The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Just How Black Was RBG's One Black Clerk?
🔊 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

 

The only black clerk Ruth Bader Ginsburg ever deigned to hire during her 40 years on the federal bench was Paul Watford, the guy in the middle who looks like he might be J.K. Simmons’ secret son with Rashida Jones.

Life has been good for Paul Watford (whom I wrote about in 2016):

From the Orange County Register in 2016:

Judge who lost to Merrick Garland for ​Supreme Court nomination grew up in Laguna Beach

Laguna Beach is nice.

This photo of Paul Watford playing on Laguna Beach High School’s varsity basketball team is from the school’s 1984-1985 Nautilus yearbook. Watford was on a short list to be nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, although Merrick Garland got the nod from President Barack Obama on Wednesday.

By MARTIN WISCKOL | [email protected] | Orange County Register
March 21, 2016 at 8:32 a.m.

Paul Watford, one of the few African Americans in his Laguna Beach High graduating class, came as about as close as possible to being nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court.

While President Barack Obama’s final choice to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia announced Wednesday was Merrick Garland, Watford’s stature as a jurist has been elevated by being widely discussed as a top-three finalist.

So, how good did a black law student have to be to get hired as a clerk by Ruth Bader Ginsburg? He had to be good enough to be one of the three finalists for Barack Obama’s 2016 nomination to the Supreme Court that instead went to Merrick Garland. In other words, Paul Watford may be the finest black legal mind of his generation. And that made him good enough for RBG.

It’s not clear if any other blacks of the last 40 years were good enough for Ginsburg. When asked by the Senate in 1993 why she hadn’t ever hired a single black during her 13 years on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the second most prestigious court, she implied that she wouldn’t miss out on the really good blacks once she was on the Supreme Court.

And indeed she did find one black good enough to work for her, Watford, during her 27 years on the Supreme Court.

… “Paul was, undoubtedly, the most brilliant student in my grade,” said Joshua Zimmerman, a high school classmate who teaches history at Yeshiva University in New York. “In history and literature classes we took together, I remember Paul as the student who had a measured, nuanced analysis of issues. … Paul had a sophisticated and elegant writing style that made me envious.”

OK, so Judge Watford’s best friend in high school now holds the Eli and Diana Zborowski Professorial Chair in Holocaust Studies and East European Jewish History at Yeshiva U. I suspect that was reassuring to Justice Ginsburg.

Senate Republicans have vowed not to consider any nomination by Obama. But Watford, a former point guard for his high school’s varsity team, is a moderate whose supporters include notable Republicans.

“He’s a rare combination of somebody who is really smart, has accomplished a lot and is really humble,” said U.S. appellate court Judge Alex Kozinski, a Ronald Reagan appointee.

And Watford came strongly recommended by Judge Kozinski:

He added that Watford had the kind of credentials that would have impressed GOP senators who took time to consider him.

“I’ve never detected any ideology,” Kozinski said. “He was always down the middle. He’s exactly the kind of person they would want.”

After receiving his law degree from UCLA, Watford was a clerk for Kozinski and then for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. He went on to be a partner in the Los Angeles office of the prominent law firm of Munger, Tolles & Olson and in 2012 assumed his current post as a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. …

“I told him he was a likely candidate for the Supreme Court and he acted like he didn’t believe me,” Kozinski said. “There’s very little with which he could be attacked. He’s led an unimpeachable life. He’s the kind of guy who wouldn’t step off the curb if there’s a ‘no-walk’ sign.” …

Kozinski is the super-energetic former Dating Game winner who got Me-Tooed over some minor stuff.

Watford was born in Garden Grove and grew up in Laguna Beach, where he attended Top of the World Elementary School and Thurston Junior High School before entering Laguna Beach High. He was one of the few blacks at the school – and in the city.

… In high school, the two [Watford and Zimmerman] shared a love of jazz, with Watford being particularly enamored with John Coltrane.

Zimmerman’s father was a white Jew who taught black and civil rights history, and had a living room “filled from floor to ceiling with bookshelves full of literature” on the subjects, Zimmerman said.

“Often when Paul was visiting, he noticed those books and my father gladly loaned him several,” he said. “Afterward, they discussed issues raised in those volumes and I felt so privileged to be a fly on the wall at those discussions.”

Watford also worked at the Fahrenheit 451 bookstore his friend Zimmerman’s mother ran in Laguna Beach.

Fahrenheit 451 was the most famous liberal bookstore in conservative Orange County. The L.A. Times reported in 1994: “It’s probably the only place on the (Orange County) coast that a person can go and actually get a taste of the ‘60s and the Haight-Ashbury days and the coffeehouse and the metaphysics and the artists and the whole bit,” said Ron Watson, a syndicated radio talk show host who lives in Dana Point and has been a Fahrenheit fan for 10 years.”

… “There could not have been a more intellectually stimulating environment in which to work, especially for an impressionable teenager whose mind was just being opened to the world of ideas,” he wrote.

I presume all this made Justice Ginsburg feel more culturally comfortable with young Watford.

From the standpoint of the theory of disparate impact discrimination and systemic racism, this is all pretty funny, but I suspect Justice Ginsburg never got the joke.

 
Hide 92 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Munger, Tolles & Olson was co-founded by Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett’s vice chairman at Berkshire Hathaway.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Dave Pinsen

    His kids are hated in certain GOP Lost Cause quarters there, which may have dwindled to a few dozen Breitbart-adjacent writers at this point. I wonder if anyone to the east knows who they are. Late 2019 saw a splashy wire story, a respectfully reported press release, on a certain noble Southern Californian named Molly Munger "whose father is a billionaire investor" looking around at all the yachts in her neighborhood and thinking there are too many yachts; and therefore more income tax should be summoned, the better to shovel in the direction of Randi Weingarten's local AFT outfit. There is less than zero representation left for the merely semi-rich, let alone a distastefully white middle class. The state Senate, Assembly, and ballot initiative process are just goo-goo playthings of airhead heiresses now.

    I keep wondering when the fairly affluent Asians are gonna wise up to this -- other than a few tokens in the Bay and in Sacramento they just control a handful of boring bedroom-communities w/ no statewide clout.

  2. Garden Grove is a pit now.

    • Replies: @guest007
    @GermanDisco

    Garden Grove is 22% non-Hispanic white. Garden Grove High School is Hispanic 49.8%; Asian
    40.8%; White 6.3% which is usually a sign that the whites are older. It is also 65% free lunch.

    , @Ron Mexico
    @GermanDisco

    Known as Garbage Grove when I lived in the OC. Probably still is. Home of Lenny "Nails" Dykstra. One of my favorite ballplayers, but a real garbage human being.

  3. Thank God no one could bug Ruth’s innermost thoughts. We’d get a tape including something like “Okay, one schvartze, just one. But–you know–not too schvartze.”

    • LOL: Gordo, Prester John
    • Replies: @PV van der Byl
    @Mr McKenna

    https://images.app.goo.gl/xG3BsLoZi

  4. I presume he’s on the DL?

  5. Look at that smile.

    The short California newspaper bios all say simply he is “married”, or “married without children”.

    They don’t say anything about a wife.

    • Replies: @Thulean Friend
    @Reg Cæsar

    Obama's right-hand man Martin Nesbitt is a gay black hedgefund manager. We all know about Corey Booker. The rumors about Obama's "soap parties" in Chicago are legendary. The current mayor of Chicago is a black lesbian. It seems gay blacks have a much easier time advancing the social ladder (even assuming Obama is straight as an arrow). I don't have any immediate theories why. Maybe the gay mafia in politics, finance and business is much more consequential than I am assuming.

    , @Jim Bob Lassiter
    @Reg Cæsar

    The whole lot of them in the mugshot line up makes my Gaydar screech like a wheelbarrow load of Kryptonite.

    , @res
    @Reg Cæsar

    From his confirmation hearing in 2011. Emphasis mine.
    https://www.congress.gov/112/chrg/CHRG-112shrg74981/CHRG-112shrg74981.htm


    Mr. Watford. Thank you very much. I would like to first thank Senator Feinstein for that very kind introduction. I would like to thank Senator Feinstein, as well as Senator Boxer, for their strong support of my nomination. I am very grateful for that.

    I would like to thank the Committee for scheduling this hearing. It is a tremendous honor to be here. And I would of course also like to thank the President for nominating me for
    this position.

    I have a couple of introductions I would like to make, if I could. I have several close friends and two of my former partners, in fact, who are here with me at the hearing. I'm very grateful for their support. I have a number of family members, friends, and colleagues who are watching via the webcast that are up early in California this morning to watch. I am happy that they were able to see the proceedings.

    But most significantly, I would like to introduce my wife Sherry, who is seated just to my right. We have been married for 22 years now and she is just the most supportive spouse anyone could ask for. I am very lucky to be married to her and I am thrilled that she could be here.
     

    Replies: @Jack D

    , @Rob
    @Reg Cæsar

    My impression has always been that gay black people were brighter than straight blacks. Has anyone else noticed that? Are they just more integrated into white culture, because the gay community is smaller and more integrated? It makes me wonder if gays (men, women or both) are smarter than straights. I especially wonder what the numbers would be if it included the men who don’t self-identify as gay, but only have sex with men.

    If gay blacks are higher IQ than others, and white gays aren’t, it would lead to several interesting conclusions. The first is that maybe homosexuality tends to have different causes in the the two populations, which would be interesting. I think I saw somewhere that there are a lot (relatively speaking) of black gays who are deaf, which could point to either an infection causing both, an autoimmune reaction causing both, or maybe homozygosity for (a) pleotropic allele(s). A quick googling shows that a number of viruses, some sexually acquired infections, can cause hearing loss. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4222184/

    Another possibility is that lower self-identification with toxic black culture and interaction with toxic black men, and being more plugged into white culture from teenage(?) years on up makes them smarter. Ever the optimist, I hope this is the reason, because it would show that blacks could drop black culture, and function better.

    I suppose that personality differences between gays and straights could be causal. Like you need to hit some threshold of a particular trait to be more intelligent, but being higher than the threshold doesn’t help, and straight men are above the threshold, and gay men are even higher, but black men are below the threshold, and the boost from being gay brings them above the threshold.

  6. @Reg Cæsar
    Look at that smile.

    The short California newspaper bios all say simply he is "married", or "married without children".

    They don't say anything about a wife.

    Replies: @Thulean Friend, @Jim Bob Lassiter, @res, @Rob

    Obama’s right-hand man Martin Nesbitt is a gay black hedgefund manager. We all know about Corey Booker. The rumors about Obama’s “soap parties” in Chicago are legendary. The current mayor of Chicago is a black lesbian. It seems gay blacks have a much easier time advancing the social ladder (even assuming Obama is straight as an arrow). I don’t have any immediate theories why. Maybe the gay mafia in politics, finance and business is much more consequential than I am assuming.

  7. 50 years ago, that dude would be passing.

    • Agree: Travis
  8. I bet you that Ginsburg wasn’t even aware he was “black”.

  9. THE NEW REPUBLIC, which in its heyday was described as “a more Jewish version of COMMENTARY,” came under fire in the late 1990s for never having had a black staffer. Washington Post publisher Donald Graham, usually an even-tempered fellow, said in 1995 that TNR’s motto should be “Looking for a Qualified Black Since 1914.”

  10. No one has ever been mugged by a negro as light as Paul Watford, and RBG did want to be mugged in her judicial chambers. While she ruled obsessively for more affirmative action, she kept her distance from black people in her workplace.

  11. Of course, Watford, now that he is a judge, is a toe-the-line brainless leftoid drone. Just like all of them (negro talented tenthers),with the exception of Thomas . Brains don’t trump social mileu.

  12. The shaved head made me suspicious. Is it a Talcum X style tactic to hide non-black hair, or an attempt to hide black hair? I found one photo that show him with a respectable Jewfro level of kink.

    • Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder
    @Anon


    a Talcum X style tactic
     
    LOL :)
  13. Fahrenheit 451 was the most famous liberal bookstore in conservative Orange County.

    Yeah, I remember when liberals decried censorship and anti-intellectualism and drew a clear line of distinction between them and all those…….other people…….you know, evil fascist book-burners.

    That was – as the kids say – so yesterday:

    J.K. Rowling Book Burning Videos Are Spreading Like Wildfire Across TikTok

    https://www.newsweek.com/jk-rowling-books-burned-tiktok-transgender-issues-1532330

    • Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder
    @Mr. Anon

    Fortunately for her, J.K. Rowling had the good sense to earn her first billion before offending the idiot wokesters.

    Replies: @Half Canadian

    , @BenKenobi
    @Mr. Anon

    Winston, are you forgetting Who Whom?

    A Trump supporter breathing air is a crime to these people.

    Burning copies of Harry Potter and the Gaping Aperture is merely the destruction of thoughtcrime and the affirmation of universal truth.

    , @fnn
    @Mr. Anon

    American Renaissance and Counter-Currents had all their books purged by Amazon a few years ago. I am sure many other books have been banned by Amazon (80% of the US market) and digital book burning is far more effective than the old fashioned kind.

  14. Help me out: RGB doesn’t sound that smart in her answers to me. What am I missing?

    Orrin Hatch actually sounded very intelligent. She just sorta said stuff in response. But Hatch and every other cuckservative seemed to drool over her.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @RichardTaylor

    She's not that smart.

    She was just a racist Jewish grind from a privileged background with the entire Jewish community cheering her on as the 'Chosen Girl' to go forth and destroy.

    I bet her life was utterly miserable. The only animating emotion was hate.

    Replies: @Keypusher

    , @Gary in Gramercy
    @RichardTaylor

    You're missing this: confirmation hearings are not about a nominee showing U.S. Senators (and the audience watching at home) how Really Really Smart they are. Nominees who try that sink like a stone. Recall Robert Bork, a genuine legal theorist and scholar. When asked during his confirmation hearing why he wanted to be on the Supreme Court, Bork replied, "It would be an intellectual feast." Worst answer ever.

    By contrast, Ruth Ginsburg understood that the purpose of confirmation hearings is to flatter the senators who will be voting on your nomination, and to say as little as possible of any real substance. If you are Really Really Smart, it's best to keep that to yourself until you're safely on the bench. Ginsburg was confirmed, 96-3, so obviously her strategy was the right one.

    Bork was ten, maybe twenty times the legal mind that Ginsburg was -- but he forgot that the judicial confirmation process is an elaborate piece of Kabuki theatre, with its own codes and rituals. Maybe he just didn't want to betray his own intellectual convictions; maybe he couldn't be bothered to trot out stock answers to silly questions that he thought beneath him. (My grandmother, z"l, kept asking me why he hadn't shaved his scraggly beard before going on live television. She thought it made him look sloppy.) But there's Really Really Smart, and then there's Too Smart For His Own Good. Ginsburg was Just Smart Enough to get confirmed.

    Replies: @Yavs, @Jim Don Bob, @stillCARealist, @Jack D, @Captain Tripps

  15. @Anon
    The shaved head made me suspicious. Is it a Talcum X style tactic to hide non-black hair, or an attempt to hide black hair? I found one photo that show him with a respectable Jewfro level of kink.

    Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder

    a Talcum X style tactic

    LOL 🙂

  16. @Mr. Anon

    Fahrenheit 451 was the most famous liberal bookstore in conservative Orange County.
     
    Yeah, I remember when liberals decried censorship and anti-intellectualism and drew a clear line of distinction between them and all those.......other people.......you know, evil fascist book-burners.

    That was - as the kids say - so yesterday:

    J.K. Rowling Book Burning Videos Are Spreading Like Wildfire Across TikTok

    https://www.newsweek.com/jk-rowling-books-burned-tiktok-transgender-issues-1532330
     

    Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder, @BenKenobi, @fnn

    Fortunately for her, J.K. Rowling had the good sense to earn her first billion before offending the idiot wokesters.

    • Replies: @Half Canadian
    @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder

    She was also fortunate that the trans-crowd was so marginal at the time that even if she had stated her opinion on the matter, the general consensus would be that she was very progressive on the matter.

  17. @Mr. Anon

    Fahrenheit 451 was the most famous liberal bookstore in conservative Orange County.
     
    Yeah, I remember when liberals decried censorship and anti-intellectualism and drew a clear line of distinction between them and all those.......other people.......you know, evil fascist book-burners.

    That was - as the kids say - so yesterday:

    J.K. Rowling Book Burning Videos Are Spreading Like Wildfire Across TikTok

    https://www.newsweek.com/jk-rowling-books-burned-tiktok-transgender-issues-1532330
     

    Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder, @BenKenobi, @fnn

    Winston, are you forgetting Who Whom?

    A Trump supporter breathing air is a crime to these people.

    Burning copies of Harry Potter and the Gaping Aperture is merely the destruction of thoughtcrime and the affirmation of universal truth.

  18. Laguna Beach would be nice, if not for the stench of the sewers. It’s also more flash than funk.

  19. Late 60s television is a foreign country; they do things differently there…

  20. Anonymous[504] • Disclaimer says:
    @Dave Pinsen
    Munger, Tolles & Olson was co-founded by Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett’s vice chairman at Berkshire Hathaway.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    His kids are hated in certain GOP Lost Cause quarters there, which may have dwindled to a few dozen Breitbart-adjacent writers at this point. I wonder if anyone to the east knows who they are. Late 2019 saw a splashy wire story, a respectfully reported press release, on a certain noble Southern Californian named Molly Munger “whose father is a billionaire investor” looking around at all the yachts in her neighborhood and thinking there are too many yachts; and therefore more income tax should be summoned, the better to shovel in the direction of Randi Weingarten’s local AFT outfit. There is less than zero representation left for the merely semi-rich, let alone a distastefully white middle class. The state Senate, Assembly, and ballot initiative process are just goo-goo playthings of airhead heiresses now.

    I keep wondering when the fairly affluent Asians are gonna wise up to this — other than a few tokens in the Bay and in Sacramento they just control a handful of boring bedroom-communities w/ no statewide clout.

  21. And it was just two years after she promised recruiting black people in front of the senate. She probably wanted to check that cross.

    So Ginsburg probably didn’t feel comfortable except working with jews and some jew loving whites.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Bruno

    Free association for me, diversity for thee, good and hard. And the government always wins.

  22. Everyone laughed but knowing her previous behaviour, her following behaviour and the decisions she made – Ricci – it’s really disgusting.

  23. Anonymous[332] • Disclaimer says:

    Why don’t Jews have their own country?

    You know…at the end of the day…sitting on your butt all day reading books and writing your opinion is a form of Laziness…even worse when you are doing it due to an obsession of hatred. I doubt RBG did anything else with her life remotely interesting.

    Could you imagine her unplugging a drain, decorating a room, installing a fireplace, building a patio? Surfing?

    It also reminds me of what I read regarding Moscow versus St. Petersburg music schools. In the 1890s the Jews controlled St. Petersberg Music school and refused to let in Gentiles…Just being Jewish means you were A Genius.

  24. @RichardTaylor
    Help me out: RGB doesn't sound that smart in her answers to me. What am I missing?

    Orrin Hatch actually sounded very intelligent. She just sorta said stuff in response. But Hatch and every other cuckservative seemed to drool over her.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Gary in Gramercy

    She’s not that smart.

    She was just a racist Jewish grind from a privileged background with the entire Jewish community cheering her on as the ‘Chosen Girl’ to go forth and destroy.

    I bet her life was utterly miserable. The only animating emotion was hate.

    • Replies: @Keypusher
    @Anonymous

    Steve already posted the capsule bio from Amy Wax. Like everything else I’ve ever read, it indicates that her husband loved her, her kids loved her, Antonin Scalia loved her...she worked really hard, of course, but she found time for opera and the things she liked. She had a really good life, as stable, able people sometimes do.

    “The only animating emotion was hate.”

    I suspect you’re projecting.

  25. @RichardTaylor
    Help me out: RGB doesn't sound that smart in her answers to me. What am I missing?

    Orrin Hatch actually sounded very intelligent. She just sorta said stuff in response. But Hatch and every other cuckservative seemed to drool over her.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @Gary in Gramercy

    You’re missing this: confirmation hearings are not about a nominee showing U.S. Senators (and the audience watching at home) how Really Really Smart they are. Nominees who try that sink like a stone. Recall Robert Bork, a genuine legal theorist and scholar. When asked during his confirmation hearing why he wanted to be on the Supreme Court, Bork replied, “It would be an intellectual feast.” Worst answer ever.

    By contrast, Ruth Ginsburg understood that the purpose of confirmation hearings is to flatter the senators who will be voting on your nomination, and to say as little as possible of any real substance. If you are Really Really Smart, it’s best to keep that to yourself until you’re safely on the bench. Ginsburg was confirmed, 96-3, so obviously her strategy was the right one.

    Bork was ten, maybe twenty times the legal mind that Ginsburg was — but he forgot that the judicial confirmation process is an elaborate piece of Kabuki theatre, with its own codes and rituals. Maybe he just didn’t want to betray his own intellectual convictions; maybe he couldn’t be bothered to trot out stock answers to silly questions that he thought beneath him. (My grandmother, z”l, kept asking me why he hadn’t shaved his scraggly beard before going on live television. She thought it made him look sloppy.) But there’s Really Really Smart, and then there’s Too Smart For His Own Good. Ginsburg was Just Smart Enough to get confirmed.

    • Disagree: ScarletNumber
    • Thanks: RichardTaylor
    • Replies: @Yavs
    @Gary in Gramercy

    Nailed it! Very well said.

    , @Jim Don Bob
    @Gary in Gramercy

    Term limits lost at SCOTUS in the 90s, and it would have won had Bork been on the court.

