The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Bubbe Amendment
🔊 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

How dare Trump have no respect for the plain mandates of the Constitution that he must grant Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Dying Wish and let in Emma Lazarus’s Huddled Masses.

It’s right there in the Constitution: “The President must do whatever Jewish ladies tell him to do.”

 
Hide 167 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. ‘It’s right there in the Constitution: “The President must do whatever Jewish ladies tell him to do.”’

    No, that’s not so — but isn’t a Supreme Court seat a personal patrimony, to be passed on as the decedent willed?

  2. Anon[165] • Disclaimer says:

    Forget wishes. If wishes were horses.. what does the law say, anyway?

    • Replies: @Lagertha
  3. Jack D says:

    While Trump doesn’t have to respect Ginsburg’s dying wish, it’s not respectful or necessary for him to accuse his granddaughter of lying either.

  4. Deadite says:

    OT:

    Oh Steve, how could you have missed this?

    Christopher F. Rufo
    @realchrisrufo
    In another lesson, employees are told to watch a video called “The Psychology of Black Hair,” which claims that they “live in societies that value whiteness” and that “the histories of slavery, colonialism, and discrimination are weaved into our understanding of Black hair.”

    From the State Departments Equity Training (banned, but what do they care?)

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    , @Alden
  5. Don’t cross former pony owners.

  6. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:

    Maybe the trick is not giving existential weight to an 87 year old woman on her deathbed, dying of cancer. If she somehow issued that bizarre request, it’s highly likely due to pain medication, among others, given to her to make her final hours more comfortable, so she’s probably not thinking clearly regarding long-term political goals. Would you?

    I would also posit that all her past sober remarks regarding Trump, when push came to shove, imply that she was not suffering from what we’ve come to understand as “Trump Derangement Syndrome,” one aspect of which the sufferer believes that “lying on the side of the angels” is perfectly legitimate, and in fact, a moral imperative, even if it means selling out the honorable memory of your own grandmother by attributing bizarre behavior that contradicts the sum of her past behavior, despite the fact that it would cheapen her memory, and all she worked for her entire life:

  7. Unfortunately, Jews and other smart folks figured out long ago that the Constitution is but a piece of paper and that emotional arguments are Blood and Soil.

  8. I’m sure that a family that uses the death of a loved one for partisan politics shouldn’t expect political opponents to do nothing in response.

  9. J.Ross says:

    The Democratic party’s entire plan is to demand a blowjob on the grounds that a telegenic third worlder will start crying otherwise. That’s pretty funny considering how Democrats actually use third worlders: they enjoy both the service and the tears. It is morality in the face of this behavior to call a lie a lie.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
    • Replies: @tyrone
    , @Anonymousse
  10. J.Ross says:
    @Jack D

    The response to this comment and to the original issue should only be: remember what they did to us.

  11. Catdog says:

    As soon as I saw the “dying wish” line, I saw some Stan Adams-style persuasion going on. It’s something very obviously made up, distorted or simply chosen for amplification by the central DNC narrative team.

  12. @Jack D

    I’m with Tucker on this: if RBG really said it, it’s embarrassing for her. That RBG didn’t put this in writing suggests that – if she did say it – she was embarrassed to say it too, so she maintained a deliberate ambiguity. In which case, accusing her granddaughter of lying helps maintain that ambiguity.

  13. It’s right there in the Constitution: “The President must do whatever Jewish ladies tell him to do.”

    Yeah, but he’s got a Jewish lady of his own to deal with.

    The World’s Most Influential Jew

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  14. Dan Hayes says:

    Steve,

    I very strongly believe that Tucker Carlson knows the truth of your proposed Constitutional dictum. But he also realizes that expressing it on Fox would be a bridge too far.

    But tonight (9/21/2020) Tucker had no such qualms against engaging in full-throated “verboten” warfare against George Soros!

  15. They can’t say anything without lying. Trump expressed skepticism; he did not call it a hoax.

    • Agree: Patrick in SC, TTSSYF
  16. @Colin Wright

    It’s like in Gladiator: Emperor Marcus Aurelius is going to adopt Russell Crowe so he would become emperor upon Marcus’s death, but Joaquin Phoenix poisons him before it can be announced.

  17. @Jack D

    Yeah it’s his typical unnecessary inflammatory remark that doesn’t help his cause in any way. He could have said “I understand why she would have wished that, but I am bound by the Constitution as the definitive standard”.

    • LOL: Coemgen
    • Replies: @anon
    , @TTSSYF
    , @ScarletNumber
  18. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jack D

    While Trump doesn’t have to respect Ginsburg’s dying wish, it’s not respectful or necessary for him to accuse his granddaughter of lying either.

    1. You don’t know if it was her dying wish.

    2. Her granddaughter injected herself as the holy herald of a bizarre “Last Request,” in an extremely divisive, sometimes bitterly violent political climate, and is not afforded the same respect as her grandmother by proxy.

    3. Her grandmother’s past behavior in no way supports her granddaughter’s contention of her final moment on this good earth. We can conclude this because the granddaughter claims that Ginsberg requested that a new justice should not be appointed until Trump is out of office.

    Not that he should wait until the presidential election concludes. Which, though still bizarre, would be far more reasonable. That is, the “Last Request” is tailor-made to foment bitter unrest and violent discord if Trump wins the election, and executes his constitutional duty.

    That is, an implicit call for violence is an horrific and base attribute to lay on an esteemed Supreme Court Justice. Even if you’re her granddaughter.

    Especially if you’re her granddaughter.

    • Agree: Redneck farmer, Redman
    • Replies: @Corn
  19. Wasn’t it just, like, a week ago that we were all assured that RBG was in great health and high spirits after a little routine procedure at the hospital? Well, that was obviously not true. She was dying at the time; she knew it and her doctors knew it and her handlers in the press knew it. They lied to us about it, right to our very faces.

    They are lying about this dying wish, too. Nobody but nobody uses their last breath to utter such banalities. The dying have much more eternal matters to contend with.

  20. ES says:

    Ruth was 75 when Obama was elected to his first term. Republicans didn’t gain control of the Senate until 6 years later. Was 20 years not long enough for her to build her legacy on the Supreme Court? Did she need to serve into her eighties? Dying wish or not, Ruth has no one to blame but herself that Trump will name her replacement.

    • Agree: Kolya Krassotkin
    • Replies: @Thoughts
    , @Bill B.
    , @Hibernian
  21. anon[316] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mike_from_SGV

    Yeah it’s his typical unnecessary inflammatory remark that doesn’t help his cause in any way. He could have said “I understand why she would have wished that, but I am bound by the Constitution as the definitive standard”.

    If Trump talked like that he would have never been elected in the first place. It’s his inflammatory remarks that got him elected. By being inflammatory he occasionally blurts out the forbidden truth and that wins votes.
    You gotta risk it to get the biscuit.

  22. Trump should make a “deal of the century” with the DEMs:

    If, before the election, Congress will abolish the inferior, federal court system, he’ll let Pelosi pick RBG’s replacement.

    One more, left-wing supreme would be a small price to pay for the elimination of many hundreds of political hack, lawyer-judges.

    Of course we know that the lawyer’s party would sooner vote to abolish EBT and MediCare.

  23. @Neil Templeton

    Prior to the the present era of (((Deliberate))) Replacement Immigration/Soft Genocide, there was once a time in America when the Constitution and ‘Blood and Soil’ were roughly congruent. One was the innate expression of the other. John Adams I believe is one of the prime expounders on the correspondence between the two.

    • Agree: Gordo
  24. Childless single women who aren’t on speaking terms with any of their family members be like: IT WAS HER DYING WISH SAID TO HER GRANDDAUGHTER.

    • LOL: Charon, AndrewR
  25. Like I’ve said, they definitely had her on some experimental billionaires-only cancer cocktail that had her mind thinking it was in another galaxy, so her “dying wish” was probably part of some incoherent rambling reflecting the part of her subconscious that was regretting not having quit during the Obama years.

  26. tyrone says:
    @Colin Wright

    No, you’re thinking of the senate seat in Massachusetts.

    • Replies: @Corn
  27. tyrone says:
    @J.Ross

    AAAARGH! these people will do anything ……to get a HEAD.

  28. anon[190] • Disclaimer says:
    @Intelligent Dasein

    Nobody but nobody uses their last breath to utter such banalities.

    How do you know that?

    • Troll: Charon
  29. @Intelligent Dasein

    ‘…They are lying about this dying wish, too. Nobody but nobody uses their last breath to utter such banalities. The dying have much more eternal matters to contend with.’

    Ginsburg strikes me as the type who, if they had such a wish, would have either written it down or dictated it in the presence of witnesses.

  30. Lagertha says:
    @Anon

    The law says: fill the goddamed seat as soon as possible for f*cks sake. Why is everyone so triggered? Sandra Day O’Connor was the first female SC judge, for God’s sake. I so hate dumb, weak and pathetic people who do not know history.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
  31. Anonymous[321] • Disclaimer says:

    IT WAS HER DYING WISH SAID TO HER GRANDDAUGHTER

    Nice to see more all caps being used by Unzers.

    The media uses all caps all the time for emphasis. No one ever calls it “shouting” when the media does it.

    Trump does it often and it is strong No F***s Given signaling. The attempt to caps shame has been going since the 90s at least.

    Coulter occasionally does it to great effect. I bet Mitt Romney has never done it.

    Only extreme cucks try to caps shame on comment threads. Only total phaggs are afraid of it or think it’s “shouting.”

    Hard to discern sex on random comments but I would bet most caps shamers are ladies. OK. Fine. In real life women will be the first to try to calm a guy if he raises his voice for emphasis.

    But any guys doing it are total pussies.

    SUCK IT BITCHEZ

  32. @Jack D

    It is not “respectful or necessary” for her granddaughter to announce to the world something that was said to her in private by a dying loved one.

    Though Justice Ginsburg never made it a secret how she felt about President Trump, she had the grace to never come out and say publicly what has now been attributed to her — which is more like a call to action during a violent time of division.

    What the justice is claimed to have said would be normal for anyone in her position to say in private. No one should be upset about this.

    The problem now is that one judge among nine is being treated like a saint upon her passing. It doesn’t matter what she said.

    The answer is to ask “What would George Floyd do?” Ruth is only a saint, but George is a personal savior who died because of our sins.

    • Agree: Gordo
    • Thanks: sayless
  33. @Anonymous

    One of the members of an email group I founded was a Nobel Prize winner who always typed in all caps. I once suggested to him that if he didn’t like working the Shift key, he could just type in all lower case. After all, I said, “All upper case makes you appear to be shouting.”

    “BUT I AM SHOUTING!” he replied.

    • LOL: duncsbaby, Charon
  34. @Steve Sailer

    Oddly, in the opposite position, when e e cummings wrote in all lower-case, nobody thought he was whispering.

    I defy anybody to read “next to of course god america i” or “i sing of olaf glad and big” and think that’s whispering.

  35. JimB says:

    In a divinely just universe, Ruth Bader Ginsberg would have died from a sucker punch to the head by a middle age black man with a prosthetic leg who liked the 1981 version of Glen Gould’s Goldberg Variations.

  36. @Jack D

    While Trump doesn’t have to respect Ginsburg’s dying wish, it’s not respectful or necessary for him to accuse his granddaughter of lying either.

    Sort of agree. Except, that once Ginsburg’s nonsense–true or false–has been announced, it is incumbent on Trump to point out that it is not in fact “Ginsburg’s seat” in any way shape or form. Rather it is a public office that belongs to the American people. (And actually “it” is not a particular “it” at all. The number of Supreme Court judges is entirely up to Congress.) And the arrogance of the remark mirrors the arrogance of these lefty judges who have anointed themselves our philosopher kings in a coup against republican government. Which in turn mirrors the general arrogance of our elite and their contempt for the welfare of the American people, the American nation.

  37. @Reg Cæsar

    I’ve never met a Jewish woman who looked like her, but Ivanka sure likes that Roman fort.

    • Replies: @Thoughts
    , @Hibernian
  38. JimDandy says:
    @Colin Wright

    Well, she was very clear about being deadset against expanding The Supreme Court.

  39. Abe says:
    @Jack D

    While Trump doesn’t have to respect Ginsburg’s dying wish, it’s not respectful or necessary for him to accuse his granddaughter of lying either.

    This is why I LUV-LUV-LUV Trump. It’s the granddaughter who is being disrespectful. There is nothing human or personal in Ginsburg’s dying wish. If indeed the granddaughter did not not make the whole thing up (and I’m with Trump on that as well) the request is a bit sad and pathetic really, though I guess a political animal to the end, huh? On your death bed, facing eternity, what would your final request be? Maybe asking your children to remember their grandparents, or to be good to and take care of one another, or to honor family traditions and never forget where they come from. Heck, if you’re a normal person even ‘please feed my pets’ is going to be way higher on your list than ‘fill my desk with a like-minded cipher so that our side can continue winning on cable news wrestling’.

    What the granddaughter did, in turning a highly private moment into laughably self-serving, grubby political theater, both defiling the personal aspects of her grandmothers’s death as well as the public seriousness entailed in filling an essential office of the republic, is disgusting, and I’m glad Trump threw her faux sanctimony back in her face (again, Trump the con man with a heart of gold exposing the truly vicious grifters around him). F’her.

  40. Bernard says:
    @Jack D

    While Trump doesn’t have to respect Ginsburg’s dying wish, it’s not respectful or necessary for him to accuse his granddaughter of lying either.

    When her granddaughter made it public, she willingly put the personal into the political realm. It was inappropriate on her part.

    • Agree: LondonBob
  41. black sea says:
    @Abe

    I don’t think this is necessarily a case of Ginsburg’s granddaughter making this statement up or this being a fervent, gasping expression of Ginsburg’s last dying wish.

    Ginsburg had incurable cancer, and was probably less consistently functional than the media wished people to know, and so had been in a sense dying for years. I realize one could stretch this point and argue that by its standard we’re all dying from birth, but you don’t really have to stretch it at all. When someone knows that their end is near, and they make any request or express any desire related to what happens after their departure, I think this is plausibly a dying wish. You don’t have to be straining on your deathbed to do this.

  42. @AnotherDad

    Conservatives have blathered on for decades now about the grotesque abuse from our judiciary. But while whining about this or that judge or tyrannical decision, conservatives have done nothing in the way of putting forward concrete reform proposals.

    I’ll offer AnotherDad’s poke at de-royalizing the Supreme Court–as part of the larger effort to restore republican government and hopefully the American nation:

    A few general “de-royalizing” approaches:
    — make them take a specific oath to not “make law”; specifically stating that if they want to make law, they swear to resign and run for public office; and that if they usurp the law-making duty of elected legislators they deserve impeachment, and with impeachment are exiled from the United States
    — opinions striking laws, will be short and simply a direct cite of Constitutional provision that they find controlling. Save the blather. They can write op-eds. If they are going to overrule the elected branches, no philosophy, just “here is where you’ve overstepped”. That’s it.
    — fixed terms; no more royal death watches;
    — after the fixed term, justices must return to being ordinary district or circuit court judge; you’re just a mortal not royalty
    — more justices–ideally lots more; you ain’t special.

    ~~

    I’ll offer three levels of reform with these principles–modest to a pretty solid shakeup:

    1) Modest — Larger court with fixed terms.
    — Increase court to 15 justices.
    — 15 year terms, so one justice replaced each year.
    — 15 is the number where the President has not appointed a majority of justices until the final year of his term.
    — But could decide that is not necessary and go faster, and increase the number up each year; even have different numbers up during even and odd years, etc.

    2) More thorough — Justices by lot.
    — Increase court to larger number of justices. Say 45 or 60.
    — Fixed terms, 10-15 years. Want it longer than full presidential term.
    — Many justices picked every year.
    — As cases come up, justices–say 15–are picked by lot to hear case. They are the “Supreme Court” for that case. Can put limit on case numbers for a given person, to force some distribution.
    — The random nature of “the court” means even if the justices in the net lean your way … you don’t know you’ll get your desired outcome.
    — Main point: Hard to be a philosopher king when you don’t even get to sit in judgment on the “big cases”.
    — But also pulls a lot of “the court has spoken” pomposity out.

    3) Transformative.
    — Amendment specifically creates federal district and circuit court system. (Congress still controls numbers.)
    — For any given case appealed, a a large bank of judges (ex. 21?) from other circuits (and/or districts) are drawn to study the case and determine if “supreme court” will take the appeal.
    — For accepted appeals, another large bank of judges is then drawn who will hear/decide the case.
    — This really ratchets down the pomposity level. There are no longer any fixed “supremes”, only ordinary mortals … called to duty one moment, man on the street the next. Very republican.

