Over at The Daily Blog, Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury has being going apeshit on the abortion issue since SCOTUS dropped its ruling that booted both the Roe (’73) and Casey (’92) decisions, throwing the law on abortions back to the fifty US states to decide.

What issue you may ask? That’s the US. This is New Zealand. True, but by my count “Bomber” has now written something like half-a-dozen posts trying to link the decision to the National Party here and in particular to the Great Christian Ogre that apparently is National leader Chris Luxon.

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Dear oh dear, oh dear. Those polls showing the slow deflation of the Jacinda balloon and her Party must be keeping Bradbury awake every night, as well as the ongoing collapse of our healthcare, education, social welfare and law and order systems that promises more fail and even lower polls leading up to the next election. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

As even some of his Lefty commentators have tried to explain to him – repeatedly – those problem areas are too big to ignore or deflect from, not to mention that Luxon strikes much of the right wing as a Wet, Woke drip who has already dumped his Christianity in the box marked “personal” and who will be silently “opposed” to whatever other Culture War crap the Left decide to pull in NZ from here on (“the National Party does not do culture wars”.)

However, “Bomber” is not listening: drowning men usually don’t, as witnessed by him refusing to publish my cheerful and erudite comments on his posts. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Aside from the desperate stupidity of his ploy there’s also the usual amount of hysterical garbage and double standards. The following has become a favourite over at TDB:

“THEY LIED”, scream the left, both here and in the USA, as they lambast the four latest GOP-nominated justices to get on the Supreme’s bench.

There’s a couple of problems with that, starting with the fact that if Supreme Court decisions were buried in the aspic of precedent and stare decisis, then terrible rulings like Plessy v. Ferguson (segregation), or merely legally weak ones like Bowers v. Hardwick (gay sex), Baker v. Nelson (gay marriage), Wolf v. Colorado, and many others, would never have been reversed.

Originalists such as Justice Antonin Scalia argue that “Stare decisis is not usually a doctrine used in civil law systems, because it violates the principle that only the legislature may make law.”[62] Justice Scalia argues that America is a civil law nation, not a common law nation.

The second problem is the usual double standards of the Left, in this situation something called The Ginsburg Rules. These were crafted up in 1993 by none other than one Senator Joe Biden for the purpose of protecting Clinton’s SCOTUS nominee, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, from being questioned too closely about her radical past positions on various legal issues. There was also the Model Code of Judicial Conduct:

Canon 5 of the Model Code, among others, forbids judges or judicial candidates from indicating how they will rule on issues likely to come before the courts or making any statement that would create the appearance they are not impartial. This rule is critical to an independent judiciary. Justices must remain open-minded when an actual case comes before them. They must not even hint how they would rule.

It all worked like a charm:

Sen. Leahy asked about the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Ginsburg responded simply: “I prefer not to address a question like that.” Leahy pressed for her interpretation of Supreme Court precedent on the subject, but Ginsburg again demurred: “I would prefer to await a particular case.” 
…
Sen. Strom Thurmond asked whether Ginsburg thought states could “experiment with and provide for diverse educational environments aided by public funding.” Ginsburg refused to give an answer: “Sen. Thurmond, that is the kind of question that a judge cannot answer at-large.” 
…
Ginsburg refused two senators’ requests to address homosexual rights. “[A]nything I say could be taken as a hint or a forecast on how I would treat a classification that is going to be in question before a court.” In fact, she exercised the Rule to avoid answering any questions relating to sexual orientation: “I cannot say one word on that subject that would not violate what I said had to be my rule about no hints, no forecasts, no previews.”

All bullshit of course. As with the recent conservative justices everybody knew damned well how Ginsburg was going to rule on such issues, that was why she was selected in the first place. To be fair to her it would have been interesting to ask what she thought of Roe since she (later) went on record about how legally weak it was. Still, she would never have overturned Roe or Casey, which was the point for the US Left.

No, Trump’s nominees did not lie, they merely followed the precedent of Ginsburg and Canon 5.

BTW, that article is dealing with the Robert’s nomination in 2005, by which time several Democrat Senators had stated that they weren’t going to follow the Ginsburg Rules or Canon 5 when it came to GOP nominated Justices.

I know. I’m shocked to learn that too! This is my shocked face.

Keep banging that drum “Bomber”.