    Replies: @lysias

    , @stillCARealist
    @Gary in Gramercy

    Wasn't Bork the first nominee to be Borked? He didn't know any better and the Republicans around him didn't either. But I do wonder how Bork would have voted on some of the big cases. He was an advisor to Mitt Romney, per Wikipedia, and he's dead now.

    Replies: @Jack D, @ScarletNumber, @Reg Cæsar

    , @Jack D
    @Gary in Gramercy

    All this "Ginsburg was not that smart" stuff is just sour grapes from people who don't like her ideology and don't like her religion. She was plenty smart - #1 class rank at 3 different Ivy League schools. If Ginsburg was a male Christian and right wing they would be praising him as the smartest person evah.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Liggamortio, @Anonymous Jew

    , @Captain Tripps
    @Gary in Gramercy


    Bork was ten, maybe twenty times the legal mind that Ginsburg was — but he forgot that the judicial confirmation process is an elaborate piece of Kabuki theatre, with its own codes and rituals.
     
    The circuses part of "bread and circuses" that our oligarchs feed us while they rob our back pockets. For men, we get the "gladiatorial combat" circuses, i.e. all your various sports leagues which are a stand-in for the vicarious thrill of emotional release of combat against an immoral foe. See also, Hollywood action movies (war, cop buddy action movies, movies about combat sports, etc.). For the ladies they get Oprah feels, and uber emoting television and cinema (any TV show since, oh 1980, Terms of Endearment, Pretty Woman, etc.). Televised Senate confirmation hearings since the late '80s have turned into an emoting fest, real life televised dram that feeds this, from Bork, to Thomas (Anita Hill), to Kavanaugh (the ultimate circus drama).
  26. @Reg Cæsar
    Look at that smile.

    The short California newspaper bios all say simply he is "married", or "married without children".

    They don't say anything about a wife.

    Replies: @Thulean Friend, @Jim Bob Lassiter, @res, @Rob

    The whole lot of them in the mugshot line up makes my Gaydar screech like a wheelbarrow load of Kryptonite.

  27. @Gary in Gramercy
    @RichardTaylor

    You're missing this: confirmation hearings are not about a nominee showing U.S. Senators (and the audience watching at home) how Really Really Smart they are. Nominees who try that sink like a stone. Recall Robert Bork, a genuine legal theorist and scholar. When asked during his confirmation hearing why he wanted to be on the Supreme Court, Bork replied, "It would be an intellectual feast." Worst answer ever.

    By contrast, Ruth Ginsburg understood that the purpose of confirmation hearings is to flatter the senators who will be voting on your nomination, and to say as little as possible of any real substance. If you are Really Really Smart, it's best to keep that to yourself until you're safely on the bench. Ginsburg was confirmed, 96-3, so obviously her strategy was the right one.

    Bork was ten, maybe twenty times the legal mind that Ginsburg was -- but he forgot that the judicial confirmation process is an elaborate piece of Kabuki theatre, with its own codes and rituals. Maybe he just didn't want to betray his own intellectual convictions; maybe he couldn't be bothered to trot out stock answers to silly questions that he thought beneath him. (My grandmother, z"l, kept asking me why he hadn't shaved his scraggly beard before going on live television. She thought it made him look sloppy.) But there's Really Really Smart, and then there's Too Smart For His Own Good. Ginsburg was Just Smart Enough to get confirmed.

    Replies: @Yavs, @Jim Don Bob, @stillCARealist, @Jack D, @Captain Tripps

    Nailed it! Very well said.

  28. @Bruno
    And it was just two years after she promised recruiting black people in front of the senate. She probably wanted to check that cross.

    So Ginsburg probably didn’t feel comfortable except working with jews and some jew loving whites.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Free association for me, diversity for thee, good and hard. And the government always wins.

  29. @Gary in Gramercy
    @RichardTaylor

    You're missing this: confirmation hearings are not about a nominee showing U.S. Senators (and the audience watching at home) how Really Really Smart they are. Nominees who try that sink like a stone. Recall Robert Bork, a genuine legal theorist and scholar. When asked during his confirmation hearing why he wanted to be on the Supreme Court, Bork replied, "It would be an intellectual feast." Worst answer ever.

    By contrast, Ruth Ginsburg understood that the purpose of confirmation hearings is to flatter the senators who will be voting on your nomination, and to say as little as possible of any real substance. If you are Really Really Smart, it's best to keep that to yourself until you're safely on the bench. Ginsburg was confirmed, 96-3, so obviously her strategy was the right one.

    Bork was ten, maybe twenty times the legal mind that Ginsburg was -- but he forgot that the judicial confirmation process is an elaborate piece of Kabuki theatre, with its own codes and rituals. Maybe he just didn't want to betray his own intellectual convictions; maybe he couldn't be bothered to trot out stock answers to silly questions that he thought beneath him. (My grandmother, z"l, kept asking me why he hadn't shaved his scraggly beard before going on live television. She thought it made him look sloppy.) But there's Really Really Smart, and then there's Too Smart For His Own Good. Ginsburg was Just Smart Enough to get confirmed.

    Replies: @Yavs, @Jim Don Bob, @stillCARealist, @Jack D, @Captain Tripps

    Term limits lost at SCOTUS in the 90s, and it would have won had Bork been on the court.

    • Replies: @lysias
    @Jim Don Bob

    Bork promoted the nonenforcement of the antitrust laws, something that this country has suffered from ever since.

  30. “Watford’s father was a white Jew” — I just knew that was coming, and I kept the faith through all the preceding paragraphs. Jewish blacks are truly the best, aren’t they, if you’re a Jewish radical advocate against “white racism” and so forth?

    • Replies: @res
    @Tono Bungay


    “Watford’s father was a white Jew” — I just knew that was coming
     
    Except that was not what it said. The quote referred to his friend Zimmerman.
  31. One wonders how many of Ruth’s clerks were Jewish?

  32. I bet this is closer to the truth than you can believe:

  33. @Mr McKenna
    Thank God no one could bug Ruth's innermost thoughts. We'd get a tape including something like "Okay, one schvartze, just one. But--you know--not too schvartze."

    Replies: @PV van der Byl

  34. anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:

    How does a supreme court justice like them swear on a Bible (this was a Christian country) to uphold the Constitution? Actually how does anyone, who needs to be sworn in? Isn’t their swearing in their first lie that begins a trail of lies and deception right after it? How do they uphold the Constitution and be a check for the country? I guess their skin doesn’t burn and peel off when they place their hand on the Bible because the churches have done such a good job exorcising God right out of it. Maybe they place their hand on some other book, one from that famous 60’s bookstore, no doubt.
    I’m curious as to what exactly they were/are impartially upholding.

    • Replies: @lysias
    @anonymous

    Hindu Tulsi Gabbard swore on the Bhagavad Gita. That was allowed.

    , @epebble
    @anonymous

    They can swear on any book they want (or no book at all).People have sworn on U.S. Constitution, Koran, Gita …

    https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-brief-history-of-oaths-and-books

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

  35. @Gary in Gramercy
    @RichardTaylor

    You're missing this: confirmation hearings are not about a nominee showing U.S. Senators (and the audience watching at home) how Really Really Smart they are. Nominees who try that sink like a stone. Recall Robert Bork, a genuine legal theorist and scholar. When asked during his confirmation hearing why he wanted to be on the Supreme Court, Bork replied, "It would be an intellectual feast." Worst answer ever.

    By contrast, Ruth Ginsburg understood that the purpose of confirmation hearings is to flatter the senators who will be voting on your nomination, and to say as little as possible of any real substance. If you are Really Really Smart, it's best to keep that to yourself until you're safely on the bench. Ginsburg was confirmed, 96-3, so obviously her strategy was the right one.

    Bork was ten, maybe twenty times the legal mind that Ginsburg was -- but he forgot that the judicial confirmation process is an elaborate piece of Kabuki theatre, with its own codes and rituals. Maybe he just didn't want to betray his own intellectual convictions; maybe he couldn't be bothered to trot out stock answers to silly questions that he thought beneath him. (My grandmother, z"l, kept asking me why he hadn't shaved his scraggly beard before going on live television. She thought it made him look sloppy.) But there's Really Really Smart, and then there's Too Smart For His Own Good. Ginsburg was Just Smart Enough to get confirmed.

    Replies: @Yavs, @Jim Don Bob, @stillCARealist, @Jack D, @Captain Tripps

    Wasn’t Bork the first nominee to be Borked? He didn’t know any better and the Republicans around him didn’t either. But I do wonder how Bork would have voted on some of the big cases. He was an advisor to Mitt Romney, per Wikipedia, and he’s dead now.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @stillCARealist

    Yes but for a while Borking was a game only Democrats played. Bork was Borked in 1987 but for Ginsburg in '93 it was all love and kisses from the Republicans. It took the Republicans years to figure out that the Dems were going to try to Bork whoever they nominated (unless they picked a leftist) and to do the same to their nominees. Even now, Republicans are more polite - they just didn't bring Garland up for a hearing, they didn't try to assassinate his character and drag the bushes for women who would accuse him of high school misdeeds.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    , @ScarletNumber
    @stillCARealist

    Exactly, you can't blame Bork since the political rejection of nominees started with him. Yes Ginsberg was confirmed 96-3, but Breyer came right after her and was confirmed 87-9, and no one considers him to be a genius.

    This version of the court was very stable at 11 years, which in politics is an eternity. The Senate became much more rancorous during this time, and it is evidenced by the fact that all Supreme Court confirmations have been contentious since then. Even Roberts had 22 nay votes, all Democratic.

    Replies: @res

    , @Reg Cæsar
    @stillCARealist


    But I do wonder how Bork would have voted on some of the big cases.
     
    He held a low opinion of the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment. Insulting, even. He was a big fan of antitrust enforcement, and went after Microsoft. I can just imagine what he'd think of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon today.

    Especially if he didn't hold an individual-rights interpretation of the First Amendment.

    Replies: @James Forrestal

  36. “I told him he was a likely candidate for the Supreme Court and he acted like he didn’t believe me,” Kozinski said.

    LOL. So the Jew knew Watford was black but Watford himself didn’t know he was black?

  37. @Gary in Gramercy
    @RichardTaylor

    You're missing this: confirmation hearings are not about a nominee showing U.S. Senators (and the audience watching at home) how Really Really Smart they are. Nominees who try that sink like a stone. Recall Robert Bork, a genuine legal theorist and scholar. When asked during his confirmation hearing why he wanted to be on the Supreme Court, Bork replied, "It would be an intellectual feast." Worst answer ever.

    By contrast, Ruth Ginsburg understood that the purpose of confirmation hearings is to flatter the senators who will be voting on your nomination, and to say as little as possible of any real substance. If you are Really Really Smart, it's best to keep that to yourself until you're safely on the bench. Ginsburg was confirmed, 96-3, so obviously her strategy was the right one.

    Bork was ten, maybe twenty times the legal mind that Ginsburg was -- but he forgot that the judicial confirmation process is an elaborate piece of Kabuki theatre, with its own codes and rituals. Maybe he just didn't want to betray his own intellectual convictions; maybe he couldn't be bothered to trot out stock answers to silly questions that he thought beneath him. (My grandmother, z"l, kept asking me why he hadn't shaved his scraggly beard before going on live television. She thought it made him look sloppy.) But there's Really Really Smart, and then there's Too Smart For His Own Good. Ginsburg was Just Smart Enough to get confirmed.

    Replies: @Yavs, @Jim Don Bob, @stillCARealist, @Jack D, @Captain Tripps

    All this “Ginsburg was not that smart” stuff is just sour grapes from people who don’t like her ideology and don’t like her religion. She was plenty smart – #1 class rank at 3 different Ivy League schools. If Ginsburg was a male Christian and right wing they would be praising him as the smartest person evah.

    • Agree: epebble
    • Troll: HammerJack
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    @Jack D

    She was at least as smart as both twins in the Cronenberg movie: "There is nothing wrong with my opinions. They are the industry standard, solid gold. It's the citizens, they're mutating!"

    , @Liggamortio
    @Jack D

    Ivy’s that are run by who?
    Taught by who?
    Who do you think you’re fooling?

    , @Anonymous Jew
    @Jack D

    Because people confuse intelligence, wisdom and other traits. We have different words for these characteristics for a reason; they’re different things. Verbal IQ wise yes, Ginsburg was genuinely brilliant. But we’re a country run by high IQ idiots and she was one of them.

    One of my theories is that highly intelligent people are better able to hallucinate their own reality. As an example, long ago I saw a survey that showed that more educated people were less likely to be able to accurately attribute our population growth to immigration. Sometimes people of modest intellect are better able to see the world as it is. As another example, I know a former Harvard associate professor (now at another Ivy). Genuinely smart guy. I asked him: overall and objectively, has immigration improved Sweden? He reflexively answered “yes” and then a split second later his reasoning mind tried to catch and provide a post-hoc explanation. It was both sad and insightful to witness.

    TLDR: people with 140 IQs can be deluded into doing incredibly stupid things.

  38. @Mr. Anon

    Fahrenheit 451 was the most famous liberal bookstore in conservative Orange County.
     
    Yeah, I remember when liberals decried censorship and anti-intellectualism and drew a clear line of distinction between them and all those.......other people.......you know, evil fascist book-burners.

    That was - as the kids say - so yesterday:

    J.K. Rowling Book Burning Videos Are Spreading Like Wildfire Across TikTok

    https://www.newsweek.com/jk-rowling-books-burned-tiktok-transgender-issues-1532330
     

    Replies: @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder, @BenKenobi, @fnn

    American Renaissance and Counter-Currents had all their books purged by Amazon a few years ago. I am sure many other books have been banned by Amazon (80% of the US market) and digital book burning is far more effective than the old fashioned kind.

  39. @Jack D
    @Gary in Gramercy

    All this "Ginsburg was not that smart" stuff is just sour grapes from people who don't like her ideology and don't like her religion. She was plenty smart - #1 class rank at 3 different Ivy League schools. If Ginsburg was a male Christian and right wing they would be praising him as the smartest person evah.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Liggamortio, @Anonymous Jew

    She was at least as smart as both twins in the Cronenberg movie: “There is nothing wrong with my opinions. They are the industry standard, solid gold. It’s the citizens, they’re mutating!”

  40. With all these geniuses, led by Ruthie, why is the country/the West
    worth sh*t, are sh*t.

    Geniuses have led/pushed the US … down.

  41. For anyone interested, the Judicial Common Space data (latest version is 2018) includes appeals court judges.
    http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/JCS.html

    Here is the entry for Watford.

    name JCS2018 circuit
    567 Watford, Paul -0.3580 9

    For comparison, here are the JCS scores for the 2016 Supreme Court.

    JCS.justices[!is.na(JCS.justices$jcs2016), c(“justiceName”, “jcs2016”)]
    justiceName jcs2016
    37 AMKennedy -0.03889814
    39 CThomas 0.73790497
    40 RBGinsburg -0.61418897
    41 SGBreyer -0.36380661
    42 JGRoberts 0.19597942
    43 SAAlito 0.51990461
    44 SSotomayor -0.61757845
    45 EKagan -0.42083636
    46 NMGorsuch 0.52479911

    • Replies: @Keypusher
    @res

    Well...it’s nice that they use positive numbers for conservatives.

    Seriously, thanks for posting (in general and in this instance).

  42. … which onez the blak ?

  43. @Tono Bungay
    "Watford's father was a white Jew" -- I just knew that was coming, and I kept the faith through all the preceding paragraphs. Jewish blacks are truly the best, aren't they, if you're a Jewish radical advocate against "white racism" and so forth?

    Replies: @res

    “Watford’s father was a white Jew” — I just knew that was coming

    Except that was not what it said. The quote referred to his friend Zimmerman.

  44. @Jack D
    @Gary in Gramercy

    All this "Ginsburg was not that smart" stuff is just sour grapes from people who don't like her ideology and don't like her religion. She was plenty smart - #1 class rank at 3 different Ivy League schools. If Ginsburg was a male Christian and right wing they would be praising him as the smartest person evah.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Liggamortio, @Anonymous Jew

    Ivy’s that are run by who?
    Taught by who?
    Who do you think you’re fooling?

  45. I am so sick and tired of these brilliant lawyer-judges who can’t understand the simple English in which the Constitution is written.

  46. @anonymous
    How does a supreme court justice like them swear on a Bible (this was a Christian country) to uphold the Constitution? Actually how does anyone, who needs to be sworn in? Isn't their swearing in their first lie that begins a trail of lies and deception right after it? How do they uphold the Constitution and be a check for the country? I guess their skin doesn't burn and peel off when they place their hand on the Bible because the churches have done such a good job exorcising God right out of it. Maybe they place their hand on some other book, one from that famous 60's bookstore, no doubt.
    I'm curious as to what exactly they were/are impartially upholding.

    Replies: @lysias, @epebble

    Hindu Tulsi Gabbard swore on the Bhagavad Gita. That was allowed.

  47. @Jim Don Bob
    @Gary in Gramercy

    Term limits lost at SCOTUS in the 90s, and it would have won had Bork been on the court.

    Replies: @lysias

    Bork promoted the nonenforcement of the antitrust laws, something that this country has suffered from ever since.

  48. he looks like ex-duke player, nba champion and “no stats all-star” Shane Battier

    https://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/15/magazine/15Battier-t.html

  49. @Jack D
    @Gary in Gramercy

    All this "Ginsburg was not that smart" stuff is just sour grapes from people who don't like her ideology and don't like her religion. She was plenty smart - #1 class rank at 3 different Ivy League schools. If Ginsburg was a male Christian and right wing they would be praising him as the smartest person evah.

    Replies: @J.Ross, @Liggamortio, @Anonymous Jew

    Because people confuse intelligence, wisdom and other traits. We have different words for these characteristics for a reason; they’re different things. Verbal IQ wise yes, Ginsburg was genuinely brilliant. But we’re a country run by high IQ idiots and she was one of them.

    One of my theories is that highly intelligent people are better able to hallucinate their own reality. As an example, long ago I saw a survey that showed that more educated people were less likely to be able to accurately attribute our population growth to immigration. Sometimes people of modest intellect are better able to see the world as it is. As another example, I know a former Harvard associate professor (now at another Ivy). Genuinely smart guy. I asked him: overall and objectively, has immigration improved Sweden? He reflexively answered “yes” and then a split second later his reasoning mind tried to catch and provide a post-hoc explanation. It was both sad and insightful to witness.

    TLDR: people with 140 IQs can be deluded into doing incredibly stupid things.

  50. enough eulogizing and discussing a dead enemy combatant. this is starting to get offensive.

    you made 1 or 2 posts about Scalia at most – a guy who was 1 million times better than this jewish enemy, and who wrote dozens of important, well reasoned decisions that should be used as guidance for all future justices.

    not to mention you had no interest in the “no autopsy, please” aspect of Scalia’s somewhat dubious death.

    • Agree: DCThrowback
  51. @stillCARealist
    @Gary in Gramercy

    Wasn't Bork the first nominee to be Borked? He didn't know any better and the Republicans around him didn't either. But I do wonder how Bork would have voted on some of the big cases. He was an advisor to Mitt Romney, per Wikipedia, and he's dead now.

    Replies: @Jack D, @ScarletNumber, @Reg Cæsar

    Yes but for a while Borking was a game only Democrats played. Bork was Borked in 1987 but for Ginsburg in ’93 it was all love and kisses from the Republicans. It took the Republicans years to figure out that the Dems were going to try to Bork whoever they nominated (unless they picked a leftist) and to do the same to their nominees. Even now, Republicans are more polite – they just didn’t bring Garland up for a hearing, they didn’t try to assassinate his character and drag the bushes for women who would accuse him of high school misdeeds.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Jack D

    Wow, Jack D, you are wrong in this post, too. Borking was noteworthy because it was so rare. The Democratic Senate confirmed Republican appointees Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, Kennedy, and Souter by a combined vote of 468-10. In addition, both Scalia and Day O'Connor were confirmed unanimously.

    Bork was borked mostly as revenge for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre 14 years prior. It also wasn't purely a partisan vote, as 6 Republicans* voted no, more than the 2 Democrats who voted yes.

    *Chafee (RI), Packwood (OR), Specter (PA), Stafford (VT), Warner (VA), Weicker (CT)

    Replies: @Keypusher

  52. Dude likely very well knew his worth as the only actually intelligent and civilized black dude at his level.

    Given his talents, he likely would’ve been a less corrupt first black president than Obama, because he actually, you know, did the heavy writing and research and work required of him, rather than just appoint whomever Citibank told him to appoint and go golfing afterwards.

  53. @anonymous
    How does a supreme court justice like them swear on a Bible (this was a Christian country) to uphold the Constitution? Actually how does anyone, who needs to be sworn in? Isn't their swearing in their first lie that begins a trail of lies and deception right after it? How do they uphold the Constitution and be a check for the country? I guess their skin doesn't burn and peel off when they place their hand on the Bible because the churches have done such a good job exorcising God right out of it. Maybe they place their hand on some other book, one from that famous 60's bookstore, no doubt.
    I'm curious as to what exactly they were/are impartially upholding.

    Replies: @lysias, @epebble

    They can swear on any book they want (or no book at all).People have sworn on U.S. Constitution, Koran, Gita …

    https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-brief-history-of-oaths-and-books

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    @epebble


    They can swear on any book they want (or no book at all). People have sworn on U.S. Constitution, Koran, Gita …
     
    Are you sure about that? Keith Ellison used a translation, which doesn't count. In the preface, the translator called it "so manifest a forgery".

    What language was Ilhan's in? If it's not Arabic, it's not the Koran.

    Replies: @epebble

  54. Now that she’s dead I guess it’ll be OK to cancel her for only having one black clerk (none at the time of her confirmation.) Never mind applying “principals”…the left can’t even cancel consistently.

