I just noticed this story about an interview of Justice Ruth Ginsborg Ginsburg did with NPR’s Nina Totenberg where she explained why she stayed on the Supreme Court for as long as she has. Justice Ginsburg’s answer to Nina Totenburg is just exceptional:
“It has been suggested by more than one commentator, including some law professors, that I should’ve stepped down during President Obama’s second term. When that suggestion is made I ask the question: Who do you think the president could nominate that could get through the Republican Senate that you would prefer to have on the court than me?”
So, it was nothing but politics and she probably thought that President Trump never had a chance of winning. Justices Sotamayor and Kagan got a few Republican (nine and five respectively) Senators to support their confirmation so I believe that she could have easily retired a few years before the 2016 election. Perhaps she thought that she was “on the right side of history” and didn’t have to expect to cling on to the bench until at least 2020 (or the likelihood of 2024 after slow Joe Biden gaffes up the next election).
In another gem from this interview Justice Ginsburg states that the Supreme Court being in session helps her physical troubles go away:
“This latest has been my fourth cancer bout,” she said. “And I found each time that when I’m active, I’m much better than if I’m just lying about and feeling sorry for myself. It’s necessary — a necessity — to get up and go. It’s stimulating. And somehow, in all of these appearances I’ve had since the end of August, whatever my temporary disability is, it stops, and I’m OK for the time of the event.”
The Democrats and the media routinely mock President Trump’s fitness for office and faculties but I’m fairly certain that a man who can campaign and be as active as he is probably has a lot fewer health ailments than Justice Ginsburg. He also hasn’t had four bouts of cancer…
I will literally give 3 ribs to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg if she needs them, along with whichever other body parts she requires until 2020. #ThursdayThoughts#RBGhttps://t.co/bm1E27Plh3
I just love reading what passes for news stories as I go through Yahoo! and its various clickbait articles. The first one is by Ja’han Jones of the Puffington Host entitled: “After Brett Kavanaugh’s Confirmation, One Word Ignited A Massive Debate About Feminism.” The article is about a poem called “Scream” (what an apt description of how progressives deal with politics) which someone edited after the left smeared Justice Kavanaugh with accusations that have no corroborating evidence or basis. Here’s the wonderful poem:
From the PuffHost article:
“Kaur’s followers alerted her to the alteration, which ignited a debate about how those with privilege adapt the language of resistance to their preferred narrative.
Kaur told HuffPost this week that the very invisibility her poem was intended to combat ended up being reinforced when her work was repurposed and popularized.”
I’m not really certain what is meant by “invisibility” but does it really matter what a straight, white male like myself thinks to the denizens of the Puffington Host? Let’s get some more context from the author of the poem, Jasmin Kaur:
“When you write specifically to counter your feelings of invisibility and smallness within a white supremacist society,“
“it’s disconcerting to see white people change your words to suit their own immediate needs.”
“I understand the sentiment of people needing to vote within the current political climate,”
“I also recognize all the ways that voting has been (and still is) inaccessible to many communities of colour.”
I wonder how voting is inaccessible to “communities of color“? The article never specifies and no evidence is presented. Perhaps the author or Ms. Kaur think that non-citizens should be able to vote? Anyway, back to the article:
“In giving Sikh women permission to scream, Kaur was acknowledging the righteousness of their anger without demanding they find a solution for it. She was affirming their entitlement to anger for their own purpose — intimate, painful, perhaps cathartic anger, rather than anger used solely in service of others.
The appropriation of Kaur’s words, then, invigorated conversation about allyship, political responsibility and who ought to be tasked with reversing America’s racist and sexist history.”
Who took away Ms. Kaur’s permission to talk? Who said that Mr. Kaur couldn’t be angry? What in the hell is “allyship“? I suppose that I’m just too logical damn racist to understand and properly answer any of my foolish questions. Let’s read some more hilarity from this article:
“There was a palatable air of hopelessness among the discourse surrounding Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation. Those who thought numerous corroborated claims of sexual assault levied against Kavanaugh would stifle his elevation to the court were stunned — albeit probably not shocked — when conservative senators cast the allegations aside and confirmed him anyway.”
“On Wednesday, Facebook user Jason Stovetop Littlejohn shared a video of the ensuing argument, reportedly outside the Sahara Deli in Flatbush, N.Y. ‘Meet Cornerstore Caroline. White Woman calls police on a kid, saying he sexually assaulted her,’he wrote. ‘As I walked up I noticed the argument, apparently, the kid brushed up against her and she said he touched her and decided to call police on a nine-year-old child. As you can see the kid is crying and the mom is upset.”
It just gets better and better:
“The New York City Police Department tells Yahoo Lifestyle that no related complaint reports are filed, although according to Pix11, officers did respond after the crowd had dispersed. Yahoo Lifestyle could not reach a representative of Sahara Deli for comment; however, the owner told Pix11: ‘The woman has a history of being unwell.’ Heavy also reported that Klein, of Missouri, studied sociology at the University of Missouri and is a former actress and performer.”
Oh, a sociology major huh? That explains something I suppose. I thought that progressives wanted everyone to “believe women” and “believe survivors“? Not if it doesn’t fit the narrative I suppose and only when it’s politically expedient. I wonder how a typical leftist would really like it if they could be falsely convicted of a crime with zero evidence? Derp, “Kavanaugh was in a job interview, not a criminal trial.” I wonder how many regressives would like such an argument used against themselves?
Conservativenuke's Weblog 