    Granted, no reform is really going to rein in the arrogant judiciary, unless and until we have citizens who demand it, won’t tolerate having these totalitarian monsters trampling American’s right to rule themselves. It may well take separation to get there. But an attempt at reform can’t hurt.

  43. Don’t we all have that clause in our employment contracts – if I die, you can’t refill my position for 5 months?

    • Replies: @Cortes
  44. I’m sure when SCOTUS grants cert on RBG’s request, Chief Justice Roberts will vote with the other four in its favour. Thomas will write the minority dissent. RBG’s dying wish will become the law of the land.

  45. @Dave Pinsen

    No person in recorded history has ever once used the word fervent on their deathbed.

  46. Cortes says:
    @Charles St. Charles

    It comes straight after the Mongolian funeral clause:

    “Convey my remains to the Sacred Mountain and put to the sword all living creatures in the path of the cortege.”

    • LOL: Wilkey
  47. Anonymous[504] • Disclaimer says:

    “The President must do whatever ladies tell him to do”

    FIFY

  48. Anonymous[285] • Disclaimer says:

    Meanwhile, Trump’s upgraded Border Wall is proving to be a major new deterrent for illegal alien wannabee’s on the San Diego area. San Diegans and officials agree it’s making a big difference from before:

  49. Thoughts says:
    @ES

    1) I don’t think Ruth had anything in her life past the Supreme Court and Law…most smart people have multiple hobbies…I don’t think Ruth had Anything

    I know Steve talks a lot about Opera…but all the people I know who listen to opera/classical music regularly are Posers doing it to look Smart In Front of Other people

    I go on the occasional classical music Binge…but I don’t listen to it daily…you couldn’t even get work done if you did

    2) Ruth paved the way for the Wokesters, but she wasn’t a wokester herself, and as a result, she understood that Trump works for Globohomo just to a lesser degree

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
  50. Thoughts says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Ivanka’s in it for the photo ops

    And a damn good one at that!

  51. @Steve Sailer

    but Joaquin Phoenix poisons him

    In that scene Commodus smothers Marcus Aurelius to death.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  52. @Intelligent Dasein

    She used the term “installed.” She was on medication,maybe she thought the country was ruled by a hot water heater?

    • LOL: Paul Jolliffe
    • Replies: @Marat
  53. LondonBob says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Gladiator is largely a remake of The Fall of the Roman Empire, in that Commodus’ cronies poison Marcus Aurelius.

    It is ridiculous how powerful judges are in the US, we have had some creep of leftist judges attempting what their US counterparts do here in Britain, by so far they have been kept largely at Bay.

    • Replies: @TomSchmidt
    , @Anonymous
  54. @Jack D

    [Trump] to accuse [her] granddaughter of lying

    Wrong, Jack. Unless I’m mistaken, Trump is publicly doubting amplified hearsay from Nina Totenberg about alleged hearsay from granddaughter Clara Spera and others.

    It would be amusing (if not necessarily convincing) to have Spera and the doc and whoever directly claim to the nation exactly what granny said, and when:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/technology/trump-jump-starts-misinformation-on-ginsburgs-dying-wish.html

    In an appearance on MSNBC on Monday, Ms. Totenberg confirmed her account of Justice Ginsburg’s statement, and said that others in the room at the time witnessed her making it, including her doctor. “I checked,” Ms. Totenberg added, “because I’m a reporter.”

    Sounds like a game of Telefon Tel Aviv ovah heah.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  55. TTSSYF says:
    @Jack D

    He didn’t accuse. He just speculated, and it certainly sounds plausible to me. Would she really have said “installed” vs. “inaugurated”, or could that have a term purposely used by Pelosi, et. al., to further get it in the public’s mind that Biden is going to need to be “installed”?

    • Replies: @Jack D
  56. @Thoughts

    She has one or two kids, attended hundreds if not thousands of operas, and was popular with people who knew her. She was happily married for 50 years. In general, she sounds like a superior, enviable person.

  57. TTSSYF says:
    @Anonymous

    As I recall, a few years ago during an interview, she blurted out how she despised Trump, or something to that effect (she apologized for it a day or two later). So she couldn’t entirely hide a low-level case of TDS.

    • Replies: @anon
  58. Bill B. says:
    @ES

    Dying wish or not, Ruth has no one to blame but herself that Trump will name her replacement.

    Yes. Why is this not being mentioned. Is this – clinging to celebrated status – not a signal of constitutional crisis in the Supreme Court overstepping it constitutional role?

  59. TTSSYF says:
    @Mike_from_SGV

    No. That’s the kind of political pap that we’re sick of hearing.

  60. Wilkey says:

    Most people – or at least most Leftists – seem to be ignoring the fact that, interpreted literally (and she was a Supreme Court justice, so why shouldn’t we?) Ginsburg’s dying wish implies that we may need to keep her seat open for another four years. The Left is either assuming that Trump will lose in Novermber. Either that or they and/or Ginsburg are intentionally inciting a coup.

    Not a good look for the late justice. The fact that she makes such a request after greedily holding onto a court seat for 40 years, when she could have safely been replaced by Democrats back in 2014 and was already 81 years old, makes her look even worse.

  61. Shouldn’t it be called the Bubbe Amendment?

  62. Hibernian says:
    @ES

    She started out in the job at 70, which probably has something to do with it.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
  63. Hibernian says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Visit West Rogers Park in Chicago, where the Russian Jewish girls in long skirts could pass for Minnesota Swedes.

  64. @Intelligent Dasein

    More eternal matters and immediate ones like “I’m so thirsty!”

  65. peterike says:
    @Steve Sailer

    She was happily married for 50 years. In general, she sounds like a superior, enviable person.

    O most pernicious woman!
    O villain, villain, smiling, damnèd villain!
    My tables—meet it is I set it down
    That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.

  66. peterike says:
    @Jack D

    While Trump doesn’t have to respect Ginsburg’s dying wish, it’s not respectful or necessary for him to accuse his granddaughter of lying either.

    Yes, Jack, and I’m sure if this were, say, Scalia’s granddaughter, you’d have the exact same circle-deh-vagons opinion, ehh boychick?

    • Replies: @Matt Buckalew
  67. @LondonBob

    Yes but didn’t you recently have a Supreme Court created? Give them time.

    • Replies: @Ancient Briton
  68. Anonymous[596] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

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

    “Any law that has been on the books for ten years or more is off limits for judicial termination or reinterpretation unless there has been an amendment or amendments to the Constitution in the past decade and that amendment -or those amendments- form the primary, although not necessarily sole, justification for terminating the law.”

    Why was there suddenly a constitutional right to abortion in 1973 but not in 1972 or 1963 or 1914? Did the Justices miss some hidden clause in all of their previous sessions only to suddenly discover one circa 1973? If this amendment had been present since the Warren years just imagine how much more constrained the Court would’ve been. Any drastic changes to the law should always be done in a slow, methodical manner with the consent of The People.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  69. @Hibernian

    She became a Supreme at 60, after being a Federal judge (Carter appointment) starting at 47. So she had 40 years on the Federal bench, more than enough for anyone. Note that at no point in her life did she ever hold a real job. She went from being a student to being an academic to deciding the fate of individuals and nations from the most powerful benches on earth. Her “experience” was all theory.

    No wonder liberals admire her so much. She lived their dream: never doing real work while sitting in judgement over all lesser mortals. (And now legislating from beyond the grave with this dying wish nonsense.)

    • Troll: ScarletNumber
    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  70. @Steve Sailer

    Yes, she enjoyed a tranquil and secure personal life, in which she could indulge her passions, all paid for out of the public purse, so she never had to sully herself with real work. “Enviable” is one way to describe it.

    That she used her professional life to undermine the structures which had bestowed such extraordinary good fortune upon her could lead one to different descriptors though, say, “obscenely ungrateful” or “pathologically parasitical”.

    • Agree: Joseph Doaks
    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  71. @Lagertha

    The law says: fill the goddamed seat as soon as possible for f*cks sake.

