Six Seats?

[Flanders]

The rule of four is a Supreme Court of the United States practice that permits four of the nine justices to grant a writ of certiorari. This is done specifically to prevent a majority of the Court from controlling the Court's docket.

The rule of four is not required by the Constitution, any law, or even the Supreme Court's own published rules. Rather, it is a custom that has been observed since the Court was given discretion over which appeals to hear by the Judiciary Act of 1891, Judiciary Act of 1925 and the Supreme Court Case Selections Act of 1988.

The "Rule of Four" has been explained by various Justices in judicial opinions throughout the years. For example, Justice Felix Frankfurter described the rule as follows: "The ‘rule of four’ is not a command of Congress. It is a working rule devised by the Court as a practical mode of determining that a case is deserving of review, the theory being that if four Justices find that a legal question of general importance is raised, that is ample proof that the question has such importance. This is a fair enough rule of thumb on the assumption that four Justices find such importance on an individualized screening of the cases sought to be reviewed."

Although the Rule of Four in general has remained constant for some time -- i.e., that it takes at least four affirmative votes to grant a petition for certiorari -- the ancillary aspects of it have changed throughout the years and Justices have not always agreed about these aspects.
​

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four

As far back as Judge Robert Bork’s confirmation hearing most Americans learned that John Roberts’ ludicrous definition of an unbiased court is pure Grade A baloney offered for public consumption:

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”
​

A court permanently slanted left or right is not a bad thing so long as it is tilted to the right. Even then so-called conservative justices abandon ship and rule with liberals. Roberts and Kavanaugh are the latest deserters. Strict constructionists voting for big ticket items in the Left’s political agenda (the ACA for one) makes the rule of four as useless as tits on bull.

Kavanaugh did not change the rule where it counts the most so long as writ of certiorari remains in the hands of four activist libs. They will get their cases heard regardless of the other five. Even if libs lose in 5 to 4 rulings they get their talking points on the record in dissenting opinions.

Should Trump get another pick the head count would be 6 to 3. Six to three is a major change to be sure, but it will take 7 to 2 bring about a change of seismic proportions.

Bottom lime: Democrats will do whatever it takes to hold their grip on the rule of four.

Back on November 7, the 85-year-old Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg fell in her office at the Supreme Court and fractured three ribs on her left side. Ironically, this mishap may have been a blessing in disguise, as x-ray tests on her rib area revealed growths on her left lung.

Then, on December 21, Ginsburg underwent a pulmonary lobectomy at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York City. In that procedure, one of the two lobes of the left lung is completely removed and examined. Upon pathological testing, it was determined that the nodules on Ginsburg's left lobe were indeed malignant.

The prognosis cannot be good for Ginsburg. According to Dr. John Heymach of the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, when lung cancer is caught, it usually has already spread to the lymph nodes and beyond, and by then, it is curable in only a few cases.

This is the latest in a string of health issues that have afflicted the aged Ginsburg. She has been on the Supreme Court since 1993 when appointed by Bill Clinton. Currently, she is the longest serving justice on the court. During her tenure, Ginsburg has had both colon (2009) and pancreatic cancer (1999) and a heart stent in 2014. This is not a healthy, robust woman.

One need not be a medical expert to predict with a reasonable degree of confidence that 2019 will end without Ginsburg – or RBG, as her fans like to call her – on the bench. This will give President Trump the opportunity to appoint another originalist to the Supreme Court. This is needed now to counteract Chief Justice Roberts, who is drifting ever to the left.

Just the thought of another Supreme Court appointment for President Trump will send the Democrats and the Democrat-media into rug-chewing fits. It will also shift their efforts to remove Trump from office into warp speed.


​

December 23, 2018
Ruth Bader Ginsburg has lung cancer
By Peter Skurkiss

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/12/ruth_bader_ginsburg_has_lung_cancer.html
​

Should Ginsburg’s seat open up for another Trump pick media mouths will demand ‘The court’s balance must be maintained’ —— meaning no less than four Democrats on the court at all times.

QUESTION: If balance is the criterion what does that say about John Roberts’ baloney? ANSWER: It is rancid.

Finally, the court’s balance never did much good for the American people, but you can bet your ass that if Democrat Party Socialists/Communists had a chance at 6 or more seats on the court the word ‘balance’ would be declared politically incorrect.

 

[Flanders]

Should Trump get another pick the head count would be 6 to 3. Six to three is a major change to be sure, but it will take 7 to 2 bring about a change of seismic proportions.

It will take two tried and true strict constructionists to repair Ginsburg’s damage:

In anticipation of her seat being the next Supreme Court vacancy to be filled by President Trump, Hollywood has come out with a fawning biopic of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg depicting how in 1956 she overcame the sexist fortress of Harvard Law School to become the feminist icon she is today:


​

It’s 1956, and Ginsburg is one of only nine women in the class, facing the slings and arrows of sexist men of all ages. The opening scene will be deeply satisfying, especially for viewers who have joined the burgeoning cult of RBG, because they know what those students obviously didn’t: That Ginsburg will end up sitting on the Supreme Court, long after most of the guys who beat her out for law firm jobs have retired to the golf course. More than that, the elderly Ginsburg will become a cultural icon of still-uncharted dimensions.

“On the Basis of Sex,” a full Hollywood production in which the young Ginsburg is played by Felicity Jones, is the latest entry in the popular movement that presents the pioneering women’s-rights attorney as a kind of progressive superhero. The film is a myth-building exercise for a woman who’s reached mythic stature in a shockingly short period of time.
​

Without saying so, the film probably anticipates her replacement is likely to be Justice Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, as far from Ginsburg’s secular progressive and anti-Constitution philosophy as one can get. Just as John F. Kennedy was said by some to be a stalking horse for the Vatican who would clear each major decision with the Pope, Barrett, a practicing Catholic who actually gets it right, was charged with embracing Catholic dogma so tightly that there is no room left for the Constitution and those “emanations from the penumbras” that sanctified Roe V. Wade.

Catholic League President Bill Donahue addressed the issue on “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox:


​

Senate Democrats grilled Barrett over how her Catholic faith would affect her views on court precedents concerning abortion cases during her confirmation process after Trump nominated her as a circuit judge in 2017.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), in particular, showed what Catholic League President Bill Donahue called anti-religion “animus” during their questioning of her religious beliefs…

"Let’s remember... the seminal statement by Sen. Feinstein -- she said the dogma screams loudly in you," Donahue told Ingraham. "That’s coming awfully close to establishing a religious test."

Feinstein received intense backlash after she told Barrett during her confirmation hearing, "Dogma and law are two different things. And, I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you."
​

On The Basis Of Sex is supposed to warn us of our imminent journey from the progressive to the Neanderthal and to hide the fact that the dogma that lives within Ruth Bader Ginsburg, far from a heroic fight for women’s rights, is a bizarre concoction of radical feminist angst and ideology that ignores originalist interpretations of the Constitution in favor of reliance on international law, foreign court decisions, and a flagrantly political agenda.

We need only look at her 230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to see elements of her radical philosophy:


​

The purpose of this book was to show how the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (for which she was an aggressive advocate) would change federal laws to make them sex-neutral and “eliminate sex-discriminatory provisions.”

Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)…

Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)

She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)

She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)…

Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)
​

Ginsburg is no fan of President Trump, which is why she refuses to retire, but is a fan of bypassing the U.S. Constitution. If we needed another reminder of why it matters who is elected President and who gets to pick not only the replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia is important, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reminds us. In statements to CNN and the New York Times during the 2016 presidential election, Ginsburg called presumptive GOP presidential nominee a “faker” and warned of the danger of a Trump administration to Scotus and the country. As ABC News reported:


​

"He is a faker," Ginsburg said of Trump on Monday on CNN. "He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that."

She also told the New York Times that a Trump presidency would be unimaginable for the country and the Supreme Court.

"I can’t imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president," she told the Times. "For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be -- I don’t even want to contemplate that."

She jokingly added that she would move to New Zealand if he were to win the election in November.
​

She is entitled to her own political views. She is entitled even to use them in forming her court decisions. She is not entitled to use her lifetime appointment to attempt to sway Americans in an election. Her remarks show how far liberals on the Supreme Court and in lower courts have gone beyond interpreting the intent of the Founders in writing the Constitution to using the Supreme Court to advance a political and social agenda. To them the Constitution is a “living document” written in the sand, not carved into the bedrock of American democracy.

She is one of the justices who advocates incorporating foreign law and foreign constitutions into Scotus decisions:



​

At the beginning of February, Ruth Bader Ginsburg traveled to South Africa, where she gave a public address on “The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication.” She defended the Supreme Court’s recent practice of taking guidance from foreign law when interpreting the U.S. Constitution. She acknowledged that the practice has been criticized. She expressed concern at bills before Congress condemning the practice.
​

In that speech in South Africa, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that if judges can consult law review articles and such in the U.S., “why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights?”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a concurring opinion in Grutter vs. Bollinger, affirmed the use of racial preferences in university admissions, citing the fact that the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination temporarily allows for the “maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups.” Separate but equal?

Justice Ginsburg shares the view that the Supreme Court is a tool, not for ruling on the law and the Constitution as the Founders intended, but as a tool for social engineering incorporating foreign laws and opinions. She is a globalist who believes that “we the people” includes the people of Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. She believes in a “living Constitution” as an Etch-a-Sketch document that can mean, as in Alice in Wonderland, whatever she chooses it to mean.

She is the poster child for judicial activism and legislating from the bench. She will not be missed.


​

December 31, 2018
The Beatification of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
By Daniel John Sobieski

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/the_beatification_of_ruth_bader_ginsburg.html
​

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I wonder why the demmcrats decided they wanted a new law?......the rule of four has nothing to do with the political orientation of the justices.......

 

[Ross Dolan]

It will take two tried and true strict constructionists to repair Ginsburg’s damage:

In anticipation of her seat being the next Supreme Court vacancy to be filled by President Trump, Hollywood has come out with a fawning biopic of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg depicting how in 1956 she overcame the sexist fortress of Harvard Law School to become the feminist icon she is today:


​

It’s 1956, and Ginsburg is one of only nine women in the class, facing the slings and arrows of sexist men of all ages. The opening scene will be deeply satisfying, especially for viewers who have joined the burgeoning cult of RBG, because they know what those students obviously didn’t: That Ginsburg will end up sitting on the Supreme Court, long after most of the guys who beat her out for law firm jobs have retired to the golf course. More than that, the elderly Ginsburg will become a cultural icon of still-uncharted dimensions.

“On the Basis of Sex,” a full Hollywood production in which the young Ginsburg is played by Felicity Jones, is the latest entry in the popular movement that presents the pioneering women’s-rights attorney as a kind of progressive superhero. The film is a myth-building exercise for a woman who’s reached mythic stature in a shockingly short period of time.
​

Without saying so, the film probably anticipates her replacement is likely to be Justice Amy Coney Barrett of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit, as far from Ginsburg’s secular progressive and anti-Constitution philosophy as one can get. Just as John F. Kennedy was said by some to be a stalking horse for the Vatican who would clear each major decision with the Pope, Barrett, a practicing Catholic who actually gets it right, was charged with embracing Catholic dogma so tightly that there is no room left for the Constitution and those “emanations from the penumbras” that sanctified Roe V. Wade.

Catholic League President Bill Donahue addressed the issue on “The Ingraham Angle” on Fox:


​

Senate Democrats grilled Barrett over how her Catholic faith would affect her views on court precedents concerning abortion cases during her confirmation process after Trump nominated her as a circuit judge in 2017.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), in particular, showed what Catholic League President Bill Donahue called anti-religion “animus” during their questioning of her religious beliefs…

"Let’s remember... the seminal statement by Sen. Feinstein -- she said the dogma screams loudly in you," Donahue told Ingraham. "That’s coming awfully close to establishing a religious test."

Feinstein received intense backlash after she told Barrett during her confirmation hearing, "Dogma and law are two different things. And, I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you."
​

On The Basis Of Sex is supposed to warn us of our imminent journey from the progressive to the Neanderthal and to hide the fact that the dogma that lives within Ruth Bader Ginsburg, far from a heroic fight for women’s rights, is a bizarre concoction of radical feminist angst and ideology that ignores originalist interpretations of the Constitution in favor of reliance on international law, foreign court decisions, and a flagrantly political agenda.

We need only look at her 230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to see elements of her radical philosophy:


​

The purpose of this book was to show how the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (for which she was an aggressive advocate) would change federal laws to make them sex-neutral and “eliminate sex-discriminatory provisions.”

Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)…

Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)

She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)

She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)…

Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)
​

Ginsburg is no fan of President Trump, which is why she refuses to retire, but is a fan of bypassing the U.S. Constitution. If we needed another reminder of why it matters who is elected President and who gets to pick not only the replacement for Justice Antonin Scalia is important, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reminds us. In statements to CNN and the New York Times during the 2016 presidential election, Ginsburg called presumptive GOP presidential nominee a “faker” and warned of the danger of a Trump administration to Scotus and the country. As ABC News reported:


​

"He is a faker," Ginsburg said of Trump on Monday on CNN. "He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that."

She also told the New York Times that a Trump presidency would be unimaginable for the country and the Supreme Court.

"I can’t imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president," she told the Times. "For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be -- I don’t even want to contemplate that."

She jokingly added that she would move to New Zealand if he were to win the election in November.
​

She is entitled to her own political views. She is entitled even to use them in forming her court decisions. She is not entitled to use her lifetime appointment to attempt to sway Americans in an election. Her remarks show how far liberals on the Supreme Court and in lower courts have gone beyond interpreting the intent of the Founders in writing the Constitution to using the Supreme Court to advance a political and social agenda. To them the Constitution is a “living document” written in the sand, not carved into the bedrock of American democracy.

She is one of the justices who advocates incorporating foreign law and foreign constitutions into Scotus decisions:



​

At the beginning of February, Ruth Bader Ginsburg traveled to South Africa, where she gave a public address on “The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication.” She defended the Supreme Court’s recent practice of taking guidance from foreign law when interpreting the U.S. Constitution. She acknowledged that the practice has been criticized. She expressed concern at bills before Congress condemning the practice.
​

In that speech in South Africa, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that if judges can consult law review articles and such in the U.S., “why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights?”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in a concurring opinion in Grutter vs. Bollinger, affirmed the use of racial preferences in university admissions, citing the fact that the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination temporarily allows for the “maintenance of unequal or separate rights for different racial groups.” Separate but equal?

Justice Ginsburg shares the view that the Supreme Court is a tool, not for ruling on the law and the Constitution as the Founders intended, but as a tool for social engineering incorporating foreign laws and opinions. She is a globalist who believes that “we the people” includes the people of Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka. She believes in a “living Constitution” as an Etch-a-Sketch document that can mean, as in Alice in Wonderland, whatever she chooses it to mean.

She is the poster child for judicial activism and legislating from the bench. She will not be missed.


​

December 31, 2018
The Beatification of Ruth Bader Ginsburg
By Daniel John Sobieski

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2018/12/the_beatification_of_ruth_bader_ginsburg.html
​

NOT TO BE PICKY, BUT...

...what will not be missed is...

...the garbage that calls itself the American right...

...when it finally is given the push into Hell that it so richly has earned.

 

[Flanders]

Should Trump get another pick the head count would be 6 to 3. Six to three is a major change to be sure, but it will take 7 to 2 bring about a change of seismic proportions.

Democrats engaged in sewer warfare to keep Brett Kavanaugh off the bench.

​

Should Ginsberg retire, the strategy Democrats are preparing against her replacement will make Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing look like Woodstock.

If Trump gets one more pick after Ginsberg there is no doubt in my mind that assassination will spill out of the sewer and into all-out war—— and I am not talking about character assassination.

The fact is that any capable nominee is infinitely more qualified than Ginsberg ever was. This article by Kurt Schlichter exposes Ginsberg’s intellect for what it is:

There are some opponents worthy of grudging respect. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a terrible legal thinker, a leftist with no real respect for liberty and a confessed critic of the Constitution over its limitations upon the government’s ability to impose her fans’ pinko vision of soft, huggy tyranny upon Normal Americans. But I respect her as an opponent – to do otherwise would be to lie to ourselves that our opponents are hopeless and helpless. She’s a tough old bird, surviving cancer and other perils and yet she always comes back to torment us with her appalling jurisprudence. You gotta give her props for never quitting. She’s the Energizer Liberal Jurist.

So, when I discuss the 85-year old’s likely imminent departure from the Supreme Court seat where she has frustrated those of us who dig freedom for so long, I am not hoping for her to lose her latest fight. Liberals will lie and say I am, that conservatives in general are hoping for her demise, but they lie about everything so why not this too? Most conservatives yearn for her to retire, but also wish her a return to good health. I do. I don’t think she’s a bad person deserving of a horrible fate because we disagree. Far be it for me to gainsay Justice Scalia, who liked her. I think she’s misguided, not evil. But also I think we all need to think about the coming fight when she leaves the Court, because that brawl is coming regardless.

I am of the contingent that looks at the odds and figures that her tenure is drawing to a close. I could be wrong. So could the many connected and informed people who have passed on to me the rumors that her condition is much worse than is being let on. Remember that an ailing Justice Rehnquist assured us in a statement that he intended on returning to the Court soon, and that seven weeks later he was being buried. Our hopes and prayers for her health aside – and many conservatives are offering them even as they would love her to retire – my money is still on a 2019 fight to replace her.

The Notorious RBG fans are not going to react well. That she has fans is weird enough. It’s not her legal legacy, which is an undistinguished mish-mash of liberal goo once you get past some decent work on women’s rights a half century ago. Her legendary status is partly that she’s a leftist, and partly that she’s so tough. She’s become a secular saint to for libs, proving once again that when you reject religion you have to fill up your spiritual void with something.

So, we have people offering her their organs if that will keep her going. We are treated to fawning documentaries, scores of Ruth-themed knick-knacks, and tributes by late nite TV dummies who think “Certiorari” was a famous Roman. There’s even a movie about her early years that’s out now starring some hot actress in the title role, which I will avoid because I just can’t deal with Sexy Ruth Bader Ginsberg.

Just…no.

This blind adoration, combined with the realization that the SCOTUS will finally, after decades, be conservative by 6-3 – well, our soft Chief Justice John Roberts will make it 5.5-3.5 – is why the next confirmation fight is going to be Kavanaugh squared.

They will go nuts. But this time, we’ll be ready. And this time, Fredocons like Jeff Flake and Lisa Murkowski are going to be neutered by his rejection and her irrelevance following the elections of additional Republican senators. Plus, the newly energized Lindsey Graham will be the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and our newly minted Conservative Avenger will regulate like a boss.

While my heart belongs to Judge Don Willett (who swore me into the Texas Bar), my money is on Amy Coney Barrett. She’s got some huge assets that make her the likely pick, starting with the “her” part. Let’s face it – gender and other irrelevancies matter to some people. It’s stupid and prejudiced, but there it is – liberals don’t get that us conservatives would be thrilled with a panel of nine lesbian Muslims of color with limps who believe the First and Second Amendments mean what they say.

In any case, in this dumb world replacing a person who identifies as female is going to be much easier if you replace her with someone who identifies as female. In fact, she’s too female for a lot of barren, bitter libs. She has seven kids, including some adopted ones. And you know how lonely coastal spinsters with “It’s Her Turn” bumper stickers on the Priuses they use to drive to Trader Joe’s to get off-brand clearance Chardonnay and cruelty-free cat food feel about breeders.

She’s also a Catholic, but not the kind liberals like. She actually believes that Jesus stuff.

Barrett’s also a huge favorite with conservatives because she’s a legal genius. She clerked with Justice Scalia…enough said.

The Dems are going to freak, and we should welcome it.

I eagerly await attacks on Judge Barrett for her outrageous fertility. Let’s let them take a hard stand against motherhood.

Please, please, please, continue the assault on Catholics and other believing Christians. Do it on TV, in front of the world. Show us what you really think of us, Donkey Senators.

And hopefully Diane Feinstein can drop some new kooky letter at the last-minute accusing her of some unverifiable impropriety back in 1982. Because I just don’t think the American people will stand for another such fiasco.

Soon-to-be Justice Barrett will not just make a great jurist. She’ll help pave the way for Donald Trump’s re-election by reminding us just what kind of people the Democrats are.

And maybe, in time, she’ll even become the Notorious ACB.

If you want to see the nightmareish America that would result if Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s fans get their way, check out my latest novel, Wildfire (and the earlier People’s Republic and Indian Country) to see what it looks like when you toss the Constitution out and replace concepts like enumerated powers and the Bill of Rights with SJW feelz.


​

Apocalypse Ruth
Kurt Schlichter
Posted: Jan 14, 2019 12:01 AM

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2019/01/14/apocalypse-ruth-n2538971
​