#NotoriousRBG #RuthBaderGinsburg #Feminist
Check this out!
As I explained six years ago, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a/k/a the Baddest Bitch, a/k/a Real Bad Gangsta, is a god who will never die. In 2009, pancreatic cancer was diagnosed with RBG, and the malignant tumor was soon never to be heard of again. Her invincibility well-established, Justice Ginsburg stated yesterday that she will stay on the Supreme Court for at least five more years. She also explained, in case anyone was unaware, that she is a “flaming feminist.”
So no need to mark your calendars any earlier than the summer of 2023 for the confirmation hearings of her successor. I am confident that President Winfrey will choose an acceptable nominee.
The Washington Postpublished what they chose to call “analysis” about Justice Ginsburg’s recent comments. The author, Aaron Blake, is listed as a senior political reporter for some reason. He doesn’t look that old in his picture, so I’m not sure what “senior” means in this case, given the laughably amateurish nature of his article.
With a headline referring to the “suspicious timing” of her comments, Blake begins by writing, “Supreme Court justices aren’t supposed to be political actors…” That is a platitude fit for a fifth grade civics lesson about the Supreme Court. An adult who has, say, thought about the Court for more than few minutes at a time would understand that justices are inherently political actors. True, they’re supposed to be independent, and hopefully not clearly partisan in their judicial decision-making, but working within a government, the issues they face will unavoidably relate to politics.
Blake then continues his first sentence with an even more shockingly clueless assertion: “…and they aren’t supposed to time their retirements to ensure they are replaced with a like-minded justice.”
Huh? What? Who told him that? Did he think that up himself? Did anyone else look at this article before publishing it? So Justice David Souter just randomly decided to retire a few months into a Democratic president’s term following an eight year Republican presidency? Come on. Byron White, a Democrat, retired in Bill Clinton’s first year as president, following twelve years of Republicans in the White House. Potter Stewart, a Republican, retired during the first year of Reagan’s presidency, and so on. For that matter, Justice Ginsburg herself previously stated her plan of retiring while a Democrat is president. Though not a testament to her power of clairvoyance, in 2013 Ginsburg stated that she didn’t plan to retire during Obama’s presidency because “I think it’s going to be another Democratic president [following Obama].”
Yet Blake writes that “Ginsburg set the goal posts for her retirement in a suspiciously convenient place for liberals.” I’m not sure what is supposed to be “suspicious” about a justice who is a registered Democrat intending to retire under a Democratic president. Blake ends his embarrassing article with the following inane commentary: “Ginsburg, at the very least, seems intent upon giving them [“liberals”] a chance to win back the White House before her replacement is picked. Whether that’s how these things should be handled is another question.”
How does Blake suggest “these things” be handled? Should justices expect to know when they’ll die and base their retirement on that? Should we force them to live in isolation with no knowledge of the outside world, so we can know that they’re motivations for retiring are untainted by dirty thoughts of politics? And one final question: how the hell is Aaron Blake a “senior political writer”?!
Well, it may pain the sensibilities of poor Mr. Blake, but we can on a Court with RBG well into the next decade. That is, if community theater doesn’t get hold of her…