    Can you please cite where the law says this, because I don’t think this is a true statement.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
  72. @Mike_from_SGV

    I understand why she would have wished that, but I am bound by the Constitution as the definitive standard

    There is nothing in the Constitution that says that he couldn’t honor her dying wish.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  73. All this dying-wish stuff is reminiscent of the deathbed interview Bob Woodward claimed he somehow had with CIA director Casey — even though Casey was in a coma and under heavy guard.

    Woodward by the way is the biggest loser this week — interest in his new book dropped off the cliff the moment RBG was reported to have died. And I say “reported” because who knows how long she’s really been gone?

  74. Here are some famous alleged last words — from Bogie, Beethoven etc. Somehow “Wait until the next Democrat president is installed” just doesn’t make the cut.

    https://www.sunlife.co.uk/articles-guides/funeral-planning/9-famous-last-words/

    Suicide notes are a different matter but who can resist including the great George Sanders’ curtain line: “Dear World, I am leaving you because I am bored. I feel I have lived long enough.”

    https://www.phrases.org.uk/famous-last-words/suicide-notes.html#:~:text=George%20Sanders&text=%22Dear%20World%2C%20I%20am%20leaving,I%20have%20lived%20long%20enough.

  75. @Anonymous

    Maybe the trick is not giving existential weight to an 87 year old woman on her deathbed, dying of cancer.

    Just so. Speaking of her “past sober remarks”, I wonder if prior to being bed-ridden, drugged and attended by relatives, Ginsburg had anything to say on the subject of the Senate considering the President’s Supreme Court nominations immediately prior to an election?

    Oh lookie here. She sure did!

    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html

    http://archive.is/989cP

    In 2016, in full possession of her faculties, Ginsburg was asked if the Senate had an obligation to assess qualifications of the President’s Supreme Court nomination in spite of an impending election. Her “immediate” answer:

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

    So if we are to have rule by Bubbes, are we to defer to their dying wishes or to their living wishes?

    Or maybe we should just go back to being a constitutional republic?

  76. Redman says:
    @Jack D

    Trump has a very good bullshit detector.

    But in order to keep it in working order, one has to use it. Otherwise it wears down.

  77. Etcetera says:

    I really don’t mind this business about deathbed wishes, as long as the Democrats still respect them when Thomas wills for his Supreme Court seat to go to someone just as conservative as him, and not exceeding thirty years of age.

  78. MarkinLA says:
    @Jack D

    By claiming her granddaughter lied, RBG looks like less of a POS than she was if her granddaughter was telling the truth. Trump was actually being gracious to RBG.

    • Agree: Redman
  79. AndrewR says:
    @Jack D

    Her granddaughter chose to insert herself into this debate by relaying the completely unreasonable alleged last wish of her power-hungry bubbe. No one made Ruth stay on the court so long, no one made her (allegedly) make this dying wish and no one made her granddaughter broadcast it to the nation.

  80. Anyone who has ever watched an elderly relative die knows that it’s most often a process, not an event. In cases like Ginsburg’s (elderly, cancer patient, likely had dementia) the dying become less and less engaged with the outside world, they sleep more, and at times will have conversations with themselves that make no sense to anyone else. As the end approaches their organs begin to shut down, their blood pressure drops, and they become non-responsive. Eventually they expire.

    So the idea that Ginsburg uttered any kind of deathbed wish in her final moments is silly. Her body may have finally given out last Friday, but she’d been “gone” already for weeks if not longer.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  81. @Known Fact

    Compare Stonewall Jackson’s last words with RBG’s supposed last words. “Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees.” I would rather Gen. Jackson be on the Supreme Court than all the current ones, save for Thomas.

    • Replies: @Known Fact
    , @Reg Cæsar
  82. Clyde says:
    @Steve Sailer

    I am cynical and negative about most 2010-2020 movies. They do nothing for me. The men are too gayish and the women are too plastic injected. The actors are, in a nutshell, non-convincing. As if they never were in any drama school anywhere, especially the UK which is loaded with theater schools. But Gladiator from 2000 (the world was a different place in 2000, pre internet dominance) passes all my tests and is a great movie. Even as re-viewed two years ago.

  83. Clyde says:

    Anyone who has ever watched an elderly relative die knows that it’s most often a process, not an event. ….. they become non-responsive. Eventually they expire.
    So the idea that Ginsburg uttered any kind of deathbed wish in her final moments is silly. Her body may have finally given out last Friday, but she’d been “gone” already for weeks if not longer.

    So you go along with my theory that Ginzz has been on ice for weeks. If so this backfires on her family because it looks to me that Mitch and his Senate have given themselves permission to go at light speed and are going to act –
    Very quickly
    Blitzkrieg
    Compressed
    Expedited
    Gaveled through past Dems protestions

    Why let Democrats do a Kavanaugh on a very upright woman like Amy Coney Barrett

  84. @Ron Mexico

    The desecration and disappearing of Jackson’s shrines and statues has been particularly disgusting

  85. Jack D says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican

    This is precisely why moving the goal line from “Does a Supreme Ct. Justice’s dying wish carry any weight?” to “Is the granddaughter lying?” was a dumb idea. Totenberg has inevitably come forward with 7 Yale women who will swear on a stack of bibles that they were in the room and that Ginsburg said these exact words (maybe even by coincidence the same women who were at that party with Kavanaugh when he exposed himself) so that Trump is the one making false accusations.

    Trump’s problem is that he keeps going back to his base, who like many here, will agree with him no matter what – yeah that thieving Commie liar granddaughter musta made the whole thing up! What -you have video? Doesn’t matter – must be one of them deep fakes. You tell ’em, Trump. But there is an election in 6 weeks and Trump needs more than his die hard base. Does calling the granddaughter a liar help him with suburban women, for example?

  86. Jack D says:
    @Sgt. Joe Friday

    It really depends. Yes, sometimes it proceeds as you have said, often helped along by the morphine that they give to relieve the excruciating pain. But right now on TV there is an anti-smoking ad they keep running of a horribly mutilated and very sick looking woman who is dying of cancer and who clearly expresses on camera that she wishes that she had never started smoking and in the next frame of the ad it says that she died the next day. So YMMV – some people fade away as you say, others remain clear headed to the end, others come in and out of lucidity.

    As I say in my other comment it’s really dumb to shift the goal posts in this unnecessary way because the family can always bring forward witnesses who will confirm that they heard her say this.

    It’s quite enough to say that there ain’t no Bubbie Clause. As I say in a different comment, if Ginsburg had uttered these same words in 2016, the same people who are citing them as grounds for not proceeding with a nomination would be arguing the exact opposite. This is just the usual Washington who-whom.

    • Replies: @Abe
  87. ltravail says:

    Trump is correct to call Democrat party claims regarding RBG’s sacrosanct “dying wish”, as “dictated to her granddaughter”, a hoax – and a desperate one at that. When I think about it, what immediately comes to mind is the “Donation of Constantine” hoax supposedly of the 4th century, A.D. No doubt this is where they got the idea.

  88. @AnotherDad

    1) Modest —
    — Increase court to 15 justices.

    Channelling FDR is anything but modest. Especially on an issue that shocked many of his supporters.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  89. @Ron Mexico

    Compare Stonewall Jackson’s last words with RBG’s supposed last words. “Let us cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees.” I would rather Gen. Jackson be on the Supreme Court than all the current ones, save for Thomas.

    I’m guessing Cla’ence would be the first one Gen Jackson would dismiss.

    • Disagree: Hibernian, Ron Mexico
  90. @Colin Wright

    “”but isn’t a Supreme Court seat a personal patrimony”

    Patrimony?

    You sexist pig.

  91. @Jack D

    Trump’s problem is that he keeps going back to his base, who like many here, will agree with him no matter what – yeah that thieving Commie liar granddaughter musta made the whole thing up!

    Trump is the king of unforced errors. The same impulsiveness that had him sleep with (presumably) hundreds of random women, including (potentially disease-ridden) porn stars, keeps surfacing at unpredictable intervals. I wish we had his charisma and Pence’s sobriety in a single package. Unfortunately, he is who he is, and the Democrats remain committed to our destruction. So we crawl over broken glass to cast a ballot for Trump.

    • Agree: ben tillman
  92. peterike says:
    @Jack D

    Does calling the granddaughter a liar help him with suburban women, for example?

