Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died at 87. - 🦀

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Based prediction of events between now and post-election. Talks about riots, election meddling, what civil war could look like.

Found myself agreeing more than dismissing.

View attachment 1610658

Thread: https://twitter.com/CommiesLmao/status/1307863287070183424

Archive: https://archive.vn/togOA
This is like the right-wing equivalent of the left-wing screeds where Trump declares himself a fascist dictator but then the heroes of the #Resistance protest in the streets and after months of protests and battling the forces of ICE and alt-right Nazi militias, Donnie Drumpf is finally marched from the White House in handcuffs and sentenced to life in prison for murdering Joe Biden and Kamala Harris leads America and the world to the progressive superior future. It would make for an entertaining popcorn flick as long as it wasn't too preachy.

Go look up "Color Revolution", that's the strategy against Trump and it doesn't involve Antifa hordes bombing infrastructure and shooting people with Chinese weapons. The people running this aren't stupid enough to go for a scheme like that since after all, Antifa are peaceful protestors.
 
Firstly, I think it's very important to completely disregard the image of Ginsberg that both sides have painted. She's not this Holier Than Thou Woman-Saint of Social Justice, and she's not a baby-eating hobgoblin. Almost everyone's opinion of Ginsberg is just an opinion that they've picked up from other people's opinions. They either see a candle with her face on it and go "omg yas queen" or see a tiny snippet of her one, dissenting opinion about abortion and go "omg satan." As always, there's a bit more nuance to that in a human being, even when they stop being a human being and become a human was.

I think that Ginsberg's death completely cements the death of their party, and that her dying wish was--now that I've stopped laughing and actually thought about it-- intentionally calculated to help destroy it. Ginsberg was a lot of things, but stupid wasn't one of them. It's very easy for people to pin her up there with all of the dipshit Communists and Socialists in the Democratic party these days, but Ginsberg not only predated the DNC turning into a collection of obese, neon-coloured Communists and their pet skeletons in Congress, she actively hated them.

Obama was a failure. Despite the fact that you see the both of them in pictures all the time and despite the fact that they met on dozens and dozens of occasions, Obama could never convince Ginsberg to retire so that he could appoint another Justice. For all of the charisma he's been accused of wielding, for all of the efforts to paint the both of them as progressive and perfectly-aligned equals, Obama couldn't get her to budge. She completely rejected his judgement and stubbornly refused to allow him to replace her. Why?

If you go back through Ginsberg's legal opinions--especially from the 1990s--you'll notice a pattern. The only time that she really strikes you as a "progressive" is when it comes to the issues of civil rights, and even then she doesn't typically walk that far out into Left field, they're just more Liberal, legal interpretations than her opinions on things like criminal justice, businesses, and freedom of speech. Moreover, you can see the logic in her opinions. She's not stamping her foot down and demanding that you listen to her or you're a racist, she's attempting to persuade you to her side, or in the very least explain how she came to that conclusion. You might find that you disagree with her anyways, but there's at least a structure to her arguments.

Compare that to Kagan or Sotomayer. Can anyone list a single opinion they've made that's been noteworthy? They're both women, they're both minorities, and they've both been on the Supreme Court for over a decade, so why does nobody care about them? Why are their political opinions never touted and why is their acumen for legal matters never lauded? The answer to that is tied directly to why Ginsberg would never let Obama take her seat on the Supreme Court.

Kagan acted as the Solicitor General for Barack Obama before he shoved her in a black dress and pushed her up to the Supreme Court, which was an awfully odd thing to do considering that as Solicitor General, she lost most of the cases that she elevated to the Court. If you try to read her individual dissents or opinions, you just wind up going glassy-eyed and losing interest, because there's no real substance to any of it. Kagan doesn't really think and she doesn't try to persuade you in the same way that Ginsberg did, much the same way that Sotomayer never bothers, and just tries to pull one heart string after another instead of giving you an actual fucking argument. People try to give Ginsberg flak for being some sort of Liberal rubber stamp in the Supreme Court, but that's just not true. Ginsberg sided with the Conservative Justices on a fairly routine basis, but Sotomayer could be replaced with a literal, rubber stamp and I think it'd be months before anyone noticed that she was missing, and even then it would only be because there's suddenly a lot of food left in the fridge and the Cloak Room isn't full of Milky Way wrappers.

Ginsberg wasn't stupid. Ginsberg saw the caliber of Justices that Obama was keen to appoint, and knew that people who are that overwhelmingly stupid are not only going to wind up destroying the Supreme Court if they're given a majority, they're going to end up destroying her legacy. I can see no other reason as to why she would have constantly fought off Obama's attempts to replace her, and I don't buy the narrative that she wanted to wait until Queen Hillary's coronation because Ginsberg wasn't nearly as progressive as people try to make her seem. Ginsberg was a lot of things, but a Social Justice lunatic wasn't one of them, and it's a mistake to try and give her that moniker.

Obama met damned near every checklist qualification for Social Justice types; he was the fucking Crown Prince of Social Justice and rapidly became one of their golden cows. If he couldn't convince her to step down from her seat, it wasn't because he "wasn't progressive enough." I think that everyone is mistaken in assuming that Ginsberg wanted Hillary to appoint her replacement, when it's much easier to assume that she just hated Obama.

Ginsberg wasn't stupid, and she wasn't some blind devotee to the Church of the Saint Who Can't Breathe. She used her own death as a political weapon, but she's not stupid. It wasn't done flippantly. There are very few people in the world who know the ins and outs of the legal processes as well as Ginsberg had, and she knew very well that there's no legal argument for her request to stand on. If there was, she would have left it behind, but the only thing that she left behind was a request that she knows is going to send the Democrats headfirst into an unwinnable fight.

There's nothing to stop it and trying to pull a "feels" to get the result that she wanted isn't something that you'll see in any of Ginsberg's dissents or much of anything in her personal life. She's painted up as "yas queen slay don't need no man!" but have you ever actually seen that coming from her, or just the people who depict her like that? It doesn't fit any of her history, it doesn't make any sense.

I think that Ginsberg knew full well that her dying wish wouldn't be respected, because she never wanted it to be respected. I think that's just the lit match that she threw into the room full of hippies and gasoline. She'd already seen the Far Left. She'd seen the economic damage, the riots, the identity politics, the slow erosion of everything that she'd been working for. She's dolled up as some kind of hyper-liberal who surrounds herself with It's Her Turn and BLM posters and her goldfish is a trans rights activist, but... That's just not who Ginsberg was. That's the Regressive Left's lunatic interpretation of Ginsberg because that's who they wanted her to be.

She'd already personally experienced what happens when these people get power: They appoint two fat retards who spend more time wolfing down cheap wine and take-out pizza than they do crafting dissenting opinions, all while insisting that even though these fat retards do nothing of value, they're your intellectual equals. They're the future of this party, and you need to retire so we can have more of them, and finish destroying your legacy so we can replace it with our own legacy of fat retards.

I think she laid down on that death bed, pulled the pin on the grenade, and went out knowing exactly what she was doing to the Far Left.
You know... I think you convinced me. You bring up things that I had spotted but couldn't pin down to an explanation, the complete disconnect of Ginsburg's decisions, dissents, and writing is a big one, but I couldn't mentally place that the establishment image of her was actually different from the reality of her. Thank you.
 
I find it strange that one moment you're capitalizing Black and the next you're calling them niggers. Not suspicious or worthy of scorn, mind you. Just strange.
Black is a proper noun, it's the arbitrary name of a thing, it gets capitalized. Niggers is a slur, it doesn't. I capitalize French, I don't capitalize faggots.
 
Black is a proper noun, it's the arbitrary name of a thing, it gets capitalized. Niggers is a slur, it doesn't. I capitalize French, I don't capitalize faggots.
I capitalize either Black or White when referring to a general idea of a monolithic group.

I capitalize Black and not white because whites are the inherently weaker race who are only on top because of institutionalized white supremacy and systematic racism. I will do anything I can to dismantle their system of hate and put Blacks on top where they rightfully belong.
 
Ginsberg wasn't stupid. Ginsberg saw the caliber of Justices that Obama was keen to appoint, and knew that people who are that overwhelmingly stupid are not only going to wind up destroying the Supreme Court if they're given a majority, they're going to end up destroying her legacy. I can see no other reason as to why she would have constantly fought off Obama's attempts to replace her, and I don't buy the narrative that she wanted to wait until Queen Hillary's coronation because Ginsberg wasn't nearly as progressive as people try to make her seem. Ginsberg was a lot of things, but a Social Justice lunatic wasn't one of them, and it's a mistake to try and give her that moniker.

Whoever Obama put up would have had to be approved by a GOP Senate, zero chance of them giving the nod to another Sotomayer, they'd have sandbagged until the next POTUS. She wanted to wait until the Hildawg got elected, with the Dems winning a majority on her coattails, which the left viewed as inevitable. She rolled the dice and lost end of story. Obama could maybe have gotten a milquetoast centrist past the Senate but that wasn't good enough and would have tilted the balance of the court. So now there's a 50/50 chance she'll be replaced by a hard core anti abortion Catholic, if anyone thinks this was all 'part of her plan' I have a bridge to sell you.
 
I capitalize Black and not white because whites are the inherently weaker race who are only on top because of institutionalized white supremacy and systematic racism. I will do anything I can to dismantle their system of hate and put Blacks on top where they rightfully belong.
Ummm, sorry sweetie, but it is the Han who will rule over the subhumans.
 
I capitalize Black and not white because whites are the inherently weaker race who are only on top because of institutionalized white supremacy and systematic racism. I will do anything I can to dismantle their system of hate and put Blacks on top where they rightfully belong.

She reminds me of the one in school
When I was cutting, she was dressed in white
And I couldn't take my eyes off her
But that's not what I took off that night

tenor-1.gif
 
Whoever Obama put up would have had to be approved by a GOP Senate, zero chance of them giving the nod to another Sotomayer, they'd have sandbagged until the next POTUS. She wanted to wait until the Hildawg got elected, with the Dems winning a majority on her coattails, which the left viewed as inevitable. She rolled the dice and lost end of story. Obama could maybe have gotten a milquetoast centrist past the Senate but that wasn't good enough and would have tilted the balance of the court. So now there's a 50/50 chance she'll be replaced by a hard core anti abortion Catholic, if anyone thinks this was all 'part of her plan' I have a bridge to sell you.
She clearly hated Trump, I don't think anyone would dispute that. You can hate Trump and hate the modern DNC, though, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. I'm not in any way suggesting that she was doing any of this to help Trump and the GOP further any of their goals, I'm only implying that she hated the modern iteration of the Democratic party more than people expect.

Generic Conservatism didn't bother her all that much; she sided with Justices like Clarence Thomas on a regular basis and even some of her dissensions and opinions fall near the Moderate/Conservative side, so it wasn't as though she saw Conservativism as some kind of "ultimate death of America" situation. She did not, however, fly off the rails and fall neck-deep into Social Justice.

My argument isn't that she necessarily wanted the Conservatives or Donald Trump to "win", it's that she saw the logical conclusion of Social Justice as a dead end to her legacy because they have no interest in preserving the ideas that she had, they were only interested in preserving the image they made of her. Social Justice is a complete juxtaposition to like 80-90% of her dissenting opinions and these same people constantly talk about packing the Supreme Court until they've effectively destroyed it.

If you destroy the Supreme Court, you destroy Ruth's legacy. She may not have liked Donald Trump, but I'd wager she liked that idea less.
 
This is like the right-wing equivalent of the left-wing screeds where Trump declares himself a fascist dictator but then the heroes of the #Resistance protest in the streets and after months of protests and battling the forces of ICE and alt-right Nazi militias, Donnie Drumpf is finally marched from the White House in handcuffs and sentenced to life in prison for murdering Joe Biden and Kamala Harris leads America and the world to the progressive superior future. It would make for an entertaining popcorn flick as long as it wasn't too preachy.

Go look up "Color Revolution", that's the strategy against Trump and it doesn't involve Antifa hordes bombing infrastructure and shooting people with Chinese weapons. The people running this aren't stupid enough to go for a scheme like that since after all, Antifa are peaceful protestors.
The color revolution works if the media's narrative cannot be countered. Whereas thanks to the internet, it can be countered. Trump came at the right era and how he deals with this treason could be a future blueprint for countering glowie revolutionary faggotry.

There is also the Iranian method for countering a color revolution. You need devout, loyal and religious men willing to slaughter in the name of God and country to protect the people from foreign subversion. The green movement failed once the revolutionary guard decided to join the party.
 
I mean, there is an argument of "why didn't she retire when Obama had a majority," and I think the simple answer is that she thought she had a few good years left out of hubris.

That's all Ginsburg's moves were: hubris.

She didn't resign during the Obama years (despite major pressure put on her from the Dems-- the same Dems that have canonized her as a saint over the past 2-3 years, no less) because she wanted to be on the bench for as long as possible.

She planned to retire once Obama's successor was in office, and she was convinced that his successor was going to be Hillary. Whoopsie.

Hubris, indeed.



So, now the democrats are openly threatening extortion if the GOP does what its legally entitled to do

As if they haven't been aiming to do this anyway. Ever since Kavanaugh, the Dems have been toying with the idea of expanding the amount of Supreme Court judges. My response to this threat is, "Yeah, we know what you want to do ... Which is why I'm voting against you in the first place."

Fuck the Democrat Party at this point. If they didn't like what the GOP pulled in 2016, then maybe they shouldn't have gotten their asses kicked in the 2014 midterms and put the GOP at that advantage. And if the Dems hate what is going on now, then maybe they should have kept their promise of a "Blue Wave" in 2018.

As Obama himself said, "Elections have consequences."
 
Last edited:
She clearly hated Trump, I don't think anyone would dispute that. You can hate Trump and hate the modern DNC, though, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. I'm not in any way suggesting that she was doing any of this to help Trump and the GOP further any of their goals, I'm only implying that she hated the modern iteration of the Democratic party more than people expect.

Generic Conservatism didn't bother her all that much; she sided with Justices like Clarence Thomas on a regular basis and even some of her dissensions and opinions fall near the Moderate/Conservative side, so it wasn't as though she saw Conservativism as some kind of "ultimate death of America" situation. She did not, however, fly off the rails and fall neck-deep into Social Justice.

My argument isn't that she necessarily wanted the Conservatives or Donald Trump to "win", it's that she saw the logical conclusion of Social Justice as a dead end to her legacy because they have no interest in preserving the ideas that she had, they were only interested in preserving the image they made of her. Social Justice is a complete juxtaposition to like 80-90% of her dissenting opinions and these same people constantly talk about packing the Supreme Court until they've effectively destroyed it.

If you destroy the Supreme Court, you destroy Ruth's legacy. She may not have liked Donald Trump, but I'd wager she liked that idea less.
Your earlier post assumes she said that and given what you've posted about her I doubt she did. She may have been humoring her granddaughter one day when she was lucid and the morphine was wearing off but I doubt those were her exact, last words.

Imagine being fat Sotomayor and fugly Kagan when Ruthie went into another "Remember when my BFF Antonin wrote X opinion? Now there was a man who knew his shit!" when she wouldn't give them the time of day.
 

So, now the democrats are openly threatening extortion if the GOP does what its legally entitled to do
Well the democrats are giving the GOP more reasons to fill that seat asap. If GOP is living in a delusional dream that the uniparty is coming back, they are mistaken.

I am convinced that Cocaine Mitch will find a way to bring all them RINO cunts in line. I am surprised how much of a cunt is the senator Lisa Murkowski and she is from Alaska, a deep red state. Susan will have to votes yes unless she wants to lose her seat.

As for Mitt Romney, apparently Biden is looking into him being his potential secretary of state. He really did deserve to lose in 2012.
 
She clearly hated Trump, I don't think anyone would dispute that. You can hate Trump and hate the modern DNC, though, they don't have to be mutually exclusive. I'm not in any way suggesting that she was doing any of this to help Trump and the GOP further any of their goals, I'm only implying that she hated the modern iteration of the Democratic party more than people expect.

Generic Conservatism didn't bother her all that much; she sided with Justices like Clarence Thomas on a regular basis and even some of her dissensions and opinions fall near the Moderate/Conservative side, so it wasn't as though she saw Conservativism as some kind of "ultimate death of America" situation. She did not, however, fly off the rails and fall neck-deep into Social Justice.

My argument isn't that she necessarily wanted the Conservatives or Donald Trump to "win", it's that she saw the logical conclusion of Social Justice as a dead end to her legacy because they have no interest in preserving the ideas that she had, they were only interested in preserving the image they made of her. Social Justice is a complete juxtaposition to like 80-90% of her dissenting opinions and these same people constantly talk about packing the Supreme Court until they've effectively destroyed it.

If you destroy the Supreme Court, you destroy Ruth's legacy. She may not have liked Donald Trump, but I'd wager she liked that idea less.
If that was true she'd have retired when she got her cancer diagnosis and allowed Obama to put up a moderate to replace her. The Senate would likely have approved a centrist jurist like Roberts, especially the pre-Trump era GOP. Her gamble was to wait until Hillary got elected with a Dem majority Senate then she could 'protect her legacy' by having a leftist activist fill her seat. She lost which is why we had to witness the weekend at Bernie's re-run for the past 4 years.

Was she a hard core SJW? No, she was a second wave feminist and a Jew, but she was no moderate. That bitch would have repealed the 2A in a heartbeat and allowed legit infanticide.


So, now the democrats are openly threatening extortion if the GOP does what its legally entitled to do
The Dems have gone all in on the loser's veto. Results of elections mean nothing to them. They refuse to consent to electoral outcomes, it's making the country ungovernable.
 
This is like the right-wing equivalent of the left-wing screeds where Trump declares himself a fascist dictator but then the heroes of the #Resistance protest in the streets and after months of protests and battling the forces of ICE and alt-right Nazi militias, Donnie Drumpf is finally marched from the White House in handcuffs and sentenced to life in prison for murdering Joe Biden and Kamala Harris leads America and the world to the progressive superior future. It would make for an entertaining popcorn flick as long as it wasn't too preachy.

Go look up "Color Revolution", that's the strategy against Trump and it doesn't involve Antifa hordes bombing infrastructure and shooting people with Chinese weapons. The people running this aren't stupid enough to go for a scheme like that since after all, Antifa are peaceful protestors.
Color revolution. The 1990s called. They want their tinfoil hat back.0
 
For a good example of that, look at how Margaret Thatcher was treated after she died. Maybe the Brits have a longer memory for political grievances than we do, but the poor woman caught a lot of flak post-mortem even though by all accounts she was doing very poorly in her final years.

At least she got to retire, though.

No, those were just a minority of mouthy cunts amplified by the BBC too.

Most folks I spoke to, from both sides of the aisle including some absolutely die hard Tory haters (Due to 'tpits, eee) disliked the stupidity people put out there, including "ding dong the witch is dead" and the morons who turned their back on her gun carriage and screamed out "WHAT A WASTE OF MONEY" during her otherwise silent and respectful procession in the middle of London.

Nothing crowned this than the BBC, during their flagship Magazine Program The One Show right at the heart of prime time TV (7pm) wheeling out Johnny Rotten, former Punk Star Legend and noted modern butter enthusiast to try and say some terrible things about her now she was dead.

He outright refused and you can see the surprise and dissapointment on the drones faces when he does so. Noting that you can and should oppose someone for their politics during their lifetime, but respect should be given in death and that anyone doing it was being not very nice as a human being.

He's been on the BBC very few times since, the last time was when he noted that Dianne Abbot (Queen of the hypocrits) of Labour didn't like him very much and he found the feeling mutual.

It's the same as The Iron Lady was supposed to be an anti-Thatcher film, and it instead wound up making her look more badass and solid as the UK's first female PM.

Labour went down the same ruinous route the Dems have, only the rot seems more permenant as many "Red Wall" seats have taken a chance on the Tories. Early signs are it's working and once people break the habit of only voting for one party or another they tend to keep being a more "open" voter. That was found to the Guardian's confusion in Former Red Wall seat of Leigh.

This could happen elsewhere in the US too. A number of rust belt states were near knife edges and I doubt people will have forgotten the riots and the bullshit leading up to it.
 
Back