Sunday 25th of October 2020

supreme bias...


Kavanaugh is a Catholic and serves as a regular lector at his Washington, D.C. church, the Shrine of the Most Blessed Sacrament. He has tutored at the Washington Jesuit Academy, a Catholic private school in the District of Columbia. He is religiously biased. We need to investigate...


Classical Christianity had a doctrine of Original Sin which averred that human beings were inherently evil, tainted by the sin of Adam and Eve (see Romans 5:12-15) and redeemable only by holding the right beliefs.

In contrast, Jewish theology interpreted Adam and Eve undoctrinally and thought that the verse, "The inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth" (Genesis 8:21), meant that man's sins were "because of his youth" - which is to say, due to this being so early in moral history.

Rabbi Raymond Apple

Read more:

Rubbish, I say… What do I know? I know. As an "ageing internet atheist who gets off on biblical contradictions and baits creationists", according to Beowulf, one of Dreher's readers, I should disappear gracefully, after having had a nap in my rocking chair. But the restless god-people, either god-chosen (or not), still hold the high side of the street, with their barrows of red herrings for sale on the US supreme court, the ABC and on other media outlets with a patronising and mercantile attitude that needs to be profoundly rejected.

Thus the beef continues. It’s mostly due to that I trust that Beowulf is somewhat naive in believing that “we no longer have to convince young people about anything regarding evolution or God’s existence – that is not at the core of their worldview”. Amen to that. The youth just don’t care about anything much, like we did when we were pimply, though soon we fought good Bolshevik revolutions — and this should scare us a bit more, because we did not have the same electronic gizmos to bash nonsense into us… We knew that we were being lied to and fought back. 

Presently, those who control the modern “system”, do not need the youth to believe in anything (yet), as long as they are raised in the sets of e-values, full of vitamins and greedy wants that resemble “caring while being nicely selfish", in a loop of debts for goods they will pay for the rest of their life, while having farts for brains. Piece of cake. It’s a subconscious attractive submissiveness to the system, because we’re using a kind of controlled dynamite capitalism to fish for easy dollars and soft cushions. 

The religious values are far from being innocuously innocent in this caper and still carry the Abrahamic near-deadly devotion to god as he was going to sacrifice his son Isaac, like we send our young men to war — and the Moses tablets, throughout — though most of the 10 commandments were borrowed from the Egyptians’ code of conduct. 

The concept of hierarchy is also strongly religious in its intent — and whether we like it or not, many of our kids have been raised on “The Lion King”. The new submissiveness is thus our submission to comfort and credit, ideals that have central heating or air conditioning, while inequality flourishes.

The imperium is so maintained by various means from this greed on credit, by “patriotism” and of course, through deceit. 

As mentioned many times, we need to discover how to deal with charlatans — religious and/or mercantile — including merchants of bad drugs, of weapons and resellers of dangerous illusions.  First we have to suss them out and we find they often hide in the top echelons of society. They run the place and we’re screwed.

Rather than rely on a general patriotic system that has been relatively proven, yet is quite crude, we could personally find these idiots out for ourselves, limits or no limits. Anarchy rules. Can we live without help? Do we need to spy on others to know their intentions? Are our neighbours sniggering behind our back while shaking hands with a firm hand a few minutes before? The list of pitfalls is long.

This has always been the crux of our relationships in which we may have to make compromises and stop being uncouth, by relative decision of non-compromised “trust”. Utopia was not born yet.

According to the good Rabbi:

The Christian theologian Jakob Jocz wrote in The Jewish People and Jesus Christ:

"The Christian attitude is essentially the attitude of surrender. Christianity begins with man in crisis; Judaism begins with the assertion of human strength ... The synagogue emphasizes the Imago Dei in man; the Church stresses man's fall ... Underneath the Cross man stands in a position of crisis, asking for grace; under the Scrolls of the Law, man stands in a position of self-assertiveness, giving his best.”

Viscount Herbert Samuel was asked whether he was an optimist or a pessimist. He replied, "Neither. I am a meliorist." Melior means "better." For Samuel it wasn't yet time to be an optimist, nor necessary to sink into pessimism. As an interim ethic one should say, "Things seem to be getting better.”

Beautiful. House "meliorments" come out of this. But is the religious inference important in this ”melior"? In both Christianity and Judaism, there is this niggling notion of self-contained “badness”, whatever its origin, as if the building was crooked from the start. 
How we deal with human “badness" is the "eternal” (relative) question.

