We who work in the justice system mourn the passing a few days ago of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court of the United States.  I did not agree with her on everything, most notably disagreeing with her position on gun owners’ civil rights cases, but I saw her as an opponent, not an enemy.  One lesson of adulthood is that it may be natural to hate an enemy, but one should respect a powerful opponent.

By all accounts of those who knew her – I did not, and that is my loss – she was kind as well as brilliant and resolute in what she believed in.  She was a role model for American women in many ways, and should be remembered as such.Justice Ginsburg was seen as being on the left side of the political spectrum, and it is both sad and irritating to watch people there turn on her when she can no longer defend herself. They are now saying that she should have retired back when then-President Obama could have appointed someone of similar leanings to replace her. Some are saying so bitterly and vindictively, an example of which can be seen here.

I think that’s just disgusting.It is sad that this great woman’s story will end with the controversy of which administration will replace her.  It is said that she told her granddaughter that her last and most profound wish was that her replacement on the highest court not be named until after the election. President Trump has said he thinks someone else – someone from the opposing party – wrote those lines. He may have said that sincerely because it is out of character for a woman who believed in following established protocol. 

It is also diametrically opposed to the position Justice Ginsburg took four years ago when Republicans used the “wait for the next election” argument successfully to block then-President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland to replace conservative Justice Antonin Scalia upon his untimely death. In 2016 the Washington Post quoted her as saying, “The President is elected for four years not three years, so the power he has in year three continues into year four,” and according to the Post, when asked whether senators should act on the nomination replied “That’s their job.”  

Now, if the story is true that in 2016 her position was that the President who was nearing the end of his term SHOULD appoint the next Justice, it would have seemed hypocritical to change her mind in 2020.  Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t the law say the President SHALL appoint a replacement?

And if one does judge that to be hypocritical, where does that leave Mitch McConnell, who said in 2016 to wait until the election to appoint, but now says the appointment should take place shortly before? Is he a hypocrite, too?

Yes, that may be true…but in McConnell’s defense, an exigent circumstance exists now that was not looming in 2016.  Hillary Clinton has publicly told Joe Biden to contest the outcome if he loses the election, and there are credible reports that the Democrat party is building a massive war chest with which to do exactly that.  On the flip side, Democrats have repeatedly declared that President Trump won’t leave office if he loses. In either scenario, it will be up to the Supreme Court of the United States to cut the Gordian Knot and make the final decision. If the Court is divided four against four, some observers predict a literal Civil War arising from the ensuing confusion.  A ninth Justice is desperately needed to break the tie.

That’s why I want to see Justice Ginsburg replaced before the election. It’s not just that a Republican-nominated Justice is likely to rule in favor of my litmus test issue, gun owners’ civil rights.

It’s that, in a time of political identity-motivated rioting, violence, looting, arson and outright murder, a ninth Justice already seated on the panel before November 3 is absolutely vital to the peace and the safety of the nation.


  1. The other reason that McConnell is not acting hypocritically is because the GOP held even more seats in the Senate in 2016 than they do now. While I believe they should have held a vote, there is something to be said for not voting when the outcome is all but guaranteed. Garland would not have passed. Why put both parties, supporters and detractors through that mess.

  2. A well-written tribute to a woman definitely deserving of respect, coupled with a convincing argument as to why the nomination of a replacement should move forward without delay. Regardless of one’s POV regarding her voting record on the Court, she was a fighter, and the fact that she and Justice Scalia were “buddies” says a lot about both of them. She came across as sincere and genuine and deserving of respect, in spite of irrationally left leaning views pertaining to the Constitution. Justice Ginsberg commanded an air of dignity, conducting herself as one imagines all justices should do so.

    It’s unfortunate that the modern Court has become increasingly politicized, within and without, with politicians with very questionable motives attempting to “stack the jury” for ill-intentioned personal interests (I suppose that’s what lawyers do) rather than for the good of the whole. And perhaps that’s the way things have always been and I’ve been operating under some distorted, ideal, naive notion of the way things work, or at least should.

    Mr. Ayoob’s mention of an unfortunate collision of circumstances resulting in the possibility of a “literal” civil war is sobering, and who would ever have thought that any of us would have to seriously confront that as an increasingly real possibility?

    (Oddly, I recall some Russian extremist–it may or may not have been that politician who wanted to take back Alaska, or someone allied with him in state-of-mind–laid out a scenario predicting civil war in the US that would lead to the dissolution of America as we know it, making it ripe for takeover by outside –aka, Russian–interests. That “crazy?” prediction came complete with a map, showing which particular US states would be aligned in opposition to one another, and as I recall, another map showing exactly how the post-civil war US would be divided up and “ruled.” Back then–at least a decade, or maybe two ?, ago–reactions to that wild, “impossible” scenario had to have included the usual, “What’s he been smoking,” accompanied by loads of derisive laughter: “Crazy Russians!” Today, it no longer seems impossible, nor funny.)

    • about the only thing that has changed much in the interim is that now we’re not so excieted abut “crzy russians” but about “crazy chinese”.

      Some of the reports I’ve been reading about chinese interventions, plans, iweapons caches, etc. I think they are the “formidable opponent” du jour.

  3. Well presented argument. I hadn’t thought of it in that way. Thanks for article. Very interesting as always.

  4. It’s a travesty that any Supreme Court Justice should be partisan. They have a simple job, based on a rather concise document. The US Constitution is their ruler, their metric. The fact that SCOTUS appointments have become so partisan speaks to the fact that congress itself is beyond contempt; they only see the short term advantage to themselves. Gone are the statesmen.

  5. I agree. She was a legal giant, and a trailblazer.

    Turns out, if you go back beyond Garland and look at all the cases where a Justice seat was vacated in an election year, whether it was filled before the election depended on whether the President who nominated the candidate had a Senate of the same party to confirm the appointment. As Trump does.
    Anyone surprised?
    Anyone think the Democrats will do any different when it’s their turn?

  6. I have often heard the old saying “If you don’t have anything good to say about someone, then don’t say anything”. In this case, I will therefore stay silent.

  7. I agree that she should be replaced immediately Mas. However, I disagree with seeing her as an opponent
    rather than an enemy. I respected the Vietcong but I despised them with every fiber of my being in 1968
    and now. They were evil, what they stood for was evil just as what she has stood for is evil. Evil is something
    that can’t be separated or quantified. It is what it is and no amount of make up or disguise will change it.
    99 times out of a 100, I agree with your stand on about everything but in this case, I can’t. Don’t mean I
    is disrespect you as you know (spoken for the more liberal minded who might read this) just can’t agree
    on this one.
    Your buddy,

  8. I don’t disagree with you often, but I respectfully disagree with you about your view of Justice Ginsburg. She was an enemy of the constitution who clearly believed that she was empowered to create law rather than interpret it and I believe that these judges are the biggest threat to our republic today as they do everything in their power to destroy our freedoms and tear down our nation and make it into their own, radical image.

  9. A radical religious movement is active in America. It is a dark, secular religion. A religion which, like Satanism and Voodoo, turns it back upon God and engages in the self-worship of humanity and in the pursuit of earthly pleasures and desires. It is the Religion of Marxism.

    Make no mistake, Marxism is a secular religion although it likes to mask itself as a political belief. However, a study of Marxism quickly shows its religious roots.

    Like other religions, it has its Holy Men. In the case of Marxism, the Holy Men are Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, etc. It has its Holy Scriptures such as Das Kapital plus numerous other Leftist writings. It has its list of Sins such as being a capitalist, being a racist, being a sexist, being a homophobe, harming the environment, etc. Converts to the religion of Marxism are pressured to confess their sins. To admit their inner racism, white privilege, sexism, their crimes against the environment, and so forth. Then they are required to abase themselves and engage in self-flagellation for their sins. Also, like other religions in history, the disciples of Marxism are merciless to any heretics and infidels who deny the Marxist Religion.

    Like other religions, Marxism has an apocalyptic vision of the End of the World. In Marxist religious doctrine, our environmental sins will bring about the End of the World by means of Climate Change. This also represents the Marxist vision of Hell. Only our conversion to Marxism and our repentance of our environmental crimes will prevent it according to their doctrines.

    The Founding Fathers did not want America to be dominated by a single, State religion. They knew the dangers that arise when religion becomes combined with the State. They knew World History and knew the wars that arose out of the Protestant Reformation. How the rise of a new King, or Queen, could trigger Civil War depending upon whether the new Prince was Protestant or Catholic. That is why they included, in the First Amendment, that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion…”.

    Unfortunately, Marxism disguises itself as a political movement. Many people do not recognize that it is actually a religion. Therefore, it “flies under the radar” and routinely violates the First Amendment. Not only has it corrupted the concept of a Free Press and the Rights of free speech and free association, but it is also well on its way to becoming the established State Religion here in America. Most of the People who work in the News Media, Entertainment, Big Tech, Government and Education are disciples of the Religion of Marxism. The First Amendment was used to drive prayer and the Judeo-Christian Religion out of our schools. They were then replaced by official teaching of the Religion of Marxism.

    It is not accurate to portray Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a disciple of the Marxist Religion. Rather, she was a Jew and an old-time leftist liberal. Her left-wing views were political, to her, rather than religious doctrine.

    While I do not claim to be able to speak for God, my own view is that God does not look upon the self-worshipping religion of Marxism with favor. This religion pushes people to turn away from God and to turn inward toward the satisfaction of their own base desires. It is a false religion that illustrates the folly of mankind.

    It seems to me that, perhaps for this reason, God is taking active part in the path America is following. The Election of Donald Trump as POTUS, in 2016, must surely illustrate God’s Hand since the Marxists had done everything possible to cheat and “stack the deck” in favor of Hillary Clinton. Yet, despite their manifold efforts, Trump won anyway.

    Now, we see Ruth Bader Ginsburg being called to God on the Eve of the Jewish High Holy Day of Rosh Hashanah. It is the Jewish New Year when a page is turned from the Old Year to the New. The timing of her death also shows God’s Hand. It is an event that helps President Trump. It deflects the News Media from their constant Covid-19 fear-mongering and incessant attacks on Trump into speculation about who will fill the open seat on the SCOTUS. Without doubt, the Marxists will go wild in attacking whoever Trump names for the job thereby giving voters a fresh reminder of how corrupt, unprincipled, and downright crazy the Left has become.

    It reminds me of the following verse from the Koran:

    “And when the misbelievers plotted to keep thee prisoner, or to kill thee, or drive thee forth, they plotted well; but God plotted too. And God is the best of plotters.”

      • Well, I will admit that both Groucho Marx and Karl Marx were full of silly ideas. They have that much in common. 🙂

        However, there is one difference. Groucho Marx KNEW that his ideas were silly. He was playing for laughs. He had a great sense of humor.

        Karl Marx, unfortunately, actually believed in his silly ideas. His ideas are not humorous. They are dangerous and destructive.

        In fact, one notable fact about Leftists, around the World, is that they have no sense of humor. Have you ever watched a modern so-called comic pushing left-wing ideas? They are rarely actually funny. However, occasionally there is an exception such as this example on YouTube:


    • I believe Groucho and especially Harpo would have written a much better version of Das Kapital. Liberal so-called comedians rely heavily on the laugh track (created by Lucille Ball’s husband Desi) to make themselves sound funny. The late great Bob Hope is probably doing about 5000 RPM in his grave.

      • I’m with you all the way, TN_MAN! The Forces of Darkness are strong within the Demoncratic Party. Satan is happily backing the insidious Harris/Biden team.

    • Living in a college town, I get to see it everyday. You are understating the problems. It makes people uncomfortable to see the next level, of the same predictable forces circling, who should be opposed, but are intertwined. The next logical conclusion is that they stem from a common root. In the final chapter of the book “A Sniper looks at Dailey Plaza” is the conclusion that no Criminal conspiracies Can last long, and that the only thing is the eternal battle for good an evil. That’s what much of this comes down to a tangible struggle between good and evil. I’ll leave with two quotes: The first from Star Treck classic “For good to win against Evil, it must be very smart and work very hard.” The second epsh 6:12

  10. The “Trump won’t leave, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO!?” thing is making me crazy. It is a total non-issue. When an incumbent president loses the election, then at exactly one second after 12:00 noon on January 20 the presidency leaves him. He does not have to leave, the title and authority of the office leave him and are vested in the winner of the election. He will be a private citizen (unless reelected) with ZERO presidential authority. He can no longer give orders to the Secret Service, Federal Marshals, or anyone else. A FORMER president who refuses to leave will be discretely ushered out the back door of the White House and driven to to the airport.

    Do they just not teach civics in public school anymore? Don’t answer that; I am already annoyed enough.

    • Liberals are afraid that if Donald Trump loses the November election, he will chain himself to the desk in the oval office and Melania will use a fireplace poker to beat back Secret Secret Service agents trying to remove him from the White House.

  11. I confess there is a certain amount of logic behind the idea of delaying a nomination. OTOH, I do believe it was Teddy Kennedy who cast the first blatantly politically driven opposition to a SCOTUS nomination, that of Robert Bork. A tradition that now seems engraved in stone so far as a certain political view is concerned. The end justifies the means isn’t a way to run country-or a political party- but the latter is what appears to be driving the left. Along with Marxist revolutionary theory.

    For numerous reasons Mas cited, I do believe that gong forward is best. Pray that we at minimum hold the Senate.

  12. I also hold you sir in great respect, but I also disagree. She was but one of many over the years to ignore what the Bill of Rights says to further some ideological ideal, on both sides I might add. The Scotus has one job and one job only, and that is to rule on whether cases they hear follow what the constitution says, not what they “interpret” it to say. They ALL fail miserably at that one simple requirement of the job. RBG failed at that more terribly than most. As to our core issue, in no reading have I ever found was “The right of the people…. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” ever followed by unless Scotus decided something else. It was violated in the 1930’s, in the 68 gun control act, after Reagan was shot with the AWB, and probably with further full on study long before that. As a side note, I personally find her opinions both in rulings and verbally through interviews, on the killing of millions of babies through abortion as evil as it gets. While she was not around for the earlier rulings her opinions on both subjects was crystal clear. You may forgive her, I for one pray for her soul.

  13. It seems to me to be an interesting but ultimately flawed argument for a installing RBG replacement to the Supreme Court ASAP to have an odd numbered team to avoid a possible tie in a tense post-election year.

    I think so for the very simple reason that if we consider the very the opposite argument, it turns out to be even more compelling for the stated purpose.

    The Justices would be acutely aware of the undesirability of a tie on a contested elec result case. Their even number would this compel SCOTUS towards 5:3 ruling, and I would hope an even more clear (… ideally unanimous…) ruling.

    So while a tie is technically possible if the judges think of themselves as deciding in a political vacuum, a 2-vote majority or stronger would have a more stabilizing effect than a 5:4.

    In that light, as paradoxical as it may sound, the move to install RBG’s replacement pre-election is arguably highly undesirable as an assurance of political stability of a possible (or likely) contested election result scenario.

  14. P.S. eBay is telling me that the 7th edition of your The Gun Digest Book of Combat Handgunnery is now out – is this happy news true?

    The 6th edition was the first book of yours I ever bought back in 2008, and remains my favorite!

  15. RBG was a great advocate of/for women’s rights. She fought successfully for needed change and is deserving of respect and honor for that.
    Unfortunately she carried her role as advocate to the bench when she became a justice and so undermined her legacy with divisiveness.

  16. I lost my father to cancer many years ago and have seen other family members in the last stages of cancer. I don’t wish that on anyone, opponent or enemy. However, I do know that in the final stages those afflicted are in a morphine haze. I highly doubt that her last wish was what her “granddaughter” says. Their last thoughts are usually memories from many years ago if they are even conscious. Having said that, Justice Ginsburg swore two oaths as a supreme court justice, the Constitutional oath and the Judicial oath. When she publicly stated that justices must look to international and foreign law to decide cases, she broke both of those oaths. I swore an oath to the Constitution 50+ years ago and can proudly say that I have always lived by that oath.

  17. It is said that she told her granddaughter that her last and most profound wish was that her replacement on the highest court not be named until after the election.

    Correction: It’s said that her most fervent wish — allegedly stated in a letter to her granddaughter — is that her replacement would not be appointed until after a new president is installed.

    IOW, she didn’t want President Trump to appoint her replacement and was banking on a Democrat election victory.

    The trouble is, in the event of President Trump wining a second term, neither the White House nor the Senate is willing to let the nation suffer 4+ years of 4-4 decisions affecting (read: delaying and/or denying) citizens’ civil rights.

    But as you said, even though she was passionate in her beliefs and wrote extremely well-worded opinions regarding the Constitutional logic supporting them, I have a hard time believing she would willingly politicize her own death to this extent, and so I question whether or not she actually wrote that.

    If there was a way to cause more division and disagreement in the nation, I sure as hell can’t think of it. As others pointed out, the controversy is going to overshadow everything else she accomplished in life; if President Trump and the Senate are successful in appointing and confirming her replacement, her entire time on the bench and every word of every opinion she writes will be seen by the Left as illegitimate. It will severely weaken the dignity and sanctity of the highest court in the land.

    I sincerely doubt Ruth Bader Ginsburg would want her legacy remembered this way.

  18. Thank you for your calm, reasonable and generous comments. I deplore the tendency to hate our opponents. We should be able to disagree and remain respectful, calm, and friendly. It seems nowadays that if someone disagrees with us, they are “evil”. How shameful. Sir, I admire your public stance which reveals your sense of grace toward others.

  19. My brother once told me (after Ho Chi Minh died) that you should never be happy over anyone’s death. It stuck with me for 40+ years because my brother was a Marine in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive. So I am not happy that RBG is gone. But I’m happy at the opportunity to put someone who believes in the Constitution. I have read/heard so many MSM types saying how RBG supported the Constitution in all her decisions. Truth is, she didn’t care for the Constitution. In 2012, during an interview with a Arab news organization, she said she would never tell the Egyptian Activists searching for a new constitution to look to the US Constitution for a model. Too old, not modern. She suggested some constitutions that were re-written after WWII. She mentioned France for one. A Democratic Socialist country where individual rights were granted by the Government (it’s in their constitution) and could be taken away by the government at any time they wanted. Others suggested are the same. Would you like to be Canadian? She thought it was a better constitution. So, I’m not happy she’s gone, but I’m not saddened either.

    • RBG said that in her opinion the South African Constitution was much superior to the U.S. Constitution. Exactly the kind of person we need serving as a JOTSC. The spirits of our founding fathers are greatly saddened by how far left their beloved country, which they have sacrificed so much for, has become.

  20. Opponent or enemy as has been argued both ways here, I still respect her more than I do John Roberts. As near as I can tell, Roberts is an institutionalist trying maintain the credibility of the Court, the Constitution be damned. Trouble is that his transparent gyrations have undermined rather than enhanced the credibility of the court.

    • A good investigative journalist should look into Chief Justice Roberts’ finances and check to see if he has a secret Swiss bank account or one in the Cayman Islands. Maybe also see if he was good buddies with the late Jeffrey Epstein too 😮

  21. Some Americans want a big government. Some Americans want a small government. There will never be a time in the future when the size of government is just right for both sides. The only way forward is to split peacefully.

    If there is a civil war, and one side wins, and is able to force the other side to live by the victor’s rules, the losing side will be bitter. That is not a recipe for peace.

    When we go to the grocery store, we have all kinds of choices. Why can’t we choose our form of government and its laws? Why are there so few choices when it comes to education? We have fifty states so we should have fifty choices.

  22. Whew! Just wanted to point out that I have been unable to post since this website was upgraded. A red message would appear declaring my email address to be incorrect. Looks like the technocrats finally fixed it. Hooray for technology! That and our vast wealth (or the appearance of wealth) are the only bright spots in this current Dark Age.

    Notice how the Left can’t stand Trump’s boorish behavior, as the extreme Left burns businesses, cities, statues and flags. Look at how they chant against the President while he is at Ginsburg’s funeral. Yeah, I would call that boorish behavior.

    • Are you calling Al Gore a boor? If so, at least he’s a rich boor and not poor, thanks to global warming. Maybe Gore is just a climate change whore.

  23. Liberals believe if you don’t agree with their ideas, you are a “bad person”. Conservatives believe liberals aren’t bad, just have bad ideas.

Comments are closed.