Although there are still pockets of injustice in America, such as those blue collar families in the New Haven area who keep minorities down by encouraging and instructing their own sons in the study of how best to rescue people from burning buildings, it's heart-warming to see that a complete outsider like Emily Bazelon can become the MainStream Media's all-purpose Supreme Court oracle, despite her suffering from such unfair hindrances as being a woman, a relative of best-selling feminist Betty Friedan, the granddaughter of the most powerful non-Supreme Court judge in America during her childhood (David Bazelon), having some kind of wacky Truman Capote Creative Writing fellowship at Yale Law School, and suffering from PCS (Pervasive Cluelessness Syndrome).
In this long interview in the New York Times, Bazelon asks Ginsburg the kind of fearless, hard-hitting questions you'd expect from her, such as:
In her unintentionally revealing way, though, Bazelon does allow us to get an eye-opening view of Judge Ginsburg's judicial philosophy, which, to summarize the interview, would appear to consist primarily of:
In this long interview in the New York Times, Bazelon asks Ginsburg the kind of fearless, hard-hitting questions you'd expect from her, such as:
Q: Can I bring up the Ricci case, brought by the New Haven firefighters?
In her unintentionally revealing way, though, Bazelon does allow us to get an eye-opening view of Judge Ginsburg's judicial philosophy, which, to summarize the interview, would appear to consist primarily of:
Q. Who?
A. Women!
Q. Whom?
A. Men!
My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer
Posts
38 comments:
Ginsberg, allegedly, is an intellectual. In practice she seems no smarter than Sotomayer.
Well of course Steve, that is the entire point. An entire apparatus has been built on your insight that elites use AA to block upwardly mobile Whites from the middle/working classes, but it goes much, much farther than that.
Elites plus Blacks plus Hispanics = electoral defeat. Elites plus Blacks plus Hiapanics plus WOMEN = electoral victory.
The key to this, globally across the West, from Germany to the UK to the US, is to offer AA at the expense of Straight White Men. It's a potent argument, because women if they are at all attractive find the attentions of "beta" type White guys intolerable, and they are also workplace rivals. Spoils politics (which is what AA boils down to) is a zero sum game, for Bazelon to get her weird fellowship at Yale, someone has to lose.
This is why AA is never going away, in fact it's intensifying -- Obama's spending plan got worked over by NOW to insure most of the jobs and money went to women (consistent with Robert Reich's testimony before Congress that the Admin. planned to makes sure Straight White Men got nothing: Horse's Mouth here.
What pretty much everyone missed in retrospect was how gender politics and basic spoils division shook up politics. Obama's coalition depends on screwing over White Men (Straight ones anyway) in favor of Women, Gays, Blacks, and Hispanics. That's his Chicago Politics writ large and how the Dem/Media party operates. [It's why women also hate Sarah Palin in part -- she's a "traitor".]
Yes of course Bazelon and Ginsburg think this way, what most men don't realize is that most women in the US feel this way. [The Gallup study suggests that men are slightly Dem through say their forties, become Reps, until they retire and want Government money. The "Who-Whom" questions may change that, particularly with Obama Care's message to older Whites: "Die Already!"
Whiskey.
The best part is their shoddy reasoning -- Ricci won because he was a sympathetic plaintiff.
Seriously testing99...can you please get your own blog? I hate having to scroll through your comments. They say the exact same thing every single time.
Two things from the article:
- Ginsburg is moving offices so she may not be on last legs like commonly assumed.
- Ginsburg admits that most of theses "tests" that the court gives out are bunk- they decided they way they want and cover up an intellectual framework after the fact.
"Seriously testing99...can you please get your own blog? I hate having to scroll through your comments. They say the exact same thing every single time."
I've been scrolling through t99's crap for ages too. Steve, if you ever decide to censor him, no one will complain.
Reading a discussion between two feminist women is painful, yet illuminates important sex differences. Never once does Ginsberg say anything of importance. She is completely devoid of philosophical reference and reflection. Like many women she appears ready to use 3rd party force, far removed from herself, to enforce conducts she deems desirable. And like most women she is completely oblivious to her true nature and motivations. If presented the facts of the Bell Curve, she would undoubtedly recoil in horror, and begin an immediate denial, like my similarly intelligent mother. Of course, there are some women who are philosophical, but the number seems comparatively low to men.
The problem is that many women (and surely some men) are resource hoarding individuals who seek only for themselves and their brood. This focus on short-term gains ensures a system that makes little sense beyond about the third operation. Moreover, this focus on function comes at the expense of natural law and a philosophical bent. This sex difference might be best illustrated by home and garden TV for women and "What Would Cesar Do?" for men. I think Steve has posted along these lines before.
As men are pushed away and voluntarily give up their duties, the women who replace them will largely be resource hoarders who act on short-term logic without care for implications on natural law. These women will have no firm understanding that laws are only relevant if the majority accepts them as "just" and willing chooses to abide by them. These women will have no understanding that you can only push so far before you instigate a massive reaction. Finally, these women will not have an in-group shaming system to rival that found among groups of men. We will have a Lord of the Flies scenario.
Moreover, and what makes AA so dangerous, is that many of these women will be highly intelligent. I believe that the resource-hoarding trait (or whatever you want to call the selfish, proprietary outlook based in large part on emotion) is independent of intelligence and explains why so many liberals are book smart, but f-tards on larger issues.
Read the following interview with Roberts and contrast him with Ginsberg. There can be no better illustration of how AA has killed even our highest institutions: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200701/john-roberts
"Seriously testing99...can you please get your own blog?"
Actually, he has his own blog. He's already revealed his alternate name, or whatever, more than once here.
"I've been scrolling through t99's crap for ages too. Steve, if you ever decide to censor him, no one will complain."
Uh, I find t99 infinitely more intelligent and entertaining than that O-bot and insufferable troll who calls himself "Truth". So if Troof should not be banned, why block t99?
Hey, I wonder what T99/Whiskey thinks about beta males and single women. Perhaps he will enlighten us.
Ginsburg sounds like a feminist who hasn't had a single moment of reflection since the early seventies.
The unthoughtful and dogmatic Ruth offers the best proof that Sotomayer is qualified to be a Supreme Court justice. The bar cannot get much lower.
Ginsburg-
"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."
Whoa. Hang on a second there. Populations that we don't want to have too many of? Which populations are those, exactly?
Gotta agree with testy and zylonet on this one. Wimmenz tend to be very selfish and hoardy on an emotional level. That's why getting into a catfight with a woman over something she's emotionally involved with can be so dangerous. I've seen this behavior with intelligent female colleagues, i.e. those who can actually hold their posts on merit and not quota. I'm no longer surprised that there is a direct correlation with the degree of penetration of western institutions by women and the immigration/islamisation of the West. Women seem to either be oblivious to the dangers of foreign invasion, or view these newcomers as their allies.
When things become uncomfortable, as for instance in South Africa or Rhodesia, they are the first to nudge their husbands toward emigration. Funny though that even down there, with all the dangers being so obvious, it was mostly the women that were forever embracing blacks and wanting the system to open up, regardless of the consequences which set in almost immediately upon the realization of their wish.
"I've been scrolling through t99's crap for ages too. Steve, if you ever decide to censor him, no one will complain."
I will complain, even if I disagree or don't understand how he comes up with his stuff. I can't stand the Truth commenter, but censuring is for the insecure.
How about if those who disagree with t99 reply with cogent arguments that explain t99's errors. That would be more helpful.
zylonet,
These people can't even change a fucking tire or make toast. And they're going to get exactly what they want too. I suggest everyone here find a good woman and head for the hills once things get crazy.
Surprised you didn't comment on this part of the interview.
I find t99 infinitely more intelligent and entertaining than that O-bot and insufferable troll who calls himself "Truth".
Even if that is the case, do you find t99 "intelligent and entertaining" when he ignores the topic under discussion in order to post the exact same crap! for the 12,472nd time? At least "Truth" has some variety in his drivel.
Anybody who reads this blog can tell you word for word what t99 will say before he says it. He only has this One Big Idea and he strokes it over and over and over and over and over and over ...
The best part is their shoddy reasoning -- Ricci won because he was a sympathetic plaintiff.
Tells you all you need to know about their outlook on the law. There is no law, only "sympathetic plaintiffs" and caring judges.
Add me to the anti-T99 chorus. He/She/It says the same thing every time and never makes sense.
Tell us, T99, did you know that the Ricci lawyers was a woman? What do you think of that?
More important, it appears that the Puerto Rican litigant in the Ricci case, Ben Vargas, was physically attacked:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/07/09/are_latinos_ethnics_or_a_racial_minority_97363.html
I'd never have known about this but I read Real Clear regularly. Froma Harrop (a woman) usually makes sense.
More about the attack:
http://www.thehispanicconservative.com/hispanic-issues/75-latino-firefighter-ben-vargas-physically-assaulted-but-no-press-coverage.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/03/nyregion/03firefighter.html
Well, I'd like to here more from T99 on women being the biggest gainer from AA. How does the American experience differ from the patterm of rising female employment in all Western countries?
"Anonymous" re how beta males and single women feel about each other: one party is in a state of turgid,heart thumping,drooling desire,--the other a disdainful contempt;not sure which is which,tho. I'm not even sure if I can bring myself to read the "thoughts" of Comrade Ginsberg. I loathe that little lady! (Strangely enough,I am now pulling for the old bat to stay alive,--at least remain no lower than the Thurgood Marshall semi-comatose level.I dont want the Jack-ass-in-chief to get another appointment. They gave him a freebie this time. "Yes Barry,you can appoint your minority female affirmative action dum-dum buddy this time. But really,next time,we gotta get serious..." OY!
Jebus, the only points in the interview where she mentions deciding a case (Ricci and Heller) she makes it sound like the only thing she thought about was how sympathetic Ricci and Heller were. If that's really how she thinks, that's much, much worse than I would have guessed. Someone like that would have no problems seeing Steve locked up for hate speech
Well, I'd like to here more from T99 on women being the biggest gainer from AA.
Then go to his damn website and stop hijacking this one.
How about if those who disagree with t99 reply with cogent arguments that explain t99's errors.
This blog exists to discuss Steve Sailers ideas, not t99's. So I'll be damned if I cooperate in his ceaseless thread jackings. I'll stick to lauging at him, thank you.
"So if Troof should not be banned, why block t99?"
Truth is less annoying. Seriously.
silly girl said:
"I will complain, even if I disagree or don't understand how he comes up with his stuff."
Silly girl: he lies.
"How about if those who disagree with t99 reply with cogent arguments that explain t99's errors."
I never voluntarily enter into arguments with liars - it's waste of time. I do, from time to time, try to set on the right path those who are sincerely mistaken.
Testy should write a book on how to win friends and influence people. His people-skills are flawless.
Ginsburg: "I never would have gotten that invitation from Columbia without the push from the Nixon administration."
Yet another thing we can blame on Tricky Dick.
So what is T99's website?!
From a profile of Sotomayor in today's NY Times:
“If you had to describe my sister, you’d say New Yorker — it’s her essence,” said her brother, Juan Sotomayor, a doctor who lives near Syracuse. “I always joke that her vision does not extend beyond the Hudson River.”
Wow, that's just what I'm looking for, a Supreme Court Justice whose cultural horizons extend all the way to the Hudson River.
The article, which details Sotomayor's romantic travails and seems to have been ghostwritten by someone from The Lifetime Network, is well worth reading in full. Or maybe you'd rather just wait for the mini-series.
"I never voluntarily enter into arguments with liars - it's waste of time. I do, from time to time, try to set on the right path those who are sincerely mistaken."
While I agree it is a waste of time to argue with a liar, there are others reading, so it can benefit those other readers to correct errors and misinformation.
"Tells you all you need to know about their outlook on the law. There is no law, only "sympathetic plaintiffs" and caring judges."
This is what comes out of the interview for me far more than the diversity rhetoric (which I just take as read). The complete lack of any hint that Ginsberg understands the concept of judging on the basis of the law. From a Supreme Court justice. Wow.
“If you had to describe my sister, you’d say New Yorker — it’s her essence,” said her brother, Juan Sotomayor, a doctor who lives near Syracuse. “I always joke that her vision does not extend beyond the Hudson River.”
What does he know? He's a hispanic doctor living in Sicily for Chrissakes! NYC is the CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!!!
So what is T99's website?!
http://whiskeys-place.blogspot.com/
Seems t99's site is a more under the radar version of amren.
Thanks for the link to T99's thread. He seems quite a normal chap on his home patch. Couldn't find anything on women as beneficiaries of AA though.
"Wow, that's just what I'm looking for, a Supreme Court Justice whose cultural horizons extend all the way to the Hudson River."
It'd be nice to have any Justice who thinks that. Stevens is the only one who went to law school outside of the 180 mile corridor between Columbia and Harvard (Northwestern). At least Renquist and O'Connor went to Stanford.
"I think testing99 is correct.
Consider "The Bone Collector."
A black man and a white woman team up to defeat a deranged white man (robbed of his right by the black man) and eventually kill him."
who produced the movie?
Post a Comment