By DR. LARRY MOSES
No one asked me but…”Yoda” a.k.a. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, emerged from the swamp that is the United States Supreme Court for a second time this week. This time it was to apologize for her remarks in a New York Times interview about the Republican candidate for President, Donald Trump.
“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 said in the interview. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
She said that it reminded her of something her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, a prominent tax lawyer who died in 2010, would have said: “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”
I always love the comment about moving out of the country. If everyone who threatened to do so if such-or-such happens in America, there would be more than enough room for all the illegal aliens who enter the country under the amnesty sentiments of a Clinton administration.
Later in a CNN interview, Ginsburg doubled down by calling Trump “a faker.”
“He has no consistency about him…He says whatever comes into his head at the moment,” she said. “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.”
Now, I am not questioning the validity of Yoda’s statements. I am merely questioning whether a Supreme Court Justice should be making those statements.
While it is a myth that the Supreme Court looks at the law with a non-political eye it is a myth that one would wish was a reality. Of course, when the court decision supports our political views we feel it is a fair decision based on Constitutional principles. When the court decision supports our political opponents view, we lament the fact that the Court has been politicized.
While the court has always been corrupted by politics, it is only in the last fifty or so years that we in America have come to accept this as inevitable.
In the 1940’s when President Franklin Roosevelt attempted to pack the court with his Democrat appointments to override the Courts decision that much of his New Deal was un-Constitutional the American people rejected the effort.
Since the civil rights movement of the late 1950’s and early 1960’s the political leanings of the judicial appointees have become the deciding issue. We no longer have a justice system that is blindfolded and holds a balanced scale. We have a justice system that winks at the law and loads the scales of justice with ideology.
Donald Trump responded to the Ginsburg interviews with: “Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot – resign!”
Trump said it was inappropriate for Supreme Court justices to weigh in on political campaigns. This may be the most truthful statement Trump has made during his campaign for office. He told the New York Times on Tuesday that he thought it was a disgrace to the court and that Ginsburg should apologize to her colleagues on the bench.
I believe it is to Donald Trump’s credit he has not asked for a personal apology. To do so would be hypocritical at best and disingenuous at worst. Trump is a man who has named-called his way to the Republican nomination. He has continued this strategy in his opening remarks against Hillary Clinton. He has based his campaign on personal remarks rather than policy content because that is all he has.
Donald never apologizes for his remarks which are far more flamatory than Ginsburg’s. I actually believe Trump enjoys the personal attack exchanges. It is something he understands which is more than can be said for his ability to understand the workings of internal or international relationships.
One of the biggest mistakes the Democrats could make in this election is to let the campaign slide into personal attacks against the Republican candidate. In a battle of personal attacks, Clinton will be bring a knife to a gunfight. She will have moved the fight to Trump’s favorite battleground. Trumps retorts will remind one of their childhood verbal fights that were always won by stating, “So’s your momma.”
President Obama must have choked on his words as he endorsed Clinton by stating she is the most qualified person ever to run for the presidency. He must surely realize that Clinton’s biggest disadvantage is her past actions many of which bordered on criminality.
If Trump would get off the personal attacks and hammer the ineptitude of Mrs. Clinton, he might have an outside chance of overcoming the Democrat advantage in numbers throughout the United States.
Don’t get me wrong. I am no more enthusiastic for a Trump presidency than a Clinton presidency. But whoever gets elected I will not be moving to New Zealand.
This is not an election about the lesser of two evils; it is an election about selecting one evil from an equal evil. One is no better a choice than the other is; you merely have two very bad choices. The menu is either squash or broccoli there is no steak and potatoes here.
The Democrat Party offers a proven incompetent who, when handling the top security issues for the nations, has, according to the Director of the FBI, committed “gross negligence” that might be prosecutable as a crime had another person done the same thing.
Her basic qualification for President is it is a woman’s turn to be President. Maybe if we get through everyone’s turn, we can go back to seeking the most competent for the job.
The Republicans offer a candidate who claims to be a self-made man who tends to over praise his maker. In reality, Trump was born on third base and believes he hit a triple. Clinton speaks at a decibel level of a Boeing 707 taking off and Trump speaks with vitriol that disgusts. I can hardly wait for the debates.
Thought of the week… Just because everything is different doesn’t mean anything has changed.
– Irene Peter