The British Jewish scholar Solomon Levy posited a response to Christianity in a theory of "Original Virtue," suggesting that it is the doing of good, not evil, that is the real nature of Man.

Gus: I wish important people would use the word "human”... Anyway, virtues are only socially accepted stylistic sublimations of animalistic reactivity based on reactive submissiveness and aggressiveness — the two ingredients of survival in relation to managing pain and contentment. This seems a bit mundanely utilitarian and it is, and should be — without the religious component — but we do it through memory, with styles and feathers. Here, "being good" can produce advantages as long as our neighbour follows the same rule. Otherwise we need to defend our patch of carrots.

Without in-depth understanding of such processes, the youth could become no more than picky consumers, with little allegiance nor loyalty to other people, with an iPhone glued to their fingers and a credit card glued to the others. 

The main rule of species, like that of monkeys and lions, is that we need other people in certain proportions to survive and become who we are, through history, local environment and family connections which are our lifeline early in life. All this is complicated because there is a lot to stages to discover and on average we are very slow learners, as well as learning resistant. Meanwhile other monkeys might try to steal our bananas. Can we protect our self, singularly, against a Barbaric horde? No, we really need some organisation with mates.
A gun is not designed to shoot bullets. It is designed to kill. Some people with a gun will never kill another human being, but some people with guns will kill — in a greater proportion than people without guns. It’s a given. 
We’re not inherently “bad” or “good”… We are survivalists. We are often deluded about this value. This is why existentialism is important in bringing this reality to the surface of the pond — having to compromise our actions and motivations, and make agreements in which we benefit most, altogether and individually without destroying the planet, nor killing other people. The youth of Beowulf might not have any idea of the consequences of what they do, and this might demand the next stage of “awareness”. Having “friends” on Facebook and shooting ghosts on video games is not enough to develop a mature understanding of the social group’s intricacies. 
Selfishness, compassion, greed and envy are states that get an uneasy mix with money values. We place various caveated dollars on how low or how high we go with these values. Most of us can be bought. 
Here comes the mind of a double-agent in a mine-field of compromised deceit. Psychology is the study and application of this fluidity.
Enter relationship compromises, love and deceit. We need to see that by hurting other people we could be hurting us. This is the famous line: "Do to others as you would have them do to you"… It’s a bit selfish and lacks total altruism, but it’s a step in the right direction. But we must avoid masochism... if you see what I mean.

Being neither good nor bad, we should aim to be better, because we can, like the good Viscount Herbert Samuel says. 

Our survey of inventions can tell us how we are denaturing nature to a point at which sustainability of our comforts become problematic. Because of the enormous amount of what we do singularly and collectively, some of our actions are not obviously detrimental to our future though they could be, but we ignore the next, because we feel we need to have the present under total control. Our present system of capitalism is obviously not sustainable ad infinitum but there’s still room to profit before the shit hits the fan… or is there? This is the dilemma of democracy, because some (most) people are not cut out to be cleverly greedy and we become pseudo-democratic fodder. Do we need to help those that "let themselves be" downtrodden survive?

Some people warn us "too soon", others ignore the warnings. Most of us do not care. We toil for comfort instead. We need to improve our goals. The "original sin" has no place in our modern times. “Man's heart is evil from his youth” has no place in our modern times where sciences can tell us a lot better about the way we could and manage relationships in a more efficient natural way. But, are we afraid of having to make our own stylistic choices that demand deeper understanding and assertion of our evolved — and future animal — instead of easily submitting to a god, whether we "sin" or not.

Natures has specific processes that can be beautifully stylised to improve our behaviour. let’s do it. Meanwhile some people think, like Roger Scruton, that human beings have a transcendental dimension, a sacred core exhibited in their capacity for self-reflection.

Rubbish. Self-reflexion is not the result of transcendental nor of a sacred core. Self-reflexion is like genes evolution — an evolution of the human mind’s ability to build upon more and more complex experiences and relative stylistic expressions that we structure through our own memory and our varied social memories. 

Roger Scruton says: 

I have devoted a substantial part of my intellectual life to defining and defending conservatism, as a social philosophy and a political program. Each time I think I have hit the nail on the head, the nail slips to one side and the hammer blow falls on my fingers.

Why is this? Simple. Because nothing in the mind is set like a hammer and nail, as we confuse a lot of “processed” issues with fluid realities. Simple ideas are never simple but are the tip of a complexed organic assessments of many antecedent parameters and slanted distillations, from the flora in our guts to the social set.

Scruton continues:

… I did not foresee the political career of Donald Trump, nor did I imagine that such a man could occupy the highest office of state, in the name of a party that specifically makes appeal to conservative voters. Is this simply an aberration, or are there some deep links that tie the president to the great tradition of thought that I describe in my recent book, “Conservatism: An Invitation to the Great Tradition”?

Wrong again. Such a man, Trump, was mostly anointed by another such a man, Rupert Murdoch, long before Trump got the gig. Murdoch is a clever spruiker with a massive outreach, manipulating the social memory and desires through his media empire. 

What is the “great tradition”? God? Traditions are ritualised memories that are often in the way of progress, like the notion of the “original sin”. Not only that, these traditions and the original sin prevent us to look at the value of the place we live upon: a small planet that has generated a lot of living creatures before us, some of which became extinct because of natural events — in which adaptation (or not) played a major role.

Scruton adds:

When describing the history of an idea, one naturally looks for its best expression. A history of liberalism will have a lot to say about John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, somewhat less to say about Hillary Clinton. A survey of the conservative idea will dwell at length on Edmund Burke and Thomas Jefferson and devote only a paragraph or two to Margaret Thatcher… 

Hello? That’s a lot of bird droppings!… Jean-Jacques Rouseau was a full-blown misogynist and a nasty one at that. Thatcher denied the “existence of society”. Hillary Clinton is a pitiful liar. We need to do better. Denying that Trump got the gig "according to the rules", isn’t going to improve the status of the present social contract. That we could have been doing better with Hillary Clinton, is delusional. That Trump is not doing the best for everyone is an understatement, but what else can we do when the system is ruled by the elites who have no idea of the limits between good and bad, and at their best only rob half of your back pockets. On this front is Trump more delusional than the previous tenants of the White House? He could actually be more honest about the shit that always was there and he is stirring it, wilfully. It stinks, sure.

In democracy, we are at the mercy of the majority, whatever this could mean. The majority who choose this or that idiot as ruler may not have full knowledge of the consequences of their actions, nor do they care about the other portions as long as they get their slice of cake. Often this majority is influenced by the slanted media, such as Murdoch’s, and the religious mobs, often pissing in each others pocket. 

The only thing one can do, as an ageing internet atheist who gets off on biblical contradictions and baits creationists, is to carry on spruiking from the internet soap box to expose the biblical nonsense and the creationists as loonies, plus showing the manipulation of media. That’s the least I can do.

Meanwhile, Senator Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey ... warned the crowd, “President Trump has told us what he wants to do. He wants to roll back individual rights, he wants to roll back women’s rights, he wants to roll back workers’ rights, he wants to roll back civil rights.” Elsewhere, other senior Democrats also chimed in. 

Too Late Said the Rabbit...

This morning, ABC news (Australia) told us that four people in the UK got exposed to Novichok poison (did they forget about the "policeman"?)… If this had been the case they would all be dead (including the "policeman"). Five.... Thus the ABC news is following what the masters want you to believe: Russia poisoned them…

More rubbish — fake, old, new, real, designed, calculated, religious, philosophical, smelly — coming your way in spades…

Gus Leonisky
Your local honest atheist drinker.

the importance of sore losers...

If these points sound like the complaints of sore losers, they are. But Democrats, Independents, and anybody else who cares about the functioning of American democracy have good reason to be sore. There is no majority of voters out there clamoring for a ban on abortion, restrictions on collective bargaining, roadblocks to legal claims against big companies, or the purging from the electoral rolls of voters who skip a couple of elections. These are the concerns of smaller groups, with strong ties to the Republican Party, whose interests will be disproportionately represented.


Read more:

pressure from the press...

In early 1995, Brett Kavanaugh, a rising star in conservative legal circles, wrestled with one of the most inflammatory questions of the Clinton presidency: How did White House deputy counsel Vincent Foster die?

It was an early career challenge for the man now nominated by President Trump to the Supreme Court. And it spurred him to advocate for an aggressive investigation related to the president, something he now cautions against.

Kavanaugh’s revised thinking, as reflected in a 2009 law journal article, is that civil and criminal investigations “take the President’s focus away from his or her responsibilities to the people.” His argument has been cited as a factor that appealed to President Trump as he faced a Supreme Court vacancy while dealing with an ongoing special counsel’s investigation into Russian election interference.

In early 1995, however, Kavanaugh offered his boss, independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr, the legal rationale for expanding his investigation of the Arkansas financial dealings of President Bill Clinton and his wife, Hillary, to include the Foster death, according to a memo he wrote on March 24, 1995.

Kavanaugh, then 30, argued that unsupported allegations that Foster may have been murdered gave Starr the right to probe the matter more deeply. Foster’s death had already been the focus of two investigations, both concluding that Foster committed suicide.

“We are currently investigating Vincent Foster’s death to determine, among other things, whether he was murdered in violation of federal criminal law,” Kavanaugh wrote to Starr and six other officials in a memo offering legal justification for the probe. “[I]t necessarily follows that we must have the authority to fully investigate Foster’s death.”

The four-page memo, obtained by The Washington Post from the Library of Congress, sheds light on how Kavanaugh’s thinking evolved on the legal rights of sitting presidents.

 His handling of Starr’s Foster probe helped elevate Kavanaugh’s career, but the lengthy inquiry enabled conspiracy theories to flourish and add to the tumult of the Clinton presidency. Once the Foster matter was closed, Starr’s office continued to investigate the Clintons and eventually veered into the president’s relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.

Kavanaugh pursued the Foster inquiry at Starr’s request, even though he and others in the office soon came to believe that Foster killed himself, according to two people who worked with him at the time. Ultimately, Kavanaugh’s report in October 1997 affirmed earlier findings of suicide. The Foster component of Starr’s investigation cost about $2 million and lasted three years.


Read more:


Read from top.

late-comer democrat dirt ball?



Not until 30 years later in 2012 did Ford, by then a clinical psychologist in California, relate, during a couples therapy session with her husband, what happened. She says she named Kavanaugh as her assailant, but the therapist notes from the session make no mention of him.

During the assault, says Ford, she was traumatized. “I thought he might inadvertently kill me.”

Here the story grows vague. She does not remember who drove her to the party. She does not say how much she drank. She does not remember whose house it was at. She does not recall who, if anyone, drove her home. She does not recall what day it was.

She did not tell her parents, Ford said, as she did not want them to know she had been drinking. She did not tell any friend or family member of this traumatic event that has so adversely affected her life.

Said Kavanaugh in response, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

Mark Judge says it never happened.

Given the seriousness of the charges, Ford must be heard out. But she also needs to be cross-examined and have her story probed as Kavanaugh’s has repeatedly been by FBI investigators.

During the many probes into Kavanaugh’s background, nothing was unearthed to suggest anything like this was in his character.

Some 65 women who grew up in the Chevy Chase and Bethesda area and knew Kavanaugh during his high school days have come out and spoken highly of his treatment of girls and women.

Moreover, the way in which all of this arose, at five minutes to midnight in the long confirmation process, suggests that this is political hardball, if not dirt ball.

read more:


We have a problem when this implication smells like a fake hit on the Republican choice (an annoying choice for the Democrats — or anyone with a sense of humanity) for Judge of the Supreme Court. It appears that ANY GUY, BLOKE, dick who does not fit the mold of "liberal/progressive" or the reverse of political colour (should the case arise) can now be dragged in the mud by "sexual recollections" that can NEVER be substantiated. So far the Mueller investigations have not found a skerrick of evidence of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential elections. Zero. But the inuendo sticks because most of the witnesses have been cooking their own IRS books.


When Ford, a Democrat, sent a letter detailing her accusations against Kavanaugh to her California congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, she insisted that her name not be revealed as the accuser.

That means she seemingly sought to destroy the judge’s career behind a cloak of anonymity. Eshoo sent the letter on to Senator Dianne Feinstein, who held it for two months.

Excising Ford’s name, Feinstein then sent it to the FBI, who sent it to the White House, who sent it on to the Senate to be included in the background material on the judge.

Thus, Ford’s explosive charge, along with her name, did not surface until this weekend.

What is being done here stinks. It is a late hit, a kill shot to assassinate a nominee who, before the weekend, was all but certain to be confirmed and whose elevation to the Supreme Court would have been the result of victories in free elections by President Trump and the Republican Party.

delay tactics...

Kavanaugh accuser seeks FBI investigation before testifying to Senate
Lawyers for the woman who accused Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh of sexual assault when they were both teenagers said in a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee that an FBI investigation of the incident should be the first step in addressing their client’s allegation, a demand that came as President Trump and Senate Republicans stepped up their defense of the embattled Supreme Court nominee.
Please !!!! Why did this woman wait so long to get a police investigation??? This is WRONG. On top of this:

Feinstein under scrutiny for handling of allegations against Kavanaugh
The top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee faces a legacy-defining moment from her chosen ground squarely in the middle of a cultural, political and social firestorm over the future of Supreme Court nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh’s accuser thought her life would be upended. She was right.
Within hours of coming forward, Christine Blasey Ford faced multiple attacks on her privacy and credibility, confirming her fears about what would happen if she went public and echoing the backlash faced by other accusers in the #MeToo era.

Read from top...

a college girl who was so drunk...

So the FBI is supposed to investigate whether or not a drunk college boy pulled down his pants at a drunken college party and exposed himself to a college girl who was so drunk that she can’t clearly remember the event, and had to take six days to think about whether or not it actually happened? It was so devastatingly traumatic to her that she had to ponder for a week about whether or not it happened, and whether or not it was Brett Kavanaugh?

This is what they’re throwing at Brett Kavanaugh now? 


Read more:


It appears that anyone can now make any sexual allegation against Brett Kavanaugh in order to stop him having the gig of judge in the US supreme court... The USA psyche, especially that of the Democrats presently acting like prissy dirt bags, has gone beyond the joke — far worse than what they're trying to attack, whether you like DumbDumb Donald, Brett Kavanaugh or not... 


Read from top.

and one made nine...

As Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court nomination hearings get under way, understanding his appointment’s potential impacts for corporate regulation and the climate means looking back all the way to 1890.

That was when a nearly 50-year stretch known to legal historians as the “Lochner era” kicked off — a time better known in U.S.history as the age of the robber barons.

The Lochner era gets its name from a 1905 Supreme Court case, Lochner v. New York, which threw out state limits on the number of hours bakers could work in a week. This case's reasoning was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 1937 case that rejected a half-century of judicial thinking — doctrines that had led the court to toss out laws governing working conditions, creating food safety standards, and barring child labor.

In 1937, as the Great Depression raged, the Supreme Court faced pressure from President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, frustrated after the Court rejected 11 of 13 early New Deal programs as unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn’t say how many justices are allowed to sit on the Supreme Court — and FDR threatened to add enough justices to change the court’s leanings.

Not long after FDR’s threat, Justices Owen Roberts and Charles Evans Hughes joined majorities that rejected Lochner and found the new National Labor Relations Board constitutional — a move that’s gone down in legal history as the “switch in time that saved nine.” (Nine being the number of justices sitting on the Court.)

During the Lochner era, the Supreme Court followed a “non-delegation doctrine” that required Congress to play an active role in the most minute details of decision-making and policy-setting.

Bringing it back could have huge significance for how the U.S. regulates the environment, food safety, the Internet — and global climate change.


Read more:


Read from top.

absent from the court...

Speculation is rife over the health of Justice Ginsburg, who has missed her third straight day of hearings following cancer surgery. Now it seems Washington needs to consider term limits for the Supreme Court. 

With much of the country distracted by the government shutdown over the Mexican border wall, another issue of potentially far greater importance is lurking in the background – the health of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or ‘RBG’ as she is popularly known.

Ginsburg, 85, has been absent from the Court ever since she underwent surgery to remove two malignant tumors from her left lung on Dec. 21. The absence marks the first time in 25 years that RBG has missed oral arguments. Naturally, this news has put Washington, hyperactive on the calmest of days, into hysterical crazy mode. That’s because Donald Trump may find himself in a position to fill a third Supreme Court vacancy, a feat last accomplished by Ronald Reagan.


According to a report by Politico, the Trump administration is already “taking the temperature on possible short-list candidates,” a move that will most likely attract accusations of ‘opportunism’ from the Democrats. Yet it seems that the archaic institution of life tenure has made such unsavory calculations regarding replacements unavoidable. The fact is RBG is in the advanced stages of life and in poor health. More worrisome, there is the possibility that she is no longer capable of doing her job. Yet, because she is protected with life tenure, she cannot be removed by democratic due process.

Welcome to graying Capitol Hill

These days, a visitor to Washington, DC may be forgiven for thinking the capital more resembles a retirement village than the nation’s seat of ultimate power. Indeed, few politicians seem enthusiastic about quitting their jobs these days.

Here’s a short list of the senior citizens now occupying top government positions: Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, 78; Senator Chuck Grassley, 85; Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, 76; Dianne Feinstein, oldest member of the Senate, 85; among the Democrats’ vintage presidential material – namely Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren – they are 77, 71, and 69, respectively. Donald Trump, meanwhile, is pushing 73 years old, or about six years over the official retirement age. Funny how all of this aging on Capitol Hill has not translated into more wisdom. But I digress.

Complain as we may at the collective ‘maturity’ of our leaders, it is we the people who have kept them in power, some well beyond their recommended shelf life. However, the one branch of government that is not held accountable by democratic due process is the Supreme Court. Here, nine unelected justices – with an average age of 65.7 years old – serve out life-long tenures. The average tenure for each judge has increased to approximately 26 years, and with life expectancy improving that figure will only rise.

The question with regards to life tenure for Supreme Court justices seems reasonable: will they be able to effectively perform their jobs when they are entering their eighth and ninth decade of life? Although it seems that the body wears out faster than the brain, and many elders remain mentally agile, it is undeniable that the cognitive abilities deteriorate over time. To cite just one study, it was found that 20-year-olds performed a particular problem, which involved substituting symbols for numbers, almost 75 percent faster on average than 75-year olds. How this translates into the ability of an octogenarian to grasp the complexities of a modern court case is anybody’s guess.


Read more:



Read from top.

selecting another conservative justice...


WASHINGTON — President Trump has selected Judge Amy Coney Barrett, the favorite candidate of conservatives, to succeed Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and will try to force Senate confirmation before Election Day in a move that would significantly alter the ideological makeup of the Supreme Court for years.

Mr. Trump plans to announce on Saturday that she is his choice, according to six people close to the process who asked not to be identified disclosing the decision in advance. As they often do, aides cautioned that Mr. Trump sometimes upends his own plans.

But he is not known to have interviewed any other candidates and came away from two days of meetings with Judge Barrett this week impressed with a jurist he was told would be a female Antonin Scalia, referring to the justice she once clerked for. On Friday night, Judge Barrett was photographed getting out of her car outside her home in South Bend, Ind.

“I haven’t said it was her, but she is outstanding,” Mr. Trump told reporters who asked about Judge Barrett’s imminent nomination at Joint Base Andrews outside Washington after CNN and other news outlets reported on his choice.

The president’s political advisers hope the selection will energize his conservative political base in the thick of an election campaign in which he has for months been trailing former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., his Democratic challenger. But it could also rouse liberal voters afraid that her confirmation could spell the end of Roe v. Wade, the decision legalizing abortion, as well as other rulings popular with the political left and center.

The nomination will kick off an extraordinary scramble by Senate Republicans to confirm her for the court in the 38 days before the election on Nov. 3, a scenario unlike any in American history. While other justices have been approved in presidential election years, none has been voted on after July. Four years ago, Senate Republicans refused to even consider President Barack Obama’s nomination to replace Justice Scalia with Judge Merrick B. Garland, announced 237 days before Election Day, on the grounds that it should be left to whoever was chosen as the next president.

In picking Judge Barrett, a conservative and a hero to the anti-abortion movement, Mr. Trump could hardly have found a more polar opposite to Justice Ginsburg, a pioneering champion of women’s rights and leader of the liberal wing of the court. The appointment would shift the center of gravity on the bench considerably to the right, giving conservatives six of the nine seats and potentially insulating them even against defections by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who on a handful of occasions has sided with liberal justices.

Mr. Trump made clear this week that he wanted to rush his nominee through the Senate by Election Day to ensure that he would have a decisive fifth justice on his side in case any disputes from the vote reached the high court, as he expected to happen. The president has repeatedly made baseless claims that the Democrats are trying to steal the election and appears poised to challenge any result of the balloting that does not declare him the winner.

Senator Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky and the majority leader, has enough votes to push through Judge Barrett’s nomination if he can make the tight time frame work. Republicans are looking at holding hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee the week of Oct. 16 and a floor vote by late October.


Read more:



Read from top.