Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

2102, 18 Sep 20



US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an iconic champion of women’s rights, has died of cancer at the age of 87, the court has said.

Ginsburg died on Friday of metastatic pancreatic cancer at her home in Washington, DC, surrounded by her family, the statement said.


2102, 18 September 2020


  1. Kevin Scheunemann

    Just awful for family. This is going to be also awful for the country. The election just got 100 times more intense. If Trump loses, Senate will push nominee through. Liberals will riot.

    If Trump wins, but Republicans lose Senate, nominee will be pushed through before new Senate. Liberals will riot.

    If Trump wins and Republicans win Senate, liberals will riot and tear apart the country.

    We will need to lock the rioting lunatics up under all scenarios.

  2. Randall Flagg

    McConnell could be consistent and not hold a vote.

    Wait, who I am kidding.  Hypocrisy is a staple of the Republican Party.

  3. Mar

    Kevin,liberals will riot no matter what.
    The liberals are going to bitch no matter what President Trump does. So screw the liberals.
    Push through a conservative justice, in the mold of Clarence Thomas, and screw the liberals. They don’t matter.

  4. Mar

    Randall, if Democrats acted honorably, maybe you would have a point.
    But the Senate Democrats are worse than dog poop at the dog park.
    Screw them.

  5. Kevin Scheunemann


    There is a difference here. Republicans own White House and Senate.

    In 2016, it was opposite parties.

    No USSC Supreme Court nominee in an election year has gone through under an opposite party scenario since 1880s.

    This is different than 2016.

  6. Mar

    Oh look, Pat is using Twitter as a source.
    Who cares.

  7. Pat

    Lindsey Graham is the source. Drunk again?

  8. jjf

    Well, when Biden wins, they’ll just expand the SC to more members, and re-stack it.

  9. Kevin Scheunemann


    The court will rule that unconstitutional without an amendment to the Constitution.

  10. Le Roi du Nord

    Kind of like trump getting 8 more years in office, right k?

  11. Mar

    Actually Kevin, it is not in the Constitution about the number of justices on the Supreme Court.
    And Le Roi still cannot comment without being hateful.

  12. penquin

    The court will rule that unconstitutional without an amendment to the Constitution.

    You sure about that? As sure as you are about everything else?

  13. Kevin Scheunemann


    It is all about what the court says the Constitution means.

    “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court.”

    This begs the question, how many more added justices violates that provision?  In other words, when does the committee of nine, become more than one court?

    I would be surprised if current court allows more than an expansion of the current nine.  Then every party, in the future, when they have full control, can double the size of the court to render control of the court.    If we have 1000 justices, is it still “one” court.    You would need a Senate just to confirm all that.   we would be in constant witch hunt justice nomination hearings.   There will be a point that adding justices violates Article #3.   The only sensible thing is: hold the line.    Once you let line move, there is no constraint when party power keeps changing hands.


  14. Le Roi du Nord

    Sorry mar, you are wrong again. I don’t hate anyone, not even you. I pity you, but don’t hate you.

  15. Mar

    Le Roi, the Pathological Liar Hater, you say you don’t hate but the words you write suggest otherwise.
    Do you have someone hacking your account and being hateful to make you look bad?
    Or do you own those hateful words?

  16. penquin

    Becoming pretty obvious that Kevin doesn’t have much awareness of the history of our Supreme Court…nor the Google-skills to look it up.


    The U.S. Constitution established the Supreme Court but left it to Congress to decide how many justices should make up the court. The Judiciary Act of 1789 set the number at six: a chief justice and five associate justices. In 1807, Congress increased the number of justices to seven; in 1837, the number was bumped up to nine; and in 1863, it rose to 10. In 1866, Congress passed the Judicial Circuits Act, which shrank the number of justices back down to seven and prevented President Andrew Johnson from appointing anyone new to the court. Three years later, in 1869, Congress raised the number of justices to nine, where it has stood ever since.


  17. Mar

    Randall, can you remind who said “Elections have consequences”
    I dare say that whoever said is also a hypocrite.

  18. penquin

    Elections DO have consequences. That’s why the Republican’s are trying to ram this through at a pace never seen before – they are afraid of facing the consequences of the upcoming election.

    Their own internal polling must be showing that they are gonna take huge losses in November, otherwise they wouldn’t be so desperate to do this now.

  19. Kevin Scheunemann


    You talk like a Conservative Supreme Court is a bad thing….

    it is a good thing.





  20. Mar

    I didn’t know penquin, that President’s have only 3 1/2 years to their terms.

  21. Kevin Scheunemann


    What did I ignore and where?


  22. penquin

    @Kevin – Not speaking for jjf, but it appears you are ignoring and/or ignorant of the history of our Supreme Court. Did you completely skip over the comment I posted at 5:48pm? It, as well as the links provided by both me and jjf, should make it clear why your opinion about requiring a constitutional amendment to change the number of judges is laughable.

    @mar – They don’t. What leads you to beleive that just because a judge isn’t confirmed it means the end of the term for the President? Can you please explain – ’cause I don’t see how you made that huge leap.

  23. dad29

    Re:  RBG death another blogger observed that she FINALLY made good on her promise to improve the USA.


  24. jjf

    I dunno, Kevin, what does your Special Dictionary say under “court.”

    You’re seriously suggesting that if the number of judges is too large, it’s no longer a single Court?  Was it still a single court when it was six?

  25. Mar

    Penguin, you are suggesting that President Trump is ramming through the nomination because of polls.
    Or it should be done because he can and he should regardless of polls. Why wait?

  26. MjM

    Penny claims: “That’s why the Republican’s are trying to ram this through at a pace never seen before ”

    It is 15 weeks until a newly elected congresscriiters and prez take office. Ginsberg herself was nominated, confirmed, and seated in 8 weeks.

  27. Mar

    penquin, it is a possibility the reason President Trump is going forward with the nomination due to bad polling.
    I think a more likely suggestion would be that Trump and McConnell are doing this to stick a finger into Schummer and Pelosi’s, sticking it in turning and gouging and popping out their eyeballs for all the crap the liberals and Dem’s have given them, to the GOP and to most of the United States.

  28. MjM

    Randy Flags plays the fool: “Wait, who I am kidding. Hypocrisy is a staple of the Republican Party.”

    “Elections have consequences. The president has a responsibility to nominate a new justice and the Senate has a responsibility to vote.” – Hildabeast Clinton, Feb 12, 2016

    “Have a hearing and a vote on #SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland. Ditch the extremism and #DoYourJob.” – Fake Cherokee Elizebeth Warren, 6/6/2016

    “The President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away. Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.”- Klansman and Democrat Sen.Harry Reid

    “Judge Merrick Garland, is a respected jurist who must be given a fair hearing & timely vote.” – Queen Pelosi, 3/16/2016

    “GOP inaction does our country a great disservice. #DoYourJob” – Senate Minority Leader Chucky Schumer (D-NY), June 9, 2016.
    “This vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president.” -Senate Minority Leader Chucky Schumer (D-NY), Sept 18, 2020

    “The need for a ninth justice is undeniably clear. #DoYourJob” – Barack Hussein Obama, Oct 11, 2016

    And of course, there is Babblin’Joe Biden, a man who was against it before he was for it before he was against it again…

    “It would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is underway – and it is – action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over.” – BJB, June 25, 1992

    “Some critics say that one excerpt of my speech is evidence that I oppose filling a Supreme Court vacancy in an election year. This is not an accurate description of my views on the subject.” – BJB, Feb. 22, 2016

    “Voters of this country should be heard … they’re the ones who this Constitution envisions should decide who has the power to make this appointment,” – BJB, Sep. 20, 2020

  29. MjM

    Today’s Babblism (the We All Be Dead issue):

    “it’s estimated that 200 million people [will] have died probably by the time I finish this talk…” – Babblin’ Joe Biden, Today.

    “150 million people have been killed since 2007 when Bernie voted to exempt the gun manufacturers from liability, more than all the wars, including Vietnam from that point on.”- Babblin’ Joe Biden, 2/25/2020

    So, that wipes out all us Americans, and more than half of Canada or a sizable amount of Mexicans’. But Babblin’ Joe ain’t saying which. If he knows. Or if he knows where he is. Or where Canada is.

  30. Mar


  31. Mar

    Oops. Mistake.
    I was just guessing Senile Joe and Le Roi’s and jjf combined IQ score, but it slipped out.

  32. Mar

    I would have added Pat’s IQ, but you cannot have a negative IQ.

  33. Kevin Scheunemann


    Is it still “one court” if it is 100? 500? 1000 justices?

    We would have perpetual confirmation hearing and tie the US Senate up 24/7 and render it useless as a legislative body!

    So 2 articles of Constitution are at risk!

    3 confirmation hearings in 4 years, that is exhausting enough, especially when you have liberal pricks at hearings looking to shamelessly execute reputations at all costs with lies and distortions.

    I hear women are lining up for liberal leaders, already claiming to be raped by whoever the potential nominee is!

    There is only one cure for this country!

    Defeat the evil of liberalism!

  34. Le Roi du Nord

    And on another thread the claim was made that the self-proclaimed “conservatives “ were all about civility. HA!

  35. Mar

    We just act uncivil towards liberals who lie, riot, loot and are hateful. You fit 2 out of the 4 categories.
    Guess which ones.

  36. jjf

    See, Le Roi, all you need to do is claiming someone is lying or hateful, and then you can justify the incivility.

  37. Mar

    Not claiming, jjf. Flat out truth.
    By the way, I heard you have a blog named Boots and Kittens.
    But just got a blank page when looked it up.

  38. penquin

    I hear women are lining up for liberal leaders, already claiming to be raped by whoever the potential nominee is!

    Link, please

  39. Mar

    What penquin, people cannot hold an opinion?

  40. penquin

    What penquin, people cannot hold an opinion?

    Never said nor implied they couldn’t. What leads you to think I did?

    We just act uncivil towards liberals who lie, riot, loot and are hateful.

    The way that is phrased it seems to appear that you still treat civilly non-liberals&conservatives who lie, riot, loot and are hateful. Can you please clarify? Thanks.

  41. Mar

    “Never said nor implied they couldn’t. What leads you to think I did?”
    “Link, Please”
    “The way that is phrased it seems to appear that you still treat civilly non-liberals&conservatives who lie, riot, loot and are hateful”
    If a conservative riots, lie or are hateful, I have no respect for them.
    And I have gone against some conservatives here when my opinion differed.
    I even defended Le Roi here when some idiot was trolling him and made, hopefully, false, vile accusations against him.

  42. Le Roi du Nord

    Geez mar, that guy was you. You forgot already?

  43. jjf

    It’s just Mar making excuses for his own incivility.  He’s injured by so many lies and hateful liars!  Can’t find a way to behave for good behavior’s sake alone, he needs to see others’ good behavior before he can behave.

  44. Mar

    No jjf, I treat people the way they treat others.
    You are a lying troll who is a failure in the blog business, cannot write one of your own, but criticizes those take the time to write one.
    Pathetic, just pathetic.

  45. Le Roi du Nord

    And the incivility continues.

    If nothing else, mar is a good example of a bad example. Take the high road, little fella.

  46. Pat

    “You are a lying troll who is a failure in the blog business, cannot write one of your own, “

    Marbles, would you provide a link to your blog please.

  47. Mar

    Don’t have one Lying Pat and I don’t criticize those who have blogs.

  48. jjf

    Mar, what can we say about your success in the blog business, in your writing abilities, in your criticism of others who write?

    I don’t criticize those who have blogs.

    See, he presumes I had a blog, and criticizes it, but he never does that.  And somehow, determined that I can’t write one of my own.  Is he a lying liar who lies all the time, hatefully, awfully?  It’s a mystery.

  49. Mar

    It has been written here lately, jjf, that you wrote that blog.
    True or not?
    And if I cannot link to that, that means you failed at it.
    How am I wrong?

  50. jjf

    If B&S disappeared for a few years, does that mean Owen failed at it?

Pin It on Pinterest