Repeat After Me

What I have to say about the actual appointment of a new justice is this.

It’s not that important.

You’d think that people would finally learn but they never do.

Remember how it was supposed to be a total end of the world when Gorsuch (or Kagan, if you are on the other side) was appointed? Remember how it was supposed to be a really REALLY total end of the world with Kavanaugh (Sotomayor on the other side)?

And? Did your life appreciably change for the worse when these “terrible evildoers” were appointed?

Nope. It did not.

Even the useless old Roe that is wheeled out every time our Democratic betters want to really rile up the base is still in place. Not that it would change absolutely anything if it weren’t. (And if you think otherwise, it’s probably because you are past the age of needing to know how abortions are done today).

It’s. Not. That. Big. Of. A. Deal.

It’s s big deal that RBG died, and I’m still sad. But whoever gets appointed, I’m not forgetting recently learned lessons. All that drama over Kavanaugh and what? What are the extremely scandalous things that he’s done since then? And mind you, if you can’t answer without a search engine, then there’s nothing serious.

Let’s stop allowing these people to rile us up and rob us blind while we jump up and down like stupid puppets.

I’m not saying nothing in the world matters. I’m saying, very specifically, that it doesn’t matter much who the next Supreme Court justice is. It’s an issue of considerable interest but it’s not even remotely as important as the politicians and the media manage to convince us every single time.

22 thoughts on “Repeat After Me”

  1. Maybe. However, this year, the Left has invested heavily in there being a contested election, which would likely go to the Supreme Court. A Ruth Bader Ginsberg could be reliably counted on to vote to resolve any such contest in favor of her team. As it stands now, it’s a wobbly 4-4.

    Recall that there have not been fair elections in Chicago for over 150 years. If Trump is defeated amidst a chaos of delayed counts, mail-in ballot harvesting and other shady dealings very familiar to the Chicago Outfit team that occupied the White House for 8 years, it’s over.

    That may be what this Supreme Court seat means.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It was definitely her huge mistake. Sadly, she didn’t manage to retire on time and ended up leaving this mess. It’s a stain on her legacy, for sure. She acted in an egotistical, vain manner and we are left with the mess.


      1. ‘Egotistical and vain’, because she didn’t retire during Obama’s administration?
        Obama’s administration made the political calculation that conservative Democrats – and remember, at the time this number included the likes of Joe Lieberman, Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson – weren’t going to be agreeable to replacing more than one Supreme Court justice per year.

        Their first priority was replacing John Paul Stevens, who was A) in terrible health and B) was friggin’ 90. They replaced him with Sotomayor in the first eight months, which was pretty fast work.
        After Stevens, they knew all of the other left-leaning justices either actively wanted to retire or were willing to. Ginsburg (and Breyer) were in the “willing” camp. David Souter, on the other hand, desperately wanted to retire, so Ginsburg and Breyer let him be replaced first.

        They replaced Souter with Elena Kagan in August of 2010, and then they lost the Senate supermajority, and that was that.
        Basically the inability to completely recycle the left flank of the Supreme Court with younger justices boils down to “conservative Democrats wouldn’t support it.”

        That isn’t on Ginsburg or Obama. It’s on Lieberman and Bayh and Nelson and Mary Landrieu and all the other limpdicks who actively impeded progressive legislation themselves during the first two years of Obama’s administration when he could have gotten more done.
        (These are the people who prevented a public option in the ACA, and who demanded slashing of the stimulus, and who stalled cap-and-trade until they lost the filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate)


  2. The people gnashing their teeth or gloating in triumph are not thinking in time frames of two years or four years or eight years. Try decades, plural.

    This is an insipid, stupid take.


    1. My tolerance for individual mental burdens is really at its limit right now. I sympathize but I’m not a shrink or a wet nurse. This isn’t a place to bring these problems.


      1. I have no idea what is going on in your life that you are extremely bad at reading text, or separating criticism of a take from criticism of you today.


  3. And? Did your life appreciably change for the worse when these “terrible evildoers” were appointed?

    Nope. It did not.


  4. I’m inclined to think it’s a lot less important than panicky people make it out to be. But just because someone isn’t aware of something happening doesn’t mean it’s not important. Most people don’t know about surveillance capitalism or just how bad the job wars have become, it doesn’t mean those things aren’t important. Similarly, boring, stuffy Supreme Court decisions can have a lasting impact. Even some which do not impact me specifically (at least in the moment) I think can be very important. If Masterpiece Cakeshop had lost their case in court, I think that would’ve set a terrible precedent.

    None of this is to say that I mind if Amy Coney Barrett ends up replacing RGB. She seems quite intelligent and definitely qualified. I also like that she didn’t graduate from an Ivy League school.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. I’m for Miguel Estrada. He was denied his confirmation because he’s Hispanic. His wife miscarried during the nomination process because of the horrible way the family was being treated. She killed herself later as a result.

        Estrada is originally from Honduras.


        1. I see no signs Trump is considering him, just Ann Coulter and her fans hoping real hard. He’s said his pick is “most likely a woman” (I don’t think Trump has gone full woke, so I think he has a top choice in mind and she’s a woman.) Seems like Barrett and Lagoa are most likely.


  5. I really can’t see any of the fuss about Amy Coney Barrett’s religion as anything but anti-Catholic bigotry. People had the same kind of worries about JFK in the 60s, about whether he’d be taking orders from the Pope.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. But we know who the Pope is, and what he believes. Barrett’s loyalty to a secret, separate cult is hardly comparable to mainstream Catholicism, nor compatible with modern Standards in Public Life.


      1. Good grief, not every slightly weird religious organization is a “cult.” Spiritual mentorship isn’t even all that unusual or bizarre (and that’s all a “head” is; this isn’t a master-slave relationship here.)


      2. I was curious enough to go look up her religious affiliations on non-paywall sites, since you mentioned it. I mean, cult makes it sound scary!

        What I found was a group of Catholics trying to revive a tradition we Orthodox have had for more than a thousand years… that of having a spiritual mother or father to advise you on the path to salvation (a priest or monastic).

        What do you find alarming about this? It really sounds like Romans freaking about about Christians being cannibals because of the whole “body and blood” thing, IMO.


      3. Also, per wikipedia, “married women are headed by their husbands.” Ooh, Barrett will ask her husband for guidance and advice! So mysterious and spooky!


  6. It’s so amazing (and distressing) that often brilliant people (in other ways) don’t understand how basic psychology and sociology work….
    Once on the SC justices are (by design) untouchable by presidents and parties.
    On the other hand, once in such a select/elite group the dynamic changes and they want to get over the inevitable nagging imposter syndrome feelings they might be feeling and be accepted by their peers.
    This is probably why no SC justice, once appointed, has ever been nearly as radical as they might have seemed to fearmongers on both sides.


    1. I can’t get over how they presented the very milquetoast Kavanaugh as some sort of a disruptor of the status quo who was immediately going to dismantle all of society with his outrageous rulings. Completely crazy.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.