Image 01 Image 03

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Passes Away at 87

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Passes Away at 87

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

The Supreme Court confirmed Friday evening that Justice Ginsburg passed away at 87 of complications with pancreas cancer.

NPR reports:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the demure firebrand who in her 80s became a legal, cultural and feminist icon, died Friday. The Supreme Court announced her death, saying the cause was complications from metastatic cancer of the pancreas.

The court, in a statement, said Ginsburg died at her home in Washington surrounded by family. She was 87.

“Our nation has lost a justice of historic stature,” Chief Justice John Roberts said. “We at the Supreme Court have lost a cherished colleague. Today we mourn but with confidence that future generations will remember Ruth Bader Ginsburg as we knew her, a tired and resolute champion of justice.”

…Architect of the legal fight for women’s rights in the 1970s, Ginsburg subsequently served 27 years on the nation’s highest court, becoming its most prominent member. Her death will inevitably set in motion what promises to be a nasty and tumultuous political battle over who will succeed her, and it thrusts the Supreme Court vacancy into the spotlight of the presidential campaign.

Just days before her death, as her strength waned, Ginsburg dictated this statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera: “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

She knew what was to come. Ginsburg’s death will have profound consequences for the court and the country. Inside the court, not only is the leader of the liberal wing gone, but with the Court about to open a new term, Chief Justice John Roberts no longer holds the controlling vote in closely contested cases.

[WAJ adds] Ginsburg was liberals’ Scalia. She was that important intellectually and in her public presence to them as Antonin Scalia was to us. She was a giant, and I hope that we can treat her death and memory with the respect liberals disregarded when reacting to the death of Scalia.

The fight over her replacement is going to be vicious and reshapes the presidential election in ways that are hard to predict.

Flashback to our prior posts about filling a vacancy this year, Republicans gearing up to fill possible Supreme Court vacancy this election year, and why it would not be inconsistent with Republicans’ position on Merrick Garland.



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Early October surprise

May she rest in peace.

That is sort of suspicious. Plus her death bed quote of wanting to be replaced post election.

MoeHowardwasright | September 18, 2020 at 7:54 pm

My condolences to her family. A happy day for those who cherish the constitution! Welcome to the coming war. If you thought Justice Kavanaugh’s confirmation was brutal. The upcoming battle will remind many historians of Guadalcanal.

    It’s not going to be peaceful, but opposition forces also aren’t going to have very many tools to use against the nominee.

    – It’s almost certainly going to be a woman, so that disarms many, or any, possible sexual harassment angles.

    – Being a woman, the RINO female Senators are going to have a harder time coming up with reasons to vote against her.

    – At least one leading female nominee has been confirmed by the Senate in the fairly recent past (Barrett), so it would be difficult for GOP Senators to switch their votes without VERY good reason.

    I say Trump should nominate Amy Coney Barrett tomorrow, and McConnell should start the hearings Monday, before the left can muster it’s shock troops to the area. Vote by Wednesday, done.

Replace her now!

This could have a huge effect on the presidential election should it go to SCOTUS as the liberal wing with one fewer guaranteed vote can hope for nothing more than a 4-4 split if John Roberts sides with them and considering that Roberts worries about the courts image would hate such a decision. That says to me that Roberts is likely to rule in President Trump’s favor just to have a clear decision.

    dystopia in reply to CountMontyC. | September 18, 2020 at 8:07 pm

    Good analysis. Roberts is a political functionary. He is not a man guided by core beliefs.

    A 4-4 split does not help when trying to overturn a liberal appellate decision.

      CountMontyC in reply to Rick. | September 18, 2020 at 9:16 pm

      My point is that Roberts will not want a 4-4 decision and should the SCOTUS need to make any rulings on the presidential election that Roberts will side with the conservatives to ensure a 5-3 ruling so as to protect the courts image.

        rabidfox in reply to CountMontyC. | September 19, 2020 at 1:13 am

        Why do you think he’d side with the conservatives? He hasn’t in the past.

          CountMontyC in reply to rabidfox. | September 19, 2020 at 5:54 am

          To protect the courts image. Siding with the liberals at best creates a 4-4 ruling that will be viewed negatively for generations as essentially an abdication of responsibility for not being decisive. The way to avoid that would be to side with the conservatives and make it a 5-3 decision

        Protect the courts image? Like protecting a whore house’s image

The Friendly Grizzly | September 18, 2020 at 8:02 pm

“… until a new President is installed.

Very telling.

    It may be very telling in another way. Do you think Ginsberg, a Supreme Court justice, would have used that language, “installed” rather than more proper terminology like “seated”?

    Additionally, as a justice she would have known better than to make such a politically-charged statement, even if couched in more correct language.

    Methinks she made no such utterance; it is a fabrication. Based, no doubt, on her known sentiments, but not for the record and unlikely to have been stated in the way presented.

      Whitewall in reply to DaveGinOly. | September 18, 2020 at 9:32 pm

      Trump will put forward a nominee but the person will not get enough R votes to be confirmed. No Dem will vote to confirm. What nominee will want to go through hell only to lose? Only a “throw away”.

      DaveGinOly, it has the same feel as the paul wellstone funeral. Using a death to promote a political position usually doesn’t resonate with most people. We’re in a political war. The Republicans need to step up and get this confirmation through, no excuses.

      snopercod in reply to DaveGinOly. | September 19, 2020 at 8:23 am

      Almost certainly a fabrication. RGB’s granddaughter Clara was the only person who heard her “dying wish”. Clara is a lawyer and abortion rights activist who has publicly warned progressives that SCOTUS is trying to take away abortion rights. The “dying wish” is a stunt and fake news.

      BTW, we very much need a quick Trump appointment, short hearing session and a quick call for a vote if for no other reason, we need to know BEFORE the elections if those Republican RINOs will again sell us out. They are usually the ones saving the day for the Democrats when they things look bad by snatching Republican defeat out of the jaws victory on the goal line.

      I’ll be taking bets on how many of these swamp rats withhold their votes on the grounds of “fair play” or to “allow the voters to weigh in” or some other lame excuse.

    True to form, even her last words dishonor the Constitution.

    The key distinction is whether she means “new president” to mean the next president not named Trump? I think she probably meant January 2021. That way, there is a chance that Trump won’t be making the choice. Or that the Dems will retake the Senate.

    I wonder if this helps GOP hold the Senate or energizes the Dem voters enough to show up and vote?

With respect to the late Justice, may she rest in peace, her dying wish should have no influence over the nomination of a successor. This is a decision for the President and the Senate, and historical precedent is on their side.

I want to think that it’s not true she said that, because if she did say it, it would be an act of despicable political hackery, not the words of a Constitution-loving jurist.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Exiliado. | September 18, 2020 at 8:06 pm

    Who says she loved the Constitution?

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | September 18, 2020 at 8:14 pm

      She loved the South African Constitution.

        The Friendly Grizzly in reply to ThePrimordialOrderedPair. | September 18, 2020 at 8:25 pm

        I’m wondering why you say that. It is not a rhetorical question. Please, explain.

          Justice Ginsburg was well known for her willingness to consider foreign law and constitutions in her jurisprudence. In this specific case, I recall her telling a group in another country to look at South Africa’s constitution, rather than the US’s.

          Well known interview she suggested upon being questioned if she was to be advising a country on a constitution she would suggest the South African as a model.

          In 2012, after Egypt’s government was unseated and the Egyptians were preparing to write a new constitution, Ginsburg was interviewed on an Arabic-language television station. Here is what she said the Egyptians should do:

          “You should certainly be aided by all the constitution writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa — that was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recently than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. So, yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”

          So she suggested since there is new stuff, why not look at it? The Constitution follows the Declaration of Independence, hand-in-glove. This is what President Coolidge said about that Declaration…
          “About the Declaration, there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning cannot be applied to this great charter.

          If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.”

          The French Revolution followed ours. The constitutions she mentions are not ours. I would suspect that just being newer only makes them newer, and closer examination would make me glad for our Constitution.

        I don’t remember the decision, but she indicated that foreign law should help inform SCOTUS jurisprudence.

Just when you think this year couldn’t get any more interesting.

We need to put a strong constitutionalist on the court now – no delay.

    DaveGinOly in reply to VaGentleman. | September 18, 2020 at 8:44 pm

    The Dems are obviously going to make a big deal about Trump trying to seat Ginsburg’s replacement before an election, or even after an election loss (looking less and less likely, if it ever did). The reply to such criticism should be, “Look, you guys plan to pack the court the next time you have the power, so what are you complaining about?”

    The Dem’s solution to most of their political problems is “change the rules.”

      caseoftheblues in reply to DaveGinOly. | September 19, 2020 at 1:54 am

      Actually the rulings the Dems just got assure they will be able to steal MI and PA..they are egregious and will absolutely be used to cheat …they are designed to allow them to. They will get similar rulings in a dozen more states… the GOP will do nothing. The Dems are willing to destroy the economy and country over a hyped up virus and burn down major cities so anyone who thinks they will have any qualms about manufacturing hundreds of thousands of votes isn’t paying attention. (Sorry about down votw… was just trying to hit reply)

        HImmanuelson in reply to caseoftheblues. | September 19, 2020 at 4:21 am

        That “hyped up virus” just killed 200,000 people and is on track to kill another 200,000 by early next year.

        But ignoring that, what do you mean about rulings allowing the Dems to steal the vote in MI and other states?

          And with the recent revelations of over-reporting and manipulation of “coding” for reimbursements, etc., you take these numbers as facts? And even if so, how do your numbers compare to the number of deaths due to the flu in a typical year? And have you analyzed the number of deaths from other diseases in the past month to see how they compare to past years (i.e. are less people dying from this or that disease because they are conveniently being counted as COVID deaths)?

          Things like no postmark date on the mailed in ballot and no signature match required. It really is that obvious. (Incidentally, a very long delayed or crooked result will likely be very bad for the stock market.)

          DaveGinOly in reply to HImmanuelson. | September 22, 2020 at 12:56 am

          Yes, “hyped up.” I’ve lived through two previous pandemics and am old enough to remember the second (I was 12), although I have no memory of it at all. I asked my mother a few days ago “What do you recall of the 1968 pandemic?” She didn’t remember there being a pandemic. That particular pandemic killed 100,000 Americans when the country’s population was two thirds of what it is today. You could reply that the current pandemic is more deadly on a per capita basis, and you would be correct. But you would miss my point. At the time the ’68 pandemic was happening, nobody knew that the the death count would stop at 100,000, yet there was no panic, no 24/7 news coverage, no lock down, no masks, no social distancing, and people were generally unaware there was a pandemic at all. What was missing? Why wasn’t there panic? Hype. That’s what was missing. Government and the MSM weren’t hyping the pandemic. Years later, most can’t even recall it.

          So yes, the current pandemic is being hyped.

She’s been dying for over a year now. She almost got past the election.

The Friendly Grizzly | September 18, 2020 at 8:09 pm

Over at Citizen Free Press there is an article about her. There is a picture of a quite pretty young woman. Dear me. If thsy IS her, she was – in my view- a looker.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | September 18, 2020 at 8:12 pm

“Our nation has lost a justice of historic stature,” Chief Justice John Roberts said.

She was an America-hating commie. That’s why Benedict Roberts has a soft-spot in his heart for her. They were fellow travelers.

Roberts isn’t a commie but he’s got that America-hating part down pat.

    RBG was Scalia’s closest colleague on the court. They didn’t agree on much in the constitution, but I’m certain he did not see her as an “America-hating commie”.

      tom_swift in reply to JeromeF. | September 18, 2020 at 8:18 pm

      Really? I thought Scalia’s big chum was Kagan.

        Scalia and Ginsburg were close friends. They went to the opera together quite often.

          Close The Fed in reply to Phineas Fahrquar. | September 18, 2020 at 8:41 pm

          I would not be friends with someone working to destroy the country.

          In his excellent memoir “My Grandfather’s Son”, Clarence Thomas had very kind words for her. She was among the first to greet him on his first day on the court and Thomas has very kind words for her. The book isn’t cross-referenced and I don’t have time to find it, but it made an impression on me.

          Everything I’ve read about her tells me she was a kind, decent, thoughtful person and enjoyable company. I isn’t necessary to assassinate people’s character just because we disagree with them. Hillary is an evil repulsive human being. RGB certainly was not.

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to JeromeF. | September 18, 2020 at 8:19 pm

      Maybe not, but it’s pretty clear that she is. There is nothing in the American Constitution that she likes or respects. Not a thing. Her decisions were among the most predictable ever on the Court – anything that hurt America or go against the Constitution would get her vote. She had the mental agility and reasoning capabilities of a small otter.

      Close The Fed in reply to JeromeF. | September 19, 2020 at 10:35 am

      With all due respect, Ruth acted to permit legalized vivisection of babies.

      Perhaps Scalia could live with that. Personally, I wouldn’t have given her the time of day.

      I’m on the right, but I have the instincts of the left. Unperson her.

A tiny left wing powerhouse. One for the ages. Rest In Peace.

Let’s just take the election nonsense the Dems have pulled already and turn it up to 11.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair | September 18, 2020 at 8:16 pm

Laura Bassett

If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots.

LOL. As opposed to the ongoing riots and insurrection we’ve been having for months?

I’ll chance the new riots …

Political to the very end.

Morning Sunshine | September 18, 2020 at 8:19 pm

ding dong the witch is dead.

Not nice, maybe. But neither was she to the American Constitution.

My condolences to her family; losing a loved one is always hard. I wish that they had had more time to spend with her in her last years.

Sorry, not going to play along with this. She was a disaster, the best operative the Borg Collective ever managed to implant into the government, and pretending otherwise is just an offense against the study of history.

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

What? She expects Trump to keep her seat vacant until 2025?

Trump needs to nominate and McConnell needs to ram through. After all there are no Obama judges or Trump judges.

A very liberal friend of mine, who is also a professor of law at a top-20 law school, is already promoting the idea of packing the court with four more justices if Trump get someone as a replacement for RBG.

    That may be in the offing anyway.

      Yes, and it’s something that has to be included in the political calculation.

      If McConnell pushes through a replacement before the election and it outrages enough people to swing the result to the Dems, they’ll pack the court and it won’t matter that we got another conservative justice.

      If Trump decides to announce his nominee, asks the people to approve it via the election, and then loses, we’d also end up with a Democrat-controlled court.

      The only way to avoid a Democrat-controlled court is to win the election.

      So, to that end, how serious is the risk of outrage over rushing through a nominee? How likely is it that another conservative vote will be needed for a favorable SCOTUS decision breaking an election deadlock?

      It is more important than ever to do what we can to ensure that Trump and his team have a realistic estimate of the level of support he can expect, so he can make the right decision. I.e., it’s time for the Silent Majority to speak up!

    trubtastic in reply to Ann in L.A.. | September 18, 2020 at 8:56 pm

    I’ll take 5 more Ted Cruz’s.

      Cruz doesn’t want it, and I don’t think Trump was serious about nominating him anyway. That was just trying to get die-hard Cruz fans on board the re-election train. This nominee will, for reasons already discussed by others, undoubtedly be a female. I just hope he picks one who doesn’t suddenly decide she wants to be buddies with Sotomayor and Kagan.

      Cruz would be a wonderful Supreme Court Justice. But, he does not want it and we need him in politics. would be a nightmare with 2 senate seats in play in Texas.

    HImmanuelson in reply to Ann in L.A.. | September 19, 2020 at 4:30 am

    That would pretty much destroy the Supreme Court; the Dems will pack it and next the Republicans will when they gain power. And then the Dems and the Republicans again and again until there are more Supreme Court justices than members of congress. Whatever party is in power will automatically get a majority of Supreme Court justices thus making the Supreme Court as dysfunctional as the House.

    You’d think the Dems might have learned something from their earlier efforts in the Senate with the nuclear option and how it came back to burn them. Apparently not.

Thoughts and prayers for Justice Ginsberg and her family.

Elephant in the room: replacement?

Trump made updates to his list of potential nominees.

Political maneuvering in full Senate and more importantly with the r Senate majority constrain Trumps choice as does the timeframe.

Best guess:
1. Female selection to attempt to placate false sensibilities about not replacing/filling ‘Ginsberg’ seat with a man.

2. Female ‘of color’ in an attempt to mitigate the hatchet job coming for the nominee.

3. This combination allows Trump Admin to hit back with some judo; ‘why do you oppose a woman of color’ and the like.

What potential nominee from the list fits the bill?
Judge Barbara Lagoa from 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

What else do I know about her? Jack squat,other than her bio.

This tells us a good deal about the state of the nation. We have to play identity politics with nominees v simple judicial philosophy and professional accomplishments.

    DaveGinOly in reply to CommoChief. | September 18, 2020 at 9:56 pm

    A lot of good Clarence Thomas’s skin color did him.

    CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | September 18, 2020 at 10:00 pm


    Down voting doesn’t change the facts of our current climate. I didn’t create the extreme partisanship. I would prefer that we not have extreme partisanship.

    I will not unilaterally disarm. The d opposition certainly won’t either.

    If the r Senate majority refuses to advance any nominee the President puts forward that is a problem on several levels.

    First the senate is required to give its advice and consent to a nominee’s fitness via a vote, not simply refuse to give consent for a vote for any/every nominee.

    Secondly the senate, if it pursues a path of intransigent refusal to meet it’s obligations, is attempting to prevent the POTUS from exercising his obligations.

    A SCOTUS vacancy exists. The POTUS gets to make a nomination and the Senate gets a vote to express their advice and consent.

    There isn’t an exception for the Orange man. There isn’t an exception for ‘but that’s RGB seat’. There isn’t an exception for ‘wait till the presidential elections are over.

    The term and powers of office begin when inaugurated and end upon inauguration of the next Presidential term. To suggest otherwise is to remove the ability of a sitting President for the next four months.

    Will the HoR and Senate adjourn since they may not wish POTUS to exercise the powers of his office? Will the judiciary halt all actions until after inauguration day? No they won’t.

    If the r Senate majority ‘own goals’ themselves…. Look POTUS didn’t decide that Ginsburg had to stay on the court. Ginsburg declined multiple entreaties, rumored, to step down when Obama was President. She decided not to. Ginsburg probably should have stepped down earlier in the year when it was becoming painfully obvious her health was rapidly declining. She declined to do so.

    Instead she, courageously gambled that she could hold on until after the election and inaugural in hope that a Biden win would allow her replacement to be made by a d.

    She and her allies lost her politically motivated gamble. Now it’s time for payment and her allies don’t want to shell out.

    That is a very crass but very accurate summary of the situation. Wishing it were not doesn’t make it less true.

      I rarely downvote (didn’t downvote you there), we are here to discuss, exchange, debate etc. We’re in a war. So far the GOP has been on the defensive. The political aspect of this war is the democrats/leftists/msm fighting against the Constitution and they have been at it for decades. 2016, PDJT, MAGA, made the war go hot after the geore floyd incident once the left realized they were on track to lose 2020. The courts, including the SCOTUS has been the last refuge of the left. Their ideas never win the day, so they rely on activist judges like RBG to carry their water. Using their own rules against them are good, but at this point it’s time to break out the IDGAF Bomb. Put the best, Constitutional originalist up for nomination and ignore the Kavanaugh drama, shut that sh!+ down on day one.

        CommoChief in reply to CKYoung. | September 18, 2020 at 10:59 pm


        If only it was that easy. Realistically the squish r in the Senate will have to be catered to and egos stroked etc. That’s if we can get a nominee out of the Judiciary committee to a simple up or down floor vote.

        If we had a serviceable bomb to deploy I would agree, IMO we don’t. We have a unit that will work only under certain conditions. Not defeatism that is recognizing the bitter reality of the circumstances.

        Hope for the best under the circumstances. We should be prepared for a failed nomination.

        lichau in reply to CKYoung. | September 19, 2020 at 9:54 am

        It isn’t so much that the GOP is on the defensive ; it is they don’t recognize that we are in a war.

    No placating, no fooling around.
    White guy. Mean as heck. Constitutional law believer.
    The constitution as a dead document, chiseled in stone and stained with blood.

Expect the full force of the left to attempt to intimidate anyone and everyone into not replacing her until after the election.

The rioting we’ve seen so far this year may be just the opening act.

    jb4 in reply to irv. | September 18, 2020 at 10:47 pm

    I consider that good for Trump. Many people are sick and tired of the rioting and increase in violence and Pelosi’s belated comment today shows it is hitting their polling.

Democrats threatening riots over this? That’s a good one. Get ready for all hell to break loose. This may cause Democrats to reach the final and most dangerous phase of TDS. Careful out there.

Worried Romney, Collins and Murkowski will stop a new appointment to screw Trump…and the U.S. over.

An Ace of Spades commenter said it best:

yeah, it’s not up to you, lady.
SCOTUS is not a “make a wish” program.

In response to Schumer-
Trump won the election. The did speak.
He has every right to nominate now, and the senate should approve.

that pig’s body is actually warming in rigor mortis.

Trump will not have the votes, and that may weigh on his decision. He might have to accept that he can’t win this. Since he is confident he will win he can justify a delay until after the election. He can say who he will appoint, and appeal to his base why he should be re-elected. He can let the people decide. He is actually a democrat.

On the other hand, he can push the Democrats into hysteria, yet risk pushing the public against him, especially when there is violence. If he beats Biden, it’s academic. Public opinion will likely be against this, but Trump must figure a way to use it to his advantage.

    No. Trump nominates. It’s up to the Senate.

    Trump nominates. Mitch pushes.
    The Dems will do two things: Overplay their hand (riots, a hand already overplayed, but they have learned nothing, as they never do) and beclown themselves (e.g. the Kavanaugh hearings). This will play well for Trump before the election. The shenanigans will only play with an ever-shrinking pool of Dem supporters who weren’t going to vote for Trump anyway.

    The fact that it’s election season just means Trump will pick his nominee based on electoral advantage.

    What happens if he nominates Judge Janice Rogers Brown, for example?

Wow. Just wow.

This was a BINGO bonus ball that no one was expecting to pop up.

RIP to Justice Ginsburg.

I can’t wait to see the firestorm over Trumps pick. I think Trump will pick for campaign reasons but the actual vote will come after the election.

I can see the weak RINO’s already starting to buckle and refuse to cooperate.

“My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”
My most fervent wish is you had died back in 2017.

I pray God’s comfort for her family; His love and grace for the justice; and there remains sufficient humanity to keep rancor in check while her family buries her.

Trump needs to nominate a replacement and McConnell needs to take it up. Nature will just have to take its course as far as confirmation is concerned, but the last thing we need is a 4-4 court when we know that the left is going to litigate the election unless they manage to steal the preidency with cheating alone.

McConnell has put out a statement, that a nominee will get a vote.

McConnell just released a statement that Trump’s nominee will get a vote on the floor in the Senate.

ScottTheEngineer | September 18, 2020 at 9:36 pm

Just saw a headline on youtube. “Watch Fox news for continuing Live coverage of Ruth Bader Ginsberg.”
I thought that was kind of funny.

She wanted to rewrite the meaning of the 2nd amendment and was an avid supporter of baby killing. Straight to hell.

So does this count as the proof of life we’ve been asking for for a year?

I will not be a hypocrite and offer respect for the deceased Justice. The time is now to face what Ginsburg was: a moral monster who used the intelligence and power she was given to commit crimes and pervert justice. She ignored the cries of the weak and helpless while strengthens the greedy and powerful. She let the guilt go free while seeking to destroy the innocent.

Even on her deathbed it seems Ginsburg displayed no contrition for the death and suffering she caused. Instead, with almost her dying breath she succeeded in injecting even more of her poison and hate into our already suffering constitutional republic. No remorse, no regrets, no sorrow – just a demonic snarl of rage and impotence. All of her wealth and power and privilege were not enough to allow her to cheat Death the way she had cheated untold millions out of justice and even their lives.

    Vicious and brutal, but 100% spot-on.

    Now vicious and brutal are necessary to signal the seriousness and single-minded focus with which we plan to confront our national adversaries. They’re past and recent commissions of incivility and lawlessness, and omissions of duty and decency, merit our posture.

    Thus, we are not being gratuitously unkind, but appropriately so.

    Too bad, then, Dems, we’re not going to fall on our swords as you’d like or even expect us to do. You want to destroy us and all liberty and justice? Come and try. And don’t bring a knife; it’ll be a gunfight, so help us God.

    (I guess this is where yesterday’s and tomorrow’s disagreements, altercations, and full-throated certainties of incompatibility are leading us all, inexorably: Civil War 2.0; disunion and divorce.

    (Bring it on, then. And “conquer, we must, for our cause, it is just. And this be our motto, In God is our trust.”)

She is now meeting the babies that she helped abort. That is assuming she made it to heaven.

    Not a chance.

    [email protected]
    She is now meeting the babies that she helped abort. That is assuming she made it to heaven.”

    That would be gross assumption indeed. There are sins which cry out to heaven for vengeance, and her support of abortion certainly qualifies. I think the New Testament story about a rich man who despised a beggar, and went to hell. He saw the beggar in the Bosom of Abraham, while he was in torment. While we cannot say with certitude, I would guess she has given little reason to suspect her of getting to heaven. She despised objective truth.

    My bet is that Moloch is showing her the sights and helping her settle in – but it is a bit lower and hotter than heaven.

ScottTheEngineer | September 18, 2020 at 9:54 pm

“[WAJ adds] Ginsburg was liberals’ Scalia. She was that important intellectually and in her public presence to them as Antonin Scalia was to us. She was a giant, and I hope that we can treat her death and memory with the respect liberals disregarded regarding when reacting to the death of Scalia.”

Sorry Prof. Hitler was Germanys’ FDR. I think RBG might have a higher body count.

    1. It would be respectful to wait until after the funeral to announce his choice.
    2. If he *says* he’s going to wait until after the funeral, the family of RGB will have the funeral in the middle of November, so this is a good time for him to remain quiet.
    3. This is Trump. He doesn’t do quiet.

    Next week will be a fascinating display of the Dem’s strategy, i.e. how to spit as much venom as possible while pretending to be innocent and pure.

      “It would be respectful to wait until after the funeral to announce his choice.”

      No, it wouldn’t. There is no reason to wait. It’s not disrespect to announce the nominee. It’s per the constitution.

      The left, who hold multiple gold casket funerals for recidivist felons, deserve no such waiting. If the left knew PDJT would wait, they would delay RBG’s funeral indefinitely. The democrats/left play by no rules, we absolutely need not abide by theirs. F ’em.

      sestamibi in reply to georgfelis. | September 19, 2020 at 1:02 am

      Under Jewish law, the funeral has to take place within 24 hours, although that might not wash because tomorrow is not only shabbas, but also Rosh Hashanah. So most likely Monday.

        ScottTheEngineer in reply to sestamibi. | September 19, 2020 at 9:11 am

        What takes precedence? I never thought about that before. Is it more important to take a day off or bury her within 24 Hours. Good question for Dennis Prager.

Gateway Pundit has a twitter embed of President Trump being told she died and commenting to reporters.

Time to publish Jeff’s little black book. That oughta “temper” some of the important personalities, going into this new opportunity to do some things and make some change.

Mmm, mmm, mmm. I feel their pain. Still, wouldn’t want to miss an opportunity.

First, RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg, I did pray for her and her family. Now. The voters choose a POTUS in 2016, we don’t need to wait until after November 3 to fill the SCOTUS vacancy. PDJT isn’t only Constitutionally authorized to fill the seat, he has an obligation to do so at this point. We can not have a contested 2020 Presidential election (100% it will be contested by the democrats) with a possible 4-4 SCOTUS. That’s a recipe for disaster. The left is losing everything. Threatening to riot if PDJT fills the seat? Sorry, your george floyd riots have negated the power of that threat. RGB didn’t retire under obamba because everyone thought hillary was going to win. She lost, now they all lose.

As long as the nominee gets a vote then ok. If the Senate chooses not to confirm the nominee for whatever reason that’s fine as well.

What d and squish r must come to understand is this; the nominee in the current climate will likely be made with factors such as ‘it’s Ginsburg’s seat’, must be a woman, it’s a ‘liberal seat’ replacement can’t be too strict a conservative, the election is only weeks away ….

Should Trump nomination be defeated or if Trump waits until post election and is reelected then those sensibilities go out the window.

A reelected Trump would have complete freedom to nominate whomever he chooses and rightly expect overwhelming vote for confirmation.

Recall, for a moment that serving on SCOTUS doesn’t require a law degree.

Now watch heads explode for Justice Ric Grenell.

    ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to CommoChief. | September 18, 2020 at 10:34 pm

    Now watch heads explode for Justice Ric Grenell

    That would be awesome.

    Yea, two thumbs up for that one.

    CommoChief, I think a lose/lose is coming to the democrats. PDJT is so many moves ahead of the dems, it’s almost like he has gamed this out far in advance (he has). The dems spent all their political capital on Justice Kavanaugh, the riots and just about everything else they’ve done since 2016 (and before).

From what I understand, Trump has a *published* list of Supreme Court nominee candidates, so the decision on which one to nominate has most probably already been made behind the scenes. This would be an excellent time for some reporter to ask Biden who he would nominate if he had the chance. Either Biden will waffle, or he will name somebody way off the wall.

She must have realized she wouldn’t make it to 2025.

    Barry Soetoro in reply to Dusty Pitts. | September 18, 2020 at 11:55 pm

    She was so sure Clinton would win in ’16. She died knowing Biden will win in November, and her anti-American fellow travelers will usurp authority to delay the nomination of her replacement until after January 20.

She’ll be reincarnated as a baby who undergoes a partial-birth abortion, and she’ll get stuck in a Groundhog day loop. Over and over again. ,

I rejoice in the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

    guyjones in reply to BillyHW. | September 18, 2020 at 11:23 pm

    Well, “rejoice” is a bit strong. I’d rejoice at the death of an evil person — a Castro, Mao or Pol Pot. Ginsburg was deeply flawed and misguided, but, not evil. That said, I won’t miss Ginsburg’s narcissistic, contrived and unprincipled (from a Textualist, non-“activist” standpoint) jurisprudence; that’s for damn sure.

    I also won’t miss her enthusiastic embrace of the ridiculous “RBG” persona and attendant fan worship. This is a key distinction that separates most conservatives from Dhimmi-crats — we respect our politicians and judges, but, we don’t deify or idolize them. The Dhimmi-crats really do view their apparatchiks and judges as secular deities.

      Barry Soetoro in reply to guyjones. | September 18, 2020 at 11:58 pm

      Your outlook is seriously flawed if you don’t regard Ginsburg’s corruption of justice as evil.

      Every marxist is evil and Ginsburg was a marxist.

      Arminius in reply to guyjones. | September 19, 2020 at 1:19 am

      “…Ginsburg was deeply flawed and misguided, but, not evil.”

      How do you know, guy?

      None of us have any way of knowing.

      Again, I’m not going to dance on her grave. But I’m not going to say things about her that I don’t know or suspect to be true. The good thing for her is I’m not her judge. I do really hope God has mercy on her soul (if she can avoid hell and gain entry into His presence the rest of us have a practical guarantee). And I have no insight into the condition of her soul. That’s between her and God, who she clearly rejected.

      That isn’t speaking ill of the dead. It’s how she proudly wanted it when she was alive.

The Presidential debate at the end of the month has just gotten even more interesting. Biden can probably not avoid coming up with some kind of list now.

If only Janice Rogers Brown was a few decades younger…

Look back to Ms Ginsburg’s confirmation hearings, she sailed through with a 96 to 3 vote. Even though she was the most liberal jurist to date, (she maintained that distinction for most of her tenure), the republicans believe in giving the President his due. Not so much the dems, they will destroy careers, ruin reputations and use every dirty trick in the books. Not only for Supreme Court nominees but for anything in the political arena they can’t get through legal processes, (which is most things). Oh and RIP

    Barry Soetoro in reply to mrtea. | September 19, 2020 at 12:03 am

    An example of Republicans shirking their duty. Ginsburg was never qualified, as a law interpreted in anything other than an originalist context is no law at all.

Well, now she’s a good communist.

With Democrats overtly threatening post-election rioting, election tampering, and litigation, Republicans have no choice but to ensure a ninth justice is seated before the resulting cases hit the highest court. Democrats have painted themselves into a corner even a Biden victory in November can’t get them out of.

Stacy Abrams gas nominated herself to fill the position

I’m not going to dance on her grave like lefty Brits did when Margaret Thatcher died. I’m also not going to lie and pay any respects beyond what I feel are warranted. Remember the Wellstone funeral which turned into a socialist rally when a few Republicans were stupid enough to show up?

All I will say is I hope with all my heart that God has mercy on her soul. I don’t wish hell on anyone.

It is also my fervent desire that she does not get her dying wish what what will happen in this world. She had her chance to time her departure and retire while Obama could have picked her replacement.

She didn’t think she’d die this soon. Such vanity carries a price.

Liz Wheeler astutely observes:

“FYI the so-called McConnell rule does not apply to SCOTUS nominations during an election year when the Senate & the presidency are held by the same party. The “but… but… Merrick Garland” comparison is false because in 2016 Obama held the WH & the GOP held the Senate.”

But there’s an even more important reason why the Biden rule doesn’t apply. In 2016 Obama was a lame duck President. He was finishing his second term, and no matter what he was not going to be President the following year.

DJT is not a lame duck President and stands an excellent chance of being President for the next four years.

“My most fervent wish is…”

That’s nice dear. The thing is, you’re no longer driving the car so what you want, is irrelevant.

Leave it to Ginsburg to politicize her own death.

On the human side, her passing is personal to her family and friends.

However: the two oaths she swore to:

Number one:

“I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

Number two:

Appointees to the Supreme Court Bench must not only take the oath listed above, but a second oath. This statement is called The Judicial Oath. The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the federal judiciary. The Act set the number of Supreme Court Justices at six (five Associate Justices and one Chief Justice). It also mandated that for the Supreme Court Justices to begin serving, they must swear a second Oath of Office. The original text of this was:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, under the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Her betray:

Ginsburg Defends Using Foreign Courts as Persuasive Authority:

Dead, not dead – so long as she is gone.

If they want to go with identity politics…..Conde….

No pity for communists here:

We hear of Her ”dying fervent wish .. after the election”, yeah right, anonymous portentous quote we are to kowtow to, crap sandwich.

Commissar Ginsburg legally defined females as a special class of beings with vaginas and wombs, who could kill anything growing in their wombs as a result of the careless use of their vaginas, even though the thing in the womb was a new human being and when born would be a citizen of the USA.

Before the new citizen was born, the female, with a medical accomplice, could murder the ”pregnancy flesh” even immediately after the citizen exited the birth canal–a woman has a right to her body product but no man who contributed the sperm has any right, not even to stop the murder of a future citizen.

Comrade Ruth valued the female vagina, but not the fruit of the womb, and her legal opinions destroyed millions of humans, and USA citizens. May she meet their spirits on the way to her tomb.

    Well put. However, decades worth of those murdered future citizens, by virtue of the weight of abortions toward Blacks, would have voted Hillary into office had there never been abortion. Much as abortion is an evil practice, that is an irony worth savoring from time to time.

Be very suspicious of Amy Coney Barrett. While she would be great on prolife issues, her devout Catholicism is of the Pope Francis variety, that is, Marxist on everything else. I hope Trump will look elsewhere in filling this. My choice would be Don Willet.

    GatorGuy in reply to sestamibi. | September 20, 2020 at 6:02 pm

    Kurt Schlichter’s choice, too. Don Willett would be an excellent nominee; he or Barbara Lagoa.

    Remember, though, there’s a battle AND a war. If a nominee’s selection can insure more and even sufficient votes to help all our candidates to win, or at least a certain, critical state (viz, Florida), to be placed in the (R) column, that should be the Court nominee for us!

    Cynical, unideal? Maybe, but out of the realpolitik playbook — that’s nothing amoral; rather, just pragmatic. Better even, absolutely essential.

Hmm, surprised they did not claim it was Covid? Anyways, Trump is right, quite an accomplished career. Based on Jay’s foundation, she was at the peak. RIP.

buckeyeminuteman | September 19, 2020 at 4:51 am

Finally met a clump of cells she couldn’t kill. Good riddance.

Dems say that we have to wait until a new president is sworn in??? They mean the seat should be empty for over four years?

Mom always said “if you can’t say anything nice about someone, don’t say anything at all.” Ok. After having to listen to all the false and disgusting lies about my president for the last four years (he’s a Putin stooge; wants to have sex with his daughter, among many), I’ll shut up. But that doesn’t stop me from humming that catchy Wizard of Oz tune that begins with “Dong dong ….”.

For the dead we can do nothing but the burial.
To the dead we owe nothing but the truth.

And the truth will not be kind to Justice Ginsburg.

Romney, Collins, Murkowski. That makes it 50 votes to confirm, with Pence breaking the tie. There are several TDS RINO’s with votes for sale.
Not looking good.

    GatorGuy in reply to lichau. | September 20, 2020 at 6:10 pm

    Agreed. With all my enthusiasm for the right nominee to succeed and be seated before the election, I’d deem it nothing less than a miracle if we can eke out 50 “yea”s to enable VP Pence’s tiebreaking vote.

good news to wake up to.
yup downvote all you want I don’t care.

Just because she wasn’t smart enough to retire when Obama was President, doesn’t mean that her replacement should be delayed. Especially considering the highly partisan nature of many of these state court rulings on cheat-by-mail.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a brilliant lawyer and an amazing woman. I did not agree with her politics, but I respected her courage, strength, and honesty. I will leave judgment to God; may she rest in peace.

And, reading this comment section, may God have mercy on us all. As a nation we have become so divided that we refuse to see the humanity of those we oppose. I am sickened and I have no idea how we can fix this.

    drednicolson in reply to Anonamom. | September 19, 2020 at 11:36 am

    We have no obligation to see humanity in those who forfeit it.

    Arminius in reply to Anonamom. | September 20, 2020 at 1:13 am

    This comment may have not been directed at me but I am obligated to respond. First, the line between good and evil runs through every human heart. If I see evil in another person I’m not denying their humanity. I’m acknowledging my own, given I know what I could be tempted to do if someone took the leash entirely off.

    Regarding RBG specifically, I don’t see how she was in any way brilliant or courageous. In reverse order, I read after she married her husband Martin in 1954 he had two years of obligatory military service which they spent at Fort Sill OK. Then they were off to Harvard law school where Martin was later diagnosed with testicular cancer. While he was sick, and seriously the bio presented this as an example of her courage, “she took notes for the both of them.”

    Huh? Wuh? I’m sorry, but come at me again. Does the written word wear out faster if more than one person reads it? This is bad news for public libraries which still exist (I actually know and use several near me as I can’t possibly buy all the books I’m interested in). Have I developed some superhuman power so that my laser-like gaze consumes whatever I’m reading in hellfire? Unfortunately, no. I read it and I give it back and it’s good as new for the next person.

    I also shared my notes with sick classmates. It’s not more work to take notes for other people instead of just me. IT’S THE SAME AMOUNT OF WORK!! And assuming the people I let read my notes don’t set my notebook on fire with lasers from their eyes I can read my notes again.

    “When Marty was diagnosed with testicular cancer, she attended classes and took notes for both of them. Even with the added responsibility, she was named to the Harvard Law Review.”

    Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Harvard Law back in 1954 allowed incoming students to take a wide variety of courses. Something tells me the options were limited. Be that as it may…

    I’m supposed to equate RBG’s note-taking with a Sailor whose leg is blown off and with his last breaths crawls to the nearest fire main valve to shut it off, so the redundant side of the system remains pressurized?

    Should you want I can go through various of her opinions that I might consider a good effort if written by a middle school student. Feel free to ask.

    I really do hope God has mercy on her soul. No lie.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | September 19, 2020 at 11:56 am

Dunning-Kruger Effect – Cognitive Bias –

Why Incompetent People Think They Are Competent