Lion of the Blogosphere

Supreme Court, 2020

Yes, it’s a little unseemly to talk about replacing Ginsburg so soon after her death. But the fate of the Supreme Court is simply too important to not talk about it.

First, let me say a few things about Ginsburg. She seems like she was a nice woman, not bitter and angry like a lot of feminists and liberals. She was said to be a good friend of Antonin Scalia, which speaks very well of her. She wrote one particularly really bad dissent, but she was a liberal after all. Antonin Scalia was still able to be friends with her after that dissent.

But now that she’s dead, it’s extremely important for Republicans to make sure that a good conservative Justice replaces her and not allow Biden to replace her with someone who will most likely be an extreme liberal based on the way things are going.

I expect that extreme liberals will be pushing the following extreme-left legal theories in the near future:

  • People in other countries have a constitutional right to enter into the United States, and a constitutional right to stay here once they’ve entered.
  • The planet has constitutional rights such that laws that are perceived by liberals to be bad for the planet (such as whatever liberals think causes “climate change”) are unconstitutional.
  • People no longer have freedom of speech if what they say is perceived as “racist,” with liberals controlling the definition of “racist.” This will then be extended to speech that’s is deemed to be “homophobic” or “Islamophobic.”
  • Any laws that perpetuate “systemic racism” are unconstitutional, with liberals, once again, controlling the determination of which laws fall under this rubric.
  • As a matter of statutory interpretation, any business that doesn’t have enough of the right types of minorities working for them are in violation of the various Civil Rights Acts.
  • Children have a constitutional right to get sex change operations, with parents forbidden from interfering.

If you’re response to this is “oh, that’s a lot of nonsense, where did you hear anyone say they are going to do that?”, well that’s the exact same thing that liberals would have said a few decades ago about gay marriage. They said that conservatives who speculated that liberal judges would find a constitutional right for gay marriage were just being paranoid and making stuff up.

But the reality is that it has been liberals, not conservatives, who have a long history of using the courts to accomplish political goals that they can’t accomplish through legislation.

Liberals are going to hyperventilate during the next two months about abortion, but we have had a conservative Supreme Court since Nixon, yet Roe v. Wade was never overturned. There’s no reason to think they are going to overturn it now. And if they do, it’s Democrats’ fault for not passing legislation to make abortion legal everywhere. After each of the last three Democratic presidents were elected, Carter, Clinton and Obama, Democrats controlled the presidency and both houses of Congress, but they never passed an Abortion Rights Act because they were too pussified or something. Democrats will probably control the government again after Biden wins and the Senate flips to Democratic control. Here’s my advice to any Democrats reading this: If you care so much about abortion, than pass a a damn law that gives women the right to have an abortion and stop depending on the Supreme Court to do it for you.

In order to prevent the possibility of a liberal Supreme Court, a sixth “conservative” Justice is essential, because otherwise during the next four years when we have a Democratric administration, the Supreme Court is just one heart attack away from going to a liberal majority (with Justices Thomas and Alito, both in their 70s, the most likely heart attack victims).

And I put the word “conservative” in parentheses because of the known phenomenon in which some presumed-conservative Justices become more liberal over time. There’s no guarantee that a five-Justice conservative majority will stay conservative.

Talking about Constitutional rights, there’s no dispute that the President has the Constitutional right to nominate a new Justice when there’s a vacancy, and that the Senate has the constitutional right to confirm the nomination. There has never been any sort of rule that a certain number of days before an election the President isn’t allowed to nominate someone or that the Senate isn’t allowed to do its Constitutionally required duty to consider the nomination and confirm if they think the nominee should be confirmed.

A few elected Republicans said otherwise four years ago, which caps a long history of politicians making up stupid reasons to hide their real reasons for doing things. Some dumb crap that some Republicans said to the media isn’t legally binding. A new Supreme Court Justice isn’t for the personal benefit of Trump, McConnell, or any other individual elected official, it’s for the benefit of the American people. I shouldn’t be forced to suffer an extreme liberal Biden appointee because McConnell, who I didn’t vote for, said some stupid crap four years ago that he shouldn’t have said. (Regarding Trump, he may be a bozo who’s unfit to be President, but one of the few things he and the Republicans have done right during his term in office is appoint judges).

Some liberals are talking about packing the Court. It’s probably not going to happen, I don’t think enough Democrats will go along with such an extreme middle finger to our nation’s customs. If they can’t get enough of a majority together to pass an Abortion Rights Act (which would solve the abortion problem for Democrats without more extreme court packing), I don’t see how they can get enough of a majority together to pack the Court.

Written by Lion of the Blogosphere

September 20, 2020 at 1:40 PM

Posted in Law

149 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “If you care so much about abortion, than pass a a damn law that gives women the right to have an abortion and stop depending on the Supreme Court to do it for you.”

    I’ve wondered about that as well. An actual law would take away the relevance of Roe V Wade, so that it wouldn’t matter what the court did. That basically fits my view of RvW: It’s a terrible court decision, but it would be a good law.

    Mike Street Station

    September 20, 2020 at 1:54 PM

    • Wouldn’t you need 51 such laws? As far as I know, without Roe v Wade, the federal government has no power to override state legislation concerning abortion.

      Blue Tribe Dissident

      September 20, 2020 at 3:10 PM

      • When has a federal law been declared unconstitutional for that reason? Hardly ever. Federal law overrides state law because of the Supremacy Clause.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 20, 2020 at 5:59 PM

      • “Wouldn’t you need 51 such laws?”

        That’s actually not a bad point, but I agree with Lion. A federal abortion law would be as constitutional as any other Federal law covering things outside of the enumerated powers.

        Mike Street Station

        September 20, 2020 at 6:21 PM

      • I suppose. I have difficulty thinking in these terms. Either the liberals will continue to make the constitution mean whatever they want it to mean (in which case Roe v Wade remains in place), or the right will seize the capacity to do the same in the other direction, or (least likely scenario) the constitution just means what it says it means. In the latter case, the 10th amendments makes it perfectly clear that the federal government can’t regulate domestic matters unless there is an enumerated power saying it can.

        But I suppose there could potentially be some temporary period of compromise where a Republican-appointed majority on SCOTUS tosses out Roe but then a swing voting justice switches sides and lets pro-choice federal legislation stand.

        Blue Tribe Dissident

        September 21, 2020 at 11:38 PM

    • Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any real interest in changing the Roe V Wade status quo. It is a goldmine for fund raising. Opposition to abortion is the glue holding the Trump coalition together, even more than gun rights. And threats to outlaw abortion get every upper middle class white woman reaching for her pocketbook. Nothing will change.

      Peter Akuleyev

      September 21, 2020 at 6:08 AM

  2. I’m fine with conservative justice (even who is very anti Roe v Wade). I’m as pro choice as they come but I can live with conservative justice because I’m also pro corporation rights and they usually are. People seem to want it all these days and concept of trade-off seem to have vanished.

    I won’t be that upset if Trump wins in 2020 provided he can 1) finish off Obamacare 2) Guide stock market to newer heights 3) continue his foreign policy regarding Europe, Canada and Mexico and Russia but temper down a little bit with China

    mpt

    September 20, 2020 at 2:02 PM

  3. Excellent post Lion. One other thing liberals will push for that you didn’t mention will be defunding the police. Unfortunately, I doubt the Republicans will get their act together on this. There will be a few Republicans who will refuse to nominate a new justice before the election.

    Having said this, I don’t understand why you support Joe Biden. You just listed a lot of good reasons why NOT to vote for the Democrats. I understand that Trump is a clown but I see him as the lesser evil in this election. No matter how bad his mishandling of the coronavirus, it’s still better than:

    1) Cancelling our borders
    2) Letting in tens of millions of crime prone immigrants
    3) Defunding the police, which in combination with the 2 points above will cause crime to spike and accelerate our cities’ free fall to Detroit like decrepitude.
    4) Limiting free speech and fining HBD bloggers (or even arresting some of them).

    Alex The Great

    September 20, 2020 at 3:33 PM

    • If Covid-19 continues unabated, there will be no need for state or local police. The president will order the MLE (Meriprolestan Law Enforcement) or better known as the US Marshall to quell any civil unrest. If Biden wins, there will be more of an adherence with the wearing of face covering and social distancing, because NAMs tend to follow orders under the guise of a Demonbrat. Law enforcement will be used accordingly since NAMs tend behave better when a Demonbrat tells them to behave. Trump isn’t a Gestapo Guido (Rudy Guiliani comes to mind) who runs a mafioso police that breaks the kneecaps of NAMs who try to run away. The only way a Republican politico is able to control a multiculti crowd is the use of sheer force often with deadly violence. Somehow, Liberals are able to control the populace with persuasive words only hinting a threat of violence.

      Ok, what, who's this again?

      September 20, 2020 at 8:58 PM

      • “The only way a Republican politico is able to control a multiculti crowd is the use of sheer force often with deadly violence. Somehow, Liberals are able to control the populace with persuasive words only hinting a threat of violence.”

        And yet Liberal run cities are precisely where the multiculti crowds are currently rioting and looting. You know, there are actually a lot of black run cities that are NOT rioting and looting right now. I grew up on the edge of one and I can assure that, in spite of voting Dem, most of the blacks there were actually fairly conservative. They voted Dem for racial reasons not because they agree with liberal ideology. So why aren’t those cities full of riots and looting? Because, regardless of color, conservatives always support law and order. It’s extremists who are anti-authority and pro-chaos.

        destructure

        September 21, 2020 at 11:54 PM

      • Liberal run cities are currently in chaos from multicult, because it’s a form of propaganda used to blame Trump and the Republicans with their “racist” policies that prevent blue states/cities and their disenfranchised groups from self-determination.

        Liberal and Conservative aren’t always interchangeable with Democrat and Republican and blacks are a good example of this.

        blacks are what Democratic elites use as social control and pork barrel that waste taxpayers’ money. Democrats love supporting blacks who are inherently conservative by nature to keep other minorities down who are otherwise significantly more dynamic and resourceful than blacks. This keeps the balance of power in check.

        Ever work with black people regardless of their upbringing? They’re boring and aren’t fun people intellectually. This is a good example of what I mean by being conservative. Yeah, blacks should embrace the Republican party which is the party of boring proles, but they do not due to its message that it’s a White members club. Again, all of this is to maintain the status quo in our 2 party 1 system governance in Meriprolestan.

        Ok, what, who's this again?

        September 22, 2020 at 10:20 AM

      • “Ever work with black people regardless of their upbringing? They’re boring and aren’t fun people intellectually. ”

        I know black people who defied that stereotype.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 22, 2020 at 2:26 PM

      • Here’s the future of policing, courtesy of some anonymous Sailer commenter:

        Val

        September 22, 2020 at 5:24 PM

  4. MEH 0910

    September 20, 2020 at 3:42 PM

  5. Re-elect Trump.

    MEH 0910

    September 20, 2020 at 4:03 PM

  6. Do Meriproles need guidance from our politicos and their legal lackeys of either persuasion to live their lives? I think it’s an obvious answer that citizens of countries with lower future time orientation need to be micromanaged by their higher ups in political office. This Covid-19 pandemic has proven that NAMs and to a certain extent proles need to be told by our politicos that a simple task like wearing a face covering requires a draconian measure.

    Liberals tend to police NAMs more so than proles (since dysfunctional NAMs tend to live in our liberal centers adjacent to their SWPL neighbors) while Conservatives tend to police their fellow proles.

    Ok, what, who's this again?

    September 20, 2020 at 4:15 PM

    • “Liberals tend to police NAMs”
      “Conservatives tend to police their fellow proles”

      Must be nice to live in that world.

      njguy73

      September 20, 2020 at 6:49 PM

      • It is very nice. Brookline Massachusetts for example, or Bethesda, Maryland. Much nicer than prolelandia.

        Peter Akuleyev

        September 22, 2020 at 4:51 AM

      • How many NAMs are in Brookline and Bethesda? As it’s been said, the only privilege that matters is the privilege to avoid the unprivileged.

        njguy73

        September 22, 2020 at 9:59 AM

    • “Liberals tend to police NAMs while Conservatives tend to police their fellow proles.”

      Incorrect. The police are conservatives who live in the suburbs, even in liberal jurisdictions. As we’ve seen in Portland, the local liberal establishment doesn’t necessarily even support the police. In Portland the poor police have to arrest the same rioters every day, only to have the Soros D.A. let them loose as soon as they are arrested. In New York, the mayor’s fetching daughter is one of the rioters.

      Dan

      September 22, 2020 at 4:40 PM

  7. How would Congress have the power to pass an act stopping states from banning abortion? Wouldn’t a Supreme Court that overturned Roe also rule such an act unconstitutional?

    Francis

    September 20, 2020 at 4:37 PM

    • Then pass the act *before* Roe has a chance to get overturned.

      njguy73

      September 20, 2020 at 6:51 PM

    • Presumably any opinion overturning Roe would just declare that there is not a right to abortion contained in the Constitution. As for the matter of states’ power vs. Federal power, that would probably be decided later in a separate opinion, in response to a new Federal law passed by the Dems (assuming they have full control of Congress + White House). But the long-term pattern has been for SC to limit ability of states to constrain rights, whether those are rights conservatives care about (guns) or rights that leftists care about (Miranda rights).

      Wency

      September 21, 2020 at 12:08 PM

  8. Some liberals are talking about packing the Court. It’s probably not going to happen, I don’t think enough Democrats will go along with such an extreme middle finger to our nation’s customs.

    They’re still getting burned by Harry Reid’s decision to end the filibuster on judicial nominees.

    If they pack the Court, Republicans will just do it again to regain a Court majority.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    September 20, 2020 at 4:51 PM

    • You’re assuming there will be another Republican President some time in the future. That seems unlikely.

      Mike Street Station

      September 20, 2020 at 9:31 PM

      • If that’s the case, why bother? Seems obvious to me that the two effective long-term strategies are winning over Hispanics or pursuing secession.

        Anonymous

        September 22, 2020 at 10:34 PM

      • Why bother To buy sweet sweet time.

        Mike Street Station

        September 23, 2020 at 5:54 AM

    • True. Long term court packing is a stupid strategy.

      Peter Akuleyev

      September 21, 2020 at 6:10 AM

    • That seems unlikely.

      You never know.

      The Undiscovered Jew

      September 21, 2020 at 4:26 PM

      • Well of course I don’t know, but I do know that demographics make national elections more difficult for Republicans. When Texas goes blue, I’m not sure how the GOP can win the Presidency, so there is no reason the Democrats couldn’t pack the court, add states, or whatever they wanted to do without consequences.

        Mike Street Station

        September 22, 2020 at 6:00 AM

    • Re: packing the court.

      That’s the judicial equivalent of “stuffing the ballot box”. Is it possible SCOTUS would overrule the Dems on the grounds that it would lead to an absurd court packing competition between Dems and GOP? And, if it came down to a conflict between SCOTUS on one hand and a Dem President and congress on the other with neither willing to blink, what would happen? That would “break” the government. I know it’s hypothetical but still.

      destructure

      September 22, 2020 at 12:09 AM

  9. They should wait for after the election so people like you who want to vote for Biden will have to vote for Trump and for other republican representatives because there is such an important issue on the table, not only your corona obsession.

    Hashed

    September 20, 2020 at 6:13 PM

    • Yes, that’s why the politically smart move by Trump is not to confirm a justice before the election, but make the election about a justice rather than Corona, the economy or mental fitness – all of which are advantage Biden at this point. Question is whether McConnell is willing to take the risk of waiting.

      Peter Akuleyev

      September 21, 2020 at 6:13 AM

    • MEH 0910

      September 21, 2020 at 6:11 PM

  10. This is why it is so important for Trump to win reelection. It will force the left to revolt in anger and possibly secede. The continued riots and killings after his reelection will give the right moral authority, which is what it desperately needs. It will allow Trump to bring the hammer down early next year and nominate many more conservative justices. The other alternative, if Biden wins, is the slow and miserable death of the historic American nation. This would eventually lead to a genuine right wing fascist revolt, in which the right would be the bad guy and the left would have the moral authority. The problem for conservatives is that they are still operating within the post 1960’s moral paradigm of the left. The only way out of this is for the American people to become so disgusted with the left that they repudiate it and embrace a new conservative age. It is my belief that if Trump gets a second term that the left will actually try to destroy the country and this will give us all the moral cover required to destroy them.

    B.T.D.T.

    September 20, 2020 at 7:07 PM

  11. Looks like RBG is actually being cancelled for being too based: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/12/magazine/the-fandom-around-rbg-is-out-of-step-with-reality.html

    “Now that the Trump era has been met by a true activist movement with the sustained protests of Black Lives Matter, the Ginsburg memes hit like relics. In 2016, Ginsburg was asked about Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling during the national anthem, and she called it “disrespectful” and “really dumb.” “

    Brett

    September 20, 2020 at 8:11 PM

    • MEH 0910

      September 21, 2020 at 6:17 PM

  12. https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-urges-decision-on-supreme-court-pick-without-delay-11600526646

    Trump says he will nominate a woman. I wonder if this is more to make the pick less generally disagreeable, or if it’s specifically to protect against another hoax rape accusation witch hunt à la Brett Kavanaugh?

    Brett

    September 20, 2020 at 8:14 PM

  13. She was said to be a good friend of Antonin Scalia, which speaks very well of her.

    They had similar backgrounds. Both from NYC and roughly the same age. Also Italians and Jews seem to get along pretty well and have similar cultures.

    Tom

    September 20, 2020 at 8:19 PM

    • In reality, not really similar cultures other than the prole accents and prole body language, given that Jews and Italians have found themselves in very different occupational niches in America.

      One group tends to lean cosmopolitanism while the other tends to have a parochial view of the world.

      Jews dominate much of Manhattan while Italians are very much a suburban group like their Irish cohorts.

      One votes Democrat and the other votes Republican and their relationships with blacks are a 360 night and day perspective.

      An Italian American Sociologist, Michael Barone wrote a book 2 decades ago that Asiatics are the New Jewish folks and Hispanics are the Neo-Guidos. I guess Asiatics and Hispanics do have similarities. They tend to be family oriented and diligent with work, sort of like Jews and Italians are similar with this regard.

      Ok, what, who's this again?

      September 21, 2020 at 2:20 PM

      • The idea that hispanics are diligent workers is a meme. A 2016 study (which I do not have on hand right now) showed that they spend less of their time at work actually working than whites and asians.

        Brett

        September 21, 2020 at 5:45 PM

    • Ashkenazi Jews and Italians have similar DNA. I took a genetic distance test and my closest matches were Southern Italy/Sicily. I was surprised because I don’t have dark Mediterranean features. There is a theory that ancient Jewish men travelled from the Levant to what is now known as Southern Italy and on a large scale mated with native women who converted to Judiasm.

      Jay Fink

      September 21, 2020 at 4:27 PM

      • There were Jews in ancient Rome (according to Ovid), and perhaps many of the Jews of Europe came from Rome.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 21, 2020 at 5:07 PM

      • To me, with the Ashkenazim’s “Southern European” appearance, they look Eastern Mediterranean/Greek/Anatolian more than they do Italian.

        Here is a study of the Y chromosome of the Ashkenazim. The paternal lineage of the Jews is closely related to the Greeks and not the Levantine Arabs, despite originating from the Middle East.

        “Hammer et al. add that “Diaspora Jews from Europe, Northwest Africa, and the Near East resemble each other more closely than they resemble their non-Jewish neighbors.” In addition, the authors have found that the “Jewish cluster was interspersed with the Palestinian and Syrian populations, whereas the other Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations (Saudi Arabians, Lebanese, and Druze) closely surrounded it. Of the Jewish populations in this cluster, the Ashkenazim were closest to South European populations (specifically the Greeks) and also to the Turks”

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

        Is it a coincidence to me that Ben Shapiro looks like he could be related to the actor John Stamos (who is Greek)?

        Ben Shapiro certainly doesn’t look Italian to me.

        Ok, what, who's this again?

        September 21, 2020 at 5:25 PM

      • Lion, speaking of prole sections of Kings County, John Catsimatidis (who is Greek) looks like he could blend in well in Borough Park (Jewish neighborhood) but not so much in Bay Ridge (Italian neighborhood).

        It’s the look I tell ya!

        Ok, what, who's this again?

        September 21, 2020 at 5:35 PM

      • They didn’t “travel”, they were brought by force by the Romans after they conquered and destroyed Jerusalem. It is pretty known that Jews spread in Europe from Italy and there are genetic traces from Italian women among ashkenazi Jews as well as Levantine genetic markers common to all Jews except Ethiopians who are probably mainly converts.

        Saying that, culturally most of the Jews in the US are from east Europe and as such are culturally different to Italians. Jews in Israel has much larger Mediterranean Jewish population and being to the shores of the Mediterranean it is much more closer to other Mediterranean countries in food, music, lifestyle and temperament in general.

        Hashed

        September 21, 2020 at 6:36 PM

      • Jews came to Europe because of Rome.

        MoreSigmasThanYou

        September 21, 2020 at 9:13 PM

      • I’ve run across a number of genetic studies suggesting that Southern Italians are actually more closely related to Greeks than other Italians. Ancient Hellenes claimed they were descended from Mycenaeans.

        According to Wikipedia, “Mycenaean and Mycenaean-influenced settlements also appeared in Epirus,[3][4] Macedonia,[5][6] on islands in the Aegean Sea, on the coast of Asia Minor, the Levant,[7] Cyprus[8] and Italy.[9]”

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

        destructure

        September 22, 2020 at 1:02 AM

      • @hashed I was fortunate to find an interview online of my great-grandfather talking about his immigration experiences. What stood out for me is yes he was very East European culturally. He had a thick Russian accent, had been in the Russian army. All of his stories were basically someone adjusting from the Eastern European culture to American. My impression is culturally he was more similar to a Russian (technically Ukraine but he called it Russia) gentile than a Mediteraninan Jew despite his genetics. I guess my point is DNA isn’t everything, culture is a huge factor.

        @destructure I found it interesting that on my genetic distance report different regions of Southern Italy were on top followed by Greece with no Northern Italy. So it wouldn’t surprise me if Southern Italians are genetically closer to Greeks than Northern Italians. It is probably common knowledge but I only recently found out that most Italian-Americans can trace their roots to Southern Italy. Northern Italy has always been the more affluent part of the country and there was less of a need or desire to immigrate from there.

        Jay Fink

        September 22, 2020 at 5:37 PM

      • I’ve gone skying in Northern Italy and the area resembles Germany and Austria more than what we think of as Italians. The people and the food seems Germanic. Probably why there is a secession movement there.

        Mike Street Station

        September 23, 2020 at 5:58 AM

      • Again, for those who are always using the Italian meme for the Jewish appearance:

        Here is a picture of 2 well known movie directors, one of them is Sicilian and the other is Greek.

        No doubt Martin Scorcese doesn’t look Jewish, but Elia Kazan who was Greek and attended Yale has that distinctive Ashkenazim appearance.

        So no, Italians are not as related to the Ashkenazim as with the Greeks, who are also “Jewish” in their own right. Greeks of the diaspora are known to be wealthy and educated. There must be a genetic (HBD) component to all of this.

        Ok, what, who's this again?

        September 24, 2020 at 9:47 PM

    • Again to discredit the significant cultural similarities between Italian and Jews:

      Italian Americans are 20% of America’s population and that’s a lot of people with Italian ancestry. Yet, only 20% of Italian Americans have a Bachelor’s degree. That’s almost unbelievable, but not according to Tom Verso who writes for i.Italy (a blog for anything “Italian American”).

      http://iitaly.org/magazine/focus/op-eds/article/educate-italian-american-childrenor-not

      “In 2004, out of a total population of 10.5 million Americans, who identified themselves as of Italian origin and were 25 years of age or older, 69% have an education equivalence of less than a bachelor’s degree. Only 20% had attained a bachelor’s degree and 11 % had education beyond a bachelor’s”

      It even becomes starker, if you take account between the tiny population of Americans with Northern Italian ancestry and the more dominant class of Northeasterners with Southern Italian and Sicilian ancestry.

      Now this becomes an affront to commenters like MaryK and it furthers the negative stereotype of a demographic that Lion loves to write about, namely the guidos.

      Jewish Americans on the hand are a small minority in America, comprising less than 5% of the population, but with 75% of their members with a Bachelor’s degree, according to the Pew Research Center. They are by far the most educated Jewish demographic in the world.

      https://www.pewforum.org/2016/12/13/jewish-educational-attainment/

      “There are greater discrepancies among Jews in different regions when it comes to higher education. Just under half of all Israeli Jews (46%) and three-quarters of North American Jews have post-secondary degrees. But in South Africa, fewer than three-in-ten Jewish adults (29%) have obtained this level of higher education.”

      Ok, what, who's this again?

      September 23, 2020 at 2:32 PM

  14. The Democrats have no interest in passing an abortion guarantee act; that would settle the issue.

    What Democrats want to do is posture loudly about abortion every time there’s a Supreme Court vacancy.

    Judge Absalom

    September 20, 2020 at 8:30 PM

    • +1

      destructure

      September 22, 2020 at 1:03 AM

  15. “Some liberals are talking about packing the Court. It’s probably not going to happen, I don’t think enough Democrats will go along with such an extreme middle finger to our nation’s customs.”

    Of course they’d do it, only ones who wouldn’t are those in swing states like Jon Tester. They play hardball. What we need is a constitutional amendment to abolish court-packing while at the same time allowing the President to confirm nominees with 1/3rd of Senators. In absence, an informal agreement should do.

    Alexander Turok

    September 20, 2020 at 9:02 PM

  16. Excellent post. I completely agree with everything you said. There is no telling what kind of crazy bullshit a majority liberal Supreme Court would do. There was a case within the last five years, don’t remember the name of it but remember the basic facts – some municipal governments around the Miami area sued one or more of the big banks (I think it was maybe Citibank and/or Bank of America – irrelevant which banks) claiming that their mortgage lending practices were in some way racist and caused these municipalities damage by driving down property values and thereby bringing down property tax income. The whole theory of the case was just total abject speculation and idiocy but it was couched in typical social justice dogma. The banks won a 12(b)(6) dismissal at the district court and 11th Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court denied the writ, but if I recall this right AT LEAST THREE of the liberal justices said they would have granted it. Scary.

    Two in the Bush

    September 20, 2020 at 9:16 PM

    • Actually, I misremembered an important aspect of this. The 11th Circuit had actually reversed, and SCOTUS GRANTED the writ and overturned it 5-3. Liberals would have allowed the case to go forward. Case is Bank of America vs City of Miami. Very interesting case.

      Two in the Bush

      September 21, 2020 at 12:03 PM

      • Interesting. Do you have a legal background?

        GondwanaMan

        September 21, 2020 at 9:23 PM

  17. Why the fuck is Trump falling into the trap that it HAS to be a woman? There are two other women on the court, and female suburban voters are still gonna hate you if you nominate Barrett. The last time we pandered like this we got Palin. Moreover, Republicans aren’t supposed to be consumed by identity politics. Just nominate the best candidate regardless of race or gender.

    Brendan

    September 20, 2020 at 9:16 PM

    • I agree. The ONLY advantage is avoiding rape accusations, and I’m not sure the Democrats won’t pull some out of their hat anyway.

      Mike Street Station

      September 22, 2020 at 6:05 AM

  18. New France or better known as Québec made the recent news in our borders.

    A woman who is now arrested, sent an envelope addressed to Trumpet with ricin which came from Montréal.

    https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/letter-sent-to-white-house-containing-ricin-went-via-montreal/

    Regional cultures tells you that certain regions are more provincial, hence more conservative. Reddy states being the most provincial and maverick states (known as the Far West in the map) that go both ways.

    Québec is by far the most the liberal or progressive region in North America. This should not be a surprise that someone from this region which embraces cosmopolitanism sent a poison packet to the provincial and smelly Conservatives.

    Ok, what, who's this again?

    September 20, 2020 at 9:17 PM

    • The NY Post has it that the “woman” who sent ricin to Donald Trump is Pascale Ferrier of Québec. She has been living in the states specifically in Texas and was returning to Montréal, apparently the ricin filled envelope was sent from there.

      https://nypost.com/2020/09/22/woman-accused-of-mailing-ricin-to-trump-identified-as-quebec-resident/

      Other news sources describe this lunatic “woman” is doing whatever she can in order that Donald Trump doesn’t get re-elected.

      Anyone who’s traveled north of Albany within NYS, especially by the Adirondacks will notice that certain commercial vehicles passing the highways are painted in the French language or just automobiles with Québec license plates. French Canadian proles are commonly found as south as the Saratoga Springs region.

      Ok, what, who's this again?

      September 22, 2020 at 8:44 PM

      • Lion – Speaking of Saratoga Springs, there’s a lady for you to check it out.

        Sarah Funk, a native of Balston Spa, NY (the poorer and prolier area of Saratoga Springs), who graduated from a college in Staten Island (weird but not weird, since proles aren’t savvy with credentials).

        She does all these youtube videos for travelers coming to NYC, because she runs a touring company and is married to a Mestizo chef who can whip up a meal. Indeed, she loves to show off her leg skin whenever there’s an opportunity.

        https://www.instagram.com/sarahfunky/?hl=en

        One of those rarer Upstate NY transplants to NYC that morphs from a suburban pig into an urban striver.

        Ok, what, who's this again?

        September 23, 2020 at 9:29 AM

      • I totally believe that her Hispanic husband is an excellent chef. Hispanics are way better at cooking than Jews.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 23, 2020 at 10:39 AM

      • I believe so as well. She married him solely because he’s a chef.

        Speaking of Chuck Schumer – he’s looks like the kind of guy who only spends his time in DC yet probably he’s better traveled than many of us.

        Seen here in Saratoga Springs checking out the blue balls Saratoga water plant that some of you may have drink the water. Saratoga Springs is a Republican town, plain and simple, horse racing and gambling aren’t what liberals consider their turf, but apparently the Saratoga blue bottles are sold at Whole Foods.

        Chuckie Schumer in the Hudson Valley rubbing shoulders with hipsters and their brewery craft. WTF!

        PB is Peekskill Brewery.

        Ok, what, who's this again?

        September 23, 2020 at 11:09 AM

  19. It should be interesting to see what lengths the Democrats in Congress will go to prevent another conservative Supreme Court Justice. The fastest will be to refuse to pass a short term budget bill and shut the government down starting Oct 1. Another would be to impeach President Trump so the Senate has to deal with the impeachment rather than the appointment.

    superdestroyer

    September 20, 2020 at 9:34 PM

    • Impeaching Trump for nominating a new Justice which is his Constitutional duty?

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 21, 2020 at 11:40 AM

      • Yes, that is what they are threatening:

        AOC and Schumer joined forces for a press conference Sunday night outside James Madison High School in Brooklyn, that both Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Schumer attended.

        The two Democrats warned that the rights of Americans are at risk if Trump plows ahead with his plans to appoint a new justice before the election and urged people to call their Senators and demand they respect Ginsburg’s dying wish.

        They said ‘all options are now on the table’ to stall Trump’s Supreme Court nomination, including pursuing the impeachment of the president and AG Bill Barr.
        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8754265/AOC-Schumer-say-options-table-stall-Trumps-nomination-including-impeachment.html

        Roger

        September 21, 2020 at 12:07 PM

  20. Of course, if there are 6 Republican Justices on the Court and the Democrats pass a Court packing bill, it would only take 5 of the 6 GOP Justices to prevent their votes from being diluted by declaring the Court packing bill unconstitutional.

    The Undiscovered Jew

    September 20, 2020 at 9:47 PM

  21. You are reminding me why voting for Trump is essential to America’s future.

    Roger

    September 20, 2020 at 10:28 PM

  22. Lion, I think you’re wrong about packing the court. If Trump gets an appointment through and the Dems take full control of government, I think it’s highly likely that’s what they’ll do. Liberals will be hungry for revenge after four years of Trump, and they’ll rationalize it by pointing to Republicans blocking Garland for nearly a year and the obvious hypocrisy involved in pushing through Trump’s nominee. I’m sure “diversity” will also be one of the primary justifications offered (we must make the court “look like America”).

    Perhaps in the past packing would be considered beyond the pale, but these days I don’t think so; the country is too divided and there’s too much bitterness. Post-2016, anything that’s not clearly illegal is fair game.

    Expect the mainstream media to mostly be on-board with the plan and to work hard to socialize it. I don’t expect they’ll be much electoral blowback with the media propaganda in full effect. Conservatives will be upset, but the average American will consider it a technical maneuver not much different than changing the rules around the filibuster.

    purplecobra

    September 20, 2020 at 10:29 PM

  23. I would consider myself pro-abortion (not simply pro-choice) for eugenics reasons. Yet I passionately prefer a conservative Supreme Court justice for all the reasons Lion mentioned and more.

    Jay Fink

    September 21, 2020 at 7:12 AM

  24. I don’t think Trump has the votes.

    Kavanaugh technically won 50-48, though effectively 51-49. So Trump can afford to lose exactly 1 vote, and that vote is already lost: Collins. And I just have to think they’ll lose at least one other Republican in this.

    As for Dems, maybe they can still get Manchin, though he did vote to impeach Trump. And I don’t think any Dems who voted against Kavanaugh will change their vote here. The only candidate would be Doug Jones, if he really cared to try saving his seat, but I think he’s come to terms with losing it so will still vote against.

    Wency

    September 21, 2020 at 9:55 AM

    • Republican (53) Democratic (45) Independent (2)

      The campaign against Kavanaugh was such an obvious and disgusting politically motivated charade. So I agree that it’s unlikely anyone who voted against Kavanaugh then will vote to confirm a nominee now. But it should be noted that Susan Collins actually voted to confirm him. It was Lisa Murkowski who voted against him. Regardless, if every single Dem and both Independents vote against the nominee, the GOP could still lose 6 senators and win the tie with Pence’s vote. I figure that Collins and Murkowski.

      destructure

      September 22, 2020 at 2:21 AM

      • I had a math failure — I forgot that Kavanaugh happened when the Republicans only had 51 seats. I don’t know where you’re coming up with 6 senators though.

        Loss of Manchin and Collins (and continued opposition of Murkowski) puts them right back where they were with Kavanaugh, 51 votes, 1 to spare.

        Wency

        September 22, 2020 at 4:00 PM

      • I don’t believe it requires 50 “yes” votes to confirm a nominee. It merely requires 1 more “yes” than “no”. If the 6 hypothetical GOP senators vote “present” then it would be a tie. And Pence would cast the deciding vote.

        I should point out that Murkowski was the only GOP senator who didn’t vote to confirm Kavanaugh. And she didn’t even vote “no”. She voted “present”.

        destructure

        September 24, 2020 at 12:20 PM

  25. Why are you worried about Biden nominating a super liberal Supreme Court Judge? You are VOTING for him, you should have more confidence in your favorite candidate.

    Seingalt

    September 21, 2020 at 10:48 AM

    • I’m not FOR Biden, I’m against voting for Trump who, in the words of John Bolton, is not fit for office and doesn’t have the competence to carry out the job.

      But if we can get another conservative Justice before Trump is voted out of office, so much the better.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 21, 2020 at 11:47 AM

      • This was the voting results for the 2016 Presidential election in NYS based on counties.

        All of the counties that make up NYC were in favor of Trump with the exception of Richmond County (yes, it’s Stunting Island). Similarly, Long Island which is a very prolish place and its majority also voted for Trump.

        I just don’t get the Hudson Valley. I understand that the majority in Rockland County (a place full of NAMs) and Westchester County (a place full of wealthy ex-city folks, Hispanics and where the Clintons live) didn’t vote for Trump. Ulster County, I get it as many NYC hipster coolies have made a home there who are Democrat.

        Then there’s Tompkins County (where Cornell and Ithaca are located), and it was one of the few places in Upstate NY that went for Clinton. The other places in Upstate NY that voted for Clinton were in the counties where the cities of Schenectady, Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo are located. No surprise there, as all of these cities are NAM oriented.

        It’ll be interesting what the 2020 election will look like with NYS’ counties. Unless, the guidos in Staten Island and the proles in Upstate NY are tired of Trump, I say the same. It’s Trump for most of NYS and Biden for almost all of NYC.

        Ok, what, who's this again?

        September 21, 2020 at 1:21 PM

      • Bolton is a psychotic warmonger who hates Trump because he wouldn’t drop enough explosives on brown peasants.

        Anyway, you endorsed Biden which means you’ve endorsed open borders and the rest of the 6-point plan you outlined above. Own it.

        Pete

        September 21, 2020 at 1:25 PM

      • “Bolton is a psychotic warmonger”

        Yet Trump appointed him.

        So you’re saying vote for Trump so Trump will appoint more psychotic warmongers to his cabinet?

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 21, 2020 at 1:37 PM

      • So you’re saying vote for Trump so Trump will appoint more psychotic warmongers to his cabinet?

        Exactly.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 21, 2020 at 4:26 PM

      • Who cares who Trump appointed, in terms of foreign policy he was excellent, certainly in the middle east and also against China and globalism. Maybe thanks to Kushner but it just shows that at the end of the day he appointed the right people who actually did the job and fired Bolton.

        Hashed

        September 21, 2020 at 6:44 PM

      • A lot of these rabid pro-Trumpers are just losers applying the same loser standard to the highest office in the land as they apply to their own lives. To expect Trump to appoint non-backstabbers to office is simple too high a standard.

        Anonymous

        September 21, 2020 at 7:44 PM

      • “So you’re saying vote for Trump so Trump will appoint more psychotic warmongers to his cabinet?”

        Who else should he have appointed? It’s not like he had his pick of the litter. There were so few members of the political establishment who supported him that he had to appoint people even if they opposed him and his policies. The obvious retort is, “Then appoint people outside the establishment.” But the reality is that you have to have people who know how things work even if they disagree with you.

        destructure

        September 22, 2020 at 2:38 AM

      • Trump’s foreign policy is beyond fantastic. He is easily the best in this area, since Nixon. Whether he hired Bolton does not matter. The results matter. Unfortunately, asking the Lion to care about the lives of brown peasants is likely asking too much.

        Lowe

        September 22, 2020 at 7:00 AM

      • I’m not FOR Biden, I’m against voting for Trump who, in the words of John Bolton, is not fit for office and doesn’t have the competence to carry out the job.

        It’s not as though you’ve merely advocated voting third-party as a protest against Trump’s bozo-ness. You’ve advocated actually casting a vote for Biden, i.e., voting FOR Biden. It’s utterly incomprehensible that someone who believes what you claim to believe, as, for example, in this very post, and is aware, as you yourself have said in your Tweets and posts, that a vote for Biden is a vote for all the crazy extreme-left AOC types in his orbit and that he will do things like nominate extreme-left judges, would advocate voting for Biden.

        Hermes

        September 22, 2020 at 1:16 PM

      • Lowe,

        What would be your metrics that indicate that President Trump has a terrific foreign policy. Having China, Russia, Turkey, and Iran running around doing what they want does not seem to fit the bill.

        superdestroyer

        September 22, 2020 at 1:19 PM

      • @ sd

        Trump has started no new wars, withdrawn troops from Syria and Iraq. Afghanistan is coming up too, I think. He has taken swift, intelligent action against proven enemies, like assassinations and targeted missile strikes.

        He hasn’t let the CIA go around lighting fires in foreign countries, and he has maintained good relations with Russia, despite the warmongers crying for blood constantly. He has improved relations with North Korea. He has avoided a war with China, while taking a strong stance on trade, which is the right move.

        So let’s see: no Desert Storm, no Kosovo, no 9/11, no Iraq, no Afghanistan, no Muslim Spring, no supporting Syrian rebels. Trump is so good on foreign policy he makes most of his predecessors look like fools.

        Lowe

        September 22, 2020 at 6:10 PM

      • Trump’s foreign policy is beyond fantastic. He is easily the best in this area, since Nixon.

        The best since Teddy Roosevelt.

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 22, 2020 at 11:27 PM

      • Trump is good at dealing with Israel and North Korea, he sucks at everything else.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 23, 2020 at 10:36 AM

      • Since the Trump Administration has done nothing to change the long term path of North Korea, I do not see how anyone can claim it is a success. The Trump Administration pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal with no alternative in place. The Trump Administration has emboldened Russia, China, Turkey, Iran, and North Korea.

        I would say that the Trump Administration has pursued the kind of semi-isolation that would make the paleocons and the extreme left happy. However, since the Trump Administration has so alienated most of our partners, there will be no easy solution during the next crisis.

        superdestroyer

        September 23, 2020 at 2:04 PM

      • I didn’t say that Trump solved the North Korea problem, but he was better a reaching out to North Korea than previous presidents. Trump’s prole diplomacy works better with people like Kim than SWPL diplomacy. But Trump has been a disaster with our traditional friends and allies and our soft power has declined under his presidency.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 24, 2020 at 10:34 AM

      • You can gripe if you like, but the results speak for themselves. Trump’s foreign policy has been an incredible success. He has brought us peace, safety, and self-respect, all at once.

        I am grateful, and sorry that I have never lived in a swing state during Trump’s runs. I did not deserve such a great president.

        Lowe

        September 23, 2020 at 6:41 PM

      • There hasn’t been a “next crisis” under Trump’s foreign policy, so this pontificating about is just sour grapes.

        After four years of peace and safety, here you are complaining about soft power. This after decades of pointless wars. Yeah, I bet we were making lots of friends then. Lol.

        Lowe

        September 24, 2020 at 12:02 PM

  26. I expect that extreme liberals will be pushing the following extreme-left legal theories in the near future:

    People in other countries have a constitutional right to enter into the United States, and a constitutional right to stay here once they’ve entered.
    The planet has constitutional rights such that laws that are perceived by liberals to be bad for the planet (such as whatever liberals think causes “climate change”) are unconstitutional.
    People no longer have freedom of speech if what they say is perceived as “racist,” with liberals controlling the definition of “racist.” This will then be extended to speech that’s is deemed to be “homophobic” or “Islamophobic.”
    Any laws that perpetuate “systemic racism” are unconstitutional, with liberals, once again, controlling the determination of which laws fall under this rubric.
    As a matter of statutory interpretation, any business that doesn’t have enough of the right types of minorities working for them are in violation of the various Civil Rights Acts.
    Children have a constitutional right to get sex change operations, with parents forbidden from interfering.

    Anyone who is convinced that it is the future of constitutional interpretation has to absolutely be pro-Trump, no matter how inept he is.

    The nomination of Supreme Court justices is a more important thing than any legislation or what the President does or does not.

    Bruno of Brazil

    September 21, 2020 at 12:19 PM

  27. What with conservative, often Christian women being under consideration, I have a vitally important question: are women with those views any less likely (meaning less than nearly 100%) to be hairless than more liberal, less religious women? I believe there is a slight possibility. By being conservative and Christian a woman is already going against political and social fashion, so she might be more inclined to go against another fashion too.

    Peter

    ironrailsironweights

    September 21, 2020 at 2:03 PM

    • Maybe you should try dating women from overseas.

      MoreSigmasThanYou

      September 22, 2020 at 1:43 PM

      • Asian women used to be among the last few holdouts to doing that horrible thing to their bodies, hippie chicks and lesbians being the other, but my extensive research shows that more and more Asian women are going over to the dark side, so to speak.

        Peter

        ironrailsironweights

        September 22, 2020 at 4:59 PM

  28. Schumer and others on the left are saying that “nothing is off the table.” How much of that is red meat for their foaming-at-the-mouth crazies, and how much is to be taken seriously? It’s widely assumed they’re referring to impeachment, but what would the point of that be? There are not the votes in the Senate to convict, and everybody knows it.

    Or could “nothing is off the table” mean something else? Is this a not-so-thinly-veiled threat that coordinated riots more violent than what we’ve seen are coming? That inciting violence to further your political aims is OK, as long as you’re not a Republican?

    Whatever happens, I don’t think Schumer, Pelosi, or Biden’s handlers have thought this through completely. They assume that on November 4th the genie will agree to return to the bottle voluntarily, or that they’ll at least be able to cram him in and then stick the cork in. I’m not so sure they will be able to keep the genie bottled up, because a larger-than-anyone-expected number of people on the left have discovered that they get a quasi-sexual thrill from rioting, looting, and arson. In the middle are the ones who don’t engage in violence themselves, but accept it on a scale that ranges from grudging tolerance to enthusiastic support. The third faction, who outright reject violence in pursuit of the leftist agenda is dwindling and at some point probably becomes so few in number as to be irrelevant.

    Sgt. Joe Friday

    September 21, 2020 at 2:42 PM

  29. Trump really should find a young, brilliant black conservative woman to nominate. Like a female Clarence Thomas. It would go a long way in exposing all the race baiters for being frauds. How many BLM people would congratulate the first black woman to serve on the court if she were a Trump nominee? It would also allow them to use the liberal trick of claiming that people opposing her confirmation are racist.

    Chis IV

    September 21, 2020 at 3:07 PM

    • No such person exists.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 21, 2020 at 5:06 PM

      • Trinidad-born, former Navy officer Jennifer Carroll, the lieutenant governor of Florida, would be a terrific choice, especially as she could help Trump’s chances in an important swing state, unfortunately she has never been a judge and doesn’t have a law degree. I’m not sure if that’s an absolute disqualifier.
        Retired federal appeals court judge and former California Supreme Court justice Janice Rogers Brown probably is a bit too old at 71.

        Peter

        ironrailsironweights

        September 21, 2020 at 6:18 PM

      • Closest I can think of is Candace Owens

        Bart

        September 22, 2020 at 5:13 AM

      • How about Ada Brown? She’s a Rick Perry and Trump nominee and a Mensa member.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_E._Brown

        Chris IV

        September 22, 2020 at 1:53 PM

      • Being a member of Mensa isn’t that impressive. I’d hope that a Supreme Court Justice is top 0.1% and not merely top 2% which is all that’s required to join Mensa.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 22, 2020 at 2:29 PM

      • Candace Owens is a college drop out who other blacks cannot stand. Ms. Owens is the textbook definition of an Uncle Tom.

        superdestroyer

        September 22, 2020 at 5:41 PM

      • Wells Fargo CEO was brave enough to say exactly that, maybe he was reading your blog or just used common sense. Obviously he is crucified now

        Hashed

        September 22, 2020 at 5:51 PM

    • ” How many BLM people would congratulate the first black woman to serve on the court if she were a Trump nominee? I”

      Zero. She would simply become the new Clarence Thomas, race traitor and Uncle Tom.

      Mike Street Station

      September 22, 2020 at 6:10 AM

    • Lion, that’s doubtful…even in the most elite professions and positions, the average IQ rarely exceeds top 1% or IQ 135. Supreme Court Justices probably average around IQ 130. Goes to show you that success in life is dependent on a lot of things other than intelligence and competence (which you know already…)

      GondwanaMan

      September 22, 2020 at 6:47 PM

  30. Much ado about nothing. Trump already said he would nominate a woman. She’ll probably be as “conservative” as Sandra Day-O’Conner. The Left is flipping their wigs over nothing. Roe vs Wade, affirmative action and Obamacare will not be overturned by a WOMAN.
    The GOP is not serious about these issues. They do not personally believe what their voting base does. The GOP bigwigs would dismiss all the social issues if they could. Their voters are the ones pressuring them. There has been no serious attempt by the GOP to push social issues in my lifetime.

    Joshua Sinistar (@Joshua06716)

    September 21, 2020 at 9:38 PM

    • Wrong. Trump will appoint a woman, she will be confirmed before the election. Trump will win re-election and Roe will be overturned.

      andrewe1

      September 22, 2020 at 11:36 AM

      • The absurdity is that Roe ≠ legal abortion. Abortion was already legal before Roe and will continue to be even if the constitutional right is overturned. We don’t have a court decision creating Social Security a constitutional right, but we still get it.

        It is just a bunch of feminist hysteria.

        Yes, Alabama and Georgia may prohibit or severely restrict abortions, but do you really care? Those would-be baby daddies will just drive their would-be baby mommas over the state line.

        Some may fear that the court could go the other way full stop. That would be to prohibit abortion because the child’s constitutional and human rights begin at conception which is what people like Barret, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Roberts actually believe.

        Alice

        September 22, 2020 at 5:32 PM

      • “Yes, Alabama and Georgia may prohibit or severely restrict abortions, but do you really care?”

        Well, yes, I care a little. I’d hate to see young women sentenced to life of being a single mother on welfare because they couldn’t get an abortion, regardless of what state they live in. But yes, it’s not my direct problem.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 22, 2020 at 8:43 PM

      • So what is Roe V Wade is overturned. A few states will pass anti-abortion regulations but if the Democrats control the House or the Senate, nothing will happen at the national level. Image the abortion clinics that will set up on the border to take advantage of the states that try to ban abortion.

        superdestroyer

        September 22, 2020 at 5:43 PM

  31. There was a morning demonstration at the home of Lindsey Graham, ostensibly to “wake him up.” My guess is that the next level of escalation will be burning homes of Republican legislators, with residents inside.

    WRB

    September 22, 2020 at 12:58 AM

  32. MEH 0910

    September 22, 2020 at 1:35 AM

    • Mittens has said he’ll vote for the nominee based on qualifications. So the GOP now has the votes. I’m sure the left will continue to cry about it. But I expect it to be more theatrical than substantive now that they know they can’t bully the GOP out of voting.

      I like the way Mittens addressed the controversy over not holding a vote on Garland. Romney said the “historical precedent of election year nominations is that the Senate generally does not confirm an opposing party’s nominee but does confirm a nominee of its own.” That’s pretty much common sense. All this hoopla could have been avoided if only McConnell had said that 4 years ago.

      destructure

      September 22, 2020 at 11:29 AM

    • MEH 0910

      September 22, 2020 at 12:29 PM

  33. Lion, Trump only hired Bolton so he could be the “bad cop”. It was a brilliant, Nixonian move because it kept the appearance that American military force was always on the table even though Trump personally campaigned against it. It didn’t work out very well for Bolton because he eventually figured out that he was being used, and he wouldn’t have the pleasure of killing millions of innocent people as he had hoped. Again, Trump is far smarter than you and others credit him. Drop this voting for Biden nonsense. You will regret it.

    B.T.D.T.

    September 22, 2020 at 11:07 AM

    • Trump hired Bolton because he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 22, 2020 at 2:26 PM

      • Trump hired Bolton because he wanted to tear up the Iran nuclear deal and Bolton was the only national security type who thought that was a good idea. Of course Bolton is delusional.

        MikeCA

        September 22, 2020 at 4:47 PM

      • Trump hired Bolton because he doesn’t know what he’s doing.

        Trump only creates the appearance of not knowing what he’s doing BECAUSE Trump always knows what he’s doing…

        The Undiscovered Jew

        September 22, 2020 at 7:06 PM

      • No, he really doesn’t know what he’s doing.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 22, 2020 at 8:47 PM

    • Bolton was a temp hire for dealing with North Korea, as I stated at the time.

      Morning Joe Makes the Case for John Bolton

      Trump should have simply fired him earlier, that’s all. There were good reasons to hire him in the first place.

      Mike Street Station

      September 23, 2020 at 6:10 AM

  34. This is rancid.

    It’s also amusing how so many of your dipshit commenters “but Democrats would do the same!!” It’s that rarest kind of hypocrisy — theoretical.

    Republicans refused to grant Garland a hearing because “the voters should decide.” And because Trump won the second most votes, he gets three Supreme Court picks (regardless of whether or not it’s an election year). The objection was never principled, and should Democrats take the Presidency and Senate, then it’s turn-about-as-fair-play.

    The Constitution does not say we must have a filibuster, so it’s gone. The Constitution does not say we must have nine Supreme Court Justices, so pack away. It will even get to the point where we could go several years with a vacancy because the other party refuses to confirm.

    What a truly fucked-up country. It’s almost as if these 18th-century institutions were not designed to handle partisan politics.

    Vince

    September 22, 2020 at 3:16 PM

    • Andrew E.

      September 22, 2020 at 9:36 PM

      • Image the shreiking when the Democrats get more than 50 seats in the Senate while controlling the House and the White House. It will force the Democrats to finally pass a defense of abortion law that makes it legal in all fifty states and forces the Republicans to react to keep their abortion fanatics happy.

        superdestroyer

        September 23, 2020 at 2:09 PM

      • I hope the Democrats pass an Abortion Rights Act. But I think they’d rather shriek about the Supreme Court than actually act to protect abortion rights.

        Lion of the Blogosphere

        September 24, 2020 at 10:35 AM

    • Democrats literally have no principles other than supporting whatever will achieve their goals. A party that hates the constitution and want to abolish the most fundamental rights its guarantees is not doing any of this shit to be principled.

      Brett

      September 22, 2020 at 10:07 PM

    • Lion keeps talking about what McConnell “said” in 2016. But it’s not just a matter of what he said; liberals are all het up about the fact that the Republicans refused to even give Garland a hearing. And I’ve never understood that. Why didn’t they? They had a majority; they could have “Borked” him. (Of course, if they had, liberals would be furious about that and would be claiming it was illegitimate, but that’s beside the point.) Was it that they were worried a few liberal Republicans would defect and he would be confirmed?

      Hermes

      September 24, 2020 at 10:01 PM

  35. Another conservative justice on the Supreme court could well mean the end of Obamacare. There is a case to be heard right after the election on throwing out the Obamacare. It is clear from the last ruling that there were 4 votes to rule it invalid, good chance Obamacare will be gone sometime next year.

    MikeCA

    September 22, 2020 at 4:50 PM

    • Not very likely. I’m sure they will uphold stare decisis on that.

      Lion of the Blogosphere

      September 22, 2020 at 8:42 PM

      • If I’m going to have to suffer through a conservative majority in SC, can we at least end Obamacare.

        mpt

        September 22, 2020 at 9:00 PM

    • As long as the mandate is gone, I’m happy.

      MoreSigmasThanYou

      September 22, 2020 at 10:08 PM

    • So how does kicking the health care finance issue down the road help anyone. Does having more people without coverage such as medicaid or obamacare plans really help? The Republicans had two years to come up with an alternative and they did not even try? Or is the idea of no Obamacare just a reason to decrease the life expectancy of more Americans.

      superdestroyer

      September 23, 2020 at 2:15 PM

  36. Should we support a court-stacking bill? In the immediate future it hurts us, but long term, if we understandably assume that Democrats are going to dominate elections un the coming decades, and a lot of our justices are getting on in years, wouldn’t this benefit us more long term?
    The most immediate criticism of this is of course that once its no longer needed by the Democrats, they will find a way of getting rid of or otherwise circumventing it to stack the court themselves, likely by designing it in a way that allows them to.

    Brett

    September 22, 2020 at 10:02 PM

    • Trump purging the military leadership as soon as he wins his second term would be a more practical priority. Any “bill” from one Congress can be undone by the next. Even a Constitutional Amendment can simply be ignored or “interpreted” in to irrelevance via lawfare and liberal judges. Military Coup is the one arrow the GOP can in theory have in its quiver moving forward but they need to make the leadership of the military as Conservative as most of the actual fighting men are.

      As for the SCOTUS, Trump is going to pick Barbara Lagoa. There is not much of a paper trail to suggest how Conservative she is but she did side with DeSantis on forcing felons to pay back all fines and court costs before letting them vote. She grew up in Hialeah, which was a totally prole Cuban neighborhood. And I know for a fact the Catholic H.S she attended was teaching a very red pilled doctrine during her years there. So my guess is she’ll land somewhere in the middle of the Republican appointed members of the Court slightly to the right of Gorsuch but to the left of Alito.

      Politically, it should be a success. It will motivate the Cuban community to vote and work harder for Trump. And while Hialeah is far less Cuban today than it was when she was growing up, it is no less Latino and is viewed as a symbol of pride by a pan-Latino prole coalition. Attacking a Hialeah Girl would stroke resentment in not just Cubans, but Venezuelans, Colombians, and Argentinians as well. And Dems had already been wearing their welcome out among FL Latinos with all the anti-police and black pandering. The primary complaint among poor and middle class Latinos is that there isn’t ENOUGH police funding to protect their homes and business from black crime.

      PerezHBD

      September 23, 2020 at 1:21 AM

      • Lagoa would definitely be an interesting move…

        GondwanaMan

        September 24, 2020 at 2:56 PM

  37. Yitzhak Spencer said it best:

    Trump’s 2020 campaign slogan should be “it’s the thought that counts.”

    Doblon

    September 22, 2020 at 10:24 PM

  38. LotB: “I think I mentioned this before on my blog, but we have probably reached an era of partisan animosity such that it’s impossible for a President to appoint a Supreme Court Justice (and maybe even lower court judges) unless his [edit: her] party controls the Senate.”

    Nah, the stupid party won’t do that.

    E. Rekshun

    September 23, 2020 at 11:39 AM

  39. Libertarians are saying that if the GOP is smart Alito and Thomas will resign immediately to put in a constitutional conservative and a libertarian-oriented anti-communist justice NOW.

    Robert the Libertarian

    September 24, 2020 at 5:45 AM

  40. Trollolololol Lion just claimed on Twitter that there’s no evidence for Biden’s senility. The guy bumbles on camera for every speech and doesn’t even know what world he lives in. No way he is senile!!!

    GondwanaMan

    September 24, 2020 at 8:27 AM

  41. Another NY Post post that should belong on your twitta feed:

    https://nypost.com/2020/09/23/nyu-student-wants-professor-fired-over-anti-mask-comments/

    All the good reasons to stop sending your kids to over-priced and over-hyped fluff schools that sell an inane (or even insane) education like media studies, where one its faculty member told his class that wearing masks doesn’t prevent the spread of Covid-19.

    Ok, what, who's this again?

    September 24, 2020 at 2:17 PM

    • Older NY Post article:

      Trump has hired Sarah Feinberg, the interim president for the MTA to oversee Amtrak, which is Federally funded.

      https://nypost.com/2020/05/18/trump-taps-interim-mta-exec-sarah-feinberg-to-join-amtrak-board/

      What does it even mean? Now that the MTA is in serious financial trouble, it should sell its track rights to Amtrak, starting with the Metro North’s Hudson Line, whose tracks are shared by Amtrak, with the capability of traveling from Midtown Manhattan to the French Canadian City of Montréal. Commuting by public transit will never reach pre-pandemic levels ever again.

      Ok, what, who's this again?

      September 24, 2020 at 3:42 PM


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: