Let’s Play the Supreme Court Nomination Drinking Game!

Who knew C-Span could be such a great time?

Get out your beer helmets, 2A activists, because it’s Supreme Court nomination time!

On Friday, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg passed on to her reward; approximately 10 seconds later, America began handicapping the list of potential nominees to fill her chair. Two years ago, We the People got to observe this process with the appointment of Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court…and by “process,” I mean “circus.” And by “circus,” I mean “Grand Guignol.” If we Second Amendment activists thought that the appointment of Justice Kavanaugh was a cringeworthy parody, just wait until we see what it looks like five weeks before a presidential election! It’s almost enough to drive a gun-rights person to drink…and that’s why today I’m introducing you to the Supreme Court Nomination Drinking Game.

Supreme Court Nomination Drinking Game Rule 1: Take a sip every time…

• A Senator accuses the nominee of being a racist. (Take two sips if that Senator actually filibustered against the Civil Rights Act.)
• A mainstream media publication runs a pearl-clutching, above-the-fold article featuring photos of the nominee attending a party in college. (Take two sips if it’s a publication that wouldn’t comment on Governor Blackface’s choice of party costumes.)
• Some journalist asks the nominee how they would vote on a particular piece of legislation, as if that’s what Supreme Court justices do, and then accuses the nominee of hiding something when the nominee declines.

Supreme Court Nomination Drinking Game Rule 2: Take a chug when…

• A Senator asks the nominee whether they intend to ban AR-15s, or if they just hate puppies and babies.
• A mainstream media publication runs an above-the-fold article accusing the nominee’s law clerk of being a white supremacist because her hand kind of looked like an “OK” symbol one time.
• A Senator, publicly and on the record, refers to the Supreme Court nominee as “evil.” (Chug twice if the Senator in question’s definition of “evil” includes 10-round magazines.)

Supreme Court Nomination Drinking Game Rule 3: Shotgun when…

• A Senator asks the nominee whether or not the Second Amendment covers semi-automatic firearms, as if this were still a question.
• A mainstream media publication runs a pearl-clutching, above-the-fold article accusing the nominee of something so terrible I can hardly bring myself to articulate…so I’ll quote them: Friend writes of drunken past. Mark Judge’s memoir “Wasted: Tales of a GenX Drunk” is published, detailing drunken escapades starting in high school, including “100 Kegs or Bust.”  
• A few days before the final vote, when all else has failed, the nominee is accused of committing a terrible crime that cannot be proven or disproven.

Call 911 when…

• You discover that there’s still some blood in your alcohol-stream.
• Your BAC is higher than the number of times Senator Byrd (D-W.V.) filibustered against letting African-Americans vote.
• You’re drunk enough to think that Joe Biden’s “buyback plan” for semi-automatic guns is anything other than confiscation.

Does this sound like I’m being a little too flippant about the next Supreme Court nominee? Perhaps, but as we’ve mentioned before here at GGD, Supreme Court appointments really don’t have the same day-to-day effects on our lives that legislative and executive elections do. Supreme Court cases relating to the Second Amendment move like glaciers, and over the years many other factors will change and come into play.

What’s more, trying to figure out what any individual Justice will vote on a particular case is like reading tea leaves. Justices tend to lean towards conservative or liberal interpretations of the Constitution…but that doesn’t mean that they themselves are conservative or liberal. What’s more, this process is one that we citizens really have no input into…so we might as well sit back, enjoy the show, and drink ’till Creepy Uncle Joe starts making sense.