Thursday, July 14, 2016

Ginsberg wimps out

Ruth Bader Ginsberg says Mr. Trump is unfit to be President and then considers this is a violation of decorum and apologizes.

She is being politically incorrect and then becomes politically correct.

The right thing to do is to say, "Hey, Mr. Trump is all about being politically incorrect. Now I'm doing that. How's that work for you, Mr. Trump?"

The problem with liberals is we are wimps.  Was Justice Ginsberg inappropriate? In one sense, of course. But why apologize?  Let that shot across the bow sail by.  Congress is misbehaving toward he Court.  Trump misbehaves toward everyone. Why should you just sit there and take it?  This guy is behaving way beyond acceptable norms, and sometimes you have to say, look the system works if we all cleave to some rules of behavior, when you stop doing that, we adjust.

Of course, the problem is, nobody in a position of power is going to convince any of Trump's supporters or those who claim to be wavering. There can be nobody on the fence here.  Sure, Mussolini made the trains run on time and Hitler built the Audubon and the Volkswagen and got the farmers in better financial shape, but you ought not have accorded him the same deference you would afford a normal political opponent, after reading "Mein Kampf"or listening to him at a Nuremberg rally.

That is the rule every progressive/liberal should use in relation to Mr. Trump.  What would have been appropriate if you were around in 1934 and faced Hitler? Would you have spoken as if he were some normal opponent or would you have said, "This is really different and has got to be stopped?"


  1. Mad Dog,
    I disagree with you on this one-I think you are selling Justice Ginsburg short. My guess is she feels the same as you, me and a legion of others, including a fair number of Republicans, that Trump is beyond the pale and must be stopped. Therefore, my money's on her harsh statement, one that is so out of character for a member of SCOTUS and the following apology being both part of the same plan.. Yes, as you say it's unquestionably inappropriate for a Supreme Court Justice to spout off against a candidate and be seen as playing partisan politics- SCOTUS is as political as the other branches, but it's members go to great lengths to feign otherwise. This time however, Justice Ginsberg must have felt she had to speak out-that it was her duty not only as a US citizen, but as a human being, to do her part in making certain that the racist, bullying, carnival barker never ascends to the most powerful position on the planet. The stakes are too high, the situation too dangerous not to take a stand.. So she speaks out against Trump, then apologizes for her "mistake"-but her message still gets out..hmm, sounds like a plan to me..

  2. Maud,

    That's a way I hadn't looked at it--as a strategy.
    But you know, Ken Burns (who lives just down the road from us) recently gave a commencement address in which he said he has always tried to be publicly neutral in the political realm because he felt he had to be as a "historian." But he said Trump is such an anathema he had to speak out. He was followed by other historians.
    Of course, SCOTUS is a different institution. They feign (your word) impartiality and pretend to be above the fray, while their actions reveal their implacable prejudices.
    I guess that's why they wear the black robes--just as doctors wear white coats--it's part of the performance.
    But you can justify the white coat as part of the performance because it's part of what you have to offer as a doctor. As my brother so astutely observed: "When we have cures for all the things brought to us, we can dress in T shirts, but until then, while we cannot offer more than reassurance that we are doing all that can be humanly done, then we owe the patients that white coat." Judges have no such role.
    I really do think basing your practice on a lie (the lie of impartiality) is a bad idea. The best you can hope for in a judge is "persuade-ability." Scalia was a failure as a Justice because you knew he would simply not listen. He was all about advocating his own beliefs, and would likely have been a great lawyer, forcefully arguing his client's side, but as a judge, he was no better than that prototypic Southern "judge" sitting on the case of a lynching.
    Once again, you ask, well what is the alternative. I'd said we elect some judges in this country--well then let's "elect" Supreme Court justices by the mechanism of giving each new President two choices for the Supreme Course per term. If he is two termed, he gets to appoint 4 justices and the most recent 9 vote.
    But then I live in the "what if," and you live in the "what's now."

    Mad Dog