Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Remembering the Notorious RBG (Updated)

A round-up of remembrances and tributes.

|

Talk in Washington, D.C. has already turned to the politics of an election year Supreme Court vacancy and confirmation vote. For some, however, not enough time has been spent remembering and celebrating the legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Jurisprudential differences aside, she was loved and admired by her colleagues and touched the lives of countless Americans. She led a noble and inspirational life that should be remembered.

My co-blogger David Post reflected on RBG's legacy over the weekend. Below are some additional remembrances and tributes I thought might interest our readers.

In addition to the above, SCOTUSBlog is hosting a series of tributes here.

(Note: I've updated this post to add additional links and remembrances.)

 

 

NEXT: Classes #10: Executive Power I and Easements I

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wonderful post.

    FWIW, Prof. Post’s … post was picked up at many other places.

    So many people have (rightly) credited RBG for her amazing life, and also for her sterling advocacy and jurisprudence to advance the rights of women. This is all true, but what I loved the most was her keen intellect and her love of obscure civil procedure.

    1. Addendum: The pop culture image she acquired in later years (Notorious RBG, etc.) was both funny and endearing, but I hope it doesn’t overshadow what a truly amazing legal mind she had.

      One of my all-time favorite cases was, and probably always will be, the wrangling between her and Scalia regarding the standard of review and jury verdicts in terms of choice of law in Gasperini.

      1. One of my all-time favorite cases was, and probably always will be, the wrangling between her and Scalia regarding the standard of review and jury verdicts in terms of choice of law in Gasperini.

        I’m a law nerd myself, and I recognize that procedural questions can often be more interesting than the hot button substantive ones the media likes to focus on — but sheesh.

        1. Reminiscent of a story about two old football coaches, Bum Phillips and Sid Gillman.

          Gillman was famously a big advocate of dissecting game film. And he apparently told Phillips that he liked watching game film more than he liked making love to his wife.

          Phillips, in his Southern twang, replied:

          “Either I don’t know how to watch film, or you don’t know how to make love.”

    2. If it had been any other leftist they would have caved to ‘pragmatism’ or ‘common sense’ and retired gracefully back when Obama still had the Senate. Not RGB. She doesn’t do things the sissy way and instead goes for the prize of being replaced by Hillary since thats symbolic or something?

      Anyway without her forward thinking Trump wouldn’t have this golden opportunity to finally swing the Court to true centrism. And its all thanks to her. You’re a doll RGB, couldn’t have done it without you!

      1. Four new justices, clingers. Is that what you want? Because that is what you will get.

        For starters.

        Losing a culture war has consequences. And it’s time to start enforcing that point with vigor.

        1. Empty threat, as the Dems made clear well before RGB they will find whatever flimsy excuse to do whatever they feel they can get away with eventually. And there will just be retaliation in kind so you don’t gain anything in the end. You got nothing left.

          1. I have America.

            Been that way so long as we have been alive.

            Will continue — if not intensify — until you are replaced, with the rest of the clingers.

            Doesn’t matter whether you like it. All that matters is that you will comply.

        2. Suck my d***, Kirkland. That’s really all you are capable of, and I doubt you’re very good at that, either.

          WE SHALL OVERCOME……….

          1. You’re starting to crack. I hope you hold it together until next spring, at least. Rebuking conservatives wouldn’t be as much fun without having you to kick around.

          2. I didn’t realize you were gay.

      2. Amos, you’re a genuine POS.

        1. “Amos, you’re a genuine POS.”

          Seems like there’s been plenty of POS’s one the left, too.

          1. I agree with Twelve that Amos is a piece of shit.

    3. Her version of “advancing the rights of women” came at the expense of men.

      Giving women the “right” to kill their babies means denying a father the right to have a baby.

      Giving women the “right” to an unjustified promotion means taking one from a man.

      1. And how about the ultimate equality — drafting women…

        Yes, let’s let them have to deal with that…..

    4. Correction: Remembering Saint Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She has been sanctified and deified by the liberal media. Papal beatification will follow in due course. A petition to that effect is being launched as we speak. The Pope will hear from us.

  2. Here’s a remembrance about RBG that nobody but Steve Sailor is bringing up (is it to soon?), and that’s how in her 40 or so years on the bench, she only chose one black clerk. That is a position she had total control over the selection of, let it be noted. Affirmative action for thee, but selection on merit for me.

    1. That’s a good one. I’ll try to remember it when I (with people like me) am stepping on your tongue (and the tongues of every bigoted, conservative clinger) along the road of continuing American progress.

      1. Kirkland, you are a sophomoric hypocrite.

        1. Suck my d***, Kirkland. That’s really all you are capable of, and I doubt you’re very good at that, either.

          WE SHALL OVERCOME……….

      2. Oh, grow you to fake. RBG’s liberal hypocrisy was both funny and endearing. Such hypocrisy is how the country managed to actual work, despite liberals being in charge of so many cultural institutions over the past 50 years.

      3. “That’s a good one.”

        Sailor probably stole the idea from your comments about the makeup of this blog, Arthur. I can’t believe he’s ripping you off like that!

    2. Typical liberal NIMBY.

      She’s hired fewer black clerks in her tenure as both Judge and Justice than the alleged rapist on the Court. And fewer than the guy who likes to talk about pubic hair on Cokes.

      1. I think it’s a very fair point to bring up. I suspect that pretty much all human beings have good aspects and bad aspects to her legacy. One black law clerk in forever does not sound great. From any member of a federal appellate court and/or SCOTUS. Did anyone ask her why this was?

        1. Ummmm…. because she was a hypocrite????

        2. She exemplified the type of judge that is inimical to the Constitution. She wants her beliefs regarding affirmative action and racial equality to have force of law on the rest of America, and not herself.

          Like I said, typical NIMBY.

          A more principled choice would be Eugene Volokh. It would be a nice counter to the anti-1st amendment Alito.

    3. RBG was a racist, hate-filled partisan hack who should never have been on the court.

  3. How amazing was her life? How many babies died because she was one of the main architects behind a bogus “right to choose” murder? How much damage was done to race in this country in that she consistently voted to uphold racist college admission policies? And religious liberty? Why isn’t anyone mentioning that? Second Amendment? She was of the opinion you have absolutely no right to self defense.

    Let’s not view her through rose colored glasses. There was plenty wrong with what this woman stood for and some of those beliefs were paid for in the lives of children.

    1. You’re an obsolete bigot, Jimmy. The Conspirators appreciate your support, though.

      1. The dead babies, if they could talk, that is, if someone didn’t kill them, would agree with Jimmy.

        That said, I support abortion. We need more black people killed before they grow up into rioters, looters, welfare sponges, and other common criminal types.

        1. If a competent adult has information about so much as a single baby being killed, the sole responsible course would be to report the relevant information to the proper authorities.

          If a sensible person has no such information, the only responsible course would be to stop spouting superstitious nonsense while others are attempting to engage in reasoned debate.

          1. Ha, you’re as funny as a canker sore. It’s the *legal* killing of babies you silly fake, so reporting it to authorities would be pointless. Why, (Godwin aside) you could make the same stupid statement about Jews and sodomites in Nazi Germany being killed. You’re more intelligent than that (sorta).

            Still, no comment on how we should keep killing blacks when they are still young and innocent? Are you brave enough? It bears directly into the browning of America you wag your tongue about often enough.

            1. I let your racism speak for itself.

              And I thank this blog for exposing unvarnished conservative thinking to a broader audience than customarily observes it at RedState, FreeRepublic, Stormfront, and similar conservative sites.

          2. Kirkland, are you familiar with the “born alive” issue?

        2. The dead babies, if they could talk, that is, if someone didn’t kill them…

          This is not a serious argument, it’s just imagination plus emotionalism.

          1. No it is logical. Those babies would have been walking talking human beings had they not been murdered. Just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean the argument isn’t serious.

    2. Not just the lives of children — how many adult lives would have been saved had they been able to be armed?

      1. Which adults was Justice Ginsburg responsible for disarming, in your view?

        1. Seeing that the Court turned down a parade of Second Amendment petitions through the 80’s, 90’s and early 2000’s that were strong candidates for review the number could be in the hundreds of thousands. Even after Heller, the liberal wing made certain that no case which would actually enforce the right to self defense would be defined at the SCOTUS level so maybe add another few hundred thousand on to that. Fifty years is a long time….

      2. Wait, now Dr. Ed wants to arm fetuses?

        1. No, adult women who are being raped in highway rest areas.

          It’s called an “equalizer” for a reason….

    3. She was a liberal, and liberals’ beliefs are evil. It’s that simple. Which is why I’ve been calling for a civil war for almost a decade now, and will be thrilled when it comes.

      1. Yes, you have been advocating partisan violence here for some time. And you’re still here. While other comments have been banned for making fun of conservatives. That’s quite an approach to censorship exhibited by Prof. Volokh.

  4. Its kinda cringe how they tried to meme some old lady who literally fell asleep on the bench into some superhero figure. I mean did the right try to make Scalia in a batman costume a thing lol.

    1. Your disaffectedness, and disdain for modern America, is tiresome, AmosArch. Your replacement can’t come soon enough.

      1. Artie, it must suck knowing that you are the lefty version of Amos… lol, clinger

  5. “For some, however, not enough time has been spent remembering and celebrating the legacy of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”

    Let’s be fair – for one thing, the law journals haven’t had time to put out their commemorative issues yet.

  6. I am already sick of this over the top adulation. There is plenty to not like about her views, opinions, her jurisprudence.

    I suspect much of it is only because she had a vagina.

    1. It would be interesting to compare this with how Scalia was treated. I remember social media being a complete swamp. The MSM if I recall was careful enough to avoid overtly celebrating for the most part but the grieving and remembrances certainly seemed to be much smaller. Even on the relatively small rightwingosphere which didn’t really go for the same orgiastic displays the left is doing now.

      1. I’d say it’s broadly similar: decent people across the ideological spectrum (including, of course, Justice Ginsburg) recognized that his incredible talents, abilities, accomplishments, and character were worthy of respect and admiration and respect, while morally and intellectually deficient partisan hacks bleated out some unpersuasive criticism.

    2. How was O’Conner treated? She had a vagina too, the first vagina ever on the Supreme Court at that. I don’t recall as much laudatory rhetoric, but I might be wrong. Then again, she was a conservative, sooo…

      1. She’s also still alive…

        1. “She’s also still alive…”

          Yeah, but other than that . . .

        2. Ha, well, that’s embarrassing. Thanks. Let us compare then when she’s not.

          1. Yes. Let us compare then, as opposed to comparing your imagination with current events. That’s all you were saying. We should jump to imaginary conclusions until we discover they were fake. Then, we should exercise restraint until some other imagination comes true.

    3. It may also be largely sociopolitical, beyond the weird feminist worship. As much as Kirkland and his ilk like to pretend they aren’t clinging to superstition, they seem to crave it enough to manufacture quasi-religious structures and appurtenances around their agendas. Her record on civil rights for all was not stellar throughout her career, but this is lost in the noise of the ‘bravery’ of being a woman on the highest Court in the arguably the safest country on the planet.

      1. “Her record on civil rights for all was not stellar throughout her career,”

        Stellar? It was abysmal if you don’t use the left’s unmoored from the actual Constitution definition of “civil rights”. Freedom of religion, property rights, freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms… She’d have gutted the Bill of Rights if she’d had another vote or two on the court to help.

        1. ” “Her record on civil rights for all was not stellar throughout her career,”

          Stellar? It was abysmal ”

          These are your peeps, Conspirators. Knuckle-dragging, downscale, obsolete bigots.

          This is why movement conservatives will always be curiosity pieces at legitimate, let alone strong, law schools.

          1. Kirkland, your side wouldn’t tolerate a schmuck like you.
            We do — what’s that say about us?

            1. Reread that very slowly.

              1. These guys are starting to unravel. I need to pace it or they won’t make it until next spring, and where would the fun in that be?

              2. “Reread that very slowly.”

                literal lol

        2. I’m sure you’ll pardon me if I say that perhaps you are not the ultimate authority on the Bill of Rights.

          1. We are The People: the ULTIMATE authority on the ENTIRE Constitution and government

            1. Bernard is also The People. So am I.

              So maybe you and Brett should have some humility and realize who you don’t speak for.

              1. Says the guy deferring to 5 idiots in robes …

                1. It’s my prerogative as one of The People to consider that my particular views of the Constitution are not the be-all and end-all. Even when I vehemently disagree, I accept the institutions of our Republic, the judiciary and it’s place in our Constitution’s operation included.

                  You think you’re righteous, but Brett and you insisting that all who disagree with either of you are illegitimate and hate the True Constitution is nothing but pridefulness.

                  1. Your view of the constitutionalism is pure gnosticism and a will to power, often over the objections clear majorities, precedence or anything else.

                    A totalitarian in every sense of the word.

                    1. Uh, no it’s not.

                    2. You can point to privacy and abortion in the constitution?

                      How “make no law” can mean make all the laws we like?

                      I am not creating an abortion ban out of the constitution — it is not there — your side just makes it up as we go along. Magical words and clauses appear!

                    3. Read the cases; they explain pretty well.

                      I see that you are really saying that all who disagree with you are pure will to power totalitarians.
                      So you’re just an angry man who thinks the world revolves around him.
                      Realize that it revolves around neither you nor I. That might make you less impotently angry.

                    4. We are not the ones being slaughtered in the womb
                      We are not the ones having our businesses destroyed on a whim and fear.

                      You are indeed a selfish little man.

                    5. We’re not the ones being forced by the state to give up their bodily autonomy
                      We’re not the ones who can be treated as second class citizens.

                      See how easy emotionalism can be? Because it’s not an argument, it’s just mistaking your worldview for the moral center of the universe.

                      Do not tie your views to moral certainty. Otherwise, you become a zealot who can justify any horrible act imaginable, because you have defined yourself as the good guy.

                    6. When is slavery morally acceptable?

                      Rape?

                    7. Both society and I call those wrong.

                      I’m not arguing for postmodernism, I’m arguing against your prideful solipsism.
                      If all legal decisions you don’t like are basically Dred Scott to you, then you may want to get your outrage center calibrated, as you have no perspective.

                      And, again, without perspective, what’s to stop you from bombing an abortion clinic? Knock off one of those totalitarian Justices?

                      I think Shelby County may be low-key the worst and most damaging case in my lifetime. But I don’t go saying all who disagree are monsters. You, on the other hand, seem to inhabit a world of mostly monsters. That’s no way to be.

                  2. Are you morally certain?

                    I do not believe that birthright citizenship is in the constitution and that clause was concerning making ex slaves citizens — others disagree and both side have rational arguments and can come to the different conclusion honestly. There are many other decisions that reasonable people can disagree and you know that — this is not a good faith argument.

                    Roe is WORSE than Dred Scott — it eliminates the very humanity of a child. The constitution is colorblind, there is no more rationale for DS that Roe.

                    We either have a written constitution or we do not

                    1. I have my own morality. I go to church to constantly interrogate it and keep it well tuned.

                      I have some moral lines where people who disagree are monstrous to me. My issue is that where that line is for you.
                      It appears to come up a lot. Supreme Court opinions whose outcomes you disagree with (not that you read them), all Democrats, affirmative action, abortion.

                      I’m glad you found one thing you can discuss with people civilly, but talking with you on here that seems to be the exception not the rule. You need to ask yourself why you think reasonable people can differ so rarely, and what that means for your ability to function in a pluralistic society.

                    2. Meaningless.

                      Remember how this started: You took the mantle of the American People as your own.
                      I don’t care how large your moral scold center has gotten, or how hard you stamp your little feet, that’s never going to be something you can truthfully do.

                    3. You are emoting, nothing more — it’s all you deserve

  7. “Notorious.” Definition: famous or well known, typically for some bad quality or deed.

    Just an observation…

    1. “typically” is doing a lot of work, in your tortured effort to make it mean . . . um, something.

    2. Bonnie & Clyde were “notorious.”

      Just sayin….

  8. I appreciated the Eugene Scalia piece, thanks.

  9. “not enough time has been spent remembering and celebrating the legacy”

    Far too much time actually already. As a justice she is famous for what opinions exactly? Tony K [spits] was the dominant figure during her time on the court, not her. All style and little substance.

  10. I just hope Eugene is reading this thread.

    1. He cultivated this following. He gets what he deserves.

      Unless he repents, he deserves plenty more of it.

  11. I thought I’d stop in & congratulate Professor Adler for rising above the political venom of both sides in other threads. Poor Justice Ginsburg is barely gone and we’re already fighting over her dead body. It’s generous of Adler to step back and consider her life.

    (Meanwhile, these comments are chock-full of examples why your typical modern Right-type is considered a petty soulless turd of a human being – consumed with endless sputtering victimhood & rage. My belief : If you can say something respectful of the dead, then keep silent)

    1. Rightwingers will rightfully criticize her. Dying doesn’t make you a saint and the left did the same for Scalia and all other rightwingers. Leftwingers will slobber all over her like you and Adler are doing.

      If you truly ‘rose above’ the politics you would not essentially demanding that she not be criticized or using this as an opportunity to attack a political group.

      Personally I love RGB for giving trump this opportunity to fill her seat.

      1. When Donald Trump, speaking extemporaneously and taken by surprise, is able to offer more grace and class in his response than what you’ve come up with after a couple of days of reflection, that’s a you problem.

        1. If someone truly thinks a person is evil and hates them (btw I don’t hate RGB) why should they refrain from criticizing them or praise them in the immediate aftermath of their death? Please explain.

          1. If someone truly thinks Ruth Bader Ginsburg is evil and hates her, I would welcome them to publicize their stunted moral development for the benefit of the rest of us.

    2. Yup.

      What complete assholes these people are.

      It’s unbelievable.

      1. *turns around and makes snarky comment about Scalia on Twitter.

        1. I defy you to find a snarky comment about Scalia on Twitter.

          You can’t, so STFU.

          1. Why must you be so nasty?

      2. btw what exactly are you getting mad at here? Most of the criticism is just plain criticism. Its not like theres an abundance of jokes about her burning in hell or rising up as a zombie to vote. Do you consider the conservatives here not falling down and worshipping her as an atrocity? Compared to how leftists act when a conservative dies the conservatives here have been extraordinarily polite. Are you hallucinating some mean antiGinsburg jokers?

        1. Losing the culture war and becoming a misfit in modern America has made you cranky, AmosArch.

          How you spend your time while awaiting replacement — by a younger, better American — is your call, however.

          1. Kirkland, read the Book of Job — assuming you know how to read…

            1. Read Annals of the Former World. Or, because you indicated you like fiction (and fairy tales in general), try some Brothers Grimm.

    3. Ditto. Astonishingly garbage people.

  12. So, the SCOTUS is ruthless, literally.

  13. It’s not the first time that Republicans have shown disrespect for the memory of a Democratic Supreme Court justice who died in office:

    https://www.civilwarmonitor.com/commentary/the-death-of-roger-b-taney

    1. Lincoln issued an arrest warrant for that criminal. A federal marshal almost took it from his hand. A dirty lawyer in the room persuaded Lincoln to hold on to it, since Chief Justices are above the law. Taney violated the constitution, a ratified international treaty, and a law that prevented war for 27 years. He is one of the greatest lawyer criminals in our history. He set off the Civil War by his lawlessness, and had 850000 American killed. That fraction of the population would be equivalent to 3 million killed today. He set back race relations 100 years. He was one of the greatest lawyer catastrophes in history.

      The arrest warrant in on display in the US Marshall Museum, in Fort Smith, Ark.

      1. That I did not know — although I know he wrote in his diary that he expected Lincoln to have him arrested.

        I’m wondering how much was health — Taney was dying, Linsoln may have known that, and in addition to compassion, it wouldn’t have looked good for him to die in custody.

      2. Since there’s no evidence of the existence of any such warrant ever existing, it seems unlike it is on display anywhere.

        1. Dr. Ed found his soulmate.

    2. 156 years since he shuffled off this mortal coil, hopefully you are trolling…

      1. I’m afraid so 🙁

        Allow me to say something constructive to honor the deceased, praising a *good* decision she joined:

        “Although Ginsburg did not author the majority opinion, she was credited with influencing her colleagues on the case Safford Unified School District v. Redding, 557 U.S. 364 (2009).[80] The court ruled that a school went too far in ordering a 13-year-old female student to strip to her bra and underpants so female officials could search for drugs. In an interview published prior to the court’s decision, Ginsburg shared her view that some of her colleagues did not fully appreciate the effect of a strip search on a 13-year-old girl. As she said, “They have never been a 13-year-old girl.” In an 8–1 decision, the court agreed that the school’s search went too far and violated the Fourth Amendment and allowed the student’s lawsuit against the school to go forward. Only Ginsburg and Stevens would have allowed the student to sue individual school officials as well.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg#Search_and_seizure

  14. I liked when she called Colin Kaepernick “dumb” and “stupid” and “disrespectful.”

  15. A year ago, I asked people in social media to pray, if they believed in prayer, for the day that came last week. If there is a God, his sense of timing in granting prayer is masterful.

    This was a mass murdering, horrifying creature, with no human feeling. She had the full protection of the greatest criminal enterprise in the world, the American legal profession. She was the ultimate white supremacist. One third of her millions of innocent victims were black, compared to their 12% prevalence in the population.

    1. Your god is an illusory, paltry thing, fit for nothing more than a child. Try to grow up, clinger.

      Or not. It won’t influence the fate of your obsolete ideas and ugly preferences.

      1. Abortion is still Black extermination…

  16. I hesitate to post even a trivial anecdote, this thread’s been so polluted by sub-normal assholes. But what the hell:

    Here’s a cute story about how one of RBG’s clerks got her to talk trash to Samuel Alito.

    1. I saw that. Pretty great.

      I did note the bit at the end that Alito said he’d give more attention to his team, but actually delegated it to a clerk.

    2. I don’t think those Delta Charlies understand the depth of MALE rage right now. From having our babies murdered to losing our careers to less qualified women, we are pissed….

      1. My careers have been great, Dr. Ed 2. It’s the lesser males, the weaklings and losers, the incels and clingers, who fume about competition with women.

        And who seem to like this blog.

      2. It’s hard to imagine someone less qualified than you, Dr. Ed.

  17. By promising a woman, Trump is disrespecting men.

  18. Yeesh.

    I gotta comment here less. This kind of toxicity cannot help but rub off.

    Reminds me if the Lena Dunham thread back in the day. Wonder what they share in common…

    1. “I gotta comment here less.”

      Promises, promises.

      1. Here’s a promise: One justice now, four more next spring.

        Open wider, clingers.

  19. She led a noble and inspirational life that should be remembered.

    This reminds me of when Ted Kennedy died, and everyone lauded him as noble. What was so noble about him? He spent most of his career figuring out how to spend other peoples’ money, when he wasn’t trashing people like Robert Bork.

    As for RGB, it is one thing to wish her family to be comforted for their loss. I can join that. (Her daughter was my professor, back in the last century.) But RGB was more than just a private person, she sat on the highest court in the land for over a quarter century.

    And her jurisprudence could be summed up in one phrase: I will vote what I think is right. Not what the Constitutional provision or the Congressional enactment were created for, but what I think is right. That is government by judicial fiat. L’etat c’est moi.

    Her stance on abortion well illustrates this. Putting aside the moral dimension, she well knew that Roe v. Wade was indefensible jurisprudentially. She even more or less admitted that in an interview years ago. Yet she was a consistent supporter of the most radical view of “abortion rights,” which in her mind trumped (pardon the expression) everything else.

    Contrast this with Scalia. Scalia, as a devout Catholic, would no doubt have liked to ban all or almost all abortions. But his jurisprudence did not reflect that. His view was that abortion was not restricted by the 14th or any other amendment. States are free to allow or restrict abortion. If Roe v. Wade were overturned, many states would still allow abortion, even up to the last minute of pregnancy.

    True, RGB was not alone in this stance. (Anthony Kennedy, answer your phone.) But that is no defense.

    So, sorry, I don’t view her as a saint. She was a nice person, I am sure, a dedicated lawyer and then jurist and then Supreme Court justice. But she also represented what is wrong with many judges.

    1. I didn’t agree with all her jurisprudence. But she was better than “what I think is right”. She was smart.

      1. Name two major cases where she sided with legal/constitutional integrity and consistency over ideology.

        1. How can I rebut without knowing how you define “legal/constitutional integrity and consistency over ideology”? If you and I happen to disagree about what is legal/constitutional, what would be the point of the exercise?

          Off the top of my head, I agreed with her dissent in Burwell, at III-C-1. Like her, I don’t think Hobby Lobby, Inc. is the type of entity that can “exercise religion” and is not such a necessary part of religious exercise to qualify (like a church would).

          I had not thought her decision in US v. Sineneng-Smith was controversial, even among conservatives. If you’ll listen to cases in which she joined the holding, I could expand the list to probably include cases in which even you would agree with her.

      2. “Smart” does not contradict what I said. There are lots of smart people who use their smarts to come up with a justification for what they want.

        1. I disagree with you that she decided exclusively on the basis of “what I think is right”.

  20. Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg

    Gee, I wonder who she was talking about????? More black and brown babies in New York City being aborted than being born.

    Her “wish” came true …

  21. Google pays for every Person every hour online working from home job. I have received $23K in this month easily and I Abw earns every weeks $5K to 8$K on the internet. Every Person join this working easily by just just open this website and follow instructionsClick For Full Detail.

  22. I thought Randy Barnett’s article was very well done.

    1. Then you haven’t read this comment thread. That article was totally cuck.

      1. That’s true; I didn’t read the comment thread. But I don’t know what it means for an article to be “cuck.” It seemed sincere to me.

        1. I agree and I think it was an excellent article. I was just satirizing some of the comments here.

  23. Keep your kitchen sink clean and dry. Clean and rinse thoroughly any dishes you want to leave in the sink overnight.
    You want to make sure that there are no food residues that could attract ants at night.
    Consider pouring a little bleach down the drain to wipe off the scent of leftovers.

  24. Keep your kitchen sink clean and dry. Clean and rinse thoroughly any dishes you want to leave in the sink overnight.
    You want to make sure that there are no food residues that could attract ants at night.
    Consider pouring a little bleach down the drain to wipe off the scent of leftovers.
    مكافحة حشرات في ابوظبي

Please to post comments