    But he didn’t. That’s media framing. What he said from the Times article:

    “I don’t know that she said that, or if that was written out by Adam Schiff, and Schumer and Pelosi,” Mr. Trump said. “That came out of the wind. It sounds so beautiful, but that sounds like a Schumer deal, or maybe Pelosi or Shifty Schiff.”

    How is that calling the granddaughter a liar? There’s a big difference between questioning the words and actually SAYING “her granddaughter lied.” But of course that’s how the media will spin it.

    Trump is correct to at least instill some doubt over those conveniently political dying words. And anyone with a lick of sense knows it’s at least 50/50 that the thing is completely made up. At the very least, it was word-smithed. Ruthie might have said, “I hope that cocksucker Trump doesn’t get to pick my replacement.” And, you know, edits were applied for clarity.

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Jack D
  93. MarkinLA says:
    @Jack D

    Does calling the granddaughter a liar help him with suburban women, for example?

    Does anybody really care about this? Trump gets called a liar 500 times a day. Him calling people a liar isn’t a big deal.

  94. @Deadite

    “a video called ‘The Psychology of Black Hair’”

    Sailer’s prescient. He’s wasting it on Unz. He should write Phillip Dick-like novels with 150-200 page counts mapping the sociological landscape of near future LA. The Jewish ladies who run the NYC publishing houses are looking for literary pulp fiction. He needs a pen name though.

  95. Corn says:
    @Anonymous

    It’s not as if RBG was too good to get down in the trenches of partisan politics herself.

    I seem to recall during the 2016 campaign she gave an interview where she expressed her hope that Hillary won so the Supreme Court could finally scrap the Second Amendment.

    We shouldn’t be surprised if Trump thinks low of Ginsburg. She made it clear she thought low of him.

  96. Jack D says:
    @AnotherDad

    What you have proposed is mostly in the realm of fantasy and is never going to get past any Congress or make it thru the Constitutional amendment process. And if it did, it would be a sign that the Republic was in deep deep trouble so that all former norms had been cast aside.

    However, some lesser measures (such as limiting the Justice’s terms to 18 years) actually have some chance of passage and I have heard such proposals from both Democrats and Republicans (which is a good sign). There would be some issues with phasing it in but overall it could be done and it’s a modest enough step that it stands some chance of passage. Under such a system, every President would get to pick two Justices so there would be no need to wish death on anyone and none of this unseemly gamesmanship involving what happens in the last year of the President’s term.

    We also need to get back to a system where there is a strong presumption that the President’s choice will respected unless the person is manifestly unqualified and each nomination doesn’t become a festival of character assassination where every alley in America is dragged with $100 bills in the hopes of turning up some recovered memory of a woman with BPD of how the nominee groped her in 3rd grade without getting a signed release up front. This could be fixed (in part) by some sort of short statute of limitations whereby the Senate could not hear testimony involving anything that happened more than say 5 years ago unless the nominee had been tried and convicted for that crime. Smoke a joint in college – inadmissible. Didn’t pay your nanny tax in 1998 – forget about it. Under the current system, the nominee’s entire life from kindergarten onward is fair game for partisan dirty tricks, to the point where anyone sane would not even want to put himself thru such a wringer.

  97. Corn says:
    @tyrone

    Or Hawaii. Inouye made it clear he wanted Mazie Hirono to succeed him. The governor of Hawaii (rightfully imo) ignored it.

  98. @Clyde

    “I am cynical and negative about most 2010-2020 movies.”

    You’re going to hate 2020-2030. But maybe we’ll get lucky and the Blessed Asteroid will cleanse Gaia of the human pestilence before we get too deep into the decade.

    “Gladiator from 2ooo”

    2000-2010 was akshully a damned fine decade for movies; especially when compared to the preceding blue-lensed and thirty-four-producers-per-film racket of the 90s Hollywood flotsam.

  99. Jack D says:
    @ScarletNumber

    Ginsburg in her better days would have said otherwise. On the same subject in 2016, she said, and I quote:

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

    Under Ginsburg’s reading (which I don’t agree with, BTW) as president, Trump has a Constitutional duty to put forward nominees for vacant offices for so long as he is president (and the Senate has a duty to process them). He can’t stop because his grandma asks him or anyone’s grandma, any more than the Senate has the right to just sit on his nominations. That would be a dereliction of his Constitutional duties and ground for impeachment.

    Someone (I forget who) once said that “all procedural arguments are insincere”. The way that you can tell that an argument is insincere is that you reverse the situation and the same people who are now arguing for outcome X will be arguing just as vigorously against it, and vice versa. This is precisely such a situation.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  100. @Almost Missouri

    Yes, she enjoyed a tranquil and secure personal life, in which she could indulge her passions, all paid for out of the public purse, so she never had to sully herself with real work.

    SCOTUS Justices seem to work pretty hard when the Court is in session. Their big luxury is getting the summer off. I tried cold calling Scalia one summer, before I knew about this, and, IIRC, his assistant said he was teaching a Hofstra class in the South of France.

    It seems churlish to begrudge them for collecting government salaries when they could be making 5-10x as much in the private sector.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    , @Art Deco
  101. @Clyde

    Try watching more foreign movies.

    Here’s an excellent French one:

    And a Russian one:

  102. Abe says:
    @Jack D

    As I say in my other comment it’s really dumb to shift the goal posts in this unnecessary way because the family can always bring forward witnesses who will confirm that they heard her say this.

    I’ve had to deal with end-stage care for 3 grandparents plus my mother. Indeed it is not a pretty picture- one of Peter Blatty’s themes in the EXORCIST is the inherent grossness of the human condition during all its basic physiological/life-stage functions (hence the emphasis on various distasteful excreta in the book/movie) and how only divine love can transcend this grossness to care about the person behind the deteriorated physical shell. There is deep wisdom in this, as there must be some portion of us which shares in something like that sublime love in order to get past the sad, disgusting, horrible aspects of the dying process and still love the person undergoing this awful change.

    This is why the dying process is inherently personal and private. If RBG did make that dying wish then granddaughter should have kept it to herself. The whole dignity and mystique of the Supreme Court- and hence its power- lies in the appearance of its justices being above such petty concerns as election cycles and party politics. Not one of them live up to this ideal, of course, and perhaps the ideal is not a great one anyway and we should return to the notion of more politically earthy justices who come from the world of retail politics instead of ivory tower law schools, but it is what it has been for over 2 generations and RBG certainly seemed to revel in that mystique. To make a dying wish that inserts oneself into the grubby world of politics, that expresses a nakedly partisan and petty wish and yet is couched in weasel words (not “replaced by a liberal”, which would at least be honest, but only “by the next President”), and that is so self-interested and zero-sum it is almost laughably childish (like little dying Johnny Sylvester asking Babe Ruth to hit a homer for him in tomorrow’s World Series) is entirely counter to the dignity of her public persona. If Scalia, lingering on his death bed, had expressed his wish that after him, the murder of unborn babies in America would cease, the MSM would have blown up, but that is 10x as high-minded sounding as this Chuck Schumer-style, SAT snake oil salesman, I-got-nothing-but-I’ll-throw-it-out-anyway-and-see-if-the-schnooks-bite sort of humbug.

    RBG shat her judicial robes at the end. For everyone’s sake the granddaughter should have kept it to herself.

    • Thanks: Cortes
    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
  103. Jack D says:
    @TTSSYF

    I’m not accusing you of turning tricks in the men’s room of Penn Station. Oh, no, not at all.

    Others have said it though and I’m speculating that it might be true – it seems plausible to me.

    • Replies: @Matt Buckalew
  104. anon[346] • Disclaimer says:
    @Clyde

    I am cynical and negative about most 2010-2020 movies. They do nothing for me. The men are too gayish and the women are too plastic injected. The actors are, in a nutshell, non-convincing.

    The Coof forced this movie online in the summer. Based on a book from the 1940’s. No gayish men.

  105. @Jack D

    Why not? The story sounds phony. By doubting the “dying wish” he is essentially affirming RBG’s integrity. She was a serious woman, I doubt the petty political squabbling of 2016-2020 was at the forefront of her mind as she reflected upon a long, full life and career. It’s interesting that the “dying wish” was uttered to her granddaughter and not one of her children, and had the power to galvanize the woke at just the right time.

  106. MarkinLA says:

    What I want to know is what did Satan get from her in return for allowing her to destroy the country for 10 more years?

  107. @Jack D

    While Trump doesn’t have to respect Ginsburg’s dying wish, it’s not respectful or necessary for him to accuse his granddaughter of lying either.

    If her dying wish – her last words to her purportedly beloved granddaughter – was an intimate last moment between the two it damned well should have remained private and confidential for eternity (or, at least until it was no longer relevant to the immediate political situation in the U.S.).

    Once “Clara Spera” (if that is indeed her real name) decided that Bubbie’s dying wish had to go public to be used as a political cudgel against her ideological opposites it became subject to the usual and deserved skepticism of claims made in this toxic, polarized environment. Frankly, I don’t think there is anything too underhanded for the Democrats to cook up in their lust for the power of the Court and their recent efforts have been festooned with lies and defamations.

  108. Hibernian says:
    @Jack D

    The way that you can tell that an argument is insincere is that you reverse the situation and the same people who are now arguing for outcome X will be arguing just as vigorously against it, and vice versa.

    Isn’t that a large part of a lawyer’s job?

    • Replies: @Jack D
  109. @Jack D

    This is precisely why moving the goal line from “Does a Supreme Ct. Justice’s dying wish carry any weight?” to “Is the granddaughter lying?” was a dumb idea.

    You’re confused: There are three “goal lines” at least—(1) did RBG really say that, and if so, (2) LOL. There’s no way a Dem can “score” in those bathetic scenarios. Also, (3) Trump has not (yet) accused the granddaughter of lying.

    Totenberg has inevitably come forward with 7 Yale women …

    If so, bad optics. How does that help her case?

    Trump’s problem is that he keeps going back to his base …

    Correction: Trump’s strength, which irks you.

    What -you have video? Doesn’t matter – must be one of them deep fakes. You tell ’em, Trump.

    Again, how would video help? Ghoulish Ginsburg asking for special favors? Yeeek. Trump would say, “Remember that scene in Psycho, his mom sitting in the basement? Creepy stuff, folks.” And instead of chuckling as would be natural, you’d be kvetching even more like a bitter old yenta.

    But there is an election in 6 weeks and Trump needs more than his die hard base.

    Relax. Trump being Trump is the only thing that can get him reelected.

    Does calling the granddaughter a liar …

    FFS you’re repeating your lie, Jack. Trump never said the granddaughter was a liar. He was casting doubt on Totenberg’s secondhand hearsay. Quit projecting your (((stereotypical))) dishonesty onto Trump’s words.

    … help him with suburban women, for example?

    You think there’s a whole bunch of undecided suburban women? D’you gotta be kidding me. Suburban women are either BLM-lawn-sign/pussyhatters or Suburban Lifestyle Dream patriots. The latter will never care about some creepy leftist crone’s alleged or real political dying wishes.

    • Replies: @ben tillman
  110. Art Deco says:

    If my own experience of the moribund is indicative, her last words were perfectly banal, no one recognized they were her last words when she uttered them, and no one quite remembers what they were.

    By some accounts, the comedian Sam Kinison had some last words worth remembering and pondering. He didn’t die the way most of us do. He was mortally injured in a car accident but still conscious. He and those around him had a fair idea he was going down. Those words were interesting because somewhat cryptic.

  111. @Jack D

    However, some lesser measures (such as limiting the Justice’s terms to 18 years) actually have some chance of passage and I have heard such proposals from both Democrats and Republicans (which is a good sign). There would be some issues with phasing it in but overall it could be done and it’s a modest enough step that it stands some chance of passage.

    You’re certainly right that we’re a ways off from the sort of deeper, more republican reform i would like. I’m more republican, more traditionally American, in my sentiments than the norm. (And America is getting less republican every day. Some Polish immigrants behind me have a “Jo” sign in their yard. Come to America … and then vote to make it more like every other dump in the world. Great.)

    However your suggested reform above–18 years terms–isn’t too far off my “modest” reform–15 justices, 15 year terms. Either one requires a constitutional amendment to deal with the “shall hold their offices during good behavior” clause. So if you can get one, might as well go for it and get another.

    Transition is easy–algorithms, startup/shutdown conditions up my alley. Just add a justice each year, when you get to 15 most senior justice is retired. (Going to the 9/18 program actually lowers the boom harder on the existing guys–most senior must leave right away.)

    Anything that de-royalizes these pompous windbags is goodness. We saw in Obergefell they are still lawless little tyrants.

    Now would be a good time for conservatives and republicans to talk about these reforms. The RBG death watch was stupid and embarrassing for great republic.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Hibernian
  112. @Known Fact

    Alfred von Schlieffen’s (Chief of the German General Staff and principle developer of the famous Schlieffen Plan that Germany used at the outset of World War I) reputed last words were:

    “It must come to a fight; Only make the right wing strong.”

    There are doubts he ever said it, but it would be consistent with his life’s work of military planning.

  113. Jack D says:
    @Hibernian

    Yes, exactly but politicians don’t say “I’m a paid shill and I will say whatever is in my client’s interest.” They appeal to the Constitution and to motherhood and other noble causes as justification for positions and pretend that they really sincerely believe whatever BS they are are pitching today. And 4 years later when the tables are turned, they will do the same for the exact opposite position.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
  114. @Clyde

    I don’t think the Romans would haul siege weapons thru German forests to fight irregular infantry, but hey – “Unleash Hell” was a lot of fun!

  115. Jack D says:
    @peterike

    I have to say that I didn’t see the exact quote and now that I see it, “Trump says (without evidence) that the granddaughter is lying” is really the usual MSM anti-Trump spin on what he really said.

    • Thanks: Jenner Ickham Errican
    • Replies: @Matt Buckalew
  116. @Abe

    The whole dignity and mystique of the Supreme Court- and hence its power- lies in the appearance of its justices being above such petty concerns as election cycles and party politics.

    In that case, it might have paid Ruthie-baby to keep her yap shut: this is the woman who said that if Trump was elected she would move to New Zealand. (Actually she didn’t have the guts to claim it as her own idea: she pretended that it was something her husband would say. So much for being someone who has the courage of her convictions.)

    This also risked escalating to ‘international incident’ status, since it severely undermines New Zealand’s core defence strategy – which consists of encouraging Americans to believe that the existence of New Zealand is an internet conspiracy theory.

    As for ‘dignity’ and ‘mystique’ of the BlackRobes: the word I would use is gravitas – and I only ever use the word pejoratively. They are government lickspittles – the fact that they can write a little essay recounting what other BlackRobes have said over time (confirming their view of the issue at hand) is evidence of very little.

    If anything it shows that jurisprudence is so inconsistent that all matters of contention could be decided by a coin toss. Such a system would be less likely to produce anti-social decisions than investing some career apparatchiks with life tenure, and would have the additional benefit of being low-cost.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
  117. Jack D says:
    @AnotherDad

    (Going to the 9/18 program actually lowers the boom harder on the existing guys–most senior must leave right away.)

    Probably you can’t touch the existing guys even with a Constitutional amendment (unless you repeal the ex-post-facto clause too). What you could do is apply the new law only to new Justices and in the meantime you could temporarily enlarge the court. For each 4 year Presidential term, the President would pick one 18 year Justice in the 1st year of his term and 1 in his 3rd year (plus he could fill the remaining term of any 18 year justice who died or retired early). As the existing life term justices died or retired (which happens to average out to roughly 2 every 4 years anyway, although it can be lumpy) their seats would be eliminated and eventually you would be back down (or up) to a 9 person Court consisting only of 18 year Justices.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  118. Marat says:
    @Father O'Hara

    Yes, the choice of “installed” sounds like it’s more of a slip – from whoever composed it. (NPR perhaps?) I’m not implying specific knowledge, but just general POV being different from the average “our democracy” consumer. It’s a little like when the anon author of the 2018 NYT essay used “lodestar” in his/her/its anti-Trump screed. It conveys some extra meaning, but it’s not clear exactly what.

  119. ChrisZ says:
    @Abe

    “Trump the con man with a heart of gold” is a keeper, Abe. Thanks.

  120. @TomSchmidt

    The UK SC looks like a production of Iolanthe, without the G&S wit and music.

  121. @AnotherDad

    Up it to ~200M members.

    Your other suggestions were categorically legalistic, Big Government approaches to deal with a big government problem.

  122. @J.Ross

    That’s pretty funny considering how Democrats actually use third worlders: they enjoy both the service and the tears.

    Most honest public statement any (((media personality))) has ever made about immigration.

    • Replies: @MarkinLA
    , @J.Ross
  123. @Jack D

    The word of the day is “cant”.

    Cant (noun): the expression or repetition of conventional or trite opinions or sentiments
    especially : the insincere use of pious words.

  124. @Jack D

    It’s as George Burns said “The most important thing is sincerity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”

    • LOL: ScarletNumber
  125. Alden says:
    @Deadite

    Not weaved but woven into black hair. It’s no longer necessary for State dept employees to use correct grammar because English grammar is racist

  126. Alden says:
    @Jack D

    Excellent sensible doable ideas Jack.

  127. Dissident says:

    It’s right there in the Constitution: “The President must do whatever Jewish ladies tell him to do.

    Imagine, if you will, the following hypothetical:
    Everything about the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg would have been as it was– i.e., her political, ideological and judicial views, positions, affiliations, and record. Only, she had not been a Jewess*.

    Just what, if anything, would be meaningfully different in regard to any of what you have cited and commented upon? In other words, what is the specific relevance of her Jewishness here; to any of the points that you are making?

    *A completely secular, irreligious one, I might add.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
  128. Hibernian says:
    @AnotherDad

    (And America is getting less republican every day. Some Polish immigrants behind me have a “Jo” sign in their yard. Come to America … and then vote to make it more like every other dump in the world. Great.)

    Assuming that’s Jo as in Jorgensen, not too many dumps got that way through Libertarianism. Oh wait, a vote for Jo is a vote for Joe!

    That kind of thing is annoying to me regardless of whether it comes form right or left. I tend to hear it most from leftists who believe a vote for Jo, or any other 3rd party candidate, is a vote for The Donald.

    A vote for Jo is a vote for Jo. It’s also a “Neither of the above” signal to the two major parties, in hopes of inspiring them to do better next time.

    Besides, in Illinois, my vote or anyone else’s won’t help the Prez, and Joltin’ Joe doesn’t need my help.

  129. Escher says:

    Ms. Ginsburg could’ve just listed the seat in her will, along with her designated successor. Problem solved!

  130. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    You think there’s a whole bunch of undecided suburban women? D’you gotta be kidding me. Suburban women are either BLM-lawn-sign/pussyhatters or Suburban Lifestyle Dream patriots.

    There might be a million suburban women who voted for Trump last time who will go the other way this time just because they are sick of Trump’s personality and want him out of their lives.

  131. MarkinLA says:
    @Anonymousse

    When the dufus mayor of Los Angeles Villaraigosa said “We clean you toilets” at a rally, John and Ken organized to have LA residents send him plungers. So Kelley is wromg.

  132. MarkinLA says:
    @ben tillman

    This should be where Realist reminds us that democracy doesn’t work.

  133. Strac5 says:

    Based Steve Sailer! Wooo!

  134. @Dissident

    Jews in America have been politically active. Their positions are of their own make.

  135. @ben tillman

    who will go the other way this time just because …

    It’s possible, but it’s idiotic/dishonest/melodramatic to blame Trump for that.

    Also, there might be two million suburban women who voted for Hillary last time who will vote for Trump because they don’t want zombie geriatric Biden figure-heading a nasty socialist revolution heading to their doorsteps.

    Ever since Trump declared his candidacy in 2015, tone-policing concern trollers have been decrying Trump’s ‘self-destructive boorishness’, backed by fake polls, and have been consistently BTFO.

  136. @Jack D

    We also need to get back to a system where there is a strong presumption that the President’s choice will respected unless the person is manifestly unqualified and each nomination doesn’t become a festival of character assassination where every alley in America is dragged with $100 bills in the hopes of turning up some recovered memory of a woman with BPD of how the nominee groped her in 3rd grade without getting a signed release up front. This could be fixed (in part) by some sort of short statute of limitations whereby the Senate could not hear testimony involving anything that happened more than say 5 years ago unless the nominee had been tried and convicted for that crime. Smoke a joint in college – inadmissible. Didn’t pay your nanny tax in 1998 – forget about it. Under the current system, the nominee’s entire life from kindergarten onward is fair game for partisan dirty tricks, to the point where anyone sane would not even want to put himself thru such a wringer.

    Disagree. The last justice challenge was cleansing, a waking call. I welcome more of the same.

  137. @Dave Pinsen

    It seems churlish to begrudge them for collecting government salaries when they could be making 5-10x as much in the private sector.

    Justices like Scalia could. But Ginsburg was a creature of the academy and nonprofits. I suppose she could have gotten private sector work defending corporate clients against the sex discrimination stuff that she enabled as a government/nonprofit/academic attorney. That sort of legal extortion racket is fairly common. It doesn’t necessarily pay 10x a Supreme’s salary, though. And she wouldn’t get all the public adulation out of it.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  138. @Reg Cæsar

    Channelling FDR is anything but modest. Especially on an issue that shocked many of his supporters.

    Reg, respectfully disagree. Different contexts.

    FDR was attempting court packing. He was going to run up to 15–that he would be able to immediately appoint–to get around the court, whacking down some New Deal legislation.

    There’s nothing inherently sacred about nine justices. (It’s set in a piece of Congressional legislation from the 19th century.) It was the nature of what FDR was doing–the context–that brought the ridicule.

    What i’m suggesting is indeed a “modest” reform: more justices, fixed terms, an end to the “death watch” scenario and generally to an elderly court and less judicial royalism. In any reasonable and politically palatable version of the reform neither Trump, nor Biden/Harris would appoint all of them. They would filter in. No one is specifically “court packing”.

  139. @Anonymous

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

    “Any law that has been on the books for ten years or more is off limits for judicial termination or reinterpretation unless there has been an amendment or amendments to the Constitution in the past decade and that amendment -or those amendments- form the primary, although not necessarily sole, justification for terminating the law.”

    That is a good observation/suggestion 596. I’ve been annoyed with the capricious anti-republican behavior of the courts at least since Furman and Roe, and have occasionally entertained thoughts about how you could rein these people in … but had not thought about this sort of approach.

  140. J.Ross says:
    @Anonymousse

    God I miss Joan. Fashion Police was the funniest show on TV.

  141. Jack D says:
    @Almost Missouri

    Ginsburg didn’t start out as a social justice warrior. When she finished law school, she tried to get a job at a firm but no one would hire a woman. In those days the white shoe firms didn’t even hire Jews let alone women. At Marty’s (Jewish) firm, Marty and a couple of the associates who had been at Harvard with him went to the senior partner and pitched Ruth as being super talented (normally any firm would be eager to hire the #1 ranking student of Harvard Law School) but he flatly refused to hire a woman, especially one with a child. So she had no choice but to take a job in academia (and even then she was not yet an SJW).

    Anyway, Ginsburg would have made a hell of a litigator and later on had she gone over to the private sector any large firm would have been pleased to have her doing appellate practice. By then Marty had enough pull that he surely could have gotten her a job (and she would have been worth every cent). But not everyone is driven by money (and, since her husband was one of the top tax lawyers in NY, they had enough $ already anyway).

    • Thanks: Almost Missouri
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    , @MarkinLA
  142. Art Deco says:
    @Jack D

    When she finished law school, she tried to get a job at a firm but no one would hire a woman.

    The firm my family used had a lady attorney who had been admitted to the bar after an old fashioned office apprenticeship – in 1928. No dearth of solo practitioners and small partnerships in 1959. Mario Cuomo discovered in 1958 that white shoe firms weren’t interested in him, so he went into practice on Court Street in Brooklyn. RBG couldn’t be bothered with that. (Sandra Day O’Connor was a government lawyer for various agencies).

    • Thanks: Johann Ricke
    • Replies: @Jack D
  143. Art Deco says:
    @Dave Pinsen

    It seems churlish to begrudge them for collecting government salaries when they could be making 5-10x as much in the private sector.

    Supreme Court justices are paid $260,000 a year plus fringes. I think Ted Cruz did have a seven-figure salary at Jones, Day. Don’t know how common that is.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
  144. @Steve Sailer

    ” In general she sounds like a superior, enviable person”

    Nobody is superior simply because they attend the opera. Myself I make music, new melody to be exact, and I do not consider myself : “superior”.

    So why don’t you finally show up at a JB pow-wow and publically declare your affinity and support for the lunatic Democrats.

    Political rule nr one : Do ever, ever, ever express praise for the enemy, period.
    After DT defended NP, and stated that she is not a racist, what did she reply : But he is.

    These crazies are out for our blood and the very reason why they have the upper hand is because folks such as yourself have been trying to be “fair” or to compromise with them and in return you get the knife in the back.

    AJM “Mensa” qualified since 1973, airborne trained US army vet, and pro Jazz artist.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
    • Replies: @AnotherDad
  145. Correction : Do not ever, ever ever express praise for the enemy.

    AJM

  146. MarkinLA says:
    @Jack D

    This is an awful lot like the story of Fidel Castro – if only some MLB team had picked him up. Or Hitler – if only he had gotten into art school.

  147. anon[402] • Disclaimer says:
    @TTSSYF

    She did say something to the effect of despising him and later apologized.

    Earlier, during the campaign, she said something referencing the future president, “whomever SHE may be”. Which I thought was cute – everybody knew she wanted Hillary but this was a funny way of saying it without saying, I didn’t think that was bad. But later she did say something about Trump that she apologized for.

  148. Jack D says:
    @Art Deco

    Cuomo went to St. John’s University School of Law. Ginsburg went to Harvard. Maybe it’s all the same to you, but in the legal profession going to #74 St. Johns is a long way from going to Harvard. Yes, it’s normal for St. John’s grads to open offices on Court. St. and do slip and falls. Not so for Harvard grads, esp. not #1 Harvard grads (actually Ginsburg transferred to Columbia when her husband graduated a year ahead of her and took a job in NY. She was tied for #1 at Columbia also).

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    , @Art Deco
  149. @Kratoklastes

    A brief window of Liberty in the era of oligarchs. Thank you God, for your gift. And now, the flood.

  150. @Jack D

    Probably you can’t touch the existing guys even with a Constitutional amendment (unless you repeal the ex-post-facto clause too).

    Huh? It’s a constitutional amendment. If it changes the rules, the rules are changed.

  151. @Jack D

    Damn, Jack. She was almost as smart as you.

  152. @Authenticjazzman

    Well said AJM, “political” disputes now are way, way, way past the point of arguing about tax rates, government pensions or medical care, union bargaining rights, minimum wages, etc. etc.

    These people are just plain evil people who–for a vast variety of motives: power, greed, virtue signally, ethnic hostility, etc.–desire to destroy the polis, the American nation.

    Disagree with your implication that Steve’s attitude is the problem. (Steve’s been out in the vanguard blowing up his career and risking abuse and potential physical attack to shed light.) But nominal “conservatives” who refuse to see the crisis and fight are the problem. This is an existential conflict. Light versus darkness. People need to stop being civil to the forces of darkness. Speak the truth–they deserve to be hung from lampposts or boiled in oil.

  153. Anonymous[865] • Disclaimer says:
    @LondonBob

    Wasn’t the government recently overruled by judges over some point related to Brexit?

    My traditional understanding of the British constitution was that parliament was the highest legal authority in the country, and that lawyers sitting outside of parliament have no right to dictate what the government can and can’t do.

  154. @Jack D

    It’s ok the honor of a young jewess was apparently threatened- no time to get the facts right.

    ADL powers activate in form of falsely pardoned rapist murderer.

  155. @Jack D

    Lol Villanova Jews can’t help themselves. I notice you didn’t apologize for this outburst after your false impression of Trump’s comment was corrected. TTSSYF‘s fault for not being a khazarite I guess.

  156. @peterike

    The funniest thing is that Trump was being more solicitous of Jewish honor than Abe Little Coxman here. With his little blow up he amplified the sordidness and got his failure to even get the basic facts right exposed to all.

  157. Dave Pinsen says: • Website
    @Art Deco

    If former Supreme Court clerks are getting $400k sign-on bonuses it doesn’t seem unlikely for a former Supreme Court Justice to make 7-figures if he or she were to retire while still able to practice.

  158. No, Jake, it wasn’t a Democratic hoax. It was a Democrat hoax.

  159. @Almost Missouri

    Note that at no point in her life did she ever hold a real job.

    This reply is late, but yours is an excellent assessment, Mr. Missouri.

    No wonder liberals admire her so much. She lived their dream: never doing real work while sitting in judgement over all lesser mortals.

    In the Soviet Union, they called people like her “aparatchiks” and “nomenclatura.” We now live under the rule of the very same class of humans.

    I am tired of reading here about how studious and academic Ms. Ginsburg was, and how her “poor” father “only owed a hat shop,” or some other, typical, whiney story. For every “poor” hat shop owner with ethnic connections in a city, there have been a hundred of my own ancestors doing dirty, dangerous work on the American frontier, hacking, conquering and building the country out of a wilderness so the hat shop operators could come later and do their business.

    We do indeed have a problem now of being told what to do by people who never have gotten their hands any dirtier that pen ink. Maybe they got a paper cut along the way.

  160. Art Deco says:
    @Jack D

    I once worked at the fringes of the legal profession in Rochester. At that time, there was one BigLaw firm and about five notable mid-law firms. In the intervening years, the BigLaw firm (which was founded locally and once had all of its manpower locally) has largely decamped elsewhere; only about 15% of their attorneys work in Rochester. Of the other five firms, two have dissolved. Other firms have taken their place (of which one is an antique firm that was of quite modest size a generation ago).

    Whoever Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in 1959, she wasn’t the sort to found a firm that might have taken the place of one of those three firms thirty years down the line. She also wasn’t the sort to build an ordinary law practice from scratch. There’s nothing wrong with that. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. The trouble is, she spent countless man-hours in various venues insisting that persons such as herself shouldn’t have to play it as it lays, and the implication of that was that all sorts of people were told their own judgment about how to run their own business was to be subject to the supervision of lawyers who have no skin in the game and have poor math skills to boot.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  161. IMHO, one of the problems with the law is that it is a closed system. IOW, you have access to all the law in your specialty, tax law for instance, and your job is to figure out how best to comply with/get around these laws.

    Trying to figure out how to increase yield (no defect products) in a manufacturing plant is completely different. But lawyers think that because they are so good at what is really just word play that they have the competence to interfere in other areas. And too many judges think they have the right to interfere to correct what they see as problems because the legislature to too slow or reluctant to act.

    Oh, and damn the voters, BTW.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Proposition_209

  162. @Art Deco

    • Thanks

    What gets me here is all this talk about what amounts to The Paper Chase.

    My father was an industrial engineer who actually made things. His pipes might very well be carrying your water to your and your waste away from you. No “public intellectual” ever writes about people like my father. No, they write about people like Ginsburg.

    You are correct:

    Whoever Ruth Bader Ginsburg was in 1959, she wasn’t the sort to found a firm that might have taken the place of one of those three firms thirty years down the line. She also wasn’t the sort to build an ordinary law practice from scratch.

    Nor was she the type of American to build anything. She was very, very good at her studies (and at listening to Bach. Of course, Gould’s version was the best to her.)

    We should not deny Ms. Ginsburg’s obvious talents and hard work, but we also should not be fooled by it.,

  163. bro3886 says:
    @Steve Sailer

    I couldn’t agree more. ‘Course there was that life-long dedication to genocide against white America, but I suppose everybody has their little peccadillos.

    • Thanks: Anonymousse
  164. Lagertha says:
    @ScarletNumber

    well, it is true (read it yourself – 1789) without my cussin,’ hahhahaaaa – but I am so sick of you, Lefties…that’s why I cuss at y’all, whenever I can!

    You make it too easy for me to make fun of you, every time I can. And, because I am immigrant, it is especially fun to hate on Progressives! You will once again, lose the election because you are so condescending to the people who were the pioneers – dirt poor people, many of them indentured (slaves) Irish and Scots immigrants (GA,VA, NC, DE, NJ).

    The Supreme Court was established in 1789, in case you do not know American history…I was way smarter (and spoke several languages in 2nd grade) than some of you, obnoxious Progressives, who are creeping into my favorite fun group…my safe space…you are not welcome.

  165. @Steve Sailer

    I know of a guy with a great fondness for Wagner who also painted, was extremely popular, and was known for being kind to animals. Maybe these enviable people are getting acquainted as we speak, I suspect they’re in the same neighborhood these days.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS