Evidence, The Media and Mrs Ginsburg

IT is both legally and morally irrelevant if Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed a “dying wish” that her replacement on the US Supreme Court be named by a “new President.” Taken literally, this could mean the vacancy is kept open for another four and a half years. I’m willing to accept that Ginsburg said this to her granddaughter, Clara Spera. It wouldn’t be an exceptional confidence for the left-wing standard-bearer to share with her family. Nor a surprising one: after all, Ginsburg liked to be seen as – and was – a Trump hater. Nevertheless, I think it’s far more likely that Spera embellished the purported exchange by characterising as a “dying wish” what was simply a humdrum sentiment expressed at some time during her grand’s lengthy decline (possibly more than once). Posthumous whoppers about what a decedent said or desired at the end – or, as regards a contested will, should have said or desired at the end – are as old as society. Ginsburg’s alleged comment is far less consequential than a will – which, contested or not, is a legal instrument. The late judge’s “wish” is suspiciously convenient hearsay whose ramifications would be non-existent even had it been livestreamed and notorised.

Never ones to let facts stand in the way of an opportunity for Democrats, the media has seized on this fake news story in order to prepare the public for a nomination assault that will likely exceed for infamy and criminality the terrorism unleashed against Brett Kavanaugh by Christine Blasey Ford in late 2018. Now vanished into total obscurity (legally, the safest place to be following the collapse of her comical rape charges), Ford was treated by a majority of journalists as a credible heroine rather than what she really was: a scatterbrained sociopath and a political prostitute-for-hire. In 2019, Time named Ford in its 100 Most Influential People list. Prospective Vice-President Kamala Harris – now chaperoning Joe Biden through a farcical ‘campaign’ for the Oval Office – wrote the oddball magazine’s mendacious entry. Of course, nobody in the White House Press Corps has asked Harris if Tara Reade should also be lionised for her “courage” and “unfathomable sacrifice.” That’s because the pressmen are not in journalism to embarrass Democrats but to protect them at any cost.

While it’s true the Trump-enraged media is not embarrassed by reality – think “mostly peaceful” – journalists are sufficiently irritated by it to concoct weekly misdirections whose unchanging purpose is to rendition it. One minute, the truth is walking down the street – obvious for all to see – the next it’s being bundled into a van and rushed away to a secure location. For example, the ABC uses AP copy to obscure inconvenient legal facts about Justice Ginsburg’s dubious “wish” to instead parse President Trump’s mischievous suggestion that it may have been composed by others. “Providing no evidence,” the report sniffily cautions, “Mr Trump indicated… Adam Schiff, Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were behind the statement.” First, does one even need evidence for an ‘indication’? Second: Ms Spera’s statement was a flat-out claim, one being used to indefinitely delay a Supreme Court nomination; the President, by contrast, had simply pointed out there was as much established provenance for the one as there was for the other. Which is – by the way – the best and fairest journalistic approach to the story.

On the respect customarily afforded by Presidents to solemn whims: in a 2012 interview, Justice Antonin Scalia said he would prefer Judge Frank H. Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to be “his” successor. Just 23 days after Scalia’s funeral in February 2016, Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland.

This entry was posted in American politics, Fake News. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Evidence, The Media and Mrs Ginsburg

  1. Rex Anger

    And cue a mUnted meltdown in 3…2…1…

  2. Leigh Lowe

    If RPG actually uttered those words all it tells me is that a 27 year Supreme Court veteran went to her grave not understanding what “separation of powers” meant.
    Just as it is improper for politicians to interfere in the judicial process, it is likewise improper for judges to interfere in the political process.

  3. William the Conjuror

    There, there. It’s ok. The Handmaid, Scalia’s apprentice, will be Trump’s nominee.

  4. stackja

    Democrats/MSM hypocrisy.
    I am shocked!

  5. Bruce of Newcastle

    Trump should immediately expand the Supreme Court to 11 then nominate 3 conservatives.
    The Dems have announced widely they intend to expand the court, so why not now?

  6. calli

    Bruce! Don’t give away the October Surprise!

  7. Andre

    Whether she did or did say this is entirely irrelevant as it is the role of the President to nominate a SCOTUS member and the Senate’s role to accept or reject the nominee.
    Perhaps it is normal for a leader in family dictatorships like North Korea to demand a dynasty of leaders and lawmakers on their deathbed but it has no relevance in a democracy like the USA.

  8. Rob MW

    I’m willing to accept that Ginsburg said this to her granddaughter, Clara Spera.

    CL – I’m not. This is the poignant part of Ginsburg’s dyeing wish:

    “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed,”

    If her granddaughter is telling the truth; on what planet would Justice Ginsburg say that a U.S President is “Installed” ? She would have used the word ‘Elected’ or ‘Inaugurated’.

    This is not to say that the Democrats are not all about trying to install Harris as the 47th while building an old people’s home for the Biden’s in the Rose Garden and doing test runs on the speed on the WH’s newly installed stair chair fully equipped with the holy grail of oh shit bar’s.

  9. P

    There, there. It’s ok. The Handmaid, Scalia’s apprentice, will be Trump’s nominee.

    Her name?

  10. If RBG did make that statement to her grand daughter, then she was even more vile than I thought.
    A grand mother would talk about family and life matters to a grand daughter while on her death bed.
    The Democrats want us to believe that RBG is so evil, she’d throw her grand daughter into a political war as her last act.
    I’m with Trump. It was made up. Probably by the grand daughter. Apples don’t fall far from the tree.

  11. Rob MW

    Her name?

    Newsweek’s Attempt to Smear Potential SCOTUS Pick Amy Coney Barrett Fails Spectacularly

    Newsweek published a story on Monday where the author claimed a Catholic group potential Supreme Court pick Judge Amy Coney Barrett belongs to was the inspiration for “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood. It turns out that was not the case.

  12. nb

    A good representation of elite rule:
    ‘She said it. That overrides the constitution and precedent.’
    Rule by edict.
    Reminds me of the Victorian branch of China ALP.

  13. Diogenes

    Newsweek published a story on Monday where the author claimed a Catholic group potential Supreme Court pick Judge Amy Coney Barrett belongs to was the inspiration for “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood. It turns out that was not the case.

    Newsweek didn’t look hard for what inspired her or actually read the book.
    https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2019/sep/margaret-atwood-handmaids-tale-testaments-real-life-inspiration.html

    or this

    As stated, the novel’s setting – the fictional Republic of Gilead – can be seen to have many linkages to the America of Atwood’s context, and thus its depiction consolidates The Handmaid’s Tale’s place amongst works of Speculative Fiction. For example, references to oppressed Quakers, Catholics, and Jews can be seen as a barb directed at the religious intolerance of certain Evangelical denominations at the time, particularly given long-lasting prejudices against Roman Catholicism.

    (my bolding)
    https://liamslit12.wordpress.com/2012/09/05/margaret-atwoods-the-handmaids-tale-context-of-production/

  14. P

    Newsweek published a story on Monday where the author claimed a Catholic group potential Supreme Court pick Judge Amy Coney Barrett belongs to was the inspiration for “The Handmaid’s Tale” by Margaret Atwood. It turns out that was not the case.

    As the heading of the article states ‘Attempt to smear’.

  15. Rob MW

    As the heading of the article states ‘Attempt to smear’.

    It gets worse. Newsweek then put this editors note in completely debunking their own article but left it up anyway:

    The publication then inserted the following correction:

    “This article’s headline originally stated that People of Praise inspired ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’.

    The book’s author, Margaret Atwood, has never specifically mentioned the group as being the inspiration for her work. A New Yorker profile of the author from 2017 mentions a newspaper clipping as part of her research for the book of a different charismatic Catholic group, People of Hope. Newsweek regrets the error.”

    Where’s little Willy boy ?

  16. Slim Cognito

    According to their ABC, she also directed that there be no men on the Supreme Court. Therefore it must be so.

    But her ultimate dream was a future where the entire Supreme Court is helmed by women justices and women justices alone.

    “People ask me sometimes, ‘When do you think there will be enough? When will there be enough women on the court?'” she said at Georgetown University in 2015.

    “And my answer is, when there are nine.”

  17. Spurgeon Monkfish III

    Last word goes to the person who noted on twatter – “Your dying wish isn’t mentioned in the constitution”.

  18. tgs

    Trump’s got the the constitutional right and the mandate, speaking both from an electoral and precdent perspective, to nominate a replacement. The Senate will then confirm as they should as they’ve got the numbers.

    I hope it’s Barrett just to see what batshit insane nonsense the left will dream up to try and smear her.

  19. John A

    tgs #3594932, posted on September 23, 2020, at 2:08 pm

    Trump’s got the constitutional right and the mandate, speaking both from an electoral and precedent perspective, to nominate a replacement. The Senate will then confirm as they should as they’ve got the numbers.

    I hope it’s Barrett just to see what batshit insane nonsense the left will dream up to try and smear her.

    And I hope they go all out to smear, have it all exposed as a scam, and then see the President nominate someone else.

  20. Kneel

    “…speaking both from an electoral and precedent perspective,…”

    Indeed.

    The precedent is pretty clear – for the 19 times this has happened where the President is aligned politically with the senate and it was an election year, someone was appointed 18 times (FDR wanted to expand the size of SCOTUS beyond 9 judges, and was thwarted by his own party).

    It’s worth finding out what Obama and Biden had to say about the matter when it came up for them in 2016 – both wanted their pick in place with no delay, and even suggested it was the duty of both the President and the senate to do so.

    With the likelyhood of litigation re: the presidential election, having an even number of supreme court judges is dangerous, as it allows for a “tie”, and then what?

    I would not be surprised if Trump nominates the same individual the Obama did – they are mostly centre, a little leftist, but also leans to constitutionality. It would be most amusing should the dems have a fit over someone their own legend (in his own mind) pres nominated!
    We will know soon – Trump has said he will announce his nomination after RBGs funeral, so Friday or Saturday (US time).

  21. P

    I hope it’s Barrett just to see what batshit insane nonsense the left will dream up to try and smear her.

    ACB is the frontrunner with good reason. I fear though that there will be plenty of attempts at smearing if she is PDT’s choice. Not a good time for this.

    Larsen is among a small group of female lawyers whom Trump is considering to replace Ginsburg…
    White House officials say Trump was referring to Larsen when he said Monday his finalists included “a great one from Michigan.” On Tuesday, he called her “very talented” in an interview with a local television station.

    Conservative activists hope that, if nominated and confirmed by the Senate, Larsen would carry on the legacy of her mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom she clerked in the early 1990s and eulogized after his 2016 death.

    For Trump, picking Larsen could give him a boost in the critical battleground state of Michigan, where she has raised her two children, advanced her career and won election to the state Supreme Court.

    https://apnews.com/5cef9d398abd8ec65dfc1d3d9b332560

    They could of course smear her for the voluntary work she did for Biden’s presidential run in 1988.

  22. Hay Stockard

    Leftards hold the law in contempt. Unless it favours them. Otherwise they will try to rewrite or reinterpret it. Lower than a snakes’s nuts with no redeeming fretures.

  23. PB

    Ginsberg had one agenda only, and that only involved America in as much as it could be manipulated in the blind support of that agenda.

    She was a Nation-wrecker.

  24. Squirrel

    Don’t really care what the dying wish was, but do care quite a bit about the fact that Strayan taxpayer dollars were wasted by our Trump-obsessed national broadcaster reporting that “Trump refuses to honour dying wish” as a leading story for a day or more.

  25. Alan

    What happened? A Total Fail. Ask the Democrats. Tim Pool explains @2:00:
    “Back in [November] 2013, Harry Reid [D-Nev Fed Senate Majority Leader] changed the rules. You used to need 60 votes in the Senate to confirm a Judge, and he changed it to a simple majority.”

    See also: US Democrats and the Nuclear option.

  26. Clam Chowdah

    You really are the finest writer on this site, CL. If you were to publish a book I would buy it.

Comments are closed.