    • Replies: @J1234
    @J1234

    Sorry, I meant principles, of course.

  55. @Reg Cæsar
    Look at that smile.

    The short California newspaper bios all say simply he is "married", or "married without children".

    They don't say anything about a wife.

    Replies: @Thulean Friend, @Jim Bob Lassiter, @res, @Rob

    From his confirmation hearing in 2011. Emphasis mine.
    https://www.congress.gov/112/chrg/CHRG-112shrg74981/CHRG-112shrg74981.htm

    Mr. Watford. Thank you very much. I would like to first thank Senator Feinstein for that very kind introduction. I would like to thank Senator Feinstein, as well as Senator Boxer, for their strong support of my nomination. I am very grateful for that.

    I would like to thank the Committee for scheduling this hearing. It is a tremendous honor to be here. And I would of course also like to thank the President for nominating me for
    this position.

    I have a couple of introductions I would like to make, if I could. I have several close friends and two of my former partners, in fact, who are here with me at the hearing. I’m very grateful for their support. I have a number of family members, friends, and colleagues who are watching via the webcast that are up early in California this morning to watch. I am happy that they were able to see the proceedings.

    But most significantly, I would like to introduce my wife Sherry, who is seated just to my right. We have been married for 22 years now and she is just the most supportive spouse anyone could ask for. I am very lucky to be married to her and I am thrilled that she could be here.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @res

    Unz commenters' gaydar is almost as effective as their Jewdar. In both cases, it's set a little too sensitive, so they have a problem with false positives. A smile that is a little too friendly or a Germanic surname and whoop, whoop the alarm siren sound. Makes you want to take the batteries out.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @Moses, @3g4me

  56. @res
    @Reg Cæsar

    From his confirmation hearing in 2011. Emphasis mine.
    https://www.congress.gov/112/chrg/CHRG-112shrg74981/CHRG-112shrg74981.htm


    Mr. Watford. Thank you very much. I would like to first thank Senator Feinstein for that very kind introduction. I would like to thank Senator Feinstein, as well as Senator Boxer, for their strong support of my nomination. I am very grateful for that.

    I would like to thank the Committee for scheduling this hearing. It is a tremendous honor to be here. And I would of course also like to thank the President for nominating me for
    this position.

    I have a couple of introductions I would like to make, if I could. I have several close friends and two of my former partners, in fact, who are here with me at the hearing. I'm very grateful for their support. I have a number of family members, friends, and colleagues who are watching via the webcast that are up early in California this morning to watch. I am happy that they were able to see the proceedings.

    But most significantly, I would like to introduce my wife Sherry, who is seated just to my right. We have been married for 22 years now and she is just the most supportive spouse anyone could ask for. I am very lucky to be married to her and I am thrilled that she could be here.
     

    Replies: @Jack D

    Unz commenters’ gaydar is almost as effective as their Jewdar. In both cases, it’s set a little too sensitive, so they have a problem with false positives. A smile that is a little too friendly or a Germanic surname and whoop, whoop the alarm siren sound. Makes you want to take the batteries out.

    • Replies: @Mike Tre
    @Jack D

    Your damage control ain't so good neither, bub.

    , @Moses
    @Jack D


    Makes you want to take the batteries out.
     
    I see what you did there.
    , @3g4me
    @Jack D

    @56 Jack D: Poor Jack. No one takes you as seriously as you take yourself. No one recognizes your brilliance, your incredible insights. You're the quintessential every man. The average magic dirt Fake American. Everyone else is just poorly attuned, while you are . . . chosen.

  57. Watford attended a public university for both undergraduate and for law school. How many of the non-Hispanic white clerks that worked for Ginsburg also attended public universities for all of their degrees. I suspect the number is zero.

  58. @GermanDisco
    Garden Grove is a pit now.

    Replies: @guest007, @Ron Mexico

    Garden Grove is 22% non-Hispanic white. Garden Grove High School is Hispanic 49.8%; Asian
    40.8%; White 6.3% which is usually a sign that the whites are older. It is also 65% free lunch.

  59. @Anonymous
    @RichardTaylor

    She's not that smart.

    She was just a racist Jewish grind from a privileged background with the entire Jewish community cheering her on as the 'Chosen Girl' to go forth and destroy.

    I bet her life was utterly miserable. The only animating emotion was hate.

    Replies: @Keypusher

    Steve already posted the capsule bio from Amy Wax. Like everything else I’ve ever read, it indicates that her husband loved her, her kids loved her, Antonin Scalia loved her…she worked really hard, of course, but she found time for opera and the things she liked. She had a really good life, as stable, able people sometimes do.

    “The only animating emotion was hate.”

    I suspect you’re projecting.

  60. @Jack D
    @res

    Unz commenters' gaydar is almost as effective as their Jewdar. In both cases, it's set a little too sensitive, so they have a problem with false positives. A smile that is a little too friendly or a Germanic surname and whoop, whoop the alarm siren sound. Makes you want to take the batteries out.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @Moses, @3g4me

    Your damage control ain’t so good neither, bub.

  61. At least Justice Ginsburg took her coffee black:

    In a 2011 employment discrimination class action, she faulted colleagues for overlooking how “subjective decision making can be a vehicle for discrimination.” She referenced a favorite example from a favorite pastime: Orchestras with blind auditions hire more women.

    The magnitude of her legal legacy cannot be overstated. But her impact was even greater because she modeled for us and for women and girls around the world how to live a life that reflected her legal vision. She demanded a lot from her law clerks, but demanded even more from herself. She was the hardest working, most deliberate person either one of us has ever worked for. She taught us to be strong and to stand behind our work. She gave countless women and men opportunities and support in the life of the law. She got to know all of our children. Her famous faxes came across the channels at all hours of the night. Her black coffee always brewed strong.

    [MORE]

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @MEH 0910

    "She was a role model for us in law and in life" say Gluck and Metzger. Yes, I can believe that.

  62. @res
    For anyone interested, the Judicial Common Space data (latest version is 2018) includes appeals court judges.
    http://epstein.wustl.edu/research/JCS.html

    Here is the entry for Watford.

    name JCS2018 circuit
    567 Watford, Paul -0.3580 9

    For comparison, here are the JCS scores for the 2016 Supreme Court.

    JCS.justices[!is.na(JCS.justices$jcs2016), c("justiceName", "jcs2016")]
    justiceName jcs2016
    37 AMKennedy -0.03889814
    39 CThomas 0.73790497
    40 RBGinsburg -0.61418897
    41 SGBreyer -0.36380661
    42 JGRoberts 0.19597942
    43 SAAlito 0.51990461
    44 SSotomayor -0.61757845
    45 EKagan -0.42083636
    46 NMGorsuch 0.52479911

    Replies: @Keypusher

    Well…it’s nice that they use positive numbers for conservatives.

    Seriously, thanks for posting (in general and in this instance).

  63. Elite liberals love the idea of “blacks” who are NOT BLACK. Despite their public and professed belief in racial equality, both white liberals and Mulatto Elites fear that the deplorable state of the REAL blacks in the underclass is probably due to genetics. The “solution,” as they see it, is to have people with half or more white or Asian ancestry representing blacks. This usually appears to work because they can count on most people being too polite to publicly point out the contradiction.

  64. @Reg Cæsar
    Look at that smile.

    The short California newspaper bios all say simply he is "married", or "married without children".

    They don't say anything about a wife.

    Replies: @Thulean Friend, @Jim Bob Lassiter, @res, @Rob

    My impression has always been that gay black people were brighter than straight blacks. Has anyone else noticed that? Are they just more integrated into white culture, because the gay community is smaller and more integrated? It makes me wonder if gays (men, women or both) are smarter than straights. I especially wonder what the numbers would be if it included the men who don’t self-identify as gay, but only have sex with men.

    If gay blacks are higher IQ than others, and white gays aren’t, it would lead to several interesting conclusions. The first is that maybe homosexuality tends to have different causes in the the two populations, which would be interesting. I think I saw somewhere that there are a lot (relatively speaking) of black gays who are deaf, which could point to either an infection causing both, an autoimmune reaction causing both, or maybe homozygosity for (a) pleotropic allele(s). A quick googling shows that a number of viruses, some sexually acquired infections, can cause hearing loss. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4222184/

    Another possibility is that lower self-identification with toxic black culture and interaction with toxic black men, and being more plugged into white culture from teenage(?) years on up makes them smarter. Ever the optimist, I hope this is the reason, because it would show that blacks could drop black culture, and function better.

    I suppose that personality differences between gays and straights could be causal. Like you need to hit some threshold of a particular trait to be more intelligent, but being higher than the threshold doesn’t help, and straight men are above the threshold, and gay men are even higher, but black men are below the threshold, and the boost from being gay brings them above the threshold.

  65. Watford seems like a very capable jurist. Sadly politics are a major part of advancement through the ranks to the SC. But what if Trump were to throw his name into the mix. That would be interesting.

  66. She’s not dead! Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not dead! The 9th Circuit says so!

    https://babylonbee.com/news/ninth-circuit-court-overturns-death-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg

  67. How many of the clerks Ginsburg hired were Jews? Guessing it’s disproportionately high by a wide margin.

  68. @Jack D
    @res

    Unz commenters' gaydar is almost as effective as their Jewdar. In both cases, it's set a little too sensitive, so they have a problem with false positives. A smile that is a little too friendly or a Germanic surname and whoop, whoop the alarm siren sound. Makes you want to take the batteries out.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @Moses, @3g4me

    Makes you want to take the batteries out.

    I see what you did there.

  69. @J1234
    Now that she's dead I guess it'll be OK to cancel her for only having one black clerk (none at the time of her confirmation.) Never mind applying "principals"...the left can't even cancel consistently.

    Replies: @J1234

    Sorry, I meant principles, of course.

  70. @Mike Pierson, Davenport Rector, Midfielder
    @Mr. Anon

    Fortunately for her, J.K. Rowling had the good sense to earn her first billion before offending the idiot wokesters.

    Replies: @Half Canadian

    She was also fortunate that the trans-crowd was so marginal at the time that even if she had stated her opinion on the matter, the general consensus would be that she was very progressive on the matter.

  71. @Jack D
    @stillCARealist

    Yes but for a while Borking was a game only Democrats played. Bork was Borked in 1987 but for Ginsburg in '93 it was all love and kisses from the Republicans. It took the Republicans years to figure out that the Dems were going to try to Bork whoever they nominated (unless they picked a leftist) and to do the same to their nominees. Even now, Republicans are more polite - they just didn't bring Garland up for a hearing, they didn't try to assassinate his character and drag the bushes for women who would accuse him of high school misdeeds.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    Wow, Jack D, you are wrong in this post, too. Borking was noteworthy because it was so rare. The Democratic Senate confirmed Republican appointees Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, Kennedy, and Souter by a combined vote of 468-10. In addition, both Scalia and Day O’Connor were confirmed unanimously.

    Bork was borked mostly as revenge for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre 14 years prior. It also wasn’t purely a partisan vote, as 6 Republicans* voted no, more than the 2 Democrats who voted yes.

    *

    [MORE]
    Chafee (RI), Packwood (OR), Specter (PA), Stafford (VT), Warner (VA), Weicker (CT)

    • Replies: @Keypusher
    @ScarletNumber

    “Bork was borked mostly as revenge for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre 14 years prior.”

    Horse manure. He was borked because he was (correctly) perceived as a vote to overturn Roe. Which survived 5:4 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), with Anthony Kennedy, Reagan’s third choice after Bork was defeated and Douglas Ginsburg withdrew, voting in the majority.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

  72. @stillCARealist
    @Gary in Gramercy

    Wasn't Bork the first nominee to be Borked? He didn't know any better and the Republicans around him didn't either. But I do wonder how Bork would have voted on some of the big cases. He was an advisor to Mitt Romney, per Wikipedia, and he's dead now.

    Replies: @Jack D, @ScarletNumber, @Reg Cæsar

    Exactly, you can’t blame Bork since the political rejection of nominees started with him. Yes Ginsberg was confirmed 96-3, but Breyer came right after her and was confirmed 87-9, and no one considers him to be a genius.

    This version of the court was very stable at 11 years, which in politics is an eternity. The Senate became much more rancorous during this time, and it is evidenced by the fact that all Supreme Court confirmations have been contentious since then. Even Roberts had 22 nay votes, all Democratic.

    • Replies: @res
    @ScarletNumber

    Perhaps worth noting that two of Nixon's nominations were rejected. And Rehnquist had 26 votes against.

    You left out Clarence Thomas who fell between Bork and Ginsburg/Breyer. He was an important part of the evolution of the Supreme Court battles.

    The following link is a good source for the confirmation votes. Notice how since Roberts the smallest number of negative votes was 31 (Sotomayor). And then there are Harriet Miers and Merrick Garland who never even made it to a vote.

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

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

  73. @ScarletNumber
    @Jack D

    Wow, Jack D, you are wrong in this post, too. Borking was noteworthy because it was so rare. The Democratic Senate confirmed Republican appointees Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, Kennedy, and Souter by a combined vote of 468-10. In addition, both Scalia and Day O'Connor were confirmed unanimously.

    Bork was borked mostly as revenge for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre 14 years prior. It also wasn't purely a partisan vote, as 6 Republicans* voted no, more than the 2 Democrats who voted yes.

    *Chafee (RI), Packwood (OR), Specter (PA), Stafford (VT), Warner (VA), Weicker (CT)

    Replies: @Keypusher

    “Bork was borked mostly as revenge for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre 14 years prior.”

    Horse manure. He was borked because he was (correctly) perceived as a vote to overturn Roe. Which survived 5:4 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), with Anthony Kennedy, Reagan’s third choice after Bork was defeated and Douglas Ginsburg withdrew, voting in the majority.

    • Agree: Gary in Gramercy
    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    @Keypusher

    You're absolutely right that Roe was the primary issue motivating the opposition to Bork. A few other factors complicated the Bork nomination, dooming it to defeat. It may be helpful to compare Bork's fate to that of his former colleague on the D.C. Circuit, Antonin Scalia, who had sailed through his own confirmation hearing the year before, receiving unanimous Senate support. (If the Democratic senators who voted to confirm Scalia had had any idea what kind of Justice he would be, his support would have been considerably less bipartisan.)

    First, Bork was being chosen to replace Lewis Powell, a moderate and frequently a "swing" vote on the Court (e.g., the Bakke case). As you note, abortion was a key issue here, and Powell had voted with the 7-2 majority in Roe to overturn virtually all state restrictions on the procedure. By contrast, Scalia was effectively replacing Warren Burger on the Court (Rehnquist was being promoted to Chief Justice), so most saw that nomination as one conservative exchanged for another.

    Second, President Reagan's political position was considerably weaker in the summer and fall of 1987 than it had been a year before. The Democrats had taken control of the Senate, and Reagan was embroiled in the Iran-Contra affair. As a lame-duck President facing daily questions about Oliver North & Co., Reagan was powerless to do much for Bork; he couldn't even prevent several Republican senators from breaking ranks and voting against confirmation.

    Third, as my earlier comment noted, Bork himself was a poor candidate, precisely because he refused to campaign in the way that judicial nominees are expected to. In response to senators' questions, he gave the answers one would expect from a highly intellectual law professor -- answers completely ill-suited for the stylized setting of a televised confirmation hearing. His dour countenance was a terrible contrast with Scalia's light-up-a-room charisma that had charmed senators of both parties the previous year. (And yes, he should have shaved his beard, or at least trimmed it neatly.) Scalia helped himself enormously in the confirmation process; Bork shot himself in both feet, repeatedly.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  74. @Jack D
    @res

    Unz commenters' gaydar is almost as effective as their Jewdar. In both cases, it's set a little too sensitive, so they have a problem with false positives. A smile that is a little too friendly or a Germanic surname and whoop, whoop the alarm siren sound. Makes you want to take the batteries out.

    Replies: @Mike Tre, @Moses, @3g4me

    @56 Jack D: Poor Jack. No one takes you as seriously as you take yourself. No one recognizes your brilliance, your incredible insights. You’re the quintessential every man. The average magic dirt Fake American. Everyone else is just poorly attuned, while you are . . . chosen.

  75. @ScarletNumber
    @stillCARealist

    Exactly, you can't blame Bork since the political rejection of nominees started with him. Yes Ginsberg was confirmed 96-3, but Breyer came right after her and was confirmed 87-9, and no one considers him to be a genius.

    This version of the court was very stable at 11 years, which in politics is an eternity. The Senate became much more rancorous during this time, and it is evidenced by the fact that all Supreme Court confirmations have been contentious since then. Even Roberts had 22 nay votes, all Democratic.

    Replies: @res

    Perhaps worth noting that two of Nixon’s nominations were rejected. And Rehnquist had 26 votes against.

    You left out Clarence Thomas who fell between Bork and Ginsburg/Breyer. He was an important part of the evolution of the Supreme Court battles.

    The following link is a good source for the confirmation votes. Notice how since Roberts the smallest number of negative votes was 31 (Sotomayor). And then there are Harriet Miers and Merrick Garland who never even made it to a vote.

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

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @res

    I didn't leave out anyone, since I never claimed my post was all inclusive. The two Nixon nominees were not political rejections; they were both bipartisan. The second rejection was of someone who was commonly thought of as a dunce.

    Please see my comment to Jack D

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/just-how-black-was-rbgs-one-black-clerk/#comment-4178136

    Replies: @res

  76. @res
    @ScarletNumber

    Perhaps worth noting that two of Nixon's nominations were rejected. And Rehnquist had 26 votes against.

    You left out Clarence Thomas who fell between Bork and Ginsburg/Breyer. He was an important part of the evolution of the Supreme Court battles.

    The following link is a good source for the confirmation votes. Notice how since Roberts the smallest number of negative votes was 31 (Sotomayor). And then there are Harriet Miers and Merrick Garland who never even made it to a vote.

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

    Replies: @ScarletNumber

    I didn’t leave out anyone, since I never claimed my post was all inclusive. The two Nixon nominees were not political rejections; they were both bipartisan. The second rejection was of someone who was commonly thought of as a dunce.

    Please see my comment to Jack D

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/just-how-black-was-rbgs-one-black-clerk/#comment-4178136

    • Replies: @res
    @ScarletNumber

    That link goes to the comment I replied to which was a reply to stillCARealist.


    I didn’t leave out anyone, since I never claimed my post was all inclusive.
     
    Nice nitpick (you are a lawyer, right?). My point was that Thomas was a key part of the history of acrimonious confirmations. Do you disagree with that?

    The two Nixon nominees were not political rejections; they were both bipartisan. The second rejection was of someone who was commonly thought of as a dunce.
     
    Worthwhile points. Thanks. Here is what wiki has to say about the first.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Haynsworth

    Haynsworth was opposed by a coalition of Democrats (possibly in retaliation for the Republicans' rejection of Fortas as Chief Justice),[3] Rockefeller Republicans, and the NAACP. He was alleged to have made court decisions favoring segregation and of being reflexively anti-labor.
    ...
    Haynsworth was also accused of ruling in cases in which he had a financial interest, although this claim was never proved. Haynsworth was later termed a "moderate" who was "close in outlook" to John Paul Stevens, a 1975 nominee of President Gerald R. Ford, Jr.[3] Haynsworth's nomination was defeated by a vote of 55 to 45 on November 21, 1969. 19 Democrats and 26 Republicans voted for Haynsworth while 38 Democrats and 17 Republicans voted against the nomination. Haynsworth was the first Supreme Court nominee to be defeated by the Senate since the rejection of Judge John J. Parker (also of the Fourth Circuit) in 1930.
     
    The second case was a little more complex.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Harrold_Carswell

    I think this excerpt serves as a decent summary. It is interesting that segregation was a key point in both rejections.

    Meanwhile, feminists accused him of being an opponent of women's rights. Various women, including U.S. Congresswoman Patsy Mink[10] and Betty Friedan, testified before the Senate, opposed his nomination and contributed to his defeat.[11] They described a case in which Judge Carswell refused a rehearing for a complainant who was the mother of preschool children.[8]

    The NAACP, upon learning of Carswell's racist comments, opposed Carswell's nomination and asked that his appointment be rejected by the Senate. U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell, citing an extensive background check by the Justice Department, was willing to forgive, stating that it was unfair to criticize Carswell for "political remarks made 22 years ago".[6]

    Senator George McGovern of South Dakota said of Carswell, "I find his record to be distinguished largely by two qualities: racism and mediocrity."[2] Responding to the charge that Carswell was mediocre, U.S. Senator Roman Hruska, a Nebraska Republican, stated:

    Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.[12][13]
     
    Hruska's remark was criticized by many as being antisemitic and further damaged Carswell's cause.[13]

    On April 8, 1970, the United States Senate rejected Carswell's nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. The vote was 45-51. Seventeen Democrats and twenty-eight Republicans voted for Carswell. Thirty-eight Democrats and thirteen Republicans voted against him. President Nixon accused Democrats of having an anti-Southern bias as a result saying, "After the Senate's action yesterday in rejecting Judge Carswell, I have reluctantly concluded that it is not possible to get confirmation for the judge on the Supreme Court of any man who believes in the strict construction of the Constitution as I do, if he happens to come from the South."[5]
     
  77. @epebble
    @anonymous

    They can swear on any book they want (or no book at all).People have sworn on U.S. Constitution, Koran, Gita …

    https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/a-brief-history-of-oaths-and-books

    Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    They can swear on any book they want (or no book at all). People have sworn on U.S. Constitution, Koran, Gita …

    Are you sure about that? Keith Ellison used a translation, which doesn’t count. In the preface, the translator called it “so manifest a forgery”.

    What language was Ilhan’s in? If it’s not Arabic, it’s not the Koran.

