Not-So-Quick Take: The Passing of the Notorious RBG
I will not celebrate her demise. I will, however, quote Mark Twain:
I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.
But let’s also remember who she was:
I would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.
Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.*
-- Ruth Bader Ginsburg
(Both quotes HT Moonbattery)
* How... Margaret Sanger-ish of her.
And I did not know this; Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s support for racial quotas was hidden from the public during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings (links in original – but RTWT):
Before she was on the United States Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg supported a U.S. government racial quota plan when she was on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The mainstream media did not tell the public about it. The Democrats and Republicans in Congress did not tell the public about it. Talk-radio hosts did not tell the public about it. As a Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg continued her approval of racial preferences, aka “affirmative action” as described here, here and here.
When I first heard the news I thought that the fat’s in the fire now. My initial reaction was the honorable one – that Trump should wait and let the election pass. My opinion’s changed. From Buckle Up Buttercup (bolding added):
So it looks like the Left’s legacy of street fighting will continue unabated - until their morale improves - which won’t happen until they win. And that’s not likely to happen if Trump places another conservative justice on the court. In the event the election decision goes to the SCOTUS as it did in 2000 they’d prefer their chances of a 4:4 (because Roberts has never really been on our side). The result of that outcome is too horrible to contemplate.
Given Roberts’ reversal on striking down Obamacare, which from what I read utterly infuriated the other Conservative Justices, I suspect the Left has some hellacious kompromat on him – he can’t be trusted. Thus:
A couple of things.
First, as we’ve seen with the riots, and the Washington Post-Fabricator and many others including the Quid Pro Ho VP candidate herself, (aside, this is unnerving in its own right; That crazed, manic cackle from Kamala Harris...) they’re threatening ongoing riots until they get their way. And when they get their way, America as Land of the Free is over. From this @GregGutfeld tweet:
leftists promise violence and "burning it all down" if they don't get what they want. Then their enablers in media mock you for worrying that there might be violence and "burning it all down" when the leftists don't get what they want.
What it tells the rest of us is that these aren't rational people. They're so deranged they'll burn and kill as a means of getting what they can't get at the ballot box. They need to taken at their word that it's insurrection they want, and smacked down hard.
Speaking of taking people at their word:
“When someone says they want to kill you, believe them.”
-- Elie Wiesel
Another sees it; The Extortionist Democrat Media Industrial Complex:
The DMIC (Democrat Media Industrial Complex) and the Democratic National Committee are political extortionists.
Their forewarnings? Elect Joe Biden, lest Democrat looting and rioting terrorists immolate our entire country.
Left-wing media figures rushed to threaten violent riots on Friday evening if President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) attempt to fill the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away earlier in the day.
Boiled down, the Left is saying exactly this:
Second, I was reminded of a Bill Whittle video – specific link unknown – where he discusses that if you are faced with an honorable foe, you behave honorably… but not if you are not. He cites, specifically, a case where in WWII the US Marines saw a small ground of Japanese soldiers waving the white flag of surrender. The Marines went in, honoring that surrender flag, and were ambushed and butchered. And I mean butchered. Bill went on to describe how the Marines didn’t take another captive alive for quite some time, IIRC weeks, after that.
We face an enemy in the Left that is committed to our total destruction. As a nation, as a people, as a civilization. Deal with them honorably? No. This is not a time for Marquis of Queensbury Rules. This is a no-holds-barred bar brawl for the future of the country… and Western Civilization itself should America fall.
As Francis Porretto notes in The Democratic Delusion (UPDATED); (bolding, italics, and links in original, underlining added (aside from links)):
In closing: Note that the Democrats have never had a problem with using the courts – or the Court – to rule against majority sentiment when that was the Democrats’ preference. On many occasions a Democrat-dominated Supreme Court has ruled in a fashion that contradicted the opinion that prevailed among American citizens. Miranda v. Arizona is one notable example; another is Kelo v. New London. Should the Left ever again acquire control of the Court, we may be sure that such decisions will again be issued in such circumstances.
To state the obvious, this is the one development that could make 2020 crazier than it already was. But I think it is just as well that all of the chips are being pushed into the center of the table. This year’s election will decide whether America will continue to be America. It is that stark. So let’s put everything up for grabs.
They’ve already shown they’re willing to burn down neighborhoods, tear down our history, attacking people, even murdering them. They are dead-set to raze everything good from America and Western Civilization as well; Then They Came for Beethoven. And Shakespeare. And everyone else.
This morning Dems were all talking publicly about doing away with the filibuster, adding 2 more justices, 2 more states, and 4 Dem senators. But now “muh norms” is back. Life comes at you fast.
Dems: "Trump and the GOP filling this Supreme Court vacancy would violate norms!"
Also Dems: "If we win in November, we promise to pack SCOTUS with 6 new progressive justices."
Just spitballing here... but it’s hard to make the argument against not conforming a SCOTUS nominee weeks before an election —- all while advocating abolishing the Electoral College and filibuster after said election.
@MZHemingway (Text and image both):
Joe Biden in 2016 on how it’s fine to nominate even just before an election
But then, as I said in a Linkfest some time ago about accusing the Left of hypocrisy in a NITZAKHON QUOTABLE (link and bolding in the original, underlining added):
For a charge of hypocrisy to work to restrain someone or pull them back, they must be able to be shamed in front of people about whom they care and whose opinions they respect. This is why the charge sticks to people on the Right… and why it doesn’t on the Left. Because if you’re on the Left you only care about the opinions of your fellow Borgleft Collective members who are, universally, on the same page as you, want power as much as you do, and share your belief in your intellectual & moral superiority. Leftists don’t care that you’ve got double-standards so long as you are advancing the cause of creating a Socialist paradise on earth, so you won’t care about charges of hypocrisy by anyone to the Right of Stalin – because Conservatives are the enemy anyway.
We can point out their hypocrisies and double-standards until we are hoarse; while it’s important to have “for the record” it won’t matter in shaming or deterring them. They don’t care about our opinions in the slightest.
In parallel, that’s why trying to take the high road will fail. At some point, as they push forward Lenin-style, we’re going to have to be steel, not mush. Or they will keep pushing.
Probe with bayonets.
If you encounter mush, proceed;
if you encounter steel, withdraw.
I highly recommend this post about shame and the Democrats:
And IMHO this is the “wins the internet for the day” quote from a different twitter thread:
Mitt Romney is about to make Benedict Arnold look like a team player
So, cram a new SCOTUS Justice down the Left’s throat, and on to a Trumpslide in November. Hold the Senate, retake the House.
Or we’re done. Well, everything but the shooting. My personal fear is that even with a Trump re-election, retaking the House, keeping the Senate, we’re only delaying things. Separation, as discussed here, has its appeal even if I realistically know I’ll have to move (doubtless over the wife’s objections – ironic, considering she’s from the former USSR she has very little fear instinct on so many things). But as I said in The Blue Virus (link and italics in original):
And there is part of the problem. If the country splits, people will continue to flee the high taxes and stifling regulations, but then persist in voting for the same party that created the conditions they fled. I see it where I live. People move in from higher-income locations, drawn by comparative bargains on property and an attractive overall tax burden, lower crime, etc., but then continuing to vote “D”… and then being surprised that the politicians they elect recreate the sh*tholes (you see what I did there?) they moved to escape. By then, of course, it’s too late. Like Alabama ticks, once they’re in, it’d takes a miracle to get them out.
Remember, these people have been working on the Long March for over a century, infiltrating cultural institutions as groundwork to create paradise on earth: Socialism.
So they will look across the boundary between the two (or more) split-up entities, and start to infiltrate in. Again, remember they have a LONG GAME and are filled with MISSIONARY ZEAL.
But let me close by quoting the now-late Notorious RBG; Here's What RBG Said About Filling a SCOTUS Vacancy in an Election Year (links in the original):
When a similar scenario occurred four years ago, following the death of Antonin Scalia, the Republican-controlled Senate blocked Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court. It was a controversial move, and Ginsburg had something to say about it: Ginsburg publicly called on the Senate to go through with the nomination.
“That’s their job,” she said in July 2016. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the President stops being President in his last year.”
“Eight is not a good number for a collegial body that sometimes disagrees,” Ginsburg said on the issue a few months later during an event at the Smithsonian Museum of American History in Washington.
An informed opinion from the now late SCOTUS justice. Honor it, Mr. President. Honor it… to the hilt, with a twist.
© 2020, NITZAKHON