The “Ginsburg Rule” was a rule of the Senate that prohibited Senators from asking a judicial nominee how they would rule on a specific case.

Like all norms that intent fairness in our system, the Left destroyed it.

They found away around the Ginsburg Rule when it came to Roe, asking if nominees thought it was “settled law,” i.e., implying that the nominee would not decide to overturn it.

Senate Democrats wanted to protect Roe at all costs.

Now this is the tool they will try and use to destroy the Court.

This is more than a bunch of randos saying this, major media talking heads and even politicians have said this on TV.

The Left wants to know exactly how a Justice will rule, even if they can’t block a nominee, they want a fail safe to impeach a Justice of they rule against the Left.

Remember, norms and rules are the tools they use to hold us back from advancing while they break them to gain power.

Spread the love

By J. Kb

15 thoughts on “This is how the Left will try and take out SCOTUS”
  1. Dred Scott v. Sandford was “settled law” and “established precedent.” So was Plessy v. Ferguson, Wolf v. Colorado, and Adler v. Board of Education…

    Not that these folks have ever read any of them or understand why they were overturned. But, hey, let’s apply the liberal’s logic and undo any decision that overruled a prior decision of the Court.

    Slavery is back, segregated schools are back, warrantless searches of medical records are back, and schools can fire communist and socialist teachers… Actually, I could kinda live with that last one.

      1. It’s unlikely to happen anytime soon, for a similar reason to Korematsu: it’s unlikely that the circumstances will arise again to give anyone standing to challenge it.

        1. Ish, are you mixing up cases? Kelo was about government confiscation (“eminent domain”) for the benefit of another private party. It seems to me abuse of eminent domain is still quite common and happens regularly.

  2. “Precedent” is not something to be found in the Constitution in the first place. It’s merely a standard judicial practice founded in the Common Law. It amounts to “don’t undo a previous decision unless there is a sound reason for doing so”. That’s all it means.
    When the nominees said Roe is precedent, that’s what they meant. It has never meant, and never will mean, that it can’t be overruled when it becomes clear that it was wrongly decided (or, of course, when amendments are ratified that invalidate it). There is no perjury here, since they did not make (and never would have) a binding commitment to leave Roe intact no matter what.
    For example, Korematsu is precedent; it also was obvious at the time and remains obvious now that it was wrongly decided. But it remains precedent until a case comes up where SCOTUS has an opportunity to set it aside. That’s not all that likely though the left is working hard to make it somewhat less unlikely than in the past.

    1. Oh, my! I forgot about Korematsu in my list of “settled precedents” above. That should be a fun one to keep in mind if George Takei starts tweeting this stupid “perjury” meme.

  3. Gotta luv how the kind compassionate tolarant party spew violence and hate.. fuk em. They are showing true colors and evil to all.

  4. It doesn’t matter if they impeach the court, pack the court, or kill a bunch of them off. They WANT what we all know is coming. They believe in their hearts that they are going to win.

    1. A lot of countries/people have been wrong over the centuries, just how violent Americans can be when pissed off.

  5. They didn’t say how they’d vote, they said it was settled law. And so it was at the time. Then, it wasn’t.

    This is the system working on some level. You want it? Make a law. Craft an amendment. Then you’ll find out how many don’t want it.

  6. Congress has had 50 years – ten of which with a Dem president, as well as majorities in Senate and House – when Roe could have been properly codified as law, as opposed to legislated from the bench – poorly at that, according to none other than RBG herself. So you can’t say there wasn’t opportunity, nor notice.
    I’m finding that Progressives really hate when you point this out … especially the 10 years of easy opportunity.

    1. Actually, Roe can’t be “properly codified as [Federal] law” for the simple reason that no authority for such a law appears in Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. And Justice Kavanaugh made that point in his concurring opinion.

  7. Lying under oath is grounds for impeachment? When Clinton did it (in a court of law not the senate where the members lie every day), it was just about sex (and abortion isn’t?) and of no real consequence. If it weren’t for double standards, Democrats would have no standards at all.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

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