    • Replies: @epebble
    @Reg Cæsar


    Rashida Tlaib, an American-born Muslim of Palestinian descent, was sworn in with her left hand on her own copy of the Quran, though she considered using a 1734 English translation that belonged to Thomas Jefferson. And Ilhan Omar, who arrived in the US 23 years ago as a refugee fleeing Somalia’s war, used the Quran of her late grandfather, who helped raise her.
     
    https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-03/two-reps-are-being-sworn-quran-it-s-symbolic-moment-muslim-americans

    Since Tlaib used her own Quran and Omar used her grandfather's, they both were most likely in Arabic.
  78. @ScarletNumber
    @res

    I didn't leave out anyone, since I never claimed my post was all inclusive. The two Nixon nominees were not political rejections; they were both bipartisan. The second rejection was of someone who was commonly thought of as a dunce.

    Please see my comment to Jack D

    https://www.unz.com/isteve/just-how-black-was-rbgs-one-black-clerk/#comment-4178136

    Replies: @res

    That link goes to the comment I replied to which was a reply to stillCARealist.

    I didn’t leave out anyone, since I never claimed my post was all inclusive.

    Nice nitpick (you are a lawyer, right?). My point was that Thomas was a key part of the history of acrimonious confirmations. Do you disagree with that?

    The two Nixon nominees were not political rejections; they were both bipartisan. The second rejection was of someone who was commonly thought of as a dunce.

    Worthwhile points. Thanks. Here is what wiki has to say about the first.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clement_Haynsworth

    Haynsworth was opposed by a coalition of Democrats (possibly in retaliation for the Republicans’ rejection of Fortas as Chief Justice),[3] Rockefeller Republicans, and the NAACP. He was alleged to have made court decisions favoring segregation and of being reflexively anti-labor.

    Haynsworth was also accused of ruling in cases in which he had a financial interest, although this claim was never proved. Haynsworth was later termed a “moderate” who was “close in outlook” to John Paul Stevens, a 1975 nominee of President Gerald R. Ford, Jr.[3] Haynsworth’s nomination was defeated by a vote of 55 to 45 on November 21, 1969. 19 Democrats and 26 Republicans voted for Haynsworth while 38 Democrats and 17 Republicans voted against the nomination. Haynsworth was the first Supreme Court nominee to be defeated by the Senate since the rejection of Judge John J. Parker (also of the Fourth Circuit) in 1930.

    The second case was a little more complex.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Harrold_Carswell

    I think this excerpt serves as a decent summary. It is interesting that segregation was a key point in both rejections.

    Meanwhile, feminists accused him of being an opponent of women’s rights. Various women, including U.S. Congresswoman Patsy Mink[10] and Betty Friedan, testified before the Senate, opposed his nomination and contributed to his defeat.[11] They described a case in which Judge Carswell refused a rehearing for a complainant who was the mother of preschool children.[8]

    The NAACP, upon learning of Carswell’s racist comments, opposed Carswell’s nomination and asked that his appointment be rejected by the Senate. U.S. Attorney General John Mitchell, citing an extensive background check by the Justice Department, was willing to forgive, stating that it was unfair to criticize Carswell for “political remarks made 22 years ago”.[6]

    Senator George McGovern of South Dakota said of Carswell, “I find his record to be distinguished largely by two qualities: racism and mediocrity.”[2] Responding to the charge that Carswell was mediocre, U.S. Senator Roman Hruska, a Nebraska Republican, stated:

    Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos.[12][13]

    Hruska’s remark was criticized by many as being antisemitic and further damaged Carswell’s cause.[13]

    On April 8, 1970, the United States Senate rejected Carswell’s nomination to serve on the Supreme Court. The vote was 45-51. Seventeen Democrats and twenty-eight Republicans voted for Carswell. Thirty-eight Democrats and thirteen Republicans voted against him. President Nixon accused Democrats of having an anti-Southern bias as a result saying, “After the Senate’s action yesterday in rejecting Judge Carswell, I have reluctantly concluded that it is not possible to get confirmation for the judge on the Supreme Court of any man who believes in the strict construction of the Constitution as I do, if he happens to come from the South.”[5]

  79. @stillCARealist
    @Gary in Gramercy

    Wasn't Bork the first nominee to be Borked? He didn't know any better and the Republicans around him didn't either. But I do wonder how Bork would have voted on some of the big cases. He was an advisor to Mitt Romney, per Wikipedia, and he's dead now.

    Replies: @Jack D, @ScarletNumber, @Reg Cæsar

    But I do wonder how Bork would have voted on some of the big cases.

    He held a low opinion of the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment. Insulting, even. He was a big fan of antitrust enforcement, and went after Microsoft. I can just imagine what he’d think of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon today.

    Especially if he didn’t hold an individual-rights interpretation of the First Amendment.

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
    @Reg Cæsar


    He [Bork] was a big fan of antitrust enforcement
     
    lolwut?

    "At Yale he [Bork] was best known for writing The Antitrust Paradox, a book in which he argued that consumers often 'benefited' from corporate mergers..."

    The Microsoft case was one of the very few antitrust enforcement cases in which Bork supported the plaintiff's side.

    See also:

    The Antitrust "Paradox"

    Bork's views on antitrust came directly from the Chicago School, in particular (((Aaron Director))) and (((Edward Levi))), whose explicit support for corporate price-fixing is well-known. Bork just dropped that part of Chicago School doctrine, and focused on gutting structural remedies for excessive market power.

    Though Bork never made it to the Supreme Court, his version of the Chicago School's pro-monopoly views had a huge influence on the court's retreat from antitrust enforcement.

    Bork’s Strategy and the Influence of the Chicago School on Modern Antitrust Law [from a pro-Chicago School perspective]

    "Bork’s Antitrust Paradox is by far the most cited text in the Supreme Court’s transformation of antitrust law doctrine since the late 1970s. But a citation count alone does not capture Bork’s influence. Bork’s book and many of his articles are often not merely footnotes in Supreme Court opinions but are incorporated into the textual analysis of the Court. In opinions themselves, the Supreme Court writes, “As then-Professor Bork explained” (Matsushita 1986)1 and “As Judge Bork has noted” (NCAA 1984),2 among other references. It is difficult in any field of Supreme Court jurisprudence to find a single source of comparable influence."

    I can just imagine what he’d think of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon today.
     
    Well, let's take a look... Vertical mergers/ vertical integration:

    Official concern over vertical mergers has waned over the past several decades and prosecution of such mergers has been virtually non-existent. This reflects the rise of a consensus associated with the Chicago School and articulated powerfully by Robert Bork in The Antitrust Paradox, his influential 1978 book.

    Because those corporations dominate particular markets? Bork's own words:

    "Size, even if it confers monopoly power, is not illegal if it is achieved by superior products, service, business acumen, or mere luck.... Nor does market share alone necessarily confer monopoly power."

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

  80. “who looks like he might be J.K. Simmons’ secret son with Rashida Jones.”

    That scenario would make his maternal grandmother Peggy Lipton, so he would be Jewish. And hence even more up RBG’s alley.

    • Thanks: HammerJack
  81. @GermanDisco
    Garden Grove is a pit now.

    Replies: @guest007, @Ron Mexico

    Known as Garbage Grove when I lived in the OC. Probably still is. Home of Lenny “Nails” Dykstra. One of my favorite ballplayers, but a real garbage human being.

  82. @Reg Cæsar
    @epebble


    They can swear on any book they want (or no book at all). People have sworn on U.S. Constitution, Koran, Gita …
     
    Are you sure about that? Keith Ellison used a translation, which doesn't count. In the preface, the translator called it "so manifest a forgery".

    What language was Ilhan's in? If it's not Arabic, it's not the Koran.

    Replies: @epebble

    Rashida Tlaib, an American-born Muslim of Palestinian descent, was sworn in with her left hand on her own copy of the Quran, though she considered using a 1734 English translation that belonged to Thomas Jefferson. And Ilhan Omar, who arrived in the US 23 years ago as a refugee fleeing Somalia’s war, used the Quran of her late grandfather, who helped raise her.

    https://www.pri.org/stories/2019-01-03/two-reps-are-being-sworn-quran-it-s-symbolic-moment-muslim-americans

    Since Tlaib used her own Quran and Omar used her grandfather’s, they both were most likely in Arabic.

  83. @Keypusher
    @ScarletNumber

    “Bork was borked mostly as revenge for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre 14 years prior.”

    Horse manure. He was borked because he was (correctly) perceived as a vote to overturn Roe. Which survived 5:4 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), with Anthony Kennedy, Reagan’s third choice after Bork was defeated and Douglas Ginsburg withdrew, voting in the majority.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

    You’re absolutely right that Roe was the primary issue motivating the opposition to Bork. A few other factors complicated the Bork nomination, dooming it to defeat. It may be helpful to compare Bork’s fate to that of his former colleague on the D.C. Circuit, Antonin Scalia, who had sailed through his own confirmation hearing the year before, receiving unanimous Senate support. (If the Democratic senators who voted to confirm Scalia had had any idea what kind of Justice he would be, his support would have been considerably less bipartisan.)

    First, Bork was being chosen to replace Lewis Powell, a moderate and frequently a “swing” vote on the Court (e.g., the Bakke case). As you note, abortion was a key issue here, and Powell had voted with the 7-2 majority in Roe to overturn virtually all state restrictions on the procedure. By contrast, Scalia was effectively replacing Warren Burger on the Court (Rehnquist was being promoted to Chief Justice), so most saw that nomination as one conservative exchanged for another.

    Second, President Reagan’s political position was considerably weaker in the summer and fall of 1987 than it had been a year before. The Democrats had taken control of the Senate, and Reagan was embroiled in the Iran-Contra affair. As a lame-duck President facing daily questions about Oliver North & Co., Reagan was powerless to do much for Bork; he couldn’t even prevent several Republican senators from breaking ranks and voting against confirmation.

    Third, as my earlier comment noted, Bork himself was a poor candidate, precisely because he refused to campaign in the way that judicial nominees are expected to. In response to senators’ questions, he gave the answers one would expect from a highly intellectual law professor — answers completely ill-suited for the stylized setting of a televised confirmation hearing. His dour countenance was a terrible contrast with Scalia’s light-up-a-room charisma that had charmed senators of both parties the previous year. (And yes, he should have shaved his beard, or at least trimmed it neatly.) Scalia helped himself enormously in the confirmation process; Bork shot himself in both feet, repeatedly.

    • Thanks: res, Keypusher
    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @Gary in Gramercy

    I know a conservative who has been on the Federal bench for 40+ years and he told me in the 90s that Bork was an unpleasant guy. You gotta suck up to the Senate and pretend to care what they think.

    Bork's confirmation was the first one where the Ds, led buy the despicable Ted Kennedy, went after Bork with hammer and tongs. "Women will be forced to have back alley abortions, etc." I hope Ted and brother Bobby are enjoying Hell.

