The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
Last Best Chance to Capture Supreme Court
🔊 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

President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are on the cusp of making history.

With Trump having named two justices to the U.S. Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, they have an opening to elevate a third justice to fill the seat of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, thereby securing the constitutionalism of the court for a generation.

Trump and McConnell need only persuade 50 of the 53 Senate Republicans to vote to confirm the nominee Trump says he will send up at week’s end, following the days of mourning for Ginsburg.

Two Republican senators, however, Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, have said that they will not vote to confirm a justice nominated this close to a presidential election.

Yet, if Trump appoints a qualified female jurist, as he has pledged to do, and she passes muster in the Judiciary Committee, would four GOP senators really collude with Chuck Schumer’s Democratic Caucus to kill that Republican nominee and risk having President Joe Biden fill the seat?

A Senate vote to reject a Republican nominee, in which Republican senators cast the decisive votes, would demoralize and divide the party on election eve and betray a cause for which some have fought for 50 years. It is hard to conceive of a greater act of political treason.

Many Republican presidents made strides toward recapturing the court after the radical rampage of the Earl Warren era. None achieved it. Three of Richard Nixon’s four picks went south on Roe v. Wade, and Justice Harry Blackmun authored the abominable decision.

Gerald Ford’s lone nominee, Justice John Paul Stevens, went left as soon as he went up. While Ronald Reagan nominated Antonin Scalia, his other choices, Sandra Day O’Connor and Anthony Kennedy, became “swing votes.” George H. W.

Bush picked David Souter and Clarence Thomas, with the latter’s constitutionalism canceled out by the former’s liberalism.

But today, the hour of Trump’s triumph may be at hand, and the stark panic on the left testifies to it.

Mobs are forming outside McConnell’s home in Kentucky. Former Attorney General Eric Holder threatens that if Republicans confirm a justice this year, a Democratic Senate will cancel out its victory by “packing” the courts. Rep. Joe Kennedy III says that if McConnell prevails in 2020, “We pack the court in 2021.” Radicals are threatening to take to the streets and burn the country down if a Trump nominee is elevated.
Let them try.

When FDR, after his landslide reelection, sought to pack the court by increasing the number of justices in 1937, the result was a national recoil and a political rout that cost him 72 House seats in 1938.

Republican senators have to bite the bullet on this one and vote on whomever Trump nominates before this session of Congress ends.

And, in this battle, there is no room for conscientious objectors.

ORDER IT NOW

Even “Never Trumpers” and Republicans for Biden have to take a stand. For if they play a role in killing Trump’s nominee, and Biden wins in November, they will have helped to turn the Supreme Court over to leftist Democrats who will fill both the Ginsburg seat and that of Justice Stephen Breyer, 82, and hold the court for years.

Consider the issues that the new nominee will decide.

The cause of right to life. Affirmative action. Religious freedom. Immigration. Gun rights. All could be lost if the opportunity to fill the Ginsburg seat is forfeited by Republican defectors. The 50-year struggle to recapture the Supreme Court would be over.

Are there Republicans who would really walk away from this last, best chance to secure the court, simply because the process offends their sense of proper procedure?

This may be a hard vote for Murkowski, Collins and a few other Republicans. But to vote down a qualified conservative nominee, on the eve of a presidential election, would amount to a crippling blow to their party and to their reputations within that party.

It is said there is not time enough to get the vote done responsibly.

Nonsense. Gerald Ford’s choice of John Paul Stevens went through in 19 days. Only 49 days lapsed between the nomination of Ginsburg and her confirmation.

Of the nominees to the Supreme Court, those who have been brutalized worst in the last 50 years were all Republican appointees: Clement Haynsworth in 1970, Robert Bork in 1987, Clarence Thomas in 1991 and Brett Kavanaugh in 2018.

No Democratic nominee has been savaged like these four federal court judges. And for Biden to condone a relentless partisan attack on a qualified female judge would seem to be risking the women’s vote in 2020.

Assume that Amy Coney Barrett, Catholic jurist and mother of seven, is nominated. Would fellow Catholic Joe Biden demand that his Democratic colleagues reject Barrett because she might be a vote against Roe v. Wade, which Joe now enthusiastically champions?

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2020 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Ideology • Tags: 2020 Election, Donald Trump, Supreme Court 
Hide 77 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Exile says: • Website

    Shameful partisan huckstering, Pat.

    Trump’s “A-list” of prospective nominees already shows what we can expect – another typical nominee selected by the cucked Federalist Society.

    There’s the White Catholic gurl-power judge with the two Haitian babies – take that, Mitt Romney!

    The Wise Based Latina – go gurl with salsa!

    And for the misogynists, the based Black guy from Kentucky. No Clarence Thomas but still a dark horse sleeper given Trump’s apparent desire to be known as the first Jewish President (take that LBJ!) and third Black President at the same time.

    “Best Jullatto Evah! It’s gonna be great.”

    The list goes on and on.

    All of them have or will promise to “respect precedent” (aka no rollback of any of the Progressive pillars like abortion, birthright citizenship, due process for illegal aliens, gay marriage – or Title VII for perverts which was given to us courtesy of Trump’s own appointee Gorsuch.

    Alleged based Catholic Scalia’s personal friendship with avid abortionist Ginsberg also makes one go “hmmm?”

    This system is to sick to save, for one person no matter how highly-placed or ten or a hundred. But Pat will go to his Maker tub-thumping for Republicans no matter how much they smear him or how they disgrace the ideas he’s claimed to stand for “right from the beginning.”

  2. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    The shoddier the carnival, the louder the barks.

    Last Best Chance

    on the cusp of making history

    securing the constitutionalism of the court for a generation

    a cause for which some have fought for 50 years

    the hour of Trump’s triumph may be at hand

    in this battle, there is no room for conscientious objectors

    All could be lost

    The 50-year struggle to recapture the Supreme Court would be over

    “[T]he hour of Trump’s triumph may be at hand.” It’s long been a farce, but suggesting that Donald Trump, of all people, will respect the Constitution and rein in Washington is a sick joke. Try telling it to Mr. Soleimani’s survivors or Mr. Assange.

    Even Mr. Buchanan has to list all those GOP nominees who have gone “left,” but he skirts the two already put up by President Trump. Was it not Justice Gorsuch who just this year arrogated legislative expansion of discrimination laws? How can anyone credibly suggest that President Trump will nominate another “constitutionalist” without acknowledging that Mr. Kavanaugh earned his first robe on the Swampville Circuit by helping President Cheney push through the PATRIOT Act, and has now as a Justice voted with “liberals” on immigration, the key issue exploited in the 2016 election? Instead, the puppet show’s Stagehand Right rolls out the tattered abortion backdrop for the thoroughly duped, and talks “qualified female judge” sportsball for the political junkies.

    Those 5-4 decisions and confirmation food fights are themselves part of the Washington drama that keeps people buying tickets and staying put in their seats. The SCOTUS’s real job is to handle domestic hot potatoes in lieu of the invertebate Congress, to forebear (along with the invertebate Congress) the Big War imperialism waged under auspices of the President, and to dignify the Establishment’s fleecing of the country. Not “branches,” three hands washing each other.

    This website’s “Mr. Paleconservative” only shadow boxes that system. His real job is rallying the GOP sheep for the next Most Important Election Ever.

    • Agree: Bill, Exile
  3. So why did John Paul Stevens take only 19 days? Probably for the same the notorious yenta had 96 votes. It is a rigged game, the people vote for Republicans to be cheated.

    We need this nomination and it needs to be good if only there’s a chance it will force the Democrats to stack the court. When the court is stacked, it will be recognized as an illegitimate body. We will be able to begin the process of developing a new organic Constitution, one that represents the true American nation, as opposed to the Enlightenment folly now destined to be consigned to the dust-heap of history because of the manifest inability of the Jews and Freemasons to adhere to it as it was written.

  4. Realist says:
    @anonymous

    Not “branches,” three hands washing each other.

    Correct…and all owned by the Deep State. The following group of actions sealed the fate of the US for ever. A big win for the Deep State.

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

    Other than abject stupidity, why would the American people stand for this? This is such an egregious and obvious power grab by the rich and powerful. It amazes me that it did not start a revolution. Federal elections have not been legitimate since.

    • Thanks: RVBlake
  5. Gunga Din says:

    What a yawner for conservatives. As Pat pointed out, the biggest liberals on the court were appointed by republicans, and Trump’s 2 supposed solid conservative appointees have betrayed us by voting with the libs or not hearing cases that would benefit conservatives (i.e., gun law issues).

    • Agree: Cauchemar du Singe
  6. Rich says:

    The repubs nominate moderates, the dems nominate far left hacks. Does anyone really believe Kagan or Sotomayor are qualified to be Supreme Court justices? They’re a joke. And Ginsburg never struck me as being some great legal mind, she went against basic fairness and established law in the Ricci case. Cony Barret will be a nice middle of the road Catholic judge, at best. Gorsuch is already drifting left, he’ll probably get beat up outside a men’s restroom in a public park in DC soon, like Souter was. The country won’t be saved by judges.

    • Replies: @anon
  7. If Trump was the troll president that I dearly wanted him to be, he’d nominate the most Liberal black female candidate possible… just to confuse the Democratic establishment into denying her and destroying her reputation just because she was Trump’s choice. Otherwise they’d all be forced to praise him right before the elections, and that would be something worth seeing.

    • LOL: follyofwar
    • Replies: @Wyatt
  8. Tucker says:

    Allison Rushing is the hands down best, on paper anyway, and she is the youngest of the female potential nominees at 38 years of age.

    Amy Barrett would be a total disaster. This woman has already gone to great lengths to demonstrate that she is a typical virtue signaling, card carrying SJW liberal by her decision to adopt a pair of Haitian orphans – and anyone who doubts for a split second that this decision will not affect her votes on any of the immigration restrictions and promises Trump made about securing our border and shutting down massive waves of useless and incompatible and largely parasitic immigrants from the ‘s-hole’ nations and revising our national immigration policy to prioritize merit and a proven ability to contribute to America, rather than become a drain on the tax payers – is a blind and very, very stupid nitwit.

    As for Barbara Lagoa, being Hispanic – what do you think the odds would be of her voting to uphold any of Trump’s border security policies?

    Rushing is the hands down best of these three.

  9. What about that Cuban woman from Florida?

  10. Wyatt says:
    @Sollipsist

    If Trump was the troll-est of trolls, he’d pack the courts before the dems can and make the Supreme Court a worthless hellhole of yelling idiots trying to hammer out a decision that no one takes seriously.

    Courts are garbage institutions anyway. No reason not to pack the dump with more trash.

  11. Anonymous[354] • Disclaimer says:
    @Exile

    There’s the White Catholic gurl-power judge with the two Haitian babies – take that, Mitt Romney!

    It gets worse:

    Amy Coney Barrett Is Not a Safe Pick for the Supreme Court

    It is clear what Judge Barrett believes about the obligations of a Catholic judge when there is a direct conflict between her views of what the Church teaches and the U.S. Constitution dictates: they must recuse themselves.

    That’s a scary prospect, if Judge Barrett is to become Justice Barrett.

    Basically, she said that she’d recuse herself in cases where (anti-)pope Francis might object. So much for “our” asset in the Supreme Court.

    It’s interesting that Buchanan sells her only as a “Catholic jurist and mother of seven” without mentioning the imported Haitian babies and this debilitating conflict of interest – after listing all those previous turncoats who somehow ended up in the Supreme Court. Oops.

  12. TGD says:

    There is no check on the Supreme Court other than the Supreme Court itself or a constitutional amendment. A Supreme Court justice is a life appointment. This is a constitutional defect.

    In 1803, the infamous Marbury v Madison case established that the Supreme Court and other federal courts have the last say on any law or ruling. Thus a lower court justice can negate a presidential directive as the courts did in Trump’s attempt to curb illegal immigration. The courts are not a coequal branch of the government but the supreme branch.

    I propose the following to cure the defects.

    1. A Supreme Court justice must be approved by the populace in a national referendum 5 years after appointment. If not, goodbye justice. Maximum term of 20 years.

    2. The Senate shall have the power to choose to review any S.C. ruling and strike it down with a 2/3rds vote.

    3. Repeal of the Marbury v Madison decision.

    • Replies: @Anon
    , @Reg Cæsar
  13. mike6972 says:

    “When FDR, after his landslide reelection, sought to pack the court by increasing the number of justices in 1937, the result was a national recoil and a political rout that cost him 72 House seats in 1938.”

    This is not 1938. The “Democrats” of 2021 would have no problem packing the court. They are insane with rage and will try anything, regardless of the consequences.

    Yes, President Trump should nominate the next Supreme Court judge, and yes, the senate should confirm it – before the election if possible.

    The Left will riot. They will loot. They will burn. They will kill. It’s expected. Hopefully the revulsion generated by this blatantly anti-social violence will ensure a victory for Trump and the Republicans.

    • Replies: @Exile
  14. anon[773] • Disclaimer says:

    I really, sincerely hope he doesn’t nominate Amy Barrett. I think she’s one of those “conservatives” who care only about abortion, abortion, abortion, and will be a total liberal on other more important issues like immigration. Why do I think that? She’s adopted two kids from Haiti. One of those “true Christian” type who will be pro-immigration, like the Pope and the Catholic church. Just a hunch.

    Amy Wax is the best candidate. Yet I don’t think she’s even on the list. Gorsuch has been mostly a disappointment, a liberal in sheep skin. If the election ends up being decided by SCOTUS, I wouldn’t count out Gorsuch or John Roberts to vote against Trump. In fact, I think they most likely will.

  15. KenH says:
    @Tucker

    Amy Barrett would be a total disaster.

    I once thought she would be a good pick but the more I learn about her the less I like her. She recently ruled in favor of Illinois governor JB Pritzker’s ban on political gatherings of more than 50 people. Some “conservative”. A female Scalia? Yeah right.

    The first amendment says the people have the right to peaceably assemble. It doesn’t say they have the right to peaceably assembly unless the state governor declares a state of emergency and limits the size of the lawful assembly using powers he does not have.

    Barrett also seems to place great stock in the utterances of the Pope who thinks the Western world should subsume themselves in third world immigration, so she’ll likely deliver crap rulings on immigration restriction especially if the corrupt communist Pope is wagging his finger at her.

    • Agree: Robert Dolan
    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  16. The problem with Republicans and judicial picks is that Republicans are enamored of big corporations and Republicans fetishize abortion. Corporations are woke and bent on destroying middle America. Abortion is best “curtailed” with aggressive enforcement of child support rules AND by giving poor women sufficient welfare (perhaps a guaranteed basic income) so that there is no economic harm from having an unplanned child. We know from the days before Roe that if abortion is “illegal” there will be countless illegal abortion clinics and the numbers of abortions will not decline–they will simply be more expensive and dangerous. Trump’s list of potential nominees is filled with bad candidates dominated by conventional thinking. The current court is populated by Catholics and Jews who went to Ivy League schools (note: Gorsuch may have become Episcopalian). The court needs a justice from flyover country who attended public school, a state college, and a state law school. The person should have never practiced for a “big law” firm, never have been a US attorney, never clerked for a Federal judge at any level. Ideally the person’s background should be labor law, family law, or products liability. The person should be a gun owner. The person should be Protestant–perhaps Lutheran or Baptist. The person should have lived in a small town. The person maybe should have been elected to a city council or a school board. That would bring balance to the Court. The problem is that Republicans no longer understand how to think outside the box. There is zero in the Constitution that suggests all of the Justices need to attend Harvard or Yale. There is nothing to suggest they should have to have been a Circuit Court Judge. There is nothing to suggest they should have spent time at DOJ. Indeed, those typical features in the back ground for most current Justices should be considered disqualifying. Who ever Trump nominates will be “conventional” — which means same old same old.

    • Replies: @Liberty Mike
  17. polistra says:

    Doesn’t matter. All judges are identical. The replacement, whether “D” or “R”, will continue to require abortion and kill normal people.

  18. Exile says: • Website
    @mike6972

    Anyone willing to see anyone die to help the fake opposition Republicans win another fake victory so they can continue to advance the Jewish/Prog agenda is no countryman of mine.

  19. Juvenalis says:
    @anonymous

    Neil Gorsuch is a strict textualist. The Bostock ruling, and especially the fact that Gorsuch got all 6 justices to sign on to his opinion as precedent rather than write concurring opinions from a more liberal activist perspective, in fact paves the way for e.g. striking down all ‘affirmative action’ racial quota programmes as illegal.

    Justice Gorsuch believes the law should be followed as written, rather than either viewing laws as naturally “evolving”, or trying to guess what people were thinking when they wrote it, in rendering a judgment on an issue today (often anachronisms which the authors failed to anticipate at all). Nothing outside the law itself should influence how a law is interpreted.

    The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sex. What LBJ and Congress were thinking in 1964 is irrelevant. Likewise the Civil Rights Act prohibits all discrimination based on race. It doesn’t matter that LBJ himself was among the proponents of “affirmative action” “positive discrimination” against Whites in favor of Blacks.

    A textualist is influenced by no social activist arguments at all from either side to re-interpret the law using any outside knowledge besides what is written in the text of the law and the text of the Constitution; if the legislative branch intends to exclude certain types of discrimination from CRA prohibition, Congress can amend the text of the law to say that.

    Otherwise you are reading your own brand of activism into a written law, justified with anachronistic fuzzy guesswork about what the law’s authors were thinking (or would be thinking) decades or centuries ago, looking outside the law, rather than sticking to what they actually chose to write into law.

    • LOL: GazaPlanet
    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @GazaPlanet
    , @Exile
  20. Anonymous[369] • Disclaimer says:

    “Assume that Amy Coney Barrett, Catholic jurist and mother of seven, is nominated.”

    Please, learn your lessons:

    No more women with three names.

    No more “brilliant” jurists who are able to extract perverted meanings out of the plain speech of the Constitution.

    Kill all the lawyers.

    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
  21. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Juvenalis

    .. paves the way for e.g. striking down all ‘affirmative action’ racial quota programmes as illegal.

    In other words, Trust the Plan?

    if the legislative branch intends to exclude certain types of discrimination from CRA prohibition, Congress can amend the text of the law to say that.

    In other words, it’s up to Congress to review and update statutes in anticipation of what some robed politician might decide that a word like “sex” has come to mean?

  22. @Juvenalis

    “Justice Gorsuch believes the law should be followed as written”

    And in his views “sex” means being a tranny, or even sexual orientation. To state that the semantic content of “sex” has changed and therefore changes the law makes a mockery of the concept of law. The judges can change the definition of sex (or marriage) for the whole society to favor a peculiar interest group favored by the Jews, that is ludicrous, it makes a mockery of the very concept of law. There is no room for respect for someone who argues in such a way, no room for “disagreement” – it is not a matter of disagreement, it is a matter of someone who is a flagrant criminal in robes.

    And to claim that is “strict textualism” – look, that is called being a fraud, being an agent of the Left, being judicial legislator trampling on our Constitution.

    You gas-lighting freaks have destroyed the legitimacy of the laws, and the consequences are going to be incredibly bad.

  23. Riots are “peaceful protests,” Sex is “orientation.” It is truly incipient totalitarianism. “Just the text of the law” – pure gaslighting. It is Orwellian and there really should be the severest consequences for those who pretend to be judges making such so-called “rulings.”

  24. I thought Lady Justice wears a blindfold not for kinky purposes, but to see to it her verdicts are balanced, honest and true; not part and parcel of political infighting.

    Oh, well…

  25. Amy Coney Barrett…the next

    Sandra Day “affirmative action” O’Conner.

    “shoot them….shoot them both!”

  26. Exile says: • Website
    @Juvenalis

    This argument is the most ridiculous partisan Talmudry/coping I have yet seen.

    Rush Limbaugh punch-drunk on vintage 1984 Reaganaide could not say this with a straight face.

    This is one of the folks I’ve said still won’t get the punch-line when National Review publishes “The Conservative Case for Abortion” and is left with only one TruCon (((issue))) to stand athwart history for.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  27. @Anonymous

    “No more women with three names.”

    I suspect that their pomposity increases along with their judicial arrogance.

    “Kill all the lawyers.”

    Well, regardless of what one thinks of lawyers (I’m dubious about them, myself), the cure might be worse than the disease, don’t you think?!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  28. @Exile

    Exactly right…the Federalist Society is run by small hats and only globohomo judges can get approved.

    This is why Roberts and company have been such a disappointment and the latest Catholic will also be an open borders loser.

    FTN went over this recently.

    Is there ANY aspect of our society the small hats have not ruined?

    The answer is a resounding NO.

  29. @KenH

    Pope Anus (named correctly by Andrew Angin) washed the feet of muslim invaders and AMY whatsherfuck will be just another open borders lunatic like the dumbass Pope.

    I’m sorry to be so blackpilled all the time but FUCK.

    I’m just so tired of “winning.”

    • Replies: @KenH
  30. When FDR, after his landslide reelection, sought to pack the court by increasing the number of justices in 1937, the result was a national recoil and a political rout that cost him 72 House seats in 1938.

    The decision that carting north-forty corn to the swine barn constituted “interstate commerce” had as much to do with that. Locate the counties that flipped in 1940:


  31. @Exile

    This is one of the folks I’ve said still won’t get the punch-line when National Review publishes “The Conservative Case for Abortion” and is left with only one TruCon (((issue))) to stand athwart history for.

    It would take decades of Constitution Party nominations to get (((Epperson v Arkansas))) overturned and allow elected school boards to fire Darwinists again. Don’t hold your breath.

  32. Anonymous[939] • Disclaimer says:
    @Orville H. Larson

    “Well, regardless of what one thinks of lawyers (I’m dubious about them, myself), the cure might be worse than the disease, don’t you think?!”

    We can start with all the New York lawyers. The cure can’t be worse than that disease. If the sun continues to rise in the east and set in the west after that, apply cure liberally but judiciously across the rest of the land. Rinse and repeat as necessary. And in the case of New York, don’t look back, as there may be a Lot of complications.

  33. It wouldn’t be over until it was 9-0 against babykilling.

    Remember, we’ve effectively lost Traitor Roberts. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch are social lefties.

    We need a new Clarence Thomas.

  34. Hibernian says:
    @Exile

    Alleged based Catholic Scalia’s personal friendship with avid abortionist Ginsberg also makes one go “hmmm?”

    They were both New Yorkers.

  35. Anon[252] • Disclaimer says:
    @TGD

    Marbury was an ” advisory “(moot) opinion because the plaintiff was dead by the time the supreme court heard the case. Advisory opinions are prohibited because the stakes aren’t the same as an actual “case or controversy”, hence the premise upon which the kritarchy was established was a b.s. one.

  36. @TGD

    A Supreme Court justice must be approved by the populace in a national referendum 5 years after appointment.

    How are you going to have a “national referendum” with 50 different sets of voter qualifications, polling laws, election equipment, recount procedures, and who knows what else?

    You have us confused with France.

    • Replies: @TGD
  37. JimDandy says:
    @Exile

    God loves Trump. Big Trump fan, God is. Satan, on the other hand? Not a big Trump fan. Nope, for some reason, Satan just doesn’t like Trump very much. Maybe it’s his personality. I don’t know.

  38. JimDandy says:
    @Tucker

    A Miami Cuban would have no problem with helping keep Mexicans out of America.

    • Disagree: RadicalCenter
  39. Thomasina says:
    @Tucker

    And Rushing isn’t a Jew or a Catholic. Because of this fact, I wonder what her chances are. I agree that she looks like the best pick, though.

  40. RVBlake says:
    @Anonymous

    There are the proverbial 1,000 words in action right there.

  41. @Harry Huntington

    Agreed that a nominee should not have an Ivy pedigree.

    Agreed that a nominee should never have been a prosecutor.

    Agreed that a nominee should never have clerked for a federal judge.

    Agreed that a nominee should never have racked up billables for a “big” law firm.

    Agreed that a nominee should never have “worked” for the DOJ.

    However, why not go all the way, as follows:

    A nominee should have never worked in the public, i.e., communist sector, even as a janitor for the town hall.

    A nominee should never have been in any appointed or elected position. No city council, no school committee, and no county commissioner.

    A nominee should have worked only in the private, non-crony, sector, thereby eliminating most labor lawyers, ambulance chasers, and the like.

    A nominee should be a lawyer who has only been in private practice representing those who want to be left alone, those who have been violated by the state, and those who want to avoid being violated by the state.

    • Replies: @anon
  42. mike6972 says:

    Don’t think this is permanent. When or if the Left seizes power, they will pack the Court. There is no Constitutional limit on the number of judges. They are not going to stand by and do nothing. Power lust is never satisfied.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
  43. @Tucker

    The more I find out about her the more I share your concern about Barrett. With 5 of her own children she obviously had no trouble getting pregnant. In fact, after she adopted her Haitian son, she had three more of her own. I’d like to know how she had time to raise 7 children while also working full-time in such a demanding profession. I wonder how many housekeepers, cooks, and Au Pairs had to be employed to keep the household functioning.

    No woman could ever be a strict constructionist in the mold of Scalia or Clarence Thomas. It’s just not in their nature. They are biologically programmed to be nurturers, and nothing can change that. Thus she virtue signaled by feeling so sorry for those poor Haitian children that she adopted two of them, which wrecked the homogeneity her family, and risked doing damage to her 5 biological children (the youngest with special needs), who may well have felt ignored a mother who is too busy to spend quality time with them.

    Everyone knows that Trump’s only hope of getting a nominee thru the confirmation process so quickly is by nominating a woman. Regardless of qualifications, no white men need apply.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @John Johnson
  44. A123 says:

    It looks like Mitch has pulled together enough GOP votes to confirm before the election: (1)

    Mitt Romney’s announcement that he will vote on President Trump’s nominee to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court “based on their qualifications” is getting plenty of media attention. But for some reason, Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski’s much more surprising announcement that she can’t rule out voting for a nominee, reversing her position last week

    Forcing the DNC to attack a hispanic will severely damage Democratic candidates down ticket in addition to the Presidential vote.

    Cuban-American judge Barbara Lagoa is the daughter of Cuban exiles, and thus a very appealing choice for the nomination. VDARE is panicky over her, but I have yet to see any objective evidence that she is a believer in open borders or (mostly Mexican) amnesty.
    _____

    The most critical issue is not readily visible. Trump must avoid any judge who might recuse in election related cases. A 4-4 election case could blow up the country.

    PEACE 😇
    _______

    (1) https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/09/as_romney_and_murkowski_back_scotus_confirmation_vote_dems_are_giving_up_and_focusing_on_demonizing_yesvoting_senators_up_for_reelection.html

    —- Today’s Humor —-
     

  45. KenH says:
    @Robert Dolan

    I’m sorry to be so blackpilled all the time but FUCK.

    Nothing to be sorry about. I’m as angry, cynical and blackpilled as you are.

  46. KenH says:

    I don’t see the point in hand wringing over the nominee. If it’s Amy maiden name Barrett then like other stalwart “conservatives” and originalists before her she’ll go mushy on culture war issues and vote with the leftist justices to “get it right” and virtue signal that she isn’t a fuddy duddy or an ideologue. Even Scalia sort of cucked on affirmative action.

    Besides, nobody wants to get the cold shoulder at a beltway cocktail party. Gorsuch sure as hell doesn’t.

    Jews Kushner and Dick Morris are pushing Barb Lagoa which makes me wonder if she’s a Cuban Marrano.

  47. @anonymous

    Ok, good points you make but what is the alternative? If Trump wins then he will still nominate such a person. If Biden wins the nominee will be much worse.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  48. @Anonymous

    That disgusting image made me blow chunks of lunch. All Jewsuits to the gallows.
    This (((Vampire Pirate))) and Shabbos Goyim Stooge infested, disgusting Federal Gubbamint makes me want to blow out skull contents…
    and I don’t give a flying rat’s ass if the A A hires at Secret Service and Clowngressional Protective Service don’t like it.
    Yadda Yadda, Coppahs.

    Anybody heard from Chertoff, Harman or Lieberman lately…or the (((NeoCon Dual Citizens))) ?

    Half jew Barr WILL NOT go after BLM and Antifa on RICO charges because…GAWDFAHBID…folowing The Money Trail will lead DIRECTLY to rich jews, Soros und Sohn being only two of them.
    jewed right up to his amusing haido Drumpf wouldn’t dare, because Chicken Swinger Kushner and his deranged Eff Thing would then become all Verklempt and suffer Tsurris…Oy VEY !

    Accelerationist ?
    Kinda.

  49. anon[126] • Disclaimer says:

    This supreme court nonsense is for party dupes. Before or after the election, what you’ll get is the closest thing to Vanessa Baraitser that the US has to offer: a bribed and blackmailed hack who sucks CIA ass and reads their lines right. Kavanaugh ate Gina out with his “deference upon deference” slogan.

    Just look back at the nominees and see who knuckled under quickest for impunity, secrecy, and pedo whorehouse action. That’s the next fake judge for the laughingstock of apex courts worldwide. CIA blew up Robert Vance so their judicial bitches know their place. Don’t overthink this.

  50. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jefferson Temple

    So you’ve been told by Beltway types like Mr. Buchanan.

    The Lesser Evils and the Greater Evils — divide them whichever way you wish — have been shadow boxing for years. Some judicial rounds go 9-0, some 6-3, some 4/2-3, all part of the show. Whenever something really matters, the Court protects the Establishment every time.

    If you want anything to actually change, the first step is to stop voting RedBlue.

    • Agree: Exile
    • Replies: @Jefferson Temple
  51. @anonymous

    That’s true. But it would not be any better if we all voted for non RedBlue politicians. The new ones would be bought off or blackmailed into submission in short order.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @Exile
  52. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jefferson Temple

    So why not join me, and no longer vote at all?

    The political system, including its faux dissidents like Mr. Buchanan, is a racket that channels and harmlessly blows off dissent. Those of us who participate in each Most Important Election Ever end up either waiting for our winning team to fail us or rooting for our losing team to “resist,” both sides duped into the premise that problems created in Washington can be solved in Washington.

    • Agree: RVBlake
  53. Exile says: • Website
    @Jefferson Temple

    We have to change more than just politics to put a stop to the buy-off/blackmail element. But that’s not a reason to give up on changing politics entirely. It’s a space we need good faith operators to occupy and push back in.

    If there are no good people left, what’s the point of commenting at all? The black-pill conceit – showing everyone how right you are about everything being awful – is a luxury our people can’t afford. It keeps us demoralized, atomized and passive in the face of the oncoming headlights.

    Going out on your knees snarking is still going out on your knees.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
  54. Realist says:

    Last Best Chance to Capture Supreme Court

    I thought the SCOTUS was apolitical.

  55. TGD says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    How are you going to have a “national referendum” with 50 different sets of voter qualifications, polling laws, election equipment, recount procedures, and who knows what else?

    The referendum would be held at the same time and place as the general election. The voting machine will read: “Shall Justice ???? be retained for another 15 years?” with a yes or no vote choice.

    You have us confused with France.

    Maybe you mean Switzerland? Many political questions are put to the general population in a referendum there. Switzerland comes the closest to a true democracy of any so called “democratic country” in the world.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  56. @mike6972

    Don’t think this is permanent. When or if the Left seizes power, they will pack the Court. There is no Constitutional limit on the number of judges. They are not going to stand by and do nothing. Power lust is never satisfied.

    Perhaps but we only need to hold on the 2A for about 10 more years.

    By then anyone will be able to print guns which will force the left to re-strategize on how to deal with violence in Black areas.

    I’m also not convinced the left will last 10 years. Not its current form anyways. I think liberals are losing it over race. I think they suffer from serious cognitive dissonance and also being outbred.

  57. @follyofwar

    No woman could ever be a strict constructionist in the mold of Scalia or Clarence Thomas. It’s just not in their nature. They are biologically programmed to be nurturers, and nothing can change that.

    I’m not convinced of this.

    Women are more likely to be nurturing but this underlying idea that men are able think separately from emotion certainly doesn’t apply to most of today’s male politicians.

    Most of our Republicans in DC haven’t figured out that race exists. They see it as un-Christian to even think such things. They would get mad if you pointed out how “minimal government” didn’t fix Haiti. In their minds the people of Haiti just need more church and lessons on the free market.

    Margaret Thatcher was better at understanding Western problems than any of our White men in office.

    Sure she was an exception but I’ve met a lot of intelligent White men and very few were able to think outside of left and right. Most people pick a side and defend it on an emotional level and that includes most White men.

  58. Exile: “This system is to sick to save, for one person no matter how highly-placed or ten or a hundred. But Pat will go to his Maker tub-thumping for Republicans no matter how much they smear him or how they disgrace the ideas he’s claimed to stand for “right from the beginning.””

    I agree.

    When the question is not whether men should be ruled over by painted whores, but rather, which painted whores are the best ones to rule over them, you’re already conceding victory to the pervasive egalitarian spirit of our age. Of the two front-runners, Lagoa and Barrett, the one should be performing in a donkey show in Tijuana, and the other on her back under Tyrone in some ghetto. At least that would have procured Barrett her two niglets more honestly, in the usual fashion of our alabaster-skinned Aryan princesses. But of course, honesty is the last thing anyone involved with the American “justice” system can be accused of. Indeed, it would disqualify her.

    We should also not forget that Patsy Buchanan himself is fully on board with the white genocide project. During his presidential bid, in a positively Lincolnesque move, he picked negress Ezola Foster to be his running mate.

    It’s useless to imagine all of this comes about as a result of conspiracy. A people so set on their own racial self-destruction don’t need any help to achieve it.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Catiline
    , @Exile
  59. @TGD

    Maybe you mean Switzerland? Many political questions are put to the general population in a referendum there. Switzerland comes the closest to a true democracy of any so called “democratic country” in the world.

    Yes, and women were allowed to vote on those referenda even in those cantons that hadn’t yet succumbed to their suffrage. (They weren’t in the militia. How could they raise their rifles to cast a vote?)

    That sort of top-down decision is inevitable in a “national” referendum in a federal country.

    There were several competing constitutional amendments to alter or abolish the Electoral College going through Congress after the 1968 election. At the time there were at least four different voting ages throughout the states. Birch Bayh’s direct-election amendment explicitly gave Congress the authority to set a national voting age. Why? Whose?

    A “national electorate” is among the most un-American concepts ever.

  60. Tcsdp says:
    @Tucker

    Her adoption of Haitians is disturbing. And she just seems wacky in general. She thinks it’s unconstitutional for the government to print paper money.

  61. Her adoption of Haitians is disturbing.

    Wealthy Whites will do that out of guilt. White people aren’t supposed to have large families and a mansion. Only non-Whites on welfare can be guilt free with a large family.

    She thinks it’s unconstitutional for the government to print paper money.

    Still makes more sense than RGB who believed you had a right to a 9 month abortion but not a handgun.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  62. @Exile

    Trump’s “A-list” of prospective nominees already shows what we can expect – another typical nominee selected by the cucked Federalist Society.

    Trump is playing a game of strategy with the Democrats. He is putting out a centrist woman to see if they will risk betting on Biden to get their anti-gun and pro-immigration leftist. What do you expect him to do? Put in some highly intelligent White man with balls? Trump knows exactly what he is doing given the situation. He isn’t a king.

    Republicans no matter how much they smear him or how they disgrace the ideas he’s claimed to stand for “right from the beginning.”

    He has been right from the beginning.

    If the Republicans went populist in the 90s they would have destroyed the Democrats.

    PB was writing books that Republicans today don’t even understand. They still haven’t figured out that race exists and culture isn’t just some thing that magically happens.

    But Republicans foolishly cozied up to libertarian globalist ideals like “free trade” and amoral capitalism.

    The Democrats routed them on funding by taking Wall St. cash and the Republicans responded by whoring themselves out even more to globalists.

    PB has been right from the beginning. The Republicans would have lost the last election if they went with some predictable Wall St whore. We would have Hillary and a million new Muslims.

    Populism is the only way forward. Getting a White middle class to vote on low taxes and abortion isn’t going to work anymore. The numbers just aren’t there. That also means being strategic when needed.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @res
  63. res says:
    @John Johnson

    Trump is playing a game of strategy with the Democrats. He is putting out a centrist woman to see if they will risk betting on Biden to get their anti-gun and pro-immigration leftist. What do you expect him to do? Put in some highly intelligent White man with balls? Trump knows exactly what he is doing given the situation. He isn’t a king.

    Much like Obama’s strategy in nominating Merrick Garland. The key difference is that the Republicans controlled the Senate in both cases.

    I am still amazed the Republicans had the guts to play chicken on Garland. Though I wonder if Hillary would have been able to turn around and pick a more liberal nominee if she had won. That would have made all the difference in making a decision.

    • Replies: @ImaBotKnot
  64. Amy Coney Barrett???? How Cool-Li-Oh No! Living in a mind warped NEOcon PARADISE per Lawrence Silberman who is friends with Rumsfeld and Cheney Check this out After law school Barrett spent two years as a judicial law clerk, first for Judge Laurence Silberman of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit from 1997 to 1998, then for Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court from 1998 to 1999 No Creepy connections there?

    • Replies: @ImaBotKnot
  65. @ImaBotKnot

    https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/02/17/rove-trump-tells-damnable-lie-bush/80536538/ The U.S. military found hundreds of degraded chemical weapon shells in Iraq, he [ Rove ] said. An Iraq weapons commission formed in 2004 and headed by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Laurence Silberman and former U.S. Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va., found the Bush administration didn’t lie about weapons of mass destruction, Rove argued.

    Silberman has written that U.S. intelligence was wrong about the existence of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction. In a 2015 Wall Street Journal commentary, the judge wrote: “to accuse the president of lying us into war must be seen as not only false, but as dangerously defamatory.”

  66. @res

    https://chicagocrusader.com/chicago-native-nominated-u-s-supreme-court/ Garland and Eric Holder helped investigate??? distorted events of the Oklahoma city bombing in 1995. Louis Freeh was FBI director and Thomas J. Pickard second at FBI?

    • Replies: @ImaBotKnot
  67. @ImaBotKnot

    https://militarist-monitor.org/profile/laurence-silberman/ Silberman remained in close contact with his allies in the Reagan administration after his appointment to the federal bench in 1985. According to the Inter Press Service, after taking office, Silberman allegedly “passed along his Iranian contacts to Michael Ledeen, a close associate of Richard Perle at the American Enterprise Institute, who played a key role with [Robert] McFarlane in the transfer of U.S. weapons to Tehran in the deal that gave rise to the Iran-Contra scandal.” Silberman later cast the deciding vote in the decision to dismiss the convictions of John Poindexter and Oliver North for lying to Congress in connection with the scandal. Silberman also had high praise for [Creepy?] Merrick Garland, the judge who had been nominated to replace Justice Antonin Scalia upon his death,

  68. Catiline says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    Scuttlebutt has it that Patsy originally chose Jim Trafficant for VP, but he turned it down.

    The only worthwhile thing Pat ever did in his life was write THE UNNECESSARY WAR.

    Significantly he was betrayed by his so-called right-wing colleagues (i.e. Fleming, Wilson) for doing so.

  69. Exile says: • Website
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    We definitely have organized enemies – look at the anti-White Zoom conference that Striker featured a couple of months back (https://national-justice.com/national-justice-exclusive-zionist-groups-plan-multi-front-assault-free-speech-over-zoom) – link still live on this piece, Shoah’d in the Unz link.

    But I’ve never considered Pat one of them. Pat’s just a paleo-con that won’t face the reality that his beloved GOP has been subverted for basically his entire career. By the time Pat started his rounds in the circles of power in D.C., the wheels were already coming off the WASP establishment and his Catholic cohort as well. Neo-Con Trots were already infiltrating the Right and and NuDem Trots, a different breed from the labor Democrats, were already infiltrating the Left.

    Pat’s Conservative temperament won’t let him be the radical our people need. He cannot conceive of a fight against literally every institutional authority of a wholly hostile occupying power. He’s a reactionary, not a revolutionary.

  70. Exile: “We definitely have organized enemies … ”

    Life is war, so that’s to be expected. But what’s not expected, and what really needs to be explained, is the extent to which whites are voluntarily participating in their own racial demise. I took a stab at explaining it here:

    https://www.unz.com/mwhitney/treason/#comment-4171790

    Exile: “Pat’s just a paleo-con that won’t face the reality that his beloved GOP has been subverted for basically his entire career. … He cannot conceive of a fight against literally every institutional authority of a wholly hostile occupying power.”

    Yes, not facing reality is a big problem.

    But the reality that’s not being faced is that Jews only have the power that whites have given them. Whites don’t really oppose what the Jews are doing because they’ve been on a course of racial self-destruction long before modern times. Paradigm case: American whites fought their bloodiest war 1861-1865 in order to give the negro citizenship and the vote. White Christian America did that to itself without any help from Jews at all. Patsy’s choice of Ezola Foster as a running mate, and this Supreme Court whore’s adoption of two niglets are just repetitions, in miniature, of the goal of the Civil War, which was to incorporate and assimilate the negro into white America.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Corvinus
  71. anon[454] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rich

    If they did as the constitution directed they would be interpeting the constitution instead of playing pattty cake with the two/one party thing.!!!!

  72. anon[454] • Disclaimer says:
    @Liberty Mike

    A nominee shall be a constitutional scholar.!!!

  73. @John Johnson

    Don’t you see how killing an innocent tiny human being by chopping it to pieces is much better than people with guns killing an aggressive adult human beings in self-defense? Where is your moral compass?

  74. Corvinus says:
    @Dr. Robert Morgan

    “and what really needs to be explained, is the extent to which whites are voluntarily participating in their own racial demise.”

    Except that is NOT happening. Rather, whites are making their own decisions about race and culture, which you THINK is genocide, but in reality, they are exercising free will, which you mischaracterize as “treason”.

    • Replies: @Exile
  75. Exile says: • Website
    @Corvinus

    The fact that someone decides to participate in their own dispossession does not make it any less dispossessing – for them or for those who didn’t choose to participate.

    Your “free will” doesn’t entitle you to dispossess our children of their homeland.

    If you lolbertarians want to submit, speak for yourselves.

    • Replies: @Corvinus
  76. Corvinus says:
    @Exile

    “The fact that someone decides to participate in their own dispossession does not make it any less dispossessing – for them or for those who didn’t choose to participate.”

    Except it is NOT a fact that people who make their own decisions about race and culture are participating in this “dispossession”. YOU are making that assumption, friend.

    “Your “free will” doesn’t entitle you to dispossess our children of their homeland.”

    America is OUR adopted homeland. Our ancestors came from different places. If anything, the indigenous peoples were displaced.

    Praytell, who is EXACTLY on your side? Is it whites who support your cause regardless of their ethnicity, or is it whites who are one particular ethnicity?

    “If you lolbertarians want to submit, speak for yourselves.”

    Submit to what?

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


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