “books for children ruth bader ginsburg…”
    there are many such books in high end boutique stores with soft toys for kids
    e.g.

    2)Steve: what is the name and resume of the sole African American who breached The Ginsburg Ceiling ( to coin a term)?

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @hOUSTON 1992

    Wikipedia has lists of all Supreme Court clerks ever, so you could go through the 40 or 50 with Anglo-Saxon surnames who served Ginsburg and follow up each name online to see a picture. But that's way too much work for me.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @James B. Shearer

    , @res
    @hOUSTON 1992

    Don't know about RBG, but this article mentions the only African American to clerk for Alito.
    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/shut-scotus-law-clerks-still-171345942.html


    And Jack White, the only African-American that Justice Samuel Alito Jr. has hired as a clerk, said, “I know he's not a bigot. As an African-American in professional America, I know what a bigot looks like, what it sounds like, what it does. That's not him.” White is a partner at Fluet Huber + Hoang in Virginia.
     
    Here is his testimony during Alito's confirmation.
    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/White%20Testimony%20011206.pdf

    His work page has some background. It also mentions that he later clerked for Alito on the Supreme Court as well.
    https://fhhfirm.com/jack-white
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    @hOUSTON 1992


    Steve: what is the name and resume of the sole African American who breached The Ginsburg Ceiling (to coin a term)?
     
    Crispus Polltree Perdue (deceased), about halfway down the Ginsburg list:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_(Seat_6)

    , @kaganovitch
    @hOUSTON 1992

    I had high hopes for Karim J. Kentfield , but alas https://www.orrick.com/en/People/6/4/0/Karim-Kentfield. The correct answer is, I think,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_J._Watford

  78. @Reg Cæsar
    @RichardTaylor


    Black resentment.
     
    Black resentment is fast apporaching its sixth century. Don't kid yourself.


    La Española: the earliest recorded Blacks in the Colonial Americas

    America's History of Slavery Began Long Before Jamestown

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @RichardTaylor

    ‘Black resentment is fast apporaching its sixth century. Don’t kid yourself.’

    Really? How much evidence of it can you find of this resentment before the founding of the NAACP, etc?

    …that is to say, from before whites started telling blacks they should be resentful. One of the most remarkable aspects of slavery in North America is how quiescent blacks were. Compared to — say — their behavior now, their behavior back then were positively lamblike. Revolts were few, small, and easily suppressed.

    • Replies: @Intelligent Dasein
    @Colin Wright

    Uncle Screwtape once spoke about "the cocksureness which flattery breeds upon ignorance."

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Colin Wright


    ...their behavior back then were positively lamblike.
     
    Well, yeah, when guns are pointed at you all day and night. Everyone behind the Iron Curtain was "positively lamblike", as well.

    The delusions people have about the African race...

    Replies: @Colin Wright

  79. “This explains why she did not retire under Obama – what was she going to do – stay home and watch soap operas?”

    Right, what was she going to do, sacrifice her own narcissistic needs for the “good” of the “cause” and the country?

  80. @Coemgen
    @Jack D

    Isn't there a difference between ignoring parts of the Constitution, as a means to an end, rather than seeing rights there that are not explicitly written, have no historical provenance, and are not natural rights?

    No-one has a natural right to abortion or "healthcare." Those are "benefits" of living in our technologically advanced society.

    Ignoring parts of the Constitution is relatively easy thing to fix. Seeing things in the Constitution that aren't literally there is insanity. Insanity is not easy to fix.

    Replies: @Jack D

    Both sides invent rights not explicitly written AND choose to not enforce stated rights. In Dred Scott, Taney found that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because slaves were their legal property. You could read the 5th Amendment from day to night and not see that. Conversely, for most of the last century, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias.

    If you stick only to historical rights then you are lost when it comes to technological developments. Does the right to keep and bear arms extend to nuclear weapons? Is it OK for the police to use an infrared camera to peer thru the walls of your house? The Founders were wise men but they couldn’t foresee everything that was going to happen for the next 250 years.

    • Agree: Not Raul
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Both sides invent rights

    They don't, and Robert Bork would have been happy to school you on how Roger Taney's jurisprudence does not prefigure anything latter-day originalists are advocating.

    See Mary Ann Glendon on how very infrequent it was in the antebellum era and later during the Lochner era for the federal courts to invalidate state or federal legislation.

    You're going to have to do better if you want to persuade someone that Wickard, Roe, Romer, and Obergefell is just fair turnabout.

    Replies: @MBlanc46

    , @ScarletNumber
    @Jack D


    the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias
     
    What do you mean "explained away"? The word "militia" is right in the thing. It's literally the fourth word.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Hibernian, @MarkinLA, @MarkinLA, @MarkinLA

    , @stillCARealist
    @Jack D

    No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

    If a slave is property, then the state can't take him away from his owner. But a slave is obviously a person, so he shouldn't have his liberty taken away. How to rectify?

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Nicholas Stix, @Reg Cæsar

    , @BenKenobi
    @Jack D


    Does the right to keep and bear arms extend to nuclear weapons?
     
    Absolutely, just don’t violate the NAP. Step on my lawn without permission, and I’ll deploy the Samson Option.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    , @Coemgen
    @Jack D


    Does the right to keep and bear arms extend to nuclear weapons?
     
    It does and I do not want my neighbor to be tinkering with a nuclear bomb in his garage but, there’s a cure for that: the Constitution can be amended.
  81. @Reg Cæsar
    @RichardTaylor


    Black resentment.
     
    Black resentment is fast apporaching its sixth century. Don't kid yourself.


    La Española: the earliest recorded Blacks in the Colonial Americas

    America's History of Slavery Began Long Before Jamestown

    Replies: @Colin Wright, @RichardTaylor

    Black resentment is fast apporaching its sixth century. Don’t kid yourself.

    Yeah yeah Reg, you’re anti-White, we get it.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @RichardTaylor


    Yeah yeah Reg, you’re anti-White, we get it.
     
    I'm not the one nursing fairy tales that Africans ever liked us. Hatred is in their blood. Genes don't change overnight.

    Tell us, Mr Pro-WHITE, how do you intend to restore your antebellum plantation paradise? Because you seem to think my own hire-white-men-top-to-bottom, Johnson Quota Act views are somehow destructive to our race. (Which makes up 99.6% of the village I live in. And yours?)

    Replies: @RichardTaylor

  82. @Roger Sweeny
    According to Guinier, the Socratic method, with its emphasis on logic, rigor, fine analytic distinctions, and public performance, was personally intimidating and psychologically traumatic for women. Male-oriented pedagogical techniques interfered with women’s ability to learn and accounted for the then-measured gaps between males and females in law school performance, class participation, and subjective self-evaluations. Guinier urged law schools to adopt more “female-friendly” educational methods that were better suited to women’s wants and needs.

    Much of K-12 is run in "female-friendly" ways. Not surprisingly, this has "interfered with [men's] ability to learn and accounted for [large and increasing] gaps between males and females in ... school performance".

    I look forward to Professor Guinier's call for reform of K-12.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    Lani Guinier is an old college friend of the Clintons.

    She was Bill’s original nominee for Associate Attorney General for Civil Rights. But she was a strong, outspoken proponent of racial quotas, and in 1993 that was enough to derail her nomination.

    https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/04/us/clinton-abandons-his-nominee-for-rights-post-amid-opposition.html

    The Guinier nomination was a cascading political problem for Mr. Clinton since he nominated her to be Assistant Attorney General for civil rights on April 29.

    At issue were the scholarly writings of Ms. Guinier, a 43-year-old law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, in which she has argued that majority rule is often insufficient to provide blacks with a fair share of political power. She has proposed a variety of voting schemes to enhance the power of black voters and black lawmakers.

    Sounds like the 2020 Democratic platform, doesn’t it?

    In response to a question, Mr. Clinton said that his wife played no role in either the selection of Ms. Guinier for the post or the decision to withdraw the nomination. White House officials earlier credited Mrs. Clinton with selecting Ms. Guinier.

    Some things never change.

  83. @Castlereagh
    I keep hearing Ginsburg was brilliant, but where's the evidence? How hard is it to interpret the Constitution as meaning whatever the editors of the New York Times say it means? Was anyone really convinced by these arguments? The Left likes these arguments for obvious reasons. But does anyone believe crap like gay marriage is in the Constitution,

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @hOUSTON 1992, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Prester John, @Hibernian, @Dumbo, @Element59, @J.Ross

    “I keep hearing Ginsburg was brilliant, but where’s the evidence? …”

    What did Scalia see in her?

  84. @Jack D

    In Wax’s telling, Ginsburg was a brilliant workaholic, able to go head to head with the smartest men
     
    Wax is telling the truth. Ginsburg was number one in her class at Harvard Law School while managing not only her course load but also attending her husband’s classes to take notes for him, as he had been diagnosed with cancer. I can tell you that being #1 at Harvard Law School (which at the time had only a handful of female students) even without attending your spouse's courses to boot is no small feat - it requires not only high intelligence but a prodigious work ethic. As for the workaholic, she showed up at the Supreme Court the day after her husband's funeral.

    This explains why she did not retire under Obama - what was she going to do - stay home and watch soap operas? Even knowing that she was ill, she must have found the work to be distracting. She had been "hitting the books" literally every day since childhood.

    The other reason that she did not retire is that she (along with most people) felt certain that Hillary was going to win. So not only would she able to get in another couple of years of work but then she would have the honor of having a woman President name her replacement. Of all the disappointed households on Election Night 2016, hers must have ranked near the top. Of course at that point she was stuck and had no choice but to cling to her seat to the bitter end.

    You can see why black law clerks were out of the question for her - even most whites except for the ones at the very tippy top could never meet her standards. There are a lot of blacks in Ivy League law schools nowadays thanks to AA, but as Wax has mentioned elsewhere, they are almost always clustered at the bottom of the class.

    This also explains her unwillingness to go along with the Current Year ethic, which requires a certain degree of protective stupidity. Stupidity of any kind was just not on the menu at the Ginsburg household. The Ginsburgs represented sort of the high water mark of meritocracy in America, rising from modest roots (her father immigrated at age 13 and operated a small hat shop) to the pinnacle of American society based purely on their fierce intelligence.

    In the new Idiocratic BLMerica, I don't get the feeling that we are going to see a lot of folks who were #1 in their class at Harvard seated on the Supreme Court. Your ethnic identity is going to be of primary importance, not your class rank. It's just as well, because that kind of fierce intelligence as a tool for upward mobility is just not available for the vast majority of blacks and Latinxs. I suppose the closest parallel is found among Asian immigrants but very few Asians have Ginsburg's level of verbal intelligence - their strengths tend to lie more in the mathematical realm.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian, @Deadite, @Art Deco, @Wilkey, @TomSchmidt

    A recommendation on this site led me to the book The Golden Passport, about Harvard Business School, and how its graduates have basically wrecked the country.

    I’m hoping a lot fewer people who attended Harvard and Yale law schools get seated on the court in the future. Harvard and Yale graduated every President from Bush 1 through Obama. They had 28 years, along with their friends from the HYPS schools, to run the country. To paraphrase from Michigan (forgive me, o my Latin teachers) si Quæris Patris non Amœnam, Circumspice (if you seek an unpleasant country, look about you). Bush 2, the Harvard Business School graduate, was probably the worst, but the Harvard and Yale Law graduates did not help.

    • Agree: Not Raul
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @TomSchmidt

    and how its graduates have basically wrecked the country.

    There are about 350,000 degrees awarded by business schools at 4-year institutions in this country each year. There are about 900 awarded by Harvard Business School. Somehow I don't think they're behind much of any wreckage you see. (Not many of them are in Congress, for starters).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @TomSchmidt

    , @epebble
    @TomSchmidt

    OT: This Harvard grad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Yglesias has written https://www.amazon.com/One-Billion-Americans-Thinking-Bigger/dp/0593190211 that doesn't sound intelligent at all, even to a State school graduate. How could he afford to buy a house in D.C. for $1.4 million cash at age 33? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/matt-yglesias-12-million-house-stokes-class-envy-conservatives/317056/

  85. She has often asserted that such reforms would benefit both sexes, so that her quest for women’s rights is also one for human rights. But this win-win conception carries limitations and creates blind spots. Fueled by her own fortunate situation and the insular elite domains she occupies, Ginsburg has failed to confront the real tradeoffs that might be entailed in expanding women’s rights. She has never stopped to consider that the nature of womanhood and the intricacies of family relations might impede equality of outcomes, or that interchangeable roles for men and women might not be attainable, or even desirable, for the great majority of people of either sex.

    Here we must include, from Marcus Buckingham, a graph I think even more important than Steve’s world’s most important graph:

    That Ginsburg let her image of equality run roughshod over what women might actually want makes her a true IYI.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @TomSchmidt


    That Ginsburg let her image of equality run roughshod over what women might actually want makes her a true IYI.
     
    Agree.

    I had to search and find out what an IYI is, and I found this great article that probably everyone else here has read before:


    The Intellectual Yet Idiot

    (I'm just an idiot who assumed Sandra Day O'Connor was dead and didn't bother to check.)

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

  86. @Jack D
    @Coemgen

    Both sides invent rights not explicitly written AND choose to not enforce stated rights. In Dred Scott, Taney found that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because slaves were their legal property. You could read the 5th Amendment from day to night and not see that. Conversely, for most of the last century, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias.

    If you stick only to historical rights then you are lost when it comes to technological developments. Does the right to keep and bear arms extend to nuclear weapons? Is it OK for the police to use an infrared camera to peer thru the walls of your house? The Founders were wise men but they couldn't foresee everything that was going to happen for the next 250 years.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @ScarletNumber, @stillCARealist, @BenKenobi, @Coemgen

    Both sides invent rights

    They don’t, and Robert Bork would have been happy to school you on how Roger Taney’s jurisprudence does not prefigure anything latter-day originalists are advocating.

    See Mary Ann Glendon on how very infrequent it was in the antebellum era and later during the Lochner era for the federal courts to invalidate state or federal legislation.

    You’re going to have to do better if you want to persuade someone that Wickard, Roe, Romer, and Obergefell is just fair turnabout.

    • Agree: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @MBlanc46
    @Art Deco

    Well said, AD.

  87. @Art Deco
    @Gaius Gracchus

    At the time she was nominated, Alan Dershowitz criticised the appointment, saying she had the soul of a tax lawyer and that wasn't the person you wanted for your court of last resort.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Not Raul, @Gary in Gramercy, @Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang

    That’s a great comment. It makes her out as someone who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing,

  88. @TomSchmidt
    @Jack D

    A recommendation on this site led me to the book The Golden Passport, about Harvard Business School, and how its graduates have basically wrecked the country.

    I'm hoping a lot fewer people who attended Harvard and Yale law schools get seated on the court in the future. Harvard and Yale graduated every President from Bush 1 through Obama. They had 28 years, along with their friends from the HYPS schools, to run the country. To paraphrase from Michigan (forgive me, o my Latin teachers) si Quæris Patris non Amœnam, Circumspice (if you seek an unpleasant country, look about you). Bush 2, the Harvard Business School graduate, was probably the worst, but the Harvard and Yale Law graduates did not help.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @epebble

    and how its graduates have basically wrecked the country.

    There are about 350,000 degrees awarded by business schools at 4-year institutions in this country each year. There are about 900 awarded by Harvard Business School. Somehow I don’t think they’re behind much of any wreckage you see. (Not many of them are in Congress, for starters).

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Art Deco

    Those 900 annual grads have a multiplier effect. Harvard Business School has broader influence than its quantity of grads. Other biz schools, professors, administrators follow trends and fashions that develop at Harvard. Harvard Biz grads teach at other biz schools; Harvard Biz execs influence executives at companies, etc.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @TomSchmidt
    @Art Deco

    Some fascinating tales in the book of Harvard's having it both ways. It tears Mike Porter a new one, and leaves Clayton Christensen pretty much unharmed. It's particularly critical of HBS weaponizing Milton Friedman's idea that the only purpose for a corporation is to make money.

    HBS is or was the leader (apparently Stanford now leads. One quote from the book: attend HBS if you want to impress your grandparents. attend Stanford BS if you want to impress your grandchildren.), and the author makes the case that they normalized all this neoliberal nonsense for the rest of the business school community.

    Worth a read,but skip the parts about the internal history of HBS. Snore.

  89. Anonymous[123] • Disclaimer says:
    @Castlereagh
    I keep hearing Ginsburg was brilliant, but where's the evidence? How hard is it to interpret the Constitution as meaning whatever the editors of the New York Times say it means? Was anyone really convinced by these arguments? The Left likes these arguments for obvious reasons. But does anyone believe crap like gay marriage is in the Constitution,

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @hOUSTON 1992, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Prester John, @Hibernian, @Dumbo, @Element59, @J.Ross

    I keep hearing Ginsburg was brilliant, but where’s the evidence?

    There’s no evidence. There was never any evidence that she was any more brilliant than countless other jurists who toil in obscurity or are unknown or forgotten.

    What there is, however, is a media, academic, legal, political, and popular culture in which Jews with similar backgrounds to Ginsburg (i.e. Ashkenazi Jewish American from New York with advanced educational and professional attainment) are prominent and overrepresented. It’s understandable and natural that Jewish Americans would strongly identify with and promote her memory over others, but her elevation in the broader culture has more to do with ethnic narcissism and nepotism via Jewish American prominence and overrepresentation in the culture than with any unique brilliance on her part. Aspirational gentiles basically follow the tone set by Jewish Americans in these cultures.

    • Replies: @Jack d
    @Anonymous

    Being #1 in her class at 3 different Ivies doesn't count as evidence?

    Replies: @anon

  90. @Art Deco
    @TomSchmidt

    and how its graduates have basically wrecked the country.

    There are about 350,000 degrees awarded by business schools at 4-year institutions in this country each year. There are about 900 awarded by Harvard Business School. Somehow I don't think they're behind much of any wreckage you see. (Not many of them are in Congress, for starters).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @TomSchmidt

    Those 900 annual grads have a multiplier effect. Harvard Business School has broader influence than its quantity of grads. Other biz schools, professors, administrators follow trends and fashions that develop at Harvard. Harvard Biz grads teach at other biz schools; Harvard Biz execs influence executives at companies, etc.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Anonymous

    Other business schools use the case studies of real world business situations published by Harvard Business School. I always found them a lot of fun. I'm sure there are sophisticated criticisms of HBS's case studies, but they are wonderful compared to most of the other reading materials you run into in classes outside of the Great Books variety.

  91. @SimpleSong
    @Castlereagh

    She built an entire elaborate legal edifice on top of a defective foundation. Men and women are profoundly different biologically; any legal system that fails to acknowledge this will result in a profoundly unhealthy society.

    Stupid is as stupid does. She did a very stupid thing, she is stupid.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    Don’t know about that, but her modes of legal argument manufactured excuses for her to harass people she didn’t like. So, to take one example, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of South Carolina are debarred from erecting and maintaining all-male military colleges whose total enrollment accounted for about 2% of the enrollment in public 4 year colleges in those states, even though both states had maintained public women’s colleges as recently as 23 years earlier. This is debarred because reasons. She was a power-mad hag and her intellect was devoted to persuading others to go along with her.

  92. @Bardon Kaldian
    I am more radical than these wacky n-th wave feminists in some matters: for instance, I would give married working women twice as much as to men, i.e. basically the same amount of money for 4 hours long work as men get for 8 hours, just to promote fertility increase among functioning white race (which would benefit other races' functioning females). No money for lazy dumb baby mommas; no money for single moms who are evidently leeches (but yes to single moms who are technically single, but work & are socially stable and mentally sane).

    Other than that, women should not serve in the military- except in a few carefully selected areas; the rest is nonsense.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @ScarletNumber, @Not Raul

    I would give married working women twice as much as to men, i.e. basically the same amount of money for 4 hours long work as men get for 8 hours, just to promote fertility increase among functioning white race (which would benefit other races’ functioning females).

    Alternatively you could give the husbands more money so that the wives could stay home and raise the children.

    If you seriously want higher birth rates you would need to strongly discourage married women from working.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @dfordoom

    Women want more from life than just being housewives.

  93. This really gets to the problem with feminism.

    A very small number of women, maybe one in two hundred, are both smart and very, very hardworking. By “hardworking” I mean that they work 100 hours per week at a demanding job for fifty years. Yes, such women are competitive with men in many fields.

    Problems? Well, progressives look at the 1/200 woman and say ‘Ah, but if the other 199 had just gotten an equal education… equal opportunity… equal pay…”

    No. These hard-working women typically have some sort of deep-seated hatred for and rivalry with men fueling their 100 hour per week work habits. Often unmarried, the ones who marry often have husbands with 100 hour per week work habits, or possibly alternate sexuality. Not many men want to marry a woman who works 100 hours per week, literally every waking hour.

  94. @Castlereagh
    I keep hearing Ginsburg was brilliant, but where's the evidence? How hard is it to interpret the Constitution as meaning whatever the editors of the New York Times say it means? Was anyone really convinced by these arguments? The Left likes these arguments for obvious reasons. But does anyone believe crap like gay marriage is in the Constitution,

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @hOUSTON 1992, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Prester John, @Hibernian, @Dumbo, @Element59, @J.Ross

    “But does anyone believe crap like gay marriage is in the Constitution,”

    Oh but it is! It’s in the “orbs and penumbras”. Or something.

  95. @Bardon Kaldian
    I am more radical than these wacky n-th wave feminists in some matters: for instance, I would give married working women twice as much as to men, i.e. basically the same amount of money for 4 hours long work as men get for 8 hours, just to promote fertility increase among functioning white race (which would benefit other races' functioning females). No money for lazy dumb baby mommas; no money for single moms who are evidently leeches (but yes to single moms who are technically single, but work & are socially stable and mentally sane).

    Other than that, women should not serve in the military- except in a few carefully selected areas; the rest is nonsense.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @ScarletNumber, @Not Raul

    women should not serve in the military- except in a few carefully selected areas

    Well we’ll always need nurses.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    @ScarletNumber

    Also, military intelligence, IT & some others.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

  96. @ScarletNumber
    @Bardon Kaldian


    women should not serve in the military- except in a few carefully selected areas
     
    Well we'll always need nurses.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Also, military intelligence, IT & some others.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Bardon Kaldian

    I understand that the CIA isn't part of the military, but for undercover missions you need some women as well, a la Valerie Plame.

  97. anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    “And though she is frequently billed as a pragmatist, Ginsburg in her writings reveals an optimistic, idealistic vision of harmoniously egalitarian families, political precincts, and workplaces. Without ever confronting the question deeply or directly, she implicitly accepts the basic premises of blank-slate progressivism: that the present realities of gender, including women’s and men’s differing preferences, choices, capacities, and desires, are the remnants of a benighted and oppressive past that can be vanquished and eliminated by getting law and policy right.”

    All these organizations are based on the same idea, is this law, is this logic in the search of truth? Is any of it truth or is it all just ego?

    “His best-known campaigns include a 1929 effort to promote female smoking by branding cigarettes as feminist “Torches of Freedom”, and his work for the United Fruit Company in the 1950s, connected with the CIA-orchestrated overthrow of the democratically elected Guatemalan government in 1954. He worked for dozens of major American corporations including Procter & Gamble and General Electric, and for government agencies, politicians, and non-profit organizations. ”
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

    What’s missing is reality. What’s missing is truth. What’s missing is Jesus.

    I don’t care to speak ill of the dead and mostly not even of the living, except when I do.
    What’s missing from women’s rights movements?

  98. I keep hearing all this praise of RGB by moderate conservative types. She’s ever so brilliant and thoughtful and fair. Can anyone tell me what she actually did for Americans?

  99. One interesting thing about RBG was how anti-criminal-defendant she was when it came to Double Jeopardy.

    Double Jeopardy (DJ) is the principle that you can’t be tried twice for the same crime. It’s one of those hallowed American law principles, but it has a ton of exceptions. For example, both the federal and state government can prosecute you for the same crime and give you sentences on top of one another, and its not DJ, because (according to the SC) you’re being tried and sentenced by different sovreigns.

    RBG cast a decidedly cold eye on anyone raising DJ arguments. This was from both her lower court days and from her SC days. She really didn’t care if DJ was violated so long as the bad guy got it good and hard.

    The old commie had Vshinsky’s blood in her veins.

  100. @RichardTaylor

    This meant that Ginsburg was increasingly irrelevant during the Great Awokening when the issue became how to dumb down American life to the level at which black women could compete equally with Jewish men:
     
    Because we have a really clever plan by the Jewish establishment to push anti-White policies, mass 3rd world immigration and Black resentment.

    I mean, how could it backfire? What a deal!

    Check out the big brain on the Ashkenazi.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Anonymous

    ummm Germany and allied peoples circa 1935-45

    Badly backfired.

  101. @Jack D
    @Coemgen

    Both sides invent rights not explicitly written AND choose to not enforce stated rights. In Dred Scott, Taney found that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because slaves were their legal property. You could read the 5th Amendment from day to night and not see that. Conversely, for most of the last century, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias.

    If you stick only to historical rights then you are lost when it comes to technological developments. Does the right to keep and bear arms extend to nuclear weapons? Is it OK for the police to use an infrared camera to peer thru the walls of your house? The Founders were wise men but they couldn't foresee everything that was going to happen for the next 250 years.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @ScarletNumber, @stillCARealist, @BenKenobi, @Coemgen

    the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias

    What do you mean “explained away”? The word “militia” is right in the thing. It’s literally the fourth word.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @ScarletNumber



    the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias
     
    What do you mean “explained away”? The word “militia” is right in the thing. It’s literally the fourth word.
     
    And where does "only" fall?

    "Militia", by the way, is in the singular. Think about that. Both of you.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    , @Hibernian
    @ScarletNumber

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe


    The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.
     

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    , @MarkinLA
    @ScarletNumber

    The "militia" according to the left is the national guard. However, not according to the Militia Act.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

    In addition, according to some historians and English language scholars, the militia clause in the second in no way limits the right to only militias. It just gives a rational for why the populace should have arms.

    , @MarkinLA
    @ScarletNumber

    Even in the 1934 NFA, machine guns are not outlawed, they are regulated through a taxing scheme where the tax (200 dollars) was deemed so high that nobody would want one. Roosevelt recognized that if he wanted to outlaw them he would need a Constitutional Amendment but he was responding to the bank robbery crime wave and didn't think he could get one passed fast enough.

    This is a law firm specializing in firearms laws take:

    https://www.wklaw.com/6-common-misconceptions-right-bear-arms/

    , @MarkinLA
    @ScarletNumber

    Another thing that the "militia" advocates never seem to bring up is that there NEVER has been any attempt by any legislative body, federal or state, to regulate firearms based on the militia clause. I wonder why that is if the militia is so central to the 2nd?

  102. Anonymous[340] • Disclaimer says:

    Also note their book review on “health racism” contributed by Ronald Dworkin in the same ish of Claremont. I thought this a medical miracle from the great beyond till I realized it was a different Ronald Dworkin (not the dead one)

    And on the subject of rotting corpses inter alia, it has a Reaganomics takedown by Christopher Caldwell, which is in keeping with the overarching theme of U.S. domestic politics since ’08 (guns vs. anti-discriminatory butter)

  103. By the way- is Barbara Lagoa considered?

    Woman? Check.
    Minority or faux minority? Check.

    Is she reliable?

  104. @megabar
    Good article.

    I've noticed that truly talented minorities often have undramatic rises to the top. When given an opportunity, they succeed, as many talented people would. So it's not surprising that they feel that inequality of opportunity is the issue to be solved.

    Unfortunately, it doesn't solve the overall gaps.

    Replies: @Percy Gryce, @TWS, @Ben tillman

    So it’s not surprising that they feel that inequality of opportunity is the issue to be solved.

    It’s always surprising to hear that someone thinks, or is presumed to think, that everyone is equally gifted in all things. I do not believe anyone thinks that, and I do not believe successful blacks think their success proves that others are being held back.

  105. @Ron Mexico
    "Ginsburg was increasingly irrelevant during the Great Awokening when the issue became how to dumb down American life to the level at which black women could compete equally with Jewish men:"

    Or Wise Latinas being equal to Jewish female Justices.

    Replies: @Ben tillman

    Let’s not overlook the likelihood that Sotomayor is Racially Jewish.

  106. @Art Deco
    @Ari Silver

    There's no indication from her previous history that her ability was deficient to be an appellate judge. And if it's networking, who did she know?

    Replies: @Ben tillman

    You can’t get appointed to the federal bench without networking like crazy.

  107. ” who demanded entry to male precincts”

    And there we have the core of the problem. There is no male activity that such women do not feel entitled to invade and force such changes upon as are necessary to give the appearance of competence.

    Men don’t fart around in lace tatting parlours or whatever a coven of women do when they get together.

  108. @Art Deco
    @Gaius Gracchus

    At the time she was nominated, Alan Dershowitz criticised the appointment, saying she had the soul of a tax lawyer and that wasn't the person you wanted for your court of last resort.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Not Raul, @Gary in Gramercy, @Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang

    Who cares what Dershowitz has to say?

  109. @Bardon Kaldian
    I am more radical than these wacky n-th wave feminists in some matters: for instance, I would give married working women twice as much as to men, i.e. basically the same amount of money for 4 hours long work as men get for 8 hours, just to promote fertility increase among functioning white race (which would benefit other races' functioning females). No money for lazy dumb baby mommas; no money for single moms who are evidently leeches (but yes to single moms who are technically single, but work & are socially stable and mentally sane).

    Other than that, women should not serve in the military- except in a few carefully selected areas; the rest is nonsense.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @ScarletNumber, @Not Raul

    Women shouldn’t serve in the infantry unless they can meet the same standards as the men.

  110. @Elmer T. Jones
    Apparently no brilliant feminist writer or opinionist has ever conceived of my simple advice to young women : you can always get a job, but the window for having children is narrow and brief. Have children early and enter your exciting career after they have grown.

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @Reg Cæsar, @Chrisnonymous, @anonymous as usual, @Jesse

    …the window for having children is narrow and brief.

    If she stands at the window in narrow briefs, she might get a child that way.

    [MORE]

    • LOL: bruce county
  111. @Bill P
    Is "equity feminist" the right term? As I understand it, equity feminists believe that men's equity - in their homes, cars, stock holdings, businesses, etc. - belongs rightfully to women.

    That may not always have been the case, but feminists are quite clear on this. "Equality" feminism is the belief that men and women should have the same legal rights, but why settle for that when you can get more? That's where equity feminism comes in and declares that women can't truly be equal to men unless the state takes stuff from men and gives it to them.

    Replies: @Prof. Woland, @Bardon Kaldian, @anon, @cthulhu

    Is “equity feminist” the right term? As I understand it, equity feminists believe that men’s equity – in their homes, cars, stock holdings, businesses, etc. – belongs rightfully to women.

    Christina Hoff Sommers used the term in her 1994 work Who Stole Feminism? in the same sense that Professor Wax does; i.e., it’s the feminist position that is largely defined by support for equality of opportunity, and emphatically not trying to mandate equality of outcome.

    As always in these discussions, Steven Pinker’s 2003 masterpiece The Blank Slate is essential reading. Another more recent book that covers some of the same ground is Charles Murray’s Human Diversity.

  112. @ScarletNumber
    @Jack D


    the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias
     
    What do you mean "explained away"? The word "militia" is right in the thing. It's literally the fourth word.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Hibernian, @MarkinLA, @MarkinLA, @MarkinLA

    the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias

    What do you mean “explained away”? The word “militia” is right in the thing. It’s literally the fourth word.

    And where does “only” fall?

    “Militia”, by the way, is in the singular. Think about that. Both of you.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Reg Cæsar

    Think about this: What you said doesn't refute what I said.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  113. @Elmer T. Jones
    Apparently no brilliant feminist writer or opinionist has ever conceived of my simple advice to young women : you can always get a job, but the window for having children is narrow and brief. Have children early and enter your exciting career after they have grown.

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @Reg Cæsar, @Chrisnonymous, @anonymous as usual, @Jesse

    This is not correct, which is why no brilliant female has pursued the strategy. If you want to be a secretary, you can start when you’re 28, but if you want to be a federal judge, you better get focused by 18 if not earlier.

    • Agree: Cato, Daniel Chieh, Jesse
    • Replies: @Elmer T. Jones
    @Chrisnonymous

    If you want to be an engineer, scientist, or even an MD, you can start at 40. A solid degree attained while husband shopping can be the basis for a good career later on. This approach is limiting if you want to be a federal judge or make partner in a law firm, but who wants to marry that anyway? No corporate award or courthouse hallway portrait compares to the pleasures of having children.

    Replies: @Jesse, @Cato

  114. @Cloudbuster
    @Harry Baldwin

    Is it possible that her raging TDS hastened Ginsburg’s demise from metastatic pancreas cancer?

    She was 87 years old. That's not a delayed death on any scale.

    Replies: @anon, @Harry Baldwin

    I guess I should have added a “/s” symbol.

  115. @Anon
    Wax, who has an MD as well as a JD, and who held her own in prestigious clerkships and law firms, as well as the federal government, is sharp as a tack, but presents as an amiable grandmother. She appears frequently on the Glenn Loury Bloggingheads podcast. She's also the expert on disparate impact law, and her writing on it is very readable.

    The Socratic method dustup actually resulted in a precipitous decline in its use in law schools, although for the most part this was to protect blacks and other affirmative action admittees, not women. It is truly cringeworthy to witness an unprepared law student get ambushed in a Socratic method taught class in law school. No mercy is shown. And these victims tend to be BIPOC's, at least after the first two weeks of classes.

    Replies: @James O'Meara

    The “Socratic Method” has nothing to do with Socrates or reasoning or teaching. It’s a way for law school professors, most all of whom have never entered a courtroom, to spend decades teaching nothing of value (which is why 2nd and 3rd year students never bother to go to class, and graduates need to take “bar prep” courses to actually pass the bar and be licensed to practice); in fact, teaching literally “nothing” but how to intuit the answer the professor wants you to give.

    If it gives you a thrill because it trips up BIPOC’s then I don’t know what to do for you.

    Of course the British system is no better. John “Rumpole” Mortimer said that after graduating from Oxford with a law degree he knew how to adopt a Senator and grant manumission to a slave, but nothing else.

    • Disagree: Ben tillman
    • Replies: @Anon
    @James O'Meara


    The “Socratic Method” has nothing to do with Socrates or reasoning or teaching....

    If it gives you a thrill because it trips up BIPOC’s then I don’t know what to do for you.
     
    I know nothing of Socrates. I know a lot about the Socratic Method in law school. It's a very effective way of testing your smarts, your ability to read and remember and manipulate the knowledge you've gained. You have been assigned reading from a casebook, a text with major appellate legal cases from the past. In the first week of law school you learned how to read them, parsing them into statement of facts, statement of law, holding, dicta, etc. Here are the details:

    https://www.law.uh.edu/lss/casebrief.pdf

    In preparation for each class you need to have read every case, analyzed it in this way, and hold it all in your head. You also need to have retained all the knowledge and legal logic from previous days and weeks. The professor calls on someone at random, a white/Asian or a BIPOC as the case may be, and for maybe a third of the class he or she needs to brief the case, respond to probing questions about it from the professor, and (here's where the BIPOCs really wither) deal with hypotheticals, situations slightly different from the actual case, speculating on how the changes would/should affect the outcome.

    The skills required are close reading of text that is not written to be easy to understand, absorbing the accummulated knowledge of a rather complex system of rules and logic (the law), and retaining and juggling an increasing quantity of this material as it increases over the term of the class with the ability to abstract from it to new situations.

    2nd and 3rd year students never bother to go to class
     
    Ha-ha. Not true at all. And we're talking about courses like corporate law, taxation, antitrust. Yes, you go to class. If you're at Southwestern or have otherwise given up on a clerkship or an offer from a decent firm, maybe you can flake out a little the third year. A lot of people don't pass the bar and don't end up working in a normal law job, so maybe these are people who didn't go to class.

    teaching literally “nothing” but how to intuit the answer the professor wants you to give.
     
    My friend, you have latched onto the key point: smart people don't nened to be taught how to learn. The ability to be thrown into an entropic cauldron and figure out how to survive is what top employers want. They do not want people who need to have been tutored, mentored, group-projectified, summer-pre-lawed, or remedial-classed.
    , @Jim Brewer
    @James O'Meara

    Socrates would try to elicit a principle from his interlocutor and then test it by varying one thing or another. In other words, one understands an idea only when one grasps its implications in a wide variety of situations and its relations to other concepts.

  116. @Castlereagh
    I keep hearing Ginsburg was brilliant, but where's the evidence? How hard is it to interpret the Constitution as meaning whatever the editors of the New York Times say it means? Was anyone really convinced by these arguments? The Left likes these arguments for obvious reasons. But does anyone believe crap like gay marriage is in the Constitution,

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @hOUSTON 1992, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Prester John, @Hibernian, @Dumbo, @Element59, @J.Ross

    How hard is it to interpret the Constitution as meaning whatever the editors of the New York Times say it means?

    It takes a fair amount of talent to do that in the requisite Ivy League Law School Language.

  117. @Castlereagh
    I keep hearing Ginsburg was brilliant, but where's the evidence? How hard is it to interpret the Constitution as meaning whatever the editors of the New York Times say it means? Was anyone really convinced by these arguments? The Left likes these arguments for obvious reasons. But does anyone believe crap like gay marriage is in the Constitution,

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @hOUSTON 1992, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Prester John, @Hibernian, @Dumbo, @Element59, @J.Ross

    She isn’t very smart, or only in a very technical way.

    when the issue became how to dumb down American life to the level at which black women could compete equally with Jewish men:

    No one wants to make black women compete with Jewish men, assuming that it is even possible. They want to screw over the white non-Jewish middle class. Then as now, just the methods vary.

  118. @anon
    @Bill P


    That may not always have been the case, but feminists are quite clear on this. “Equality” feminism is the belief that men and women should have the same legal rights, but why settle for that when you can get more? That’s where equity feminism comes in and declares that women can’t truly be equal to men unless the state takes stuff from men and gives it to them.
     
    The left has shifting definitions of the words equality and equity.
    "Equity" as used on the Left today generally means guaranteeing equality of outcomes.
    But, equality of outcomes doctrine should never be interpreted to stop a woman or minority from getting more than an equal share of something good, nor should equality of outcomes doctrine ever be used to make women or minorities get an equal share of something bad.
    Examples:
    Equity requires that women CEOs must be increased until they make up at least 50% of all CEOs, because the CEO job is something good.
    Equity does not require that women be reduced in the number of Psychology Doctorates, currently at 76%, because doctorates are something good and women do not want to give this up.
    Equity does not require that women be increased to 50% of garbage truck drivers, because that job is bad and women don't want it anyway.
    Understand?

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    This reminds me of Samuel Johnson’s observation about equality and social leveling.

    Sir, there is one Mrs. Macaulay in this town, a great republican. One day when I was at her house, I put on a very grave countenance, and said to her, “Madam, I am now become a convert to your way of thinking. I am convinced that all mankind are upon an equal footing; and to give you unquestionable proof, Madam, that I am in earnest, here is a very sensible, civil, well-behaved fellow citizen, your footman; I desire that he may be allowed to sit down and dine with us.”

    I thus shewed her the absurdity of the leveling doctrine. She has never liked me since. Sir, your levellers wish to level down as far as themselves; but they cannot bear levelling up to themselves. They would all have some people under them; why not then have some people above them?’

  119. @SimpleSong
    @Elmer T. Jones

    While you can certainly have a career after you have children, interestingly enough it seems most women are much less interested in a career after motherhood.

    Replies: @bruce county, @TheJester

    most women are much less interested in a career after motherhood.

    Many get dogs or cats , are heavily medicated, anti white and support the Alphabet Zombie class.
    Its best their children have left home by then before the indoctrination begins. Some haven’t made it out. They are burning cities and toppling statues while mommy sits at home and watches TYT’s and CNN.

  120. @Jack D
    @3g4me

    Right - the Jew Female Bill Clinton appointed Ginsburg to replace the Jew Female Whizzer White on the Supreme Court (and she was confirmed by the Jew Female Senate 96-3). That White and Ginsburg were both #1 in their respective law school classes at Yale and Harvard was just a coincidence. Any Jew Female would have done as long as she swore an oath to destroy White Christianity.

    Replies: @Peripatetic Commenter

    Jack D wishes to disguise the fact that the (((group))) that wanted more such people on the SC use their financial power (ie, campaign funds for captive senators and presidents) to gain the result they wanted.

    We need term limits and complete disclosure of sources of campaign donations, including to super PACs.

  121. @Wilkey
    I'm wondering to what degree Ginsburg ever wrote anything memorable.

    I've seen plenty a riposte in Scalia's rulings that were witty, charming, and utterly scathing (especially when he was penning a dissent). I don't recall ever reading a single such sentence by Ginsburg. Granted, I do tend to hang out in the more conservative corners of the web, but I would still think that after 27 years I would have come across something.

    Replies: @Jack D, @James B. Shearer, @Hibernian

    She sometimes tore apart lower court ultraliberal judges who had gone totally crazy, and I have read excerpts of some of those decisions (theirs and hers) in Bench Memos at NR.

  122. @Jack D
    @Harry Baldwin

    That time was never. Look at the Dred Scott case, Plessy v. Ferguson, etc. The Constitution is by its nature a loosely sketched outline. The Supreme Court fills in the picture according to its own preferences and those preferences are and have always been influenced by the political view of the Justices. The difference is that in the past those views tended toward the reactionary (no politically unbiased person could have accepted that Jim Crow was compatible with the 14th Amendment) and so were displeasing to progressives, but post WWII the opposite has been mostly true. But this does not meant that it was non-political before and political now. It was always political but its politics changed.


    It should be noted that Constitutional questions with partisan political implications form only a small part of the Court's work and that most of its decisions do not fall on clear partisan lines.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @Hibernian, @mark green

    I’d say that over time there’s been a difference of degree, if not of kind, in how political SCOTUS is. This has recently manifested itself in a totally unfounded accusation, endorsed by a cabal of sitting Senators, against a morally upright nominee, of gang rape.

  123. @Jack D
    @Coemgen

    Both sides invent rights not explicitly written AND choose to not enforce stated rights. In Dred Scott, Taney found that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because slaves were their legal property. You could read the 5th Amendment from day to night and not see that. Conversely, for most of the last century, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias.

    If you stick only to historical rights then you are lost when it comes to technological developments. Does the right to keep and bear arms extend to nuclear weapons? Is it OK for the police to use an infrared camera to peer thru the walls of your house? The Founders were wise men but they couldn't foresee everything that was going to happen for the next 250 years.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @ScarletNumber, @stillCARealist, @BenKenobi, @Coemgen

    No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

    If a slave is property, then the state can’t take him away from his owner. But a slave is obviously a person, so he shouldn’t have his liberty taken away. How to rectify?

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @stillCARealist

    Your conundrum was solved by constitutional amendment (and a little thing called war) not by a court. There are issues in our time that can only truly be resolved by amendment, or by legislation at state or federal levels, but that's just too hard, so everybody wants judges to decide for them. Thus Roe v. Wade, etc.

    , @Nicholas Stix
    @stillCARealist

    "If a slave is property, then the state can’t take him away from his owner. But a slave is obviously a person, so he shouldn’t have his liberty taken away."

    Under slavery, there is nothing at all obvious about it.

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @stillCARealist

    Justice Taney said in Dred Scott that blacks had no right to be in this country. But he wouldn't let them leave. (Leave us, that is.)

    If this isn't contradiction, whatever is?


    If a slave is property, then the state can’t take him away from his owner.
     
    On the other hand, if he runs off to the Maritimes, you can't just invade Halifax to get him back. Haligonians would be outraged. Why not show Bostonians the same courtesy?

    But a slave is obviously a person...
     
    Person enough to inflate his keeper's representation in Congress and the Electoral College.

    Look at the white populations of states in 1850. Then look at the number of districts for comparable ones.

    Replies: @Jack D

  124. @TomSchmidt

    She has often asserted that such reforms would benefit both sexes, so that her quest for women’s rights is also one for human rights. But this win-win conception carries limitations and creates blind spots. Fueled by her own fortunate situation and the insular elite domains she occupies, Ginsburg has failed to confront the real tradeoffs that might be entailed in expanding women’s rights. She has never stopped to consider that the nature of womanhood and the intricacies of family relations might impede equality of outcomes, or that interchangeable roles for men and women might not be attainable, or even desirable, for the great majority of people of either sex.
     
    Here we must include, from Marcus Buckingham, a graph I think even more important than Steve's world's most important graph:
    https://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/105292/original.jpg

    That Ginsburg let her image of equality run roughshod over what women might actually want makes her a true IYI.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    That Ginsburg let her image of equality run roughshod over what women might actually want makes her a true IYI.

    Agree.

    I had to search and find out what an IYI is, and I found this great article that probably everyone else here has read before:

    The Intellectual Yet Idiot

    (I’m just an idiot who assumed Sandra Day O’Connor was dead and didn’t bother to check.)

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    @Buzz Mohawk

    By choosing those three letters, Taleb pretty much guaranteed he would own the abbreviation. Pretty smart of him.

    We are all idiots in the sense of being tightly held within a limited area. But it takes an intellectual not to know this.

  125. @Anonymous
    @Art Deco

    Those 900 annual grads have a multiplier effect. Harvard Business School has broader influence than its quantity of grads. Other biz schools, professors, administrators follow trends and fashions that develop at Harvard. Harvard Biz grads teach at other biz schools; Harvard Biz execs influence executives at companies, etc.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Other business schools use the case studies of real world business situations published by Harvard Business School. I always found them a lot of fun. I’m sure there are sophisticated criticisms of HBS’s case studies, but they are wonderful compared to most of the other reading materials you run into in classes outside of the Great Books variety.

  126. @hOUSTON 1992
    @Castlereagh

    The liberal consensus has made her a cultural icon, and that consensus has momentum and is being transmitted down to to the next generations

    Google search "books for children ruth bader ginsburg..."
    there are many such books in high end boutique stores with soft toys for kids
    e.g.
    https://www.amazon.com/Dissent-Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-Makes/dp/1481465597

    2)Steve: what is the name and resume of the sole African American who breached The Ginsburg Ceiling ( to coin a term)?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @res, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @kaganovitch

    Wikipedia has lists of all Supreme Court clerks ever, so you could go through the 40 or 50 with Anglo-Saxon surnames who served Ginsburg and follow up each name online to see a picture. But that’s way too much work for me.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Steve Sailer

    In looking at RBG's list of clerks, the most famous one is probably David Schizer, who was dean of Columbia Law School for 10 years. He also clerked for Alex Kozinski, who had some #MeToo issues.

    Replies: @Zippy

    , @James B. Shearer
    @Steve Sailer

    The clerk in question appears to be Paul Watford. See here.

    "The committee voted 10-6 along party lines to send the nomination to the Senate floor. Watford, a civil appellate lawyer, is a former federal prosecutor and law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He would be the second African American on the current court, which has 29 authorized judgeships and five vacancies."

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  127. @stillCARealist
    @Jack D

    No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

    If a slave is property, then the state can't take him away from his owner. But a slave is obviously a person, so he shouldn't have his liberty taken away. How to rectify?

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Nicholas Stix, @Reg Cæsar

    Your conundrum was solved by constitutional amendment (and a little thing called war) not by a court. There are issues in our time that can only truly be resolved by amendment, or by legislation at state or federal levels, but that’s just too hard, so everybody wants judges to decide for them. Thus Roe v. Wade, etc.

  128. @dfordoom
    @Bardon Kaldian


    I would give married working women twice as much as to men, i.e. basically the same amount of money for 4 hours long work as men get for 8 hours, just to promote fertility increase among functioning white race (which would benefit other races’ functioning females).
     
    Alternatively you could give the husbands more money so that the wives could stay home and raise the children.

    If you seriously want higher birth rates you would need to strongly discourage married women from working.

    Replies: @Bardon Kaldian

    Women want more from life than just being housewives.

  129. @Bardon Kaldian
    @ScarletNumber

    Also, military intelligence, IT & some others.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    I understand that the CIA isn’t part of the military, but for undercover missions you need some women as well, a la Valerie Plame.

  130. @Reg Cæsar
    @ScarletNumber



    the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias
     
    What do you mean “explained away”? The word “militia” is right in the thing. It’s literally the fourth word.
     
    And where does "only" fall?

    "Militia", by the way, is in the singular. Think about that. Both of you.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    Think about this: What you said doesn’t refute what I said.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @ScarletNumber


    Think about this: What you said doesn’t refute what I said.
     
    And what you said doesn't refute what Jack said.

    The word militia serves an explanatory, justifying purpose in the amendment, not a limiting or exclusionary one. To argue for the latter is indeed "explaining away". Jack nailed it.

    Fellow commenters, who's right on this? Scarlet, or Jack? Please weigh in.

    Replies: @ic1000, @ScarletNumber

  131. @ScarletNumber
    @Jack D


    the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias
     
    What do you mean "explained away"? The word "militia" is right in the thing. It's literally the fourth word.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Hibernian, @MarkinLA, @MarkinLA, @MarkinLA

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe

    The power of the sword, say the minority…, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Hibernian

    As I said to Reg Caesar, what you said doesn't refute what I said.

    Replies: @Hibernian

  132. @Castlereagh
    I keep hearing Ginsburg was brilliant, but where's the evidence? How hard is it to interpret the Constitution as meaning whatever the editors of the New York Times say it means? Was anyone really convinced by these arguments? The Left likes these arguments for obvious reasons. But does anyone believe crap like gay marriage is in the Constitution,

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @hOUSTON 1992, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Prester John, @Hibernian, @Dumbo, @Element59, @J.Ross

    Reminds me of Bruce Charlton’s “Clever Sillies” hypotheses, or when Jared Taylor mentions that it takes a very intelligent person to convince themselves that race is only a social construct. Very intelligent people often lack common sense and come up with nonsensical Rube Goldberg-like ideas on everyday issues.

    • Replies: @James B. Shearer
    @Element59

    The Orwell version of this is:

    "...One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool."

  133. @Steve Sailer
    @hOUSTON 1992

    Wikipedia has lists of all Supreme Court clerks ever, so you could go through the 40 or 50 with Anglo-Saxon surnames who served Ginsburg and follow up each name online to see a picture. But that's way too much work for me.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @James B. Shearer

    In looking at RBG’s list of clerks, the most famous one is probably David Schizer, who was dean of Columbia Law School for 10 years. He also clerked for Alex Kozinski, who had some #MeToo issues.

    • Replies: @Zippy
    @ScarletNumber

    Brett was clearly lying when he said the accusations against Kozinski were a "gut punch" and that he was shocked at Kozinki's antics. I heard a federal appellate judge refer to Kozinski's clerks as his "harem," and that sort of joke was common. Routinely he hired hot conservative female clerks. Everyone knew he was lecherous. What surprised me was that he hired a female clerk who complained. My female classmate who clerked for Kozinski had ice water in her veins and would eat her own mother's heart, raw, without salt, if it advanced her career. I always studied with her when I could, because she really knew her stuff. If Kozinski made obscene comments to her, she would have laughed.

    I disagree with the criticism of the Socratic method. True, professors who use it don't teach much, but so what? You're supposed to teach yourself the law. Hard core Socratic Method teaches you to be agile, intellectually fast on your feet. If you can't handle a law professor coming at you, you can't handle a judge. Plus, it does humiliate the weaklings. In terms of the bar review course -- I pocketed the money my future firm gave me to take it and bummed around Europe for the Summer. Since I was clerking, I figured I'd take it in the fall if I flunked. I took it cold, passed the first time.

    I don't know if Ginsberg was brilliant -- most lawyers aren't. If they were, they'd do something more fun and interesting. But she was smart. Ginsberg and Kagan both have "good lawyer" switches. In tax cases and ERISA cases and anything they don't care about cases, those switches are on. But in any race or culture war case, the switch goes off and it's just the result. Liberals get alll worked up about originalism, but they never want to interpret wills or contracts or tax statutes as living documents. "Originalism" is just how judges decided cases before they had a theory. Doesn't mean they didn't twist the law to get results in hot-button cases (Dred Scott!) but they didn't have a theory rejecting the idea of reading the law and doing what it says.

    Garland would have been the same way. He might have been un-liberal when interpreting the size of the curtilage in a Fourth Amendment case, or in interpreting some obscure statute nobody cares about except those directly impacted. But race or sexual preference cases or whatever the hot button future issues will be -- he. would have been a reliable leftist.

    This is why Gorsuch is less reliable. He actually tries to apply his method, and that sometimes leads to results conservatives don't like. Scalia did the same thing on flag burning, though today's conservatives tend to embrace his views on the First Amendment, as they see themselves as being the likely victims of censorship, not its perpetrators. Justice Kavanaugh isn't reliable either, but that's because he's a worm.

    Replies: @Jack D, @anonymous as usual, @Hibernian

  134. Anon[205] • Disclaimer says:
    @James O'Meara
    @Anon

    The "Socratic Method" has nothing to do with Socrates or reasoning or teaching. It's a way for law school professors, most all of whom have never entered a courtroom, to spend decades teaching nothing of value (which is why 2nd and 3rd year students never bother to go to class, and graduates need to take "bar prep" courses to actually pass the bar and be licensed to practice); in fact, teaching literally "nothing" but how to intuit the answer the professor wants you to give.

    If it gives you a thrill because it trips up BIPOC's then I don't know what to do for you.

    Of course the British system is no better. John "Rumpole" Mortimer said that after graduating from Oxford with a law degree he knew how to adopt a Senator and grant manumission to a slave, but nothing else.

    Replies: @Anon, @Jim Brewer

    The “Socratic Method” has nothing to do with Socrates or reasoning or teaching….

    If it gives you a thrill because it trips up BIPOC’s then I don’t know what to do for you.

    I know nothing of Socrates. I know a lot about the Socratic Method in law school. It’s a very effective way of testing your smarts, your ability to read and remember and manipulate the knowledge you’ve gained. You have been assigned reading from a casebook, a text with major appellate legal cases from the past. In the first week of law school you learned how to read them, parsing them into statement of facts, statement of law, holding, dicta, etc. Here are the details:

    https://www.law.uh.edu/lss/casebrief.pdf

    In preparation for each class you need to have read every case, analyzed it in this way, and hold it all in your head. You also need to have retained all the knowledge and legal logic from previous days and weeks. The professor calls on someone at random, a white/Asian or a BIPOC as the case may be, and for maybe a third of the class he or she needs to brief the case, respond to probing questions about it from the professor, and (here’s where the BIPOCs really wither) deal with hypotheticals, situations slightly different from the actual case, speculating on how the changes would/should affect the outcome.

    The skills required are close reading of text that is not written to be easy to understand, absorbing the accummulated knowledge of a rather complex system of rules and logic (the law), and retaining and juggling an increasing quantity of this material as it increases over the term of the class with the ability to abstract from it to new situations.

    2nd and 3rd year students never bother to go to class

    Ha-ha. Not true at all. And we’re talking about courses like corporate law, taxation, antitrust. Yes, you go to class. If you’re at Southwestern or have otherwise given up on a clerkship or an offer from a decent firm, maybe you can flake out a little the third year. A lot of people don’t pass the bar and don’t end up working in a normal law job, so maybe these are people who didn’t go to class.

    teaching literally “nothing” but how to intuit the answer the professor wants you to give.

    My friend, you have latched onto the key point: smart people don’t nened to be taught how to learn. The ability to be thrown into an entropic cauldron and figure out how to survive is what top employers want. They do not want people who need to have been tutored, mentored, group-projectified, summer-pre-lawed, or remedial-classed.

    • Agree: ben tillman
  135. @Steve Sailer
    @hOUSTON 1992

    Wikipedia has lists of all Supreme Court clerks ever, so you could go through the 40 or 50 with Anglo-Saxon surnames who served Ginsburg and follow up each name online to see a picture. But that's way too much work for me.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @James B. Shearer

    The clerk in question appears to be Paul Watford. See here.

    “The committee voted 10-6 along party lines to send the nomination to the Senate floor. Watford, a civil appellate lawyer, is a former federal prosecutor and law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He would be the second African American on the current court, which has 29 authorized judgeships and five vacancies.”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @James B. Shearer

    Thanks.

  136. @Castlereagh
    I keep hearing Ginsburg was brilliant, but where's the evidence? How hard is it to interpret the Constitution as meaning whatever the editors of the New York Times say it means? Was anyone really convinced by these arguments? The Left likes these arguments for obvious reasons. But does anyone believe crap like gay marriage is in the Constitution,

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @hOUSTON 1992, @James B. Shearer, @Anonymous, @Prester John, @Hibernian, @Dumbo, @Element59, @J.Ross

    Stop that. You heard Jack D. Heydrich’s test scores mean that killing innocent people is cool. That’s, like, how it works. IQ is literally everything.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @J.Ross

    I didn't say that, but if Heydrich had been #1 in his class at Heidelberg (in fact he was a naval officer and expelled for "conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman") then I wouldn't argue that he wasn't brilliant. You can be brilliant and evil (not that Ginsburg was evil in the Heydrich sense of ordering mass murder). Being evil doesn't negate your brilliance. Espousing political positions that someone disagrees with definitely doesn't negate brilliance. But some here (and the Left seems to be guilty of this as well) seem to confuse "holds political views that I don't agree with" and "is really stupid". They are two completely different things.

  137. @Jack D
    @Coemgen

    Both sides invent rights not explicitly written AND choose to not enforce stated rights. In Dred Scott, Taney found that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because slaves were their legal property. You could read the 5th Amendment from day to night and not see that. Conversely, for most of the last century, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias.

    If you stick only to historical rights then you are lost when it comes to technological developments. Does the right to keep and bear arms extend to nuclear weapons? Is it OK for the police to use an infrared camera to peer thru the walls of your house? The Founders were wise men but they couldn't foresee everything that was going to happen for the next 250 years.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @ScarletNumber, @stillCARealist, @BenKenobi, @Coemgen

    Does the right to keep and bear arms extend to nuclear weapons?

    Absolutely, just don’t violate the NAP. Step on my lawn without permission, and I’ll deploy the Samson Option.

    • Replies: @Joe Stalin
    @BenKenobi

    Before the horrendous Gun C0ntrol Act of 1968, you could order cannons LEGALLY and have them delivered TO YOUR DOOR.

    The Cosmopolitans after they passed the GCA of '68 ran television ads (BATF) telling Americans that they really didn't need heavy militia weapons; thus putting the canard in people's head that guns were for sports.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbe-2W_K70Q

    And remember, cannons aren't any more man-portable than nuclear weapons.

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

    Time to return the USA to pre-NFA 1934 and regain our true Second Amendment rights.

  138. @Art Deco
    @Gaius Gracchus

    At the time she was nominated, Alan Dershowitz criticised the appointment, saying she had the soul of a tax lawyer and that wasn't the person you wanted for your court of last resort.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Not Raul, @Gary in Gramercy, @Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang

    Dershowitz was surely comparing her to his judicial mentor, longtime D.C. Circuit Chief Judge David L. Bazelon, who had taken senior status about a year before Ginsburg joined the court in June 1980. Dershowitz, who had clerked for Bazelon and then Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, wrote admiringly of Bazelon’s penchant for ordering him — in cases where a defendant had no right to a writ of habeas corpus, or any other legal remedy — to “find some ground for issuing a ‘writ of rachmones.’” (Rachmones [best transliteration under the circumstances] is the Yiddish word for “compassion.”)

    So for Dershowitz to have said that RBG had “the soul of a tax lawyer” was tantamount to saying she lacked rachmones. She might have made it to the High Court, but for Dershowitz, she would never be in the same league as David Bazelon.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    @Gary in Gramercy

    She might have made it to the High Court, but for Dershowitz, she would never be in the same league as David Bazelon.

    That's a good thing. Bazelon was crooked as the day is long.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

    , @Art Deco
    @Gary in Gramercy

    Perhaps. My recollection of the column was that his point of reference was his experience arguing in front of her. You'll have to pull up the column to get his precise description. My fuzzy memory is that he adjudged her a mean as a snake and obsessed with petty details.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke, @James B. Shearer, @res

  139. @Elmer T. Jones
    Apparently no brilliant feminist writer or opinionist has ever conceived of my simple advice to young women : you can always get a job, but the window for having children is narrow and brief. Have children early and enter your exciting career after they have grown.

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @Reg Cæsar, @Chrisnonymous, @anonymous as usual, @Jesse

    wwebd said – Elmer, life itself is brief.
    For example, take the best possible counterexamples – Clint Eastwood and William Shatner. Both were leading men, or Hollywood alpha males, in the late 50s and both still seem to exhibit an interest in women, here and now in the 2020s.

    But neither one of them has gotten any quality pussy in the last 20 years, at least quality pussy that was happy to be with them and would have been happy to be with them if they were not rich. You know that, I know that, everybody knows that. So, even if you are at the Eastwood Shatner level, your window, as a man, for getting quality pussy is at most four decades.

    Women can pop out little human babies for three decades.

    Elmer, my young friend, the biological clock works for all of us at similar rates. Four decades, three decades, what is the difference?

    I, for one, regret having spent so much of my youth building up a resume as a highly (well, maybe not highly, but still….) decorated veteran and a serious scholar of civilizing ideas, when I could have been a bartender banging a different beautiful woman every month.

    Proverbs 8 is the key to the sarcasm in this comment.

    • Replies: @Elmer T. Jones
    @anonymous as usual

    That is nonsense. A woman's fertility plummets after the age of 30. Her marketability for matrimony declines even more precipitously. It is a crime against young women to advise them otherwise. By the time they figure out the truth it is often too late to conceive children. Men on the other hand enjoy a much wider time span for meeting brides and having children.

    Many young women I observe in public seem obsessed with having a career of some kind. You see them in study groups at the coffee shop or jogging, always jogging. It is depressing to observe them when a workable alternative is easily within reach : have kids early, have professional income later.

    Replies: @Jesse, @anonymous as usual

  140. @Hibernian
    @ScarletNumber

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe


    The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.
     

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    As I said to Reg Caesar, what you said doesn’t refute what I said.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @ScarletNumber

    Maybe you could elaborate. In the mean time, I will. The militia clause refers to the general militia of able bodied males, from which the Armed Forces draw draftees, and Guard, Reserve, and Regular enlistees. It doesn't mean what you think it means. There's still a General Militia, which reports for duty every time an enlistee enlists in one of the armed services, every time a citizen restrains a purse snatcher, yadda, yadda. The 2nd Amendment provides that the General Militia will not be denied arms for target practice, and use in self defense and/or the defense of others as necessary.

  141. @hOUSTON 1992
    @Castlereagh

    The liberal consensus has made her a cultural icon, and that consensus has momentum and is being transmitted down to to the next generations

    Google search "books for children ruth bader ginsburg..."
    there are many such books in high end boutique stores with soft toys for kids
    e.g.
    https://www.amazon.com/Dissent-Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-Makes/dp/1481465597

    2)Steve: what is the name and resume of the sole African American who breached The Ginsburg Ceiling ( to coin a term)?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @res, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @kaganovitch

    Don’t know about RBG, but this article mentions the only African American to clerk for Alito.
    https://finance.yahoo.com/news/shut-scotus-law-clerks-still-171345942.html

    And Jack White, the only African-American that Justice Samuel Alito Jr. has hired as a clerk, said, “I know he’s not a bigot. As an African-American in professional America, I know what a bigot looks like, what it sounds like, what it does. That’s not him.” White is a partner at Fluet Huber + Hoang in Virginia.

    Here is his testimony during Alito’s confirmation.
    https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/White%20Testimony%20011206.pdf

    His work page has some background. It also mentions that he later clerked for Alito on the Supreme Court as well.
    https://fhhfirm.com/jack-white

  142. @Jake
    The Left has arranged the deck chairs so that the Chinese eventually will have an easy time making the West its plaything. The Chinese also have a history of acting to prevent Jewish mischief.

    Replies: @Currahee

    “The Chinese also have a history of acting to prevent Jewish mischief.”
    Please elucidate or provide reference.

  143. @ScarletNumber
    @Steve Sailer

    In looking at RBG's list of clerks, the most famous one is probably David Schizer, who was dean of Columbia Law School for 10 years. He also clerked for Alex Kozinski, who had some #MeToo issues.

    Replies: @Zippy

    Brett was clearly lying when he said the accusations against Kozinski were a “gut punch” and that he was shocked at Kozinki’s antics. I heard a federal appellate judge refer to Kozinski’s clerks as his “harem,” and that sort of joke was common. Routinely he hired hot conservative female clerks. Everyone knew he was lecherous. What surprised me was that he hired a female clerk who complained. My female classmate who clerked for Kozinski had ice water in her veins and would eat her own mother’s heart, raw, without salt, if it advanced her career. I always studied with her when I could, because she really knew her stuff. If Kozinski made obscene comments to her, she would have laughed.

    I disagree with the criticism of the Socratic method. True, professors who use it don’t teach much, but so what? You’re supposed to teach yourself the law. Hard core Socratic Method teaches you to be agile, intellectually fast on your feet. If you can’t handle a law professor coming at you, you can’t handle a judge. Plus, it does humiliate the weaklings. In terms of the bar review course — I pocketed the money my future firm gave me to take it and bummed around Europe for the Summer. Since I was clerking, I figured I’d take it in the fall if I flunked. I took it cold, passed the first time.

    I don’t know if Ginsberg was brilliant — most lawyers aren’t. If they were, they’d do something more fun and interesting. But she was smart. Ginsberg and Kagan both have “good lawyer” switches. In tax cases and ERISA cases and anything they don’t care about cases, those switches are on. But in any race or culture war case, the switch goes off and it’s just the result. Liberals get alll worked up about originalism, but they never want to interpret wills or contracts or tax statutes as living documents. “Originalism” is just how judges decided cases before they had a theory. Doesn’t mean they didn’t twist the law to get results in hot-button cases (Dred Scott!) but they didn’t have a theory rejecting the idea of reading the law and doing what it says.

    Garland would have been the same way. He might have been un-liberal when interpreting the size of the curtilage in a Fourth Amendment case, or in interpreting some obscure statute nobody cares about except those directly impacted. But race or sexual preference cases or whatever the hot button future issues will be — he. would have been a reliable leftist.

    This is why Gorsuch is less reliable. He actually tries to apply his method, and that sometimes leads to results conservatives don’t like. Scalia did the same thing on flag burning, though today’s conservatives tend to embrace his views on the First Amendment, as they see themselves as being the likely victims of censorship, not its perpetrators. Justice Kavanaugh isn’t reliable either, but that’s because he’s a worm.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Zippy

    It's hard to display brilliance in the law in the Mozartean sense or in the way that Newton or Einstein displayed brilliance - the law just doesn't lend itself to quantum leaps. Ginsburg was smart but she was also a formidable grind. She was really willing to put in the hours to an almost superhuman extent. The law is like weightlifting in that putting in the hours really makes a difference, at least if you are the type of person (in the case of the law, smart) who can benefit from that kind of intensive work and study. In the law, especially, to reach the pinnacle of the profession you need both a formidable intellect AND a formidable work ethic.

    To make it to the Court you also need to be political and to lobby for the job. Ruthie herself was rather shy and retiring (physically she was tiny - perhaps 5'1" to start with and in her later years she shrunk even more) but Marty served as her chief lobbyist and he was very well connected in Democrat circles as one of the top Jewish lawyers in NY. But once he got her a face to face with Clinton he was very impressed as most people were when they got to know her (and Ginsburg being Ginsburg must have come extremely well prepared for her interview). Ginsburg was extremely fortunate in her choice of husband - he was her biggest fan and supported her in many different ways (his family paid for her law school) and enabled her to work while he cooked for the family and made all the jokes (Ginsburg was both a terrible cook and devoid of any ability to crack a joke). How this woman, who had the personality of a wet rag, became a hipster icon is a complete mystery.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    , @anonymous as usual
    @Zippy

    Interesting that a guy with a moniker like Zippy can be so insightful (and correct, although I think you meant Roberts in that last sentence, not Kavanaugh - he has not done anything yet as a judge to deserve that insult).

    My observations over the years, in a similar mode, are this ---- the very brightest lawyers are as bright as anyone in any field. That is also probably true, too, about accountants, high school teachers, journalists, NCOs and officers - basically any field that a 20 year old goes into in order to have a career. But ....

    If you are bright enough to be one of the, say, 2 or 3 hundred brightest lawyers in a country of 300 or 400 million, you have options. Because those 2 or 3 hundred take those options, which rarely include sucking up to the sort of people who appoint judges, the field of being a famous judge is open for the second rank to take the most famous positions.

    For example, I defy you to read 20 or more pages of the alleged genius lawyers who become judges - for example, Scalia, Posner, or the poor Mrs Ginsburg, nee Bader - and tell me that there is even a whiff of genius in any random 20 pages.

    Scalia, to give him credit, knew how to turn a phrase. Probably his best 20 pages, out of the thousands of pages he inflicted on the world, are very well written, which makes him almost unique. But overall he was sort of dull-witted, even on the legal subjects he was right about. Was he in the top one percent of pampered Ivy League lawyers? - sure. Was he a genius, or anything like a genius? ---- not even close.

    (If you want to test drive my theory, read the posthumously published letters of someone like Learned Hand (that was his real name, not a nickname) to see what a real legal genius sounds like. Then read the similar writings of Posner,or poor Mrs Ginsburg nee Bader, or even Scalia. It is like going from Henry James and Faulkner to Dean Koontz or Michael Crichton - in the case of Scalia - both very good authors (Koontz and Crichton), but you get my point.
    --- and in the case of the other two judges, it is like going from Henry James and Faulkner to one of those guys who write Star Trek or Star Wars universe novels or one of those women who write those romantic "beach reads" with pictures on the cover of beautiful young women at, of course, the beach, wearing flattering bikinis that would look more than ridiculous on the actual middle-aged authoresses).

    Replies: @anonymous as usual, @Coemgen, @Dan Hayes, @Jack D, @northeast

    , @Hibernian
    @Zippy


    ...interpreting the size of the curtilage in a Fourth Amendment case....
     
    Seems to be a hot button, criminal law / invasion of privacy type issue, generally, although it's a dry technical type of issue in that framework.
  144. @Colin Wright
    @Reg Cæsar

    'Black resentment is fast apporaching its sixth century. Don’t kid yourself.'

    Really? How much evidence of it can you find of this resentment before the founding of the NAACP, etc?

    ...that is to say, from before whites started telling blacks they should be resentful. One of the most remarkable aspects of slavery in North America is how quiescent blacks were. Compared to -- say -- their behavior now, their behavior back then were positively lamblike. Revolts were few, small, and easily suppressed.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Reg Cæsar

    Uncle Screwtape once spoke about “the cocksureness which flattery breeds upon ignorance.”

  145. @Art Deco
    @Gaius Gracchus

    At the time she was nominated, Alan Dershowitz criticised the appointment, saying she had the soul of a tax lawyer and that wasn't the person you wanted for your court of last resort.

    Replies: @TomSchmidt, @Not Raul, @Gary in Gramercy, @Oo-ee-oo-ah-ah-ting-tang-walla-walla-bing-bang

    Her husband was a famous tax lawyer, which is his dig references

  146. @Chrisnonymous

    Fueled by her own fortunate situation and the insular elite domains she occupie... She has never stopped to consider that... or that....
     
    This passage is not accurate. Ginsburg's life is written on her face. If you Google photos of her, you can see her smiling as a child, then pursing her lips in young womanhood, and finally full-on scowling by her later years. This is her real self. She was not a misguided hopeful universalist, she was simply angry over whatever and it turned her into an old, cold bitch who wanted to tear down what wasn't consonant with her resentments.

    Replies: @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia, @ThreeCranes

    Yep.

    She was almost lovely in her youth, but she turned into an osteoporotic Golem, despite the dumbbell workouts.

    A bitter Nana at the end, almost replicating the Jewish hook nose caricatures you see in the propaganda drawings.

    Angry leftist activism takes its toll.

  147. @hOUSTON 1992
    @Castlereagh

    The liberal consensus has made her a cultural icon, and that consensus has momentum and is being transmitted down to to the next generations

    Google search "books for children ruth bader ginsburg..."
    there are many such books in high end boutique stores with soft toys for kids
    e.g.
    https://www.amazon.com/Dissent-Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-Makes/dp/1481465597

    2)Steve: what is the name and resume of the sole African American who breached The Ginsburg Ceiling ( to coin a term)?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @res, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @kaganovitch

    Steve: what is the name and resume of the sole African American who breached The Ginsburg Ceiling (to coin a term)?

    Crispus Polltree Perdue (deceased), about halfway down the Ginsburg list:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_clerks_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States_(Seat_6)

  148. @Art Deco
    @TomSchmidt

    and how its graduates have basically wrecked the country.

    There are about 350,000 degrees awarded by business schools at 4-year institutions in this country each year. There are about 900 awarded by Harvard Business School. Somehow I don't think they're behind much of any wreckage you see. (Not many of them are in Congress, for starters).

    Replies: @Anonymous, @TomSchmidt

    Some fascinating tales in the book of Harvard’s having it both ways. It tears Mike Porter a new one, and leaves Clayton Christensen pretty much unharmed. It’s particularly critical of HBS weaponizing Milton Friedman’s idea that the only purpose for a corporation is to make money.

    HBS is or was the leader (apparently Stanford now leads. One quote from the book: attend HBS if you want to impress your grandparents. attend Stanford BS if you want to impress your grandchildren.), and the author makes the case that they normalized all this neoliberal nonsense for the rest of the business school community.

    Worth a read,but skip the parts about the internal history of HBS. Snore.

  149. @Chrisnonymous

    Fueled by her own fortunate situation and the insular elite domains she occupie... She has never stopped to consider that... or that....
     
    This passage is not accurate. Ginsburg's life is written on her face. If you Google photos of her, you can see her smiling as a child, then pursing her lips in young womanhood, and finally full-on scowling by her later years. This is her real self. She was not a misguided hopeful universalist, she was simply angry over whatever and it turned her into an old, cold bitch who wanted to tear down what wasn't consonant with her resentments.

    Replies: @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia, @ThreeCranes

    “The face you have at age 25 is the face God gave you, but the face you have after 50 is the face you earned.” supposedly said by Cindy Crawford but it sounds like something someone would have said a lot earlier:

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @ThreeCranes

    Orwell said something like that.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

  150. @Buzz Mohawk
    @TomSchmidt


    That Ginsburg let her image of equality run roughshod over what women might actually want makes her a true IYI.
     
    Agree.

    I had to search and find out what an IYI is, and I found this great article that probably everyone else here has read before:


    The Intellectual Yet Idiot

    (I'm just an idiot who assumed Sandra Day O'Connor was dead and didn't bother to check.)

    Replies: @TomSchmidt

    By choosing those three letters, Taleb pretty much guaranteed he would own the abbreviation. Pretty smart of him.

    We are all idiots in the sense of being tightly held within a limited area. But it takes an intellectual not to know this.

  151. @Anonymous
    @Castlereagh


    I keep hearing Ginsburg was brilliant, but where’s the evidence?
     
    There's no evidence. There was never any evidence that she was any more brilliant than countless other jurists who toil in obscurity or are unknown or forgotten.

    What there is, however, is a media, academic, legal, political, and popular culture in which Jews with similar backgrounds to Ginsburg (i.e. Ashkenazi Jewish American from New York with advanced educational and professional attainment) are prominent and overrepresented. It's understandable and natural that Jewish Americans would strongly identify with and promote her memory over others, but her elevation in the broader culture has more to do with ethnic narcissism and nepotism via Jewish American prominence and overrepresentation in the culture than with any unique brilliance on her part. Aspirational gentiles basically follow the tone set by Jewish Americans in these cultures.

    Replies: @Jack d

    Being #1 in her class at 3 different Ivies doesn’t count as evidence?

    • Replies: @anon
    @Jack d

    Being #1 in her class at 3 different Ivies doesn’t count as evidence?

    Bit suspicious or doesn't reflect well on the Ivies, societies' poison.

    She did very little worthy after her #1s

  152. @hOUSTON 1992
    @Castlereagh

    The liberal consensus has made her a cultural icon, and that consensus has momentum and is being transmitted down to to the next generations

    Google search "books for children ruth bader ginsburg..."
    there are many such books in high end boutique stores with soft toys for kids
    e.g.
    https://www.amazon.com/Dissent-Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg-Makes/dp/1481465597

    2)Steve: what is the name and resume of the sole African American who breached The Ginsburg Ceiling ( to coin a term)?

    Replies: @Steve Sailer, @res, @Jenner Ickham Errican, @kaganovitch

    I had high hopes for Karim J. Kentfield , but alas https://www.orrick.com/en/People/6/4/0/Karim-Kentfield. The correct answer is, I think,

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_J._Watford

  153. @Prof. Woland
    It would be very symbolic if Trump replaced Ginsburg with an East Asian. In effect, he would be replacing the dominant minority that has reached its high-water mark with the up and coming one. Turnabout is fair play.

    With little mention, had Merrick Garland been appointed to SCOTUS that would have made 4 of 9 justices coming from one tribe that is less than 2% of the population while there wasn’t a single WASP on the bench. Chuck Schumer was simultaneously gleefully rubbing his hands together while kvetching about how we need more diversity. We all understood what he was trying to do (help).

    While not quite putting a steak in its heart, it might be good reminder to the Lawfare – Kyriarchy golem that haunts the land that they can be cancelled and replaced too.

    Replies: @Currahee, @anon

    “Stake”, Professor, “stake.”

  154. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Both sides invent rights

    They don't, and Robert Bork would have been happy to school you on how Roger Taney's jurisprudence does not prefigure anything latter-day originalists are advocating.

    See Mary Ann Glendon on how very infrequent it was in the antebellum era and later during the Lochner era for the federal courts to invalidate state or federal legislation.

    You're going to have to do better if you want to persuade someone that Wickard, Roe, Romer, and Obergefell is just fair turnabout.

    Replies: @MBlanc46

    Well said, AD.

  155. @Gary in Gramercy
    @Art Deco

    Dershowitz was surely comparing her to his judicial mentor, longtime D.C. Circuit Chief Judge David L. Bazelon, who had taken senior status about a year before Ginsburg joined the court in June 1980. Dershowitz, who had clerked for Bazelon and then Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, wrote admiringly of Bazelon's penchant for ordering him -- in cases where a defendant had no right to a writ of habeas corpus, or any other legal remedy -- to "find some ground for issuing a 'writ of rachmones.'" (Rachmones [best transliteration under the circumstances] is the Yiddish word for "compassion.")

    So for Dershowitz to have said that RBG had "the soul of a tax lawyer" was tantamount to saying she lacked rachmones. She might have made it to the High Court, but for Dershowitz, she would never be in the same league as David Bazelon.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @Art Deco

    She might have made it to the High Court, but for Dershowitz, she would never be in the same league as David Bazelon.

    That’s a good thing. Bazelon was crooked as the day is long.

    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    @kaganovitch

    I know; I read Gus Russo's Supermob after Steve mentioned it.

  156. @ScarletNumber
    @Reg Cæsar

    Think about this: What you said doesn't refute what I said.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Think about this: What you said doesn’t refute what I said.

    And what you said doesn’t refute what Jack said.

    The word militia serves an explanatory, justifying purpose in the amendment, not a limiting or exclusionary one. To argue for the latter is indeed “explaining away”. Jack nailed it.

    Fellow commenters, who’s right on this? Scarlet, or Jack? Please weigh in.

    • Replies: @ic1000
    @Reg Cæsar

    Scarlet, take another look at Reg Caesar's explanation -- "The word militia serves an explanatory, justifying purpose in the amendment, not a limiting or exclusionary one. To argue for the latter is indeed 'explaining away'."

    I think that's what Jack was saying, and he nailed it.

    Replies: @Coemgen

    , @ScarletNumber
    @Reg Cæsar


    Fellow commenters
     
    "Alex, what is a biased sample?"

    Replies: @Hibernian, @ic1000

  157. @ThreeCranes
    @Chrisnonymous

    "The face you have at age 25 is the face God gave you, but the face you have after 50 is the face you earned." supposedly said by Cindy Crawford but it sounds like something someone would have said a lot earlier:

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Orwell said something like that.

    • Replies: @Harry Baldwin
    @Steve Sailer

    The observation has been attributed to a number of people, including Orwell, Lincoln, Coco Chanel, and others, but not Cindy Crawford, though she probably repeated it..

    Hamlet says to Ophelia, "God hath given you one face, and you make yourselves another."

    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/08/17/face/

  158. @James B. Shearer
    @Steve Sailer

    The clerk in question appears to be Paul Watford. See here.

    "The committee voted 10-6 along party lines to send the nomination to the Senate floor. Watford, a civil appellate lawyer, is a former federal prosecutor and law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. He would be the second African American on the current court, which has 29 authorized judgeships and five vacancies."

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Thanks.

  159. @Reg Cæsar
    @ScarletNumber


    Think about this: What you said doesn’t refute what I said.
     
    And what you said doesn't refute what Jack said.

    The word militia serves an explanatory, justifying purpose in the amendment, not a limiting or exclusionary one. To argue for the latter is indeed "explaining away". Jack nailed it.

    Fellow commenters, who's right on this? Scarlet, or Jack? Please weigh in.

    Replies: @ic1000, @ScarletNumber

    Scarlet, take another look at Reg Caesar’s explanation — “The word militia serves an explanatory, justifying purpose in the amendment, not a limiting or exclusionary one. To argue for the latter is indeed ‘explaining away’.”

    I think that’s what Jack was saying, and he nailed it.

    • Replies: @Coemgen
    @ic1000

    “Well organized militia” is an admonishment from those who remembered the battles of Lexington and Concord. Without arms, your militia is simply a group of guys freely associating which is a First Amendment right.

  160. @Prof. Woland
    It would be very symbolic if Trump replaced Ginsburg with an East Asian. In effect, he would be replacing the dominant minority that has reached its high-water mark with the up and coming one. Turnabout is fair play.

    With little mention, had Merrick Garland been appointed to SCOTUS that would have made 4 of 9 justices coming from one tribe that is less than 2% of the population while there wasn’t a single WASP on the bench. Chuck Schumer was simultaneously gleefully rubbing his hands together while kvetching about how we need more diversity. We all understood what he was trying to do (help).

    While not quite putting a steak in its heart, it might be good reminder to the Lawfare – Kyriarchy golem that haunts the land that they can be cancelled and replaced too.

    Replies: @Currahee, @anon

  161. @kaganovitch
    @Gary in Gramercy

    She might have made it to the High Court, but for Dershowitz, she would never be in the same league as David Bazelon.

    That's a good thing. Bazelon was crooked as the day is long.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

    I know; I read Gus Russo’s Supermob after Steve mentioned it.

  162. @Colin Wright
    @Reg Cæsar

    'Black resentment is fast apporaching its sixth century. Don’t kid yourself.'

    Really? How much evidence of it can you find of this resentment before the founding of the NAACP, etc?

    ...that is to say, from before whites started telling blacks they should be resentful. One of the most remarkable aspects of slavery in North America is how quiescent blacks were. Compared to -- say -- their behavior now, their behavior back then were positively lamblike. Revolts were few, small, and easily suppressed.

    Replies: @Intelligent Dasein, @Reg Cæsar

    …their behavior back then were positively lamblike.

    Well, yeah, when guns are pointed at you all day and night. Everyone behind the Iron Curtain was “positively lamblike”, as well.

    The delusions people have about the African race…

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    @Reg Cæsar

    'Well, yeah, when guns are pointed at you all day and night. Everyone behind the Iron Curtain was “positively lamblike”, as well.'

    Sure. Witness East Germany, 1953, or Hungary, 1956. Not a ripple.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  163. @Reg Cæsar
    @Colin Wright


    ...their behavior back then were positively lamblike.
     
    Well, yeah, when guns are pointed at you all day and night. Everyone behind the Iron Curtain was "positively lamblike", as well.

    The delusions people have about the African race...

    Replies: @Colin Wright

    ‘Well, yeah, when guns are pointed at you all day and night. Everyone behind the Iron Curtain was “positively lamblike”, as well.’

    Sure. Witness East Germany, 1953, or Hungary, 1956. Not a ripple.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @Colin Wright


    Sure. Witness East Germany, 1953, or Hungary, 1956. Not a ripple.
     
    There will always be a few Denmark Veseys, Nat Turners, and Toussaint Louvertures in every captive population. Most of the time it was "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us." There and here.

    They couldn't rise up, so they had to express their innate hatred in other ways.
  164. @stillCARealist
    @Jack D

    No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

    If a slave is property, then the state can't take him away from his owner. But a slave is obviously a person, so he shouldn't have his liberty taken away. How to rectify?

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Nicholas Stix, @Reg Cæsar

    “If a slave is property, then the state can’t take him away from his owner. But a slave is obviously a person, so he shouldn’t have his liberty taken away.”

    Under slavery, there is nothing at all obvious about it.

  165. @RichardTaylor
    @Reg Cæsar


    Black resentment is fast apporaching its sixth century. Don’t kid yourself.
     
    Yeah yeah Reg, you're anti-White, we get it.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Yeah yeah Reg, you’re anti-White, we get it.

    I’m not the one nursing fairy tales that Africans ever liked us. Hatred is in their blood. Genes don’t change overnight.

    Tell us, Mr Pro-WHITE, how do you intend to restore your antebellum plantation paradise? Because you seem to think my own hire-white-men-top-to-bottom, Johnson Quota Act views are somehow destructive to our race. (Which makes up 99.6% of the village I live in. And yours?)

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
    @Reg Cæsar

    I've never intended to restore plantations, that's silly. I've said if a group of White people are managing a large Black population, it's best not to invade them, destroy their government and install the Blacks as leaders. Which is what happened in the 1860s and 1870s.

    And it would've been immoral to invade South Africa, destroy apartheid, and put Blacks in charge.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  166. @stillCARealist
    @Jack D

    No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

    If a slave is property, then the state can't take him away from his owner. But a slave is obviously a person, so he shouldn't have his liberty taken away. How to rectify?

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk, @Nicholas Stix, @Reg Cæsar

    Justice Taney said in Dred Scott that blacks had no right to be in this country. But he wouldn’t let them leave. (Leave us, that is.)

    If this isn’t contradiction, whatever is?

    If a slave is property, then the state can’t take him away from his owner.

    On the other hand, if he runs off to the Maritimes, you can’t just invade Halifax to get him back. Haligonians would be outraged. Why not show Bostonians the same courtesy?

    But a slave is obviously a person…

    Person enough to inflate his keeper’s representation in Congress and the Electoral College.

    Look at the white populations of states in 1850. Then look at the number of districts for comparable ones.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Reg Cæsar


    But a slave is obviously a person…

    Person enough to inflate his keeper’s representation in Congress and the Electoral College
     
    .

    For this purpose he was considered to be exactly 3/5th of a person. This was for the benefit of the North - if slaves had been counted as full persons then the pro-slavery South would have been even more over-represented in Congress.
  167. @Zippy
    @ScarletNumber

    Brett was clearly lying when he said the accusations against Kozinski were a "gut punch" and that he was shocked at Kozinki's antics. I heard a federal appellate judge refer to Kozinski's clerks as his "harem," and that sort of joke was common. Routinely he hired hot conservative female clerks. Everyone knew he was lecherous. What surprised me was that he hired a female clerk who complained. My female classmate who clerked for Kozinski had ice water in her veins and would eat her own mother's heart, raw, without salt, if it advanced her career. I always studied with her when I could, because she really knew her stuff. If Kozinski made obscene comments to her, she would have laughed.

    I disagree with the criticism of the Socratic method. True, professors who use it don't teach much, but so what? You're supposed to teach yourself the law. Hard core Socratic Method teaches you to be agile, intellectually fast on your feet. If you can't handle a law professor coming at you, you can't handle a judge. Plus, it does humiliate the weaklings. In terms of the bar review course -- I pocketed the money my future firm gave me to take it and bummed around Europe for the Summer. Since I was clerking, I figured I'd take it in the fall if I flunked. I took it cold, passed the first time.

    I don't know if Ginsberg was brilliant -- most lawyers aren't. If they were, they'd do something more fun and interesting. But she was smart. Ginsberg and Kagan both have "good lawyer" switches. In tax cases and ERISA cases and anything they don't care about cases, those switches are on. But in any race or culture war case, the switch goes off and it's just the result. Liberals get alll worked up about originalism, but they never want to interpret wills or contracts or tax statutes as living documents. "Originalism" is just how judges decided cases before they had a theory. Doesn't mean they didn't twist the law to get results in hot-button cases (Dred Scott!) but they didn't have a theory rejecting the idea of reading the law and doing what it says.

    Garland would have been the same way. He might have been un-liberal when interpreting the size of the curtilage in a Fourth Amendment case, or in interpreting some obscure statute nobody cares about except those directly impacted. But race or sexual preference cases or whatever the hot button future issues will be -- he. would have been a reliable leftist.

    This is why Gorsuch is less reliable. He actually tries to apply his method, and that sometimes leads to results conservatives don't like. Scalia did the same thing on flag burning, though today's conservatives tend to embrace his views on the First Amendment, as they see themselves as being the likely victims of censorship, not its perpetrators. Justice Kavanaugh isn't reliable either, but that's because he's a worm.

    Replies: @Jack D, @anonymous as usual, @Hibernian

    It’s hard to display brilliance in the law in the Mozartean sense or in the way that Newton or Einstein displayed brilliance – the law just doesn’t lend itself to quantum leaps. Ginsburg was smart but she was also a formidable grind. She was really willing to put in the hours to an almost superhuman extent. The law is like weightlifting in that putting in the hours really makes a difference, at least if you are the type of person (in the case of the law, smart) who can benefit from that kind of intensive work and study. In the law, especially, to reach the pinnacle of the profession you need both a formidable intellect AND a formidable work ethic.

    To make it to the Court you also need to be political and to lobby for the job. Ruthie herself was rather shy and retiring (physically she was tiny – perhaps 5’1″ to start with and in her later years she shrunk even more) but Marty served as her chief lobbyist and he was very well connected in Democrat circles as one of the top Jewish lawyers in NY. But once he got her a face to face with Clinton he was very impressed as most people were when they got to know her (and Ginsburg being Ginsburg must have come extremely well prepared for her interview). Ginsburg was extremely fortunate in her choice of husband – he was her biggest fan and supported her in many different ways (his family paid for her law school) and enabled her to work while he cooked for the family and made all the jokes (Ginsburg was both a terrible cook and devoid of any ability to crack a joke). How this woman, who had the personality of a wet rag, became a hipster icon is a complete mystery.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Stan Adams
    @Jack D

    Stephen Breyer was the front-runner, but he botched the interview. Ginsburg nailed it:

    https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/15/us/supreme-court-overview-clinton-names-ruth-ginsburg-advocate-for-women-court.html


    The selection of Judge Ginsburg stunned lawyers and jurists, and even many Administration officials who said as recently as Sunday that they expected Mr. Clinton to name Judge Stephen G. Breyer, who had been waiting in Washington for an announcement and, friends said, had been told to draft an acceptance speech.

    Senior aides to Mr. Clinton, including the White House counsel, Bernard Nussbaum, had recommended Judge Breyer, according to officials involved.

    But White House officials said that in the final days of a search that lasted nearly three months, Mr. Clinton had a change of heart. They said Mr. Clinton was not entirely comfortable with Judge Breyer after they met on Friday and felt that the two were not, in the words of one person, "on the same wavelength."

    Injured and Exhausted
    Friends of Judge Breyer said today that he may have come across poorly because of injuries he suffered in a recent bicycling accident. After his interview, the friends said, the judge asked to lie down in Mr. Nussbaum's office.

    In any event, officials said, Mr. Clinton asked shortly after his lunch with Judge Breyer to see the early background checks on Judge Ginsburg as well as some of her legal opinions.

    White House officials said the disclosure over the weekend that Judge Breyer had not paid Social Security taxes on the wages of his part-time housekeeper was not viewed as a disqualifying factor. Judge Ginsburg, they said, had paid all her taxes and never hired illegal immigrants. "She's clean," said George Stephanopoulos, a senior Clinton adviser.

    The officials said that in contrast to Judge Breyer, Judge Ginsburg won Mr. Clinton over when they met for 90 minutes at the White House residence on Sunday as his aides hastily completed the background check.

    Mr. Clinton said as much to reporters at a photo session later today. "There were two or three others that I thought were exceptionally well qualified," he said, "but once I talked to her, I felt very strongly about her. This is not a negative thing on them."
     
    Breyer had to wait another year, until Blackmun retired, to get his seat on the court.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

  168. @Reg Cæsar
    @stillCARealist

    Justice Taney said in Dred Scott that blacks had no right to be in this country. But he wouldn't let them leave. (Leave us, that is.)

    If this isn't contradiction, whatever is?


    If a slave is property, then the state can’t take him away from his owner.
     
    On the other hand, if he runs off to the Maritimes, you can't just invade Halifax to get him back. Haligonians would be outraged. Why not show Bostonians the same courtesy?

    But a slave is obviously a person...
     
    Person enough to inflate his keeper's representation in Congress and the Electoral College.

    Look at the white populations of states in 1850. Then look at the number of districts for comparable ones.

    Replies: @Jack D

    But a slave is obviously a person…

    Person enough to inflate his keeper’s representation in Congress and the Electoral College

    .

    For this purpose he was considered to be exactly 3/5th of a person. This was for the benefit of the North – if slaves had been counted as full persons then the pro-slavery South would have been even more over-represented in Congress.

  169. @Zippy
    @ScarletNumber

    Brett was clearly lying when he said the accusations against Kozinski were a "gut punch" and that he was shocked at Kozinki's antics. I heard a federal appellate judge refer to Kozinski's clerks as his "harem," and that sort of joke was common. Routinely he hired hot conservative female clerks. Everyone knew he was lecherous. What surprised me was that he hired a female clerk who complained. My female classmate who clerked for Kozinski had ice water in her veins and would eat her own mother's heart, raw, without salt, if it advanced her career. I always studied with her when I could, because she really knew her stuff. If Kozinski made obscene comments to her, she would have laughed.

    I disagree with the criticism of the Socratic method. True, professors who use it don't teach much, but so what? You're supposed to teach yourself the law. Hard core Socratic Method teaches you to be agile, intellectually fast on your feet. If you can't handle a law professor coming at you, you can't handle a judge. Plus, it does humiliate the weaklings. In terms of the bar review course -- I pocketed the money my future firm gave me to take it and bummed around Europe for the Summer. Since I was clerking, I figured I'd take it in the fall if I flunked. I took it cold, passed the first time.

    I don't know if Ginsberg was brilliant -- most lawyers aren't. If they were, they'd do something more fun and interesting. But she was smart. Ginsberg and Kagan both have "good lawyer" switches. In tax cases and ERISA cases and anything they don't care about cases, those switches are on. But in any race or culture war case, the switch goes off and it's just the result. Liberals get alll worked up about originalism, but they never want to interpret wills or contracts or tax statutes as living documents. "Originalism" is just how judges decided cases before they had a theory. Doesn't mean they didn't twist the law to get results in hot-button cases (Dred Scott!) but they didn't have a theory rejecting the idea of reading the law and doing what it says.

    Garland would have been the same way. He might have been un-liberal when interpreting the size of the curtilage in a Fourth Amendment case, or in interpreting some obscure statute nobody cares about except those directly impacted. But race or sexual preference cases or whatever the hot button future issues will be -- he. would have been a reliable leftist.

    This is why Gorsuch is less reliable. He actually tries to apply his method, and that sometimes leads to results conservatives don't like. Scalia did the same thing on flag burning, though today's conservatives tend to embrace his views on the First Amendment, as they see themselves as being the likely victims of censorship, not its perpetrators. Justice Kavanaugh isn't reliable either, but that's because he's a worm.

    Replies: @Jack D, @anonymous as usual, @Hibernian

    Interesting that a guy with a moniker like Zippy can be so insightful (and correct, although I think you meant Roberts in that last sentence, not Kavanaugh – he has not done anything yet as a judge to deserve that insult).

    My observations over the years, in a similar mode, are this —- the very brightest lawyers are as bright as anyone in any field. That is also probably true, too, about accountants, high school teachers, journalists, NCOs and officers – basically any field that a 20 year old goes into in order to have a career. But ….

    If you are bright enough to be one of the, say, 2 or 3 hundred brightest lawyers in a country of 300 or 400 million, you have options. Because those 2 or 3 hundred take those options, which rarely include sucking up to the sort of people who appoint judges, the field of being a famous judge is open for the second rank to take the most famous positions.

    For example, I defy you to read 20 or more pages of the alleged genius lawyers who become judges – for example, Scalia, Posner, or the poor Mrs Ginsburg, nee Bader – and tell me that there is even a whiff of genius in any random 20 pages.

    Scalia, to give him credit, knew how to turn a phrase. Probably his best 20 pages, out of the thousands of pages he inflicted on the world, are very well written, which makes him almost unique. But overall he was sort of dull-witted, even on the legal subjects he was right about. Was he in the top one percent of pampered Ivy League lawyers? – sure. Was he a genius, or anything like a genius? —- not even close.

    (If you want to test drive my theory, read the posthumously published letters of someone like Learned Hand (that was his real name, not a nickname) to see what a real legal genius sounds like. Then read the similar writings of Posner,or poor Mrs Ginsburg nee Bader, or even Scalia. It is like going from Henry James and Faulkner to Dean Koontz or Michael Crichton – in the case of Scalia – both very good authors (Koontz and Crichton), but you get my point.
    — and in the case of the other two judges, it is like going from Henry James and Faulkner to one of those guys who write Star Trek or Star Wars universe novels or one of those women who write those romantic “beach reads” with pictures on the cover of beautiful young women at, of course, the beach, wearing flattering bikinis that would look more than ridiculous on the actual middle-aged authoresses).

    • Replies: @anonymous as usual
    @anonymous as usual

    for the record, there is one famous judge who, in my opinion, actually is one of those 2 or 3 hundred I was talking about - Alito. I used to think that about Gorsuch, when he was on the Tenth Circuit, but his mediocrity and limited intellect, which I did not notice when he was a Court of Appeals judge, has unfortunately become evident since he was promoted to a more difficult job.

    , @Coemgen
    @anonymous as usual

    We may wish to have geniuses writing philosophy of law but in a judge we merely need someone who is bright enough to understand the law. The rare human attributes we want in a judge are of character: honesty, integrity, impartiality, etc.

    Replies: @anonymous as usual

    , @Dan Hayes
    @anonymous as usual

    How do you rate Richard Epstein in your pantheon of legal minds?

    , @Jack D
    @anonymous as usual

    Legal opinions are a form of technical writing. They are not literature. There are some judges that write with flair, but it's really superfluous to their job. Ginsburg was gifted in many respects as well as an incredible workhorse but even the most gifted have gaps in their abilities (Feynman knew nothing about history or literature and cared even less). In Ginsburg's case, this included any ability to craft a joke or a witticism. (Her kids kept a list of humorous remarks that she made because it was a notable occasion if she made one and it was a very short list). It was OK because Marty had wit to spare.

    You have to say that Ginsburg got the job done whatever job it was she was assigned. She had an impressive string of gender equity victories in the Supreme Court when she was at the ACLU. She chose her cases carefully (often choosing male plaintiffs because the judges would identify more) and put together persuasive arguments, beating the other side (usually the government) over and over. Maybe this doesn't make her a genius but she was a very effective lawyer and probably did more than any other person in making American law gender neutral. She was to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to (black) civil rights. Of course if you don't like gender neutrality in the law then this makes her a bad person.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Art Deco

    , @northeast
    @anonymous as usual

    Great read on the law profession and the people who populate it.

  170. @Reg Cæsar
    @RichardTaylor


    Yeah yeah Reg, you’re anti-White, we get it.
     
    I'm not the one nursing fairy tales that Africans ever liked us. Hatred is in their blood. Genes don't change overnight.

    Tell us, Mr Pro-WHITE, how do you intend to restore your antebellum plantation paradise? Because you seem to think my own hire-white-men-top-to-bottom, Johnson Quota Act views are somehow destructive to our race. (Which makes up 99.6% of the village I live in. And yours?)

    Replies: @RichardTaylor

    I’ve never intended to restore plantations, that’s silly. I’ve said if a group of White people are managing a large Black population, it’s best not to invade them, destroy their government and install the Blacks as leaders. Which is what happened in the 1860s and 1870s.

    And it would’ve been immoral to invade South Africa, destroy apartheid, and put Blacks in charge.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @RichardTaylor

    Lincoln thought the mulatto states were worth keeping in the Union. He was dead wrong about that. At least you and I can agree on this much.

  171. @anonymous as usual
    @Zippy

    Interesting that a guy with a moniker like Zippy can be so insightful (and correct, although I think you meant Roberts in that last sentence, not Kavanaugh - he has not done anything yet as a judge to deserve that insult).

    My observations over the years, in a similar mode, are this ---- the very brightest lawyers are as bright as anyone in any field. That is also probably true, too, about accountants, high school teachers, journalists, NCOs and officers - basically any field that a 20 year old goes into in order to have a career. But ....

    If you are bright enough to be one of the, say, 2 or 3 hundred brightest lawyers in a country of 300 or 400 million, you have options. Because those 2 or 3 hundred take those options, which rarely include sucking up to the sort of people who appoint judges, the field of being a famous judge is open for the second rank to take the most famous positions.

    For example, I defy you to read 20 or more pages of the alleged genius lawyers who become judges - for example, Scalia, Posner, or the poor Mrs Ginsburg, nee Bader - and tell me that there is even a whiff of genius in any random 20 pages.

    Scalia, to give him credit, knew how to turn a phrase. Probably his best 20 pages, out of the thousands of pages he inflicted on the world, are very well written, which makes him almost unique. But overall he was sort of dull-witted, even on the legal subjects he was right about. Was he in the top one percent of pampered Ivy League lawyers? - sure. Was he a genius, or anything like a genius? ---- not even close.

    (If you want to test drive my theory, read the posthumously published letters of someone like Learned Hand (that was his real name, not a nickname) to see what a real legal genius sounds like. Then read the similar writings of Posner,or poor Mrs Ginsburg nee Bader, or even Scalia. It is like going from Henry James and Faulkner to Dean Koontz or Michael Crichton - in the case of Scalia - both very good authors (Koontz and Crichton), but you get my point.
    --- and in the case of the other two judges, it is like going from Henry James and Faulkner to one of those guys who write Star Trek or Star Wars universe novels or one of those women who write those romantic "beach reads" with pictures on the cover of beautiful young women at, of course, the beach, wearing flattering bikinis that would look more than ridiculous on the actual middle-aged authoresses).

    Replies: @anonymous as usual, @Coemgen, @Dan Hayes, @Jack D, @northeast

    for the record, there is one famous judge who, in my opinion, actually is one of those 2 or 3 hundred I was talking about – Alito. I used to think that about Gorsuch, when he was on the Tenth Circuit, but his mediocrity and limited intellect, which I did not notice when he was a Court of Appeals judge, has unfortunately become evident since he was promoted to a more difficult job.

  172. @Jack D
    @Zippy

    It's hard to display brilliance in the law in the Mozartean sense or in the way that Newton or Einstein displayed brilliance - the law just doesn't lend itself to quantum leaps. Ginsburg was smart but she was also a formidable grind. She was really willing to put in the hours to an almost superhuman extent. The law is like weightlifting in that putting in the hours really makes a difference, at least if you are the type of person (in the case of the law, smart) who can benefit from that kind of intensive work and study. In the law, especially, to reach the pinnacle of the profession you need both a formidable intellect AND a formidable work ethic.

    To make it to the Court you also need to be political and to lobby for the job. Ruthie herself was rather shy and retiring (physically she was tiny - perhaps 5'1" to start with and in her later years she shrunk even more) but Marty served as her chief lobbyist and he was very well connected in Democrat circles as one of the top Jewish lawyers in NY. But once he got her a face to face with Clinton he was very impressed as most people were when they got to know her (and Ginsburg being Ginsburg must have come extremely well prepared for her interview). Ginsburg was extremely fortunate in her choice of husband - he was her biggest fan and supported her in many different ways (his family paid for her law school) and enabled her to work while he cooked for the family and made all the jokes (Ginsburg was both a terrible cook and devoid of any ability to crack a joke). How this woman, who had the personality of a wet rag, became a hipster icon is a complete mystery.

    Replies: @Stan Adams

    Stephen Breyer was the front-runner, but he botched the interview. Ginsburg nailed it:

    https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/15/us/supreme-court-overview-clinton-names-ruth-ginsburg-advocate-for-women-court.html

    The selection of Judge Ginsburg stunned lawyers and jurists, and even many Administration officials who said as recently as Sunday that they expected Mr. Clinton to name Judge Stephen G. Breyer, who had been waiting in Washington for an announcement and, friends said, had been told to draft an acceptance speech.

    Senior aides to Mr. Clinton, including the White House counsel, Bernard Nussbaum, had recommended Judge Breyer, according to officials involved.

    But White House officials said that in the final days of a search that lasted nearly three months, Mr. Clinton had a change of heart. They said Mr. Clinton was not entirely comfortable with Judge Breyer after they met on Friday and felt that the two were not, in the words of one person, “on the same wavelength.”

    Injured and Exhausted
    Friends of Judge Breyer said today that he may have come across poorly because of injuries he suffered in a recent bicycling accident. After his interview, the friends said, the judge asked to lie down in Mr. Nussbaum’s office.

    In any event, officials said, Mr. Clinton asked shortly after his lunch with Judge Breyer to see the early background checks on Judge Ginsburg as well as some of her legal opinions.

    White House officials said the disclosure over the weekend that Judge Breyer had not paid Social Security taxes on the wages of his part-time housekeeper was not viewed as a disqualifying factor. Judge Ginsburg, they said, had paid all her taxes and never hired illegal immigrants. “She’s clean,” said George Stephanopoulos, a senior Clinton adviser.

    The officials said that in contrast to Judge Breyer, Judge Ginsburg won Mr. Clinton over when they met for 90 minutes at the White House residence on Sunday as his aides hastily completed the background check.

    Mr. Clinton said as much to reporters at a photo session later today. “There were two or three others that I thought were exceptionally well qualified,” he said, “but once I talked to her, I felt very strongly about her. This is not a negative thing on them.”

    Breyer had to wait another year, until Blackmun retired, to get his seat on the court.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Stan Adams

    Breyer, who has otherwise enjoyed a wonderful life, seems to have had bad luck regarding physical injuries. A decade or so ago, he was stabbed by a home-invader in his vacation house in Jamaica.

    About 15 years ago, I got invited to go to Australia by a friend who was hosting Breyer and a Famous Republican Justice in Melbourne. I couldn't afford to go, unfortunately. Years later he told me Breyer was a charming guest, but the Famous Republican Justice was kind of a pain to host.

    In general, Supreme Court justices enjoy a rather luxurious lifestyle without picking up any checks themselves. For example, when Rehnquist was Chief Justice, the Court's spring/summer term _always_ ended in time to make the Salzburg Opera Festival. Salzburg is the world's top and most expensive opera festival and there's some kind of legal seminar in Salzburg that many of the Justices give lectures at each summer while taking in the operas.

    Opera is to Supreme Court Justices what golf is to Presidents.

    On the other hand, Clarence Thomas is a passionate recreational vehicle traveler. Presumably, you could RV around the country to the various opera festivals, such as Santa Fe, but I suspect Santa Fe opera festival fans are more likely to arrive by private jet.

    Replies: @William Badwhite

  173. @Colin Wright
    @Reg Cæsar

    'Well, yeah, when guns are pointed at you all day and night. Everyone behind the Iron Curtain was “positively lamblike”, as well.'

    Sure. Witness East Germany, 1953, or Hungary, 1956. Not a ripple.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Sure. Witness East Germany, 1953, or Hungary, 1956. Not a ripple.

    There will always be a few Denmark Veseys, Nat Turners, and Toussaint Louvertures in every captive population. Most of the time it was “We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us.” There and here.

    They couldn’t rise up, so they had to express their innate hatred in other ways.

  174. @RichardTaylor
    @Reg Cæsar

    I've never intended to restore plantations, that's silly. I've said if a group of White people are managing a large Black population, it's best not to invade them, destroy their government and install the Blacks as leaders. Which is what happened in the 1860s and 1870s.

    And it would've been immoral to invade South Africa, destroy apartheid, and put Blacks in charge.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Lincoln thought the mulatto states were worth keeping in the Union. He was dead wrong about that. At least you and I can agree on this much.

  175. @Reg Cæsar
    @ScarletNumber


    Think about this: What you said doesn’t refute what I said.
     
    And what you said doesn't refute what Jack said.

    The word militia serves an explanatory, justifying purpose in the amendment, not a limiting or exclusionary one. To argue for the latter is indeed "explaining away". Jack nailed it.

    Fellow commenters, who's right on this? Scarlet, or Jack? Please weigh in.

    Replies: @ic1000, @ScarletNumber

    Fellow commenters

    “Alex, what is a biased sample?”

    • Agree: ic1000
    • Replies: @Hibernian
    @ScarletNumber

    Maybe you might try countering the arguments. Also, it's a biased sample you have chosen to be a part of.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    , @ic1000
    @ScarletNumber

    >> Fellow commenters

    We can get a less-biased sample if we move this discussion to one of the high-traffic sites where the great and the good (and credentialed) weigh in, such as vox.com or, better yet, HuffPo.

    ;-)

  176. @Jack D
    @Coemgen

    Both sides invent rights not explicitly written AND choose to not enforce stated rights. In Dred Scott, Taney found that the Fifth Amendment protected slave owner rights because slaves were their legal property. You could read the 5th Amendment from day to night and not see that. Conversely, for most of the last century, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias.

    If you stick only to historical rights then you are lost when it comes to technological developments. Does the right to keep and bear arms extend to nuclear weapons? Is it OK for the police to use an infrared camera to peer thru the walls of your house? The Founders were wise men but they couldn't foresee everything that was going to happen for the next 250 years.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @ScarletNumber, @stillCARealist, @BenKenobi, @Coemgen

    Does the right to keep and bear arms extend to nuclear weapons?

    It does and I do not want my neighbor to be tinkering with a nuclear bomb in his garage but, there’s a cure for that: the Constitution can be amended.

    • LOL: Hibernian
  177. @anonymous as usual
    @Zippy

    Interesting that a guy with a moniker like Zippy can be so insightful (and correct, although I think you meant Roberts in that last sentence, not Kavanaugh - he has not done anything yet as a judge to deserve that insult).

    My observations over the years, in a similar mode, are this ---- the very brightest lawyers are as bright as anyone in any field. That is also probably true, too, about accountants, high school teachers, journalists, NCOs and officers - basically any field that a 20 year old goes into in order to have a career. But ....

    If you are bright enough to be one of the, say, 2 or 3 hundred brightest lawyers in a country of 300 or 400 million, you have options. Because those 2 or 3 hundred take those options, which rarely include sucking up to the sort of people who appoint judges, the field of being a famous judge is open for the second rank to take the most famous positions.

    For example, I defy you to read 20 or more pages of the alleged genius lawyers who become judges - for example, Scalia, Posner, or the poor Mrs Ginsburg, nee Bader - and tell me that there is even a whiff of genius in any random 20 pages.

    Scalia, to give him credit, knew how to turn a phrase. Probably his best 20 pages, out of the thousands of pages he inflicted on the world, are very well written, which makes him almost unique. But overall he was sort of dull-witted, even on the legal subjects he was right about. Was he in the top one percent of pampered Ivy League lawyers? - sure. Was he a genius, or anything like a genius? ---- not even close.

    (If you want to test drive my theory, read the posthumously published letters of someone like Learned Hand (that was his real name, not a nickname) to see what a real legal genius sounds like. Then read the similar writings of Posner,or poor Mrs Ginsburg nee Bader, or even Scalia. It is like going from Henry James and Faulkner to Dean Koontz or Michael Crichton - in the case of Scalia - both very good authors (Koontz and Crichton), but you get my point.
    --- and in the case of the other two judges, it is like going from Henry James and Faulkner to one of those guys who write Star Trek or Star Wars universe novels or one of those women who write those romantic "beach reads" with pictures on the cover of beautiful young women at, of course, the beach, wearing flattering bikinis that would look more than ridiculous on the actual middle-aged authoresses).

    Replies: @anonymous as usual, @Coemgen, @Dan Hayes, @Jack D, @northeast

    We may wish to have geniuses writing philosophy of law but in a judge we merely need someone who is bright enough to understand the law. The rare human attributes we want in a judge are of character: honesty, integrity, impartiality, etc.

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @anonymous as usual
    @Coemgen

    I agree a thousand percent.
    Scalia made many mistakes but, over the course of his lifetime, he did well in his profession, for the reasons you give. I met him , and I met one or two of his good friends, and he was almost certainly a stand-up guy.

    We live an a very unusual society, with 300 million people, among whom ther are literally thousands of people who are one of a million at their chosen profession - law, medicine, music, soldiering, blogging, pimping (definitely not that - I abhor pimps), policing, and so on. I am definitely not one of those one in a million at law, medicine, music, soldiering, blogging, pimping, or policing, and I hope you did not think I was trying to say I was.

    The point of my comment was not to say "HEY I AM THIS BRIGHT GUY WHO IS A BETTER LAWYER THAN SCALIA AND I AM DISAPPOINTED IN HIM" ---- technically, I am not even an attorney at all --- I am just a spectator on these legal issues, I am the guy in the stands who points out that the Hall of Fame third baseman is standing a little to stiffly and a little too far from the third base line to react to a hard hit grounder off the best sinker ball pitcher of his day (Ripken was at 3d, "Ericson" on the mound).

  178. @ic1000
    @Reg Cæsar

    Scarlet, take another look at Reg Caesar's explanation -- "The word militia serves an explanatory, justifying purpose in the amendment, not a limiting or exclusionary one. To argue for the latter is indeed 'explaining away'."

    I think that's what Jack was saying, and he nailed it.

    Replies: @Coemgen

    “Well organized militia” is an admonishment from those who remembered the battles of Lexington and Concord. Without arms, your militia is simply a group of guys freely associating which is a First Amendment right.

    • Agree: Hibernian
  179. @Steve Sailer
    @ThreeCranes

    Orwell said something like that.

    Replies: @Harry Baldwin

    The observation has been attributed to a number of people, including Orwell, Lincoln, Coco Chanel, and others, but not Cindy Crawford, though she probably repeated it..

    Hamlet says to Ophelia, “God hath given you one face, and you make yourselves another.”

    https://quoteinvestigator.com/2020/08/17/face/

  180. @Stan Adams
    @Jack D

    Stephen Breyer was the front-runner, but he botched the interview. Ginsburg nailed it:

    https://www.nytimes.com/1993/06/15/us/supreme-court-overview-clinton-names-ruth-ginsburg-advocate-for-women-court.html


    The selection of Judge Ginsburg stunned lawyers and jurists, and even many Administration officials who said as recently as Sunday that they expected Mr. Clinton to name Judge Stephen G. Breyer, who had been waiting in Washington for an announcement and, friends said, had been told to draft an acceptance speech.

    Senior aides to Mr. Clinton, including the White House counsel, Bernard Nussbaum, had recommended Judge Breyer, according to officials involved.

    But White House officials said that in the final days of a search that lasted nearly three months, Mr. Clinton had a change of heart. They said Mr. Clinton was not entirely comfortable with Judge Breyer after they met on Friday and felt that the two were not, in the words of one person, "on the same wavelength."

    Injured and Exhausted
    Friends of Judge Breyer said today that he may have come across poorly because of injuries he suffered in a recent bicycling accident. After his interview, the friends said, the judge asked to lie down in Mr. Nussbaum's office.

    In any event, officials said, Mr. Clinton asked shortly after his lunch with Judge Breyer to see the early background checks on Judge Ginsburg as well as some of her legal opinions.

    White House officials said the disclosure over the weekend that Judge Breyer had not paid Social Security taxes on the wages of his part-time housekeeper was not viewed as a disqualifying factor. Judge Ginsburg, they said, had paid all her taxes and never hired illegal immigrants. "She's clean," said George Stephanopoulos, a senior Clinton adviser.

    The officials said that in contrast to Judge Breyer, Judge Ginsburg won Mr. Clinton over when they met for 90 minutes at the White House residence on Sunday as his aides hastily completed the background check.

    Mr. Clinton said as much to reporters at a photo session later today. "There were two or three others that I thought were exceptionally well qualified," he said, "but once I talked to her, I felt very strongly about her. This is not a negative thing on them."
     
    Breyer had to wait another year, until Blackmun retired, to get his seat on the court.

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Breyer, who has otherwise enjoyed a wonderful life, seems to have had bad luck regarding physical injuries. A decade or so ago, he was stabbed by a home-invader in his vacation house in Jamaica.

    About 15 years ago, I got invited to go to Australia by a friend who was hosting Breyer and a Famous Republican Justice in Melbourne. I couldn’t afford to go, unfortunately. Years later he told me Breyer was a charming guest, but the Famous Republican Justice was kind of a pain to host.

    In general, Supreme Court justices enjoy a rather luxurious lifestyle without picking up any checks themselves. For example, when Rehnquist was Chief Justice, the Court’s spring/summer term _always_ ended in time to make the Salzburg Opera Festival. Salzburg is the world’s top and most expensive opera festival and there’s some kind of legal seminar in Salzburg that many of the Justices give lectures at each summer while taking in the operas.

    Opera is to Supreme Court Justices what golf is to Presidents.

    On the other hand, Clarence Thomas is a passionate recreational vehicle traveler. Presumably, you could RV around the country to the various opera festivals, such as Santa Fe, but I suspect Santa Fe opera festival fans are more likely to arrive by private jet.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    @Steve Sailer


    In general, Supreme Court justices enjoy a rather luxurious lifestyle without picking up any checks themselves.
     
    They're each offered a free membership at Washington Golf & Country Club. Most don't accept though both Rehnquist and Scalia spent a fair amount of time there.

    https://www.washingtongolfcc.org/
  181. @Elmer T. Jones
    Apparently no brilliant feminist writer or opinionist has ever conceived of my simple advice to young women : you can always get a job, but the window for having children is narrow and brief. Have children early and enter your exciting career after they have grown.

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @Reg Cæsar, @Chrisnonymous, @anonymous as usual, @Jesse

    You’re an idiot. And live where? On one income, remember. Plus, it’s incredibly difficult to get (back) into a career in your thirties and beyond – and no, employers are *not* impressed if your extended gap in the CV was due to childrearing and volunteer work. Why would they be? The labor market is so slack there’s no reason to take any risks.

    You *can’t* underestimate the need for two incomes to have anything resembling a good life. And what happens if your breadwinner dies or leaves, especially before the woman’s had a chance to establish herself? There’s a reason the daughters of divorced parents are so famously career focused – and also why elderly divorced or widowed women have such catastrophic poverty rates.

    Periodically, some midwit will say, like it’s a brand new piece of knowledge, that hey maybe women should have kids in their early 20s and THEN focus on careers, as though there are no structural issues preventing that. Focus on the structural issues, and that might change. However, I fully understand that it’s easier and more gratifying to carp at individual women who are doing their best.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Jesse

    You’re an idiot.

    All that bitter, feminist anger does not change the biological facts. It's easier for a woman to conceive, carry to term and deliver at the age of 24 than 34. That's a fact. Nature doesn't care about your feelings or politics.

    Why, it's almost as if we all live in a real world where choices have consequences and do-overs are difficult to impossible.

    Replies: @Jesse

    , @MarkinLA
    @Jesse

    A single man in a factory job used to be able to provide for his family before large scale immigration and outsourcing that devalued labor. There are no "laws of economics" that demand people work for nothing. These are public policies and they can change. Tighten the labor market by deporting illegals and wages will rise and there will be cheaper housing. Getting the jobs back via carrot and stick policies will also help.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Johann Ricke

    , @3g4me
    @Jesse

    @182 Jesse: "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

    Your excuses don't cut it. Stop lying to yourself and everyone else about what's important to you.

  182. @ScarletNumber
    @Hibernian

    As I said to Reg Caesar, what you said doesn't refute what I said.

    Replies: @Hibernian

    Maybe you could elaborate. In the mean time, I will. The militia clause refers to the general militia of able bodied males, from which the Armed Forces draw draftees, and Guard, Reserve, and Regular enlistees. It doesn’t mean what you think it means. There’s still a General Militia, which reports for duty every time an enlistee enlists in one of the armed services, every time a citizen restrains a purse snatcher, yadda, yadda. The 2nd Amendment provides that the General Militia will not be denied arms for target practice, and use in self defense and/or the defense of others as necessary.

  183. @Zippy
    @ScarletNumber

    Brett was clearly lying when he said the accusations against Kozinski were a "gut punch" and that he was shocked at Kozinki's antics. I heard a federal appellate judge refer to Kozinski's clerks as his "harem," and that sort of joke was common. Routinely he hired hot conservative female clerks. Everyone knew he was lecherous. What surprised me was that he hired a female clerk who complained. My female classmate who clerked for Kozinski had ice water in her veins and would eat her own mother's heart, raw, without salt, if it advanced her career. I always studied with her when I could, because she really knew her stuff. If Kozinski made obscene comments to her, she would have laughed.

    I disagree with the criticism of the Socratic method. True, professors who use it don't teach much, but so what? You're supposed to teach yourself the law. Hard core Socratic Method teaches you to be agile, intellectually fast on your feet. If you can't handle a law professor coming at you, you can't handle a judge. Plus, it does humiliate the weaklings. In terms of the bar review course -- I pocketed the money my future firm gave me to take it and bummed around Europe for the Summer. Since I was clerking, I figured I'd take it in the fall if I flunked. I took it cold, passed the first time.

    I don't know if Ginsberg was brilliant -- most lawyers aren't. If they were, they'd do something more fun and interesting. But she was smart. Ginsberg and Kagan both have "good lawyer" switches. In tax cases and ERISA cases and anything they don't care about cases, those switches are on. But in any race or culture war case, the switch goes off and it's just the result. Liberals get alll worked up about originalism, but they never want to interpret wills or contracts or tax statutes as living documents. "Originalism" is just how judges decided cases before they had a theory. Doesn't mean they didn't twist the law to get results in hot-button cases (Dred Scott!) but they didn't have a theory rejecting the idea of reading the law and doing what it says.

    Garland would have been the same way. He might have been un-liberal when interpreting the size of the curtilage in a Fourth Amendment case, or in interpreting some obscure statute nobody cares about except those directly impacted. But race or sexual preference cases or whatever the hot button future issues will be -- he. would have been a reliable leftist.

    This is why Gorsuch is less reliable. He actually tries to apply his method, and that sometimes leads to results conservatives don't like. Scalia did the same thing on flag burning, though today's conservatives tend to embrace his views on the First Amendment, as they see themselves as being the likely victims of censorship, not its perpetrators. Justice Kavanaugh isn't reliable either, but that's because he's a worm.

    Replies: @Jack D, @anonymous as usual, @Hibernian

    …interpreting the size of the curtilage in a Fourth Amendment case….

    Seems to be a hot button, criminal law / invasion of privacy type issue, generally, although it’s a dry technical type of issue in that framework.

  184. @ScarletNumber
    @Reg Cæsar


    Fellow commenters
     
    "Alex, what is a biased sample?"

    Replies: @Hibernian, @ic1000

    Maybe you might try countering the arguments. Also, it’s a biased sample you have chosen to be a part of.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Hibernian


    it’s a biased sample you have chosen to be a part of.
     
    Wow, so not only are you committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, but you also made a non sequitur by implying that because I post here, I must respect and defer to the opinions of the other posters. Strike 2.

    Maybe you might try countering the arguments
     
    Well Jack D has yet to respond. Once he does, I will respond in kind. As for you and Reg Caesar, you are both arguing with a straw man (which is strike 3 for you), so I will let you continue doing so. When you want to refute what I actually stated, then I will respond to you.

    Replies: @Jack D

  185. @Jack d
    @Anonymous

    Being #1 in her class at 3 different Ivies doesn't count as evidence?

    Replies: @anon

    Being #1 in her class at 3 different Ivies doesn’t count as evidence?

    Bit suspicious or doesn’t reflect well on the Ivies, societies’ poison.

    She did very little worthy after her #1s

  186. @anonymous as usual
    @Zippy

    Interesting that a guy with a moniker like Zippy can be so insightful (and correct, although I think you meant Roberts in that last sentence, not Kavanaugh - he has not done anything yet as a judge to deserve that insult).

    My observations over the years, in a similar mode, are this ---- the very brightest lawyers are as bright as anyone in any field. That is also probably true, too, about accountants, high school teachers, journalists, NCOs and officers - basically any field that a 20 year old goes into in order to have a career. But ....

    If you are bright enough to be one of the, say, 2 or 3 hundred brightest lawyers in a country of 300 or 400 million, you have options. Because those 2 or 3 hundred take those options, which rarely include sucking up to the sort of people who appoint judges, the field of being a famous judge is open for the second rank to take the most famous positions.

    For example, I defy you to read 20 or more pages of the alleged genius lawyers who become judges - for example, Scalia, Posner, or the poor Mrs Ginsburg, nee Bader - and tell me that there is even a whiff of genius in any random 20 pages.

    Scalia, to give him credit, knew how to turn a phrase. Probably his best 20 pages, out of the thousands of pages he inflicted on the world, are very well written, which makes him almost unique. But overall he was sort of dull-witted, even on the legal subjects he was right about. Was he in the top one percent of pampered Ivy League lawyers? - sure. Was he a genius, or anything like a genius? ---- not even close.

    (If you want to test drive my theory, read the posthumously published letters of someone like Learned Hand (that was his real name, not a nickname) to see what a real legal genius sounds like. Then read the similar writings of Posner,or poor Mrs Ginsburg nee Bader, or even Scalia. It is like going from Henry James and Faulkner to Dean Koontz or Michael Crichton - in the case of Scalia - both very good authors (Koontz and Crichton), but you get my point.
    --- and in the case of the other two judges, it is like going from Henry James and Faulkner to one of those guys who write Star Trek or Star Wars universe novels or one of those women who write those romantic "beach reads" with pictures on the cover of beautiful young women at, of course, the beach, wearing flattering bikinis that would look more than ridiculous on the actual middle-aged authoresses).

    Replies: @anonymous as usual, @Coemgen, @Dan Hayes, @Jack D, @northeast

    How do you rate Richard Epstein in your pantheon of legal minds?

  187. @ScarletNumber
    @Jack D


    the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias
     
    What do you mean "explained away"? The word "militia" is right in the thing. It's literally the fourth word.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Hibernian, @MarkinLA, @MarkinLA, @MarkinLA

    The “militia” according to the left is the national guard. However, not according to the Militia Act.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

    In addition, according to some historians and English language scholars, the militia clause in the second in no way limits the right to only militias. It just gives a rational for why the populace should have arms.

  188. @ScarletNumber
    @Reg Cæsar


    Fellow commenters
     
    "Alex, what is a biased sample?"

    Replies: @Hibernian, @ic1000

    >> Fellow commenters

    We can get a less-biased sample if we move this discussion to one of the high-traffic sites where the great and the good (and credentialed) weigh in, such as vox.com or, better yet, HuffPo.

    😉

  189. @ScarletNumber
    @Jack D


    the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias
     
    What do you mean "explained away"? The word "militia" is right in the thing. It's literally the fourth word.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Hibernian, @MarkinLA, @MarkinLA, @MarkinLA

    Even in the 1934 NFA, machine guns are not outlawed, they are regulated through a taxing scheme where the tax (200 dollars) was deemed so high that nobody would want one. Roosevelt recognized that if he wanted to outlaw them he would need a Constitutional Amendment but he was responding to the bank robbery crime wave and didn’t think he could get one passed fast enough.

    This is a law firm specializing in firearms laws take:

    https://www.wklaw.com/6-common-misconceptions-right-bear-arms/

  190. @Al Levine
    Ginsburg reminds me of a woman partner in a Wall Street firm where I worked in the 1990s, straight out of law school. She was mean and smart; she smoked in her office and no one dared tell her not to. She was a terror -- and an absolute terror on female associates, whom she despised as coddled. . . .

    RBG made an acquaintance of mine, who was clerking for her, work on Thanksgiving because she wanted to get the opinion out on Friday, notwithstanding the fact that no one was at the Court.

    Replies: @Known Fact

    I always enjoyed working on Thanksgiving, while co-workers with families got the day off. No brass hanging around the newsroom, and I got to pick my favorite Macy’s parade balloon for the big front-page photo. Usually Bullwinkle.

  191. @James O'Meara
    @Anon

    The "Socratic Method" has nothing to do with Socrates or reasoning or teaching. It's a way for law school professors, most all of whom have never entered a courtroom, to spend decades teaching nothing of value (which is why 2nd and 3rd year students never bother to go to class, and graduates need to take "bar prep" courses to actually pass the bar and be licensed to practice); in fact, teaching literally "nothing" but how to intuit the answer the professor wants you to give.

    If it gives you a thrill because it trips up BIPOC's then I don't know what to do for you.

    Of course the British system is no better. John "Rumpole" Mortimer said that after graduating from Oxford with a law degree he knew how to adopt a Senator and grant manumission to a slave, but nothing else.

    Replies: @Anon, @Jim Brewer

    Socrates would try to elicit a principle from his interlocutor and then test it by varying one thing or another. In other words, one understands an idea only when one grasps its implications in a wide variety of situations and its relations to other concepts.

  192. @anonymous as usual
    @Zippy

    Interesting that a guy with a moniker like Zippy can be so insightful (and correct, although I think you meant Roberts in that last sentence, not Kavanaugh - he has not done anything yet as a judge to deserve that insult).

    My observations over the years, in a similar mode, are this ---- the very brightest lawyers are as bright as anyone in any field. That is also probably true, too, about accountants, high school teachers, journalists, NCOs and officers - basically any field that a 20 year old goes into in order to have a career. But ....

    If you are bright enough to be one of the, say, 2 or 3 hundred brightest lawyers in a country of 300 or 400 million, you have options. Because those 2 or 3 hundred take those options, which rarely include sucking up to the sort of people who appoint judges, the field of being a famous judge is open for the second rank to take the most famous positions.

    For example, I defy you to read 20 or more pages of the alleged genius lawyers who become judges - for example, Scalia, Posner, or the poor Mrs Ginsburg, nee Bader - and tell me that there is even a whiff of genius in any random 20 pages.

    Scalia, to give him credit, knew how to turn a phrase. Probably his best 20 pages, out of the thousands of pages he inflicted on the world, are very well written, which makes him almost unique. But overall he was sort of dull-witted, even on the legal subjects he was right about. Was he in the top one percent of pampered Ivy League lawyers? - sure. Was he a genius, or anything like a genius? ---- not even close.

    (If you want to test drive my theory, read the posthumously published letters of someone like Learned Hand (that was his real name, not a nickname) to see what a real legal genius sounds like. Then read the similar writings of Posner,or poor Mrs Ginsburg nee Bader, or even Scalia. It is like going from Henry James and Faulkner to Dean Koontz or Michael Crichton - in the case of Scalia - both very good authors (Koontz and Crichton), but you get my point.
    --- and in the case of the other two judges, it is like going from Henry James and Faulkner to one of those guys who write Star Trek or Star Wars universe novels or one of those women who write those romantic "beach reads" with pictures on the cover of beautiful young women at, of course, the beach, wearing flattering bikinis that would look more than ridiculous on the actual middle-aged authoresses).

    Replies: @anonymous as usual, @Coemgen, @Dan Hayes, @Jack D, @northeast

    Legal opinions are a form of technical writing. They are not literature. There are some judges that write with flair, but it’s really superfluous to their job. Ginsburg was gifted in many respects as well as an incredible workhorse but even the most gifted have gaps in their abilities (Feynman knew nothing about history or literature and cared even less). In Ginsburg’s case, this included any ability to craft a joke or a witticism. (Her kids kept a list of humorous remarks that she made because it was a notable occasion if she made one and it was a very short list). It was OK because Marty had wit to spare.

    You have to say that Ginsburg got the job done whatever job it was she was assigned. She had an impressive string of gender equity victories in the Supreme Court when she was at the ACLU. She chose her cases carefully (often choosing male plaintiffs because the judges would identify more) and put together persuasive arguments, beating the other side (usually the government) over and over. Maybe this doesn’t make her a genius but she was a very effective lawyer and probably did more than any other person in making American law gender neutral. She was to women’s rights what Thurgood Marshall was to (black) civil rights. Of course if you don’t like gender neutrality in the law then this makes her a bad person.

    • Agree: Johann Ricke, epebble
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    She was to women’s rights what Thurgood Marshall was to (black) civil rights. Of course if you don’t like gender neutrality in the law then this makes her a bad person.

    Rights?

    Marshall's notable accomplishment was to persuade the Court to make use of sociological studies to to declare that parallel school systems were ipso facto unconstitutional. Parallel school systems are bad policy and Southern society was informed by certain shticks they could have done better without. Now observe the outside story, and you see his accomplishment was to get the ball rolling on a long-running series of attempts by federal judges to act as trustees in charge of local schools. I would wager if you unpacked it, a lot of the perversity you see in school administration today is a function of the GCs office telling you you have to do X and refrain from Y because of this and that bit of case law. Richard Nixon's remark in 1968 that federal judges are not well equipped to run local school systems fell on deaf ears.

    You don't want to come to the end of your life and your notable accomplishment was to have been a key participant in making local school systems lawyer-addled messes.


    As for Ruth Bader Ghastly, I seem to recall her biggest case as an advocate was persuading some appellate court that the formula used to calculate Social Security Survivor's benefits was unconstitutional, because widows got better benefits than widowers. I feel so much better about the world thanks to that.

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix

    , @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Legal opinions are a form of technical writing. They are not literature.

    The remarks of anonymous as usual do strike one as those of someone who has never read academic literature or pondered what it's purpose is.

    Replies: @anonymous as usual

  193. @Hibernian
    @ScarletNumber

    Maybe you might try countering the arguments. Also, it's a biased sample you have chosen to be a part of.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    it’s a biased sample you have chosen to be a part of.

    Wow, so not only are you committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, but you also made a non sequitur by implying that because I post here, I must respect and defer to the opinions of the other posters. Strike 2.

    Maybe you might try countering the arguments

    Well Jack D has yet to respond. Once he does, I will respond in kind. As for you and Reg Caesar, you are both arguing with a straw man (which is strike 3 for you), so I will let you continue doing so. When you want to refute what I actually stated, then I will respond to you.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @ScarletNumber

    The others have it right.

    Let's start with the Amendment itself:


    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
     
    You can see that the Amendment is divided into 2 clauses - an explanatory preface and then the actual operative provision.

    The operative provision is clear and unequivocal: [T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Period (there's an unnecessary comma in there).

    The first clause just gives the reader some background on WHY the right to keep and bear arms is an important right but it doesn't modify the right itself. The Founders saw the militia (meaning all able bodied adult males) as an important check on tyranny and rule by the permanent army as well as a line of defense against foreign invasion, as this clause explains.

    However, this clause does not change or modify the meaning of the operative clause. If the Founders had wanted to say "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, for so long as they are active duty members of an organized state militia, shall not be infringed" they would have said that but that's not what it says, at all. The cases that read the Amendment as meaning this were just plain wrongly decided.

    If the First Amendment said, " Newspapers being an important check on government corruption, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press" then we would have the same First Amendment free speech rights - you wouldn't have to join the staff of a newspaper to have the right to publish freely.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

  194. Why isn’t Amy Wax on Trump’s list of potential SCOTUS nominees? He needs to nominate her and no one else. Amy Wax is the right kind of conservative who have bravely argued against affirmative action, promoted “middle class values” of hard work, self-reliance, law abidingness, not having children out of wedlock etc., and argued that America should restrict immigration to those from Northwestern Europe and encourage assimilation to retain our Western culture. She is brilliant and just the person the country needs.

    • Replies: @Anon
    @Anon

    Amy Wax is 67. But still, yeah, she'd be great.

    She has made comments that blacks in top law schools tend to cluster in the bottom 10 percent, and she was shunned for this. Her school never released any data, and their response did not address her specific claims. But this may be too radioactive for even Republicans to ignore.

    Ideally you want an Amy Wax who has managed to keep her mouth shut.

  195. @Chrisnonymous
    @Elmer T. Jones

    This is not correct, which is why no brilliant female has pursued the strategy. If you want to be a secretary, you can start when you're 28, but if you want to be a federal judge, you better get focused by 18 if not earlier.

    Replies: @Elmer T. Jones

    If you want to be an engineer, scientist, or even an MD, you can start at 40. A solid degree attained while husband shopping can be the basis for a good career later on. This approach is limiting if you want to be a federal judge or make partner in a law firm, but who wants to marry that anyway? No corporate award or courthouse hallway portrait compares to the pleasures of having children.

    • Replies: @Jesse
    @Elmer T. Jones

    Gotta love men lecturing women about the sheer joys of childrearing. If it was that amazing, men wouldn't leave it alone.

    But let's take this on its own terms. What about the 95% of women who, like men, lack the ability and interest to enter these professions? How are they going to live on one income in the meantime? Especially since they're apparently going to be marrying so young they won't know if he'll be rich enough to support at least two dependants? Will men actually want to live that lifestyle either? How will some just waltz into professions, in the slackest labor market in at least a century? What if their husband dies, or is incapacitated, or just nopes out of the marriage and wants a divorce? (And don't give me that trucon BS about using economic coercion to lower the divorce rate. That's why people are shying away, and why more women are hedging their best and maintaining an economic cushion.) And again, live where? Are they just expected to leave family, friends and community/culture for the middle of nowhere? Edmund Burke is looking up/down and snarling.

    , @Cato
    @Elmer T. Jones

    You are suggesting that a woman get a degree while young, then drop out of the labor market for 15 years, and then try to begin a career at age 40. Knowledge acquired in college is quickly forgotten--most of what we know that is valuable to an employer is acquired through experience. At age 40, fluid intelligence is in decline (it peaks in the late 20s) so that the high value of a 40-year old worker is due entirely to superior crystallized intelligence, which is the product of experience, which the lady who follows your advice would not have.

  196. @anonymous as usual
    @Elmer T. Jones

    wwebd said - Elmer, life itself is brief.
    For example, take the best possible counterexamples - Clint Eastwood and William Shatner. Both were leading men, or Hollywood alpha males, in the late 50s and both still seem to exhibit an interest in women, here and now in the 2020s.

    But neither one of them has gotten any quality pussy in the last 20 years, at least quality pussy that was happy to be with them and would have been happy to be with them if they were not rich. You know that, I know that, everybody knows that. So, even if you are at the Eastwood Shatner level, your window, as a man, for getting quality pussy is at most four decades.

    Women can pop out little human babies for three decades.

    Elmer, my young friend, the biological clock works for all of us at similar rates. Four decades, three decades, what is the difference?

    I, for one, regret having spent so much of my youth building up a resume as a highly (well, maybe not highly, but still....) decorated veteran and a serious scholar of civilizing ideas, when I could have been a bartender banging a different beautiful woman every month.

    Proverbs 8 is the key to the sarcasm in this comment.

    Replies: @Elmer T. Jones

    That is nonsense. A woman’s fertility plummets after the age of 30. Her marketability for matrimony declines even more precipitously. It is a crime against young women to advise them otherwise. By the time they figure out the truth it is often too late to conceive children. Men on the other hand enjoy a much wider time span for meeting brides and having children.

    Many young women I observe in public seem obsessed with having a career of some kind. You see them in study groups at the coffee shop or jogging, always jogging. It is depressing to observe them when a workable alternative is easily within reach : have kids early, have professional income later.

    • Agree: 3g4me, northeast
    • Replies: @Jesse
    @Elmer T. Jones

    Are you being deliberately stupid? Because it's hard to see anyone simultaneously believing something so obviously untrue, and being able to operate a computer.

    , @anonymous as usual
    @Elmer T. Jones

    Elmer I agree with you. My point was not that women should disregard the passing of the years, my point was that men who laugh at women for being more subject to a biological clock are deluding themselves.

    If you decide to read Proverbs 8, and try to understand it, and try to apply the wisdom therein to your choices in life ---- or to your desire to pray, or not pray, for your friends, whether wise or foolish ---- you will see why I write the way I write.

    Or not, it is up to you.

  197. @kpkinsunnyphiladelphia
    Steve, thanks for linking the Amy Wax piece -- great article.

    It takes a super high IQ female Jewish careerist to truly understand another, though Wax is, and always been, much more clearheaded about social and racial realities.

    Time will show that the later Ginsburg was an anachronism -- progressivism as a movement had already moved beyond her to its current level of delusional insanity while she was still on the court.

    Everyone, including those ostensibly on the right, will call her an "icon" -- but she will devolve into a prop. It's already happening.

    Replies: @A British Indian

    A lot of people with exceptionally high IQs are drawn to the cognitive ability and organisational and industrial psychology literature.

    Wax also likes talking about her exceptionally smart husband who works in academic medicine. He happens to be Roger B. Cohen, a distinguished medical oncologist, and like Wax is a graduate of Harvard Medical School (indeed, they met there).

    Their son and daughter are also accomplished. Wax even wrote an article entitled ‘And We Shall Not All Be Dentists’ with her son, Isaac B. Cohen, who attended Yale.

  198. @Gary in Gramercy
    @Art Deco

    Dershowitz was surely comparing her to his judicial mentor, longtime D.C. Circuit Chief Judge David L. Bazelon, who had taken senior status about a year before Ginsburg joined the court in June 1980. Dershowitz, who had clerked for Bazelon and then Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg, wrote admiringly of Bazelon's penchant for ordering him -- in cases where a defendant had no right to a writ of habeas corpus, or any other legal remedy -- to "find some ground for issuing a 'writ of rachmones.'" (Rachmones [best transliteration under the circumstances] is the Yiddish word for "compassion.")

    So for Dershowitz to have said that RBG had "the soul of a tax lawyer" was tantamount to saying she lacked rachmones. She might have made it to the High Court, but for Dershowitz, she would never be in the same league as David Bazelon.

    Replies: @kaganovitch, @Art Deco

    Perhaps. My recollection of the column was that his point of reference was his experience arguing in front of her. You’ll have to pull up the column to get his precise description. My fuzzy memory is that he adjudged her a mean as a snake and obsessed with petty details.

    • Replies: @Johann Ricke
    @Art Deco


    My fuzzy memory is that he adjudged her a mean as a snake and obsessed with petty details.
     
    Sounds like RBG's mind was made up, long before the hearing, along the lines of her typically left-wing ideological framework. She was just looking for excuses to rule against him.
    , @James B. Shearer
    @Art Deco

    A Dershowitz column on the Ginsburg nomination can be found here . It is a piece of work.

    , @res
    @Art Deco

    For anyone who wants to read the column and form their own opinion, just search for the title in quotes.
    "CHOICE OF GINSBURG RAISES MANY QUESTIONS"

    These seem like the key paragraphs.


    Judge Ginsburg is one of several dozen very able sitting judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Her decisions over the past dozen years have been characterized by a rigid proceduralism. She has a sharp mind, but it is the mind of a tax lawyer rather than a constitutional lawyer. She always seems to focus on the fine print rather than on the big picture. She has little experience with "real people," and if she has a "big heart," she has kept it well hidden during her years on the bench.

    Most important, she is anything but a consensus builder. Her reputation among her colleagues -- judges, law clerks and lawyers -- is that she is a "difficult person," who alienates many of those around her. She has been compared to Justice Scalia, whom she admires and likes. Lawyers who have appeared before her have characterized her -- according to the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary -- as "picky," "impatient," "schoolmarmish," "a procedural nut," and a judge who "likes to lecture in a sarcastic way."
     

    Replies: @Jack D

  199. @Elmer T. Jones
    @Chrisnonymous

    If you want to be an engineer, scientist, or even an MD, you can start at 40. A solid degree attained while husband shopping can be the basis for a good career later on. This approach is limiting if you want to be a federal judge or make partner in a law firm, but who wants to marry that anyway? No corporate award or courthouse hallway portrait compares to the pleasures of having children.

    Replies: @Jesse, @Cato

    Gotta love men lecturing women about the sheer joys of childrearing. If it was that amazing, men wouldn’t leave it alone.

    But let’s take this on its own terms. What about the 95% of women who, like men, lack the ability and interest to enter these professions? How are they going to live on one income in the meantime? Especially since they’re apparently going to be marrying so young they won’t know if he’ll be rich enough to support at least two dependants? Will men actually want to live that lifestyle either? How will some just waltz into professions, in the slackest labor market in at least a century? What if their husband dies, or is incapacitated, or just nopes out of the marriage and wants a divorce? (And don’t give me that trucon BS about using economic coercion to lower the divorce rate. That’s why people are shying away, and why more women are hedging their best and maintaining an economic cushion.) And again, live where? Are they just expected to leave family, friends and community/culture for the middle of nowhere? Edmund Burke is looking up/down and snarling.

  200. @Elmer T. Jones
    @anonymous as usual

    That is nonsense. A woman's fertility plummets after the age of 30. Her marketability for matrimony declines even more precipitously. It is a crime against young women to advise them otherwise. By the time they figure out the truth it is often too late to conceive children. Men on the other hand enjoy a much wider time span for meeting brides and having children.

    Many young women I observe in public seem obsessed with having a career of some kind. You see them in study groups at the coffee shop or jogging, always jogging. It is depressing to observe them when a workable alternative is easily within reach : have kids early, have professional income later.

    Replies: @Jesse, @anonymous as usual

    Are you being deliberately stupid? Because it’s hard to see anyone simultaneously believing something so obviously untrue, and being able to operate a computer.

  201. @Jack D
    @anonymous as usual

    Legal opinions are a form of technical writing. They are not literature. There are some judges that write with flair, but it's really superfluous to their job. Ginsburg was gifted in many respects as well as an incredible workhorse but even the most gifted have gaps in their abilities (Feynman knew nothing about history or literature and cared even less). In Ginsburg's case, this included any ability to craft a joke or a witticism. (Her kids kept a list of humorous remarks that she made because it was a notable occasion if she made one and it was a very short list). It was OK because Marty had wit to spare.

    You have to say that Ginsburg got the job done whatever job it was she was assigned. She had an impressive string of gender equity victories in the Supreme Court when she was at the ACLU. She chose her cases carefully (often choosing male plaintiffs because the judges would identify more) and put together persuasive arguments, beating the other side (usually the government) over and over. Maybe this doesn't make her a genius but she was a very effective lawyer and probably did more than any other person in making American law gender neutral. She was to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to (black) civil rights. Of course if you don't like gender neutrality in the law then this makes her a bad person.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Art Deco

    She was to women’s rights what Thurgood Marshall was to (black) civil rights. Of course if you don’t like gender neutrality in the law then this makes her a bad person.

    Rights?

    Marshall’s notable accomplishment was to persuade the Court to make use of sociological studies to to declare that parallel school systems were ipso facto unconstitutional. Parallel school systems are bad policy and Southern society was informed by certain shticks they could have done better without. Now observe the outside story, and you see his accomplishment was to get the ball rolling on a long-running series of attempts by federal judges to act as trustees in charge of local schools. I would wager if you unpacked it, a lot of the perversity you see in school administration today is a function of the GCs office telling you you have to do X and refrain from Y because of this and that bit of case law. Richard Nixon’s remark in 1968 that federal judges are not well equipped to run local school systems fell on deaf ears.

    You don’t want to come to the end of your life and your notable accomplishment was to have been a key participant in making local school systems lawyer-addled messes.

    As for Ruth Bader Ghastly, I seem to recall her biggest case as an advocate was persuading some appellate court that the formula used to calculate Social Security Survivor’s benefits was unconstitutional, because widows got better benefits than widowers. I feel so much better about the world thanks to that.

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
    @Art Deco

    "the GCs office"?

    General Counsel?

  202. @Element59
    @Castlereagh

    Reminds me of Bruce Charlton's "Clever Sillies" hypotheses, or when Jared Taylor mentions that it takes a very intelligent person to convince themselves that race is only a social construct. Very intelligent people often lack common sense and come up with nonsensical Rube Goldberg-like ideas on everyday issues.

    Replies: @James B. Shearer

    The Orwell version of this is:

    “…One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”

  203. @Jack D
    @anonymous as usual

    Legal opinions are a form of technical writing. They are not literature. There are some judges that write with flair, but it's really superfluous to their job. Ginsburg was gifted in many respects as well as an incredible workhorse but even the most gifted have gaps in their abilities (Feynman knew nothing about history or literature and cared even less). In Ginsburg's case, this included any ability to craft a joke or a witticism. (Her kids kept a list of humorous remarks that she made because it was a notable occasion if she made one and it was a very short list). It was OK because Marty had wit to spare.

    You have to say that Ginsburg got the job done whatever job it was she was assigned. She had an impressive string of gender equity victories in the Supreme Court when she was at the ACLU. She chose her cases carefully (often choosing male plaintiffs because the judges would identify more) and put together persuasive arguments, beating the other side (usually the government) over and over. Maybe this doesn't make her a genius but she was a very effective lawyer and probably did more than any other person in making American law gender neutral. She was to women's rights what Thurgood Marshall was to (black) civil rights. Of course if you don't like gender neutrality in the law then this makes her a bad person.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Art Deco

    Legal opinions are a form of technical writing. They are not literature.

    The remarks of anonymous as usual do strike one as those of someone who has never read academic literature or pondered what it’s purpose is.

    • Replies: @anonymous as usual
    @Art Deco

    Which is why I referred, in my remarks, to the posthumous letters of Learned Hand, and not to his circuit court decisions.

  204. @SimpleSong
    @Elmer T. Jones

    While you can certainly have a career after you have children, interestingly enough it seems most women are much less interested in a career after motherhood.

    Replies: @bruce county, @TheJester

    While you can certainly have a career after you have children, interestingly enough it seems most women are much less interested in a career after motherhood.

    Large numbers of professional women appear to be more than “less interested” in careers in spite of having no children. Many appear to “want out”! In my experience, a popular lament on the part of professional women in the corporate office and in our neighborhod is that they can’t wait until early retirement at 62 … and they don’t know if they can last that long. As men are apt to say, they call it “work” because it is work. Many career women are disappointed to discover that fact.

    Once upon a time a career woman politely requested that she and I work together on class projects on our corporate-sponsored masters program. Time passed; she finally pressed her interest. She was unhappy in her current division, and she hoped I would hire her for an opening in my division. Sorry, but I couldn’t help … no openings. Her reply, “I’m tired of working. I guess I’ll find a rich man to marry.” Sigh!

    I finally retired at age 70 and it was age that made the decision, not the work. I grieve for career women who “have had it” at age 40, recognizing that at that age they are just as unlikely to find a “rich man to marry” as they are to have children.

    I’ve repeatedly run across aphorisms that men reach their prime in their 50s … while women reach their prime at 18. Nature is a “bitch”! Best we learn to live with it.

    RBG appears to me to have been a very unhappy women. Nature is a “bitch”! And she couldn’t deal with it.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @TheJester


    she hoped I would hire her for an opening in my division. Sorry, but I couldn’t help … no openings. Her reply, “I’m tired of working. I guess I’ll find a rich man to marry.”
     
    I don't understand. Why did she think a transfer to your division would mean she wouldn't have to work anymore?
  205. @BenKenobi
    @Jack D


    Does the right to keep and bear arms extend to nuclear weapons?
     
    Absolutely, just don’t violate the NAP. Step on my lawn without permission, and I’ll deploy the Samson Option.

    Replies: @Joe Stalin

    Before the horrendous Gun C0ntrol Act of 1968, you could order cannons LEGALLY and have them delivered TO YOUR DOOR.

    The Cosmopolitans after they passed the GCA of ’68 ran television ads (BATF) telling Americans that they really didn’t need heavy militia weapons; thus putting the canard in people’s head that guns were for sports.

    And remember, cannons aren’t any more man-portable than nuclear weapons.

    Time to return the USA to pre-NFA 1934 and regain our true Second Amendment rights.

  206. @ScarletNumber
    @Hibernian


    it’s a biased sample you have chosen to be a part of.
     
    Wow, so not only are you committing the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum, but you also made a non sequitur by implying that because I post here, I must respect and defer to the opinions of the other posters. Strike 2.

    Maybe you might try countering the arguments
     
    Well Jack D has yet to respond. Once he does, I will respond in kind. As for you and Reg Caesar, you are both arguing with a straw man (which is strike 3 for you), so I will let you continue doing so. When you want to refute what I actually stated, then I will respond to you.

    Replies: @Jack D

    The others have it right.

    Let’s start with the Amendment itself:

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    You can see that the Amendment is divided into 2 clauses – an explanatory preface and then the actual operative provision.

    The operative provision is clear and unequivocal: [T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Period (there’s an unnecessary comma in there).

    The first clause just gives the reader some background on WHY the right to keep and bear arms is an important right but it doesn’t modify the right itself. The Founders saw the militia (meaning all able bodied adult males) as an important check on tyranny and rule by the permanent army as well as a line of defense against foreign invasion, as this clause explains.

    However, this clause does not change or modify the meaning of the operative clause. If the Founders had wanted to say “[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, for so long as they are active duty members of an organized state militia, shall not be infringed” they would have said that but that’s not what it says, at all. The cases that read the Amendment as meaning this were just plain wrongly decided.

    If the First Amendment said, ” Newspapers being an important check on government corruption, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press” then we would have the same First Amendment free speech rights – you wouldn’t have to join the staff of a newspaper to have the right to publish freely.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Jack D


    The others have it right.
     
    What you mean is: the others agree with me.

    Now let's go back to your original statement:

    Conversely, for most of the last century, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias.
     
    This is incorrect because the word "militia" is literally the 4th word. In this case conservatives took the tactic usually used by liberals of redefining words until it suits their purposes. They also took the liberal tactic of legislating from the bench rather than via the legislature.

    Now, here is an instance where "explain away" would be the operative verb: hate speech. If you were to say that the liberal position is that the First Amendment right to free speech should be explained away as not protecting hate speech. Then you would be correct, because the first amendment doesn't mention hate speech. However, you are going to have to a better job of criticizing the liberal position vis-a-vis the Second Amendment because the beginning clause is right in the thing.

    Replies: @Jack D, @anon, @Hibernian, @Reg Cæsar

  207. @ScarletNumber
    @Jack D


    the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias
     
    What do you mean "explained away"? The word "militia" is right in the thing. It's literally the fourth word.

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar, @Hibernian, @MarkinLA, @MarkinLA, @MarkinLA

    Another thing that the “militia” advocates never seem to bring up is that there NEVER has been any attempt by any legislative body, federal or state, to regulate firearms based on the militia clause. I wonder why that is if the militia is so central to the 2nd?

  208. @Steve Sailer
    @Stan Adams

    Breyer, who has otherwise enjoyed a wonderful life, seems to have had bad luck regarding physical injuries. A decade or so ago, he was stabbed by a home-invader in his vacation house in Jamaica.

    About 15 years ago, I got invited to go to Australia by a friend who was hosting Breyer and a Famous Republican Justice in Melbourne. I couldn't afford to go, unfortunately. Years later he told me Breyer was a charming guest, but the Famous Republican Justice was kind of a pain to host.

    In general, Supreme Court justices enjoy a rather luxurious lifestyle without picking up any checks themselves. For example, when Rehnquist was Chief Justice, the Court's spring/summer term _always_ ended in time to make the Salzburg Opera Festival. Salzburg is the world's top and most expensive opera festival and there's some kind of legal seminar in Salzburg that many of the Justices give lectures at each summer while taking in the operas.

    Opera is to Supreme Court Justices what golf is to Presidents.

    On the other hand, Clarence Thomas is a passionate recreational vehicle traveler. Presumably, you could RV around the country to the various opera festivals, such as Santa Fe, but I suspect Santa Fe opera festival fans are more likely to arrive by private jet.

    Replies: @William Badwhite

    In general, Supreme Court justices enjoy a rather luxurious lifestyle without picking up any checks themselves.

    They’re each offered a free membership at Washington Golf & Country Club. Most don’t accept though both Rehnquist and Scalia spent a fair amount of time there.

    https://www.washingtongolfcc.org/

  209. @J.Ross
    @Castlereagh

    Stop that. You heard Jack D. Heydrich's test scores mean that killing innocent people is cool. That's, like, how it works. IQ is literally everything.

    Replies: @Jack D

    I didn’t say that, but if Heydrich had been #1 in his class at Heidelberg (in fact he was a naval officer and expelled for “conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman”) then I wouldn’t argue that he wasn’t brilliant. You can be brilliant and evil (not that Ginsburg was evil in the Heydrich sense of ordering mass murder). Being evil doesn’t negate your brilliance. Espousing political positions that someone disagrees with definitely doesn’t negate brilliance. But some here (and the Left seems to be guilty of this as well) seem to confuse “holds political views that I don’t agree with” and “is really stupid”. They are two completely different things.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
  210. anon[166] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jesse
    @Elmer T. Jones

    You're an idiot. And live where? On one income, remember. Plus, it's incredibly difficult to get (back) into a career in your thirties and beyond - and no, employers are *not* impressed if your extended gap in the CV was due to childrearing and volunteer work. Why would they be? The labor market is so slack there's no reason to take any risks.

    You *can't* underestimate the need for two incomes to have anything resembling a good life. And what happens if your breadwinner dies or leaves, especially before the woman's had a chance to establish herself? There's a reason the daughters of divorced parents are so famously career focused - and also why elderly divorced or widowed women have such catastrophic poverty rates.

    Periodically, some midwit will say, like it's a brand new piece of knowledge, that hey maybe women should have kids in their early 20s and THEN focus on careers, as though there are no structural issues preventing that. Focus on the structural issues, and that might change. However, I fully understand that it's easier and more gratifying to carp at individual women who are doing their best.

    Replies: @anon, @MarkinLA, @3g4me

    You’re an idiot.

    All that bitter, feminist anger does not change the biological facts. It’s easier for a woman to conceive, carry to term and deliver at the age of 24 than 34. That’s a fact. Nature doesn’t care about your feelings or politics.

    Why, it’s almost as if we all live in a real world where choices have consequences and do-overs are difficult to impossible.

    • Agree: 3g4me
    • Replies: @Jesse
    @anon

    And all the whining won't change the fact that women aren't working on their careers and having kids in their thirties out of a deep conviction that the careers will love them back. There are real structural impediments to the system you want. I fully understand that it's more immediately gratifying to snorfle at the stupid wahmans, but on a deeper level, if you actually want to achieve something (*do* you?) then you need to acknowledge them and at least try to address them.

    So I suggest putting aside your mommy issues, actually reading my questions and deigning to address them. Come on, it'll be fun!

    Replies: @anon

  211. @TomSchmidt
    @Jack D

    A recommendation on this site led me to the book The Golden Passport, about Harvard Business School, and how its graduates have basically wrecked the country.

    I'm hoping a lot fewer people who attended Harvard and Yale law schools get seated on the court in the future. Harvard and Yale graduated every President from Bush 1 through Obama. They had 28 years, along with their friends from the HYPS schools, to run the country. To paraphrase from Michigan (forgive me, o my Latin teachers) si Quæris Patris non Amœnam, Circumspice (if you seek an unpleasant country, look about you). Bush 2, the Harvard Business School graduate, was probably the worst, but the Harvard and Yale Law graduates did not help.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @epebble

    OT: This Harvard grad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Yglesias has written https://www.amazon.com/One-Billion-Americans-Thinking-Bigger/dp/0593190211 that doesn’t sound intelligent at all, even to a State school graduate. How could he afford to buy a house in D.C. for $1.4 million cash at age 33? https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/matt-yglesias-12-million-house-stokes-class-envy-conservatives/317056/

  212. Anonymous[409] • Disclaimer says:

    ITT: Salty white men who can’t accept the fact that the *conscientiousness* gap between Jews/Asians and Whites is even higher than the IQ gap.

    You WNs can only accept racial differences when they favor you. When they don’t favor you, you either claim the gap to be smaller than it is, or accuse those who do better than you of “having secret social networks”.

    The mental trait more important than IQ is and will always be conscientiousness. People who achieve a higher income and education than what their IQ would have predicted are almost always conscientious. White men who constantly complain about Blacks/Hispanics being dumb and how IQ isn’t used enough in society to assort people into jobs, generally lack the conscientiousness to do well in their careers.

    • Replies: @William Badwhite
    @Anonymous

    Hey its Thomm!

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @Anonymous


    You WNs can only accept racial differences when they favor you.
     
    Most of us aren't "WNs". (Nor anonymous.) We are quite aware of differences where we fall short.

    For example, who has a better understanding of marriage? These whites:

    https://assets.weforum.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/1511B30-gay-marriage-legal-world-map1.png


    Or these people of color:


    https://steemitimages.com/DQmXxUK57QCb497Y8yXrJ4J5kTyff5Dt5NmsSRkpnXXoY9n/1.jpg

    https://sfcurran.com/site/assets/files/1115558/mayoruna_5.845x0.jpg

    https://i1.wp.com/www.youngpioneertours.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/singsingpapua.jpg

    Any clear-thinking person would have to go with the latter. Whites aren't what they're cracked up to be. Look who 2/5 of them in the US voted for in 2016.

  213. @Jack D
    @ScarletNumber

    The others have it right.

    Let's start with the Amendment itself:


    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
     
    You can see that the Amendment is divided into 2 clauses - an explanatory preface and then the actual operative provision.

    The operative provision is clear and unequivocal: [T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Period (there's an unnecessary comma in there).

    The first clause just gives the reader some background on WHY the right to keep and bear arms is an important right but it doesn't modify the right itself. The Founders saw the militia (meaning all able bodied adult males) as an important check on tyranny and rule by the permanent army as well as a line of defense against foreign invasion, as this clause explains.

    However, this clause does not change or modify the meaning of the operative clause. If the Founders had wanted to say "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, for so long as they are active duty members of an organized state militia, shall not be infringed" they would have said that but that's not what it says, at all. The cases that read the Amendment as meaning this were just plain wrongly decided.

    If the First Amendment said, " Newspapers being an important check on government corruption, Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of the press" then we would have the same First Amendment free speech rights - you wouldn't have to join the staff of a newspaper to have the right to publish freely.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    The others have it right.

    What you mean is: the others agree with me.

    Now let’s go back to your original statement:

    Conversely, for most of the last century, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias.

    This is incorrect because the word “militia” is literally the 4th word. In this case conservatives took the tactic usually used by liberals of redefining words until it suits their purposes. They also took the liberal tactic of legislating from the bench rather than via the legislature.

    Now, here is an instance where “explain away” would be the operative verb: hate speech. If you were to say that the liberal position is that the First Amendment right to free speech should be explained away as not protecting hate speech. Then you would be correct, because the first amendment doesn’t mention hate speech. However, you are going to have to a better job of criticizing the liberal position vis-a-vis the Second Amendment because the beginning clause is right in the thing.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @ScarletNumber

    I see that I am wasting my time.

    Read Heller and then go argue with Scalia's ghost.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    , @anon
    @ScarletNumber

    This is incorrect because the word “militia” is literally the 4th word.

    This is correct because apparently Jack knows at least some of the history...possibly a great deal...and you know none. Literally none.

    Suggest you read US vs. Miller just for a start.

    PS: Why is it not Miller vs. US?

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Hibernian
    @ScarletNumber

    I certainly didn't refute the statement that "militia" is the fourth word in the Amendment, nor would I try. I made what I believe to be a good case for the General Militia, and others pointed out that the militia clause was explanatory, not operative. Thus citiation of the militia clause to more or less defeat the Amendment can properly be described using the phrase "was explained away."

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @ScarletNumber

    You apparently equate using a word properly with deliberatly misusing it. Not to mention implying that it includes "only", when it doesn't.

    Penumbra? Or just scarlet logic?

  214. @Art Deco
    @Gary in Gramercy

    Perhaps. My recollection of the column was that his point of reference was his experience arguing in front of her. You'll have to pull up the column to get his precise description. My fuzzy memory is that he adjudged her a mean as a snake and obsessed with petty details.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke, @James B. Shearer, @res

    My fuzzy memory is that he adjudged her a mean as a snake and obsessed with petty details.

    Sounds like RBG’s mind was made up, long before the hearing, along the lines of her typically left-wing ideological framework. She was just looking for excuses to rule against him.

  215. @ScarletNumber
    @Jack D


    The others have it right.
     
    What you mean is: the others agree with me.

    Now let's go back to your original statement:

    Conversely, for most of the last century, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias.
     
    This is incorrect because the word "militia" is literally the 4th word. In this case conservatives took the tactic usually used by liberals of redefining words until it suits their purposes. They also took the liberal tactic of legislating from the bench rather than via the legislature.

    Now, here is an instance where "explain away" would be the operative verb: hate speech. If you were to say that the liberal position is that the First Amendment right to free speech should be explained away as not protecting hate speech. Then you would be correct, because the first amendment doesn't mention hate speech. However, you are going to have to a better job of criticizing the liberal position vis-a-vis the Second Amendment because the beginning clause is right in the thing.

    Replies: @Jack D, @anon, @Hibernian, @Reg Cæsar

    I see that I am wasting my time.

    Read Heller and then go argue with Scalia’s ghost.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Jack D

    You are wasting your time, but don't be fooled into thinking that means you are correct. Also, citing Heller and Scalia doesn't impress me, as it isn't your thinking and it is another logical fallacy: argumentum ab auctoritate. Unless you want to say that ALL Supreme Court decisions are correct just because they come from the Supreme Court, and I doubt you want to do that.

    Replies: @Jack D

  216. @Art Deco
    @Gary in Gramercy

    Perhaps. My recollection of the column was that his point of reference was his experience arguing in front of her. You'll have to pull up the column to get his precise description. My fuzzy memory is that he adjudged her a mean as a snake and obsessed with petty details.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke, @James B. Shearer, @res

    A Dershowitz column on the Ginsburg nomination can be found here . It is a piece of work.

  217. @TheJester
    @SimpleSong


    While you can certainly have a career after you have children, interestingly enough it seems most women are much less interested in a career after motherhood.
     
    Large numbers of professional women appear to be more than "less interested" in careers in spite of having no children. Many appear to "want out"! In my experience, a popular lament on the part of professional women in the corporate office and in our neighborhod is that they can't wait until early retirement at 62 ... and they don't know if they can last that long. As men are apt to say, they call it "work" because it is work. Many career women are disappointed to discover that fact.

    Once upon a time a career woman politely requested that she and I work together on class projects on our corporate-sponsored masters program. Time passed; she finally pressed her interest. She was unhappy in her current division, and she hoped I would hire her for an opening in my division. Sorry, but I couldn't help ... no openings. Her reply, "I'm tired of working. I guess I'll find a rich man to marry." Sigh!

    I finally retired at age 70 and it was age that made the decision, not the work. I grieve for career women who "have had it" at age 40, recognizing that at that age they are just as unlikely to find a "rich man to marry" as they are to have children.

    I've repeatedly run across aphorisms that men reach their prime in their 50s ... while women reach their prime at 18. Nature is a "bitch"! Best we learn to live with it.

    RBG appears to me to have been a very unhappy women. Nature is a "bitch"! And she couldn't deal with it.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    she hoped I would hire her for an opening in my division. Sorry, but I couldn’t help … no openings. Her reply, “I’m tired of working. I guess I’ll find a rich man to marry.”

    I don’t understand. Why did she think a transfer to your division would mean she wouldn’t have to work anymore?

  218. @Jack D
    @ScarletNumber

    I see that I am wasting my time.

    Read Heller and then go argue with Scalia's ghost.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    You are wasting your time, but don’t be fooled into thinking that means you are correct. Also, citing Heller and Scalia doesn’t impress me, as it isn’t your thinking and it is another logical fallacy: argumentum ab auctoritate. Unless you want to say that ALL Supreme Court decisions are correct just because they come from the Supreme Court, and I doubt you want to do that.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @ScarletNumber

    No, what I am saying is that Scalia lays out my argument (actually vice versa of course) in great detail, much more than I want to type. Maybe Scalia and I are both wrong and you are right, but I think it was correctly decided.

    Read Heller carefully and then tell me that Scalia was wrong.

  219. @Jesse
    @Elmer T. Jones

    You're an idiot. And live where? On one income, remember. Plus, it's incredibly difficult to get (back) into a career in your thirties and beyond - and no, employers are *not* impressed if your extended gap in the CV was due to childrearing and volunteer work. Why would they be? The labor market is so slack there's no reason to take any risks.

    You *can't* underestimate the need for two incomes to have anything resembling a good life. And what happens if your breadwinner dies or leaves, especially before the woman's had a chance to establish herself? There's a reason the daughters of divorced parents are so famously career focused - and also why elderly divorced or widowed women have such catastrophic poverty rates.

    Periodically, some midwit will say, like it's a brand new piece of knowledge, that hey maybe women should have kids in their early 20s and THEN focus on careers, as though there are no structural issues preventing that. Focus on the structural issues, and that might change. However, I fully understand that it's easier and more gratifying to carp at individual women who are doing their best.

    Replies: @anon, @MarkinLA, @3g4me

    A single man in a factory job used to be able to provide for his family before large scale immigration and outsourcing that devalued labor. There are no “laws of economics” that demand people work for nothing. These are public policies and they can change. Tighten the labor market by deporting illegals and wages will rise and there will be cheaper housing. Getting the jobs back via carrot and stick policies will also help.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @MarkinLA

    Employee compensation per worker in real terms is half-again what it was in 1973. People order their domestic lives somewhat differently and there have been some changes in the when the different parts of the life-cycle begin. People weren't better off 50 years ago than they are today. Also, a third of the working population in 1960 was female.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

    , @Johann Ricke
    @MarkinLA


    A single man in a factory job used to be able to provide for his family before large scale immigration and outsourcing that devalued labor.
     
    What constituted "providing" was more constrained in those days. You may have noticed that people were way thinner back then. That's not because of high fructose corn syrup. People are eating more, and not just just at home, so food costs are up. Square footage per home is up, and air conditioning is universal in a way it wasn't back then. The list runs on and on. The issue is that expectations go up over time, and these increasing expectations have outrun the reality.

    There was also the fact that the dream world of monopolistic unions in the goods marketplace have now crushed the companies they leeched on, except in cases where they were able to move production abroad. The last refuge for these bloodsucking unions is the public sector where they are adding costs and passing them on to the private sector, which is busy moving abroad to avoid these costs.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

  220. anon[125] • Disclaimer says:
    @ScarletNumber
    @Jack D


    The others have it right.
     
    What you mean is: the others agree with me.

    Now let's go back to your original statement:

    Conversely, for most of the last century, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias.
     
    This is incorrect because the word "militia" is literally the 4th word. In this case conservatives took the tactic usually used by liberals of redefining words until it suits their purposes. They also took the liberal tactic of legislating from the bench rather than via the legislature.

    Now, here is an instance where "explain away" would be the operative verb: hate speech. If you were to say that the liberal position is that the First Amendment right to free speech should be explained away as not protecting hate speech. Then you would be correct, because the first amendment doesn't mention hate speech. However, you are going to have to a better job of criticizing the liberal position vis-a-vis the Second Amendment because the beginning clause is right in the thing.

    Replies: @Jack D, @anon, @Hibernian, @Reg Cæsar

    This is incorrect because the word “militia” is literally the 4th word.

    This is correct because apparently Jack knows at least some of the history…possibly a great deal…and you know none. Literally none.

    Suggest you read US vs. Miller just for a start.

    PS: Why is it not Miller vs. US?

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @anon

    The US government charged Jack Miller in district court with violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 by possessing a sawed off shotgun (thus US v. Miller). Miller argued that the NFA violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. The government appealed to the Supreme Ct. and won. When you appeal a case, it retains its original title, it doesn't switch around.

    Heller (which reflects current law and largely reverses Miller) is a better read.

    Replies: @anon, @Hibernian, @Joe Stalin, @MarkinLA

  221. @anon
    @Jesse

    You’re an idiot.

    All that bitter, feminist anger does not change the biological facts. It's easier for a woman to conceive, carry to term and deliver at the age of 24 than 34. That's a fact. Nature doesn't care about your feelings or politics.

    Why, it's almost as if we all live in a real world where choices have consequences and do-overs are difficult to impossible.

    Replies: @Jesse

    And all the whining won’t change the fact that women aren’t working on their careers and having kids in their thirties out of a deep conviction that the careers will love them back. There are real structural impediments to the system you want. I fully understand that it’s more immediately gratifying to snorfle at the stupid wahmans, but on a deeper level, if you actually want to achieve something (*do* you?) then you need to acknowledge them and at least try to address them.

    So I suggest putting aside your mommy issues, actually reading my questions and deigning to address them. Come on, it’ll be fun!

    • Replies: @anon
    @Jesse

    Words cannot change human biology. You seem to be very, very angry about that, triggered by medical facts. Are you peri-menopausal, perhaps?

    There are real structural impediments to the system you want.

    What system is that? Where did I state anything about a system? I merely stated facts about human reproduction, a biological system that exists independent of anything I state.

    Do you often make things up and pretend that they are real? Or just in comments here?

    So I suggest putting aside your mommy issues, actually reading my questions and deigning to address them.

    Your rants do not contain questions, just bitter feminist assertions that have nothing to do with human biology.

    Reality: women can "do" childbirth much more easily and successfully at 24 than 34. Argue and rage all you want, you won't change that.

    Have you considered counseling? If you are in a religion, perhaps talking to a spiritual advisor?

    Replies: @Anonymous

  222. Anon[426] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    Why isn't Amy Wax on Trump's list of potential SCOTUS nominees? He needs to nominate her and no one else. Amy Wax is the right kind of conservative who have bravely argued against affirmative action, promoted "middle class values" of hard work, self-reliance, law abidingness, not having children out of wedlock etc., and argued that America should restrict immigration to those from Northwestern Europe and encourage assimilation to retain our Western culture. She is brilliant and just the person the country needs.

    Replies: @Anon

    Amy Wax is 67. But still, yeah, she’d be great.

    She has made comments that blacks in top law schools tend to cluster in the bottom 10 percent, and she was shunned for this. Her school never released any data, and their response did not address her specific claims. But this may be too radioactive for even Republicans to ignore.

    Ideally you want an Amy Wax who has managed to keep her mouth shut.

  223. @ScarletNumber
    @Jack D


    The others have it right.
     
    What you mean is: the others agree with me.

    Now let's go back to your original statement:

    Conversely, for most of the last century, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias.
     
    This is incorrect because the word "militia" is literally the 4th word. In this case conservatives took the tactic usually used by liberals of redefining words until it suits their purposes. They also took the liberal tactic of legislating from the bench rather than via the legislature.

    Now, here is an instance where "explain away" would be the operative verb: hate speech. If you were to say that the liberal position is that the First Amendment right to free speech should be explained away as not protecting hate speech. Then you would be correct, because the first amendment doesn't mention hate speech. However, you are going to have to a better job of criticizing the liberal position vis-a-vis the Second Amendment because the beginning clause is right in the thing.

    Replies: @Jack D, @anon, @Hibernian, @Reg Cæsar

    I certainly didn’t refute the statement that “militia” is the fourth word in the Amendment, nor would I try. I made what I believe to be a good case for the General Militia, and others pointed out that the militia clause was explanatory, not operative. Thus citiation of the militia clause to more or less defeat the Amendment can properly be described using the phrase “was explained away.”

  224. @ScarletNumber
    @Jack D

    You are wasting your time, but don't be fooled into thinking that means you are correct. Also, citing Heller and Scalia doesn't impress me, as it isn't your thinking and it is another logical fallacy: argumentum ab auctoritate. Unless you want to say that ALL Supreme Court decisions are correct just because they come from the Supreme Court, and I doubt you want to do that.

    Replies: @Jack D

    No, what I am saying is that Scalia lays out my argument (actually vice versa of course) in great detail, much more than I want to type. Maybe Scalia and I are both wrong and you are right, but I think it was correctly decided.

    Read Heller carefully and then tell me that Scalia was wrong.

  225. @Anonymous
    ITT: Salty white men who can't accept the fact that the *conscientiousness* gap between Jews/Asians and Whites is even higher than the IQ gap.

    You WNs can only accept racial differences when they favor you. When they don't favor you, you either claim the gap to be smaller than it is, or accuse those who do better than you of "having secret social networks".

    The mental trait more important than IQ is and will always be conscientiousness. People who achieve a higher income and education than what their IQ would have predicted are almost always conscientious. White men who constantly complain about Blacks/Hispanics being dumb and how IQ isn't used enough in society to assort people into jobs, generally lack the conscientiousness to do well in their careers.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @Reg Cæsar

    Hey its Thomm!

  226. @ScarletNumber
    @Jack D


    The others have it right.
     
    What you mean is: the others agree with me.

    Now let's go back to your original statement:

    Conversely, for most of the last century, the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was explained away as pertaining only to militias.
     
    This is incorrect because the word "militia" is literally the 4th word. In this case conservatives took the tactic usually used by liberals of redefining words until it suits their purposes. They also took the liberal tactic of legislating from the bench rather than via the legislature.

    Now, here is an instance where "explain away" would be the operative verb: hate speech. If you were to say that the liberal position is that the First Amendment right to free speech should be explained away as not protecting hate speech. Then you would be correct, because the first amendment doesn't mention hate speech. However, you are going to have to a better job of criticizing the liberal position vis-a-vis the Second Amendment because the beginning clause is right in the thing.

    Replies: @Jack D, @anon, @Hibernian, @Reg Cæsar

    You apparently equate using a word properly with deliberatly misusing it. Not to mention implying that it includes “only”, when it doesn’t.

    Penumbra? Or just scarlet logic?

  227. @Art Deco
    @Gary in Gramercy

    Perhaps. My recollection of the column was that his point of reference was his experience arguing in front of her. You'll have to pull up the column to get his precise description. My fuzzy memory is that he adjudged her a mean as a snake and obsessed with petty details.

    Replies: @Johann Ricke, @James B. Shearer, @res

    For anyone who wants to read the column and form their own opinion, just search for the title in quotes.
    “CHOICE OF GINSBURG RAISES MANY QUESTIONS”

    These seem like the key paragraphs.

    Judge Ginsburg is one of several dozen very able sitting judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Her decisions over the past dozen years have been characterized by a rigid proceduralism. She has a sharp mind, but it is the mind of a tax lawyer rather than a constitutional lawyer. She always seems to focus on the fine print rather than on the big picture. She has little experience with “real people,” and if she has a “big heart,” she has kept it well hidden during her years on the bench.

    Most important, she is anything but a consensus builder. Her reputation among her colleagues — judges, law clerks and lawyers — is that she is a “difficult person,” who alienates many of those around her. She has been compared to Justice Scalia, whom she admires and likes. Lawyers who have appeared before her have characterized her — according to the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary — as “picky,” “impatient,” “schoolmarmish,” “a procedural nut,” and a judge who “likes to lecture in a sarcastic way.”

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @res

    This was far from an unbiased assessment. Dershowitz was trying to throw cold water on Ginsburg's nomination so that Clinton would pick his favorite candidate instead. I think he only succeeded in making himself look petty.

    His crystal ball was good in the sense that he predicted that she would get along with Scalia, which she did. But she didn't particularly have a reputation as being "picky", etc. on the Supreme Ct, although she didn't suffer fools gladly either. She had high standards for herself and she expected the same of others.

    Replies: @Dan Hayes

  228. @Jesse
    @Elmer T. Jones

    You're an idiot. And live where? On one income, remember. Plus, it's incredibly difficult to get (back) into a career in your thirties and beyond - and no, employers are *not* impressed if your extended gap in the CV was due to childrearing and volunteer work. Why would they be? The labor market is so slack there's no reason to take any risks.

    You *can't* underestimate the need for two incomes to have anything resembling a good life. And what happens if your breadwinner dies or leaves, especially before the woman's had a chance to establish herself? There's a reason the daughters of divorced parents are so famously career focused - and also why elderly divorced or widowed women have such catastrophic poverty rates.

    Periodically, some midwit will say, like it's a brand new piece of knowledge, that hey maybe women should have kids in their early 20s and THEN focus on careers, as though there are no structural issues preventing that. Focus on the structural issues, and that might change. However, I fully understand that it's easier and more gratifying to carp at individual women who are doing their best.

    Replies: @anon, @MarkinLA, @3g4me

    @182 Jesse: “For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.”

    Your excuses don’t cut it. Stop lying to yourself and everyone else about what’s important to you.

  229. @Anonymous
    ITT: Salty white men who can't accept the fact that the *conscientiousness* gap between Jews/Asians and Whites is even higher than the IQ gap.

    You WNs can only accept racial differences when they favor you. When they don't favor you, you either claim the gap to be smaller than it is, or accuse those who do better than you of "having secret social networks".

    The mental trait more important than IQ is and will always be conscientiousness. People who achieve a higher income and education than what their IQ would have predicted are almost always conscientious. White men who constantly complain about Blacks/Hispanics being dumb and how IQ isn't used enough in society to assort people into jobs, generally lack the conscientiousness to do well in their careers.

    Replies: @William Badwhite, @Reg Cæsar

    You WNs can only accept racial differences when they favor you.

    Most of us aren’t “WNs”. (Nor anonymous.) We are quite aware of differences where we fall short.

    For example, who has a better understanding of marriage? These whites:

    Or these people of color:

    Any clear-thinking person would have to go with the latter. Whites aren’t what they’re cracked up to be. Look who 2/5 of them in the US voted for in 2016.

  230. @Coemgen
    @anonymous as usual

    We may wish to have geniuses writing philosophy of law but in a judge we merely need someone who is bright enough to understand the law. The rare human attributes we want in a judge are of character: honesty, integrity, impartiality, etc.

    Replies: @anonymous as usual

    I agree a thousand percent.
    Scalia made many mistakes but, over the course of his lifetime, he did well in his profession, for the reasons you give. I met him , and I met one or two of his good friends, and he was almost certainly a stand-up guy.

    We live an a very unusual society, with 300 million people, among whom ther are literally thousands of people who are one of a million at their chosen profession – law, medicine, music, soldiering, blogging, pimping (definitely not that – I abhor pimps), policing, and so on. I am definitely not one of those one in a million at law, medicine, music, soldiering, blogging, pimping, or policing, and I hope you did not think I was trying to say I was.

    The point of my comment was not to say “HEY I AM THIS BRIGHT GUY WHO IS A BETTER LAWYER THAN SCALIA AND I AM DISAPPOINTED IN HIM” —- technically, I am not even an attorney at all — I am just a spectator on these legal issues, I am the guy in the stands who points out that the Hall of Fame third baseman is standing a little to stiffly and a little too far from the third base line to react to a hard hit grounder off the best sinker ball pitcher of his day (Ripken was at 3d, “Ericson” on the mound).

  231. @MarkinLA
    @Jesse

    A single man in a factory job used to be able to provide for his family before large scale immigration and outsourcing that devalued labor. There are no "laws of economics" that demand people work for nothing. These are public policies and they can change. Tighten the labor market by deporting illegals and wages will rise and there will be cheaper housing. Getting the jobs back via carrot and stick policies will also help.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Johann Ricke

    Employee compensation per worker in real terms is half-again what it was in 1973. People order their domestic lives somewhat differently and there have been some changes in the when the different parts of the life-cycle begin. People weren’t better off 50 years ago than they are today. Also, a third of the working population in 1960 was female.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    @Art Deco

    If that were the case why are so many people just a few weeks pay away from homelessness? The women working in 1960 were mostly single or part time women.

    Replies: @Art Deco

  232. @anon
    @ScarletNumber

    This is incorrect because the word “militia” is literally the 4th word.

    This is correct because apparently Jack knows at least some of the history...possibly a great deal...and you know none. Literally none.

    Suggest you read US vs. Miller just for a start.

    PS: Why is it not Miller vs. US?

    Replies: @Jack D

    The US government charged Jack Miller in district court with violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 by possessing a sawed off shotgun (thus US v. Miller). Miller argued that the NFA violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. The government appealed to the Supreme Ct. and won. When you appeal a case, it retains its original title, it doesn’t switch around.

    Heller (which reflects current law and largely reverses Miller) is a better read.

    • Replies: @anon
    @Jack D

    I didn't ask you, Mr. "ooh! Ooo! OOH! Call on me, teacher!" I asked Scarlet Number as a test of what that person does or does not know. Now that entity can crib from your answer. Pfft.

    Plus, lol, you botched part of the facts of the case anyway, including the USSC's conclusion. I'm sure you know what "remand" means in the context, and why it is moot.

    Finally:
    Heller doesn't reverse Miller. It can't. No one can for obvious reasons. But Heller does reverse several misreadings of Miller, and that's a good thing.

    , @Hibernian
    @Jack D


    When you appeal a case, it retains its original title, it doesn’t switch around.
     
    Isn't this true in state, Federal District, and Federal Circuit, courts, and at SCOTUS if the Government appeals, but not at SCOTUS if the defendant appeals? (i.e. At SCOTUS, the appelant's name is first.)

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Joe Stalin
    @Jack D


    The government appealed to the Supreme Ct. and won.
     
    But no evidence was apparently presented of the value of a short-barrel shotgun in militia service by the defense.

    Plenty of evidence that shotguns are favorite weapons of Americans in war.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OB8__9I-NNk

    Why no evidence presented by the defense?

    Because it would be a moot point.

    Jack Miller had DIED.

    , @MarkinLA
    @Jack D

    I don't believe there was ever an actual decision. Instead they came up with some loopy nonsense about the usefulness of the weapon with regard to a militia.

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

    Some argue that fundamental issues related to the case were never truly decided because the Supreme Court remanded the case to the federal district court for "further proceedings" that never took place — by the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed and Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, so there were no claimants left to continue legal proceedings.[5]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

    The big problem with this ruling it places the onus on the weapon and not the person. Probably because of the Militia Acts which made Miller a member of the unorganized militia. The problem with pretending that there is some "sporting" weapon, some "militia" weapon, and some "army" weapon is that even at that time the Army was using short barreled shotguns called trench guns.

    We have our CIA backed "freedom fighters" who use RPGs, Stinger missiles, Claymore mines, captured tanks and pretty much anything they can get their hands on. I guess you can do like the worthless court does and make up new categories of weapons every time a new case comes up but the people who thought this was a valid line of reasoning were largely ignorant and stupid.

    The case was sent back to provide evidence of the weapons suitability for a militia. Had that happened it would have put a monkey wrench into the whole thing.

  233. @res
    @Art Deco

    For anyone who wants to read the column and form their own opinion, just search for the title in quotes.
    "CHOICE OF GINSBURG RAISES MANY QUESTIONS"

    These seem like the key paragraphs.


    Judge Ginsburg is one of several dozen very able sitting judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals. Her decisions over the past dozen years have been characterized by a rigid proceduralism. She has a sharp mind, but it is the mind of a tax lawyer rather than a constitutional lawyer. She always seems to focus on the fine print rather than on the big picture. She has little experience with "real people," and if she has a "big heart," she has kept it well hidden during her years on the bench.

    Most important, she is anything but a consensus builder. Her reputation among her colleagues -- judges, law clerks and lawyers -- is that she is a "difficult person," who alienates many of those around her. She has been compared to Justice Scalia, whom she admires and likes. Lawyers who have appeared before her have characterized her -- according to the Almanac of the Federal Judiciary -- as "picky," "impatient," "schoolmarmish," "a procedural nut," and a judge who "likes to lecture in a sarcastic way."
     

    Replies: @Jack D

    This was far from an unbiased assessment. Dershowitz was trying to throw cold water on Ginsburg’s nomination so that Clinton would pick his favorite candidate instead. I think he only succeeded in making himself look petty.

    His crystal ball was good in the sense that he predicted that she would get along with Scalia, which she did. But she didn’t particularly have a reputation as being “picky”, etc. on the Supreme Ct, although she didn’t suffer fools gladly either. She had high standards for herself and she expected the same of others.

    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    @Jack D

    I vehemently disagree. She was a crazed harridan one of whose prime objectives in life was to destroy the onerous constraints of unisex bathrooms!

  234. @anonymous as usual
    @Zippy

    Interesting that a guy with a moniker like Zippy can be so insightful (and correct, although I think you meant Roberts in that last sentence, not Kavanaugh - he has not done anything yet as a judge to deserve that insult).

    My observations over the years, in a similar mode, are this ---- the very brightest lawyers are as bright as anyone in any field. That is also probably true, too, about accountants, high school teachers, journalists, NCOs and officers - basically any field that a 20 year old goes into in order to have a career. But ....

    If you are bright enough to be one of the, say, 2 or 3 hundred brightest lawyers in a country of 300 or 400 million, you have options. Because those 2 or 3 hundred take those options, which rarely include sucking up to the sort of people who appoint judges, the field of being a famous judge is open for the second rank to take the most famous positions.

    For example, I defy you to read 20 or more pages of the alleged genius lawyers who become judges - for example, Scalia, Posner, or the poor Mrs Ginsburg, nee Bader - and tell me that there is even a whiff of genius in any random 20 pages.

    Scalia, to give him credit, knew how to turn a phrase. Probably his best 20 pages, out of the thousands of pages he inflicted on the world, are very well written, which makes him almost unique. But overall he was sort of dull-witted, even on the legal subjects he was right about. Was he in the top one percent of pampered Ivy League lawyers? - sure. Was he a genius, or anything like a genius? ---- not even close.

    (If you want to test drive my theory, read the posthumously published letters of someone like Learned Hand (that was his real name, not a nickname) to see what a real legal genius sounds like. Then read the similar writings of Posner,or poor Mrs Ginsburg nee Bader, or even Scalia. It is like going from Henry James and Faulkner to Dean Koontz or Michael Crichton - in the case of Scalia - both very good authors (Koontz and Crichton), but you get my point.
    --- and in the case of the other two judges, it is like going from Henry James and Faulkner to one of those guys who write Star Trek or Star Wars universe novels or one of those women who write those romantic "beach reads" with pictures on the cover of beautiful young women at, of course, the beach, wearing flattering bikinis that would look more than ridiculous on the actual middle-aged authoresses).

    Replies: @anonymous as usual, @Coemgen, @Dan Hayes, @Jack D, @northeast

    Great read on the law profession and the people who populate it.

  235. anon[460] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jesse
    @anon

    And all the whining won't change the fact that women aren't working on their careers and having kids in their thirties out of a deep conviction that the careers will love them back. There are real structural impediments to the system you want. I fully understand that it's more immediately gratifying to snorfle at the stupid wahmans, but on a deeper level, if you actually want to achieve something (*do* you?) then you need to acknowledge them and at least try to address them.

    So I suggest putting aside your mommy issues, actually reading my questions and deigning to address them. Come on, it'll be fun!

    Replies: @anon

    Words cannot change human biology. You seem to be very, very angry about that, triggered by medical facts. Are you peri-menopausal, perhaps?

    There are real structural impediments to the system you want.

    What system is that? Where did I state anything about a system? I merely stated facts about human reproduction, a biological system that exists independent of anything I state.

    Do you often make things up and pretend that they are real? Or just in comments here?

    So I suggest putting aside your mommy issues, actually reading my questions and deigning to address them.

    Your rants do not contain questions, just bitter feminist assertions that have nothing to do with human biology.

    Reality: women can “do” childbirth much more easily and successfully at 24 than 34. Argue and rage all you want, you won’t change that.

    Have you considered counseling? If you are in a religion, perhaps talking to a spiritual advisor?

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @anon

    ......I don't get why you keep repeating the stuff that Jesse never disagreed with you on, instead of addressing Jesse's point that fertility won't change until people feel it's safe to have kids sooner.

    It's definitely a good thing to ensure women know that their fertility begins declining at 30 and hits a sharper decline at 35 (and to ensure men know that their fertility begins declining at 35 *and taking testosterone will completely tank it*). But this is insufficient to solve the problem, which ISTM is Jesse's point.

    I'm with Steve that we need affordable family formation. In my own life I know a lot of people who have fewer children than they want (which coincides with surveys: IIRC most surveyed want 2-3 kids and end up with 1-2). These are people who passed the first hurdle and found a spouse early in adulthood (not everyone even manages that). Their problems were (a) periods of financial instability that caused them to pause childbearing; and (b) sperm problems.

  236. anon[460] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D
    @anon

    The US government charged Jack Miller in district court with violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 by possessing a sawed off shotgun (thus US v. Miller). Miller argued that the NFA violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. The government appealed to the Supreme Ct. and won. When you appeal a case, it retains its original title, it doesn't switch around.

    Heller (which reflects current law and largely reverses Miller) is a better read.

    Replies: @anon, @Hibernian, @Joe Stalin, @MarkinLA

    I didn’t ask you, Mr. “ooh! Ooo! OOH! Call on me, teacher!” I asked Scarlet Number as a test of what that person does or does not know. Now that entity can crib from your answer. Pfft.

    Plus, lol, you botched part of the facts of the case anyway, including the USSC’s conclusion. I’m sure you know what “remand” means in the context, and why it is moot.

    Finally:
    Heller doesn’t reverse Miller. It can’t. No one can for obvious reasons. But Heller does reverse several misreadings of Miller, and that’s a good thing.

  237. @Jack D
    @res

    This was far from an unbiased assessment. Dershowitz was trying to throw cold water on Ginsburg's nomination so that Clinton would pick his favorite candidate instead. I think he only succeeded in making himself look petty.

    His crystal ball was good in the sense that he predicted that she would get along with Scalia, which she did. But she didn't particularly have a reputation as being "picky", etc. on the Supreme Ct, although she didn't suffer fools gladly either. She had high standards for herself and she expected the same of others.

    Replies: @Dan Hayes

    I vehemently disagree. She was a crazed harridan one of whose prime objectives in life was to destroy the onerous constraints of unisex bathrooms!

  238. I listened to one of his lectures when I was a law student in the 90s, and I recently read his interview with Cowen.

    A strong tinge of Asperger’s, albeit mixed with lot of common sense and lots of the sort of intellect which, had he devoted it to poker or chess, would have put him in the chess or poker Hall of Fame.

    Of course he has no idea what he is talking about, he produces palaces in his own mind which real architects would immediately tell him are not buildable on this earth. Also, he seems a little unaware of his gifts – he apparently is a huge “fan” of Star Wars, which is a mega-indication that someone is an intellectual beta male. Sorry to say it so bluntly , but seriously, if you are gonna be a “Fanboy” be a Shakespeare fanboy, or a Kabbalah fanboy, not a fucking Star Wars fanboy.

    Taleb likes to make fun of him, but he is one of those guys whose achievements are not the sort of achievements Taleb understands. So, strangely, I gained respect for poor Richard E. when I read Taleb’s nagging criticisms of him (I mean, Taleb was right, but not in the way he thought).

    That being said, the guy is exponentially smarter than Posner.

    If I were to argue with him, I would certainly not have a beer or two first.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
    @anonymous as usual

    Interesting. A few weeks ago, I had a long email correspondence with him instigated by one of my clients. I suppose his thoughts and expression thereof were in line with your description of him. I had forgotten that he was a co-author of the textbook used in my torts class way back when.

    Replies: @anonymous as usual

  239. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    Legal opinions are a form of technical writing. They are not literature.

    The remarks of anonymous as usual do strike one as those of someone who has never read academic literature or pondered what it's purpose is.

    Replies: @anonymous as usual

    Which is why I referred, in my remarks, to the posthumous letters of Learned Hand, and not to his circuit court decisions.

  240. @Jack D
    @anon

    The US government charged Jack Miller in district court with violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 by possessing a sawed off shotgun (thus US v. Miller). Miller argued that the NFA violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. The government appealed to the Supreme Ct. and won. When you appeal a case, it retains its original title, it doesn't switch around.

    Heller (which reflects current law and largely reverses Miller) is a better read.

    Replies: @anon, @Hibernian, @Joe Stalin, @MarkinLA

    When you appeal a case, it retains its original title, it doesn’t switch around.

    Isn’t this true in state, Federal District, and Federal Circuit, courts, and at SCOTUS if the Government appeals, but not at SCOTUS if the defendant appeals? (i.e. At SCOTUS, the appelant’s name is first.)

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Hibernian

    Generally yes. In US v. Miller, the government appealed so there was no switch.

  241. @Jack D
    @anon

    The US government charged Jack Miller in district court with violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 by possessing a sawed off shotgun (thus US v. Miller). Miller argued that the NFA violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. The government appealed to the Supreme Ct. and won. When you appeal a case, it retains its original title, it doesn't switch around.

    Heller (which reflects current law and largely reverses Miller) is a better read.

    Replies: @anon, @Hibernian, @Joe Stalin, @MarkinLA

    The government appealed to the Supreme Ct. and won.

    But no evidence was apparently presented of the value of a short-barrel shotgun in militia service by the defense.

    Plenty of evidence that shotguns are favorite weapons of Americans in war.

    Why no evidence presented by the defense?

    Because it would be a moot point.

    Jack Miller had DIED.

  242. @Elmer T. Jones
    @anonymous as usual

    That is nonsense. A woman's fertility plummets after the age of 30. Her marketability for matrimony declines even more precipitously. It is a crime against young women to advise them otherwise. By the time they figure out the truth it is often too late to conceive children. Men on the other hand enjoy a much wider time span for meeting brides and having children.

    Many young women I observe in public seem obsessed with having a career of some kind. You see them in study groups at the coffee shop or jogging, always jogging. It is depressing to observe them when a workable alternative is easily within reach : have kids early, have professional income later.

    Replies: @Jesse, @anonymous as usual

    Elmer I agree with you. My point was not that women should disregard the passing of the years, my point was that men who laugh at women for being more subject to a biological clock are deluding themselves.

    If you decide to read Proverbs 8, and try to understand it, and try to apply the wisdom therein to your choices in life —- or to your desire to pray, or not pray, for your friends, whether wise or foolish —- you will see why I write the way I write.

    Or not, it is up to you.

  243. @Hibernian
    @Jack D


    When you appeal a case, it retains its original title, it doesn’t switch around.
     
    Isn't this true in state, Federal District, and Federal Circuit, courts, and at SCOTUS if the Government appeals, but not at SCOTUS if the defendant appeals? (i.e. At SCOTUS, the appelant's name is first.)

    Replies: @Jack D

    Generally yes. In US v. Miller, the government appealed so there was no switch.

  244. Wax’s essay is laced with many Ginsburg anecdotes which make for very enjoyable reading but which in no way detract from its important and well-considered points. Proving that Wax could have had a very productive journalism career in addition to that in medicine and law!

  245. @Art Deco
    @Jack D

    She was to women’s rights what Thurgood Marshall was to (black) civil rights. Of course if you don’t like gender neutrality in the law then this makes her a bad person.

    Rights?

    Marshall's notable accomplishment was to persuade the Court to make use of sociological studies to to declare that parallel school systems were ipso facto unconstitutional. Parallel school systems are bad policy and Southern society was informed by certain shticks they could have done better without. Now observe the outside story, and you see his accomplishment was to get the ball rolling on a long-running series of attempts by federal judges to act as trustees in charge of local schools. I would wager if you unpacked it, a lot of the perversity you see in school administration today is a function of the GCs office telling you you have to do X and refrain from Y because of this and that bit of case law. Richard Nixon's remark in 1968 that federal judges are not well equipped to run local school systems fell on deaf ears.

    You don't want to come to the end of your life and your notable accomplishment was to have been a key participant in making local school systems lawyer-addled messes.


    As for Ruth Bader Ghastly, I seem to recall her biggest case as an advocate was persuading some appellate court that the formula used to calculate Social Security Survivor's benefits was unconstitutional, because widows got better benefits than widowers. I feel so much better about the world thanks to that.

    Replies: @Nicholas Stix

    “the GCs office”?

    General Counsel?

  246. @Jack D
    @Harry Baldwin

    That time was never. Look at the Dred Scott case, Plessy v. Ferguson, etc. The Constitution is by its nature a loosely sketched outline. The Supreme Court fills in the picture according to its own preferences and those preferences are and have always been influenced by the political view of the Justices. The difference is that in the past those views tended toward the reactionary (no politically unbiased person could have accepted that Jim Crow was compatible with the 14th Amendment) and so were displeasing to progressives, but post WWII the opposite has been mostly true. But this does not meant that it was non-political before and political now. It was always political but its politics changed.


    It should be noted that Constitutional questions with partisan political implications form only a small part of the Court's work and that most of its decisions do not fall on clear partisan lines.

    Replies: @Coemgen, @Hibernian, @mark green

    Actually, Plessy (and to a lesser extent, Dred Scott) demonstrated sound Constitutional reasoning for that time. The institution of slavery (as well as the calculated restrictions placed upon negro citizenship) were traditional, widespread and legal long before and long after the signing of the US Constitution.

    Similarly, the Constitution did not in any clear or indirect way prohibit ‘separate but equal’ facilities for negros. Even today, racial segregation remains (privately) popular and ineradicable. Modern liberal ‘outrage’ over these past decisions (and the embrace of modern ones such as Roe v Wade) tells us more about contemporary liberal ‘groupthink’ involving political results than Constitutional law or original intent.

    Legalistic ‘discoveries’ continue to be made by modern jurists. Many simply can’t resist the temptation to legislate from the bench. As a consequence, numerous court decisions continue to usurp power from the people and their elected representatives. The dogma of radical egalitarianism has nourished this anti-democratic trend.

    • Agree: ben tillman
    • Replies: @GazaPlanet
    @mark green

    The 14th Amendment cannot mean we are forced to live in proximity to negro drug addicts, welfare cases and criminals, it cannot mean we are forced to allow retards who can't pass a basic literacy test to vote, to have their ballots harvested by the criminal gang that is the Democratic party. The 14th Amendment is premised on whites living in a civilized nation. Throw out civilization, throw out law enforcement, throw out limits on judges, establish a judeo-marxist kritarchy, and call it "Equal Protection Under the Law." Whatever the 14th Amendment supposedly says (legitimate or not as ratification was compelled by force) we had legal segregation for the better part of a century under it. Judicial diktat is not representative government. Segregation has always been, and remains today, fundamental to American peace and prosperity. We cannot have a successful country with an education system were pickaninnies and "teenagers" raise a ruckus through the whole school day, where black agitators on every street corner are disturbing the peace, threatening people in their homes, with the Jews giving them money to carry on and the Federal Government shielding this organized Jewish criminal conspiracy from prosecution.

  247. @MarkinLA
    @Jesse

    A single man in a factory job used to be able to provide for his family before large scale immigration and outsourcing that devalued labor. There are no "laws of economics" that demand people work for nothing. These are public policies and they can change. Tighten the labor market by deporting illegals and wages will rise and there will be cheaper housing. Getting the jobs back via carrot and stick policies will also help.

    Replies: @Art Deco, @Johann Ricke

    A single man in a factory job used to be able to provide for his family before large scale immigration and outsourcing that devalued labor.

    What constituted “providing” was more constrained in those days. You may have noticed that people were way thinner back then. That’s not because of high fructose corn syrup. People are eating more, and not just just at home, so food costs are up. Square footage per home is up, and air conditioning is universal in a way it wasn’t back then. The list runs on and on. The issue is that expectations go up over time, and these increasing expectations have outrun the reality.

    There was also the fact that the dream world of monopolistic unions in the goods marketplace have now crushed the companies they leeched on, except in cases where they were able to move production abroad. The last refuge for these bloodsucking unions is the public sector where they are adding costs and passing them on to the private sector, which is busy moving abroad to avoid these costs.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    @Johann Ricke

    The problem is the huge divide between the people who will be permanent renters and people who own their own home. A lot of costs were significantly higher then but people still managed. Cars were cheaper but had to be repaired and replaced more often.

    I think is is hard to really get a fix on who is living better.

    However, I do think the leap from perennial renter to property owner is getting tougher and tougher all the time.

  248. @Jack D
    @anon

    The US government charged Jack Miller in district court with violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 by possessing a sawed off shotgun (thus US v. Miller). Miller argued that the NFA violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. The government appealed to the Supreme Ct. and won. When you appeal a case, it retains its original title, it doesn't switch around.

    Heller (which reflects current law and largely reverses Miller) is a better read.

    Replies: @anon, @Hibernian, @Joe Stalin, @MarkinLA

    I don’t believe there was ever an actual decision. Instead they came up with some loopy nonsense about the usefulness of the weapon with regard to a militia.

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

    Some argue that fundamental issues related to the case were never truly decided because the Supreme Court remanded the case to the federal district court for “further proceedings” that never took place — by the time of the Supreme Court decision, Miller had been killed and Layton made a plea bargain after the decision was handed down, so there were no claimants left to continue legal proceedings.[5]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller

    The big problem with this ruling it places the onus on the weapon and not the person. Probably because of the Militia Acts which made Miller a member of the unorganized militia. The problem with pretending that there is some “sporting” weapon, some “militia” weapon, and some “army” weapon is that even at that time the Army was using short barreled shotguns called trench guns.

    We have our CIA backed “freedom fighters” who use RPGs, Stinger missiles, Claymore mines, captured tanks and pretty much anything they can get their hands on. I guess you can do like the worthless court does and make up new categories of weapons every time a new case comes up but the people who thought this was a valid line of reasoning were largely ignorant and stupid.

    The case was sent back to provide evidence of the weapons suitability for a militia. Had that happened it would have put a monkey wrench into the whole thing.

  249. @Art Deco
    @MarkinLA

    Employee compensation per worker in real terms is half-again what it was in 1973. People order their domestic lives somewhat differently and there have been some changes in the when the different parts of the life-cycle begin. People weren't better off 50 years ago than they are today. Also, a third of the working population in 1960 was female.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

    If that were the case why are so many people just a few weeks pay away from homelessness? The women working in 1960 were mostly single or part time women.

    • Replies: @Art Deco
    @MarkinLA

    We're facing an unusual one-off situation right now.

    Vagrants make up about o.2% of the population and most of them are schizophrenics, alcoholics, or mad for street drugs. Very few ordinary people are in any danger of vagrancy at any time.

    About 55% of the employed women in the United States in 1960 were married with a spouse present. (About 79% of the employed men were married with a spouse present).

    They don't publish in their electronic databases data on part-time employees from 1960. They do publish such data from 1968 onward. In 1968, about 14% of the working population was employed part-time. They don't publish cross tabulations. At the time, people under 20 were 7.5% of the employed population, people over 55 were 18%, and married women were 21%. Presumably, those would be your prime candidates for the part-time worker pool, but they're not reporting the distribution of that pool between demographic segments.

  250. @Johann Ricke
    @MarkinLA


    A single man in a factory job used to be able to provide for his family before large scale immigration and outsourcing that devalued labor.
     
    What constituted "providing" was more constrained in those days. You may have noticed that people were way thinner back then. That's not because of high fructose corn syrup. People are eating more, and not just just at home, so food costs are up. Square footage per home is up, and air conditioning is universal in a way it wasn't back then. The list runs on and on. The issue is that expectations go up over time, and these increasing expectations have outrun the reality.

    There was also the fact that the dream world of monopolistic unions in the goods marketplace have now crushed the companies they leeched on, except in cases where they were able to move production abroad. The last refuge for these bloodsucking unions is the public sector where they are adding costs and passing them on to the private sector, which is busy moving abroad to avoid these costs.

    Replies: @MarkinLA

    The problem is the huge divide between the people who will be permanent renters and people who own their own home. A lot of costs were significantly higher then but people still managed. Cars were cheaper but had to be repaired and replaced more often.

    I think is is hard to really get a fix on who is living better.

    However, I do think the leap from perennial renter to property owner is getting tougher and tougher all the time.

  251. @MarkinLA
    @Art Deco

    If that were the case why are so many people just a few weeks pay away from homelessness? The women working in 1960 were mostly single or part time women.

    Replies: @Art Deco

    We’re facing an unusual one-off situation right now.

    Vagrants make up about o.2% of the population and most of them are schizophrenics, alcoholics, or mad for street drugs. Very few ordinary people are in any danger of vagrancy at any time.

    About 55% of the employed women in the United States in 1960 were married with a spouse present. (About 79% of the employed men were married with a spouse present).

    They don’t publish in their electronic databases data on part-time employees from 1960. They do publish such data from 1968 onward. In 1968, about 14% of the working population was employed part-time. They don’t publish cross tabulations. At the time, people under 20 were 7.5% of the employed population, people over 55 were 18%, and married women were 21%. Presumably, those would be your prime candidates for the part-time worker pool, but they’re not reporting the distribution of that pool between demographic segments.

  252. @Wilkey
    @Jack D


    Ginsburg was number one in her class at Harvard Law School while managing not only her course load but also attending her husband’s classes to take notes for him, as he had been diagnosed with cancer...As for the workaholic, she showed up at the Supreme Court the day after her husband’s funeral.
     
    This is certainly admirable in some respects. Smart and powerful people still only have 24 hours in a day. If she was attending her husband's classes while he was fighting cancer then she probably wasn't spending much time taking care of her husband in his illness. If she showed up to work the day after his funeral then she probably wasn't managing much of the details of his funeral.

    I'm not saying her choices were right or wrong. I'm just saying that there are plenty of other people in this world who work their tails off, but who make different choices about what work is more important.

    Replies: @GazaPlanet

    Top of her class at Harvard. This is the feminine notion of high achievement. She was just a rabid, shameless Jewess, and her sycophants and hagiographers only exist, her position on the court only existed, because of out of control Jewish power that has effectively wrecked the US Constitution and is leading this country to ruin.

  253. @mark green
    @Jack D

    Actually, Plessy (and to a lesser extent, Dred Scott) demonstrated sound Constitutional reasoning for that time. The institution of slavery (as well as the calculated restrictions placed upon negro citizenship) were traditional, widespread and legal long before and long after the signing of the US Constitution.

    Similarly, the Constitution did not in any clear or indirect way prohibit 'separate but equal' facilities for negros. Even today, racial segregation remains (privately) popular and ineradicable. Modern liberal 'outrage' over these past decisions (and the embrace of modern ones such as Roe v Wade) tells us more about contemporary liberal 'groupthink' involving political results than Constitutional law or original intent.

    Legalistic 'discoveries' continue to be made by modern jurists. Many simply can't resist the temptation to legislate from the bench. As a consequence, numerous court decisions continue to usurp power from the people and their elected representatives. The dogma of radical egalitarianism has nourished this anti-democratic trend.

    Replies: @GazaPlanet

    The 14th Amendment cannot mean we are forced to live in proximity to negro drug addicts, welfare cases and criminals, it cannot mean we are forced to allow retards who can’t pass a basic literacy test to vote, to have their ballots harvested by the criminal gang that is the Democratic party. The 14th Amendment is premised on whites living in a civilized nation. Throw out civilization, throw out law enforcement, throw out limits on judges, establish a judeo-marxist kritarchy, and call it “Equal Protection Under the Law.” Whatever the 14th Amendment supposedly says (legitimate or not as ratification was compelled by force) we had legal segregation for the better part of a century under it. Judicial diktat is not representative government. Segregation has always been, and remains today, fundamental to American peace and prosperity. We cannot have a successful country with an education system were pickaninnies and “teenagers” raise a ruckus through the whole school day, where black agitators on every street corner are disturbing the peace, threatening people in their homes, with the Jews giving them money to carry on and the Federal Government shielding this organized Jewish criminal conspiracy from prosecution.

  254. @anonymous as usual
    I listened to one of his lectures when I was a law student in the 90s, and I recently read his interview with Cowen.

    A strong tinge of Asperger's, albeit mixed with lot of common sense and lots of the sort of intellect which, had he devoted it to poker or chess, would have put him in the chess or poker Hall of Fame.

    Of course he has no idea what he is talking about, he produces palaces in his own mind which real architects would immediately tell him are not buildable on this earth. Also, he seems a little unaware of his gifts - he apparently is a huge "fan" of Star Wars, which is a mega-indication that someone is an intellectual beta male. Sorry to say it so bluntly , but seriously, if you are gonna be a "Fanboy" be a Shakespeare fanboy, or a Kabbalah fanboy, not a fucking Star Wars fanboy.

    Taleb likes to make fun of him, but he is one of those guys whose achievements are not the sort of achievements Taleb understands. So, strangely, I gained respect for poor Richard E. when I read Taleb's nagging criticisms of him (I mean, Taleb was right, but not in the way he thought).

    That being said, the guy is exponentially smarter than Posner.

    If I were to argue with him, I would certainly not have a beer or two first.

    Replies: @ben tillman

    Interesting. A few weeks ago, I had a long email correspondence with him instigated by one of my clients. I suppose his thoughts and expression thereof were in line with your description of him. I had forgotten that he was a co-author of the textbook used in my torts class way back when.

    • Replies: @anonymous as usual
    @ben tillman

    Thanks for taking me seriously, I sometimes get tired of having my efforts in comment threads result , as so often happens , in nothing more than responses that are ignorant insults (by the way, in this particular case, I was expecting someone to tell me I am an ignoramus who mixed up Cass Sunstein and Richard Epstein ---- I mean, if anyone cared enough to comment. AND I was gonna be silent about that potential misunderstanding, because I know what I know, and I could explain it so well, but the days are over when I explain myself to those who are recalcitrantly oppositional)....

    anyway, people get angry at law professors like Dershowitz who dabble in criminal law, or similar blowhards like Tribe who dabble in constitutional law, but those guys are monastic type ascetics - and as such, admirable in their way - compared to the law professors who dabble in tort law.

    You get a criminal off, even a multi-millionaire criminal, you get, at best, a few million pre-tax dollars and probably some informal access to whatever it is criminals can get you free and informal access to. Nice, I guess, but not a life-changer for an already rich professor. You win a big case on constitutional law, and you get to give speeches here and there to audiences full of ambitious people who will never be your real friends. Maybe you get, if you are a guy, a few late-middle aged female groupies. In other words, your life does not change much.

    BUT.... if you get appointed to be in charge or almost in charge of a class-settlement in a TORT action, because you are a law professor who teaches TORTS, well then you might wind up closer to being a billionaire than a millionaire. For some people, that is VERY IMPORTANT.

  255. @Elmer T. Jones
    @Chrisnonymous

    If you want to be an engineer, scientist, or even an MD, you can start at 40. A solid degree attained while husband shopping can be the basis for a good career later on. This approach is limiting if you want to be a federal judge or make partner in a law firm, but who wants to marry that anyway? No corporate award or courthouse hallway portrait compares to the pleasures of having children.

    Replies: @Jesse, @Cato

    You are suggesting that a woman get a degree while young, then drop out of the labor market for 15 years, and then try to begin a career at age 40. Knowledge acquired in college is quickly forgotten–most of what we know that is valuable to an employer is acquired through experience. At age 40, fluid intelligence is in decline (it peaks in the late 20s) so that the high value of a 40-year old worker is due entirely to superior crystallized intelligence, which is the product of experience, which the lady who follows your advice would not have.

  256. @ben tillman
    @anonymous as usual

    Interesting. A few weeks ago, I had a long email correspondence with him instigated by one of my clients. I suppose his thoughts and expression thereof were in line with your description of him. I had forgotten that he was a co-author of the textbook used in my torts class way back when.

    Replies: @anonymous as usual

    Thanks for taking me seriously, I sometimes get tired of having my efforts in comment threads result , as so often happens , in nothing more than responses that are ignorant insults (by the way, in this particular case, I was expecting someone to tell me I am an ignoramus who mixed up Cass Sunstein and Richard Epstein —- I mean, if anyone cared enough to comment. AND I was gonna be silent about that potential misunderstanding, because I know what I know, and I could explain it so well, but the days are over when I explain myself to those who are recalcitrantly oppositional)….

    anyway, people get angry at law professors like Dershowitz who dabble in criminal law, or similar blowhards like Tribe who dabble in constitutional law, but those guys are monastic type ascetics – and as such, admirable in their way – compared to the law professors who dabble in tort law.

    You get a criminal off, even a multi-millionaire criminal, you get, at best, a few million pre-tax dollars and probably some informal access to whatever it is criminals can get you free and informal access to. Nice, I guess, but not a life-changer for an already rich professor. You win a big case on constitutional law, and you get to give speeches here and there to audiences full of ambitious people who will never be your real friends. Maybe you get, if you are a guy, a few late-middle aged female groupies. In other words, your life does not change much.

    BUT…. if you get appointed to be in charge or almost in charge of a class-settlement in a TORT action, because you are a law professor who teaches TORTS, well then you might wind up closer to being a billionaire than a millionaire. For some people, that is VERY IMPORTANT.

  257. Anonymous[102] • Disclaimer says:
    @anon
    @Jesse

    Words cannot change human biology. You seem to be very, very angry about that, triggered by medical facts. Are you peri-menopausal, perhaps?

    There are real structural impediments to the system you want.

    What system is that? Where did I state anything about a system? I merely stated facts about human reproduction, a biological system that exists independent of anything I state.

    Do you often make things up and pretend that they are real? Or just in comments here?

    So I suggest putting aside your mommy issues, actually reading my questions and deigning to address them.

    Your rants do not contain questions, just bitter feminist assertions that have nothing to do with human biology.

    Reality: women can "do" childbirth much more easily and successfully at 24 than 34. Argue and rage all you want, you won't change that.

    Have you considered counseling? If you are in a religion, perhaps talking to a spiritual advisor?

    Replies: @Anonymous

    ……I don’t get why you keep repeating the stuff that Jesse never disagreed with you on, instead of addressing Jesse’s point that fertility won’t change until people feel it’s safe to have kids sooner.

    It’s definitely a good thing to ensure women know that their fertility begins declining at 30 and hits a sharper decline at 35 (and to ensure men know that their fertility begins declining at 35 *and taking testosterone will completely tank it*). But this is insufficient to solve the problem, which ISTM is Jesse’s point.

    I’m with Steve that we need affordable family formation. In my own life I know a lot of people who have fewer children than they want (which coincides with surveys: IIRC most surveyed want 2-3 kids and end up with 1-2). These are people who passed the first hurdle and found a spouse early in adulthood (not everyone even manages that). Their problems were (a) periods of financial instability that caused them to pause childbearing; and (b) sperm problems.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS