A Reader Writes: On The Passing of an Archon

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

A reader writes about the passing of one of the Supreme Court’s nine Archons – who get to decree what is and isn’t “constitutional,” often in plain defiance of what is actually written and what is just as clearly not written:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed away today, she was 89 and suffering from a variety of illnesses, my condolences to the family. She had a good life and while I disagree with some of her decisions, I never wished her ill. The problem now is that it throws a big wrench into the election of the president. Some I know are chomping at the bit.  Ram through a new justice “one of ours.”

 The problem with that is that the election is a month and a half away. It would be more distraction from the election. The circus attendant to any Supreme Court nomination is absolutely ridiculous this one would be in the twilight zone.  Ruth deserves a state funeral, inter her with nice remembrances and appoint another judge after the election in November. It really does not matter, it is all a sideshow to distract the easily distracted.  Another Red Herring, hopefully Trump does not bite. He has better chance of winning by not focusing on a supreme court judge appointment now. He should take the high road. A year ago it would have been different. Timing is everything. Way to go Ruth everything for the cause. Even in death.

She managed to remain alive just long enough, eh? I shed no tears over the passing of someone whose life was devoted to decreeing what I and others are obliged to do and forbidden to do – when our actions are properly none of her or any other person’s business (e.g., the edict that it is “constitutional” to force me and others to buy health insurance).

I am of the same mind with regard to Ginsberg – and the rest of them – as Hunter Thompson was with regard to the passing of Nixon. State funeral? Perhaps via a storm sewer.

That said, I agree the timing couldn’t be worse. The old bag’s death gives the opposition to Orange Man a real issue – one that will rally its base. Trump could only win this one by nominating someone the left can’t object to – which is not possible. So maybe he ought to go ahead an nominate someone the left will really object to. To galvanize his base.

It’s going to be an interesting month and a half, at any rate!

Share Button


  1. All the supreme court has done over the last 100 years, especially the last 50 is to restrict the rights of people against police and corporate power. “Conservative” and liberal justices take turns hammering away at people’s constitutional rights. Can you think of a single decision where the rights of the people are upheld regarding the 4th? “Conservative” justices rule against the 4th and for expansion of police power because.. federalism? Liberal justices rule against the 1st, 2nd and 5th (along with conservatives) every time. They hear about 2 cases a year and “refuse to hear” dozens if not hundreds of cases that matter to people on the ground. I could really care less who is nominated and how it turns out. I could really care less. It’s a shitty institution what we would almost be better off without.

    I can think of one or two “justices” that might be worth a damn, but I’m not even sure they are on this court. I just know that I would like to throw that homo pedo Roberts in the garbage.

    • SR,

      I’m inclined to agree with you. Justice Kavanaugh, over whom there was a huge fuss, worked in The Chimp’s (that’s George W. Bush, i.e. Junior). Guess what he helped craft? The USAPATRIOT Act, that’s what! As a lower level judge, Kavanaugh was, to put it charitably, weak on the 4A. The cynic in me wonders if the kerfuffle over his nomination were done to OBSCURE these more salient issues, i.e. his work in the USAPATRIOT Act and his weak 4A rulings? We heard plenty from Dr. Christine Blasey Fraud, yet heard NOTHING about his past rulings or his work on the USAPATRIOT Act. Was that coincidence? I doubt it-not if what FDR said was true…

    • Hi Swamp,

      Yep, despite the lofty rhetoric about limited government, the rule of law and the separation of powers that supposedly preserves both, the function of the Supreme Court is to legitimize, not limit, State power. If the purpose of the Supreme Court is check the power of government, then the institution is uniquely unqualified for the job. Supreme Court justices are chosen from a pool of government lawyers who have dedicated their entire professional lives to defending the exercise of government power. They are nominated by a president who has no interest in seating someone hostile to the exercise of executive power. They are confirmed by Senators who have no interest in seating someone hostile to the exercise of legislative power. Why would anyone expect such a group to favor the “rights of the people” over the interests of the government?

      To illustrate the absurdity of the proposition that SCOTUS exists to limit government power and to respect “the rights of the people”, let’s place the claims of “limited government” advocates in the private sphere. Imagine that Goldman Sachs set up an internal ethics division that was charged with ruling on the legality of the actions of Goldman Sachs. Let’s suppose that the members of this ethics division were nominated by the CEO of Goldman Sachs and confirmed by the board of directors of Goldman Sachs. Let’s further suppose that they receive their pay from Goldman Sachs. Finally, let’s suppose that this division of Goldman Sachs claims a monopoly on judging the legality of the actions of Goldman Sachs. Is it believable that the CEO of Goldman Sachs would nominate a “justice” hostile to the interests of Goldman Sachs? Is it believable that the board of directors would confirm a “justice” hostile to the interests of Goldman Sachs. Does anyone seriously believe that such an institution could be trusted to limit the power of Goldman Sachs? Yet, this is precisely what we are told to believe with respect to government.


  2. If nothing else, RBG’s death and subsequent nomination imbroglio will push Corona OFF the front page! It’ll be like it never happened…

    • It might, but the mask mandates will still be in place and the supreme “coat” will rule in favor of them if they decide to “hear the case.” I wish they would all die.

      • SR,

        Several lower courts have already ruled AGAINST state lockdowns. If SCOTUS were to stay true to the COTUS (questionable, I know), they’d have to rule against the mask mandates. One, they weren’t duly passed laws. Two, the Founders were dealing with a smallpox epidemic before and during the 1787 Constitutional convention. Since they had experience with an epidemic; since there were few, if any, treatments; they knew about epidemics, and they could’ve easily inserted an epidemic exception in the COTUS. In light of all that, the fact that they didn’t says it ALL…

  3. Pretty simple if you ask me. Like him or not, and regardless of the upcoming election results, Trump is still president until January 20. There is a vacancy on the Supreme Court, and the president has a constitutional duty to nominate someone to fill that vacancy. End of story. Then again, another approach might be to say “hey democrats, you’ve been jerking the system for 4 years trying to delegitimize my presidency, well, eat a bag of dicks, you lose! Yeah, come to think of it, I like that one better.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here