Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s Death Means More Than Abortion
Yesterday night, it was announced Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg died at the age of 87. Now we can talk about how this will affect the country, however, if you go on Twitter you’d believe the biggest issue is that other people are angry. I did a Twitter search for “political division” the day of her death, here are some of the tweets I found:
A truly sad day for America. We’ve lost a legal mind of epic proportions. But its also a day that will likely result in deeper political division in our nation. Hopefully we can persevere as she would have wanted us to. RIP Ruth Bader Ginsburg — @DaviSHolcombe
Just when you thought things couldn’t get weirder, Justice Ginsburg dies and the political division fire just has gas thrown on it! — @LeMay293
things are about to get a whole lot uglier. — @BecketAdams
Rest in peace Ruth Bader Ginsburg. May God bless her grieving family and friends. May God have mercy on this divided nation. — @DavidAFrench
I’m so sad for America tonight. We’re so divided. Everyone hates each other. It’s incredibly depressing. Is there a thing that unifies is? Can we all hate candy corn or something — @heckyessica
This is no surprise considering our culture is so obsessed with happy thoughts it gives Brave New World a run for its money. However, I quickly found, as I always find might I add, that the amount of posts complaining about political division far outnumber the posts actually committing it. Take this tweet from a fellow named Reza Aslan:
If they even TRY to replace RBG we burn the entire fucking thing down.
Sounds like a dividing tweet, right? Well here are just a sample of the around six thousand quote tweets at time of writing, just so you get the idea as to how divided we are around this man:
Give me a retweet if you report this bastard!!! Fill the seat!!! They would!!! IT’S TIME TO FIGHT BACK!!! MAGA — @P8R1OT
Another day, another liberal making terrorist threats. (This one ate human brains on his CNN show once). — @MarkDice
Wanna-be domestic terrorist. — @ToddStarnes
Republicans seem to really want us to believe this isn’t that big of a deal and everyone on the left is being hyperbolic. Of course, they then go on to make it clear this is a really big deal and that Republicans have to take advantage of this really big deal because of how big of a deal it is, really.
The Court must be at a full compliment should any election disputes such as Bush v Gore occur. — @JohnFund
All of this a little worrying? You know, that the death of one woman can cause a man, not only to fill up one third of the seats on highest court in the land, but also get his group of yes men to decide the election? (Yeah, John Fund, your comparison was awful in the best way possible. Most legal scholars agree now, and agreed at the time by the way, that the Supreme Court overstepped its bounds when it reversed Florida’s allowance of a recount.) Well don’t you worry, Julie Borowski over here has one fact that will make you calm down:
Roe vs. Wade being overturned would mean that the states decide their own abortion laws. That’s it.
Matt Walsh later wrote, in a more clear call to action:
There shouldn’t need to be any discussion about this. You fill the seat by any means necessary. Literally millions of lives potentially hang in the balance. If you’+re a Republican senator, this is the most important moment of your life. Failure here is not an option.
The Left is threatening to riot and burn because they’re afraid the next Supreme Court Justice might stop them from killing babies. Just in case you’re wondering if there’s a clear good guy/bad guy divide here.
Another conservative justice on the court could potentially mean millions of babies saved in the future. The most “principled” path, then, is to ram the justice down the Left’s throat and laugh in their faces when they cry. Anything less is cowardice, not principle.
Of course, it’s impossible for the pro-life to consider that sometimes people believe things are more important than abortion. Or even that other issues on this planet exist that aren’t abortion, because, even though they accuse liberals of being obsessed with abortion, it is literally the only thing they talk about. Hence why they made the same claim about Kavanaugh, even while Kavanaugh was being accused of gang rape. Of course, this was merely projection because a number of them, in spite of the fact that Kavanaugh said he’d follow Roe v. Wade, admitted that they didn’t care if he was a rapist, they just wanted abortion overturned.
If he nominated someone who was only questionable in regards to disagreement with Roe v. Wade, that would be one thing. Instead, I’m more worried about who a man who thinks the election is rigged against him and who has even tried to postpone or cancel it. By this point, most people realize that Bush stole the 2000 election, and I imagine this number will grow until it’s as undeniable as John Quincy Adams stealing it against Andrew Jackson or Lyndon Johnson rigging his first Senate election against Jack Porter in 1948. I have no doubt that elections are being stolen here and there to this day, however, it seems like Donald Trump is doing everything in his power to make 2020 one of them — rather he wins or not.
People forget, back in 2000, Florida wasn’t the only state the Bush campaign tried to drum up a recount controversy in, it was just the only one that stuck. As documented in the book Jews For Buchanan, the Bush campaign called basically every Republican governor trying to find one more who would back up this “too close to call” narrative. Many states, even ones Gore uncontroversially won, were considered in the same category as Florida. The only state that really bit for long enough for Bush to plan Florida was Pennsylvania, whose governor, Tom Ridge, was later made the first Secretary of Homeland Security.
What would happen if multiple states, all of which just so happen to have Republican governors and whose electoral votes are suppose to go to Biden, tried to push for a recount at the same time? What would Trump’s new Supreme Court Justice do? The answer needs to be specific, consistently called, and given under three different lie detectors before we can trust any Supreme Court Justice to take elections out of the hands of states, as they did in 2000.
For that matter, what does this justice think of his own power? How do we know a Justice Tom Cotton or Josh Hawley (both men Trump has said he’d consider for the Supreme Court) would not find some way to declare war on China through the bench? It may sound absurd, but knowing how cartoonishly anti-China they are, I am near certain they would be willing to do such a thing if they get the chance.
Both of these are much bigger concerns than abortion, and yet they’re being ignored because the right wants to make it sound like that’s the only thing Ginsberg did. This is on purpose, because if they can make the left look like irrational abortion focused weirdos (which is how I’d describe them) they can ram through a justice who can do anything he (or, knowing them, she) wants for the next forty years.
When you are shot down during the war with China declared by the Supreme Court, I hope your last words will be “at least states can ban abortion.”