Supreme Silliness

Tuesday, July 12, AD 2016




Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal makes the best argument I have seen yet on behalf of Donald Trump:  to see the look on Justice Ginsburg’s face as President Trump nominates her successor:


Elderly, senile woman publicly humiliates herself:

Unless they have a book to sell, Supreme Court justices rarely give interviews. Even then, they diligently avoid political topics. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes a different approach.

These days, she is making no secret of what she thinks of a certain presidential candidate.

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

It reminded her of something her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, a prominent tax lawyer who died in 2010, would have said.

“‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,’” Justice Ginsburg said, smiling ruefully.

Even some of Ginsburg’s friends can’t believe that anyone would be that stupid.

I find it baffling actually that she says these things,” said Arthur Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. “She must know that she shouldn’t be. However tempted she might be, she shouldn’t be doing it.”

Similarly, Howard Wolfson, a former top aide to Hillary Clinton and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, said Ginsburg shouldn’t have said it.

And that’s really a key reason justices don’t talk like Ginsburg did. Sometimes they have to hear cases involving political issues and people. Having offered their unprompted opinions about such things can lead to questions about prejudice and potential recusal from future cases.

As [Jeff] Greenfield notes, Ginsburg was a part of the court that decided who the president was when the 2000 election was thrown to the Supreme Court, so this isn’t uncharted territory. Had she said something similar about either Bush or Al Gore, would she have been able to hear the case?

Louis Virelli is a Stetson University law professor who just wrote a book on Supreme Court recusals, titled “Disqualifying the High Court.” He said that “public comments like the ones that Justice Ginsburg made could be seen as grounds for her to recuse herself from cases involving a future Trump administration. I don’t necessarily think she would be required to do that, and I certainly don’t believe that she would in every instance, but it could invite challenges to her impartiality based on her public comments.”

Hellman said Ginsburg’s comments could muddy the waters when it comes to decisions not just involving Trump but also his policies — something that could come up regularly should he win the presidency.

“It would cast doubt on her impartiality in those decisions,” Hellman said. “If she has expressed herself as opposing the election of Donald Trump, her vote to strike down a Trump policy would be under a cloud.”

And did I happen to mention that the loopy old broad is a eugenics fan?

“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.”

Continue reading...

21 Responses to Supreme Silliness

  • In their heart, leftists are always narcissists. Of course she’s a eugenics fan. How could she not be? After all, she’s already been born.

  • Please don’t let Don the Kiwi see this post!

    It could ruin his day.

    If she DID move there….well it would be a boost for Liberty in America. GoFundMe campaign starting up to get her there…now!
    Sorry Kiwi Don.

  • From the Oliver Wendell Holmes “three generations of imbeciles are enough” school of legal theory.

  • British judges scrupulously avoid commenting on political matters, or current affairs in general.
    However, as a good number of them have been Members of Parliament and former Law Officers (Lord advocate or Solicitor-General in Scotland or Attorney-General of Solicitor-General in England & Wales), their political views are not difficult to guess.
    Perhaps for that reason, the only ground of disqualification is patrimonial interest on the part of the judge or a close relative. Judges have not infrequently had to rule on legislation they supported or opposed in the House of Commons.

  • She says out loud what so many other judges in this country think. I wonder if judges didn’t make a practice of concealing their controversial views if those three Iowa judges who brought gay “marriage” to Iowa or the ones in California would have gained office

  • A telling quote from Ginsburg in that meme above. It confirrms everything I have always known about liberal progressive Democrats – intolerate elitist racists and insanely genocidal to the core. Fathom that a nation which defeated Nazism has a Nazi like Ginsburg as a Justice on SCOTUS!

  • I wonder if her good friend Justice Scalia were still alive, if she would have said these outrageous statements in public.
    Another liberal Democrat woman channelling Margaret Sanger.

  • Eugenics has a long history in this nation. It went underground after WWII, but Sanger and her cohorts skillfully disguised their motives, with the help of the media, academia and entertainment.

    Ginsburg is a jackass. She hasn’t the brains of a woodchuck. She was promoted and moved up because he is a woman. Politics is the theater of the ugly-ugly ideas and ugly people, ugly for what they believe and ugly for what they want enacted.

  • Philip on Tuesday, July 12, A.D. 2016 at 5:53am
    “Please don’t let Don the Kiwi see this post!
    It could ruin his day”

    Haha. 😆

    Actually, this was the subject of a post yesterday on own own

    My comment there was that the USA would applaud her move. I’m sure you guys would be happy to get rid of an aging Lefty Liberal Progressive and transport her to the fringes of civilisation. Not that we need her here – we have too many homegrown lefties of our own. But the up side is, that she would have to migrate here with a minimum of $10 mil. dollars to invest and have adequate resources to support herself – no bludging on our national Superannuation.
    But it’s a bit cold at the moment – unless she like the cold and the big outdoors – we could shunt her down to the spectacular central Otago in the South Island. Alternative ly if she preferred the warmth, she could go up to the winterless north – Northalnd – where the beaches are fantastic, sparsely populated, by a large proprtion of our Maori people. Her liberal views would probably suit them – about 20% of the Northalnd economy is blackmarket green culture – if you get my drift.
    “Take another toke, Bro – cooool ” 🙂

  • In France, I do not suppose one person in a thousand could name a single member of the country’s supreme tribunals. Even among lawyers, they are virtually unknown.

    The fact that French courts deliver a single arrêt with no concurring or dissenting opinions and the baldest statement of the grounds (motifs) means that even the judges’ views on the cases they decide are known only to their colleagues. As a result, in their opinions and arguments, advocates rely far more on the views of jurists (la doctrine) than on decided cases (la jurisprudence). The teaching of the four great commentators on the Code Civil, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925). Gaudemet (1908-2001) and Carbonnier (1908–2003) enjoys the same sort of authority that a Supreme Court decision does in the US.

    This taste for anonymity characterises the French bureaucracy as a whole and this impersonal character of the administration is widely seen as a guarantee of impartiality and consistency. In fact, fonctionnaires or, as they are usually referred to, « La fonction publique » are generally respected, unlike politicians, who are held in great contempt.

  • Both Justices Ginsburg and Kagan should have recused themselves from the Obergefell gay marriage case since they had both presided over gay weddings at least a year before the case was heard. It rankles me that NO ONE mentioned this at the time. They didn’t judge the case; they merely voted. They’d made their minds up prior to the case being heard.

    Recall that Justice Thomas was hounded to recall himself from the Obama Care case because of his WIFE’S political activities.

  • Dennis DiMuzio.

    Great points.
    I forgot about the hounding of Thomas…your right on point.

    The left believe that they are untouchable.
    They will continue to plunders as long as the right continues to trip over their limp…(whatever).

  • Dennis DiMuzio wrote, “Both Justices Ginsburg and Kagan should have recused themselves from the Obergefell gay marriage case since they had both presided over gay weddings at least a year before the case was heard”

    I don’t see the logic of that at all. Presumably, the marriages were lawful in the jurisdictions in which they were performed and no one was arguing in Obergefell that states could not allow SSM, if they chose.

    A judge who is an elder in a church that espouses the Voluntary Principle and opposes church establishments, may, quite properly, sit in the Teind Court. It would be a different matter, if he were himself a Titular of teinds, for that is a patrimonial interest.

  • “don’t see the logic of that at all.”

    It doesn’t seem to you as if it were an indication that they had already made up their mind on the issue? Which of course they had, all pretense aside. Our Supreme Court is supposed to be a Court, but it functions increasingly as a non-stop Constitutional Convention, constantly amending the Constitution to fit the intellectual prejudices fashionable among the majority of the Court. In Obergerfell these prejudices mandated that the Court manufacture an amendment of the Constitution preventing the States from restricting marriage to only mixed sexes, something that humanity has followed until the present generation. This is a complete betrayal of what the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us, Hamilton’s “least dangerous branch” has become poison to our most precious civil right: the right to rule ourselves.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “It doesn’t seem to you as if it were an indication that they had already made up their mind on the issue?”

    A strong indication, certainly, but consistent with the position that marriage is a matter for the states.

    Be that as it may, many judges, especially those who have been text-book writers or who have held high political office, are well known to hold strong views on a whole range of legal and political issues. The line has to be drawn somewhere and, traditionally, that has been patrimonial interest or kinship (iudex qui litem suam fecit as the Classical Jurists call it)

  • “Be that as it may, many judges, especially those who have been text-book writers or who have held high political office, are well known to hold strong views on a whole range of legal and political issues.”

    Traditionally we could expect a judge to not attempt to write his political preferences into law under the pretext of construing the law. When a legal decision is clearly not a legal decision but an attempt to legislate from the bench, the judge is no longer acting as a judge but rather engaging in an illegitimate power grab. A decision from such a judge or group of judges lacks any moral authority and merely enjoys the authority of the might behind it, and only that transient authority.

  • @Don the Kiwi

    “Ginsberg picks NZ over Trump.”

    I just priused your blog.
    I truly enjoyed the comments.
    Funny folks.

    Otago in the South island…hummm.
    I’m certain that you have a cozy damp cave for someone of her …. non-biased…. stature.

  • Seems the women of prominence from the left have great difficulty in being professional.
    Incompetents seems to be their trademark.
    Poor weasels.

  • Donald R McClarey wrote, “Traditionally we could expect a judge to not attempt to write his political preferences into law under the pretext of construing the law.”

    I agree with that.

A Satire, Not an Instruction Manual

Monday, October 6, AD 2014

Infant’s flesh will be in season throughout the year, but more plentiful in March, and a little before and after; for we are told by a grave author, an eminent French physician, that fish being a prolific diet, there are more children born in Roman Catholic countries about nine months after Lent than at any other season; therefore, reckoning a year after Lent, the markets will be more glutted than usual, because the number of popish infants is at least three to one in this kingdom: and therefore it will have one other collateral advantage, by lessening the number of papists among us.

Jonathan Swift, A Modest Proposal (1729)

To sell abortion, arguments about feminism, a woman’s right to choose, equality, freedom, etc., are used for the masses, but the forces that were behind the drive to legalize abortion tended to be clear, at least when talking among themselves, that eugenics was the prime motivation.  Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 81, remembers those days clearly, and, no doubt to the dismay of many contemporary liberals, tends to be fairly honest about that motivation.  Kevin Williamson at National Review Online examines how the eugenics motivation still is the driving force behind abortion:


Ruth Bader Ginsburg, having decided for some inexplicable reason to do a long interview with a fashion magazine (maybe it is her celebrated collection of lace collars), reaffirmed the most important things we know about her: her partisanship, her elevation of politics over law, and her desire to see as many poor children killed as is feasibly possible.

Speaking about such modest restrictions on abortion as have been enacted over the past several years, Justice Ginsburg lamented that “the impact of all these restrictions is on poor women.” Then she added: “It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.”

This is not her first time weighing in on the question of what by any intellectually honest standard must be described as eugenics. In an earlier interview, she described the Roe v. Wade decision as being intended to control population growth, “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” She was correct in her assessment of Roe; the co-counsel in that case, Ron Weddington, would later advise President Bill Clinton: “You can start immediately to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country,” by making abortifacients cheap and universally available. “It’s what we all know is true, but we only whisper it.”

In 1980, the punk band the Dead Kennedys released a song called “Kill the Poor.” In it, singer Jello Biafra considers the many benefits to be had from the policy he is singing about: the elimination of “unsightly slums,” the lowering of welfare taxes, reduction of overcrowding, reduction in crime, etc. “The sun beams down on a brand new day,” he declares, “Jane Fonda on the screen today convinced the liberals it’s okay.” To be sure, Mr. Biafra wasn’t singing about abortion; his tongue-in-cheek proposal was for the relatively antiseptic measure of striking poor neighborhoods and housing projects with neutron bombs, eliminating the populations but preserving property values. A ghastly and satirical proposal, to be sure, but not really so different from the case that Justice Ginsburg and others of her ilk make for eliminating those “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

“We only whisper it.”

The economist Steven Levitt, for example, has argued that abortion helped to bring down crime rates; that probably isn’t true, but it has not stopped abortion enthusiasts from incorporating crime-reduction into their case for killing the poor. Abortion as a tool of population control remains very much in vogue, particularly with international organizations: “To avoid a world with deteriorating social, economic, and political stability, with the concomitant loss of personal and national security, we must ensure that safe abortion is made available,” writes the American population-control activist and academic Steven Mumford, who also advocates mass sterilizations.

Continue reading...

10 Responses to A Satire, Not an Instruction Manual

  • This calls to mind Sir Dugald Baird’s 1965 paper – A Fifth Freedom? (freedom from “the tyranny of excessive fertility”) in which he complains that “in the second five-year plan for India only $10 million was allocated for population control as against $14 million for malaria control, a measure which, by lowering death rates quickly, could further aggravate the population crisis and reduce the standard of living, in that more capital, skills, and experience are absorbed in looking after children and young people and less is available for industrial development.”

    Such insouciance is remarkable in a medical man (Baird was Regius Professor of Midwifery at Aberdeen University Hospital). He was a leading light, not only of the Abortion Law Reform Association and the Family Planning Association, but of the British Eugenics Society (now the Galton Institute), founded in 1907 as the Eugenics Education Society. He delivered the 1970 Galton Lecture on “The Obstetrician & Society.”

    During Baird’s tenure, one pregnancy in 50 was terminated in Aberdeen, where he could give his eugenic views free rein, compared to one in 3,750 in Glasgow. Ian Donald, the Regius Professor of Midwifery at Glasgow once sardonically remarked that Baird’s choice of medicine as a career had deprived the cattle industry of a first-class stock-breeder.

    Baird was Sir David Steele’s principle advisor on his 1967 Abortion Bill.

  • This is one fact indisputable; In America, we do not suffer a lack of executioner’s. R. B. Ginsburg being one of the most influential.

    In heaven mansions designated for many have been forfeited by the intended occupants lack of compassion while on earth.

    Pray for their souls, the educated derelict’s that play God.

  • It is important for Catholics in America to educate ourselves concerning this primary ‘force’ in our culture. It is not simply Sanger and Planned Parenthood but many major companies and personages associated with them (both past and present). The power is formidable. The Culture of Death has infested so many levels of our society that it is incredible.

  • Botolph wrote, “The Culture of Death has infested so many levels of our society that it is incredible.” Not least the learned professions.

    Thus, in Scotland, the text-book writers had always acknowledged that an abortion performed in good faith to preserve the life and health of the mother was not criminal. The Crown Office (the prosecuting authority) relied on purely external criteria: consultation with colleagues, a general practitioner, a gynaecologist, a psychiatrist; admission to hospital; observation of the usual ethical procedures, such as a consultant being called in by the general practitioner; the keeping of proper records. Above all, gratuity was regarded as a guarantee of good faith. The actions of a salaried professor or other consultant operating in a public hospital were considered beyond question.
    Thus, the law did not police the medical profession and the medical profession ceased to police itself.

  • I hope it’s okay to place this appeal here.

    Our forty days for life campaign is underway. Hours of prayer before our local P.P. aka Murder Inc., is having an effect around the country. If you haven’t already signed up, please consider it.

    The culture of death can not win, however they can take more babies until the end, so please help with your witness now and shorten the time of this hideous culture.
    Thank you.

  • I join with you Philip in encouraging others to volunteer with 40 Days for Life.

    I am participating in my local campaign as well. May God save the babies and their moms.

  • slainte.
    God bless you!

  • Those who reproduce will inherit the Earth and that is exactly what is feared.

  • “The economist Steven Levitt, for example, has argued that abortion helped to bring down crime rates; that probably isn’t true, but it has not stopped abortion enthusiasts from incorporating crime-reduction into their case for killing the poor.”
    Innocent until proven guilty. Habeas Corpus. The Fifth Amendment. The Right to Life. What unalienable human right has abortion not declared null and void.

  • “Thus, in Scotland, the text-book writers had always acknowledged that an abortion performed in good faith to preserve the life and health of the mother was not criminal.”
    The death of the mother must be imminent as proof of the condition. Babies have been brought into the world after being attached to and growing outside of the womb.
    The destruction of the baby’s body is against the law. Destruction of the baby’s character, as destroying the mother, the mother whom the baby caused to be a mother, is not addressed, nor the destruction of civilization caused by the eugenicists is not acknowledged. Who in hell do they think that they are? Which tells us where they come from and what devil is leading the parade.

Elena Kagan Says It Is Fine If The Law Bans Books

Tuesday, June 29, AD 2010

SCOTUS nominee Elena Kagan has argued before the Supreme Court that it’s fine if the Law bans books.

Her rationale?

Because the government won’t really enforce it.

I’m no legal scholar but this sounds like a 3rd grade argument.

Aren’t our nominees suppose to have better reasoning skills and a solid grasp of the U.S. Constitution?  As well as a fundamental understanding  of such concepts like Freedom of Speech?

Continue reading...

14 Responses to Elena Kagan Says It Is Fine If The Law Bans Books

  • Bibles banned in China – is that what is coming here?

  • So is Elena Kagan willing to support banning pornography magazines and books?

  • Like all the other “brilliant” liberals, Kagan the pagan is incapable of right reason.

  • Scratch the thin veneer of liberal bu!!$#it and you slam into totalitarianism.

    Peace, justice and human dignity: the slaves will enjoy free health care, free lunch, and free fornication!!!

  • But don’t you know that if you don’t want free health care, free lunch and free fornication you are part of the “let them eat cake” coalition?

  • And what’s with the new symbol thingies?

  • Phillip and all the non-gravatar readers,

    I got tired of looking at the random abstract icons, so I switched the default to MonsterID’s in the faint hope that some of you guys will sign up for free gravatar accounts/icons.


  • And what’s with the new symbol thingies?

    Yeah, Tito. How are we supposed to upload a real picture? I tried registering at WordPress, but it won’t accept any reasonable facsimile of my real name as a user name. Can we upload a pic without registering at WordPress?

  • I kinda like my monster thingie. 🙂

  • I also had the same problem as j. Used multiple variations of my name and said they were all used. Must be a govt. program.

  • Phillip et al.,

    Just so everyone knows, MonsterID links that icon permanently to the email address you provide.

    So if you get tired of it, you have motivation to go over to and sign up for a free account!


  • To be fair I am rather doubtful that Kagen wantts to ban books. I am trying to recall the exact sequence of events here . I actually think what started this all this were the ealier comments of the Deputy Solicter that gave the SUp COurt Justices the heebee jeevees and thus Kagen here is trying somehow to recover.

    That being said the Supreme Court can make the most seasoned lawyers look like idiots and also (and this is the problem the GOP will have in her hearings) she is basically just working for the boss. So when these hypos come out that go to the most alarming degree well there is not exactly a easy answer.

  • jh

    Nail! Head!

    She’s going to rubber stamp Obama. She’s a nothing and will continue to do nothing except vote for whatever the boss wants.

    Phil, I’m paying for the free health and lunch. They’re on their own when it comes to fornicking. I’m of the “let them have the opportunity to pursue happiness” coalition.

    My grav seems appropriate!

Outrageously Anti-Abortion

Tuesday, October 6, AD 2009

Sometimes it’s all in the phrasing. The other day I read a mention of the annual Red Mass celebrated in Washington DC which quoted Justice Ginsburg’s explanation of why she no longer attends (though Justice Breyer, also Jewish, attends). The quote in full:

“Before every session, there’s a Red Mass,” Ginsburg said. “And the justices get invitations from the cardinal to attend that. And a good number of the justices show up every year. I went one year, and I will never go again, because this sermon was outrageously anti-abortion.”

Outrageously anti-abortion. Well.

Continue reading...

13 Responses to Outrageously Anti-Abortion

  • And I thought Cardinal DiNardo was being a bit too subtle. If only more Bps were outrageously anti-abortion.

  • I’d just consider that to be a compliment. 🙂

  • Justice Ginsburg is a joke. Her politics are 19th century racism combined with 20th century eugenics a la Margaret Sanger.

    For her to be upset about the Mass means about zero to me.

  • Aside from my feelings towards that particular confused justice, I’m left wondering what causes some people to become outrageously pro-abortion. Something ugly must happen early in life to turn their heart so black.

  • I am wondering the same thing myself about Justice Ginsburg.

  • I should be clear: I like that we’re called “outrageously anti-abortion”. What shocking thing will she discover Catholics to be next? “appaulingly religious”? “ridiculously devout”?

  • “Exremely loving”, “fundementally aware of our own failings”, “severely respectful of legitimate authority”, “outrageously seeking Justice”, “radically forgiving”, etc. etc.

    Wow, those Catholics are just too extreme. We should become more lukewarm and mediocre so that we’ll appeal to more people.

    A little murder is OK. Rape-rape is bad, but plain old rape, hey that’s just a choice. A mild amount of sodomy isn’t really homosexual. Racism is bad especially against ‘health-care reform’, but eugenics is just.

    Poor soul. She is obviously not Catholic, but can she even be considered Jewish? If I am not mistaken the Ten Commandments are the same in both Testaments, well, except they are more ‘extremely’ applied by that ‘radical’ Jesus of Nazareth.

  • I’d suspect that Ginsburg has herself had one or more abortions sometime in the past . . . this kind of highly defensive overreaction is usually the sign of someone who is trying to rationalize their own behavior.

  • Pingback: Ginsburg and the Outrageously Anti-Abortion Red Mass » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog
  • Particularly distressing about Justice Ginsberg’s various comments is this one:

    “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. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them”.

    What amazes me is to hear from the mouth of Jewish women. She seems not to know which group was the special target of the German government in the 1930s. [I love the “we”. Who is the “we”?

  • Gabriel,

    That’s the statement that most sticks out in my mind.

    It’s interesting how the mainstream media never even mentioned this incident.

  • Gabriel: that was the first thing I thought of when I heard her use the word “outrageous.”

  • Tito Edwards writes Tuesday, October 6, 2009 A.D. at 3:33
    “That’s the statement that most sticks out in my mind.
    “It’s interesting how the mainstream media never even mentioned this incident”.

    Now, now, mustn’t blame the mainstream muddle. The comment appeared in the NYTimes.

    Floating in the back of my mind is the Jewish question. Reading the Bible, reading the history of the Jews through the ages, it seems to me that the Jews are falling into the same error. From a highly religious small core, they relax into cooperation with the secular powers,