    2) I had a lunch date with a pretty woman about 5 years ago that seemed to have possibilities until she told me about interning for Ted when she was in college and what a wonderful man he was.

  84. @MEH 0910
    At least Justice Ginsburg took her coffee black:
    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1308058471540158466

    In a 2011 employment discrimination class action, she faulted colleagues for overlooking how “subjective decision making can be a vehicle for discrimination.” She referenced a favorite example from a favorite pastime: Orchestras with blind auditions hire more women.

    The magnitude of her legal legacy cannot be overstated. But her impact was even greater because she modeled for us and for women and girls around the world how to live a life that reflected her legal vision. She demanded a lot from her law clerks, but demanded even more from herself. She was the hardest working, most deliberate person either one of us has ever worked for. She taught us to be strong and to stand behind our work. She gave countless women and men opportunities and support in the life of the law. She got to know all of our children. Her famous faxes came across the channels at all hours of the night. Her black coffee always brewed strong.
     

    https://twitter.com/vdare/status/1284619727537614849

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    She was a role model for us in law and in life” say Gluck and Metzger. Yes, I can believe that.

  85. @Gary in Gramercy
    @RichardTaylor

    You're missing this: confirmation hearings are not about a nominee showing U.S. Senators (and the audience watching at home) how Really Really Smart they are. Nominees who try that sink like a stone. Recall Robert Bork, a genuine legal theorist and scholar. When asked during his confirmation hearing why he wanted to be on the Supreme Court, Bork replied, "It would be an intellectual feast." Worst answer ever.

    By contrast, Ruth Ginsburg understood that the purpose of confirmation hearings is to flatter the senators who will be voting on your nomination, and to say as little as possible of any real substance. If you are Really Really Smart, it's best to keep that to yourself until you're safely on the bench. Ginsburg was confirmed, 96-3, so obviously her strategy was the right one.

    Bork was ten, maybe twenty times the legal mind that Ginsburg was -- but he forgot that the judicial confirmation process is an elaborate piece of Kabuki theatre, with its own codes and rituals. Maybe he just didn't want to betray his own intellectual convictions; maybe he couldn't be bothered to trot out stock answers to silly questions that he thought beneath him. (My grandmother, z"l, kept asking me why he hadn't shaved his scraggly beard before going on live television. She thought it made him look sloppy.) But there's Really Really Smart, and then there's Too Smart For His Own Good. Ginsburg was Just Smart Enough to get confirmed.

    Replies: @Yavs, @Jim Don Bob, @stillCARealist, @Jack D, @Captain Tripps

    Bork was ten, maybe twenty times the legal mind that Ginsburg was — but he forgot that the judicial confirmation process is an elaborate piece of Kabuki theatre, with its own codes and rituals.

    The circuses part of “bread and circuses” that our oligarchs feed us while they rob our back pockets. For men, we get the “gladiatorial combat” circuses, i.e. all your various sports leagues which are a stand-in for the vicarious thrill of emotional release of combat against an immoral foe. See also, Hollywood action movies (war, cop buddy action movies, movies about combat sports, etc.). For the ladies they get Oprah feels, and uber emoting television and cinema (any TV show since, oh 1980, Terms of Endearment, Pretty Woman, etc.). Televised Senate confirmation hearings since the late ’80s have turned into an emoting fest, real life televised dram that feeds this, from Bork, to Thomas (Anita Hill), to Kavanaugh (the ultimate circus drama).

  86. @Gary in Gramercy
    @Keypusher

    You're absolutely right that Roe was the primary issue motivating the opposition to Bork. A few other factors complicated the Bork nomination, dooming it to defeat. It may be helpful to compare Bork's fate to that of his former colleague on the D.C. Circuit, Antonin Scalia, who had sailed through his own confirmation hearing the year before, receiving unanimous Senate support. (If the Democratic senators who voted to confirm Scalia had had any idea what kind of Justice he would be, his support would have been considerably less bipartisan.)

    First, Bork was being chosen to replace Lewis Powell, a moderate and frequently a "swing" vote on the Court (e.g., the Bakke case). As you note, abortion was a key issue here, and Powell had voted with the 7-2 majority in Roe to overturn virtually all state restrictions on the procedure. By contrast, Scalia was effectively replacing Warren Burger on the Court (Rehnquist was being promoted to Chief Justice), so most saw that nomination as one conservative exchanged for another.

    Second, President Reagan's political position was considerably weaker in the summer and fall of 1987 than it had been a year before. The Democrats had taken control of the Senate, and Reagan was embroiled in the Iran-Contra affair. As a lame-duck President facing daily questions about Oliver North & Co., Reagan was powerless to do much for Bork; he couldn't even prevent several Republican senators from breaking ranks and voting against confirmation.

    Third, as my earlier comment noted, Bork himself was a poor candidate, precisely because he refused to campaign in the way that judicial nominees are expected to. In response to senators' questions, he gave the answers one would expect from a highly intellectual law professor -- answers completely ill-suited for the stylized setting of a televised confirmation hearing. His dour countenance was a terrible contrast with Scalia's light-up-a-room charisma that had charmed senators of both parties the previous year. (And yes, he should have shaved his beard, or at least trimmed it neatly.) Scalia helped himself enormously in the confirmation process; Bork shot himself in both feet, repeatedly.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    I know a conservative who has been on the Federal bench for 40+ years and he told me in the 90s that Bork was an unpleasant guy. You gotta suck up to the Senate and pretend to care what they think.

    Bork’s confirmation was the first one where the Ds, led buy the despicable Ted Kennedy, went after Bork with hammer and tongs. “Women will be forced to have back alley abortions, etc.” I hope Ted and brother Bobby are enjoying Hell.

    2) I had a lunch date with a pretty woman about 5 years ago that seemed to have possibilities until she told me about interning for Ted when she was in college and what a wonderful man he was.

  87. The only black clerk Ruth Bader Ginsburg ever deigned to hire during her 40 years on the federal bench was Paul Watford…

    Some argue that Ginsburg’s neck doilies had a multiplicity of esoteric meanings. The real story is far simpler than that. They were an homage to this man, Israel’s Sephardic Chief Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, and his mode of dress:

    Given Ginsburg’s revealed preference on this issue, her high opinion of Mr Yosef likely stems from their similar views on the KQ (kushim question):

  88. @Reg Cæsar
    @stillCARealist


    But I do wonder how Bork would have voted on some of the big cases.
     
    He held a low opinion of the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment. Insulting, even. He was a big fan of antitrust enforcement, and went after Microsoft. I can just imagine what he'd think of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon today.

    Especially if he didn't hold an individual-rights interpretation of the First Amendment.

    Replies: @James Forrestal

    He [Bork] was a big fan of antitrust enforcement

    lolwut?

    “At Yale he [Bork] was best known for writing The Antitrust Paradox, a book in which he argued that consumers often ‘benefited’ from corporate mergers…”

    The Microsoft case was one of the very few antitrust enforcement cases in which Bork supported the plaintiff’s side.

    See also:

    The Antitrust “Paradox”

    Bork’s views on antitrust came directly from the Chicago School, in particular (((Aaron Director))) and (((Edward Levi))), whose explicit support for corporate price-fixing is well-known. Bork just dropped that part of Chicago School doctrine, and focused on gutting structural remedies for excessive market power.

    Though Bork never made it to the Supreme Court, his version of the Chicago School’s pro-monopoly views had a huge influence on the court’s retreat from antitrust enforcement.

    Bork’s Strategy and the Influence of the Chicago School on Modern Antitrust Law [from a pro-Chicago School perspective]

    “Bork’s Antitrust Paradox is by far the most cited text in the Supreme Court’s transformation of antitrust law doctrine since the late 1970s. But a citation count alone does not capture Bork’s influence. Bork’s book and many of his articles are often not merely footnotes in Supreme Court opinions but are incorporated into the textual analysis of the Court. In opinions themselves, the Supreme Court writes, “As then-Professor Bork explained” (Matsushita 1986)1 and “As Judge Bork has noted” (NCAA 1984),2 among other references. It is difficult in any field of Supreme Court jurisprudence to find a single source of comparable influence.”

    I can just imagine what he’d think of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon today.

    Well, let’s take a look… Vertical mergers/ vertical integration:

    Official concern over vertical mergers has waned over the past several decades and prosecution of such mergers has been virtually non-existent. This reflects the rise of a consensus associated with the Chicago School and articulated powerfully by Robert Bork in The Antitrust Paradox, his influential 1978 book.

    Because those corporations dominate particular markets? Bork’s own words:

    “Size, even if it confers monopoly power, is not illegal if it is achieved by superior products, service, business acumen, or mere luck…. Nor does market share alone necessarily confer monopoly power.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @James Forrestal

    Thanks. I did not know that.

    Bork is wrong. Every merger leads to less competition and higher prices. See US airlines for instance.

  89. @James Forrestal
    @Reg Cæsar


    He [Bork] was a big fan of antitrust enforcement
     
    lolwut?

    "At Yale he [Bork] was best known for writing The Antitrust Paradox, a book in which he argued that consumers often 'benefited' from corporate mergers..."

    The Microsoft case was one of the very few antitrust enforcement cases in which Bork supported the plaintiff's side.

    See also:

    The Antitrust "Paradox"

    Bork's views on antitrust came directly from the Chicago School, in particular (((Aaron Director))) and (((Edward Levi))), whose explicit support for corporate price-fixing is well-known. Bork just dropped that part of Chicago School doctrine, and focused on gutting structural remedies for excessive market power.

    Though Bork never made it to the Supreme Court, his version of the Chicago School's pro-monopoly views had a huge influence on the court's retreat from antitrust enforcement.

    Bork’s Strategy and the Influence of the Chicago School on Modern Antitrust Law [from a pro-Chicago School perspective]

    "Bork’s Antitrust Paradox is by far the most cited text in the Supreme Court’s transformation of antitrust law doctrine since the late 1970s. But a citation count alone does not capture Bork’s influence. Bork’s book and many of his articles are often not merely footnotes in Supreme Court opinions but are incorporated into the textual analysis of the Court. In opinions themselves, the Supreme Court writes, “As then-Professor Bork explained” (Matsushita 1986)1 and “As Judge Bork has noted” (NCAA 1984),2 among other references. It is difficult in any field of Supreme Court jurisprudence to find a single source of comparable influence."

    I can just imagine what he’d think of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and Amazon today.
     
    Well, let's take a look... Vertical mergers/ vertical integration:

    Official concern over vertical mergers has waned over the past several decades and prosecution of such mergers has been virtually non-existent. This reflects the rise of a consensus associated with the Chicago School and articulated powerfully by Robert Bork in The Antitrust Paradox, his influential 1978 book.

    Because those corporations dominate particular markets? Bork's own words:

    "Size, even if it confers monopoly power, is not illegal if it is achieved by superior products, service, business acumen, or mere luck.... Nor does market share alone necessarily confer monopoly power."

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    Thanks. I did not know that.

    Bork is wrong. Every merger leads to less competition and higher prices. See US airlines for instance.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS