Search the Lounge

Categories

« Syracuse Law Rev CFP: "Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt and the Constitutionality of Laws Surrounding Reproductive Health" | Main | Mike Pence On Cigarettes: "Smoking Doesn't Kill" »

July 14, 2016

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King

This blog and all others should stop making an issue of her CORRECT comments. She will now be called before some Committee on Behngazi/E-mails or whatever hateful, rage filled things the Right wing extremists will think of. She should be fully supported or we are going to end up with Dump. They didn't call Scalia when he went duck hunting with Cheney. Nobody asked about Clarence Thomas' free Corvette tires.

anon

Her statement is completely inadequate.

The issue is now her partisanship, which she so proudly disclosed. Judges are not only permitted to have private prejudices, the Orwellians say, these private prejudices should be announced (shredding the canons of ethics, because, for the Orwellians, UNETHICAL CONDUCT THAT SUPPORTS THE PARTY IS ETHICAL).

So, here we are. We know that this Justice belongs to and articulates the most crass and base propaganda of the Party to advance its political supremacy. We know that she knows that disclosing the fact of this partisanship and the way she expressed it damaged her reputation, and that she regrets her outbursts (whatever “regret” means).

She does not, however, pledge to rule fairly, despite her outright and admitted bigotry* and prejudices**. As such, we have a person on the Supreme Court who, in her own words, is a bigot and prejudiced against individuals and groups.

In her zeal for the Party, it appears she will advance that bigotry and prejudice, and she is proud of it. She has issued no statement indicating that she will not rule accordingly. The evidence suggests that she has ruled in lock step based on Party propaganda and will rule in accordance with her bigotry and prejudices to advance the Party’s platform, whatever it may be, in the future: the law be damned.

Glory be!


*Bigot: “a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions,” any doubt about this? (And, please, don’t cite the friendship with Scalia, that isn’t the point.)

**Prejudice: “preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience,” e.g., ruling on a matter when it comes before you.

anymouse

It is good she stopped digging. The damage is done though and it really isn't good for the institution of the court.

I also agree that the RBG academic apologists should reconsider their rationalizations.

Capt. Hruska - your humor works some of the time but not all the time.

J.R.

I found her comments against Trump (who I am voting for) quite disturbing inasmuch as she is willing to move out of the USA to new zealand if Trump is elected. I found this totally inappropriate. I guess Trump is really scaring the establishment. Good.

Tamara Piety

I am not sure that they are rationalizations. I agree that in general it is better for Supreme Court justices not to comment on presidential candidates. However, I any not sure what the ethical imperative is if you believe, as she clearly does, that he represents an existential threat to the institution and I am skeptical that her being overt about her opposition is more of an existential threat than he is or than decisions like Bush v. Gore.

anon

Finally, we hear the voice of the Party. Let's try to unpack this.

"[Trump] represents an existential threat to the institution [of the SCOTUS]"

This is Party propaganda is its finest form. The EXISTENCE of the SCOTUS would be threatened by the election of a President that the Party deems to be erratic, incompetent or worse. An eighth grade civics lesson is all one needs to understand this sort of statement. No rebuttal is necessary.

"an existential threat ... like Bush v. Gore"

To understand the risible nature of the contention, one probably needs an understanding of the law. The Party has been repeating this trope for so long it doesn't even remember what relevance the slogan ever had (not much).

Bush v. Gore was 7-2 on the Equal Protection issue. The Supreme Court nearly unanimously agreed that the method of recounting the ballots in Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

Not even close.

The SCOTUS was 5-4 on remanding to the Florida Supreme Court to determine an alternative method of recounting the votes within the time limit set 3 U.S.C. § 5. The "safe harbor" deadline was December 12, the day of the court's opinion, and the majority of the SCOTUS held that the safe harbor was the deadline. The case was remanded, however, "for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion." Al Gore then conceded.

The Party has succeeded in the convincing much of the public that the Supreme Court "selected" Bush. Bush had already been certified the winner of the Florida election before Al Gore's case went to the SCOTUS, and all that happened was that Al Gore lost his effort to challenge that result in the federal system.

Basically, the Party has promulgated as "conventional wisdom" a gross twisting of the truth ever since.

Bush v. Gore wasn't an existential threat to anything. Sorry.

Likewise, Citizens United. The Party waives around that bloody shirt without ever explaining that the law in question would have banned books and stifled the freedom of the press (which is largely, these days, operated by corporations).

It is the knee jerk repetition of these false memes that worries some. It is unthinking and unprincipled allegiance to the Party that is an existential threat to the SCOTUS as conceived by the judicial canons of ethics, etc.: Justices deluded by political propaganda who abandon any pretense of impartiality who find support in the Orwellian legal academy.


Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King

Yes, some of my comments on this post are tinged with humor. However, the context and sincerity of my intent is not. One of the reasons the US is exceptional is because we have largely avoided the ethnic and religious problems that have plagued Europe for centuries and still continue to this day. They had the Holocaust, ethnic cleansing and today they fail to assimilate and discriminate against Islamic populations. On the other hand, we have Mosques all over the place and Muslims here tend to be highly educated and middle to upper income. We welcome them. This Dump nominee would undue that and create ethnic hatred and strife where none really exists. Anybody here can own a big Cadillac, a suburban house and businesses and rental properties. Why undue that and pursue European style hate? If its Muslims and Mexicans, are Jews far behind? Greeks? Albanians? Who else?

Gavin Gunhold

Oh Captain, My Captain. I agree. Trump poses a unique danger to American democracy. I am glad Ginsburg spoke out against him.

W. David Ball

Steve, are you equally outraged by the fact that Thomas's wife is an RNC delegate?

Steve L.

I am not "outraged" at Justice Ginsburg; just disappointed.

I have written critically of Virginia Thomas's political activism, but only when she invoked her husband to make her point. (Sorry, it was years ago and I cannot find a link.)

I am not outraged by the fact that Judge Marjorie Rendell's husband was the governor of Pennsylvania and chair of the DNC.

Captain Hruska Carswell, Continuance King

Speaking of Ginny, is she still telephone harassing Anita Hill?

The comments to this entry are closed.

StatCounter

  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad