Tags

, , ,

If you have not, gentle readers, pause with me a moment to pray that the Lord take Ruth Bader Ginsberg into His loving arms and grant her eternal rest.  She has been suffering, and not figuratively, with cancer since at least 1999. Pray also for the comfort of her children and for those that loved her.  Pray that she has gone home, to her husband who preceded her in death.

That necessary and appropriate prayer done, let us consider the political ramifications of her death, because she was more politician than justice, as my pal, Bookworm, notes:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an appalling anti-constitutionalist, who always put her politics ahead of both the constitution and the law.

All of the leftist and RINO encomiums for her refer to her ‘fighting’ for ‘equality and justice.’ The mere fact that they can say that proves what an awful judge she was. If you’re ‘fighting’ for ‘equality and justice,’ you’re a politician. As a justice on the United States Supreme Court, Ginsburg’s focus should always have been on the Constitution. Had she had any respect for her job, she would have understood that it was for the voters and their representatives to ‘fight’ for equality and justice. Her political side also showed in the fact that, disgracefully, she voiced an opinion in the 2016 election.

Take the link for the rest of Bookworm’s informative article.  As she noted, it is the job of any judge to do one thing: apply the law to the facts at hand.  The Supreme Court applies the highest law, and if the Constitution does not allow a thing, it is unconstitutional.  If it does, particularly where individual rights are concerned, it must be affirmed.  The Supreme Court is not a supreme legislature where policies that cannot be won through the legitimate legislative process can be mandated by nine—or usually, one—unelected supreme legislators.  For justices to do otherwise is to dishonor their oaths of office.

As you are surely aware by now, gentle readers, D/S/Cs are threatening all manner of calamities if President Trump dares nominate a replacement for “RBG” as she has come to be called, and even worse, if Senate Republicans should dare confirm a nomination before election day.

Yes. You are.

They are already picketing the homes of senate Republican leaders, and worse, including threats to pack the Court should the Harris/Biden ticket win.

Let’s visit another Bookwork article for some constitutional rationality:

… there is no legitimate reason for the current President and Senate to refrain from acting prior to the election in 57 days.  As Dan Mclaughlin wrote at NRO in August:

‘History supports Republicans filling the seat. Doing so would not be in any way inconsistent with Senate Republicans’ holding open the seat vacated by Justice Antonin Scalia in 2016. The reason is simple, and was explained by Mitch McConnell at the time. Historically, throughout American history, when their party controls the Senate, presidents get to fill Supreme Court vacancies at any time — even in a presidential election year, even in a lame-duck session after the election, even after defeat. Historically, when the opposite party controls the Senate, the Senate gets to block Supreme Court nominees sent up in a presidential election year, and hold the seat open for the winner. Both of those precedents are settled by experience as old as the republic. Republicans should not create a brand-new precedent to deviate from them. . . .

Twenty-nine times in American history there has been an open Supreme Court vacancy in a presidential election year, or in a lame-duck session before the next presidential inauguration. (This counts vacancies created by new seats on the Court, but not vacancies for which there was a nomination already pending when the year began, such as happened in 1835–36 and 1987–88.) The president made a nomination in all twenty-nine cases. George Washington did it three times. John Adams did it. Thomas Jefferson did it. Abraham Lincoln did it. Ulysses S. Grant did it. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it. Dwight Eisenhower did it. Barack Obama, of course, did it. Twenty-two of the 44 men to hold the office faced this situation, and all twenty-two made the decision to send up a nomination, whether or not they had the votes in the Senate. . . .’

Bassett is a GQ writer

Circa September, 2020, and for many years before, the Supreme Court has been highly politicized.  This is primarily the fault of D/S/Cs, who have always seen the Court as a super legislature, a last resort to give them what they want when they can’t get it honestly, when the damned American public just won’t vote the right—left—way.  Thus do we see public discourse about maintaining “the balance” on the Court, or about the necessity of the Court “looking like America.”  Thus do we see good men like Justice Brett Kavanaugh savaged by utterly indecent and unprincipled D/S/Cs in a thankfully failed attempt to keep that unconstitutional “balance” (enter “kavanaugh” in the SMM homepage search bar for all articles on that confirmation process).  Thus are D/S/Cs threatening to abolish the filibuster and pack the court, to ensure, once and for all, the court will be entirely and eternally politicized, and the “balance” will always favor them.

A court packing scheme is particularly vile because not only will it render any portion of the Constitution that impedes D/S/C policy at any given moment a dead letter, but it will set in stone identity politics on the Supreme Court.  There will be female seats, at least one trans seat, certainly Black and Hispanic seats—we already have a “wise Latina”–a lesbian seat, a gender non-binary seat, and the list will be virtually endless.  Actual qualifications for the Court will be rendered a distant secondary consideration, if they’re considered at all.

Senators should ask and answer only a few questions in considering a nominee.  Are they, by education, experience and accomplishment, at the top of their profession?  One must be careful here.  Attendance long ago at Harvard or Yale is no infallible indicator of lawyerly excellence.  One might even, considering the anti-constitutional tilt of such schools, consider it a disqualifier—if the Constitution matters in such deliberations.

Are they truly, regardless of gender, sexual orientation, and any other personal consideration, among the most brilliant, analytical, insightful legal minds available?  This is the nation’s highest court.  Should anything less be acceptable?

Most importantly, is the nominee willing and able to honor their oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution?  Will they decide cases on the Constitution and applicable statutory and case law?  Or do they think the Constitution a “living document,” to be interpreted or ignored as they please in order to vindicate social causes they think worthy?  Are they willing and able, in every case, to say: “the Constitution prohibits it, and that settles it”?

A lawyer, O’Leary is CA Governor Gavin Newsom’s Chief of Staff, but she’s not radical, no sir!

As Bookworm so ably explained, Ruth Bader Ginsburg was much more a D/S/C politician than a Supreme Court Justice as required by our constitutional republic.  She used her power far too often to legislate from the bench, and in so doing, she and the others like her have caused grave damage to our constitutional republic, taking part in bringing us to the brink of the looming 2020 election.  Yet even she sometimes got it right:

Her death saddens me, not only for the damage its timing is already inflicting on our already brutalized Republic, but because of the inhumanity it exposes.  Ginsburg’s family, and surely, the D/S/C hierarchy, which includes members of Congress, the media, and wealthy donors, have known of her fragile health for many years.  It would be naïve in the extreme not to believe they knew her death was imminent for months, perhaps longer.  Rather than doing the human thing, the humane thing and encouraging her to retire, to rest, to find whatever enjoyment and peace she could find in her final days with family and friends, they built a woke edifice around her, made her a D/S/C icon, an indispensable super female, super legislator, super foe of constitutionalists in black, and she obviously believed them.

Ginsburg could—should—have retired during the Obama years. Prof. Jacobson at Legal Insurrection ably takes up that issue here.  It has been said her last request was:

My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.

This supposedly told to her granddaughter only days before her death, according to NPR.  On one hand, considering her stridently political nature, this is not entirely unlikely.  But how could she know who would be elected?  On the other, it is politically convenient, but this is what was on her mind as she drew her last breaths?  Not her family, not what follows earthly existence?  Crass politics utterly consumed her final moments, her finally earthly thoughts?  For this, we should all weep, for her, and for our republic.

If so, it reveals a complete disregard of the Constitution which speaks very specifically to the nomination and confirmation of Supreme Court justices: the President, and only the President, nominates them—there is no time frame—and the Senate advises and consents, and again, there is no time frame.  There is no “RBG seat,” a place on the Supreme Court belongs to the people.  D/S/Cs scream there is insufficient time before the election, that there is some precedent involved, and if there isn’t, they’ll make one up.  Why, Kavanaugh took much longer (because D/S/Cs did everything they could to delay and derail his nomination)! Yet, history does not support this:

Some are even calling it immoral, an outrage, for President Trump to nominate, and for the Senate to confirm, a justice before the election:

There are few in Congress I hold in lower esteem than Chuck Schumer.  He also said the American people should have a voice in choosing the next Justice.  Can he really know so little about our constitutional republic that he does not know the people have spoken by electing Donald Trump and a Republican Senate?  Is he unaware this is the “voice” they’ve chosen?  Does he not know the Supreme Court is not “old” or “new” like the houses of Congress, but exists independently of them, its Justices holding tenure for life?  Has he forgotten that Barack Obama, the One, the light bringer, the D/S/C messiah, said “elections have consequences?”

Even Obama occasionally got it right…

In this election cycle, D/S/Cs have exposed their cruelty and inhumanity as never before.  Joe Biden is clearly suffering from dementia, yet they continue to parade him before a teleprompter.  We watch him deteriorate before our eyes, and his family not only allows it, they willingly participate.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg deteriorated before our eyes over a decade.  Anyone that knows anything about cancer knew the lame excuses for her frequent hospitalizations were just that: lame.  We knew she was not, in fact, fine and ready to work at peak efficiency.  One can only imagine the number of time she was stealthily whisked to doctor’s offices and hospitals, times about which we’ll never know, yet surely occurred.  When she finally died at 87, the ravages of cancer were plain to see, etched into her skeletal face and frail body.

If she wanted to be replaced by another anti-constitution justice, she could easily have retired, at 80 or so, during the Obama Administration, when D/S/Cs held the Senate.  Yet she did not.  Surely she, her family, and her D/S/C supporters and enablers knew it unlikely she would survive four years of the Trump Administration, knew she would have to endure the ravages, the misery and soul-shredding pain of cancer and its final stages, even as she had to pretend to be well and fighting the good #resistance fight.

Much will be said about her glories, and her place in history is assured, but can anyone truly believe she was able to give to the court the energies and intellect it deserved, particularly in these final years and days when cancer relentlessly, finally overwhelmed her?  What service was that to the ideals of the law and our republic?

It’s hard to understate the cruelty involved, the willingness to sacrifice the last, even partly good days of life of an elderly woman for partisan political advantage.  But she was “the notorious RBG,” the invincible, hip Antifa/BLM/D/S/C warrior holding back the forces of darkness at the last outpost, even at the cost of a painful death.  She was, apparently, a true believer to the last.

What a tragedy her belief was not in our constitutional republic, but a D/S/C utopia where some animals are always more equal than others, and everyone—except the self-imagined elite—share in the misery.

There are lessons to be learned here.  Let us pray enough Americans learn the right ones.