Quick Take: Have They No Shame?
When it comes to the progressive assault on the Supreme Court, anything goes
In their ongoing campaign to destroy the United States Supreme Court, progressives have launched an attack on Justice Samuel Alito. According to a story published by ProPublica, he’s guilty of egregious ethics violations, but Justice Alito’s real offense is ideological. He just can’t be trusted to do the comrades’ bidding.
The Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board has exposed the distortions and lies embodied in the ProPublica hit piece, characterizing it as a “fishing expedition.” And indeed, this campaign against the Supreme Court’s conservative majority does remind one of Captain Ahab’s monomaniacal pursuit of the Great White Whale. See here for a sample of the bad faith and mendacity attendant on that pursuit. Such are the means by which the comrades purport to defend “our democracy.”
By way of illustrating the double standard at work, I note that the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg visited Tel Aviv, Israel in 2018, where she was given a lifetime achievement award by the Genesis Prize Foundation. While in Israel, she was the guest of billionaire businessman Morris Kahn, who provided her with transportation, food and lodging. As it happens, Kahn had a patent-related case before the Supreme Court in 2017. He was handed a win when the Court declined to take the matter up.
Now to be clear, I’m not accusing Justice Ginsburg of corruption. I am suggesting that if the same set of facts was applicable, say, to Justice Amy Coney Barratt, the ladies of The View et al. would be screaming bloody murder.
How little progressives care about ethics in government is betrayed by their devotion to Joe Biden: So long as he does their bidding, his lies and corruption are studiously overlooked. How little they care about democracy is betrayed by their embrace of the administrative state. It is there, in the bunkers of the bureaucracy, that the real power of government is concentrated. That power rests in the hands of nameless, faceless, unelected apparatchiks, America’s real legislators. This suits progressives just fine, and one reason for their displeasure with the Supreme Court’s conservative majority is that it might not take a sufficiently lenient view of legislation by administrative fiat.
Since they have no real case against the Supreme Court, progressives resort to lies, misdirection, hysteria, and adolescent name calling. To give an example, reproduced below is a rejoinder to me in an exchange about the ProPublicia article that I got into with a denizen of the leftie fever swamps on Substack Notes:
I know that to you and your kind a lie is as good as the truth and that right and wrong have no meaning. But I’m here to tell you that I’m not going to put up with lies from you. You know that you are lying when you say the bribes, for which there is ample evidence and which they admit to, are b.s. You know you are lying when you imply that you would accept a prosecution by the Justice Department. You know that the very idea plainly contradicts what you were pretending to believe at the beginning of this conversation, which is that no other branch of the government has the right to oversee the Supreme Court. You and I both know that you and all the other little ditto head freaks would start shrieking “Stalin!” the moment it became a possibility anyway. Why do you want to live in a corrupt, decaying-ass country? Do you think it will ultimately be good for you? Maybe you do. Maybe you think you can get in there and steal some of the money and buy off your own judge. If so, then fine just say it. Just spare us all the stupid lies.
“[T]o you and your kind a lie is as good as the truth and that right and wrong have no meaning.” Here we have a clear case of projection. A clearer, more accurate description of the tactics being employed by progressives in their campaign to delegitimize the Supreme Court and destroy its independence would be hard to formulate.
Thanks, Comrade!
The Khan case was not taken up by the court. They declined to ajudicate beyond the result of the appeal. So, there was nothing to recuse from. Please cite other cases you refer to. She did declare the "gifts" though, didn't she? You ignore the bits that do not favor your perspective. One thing that does "bother" me, is when someone speculates, with no cause, regarding subjects that may or may not "bother" me. Makes me wonder what else they assume, without cause.
Did Bader Ginsberg recuse herself from the case you referenced? That would make a huge difference, no? Did she declared the "gifts"? Another huge difference. Do you just enjoy skipping the details, or do you actually believe that if you don't get called out, your point stands?