We're well beyond the territory of ever giving a fuck about what the Supreme Court thinks ever again. The Supreme Court needs to get in the cuck chair as they watch us resurrect the constitution they destroyed. The constitution will be obeyed again come 2028, and the demonic traitors and supporters of the Antichrist will be purged entirely from American civic life. How I pray for the day when we finally cast you demons out! You hate us so much because it's the demons in you screeching.
Empathy is bias? Why are we relitigating this? Just sentences before the famous quote, she explicitly stated: "I do not believe that we should believe that there is any objective stance but only a series of perspectives." Her comment—"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life"—was specifically about cases involving race and sex discrimination. She was expressing a hope that the unique life experiences of marginalized groups provide valuable insights into civil rights issues that someone who hasn't faced those barriers might miss. She was not asserting biological superiority; she was highlighting the value of lived experience in a justice system that had historically excluded those perspectives.
In addition, a review of her extensive judicial record contradicts this narrative in several key ways while your interpretation suggests the "wise Latina" quote amounts to a confession of prejudice.
This story is more than 10 years old. The Ginsburg story you keep bringing up in many articles is more than 20 years old (she has also died, maybe you will discuss that breaking news in a 2036 post). Though I recognize the topic of this blog is a trip down memory lane to relive the bad-faith grievances of yore--which, by the way, didn't seem to work on either RBG or on Sotomayor--I am going to mute you since this drivel raises my blood pressure for no reason.
Also, I read the quote to say "wise Latina judges have richer experiences to draw on in crafting opinions than white males who haven't had those rich experiences." There is enough ambiguity in the actual quote that it doesn't *necessarily* follow that she is saying all Latinas are better judges than all white men. IMO, this is no different than CT saying something like "I would hope that a wise black Gullah man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach better decisions than a white [childless cat] lady." We'd obviously hear some screaming about a comment like that, but it would also be arguably true provided you believe the proposition that it's good for a judge to draw on his or her experience in reaching decisions.
Could you write an article on the fact that FedSoc operates as affirmative action for conservative lawyers? Here's an outline: (1) LSAT is a valid test for IQ and ability as a lawyer, (2) T14 admissions are roughly sorted by LSAT score., (3) the vast majority of T14 law students are liberal, (4) a roughly equal number of judges are appointed by D vs. R presidents, (5) all judges prefer to hire law clerks with the highest IQ and merit as a laywer. If an R-appointed judge prefers hiring R-aligned clerks, he or she has a smaller pool of available T14 grads given (3). Thus, given (4) and (5), an R-appointed judge has to dig deeper into the pool of T14 grads or go outside the T14. Given (1) and (2) and the law of averages, it's easier for an R-aligned grad to get a federal celerkship. This forbidden knowledge is an old grievance I'd be interested in reading about!
Despite that clearly racist statement, reading any of her opinions it seems she has the intellectual horsepower to be on the Supreme Court. In contrast read any of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s opinions and it’s clear this is not someone with the intellect to serve as a justice of the peace in Bumfucqt, Arkansas much less the highest court in the land. But then this is someone who can’t define a woman.
“Big” Ed Whelan who nearly sunk Beer Bong Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination by blaming a private individual in Dr. Blasey-Ford’s sexual assault?
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/09/23/ed-whelan-kavanaugh-theory-837445
We're well beyond the territory of ever giving a fuck about what the Supreme Court thinks ever again. The Supreme Court needs to get in the cuck chair as they watch us resurrect the constitution they destroyed. The constitution will be obeyed again come 2028, and the demonic traitors and supporters of the Antichrist will be purged entirely from American civic life. How I pray for the day when we finally cast you demons out! You hate us so much because it's the demons in you screeching.
Kind of had to start blocking nominees after this one.
Empathy is bias? Why are we relitigating this? Just sentences before the famous quote, she explicitly stated: "I do not believe that we should believe that there is any objective stance but only a series of perspectives." Her comment—"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life"—was specifically about cases involving race and sex discrimination. She was expressing a hope that the unique life experiences of marginalized groups provide valuable insights into civil rights issues that someone who hasn't faced those barriers might miss. She was not asserting biological superiority; she was highlighting the value of lived experience in a justice system that had historically excluded those perspectives.
In addition, a review of her extensive judicial record contradicts this narrative in several key ways while your interpretation suggests the "wise Latina" quote amounts to a confession of prejudice.
This story is more than 10 years old. The Ginsburg story you keep bringing up in many articles is more than 20 years old (she has also died, maybe you will discuss that breaking news in a 2036 post). Though I recognize the topic of this blog is a trip down memory lane to relive the bad-faith grievances of yore--which, by the way, didn't seem to work on either RBG or on Sotomayor--I am going to mute you since this drivel raises my blood pressure for no reason.
Also, I read the quote to say "wise Latina judges have richer experiences to draw on in crafting opinions than white males who haven't had those rich experiences." There is enough ambiguity in the actual quote that it doesn't *necessarily* follow that she is saying all Latinas are better judges than all white men. IMO, this is no different than CT saying something like "I would hope that a wise black Gullah man with the richness of his experience would more often than not reach better decisions than a white [childless cat] lady." We'd obviously hear some screaming about a comment like that, but it would also be arguably true provided you believe the proposition that it's good for a judge to draw on his or her experience in reaching decisions.
Could you write an article on the fact that FedSoc operates as affirmative action for conservative lawyers? Here's an outline: (1) LSAT is a valid test for IQ and ability as a lawyer, (2) T14 admissions are roughly sorted by LSAT score., (3) the vast majority of T14 law students are liberal, (4) a roughly equal number of judges are appointed by D vs. R presidents, (5) all judges prefer to hire law clerks with the highest IQ and merit as a laywer. If an R-appointed judge prefers hiring R-aligned clerks, he or she has a smaller pool of available T14 grads given (3). Thus, given (4) and (5), an R-appointed judge has to dig deeper into the pool of T14 grads or go outside the T14. Given (1) and (2) and the law of averages, it's easier for an R-aligned grad to get a federal celerkship. This forbidden knowledge is an old grievance I'd be interested in reading about!
Racist on the Supreme Court. Who’d a thunk?
Despite that clearly racist statement, reading any of her opinions it seems she has the intellectual horsepower to be on the Supreme Court. In contrast read any of Ketanji Brown Jackson’s opinions and it’s clear this is not someone with the intellect to serve as a justice of the peace in Bumfucqt, Arkansas much less the highest court in the land. But then this is someone who can’t define a woman.
You’re posting this today…in March 2026? I’m confused.
He’s one of the puritanical zealots who worked for Ken Starr, if that helps.