Type to search

Please! Ruth Bader Ginsburg Speaks The Truth About A Trump Presidency And DC’s Purists Are Upset

Featured Post National News Politics Top News

Please! Ruth Bader Ginsburg Speaks The Truth About A Trump Presidency And DC’s Purists Are Upset

Share
AFP Photo/Tim Sloan

Published with permission from Alternet.

Election lawyers in academia are wringing their hands over comments Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made to the New York Times about how she doesn’t want to consider what America—and the Court—would be like under a President 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,” Ginsburg told the Times. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

The Washington Post, which is perpetually infected with a self-assigned puritanical streak, was quick to question whether Ginsburg had “crossed a very important line,” because it’s possible the 2016 presidential election could end up before the Court in a vote court dispute.

“Generally, though, you don’t hear a Supreme Court justice talking like this,” wrote WaPo’s Aaron Blake. “In fact, you generally don’t hear a Supreme Court justice talking at all—much less about the big political issues of the day.”

“I find it baffling actually that she says these things,” Arthur Hellman, a University of Pittsburgh law professor told the Post. “She must know that she shouldn’t be. However tempted she might be, she shouldn’t be doing it.”

How quickly these purists forget Ginsburg’s deceased fellow justice and good friend, the arch-conservative Antonin Scalia, who famously told law school audiences and national television programs such as CBS’s “60 Minutes” to “get over it,” when asked about the Court’s 2000 vote to stop the Florida presidential campaign’s recount and install George W. Bush as president.

That was hardly Scalia’s only outspoken outburst. Other justices, such as Sonia Sotomayor, have given speeches in which they have made their values known.

Let’s be a little more sober than shocked, if that’s possible in today’s hyper-partisan media and political arena. Do any of Ginsburg’s critics in the press recall her background and long history on the Court as a champion of many liberal issues, especially the rights of women? Have they read any of her opinions or dissents in which she stridently objects to rulings that harm women or limit their options in society?

Thus, is it any surprise that she would not want to imagine as president a man who has used virtually every smear, cliche, sexist and racist swipe to gain political advantage?

It may be that in a more perfect world, the public would never hear what judges think, apart from what’s written in their rulings and dissents. But that’s an arguable point too, because if one looks at what Supreme Court justices write—such as Chief Justice John Roberts saying America has entered a post-racial era, in the ruling gutting the 1965 Voting Rights Act —it’s pretty clear what they believe, and it would be useful to hear more on why they believe it.

Nonetheless, Ginsburg’s interview with the Times didn’t just focus on Trump. She also said that the Senate’s refusal to confirm Merrick B. Garland as the ninth justice is an abdication of their  constitutional duty. “That’s their job,” she said. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”

Funny, that comment didn’t draw anywhere near the ire or criticism compared to stating the obvious about a Trump presidency: that it would impose turmoil on the country for at least the next four years, and depending on who the next president appoints to the Court, the damage could last for decades.

Photo: AFP Photo/Tim Sloan

Tags:

53 Comments

  1. Jim Samaras July 12, 2016

    I see…it’s her solid opinion that a Trump presidency would impose turmoil on the country for the next four years? I guess that’s what the old hag does. Forms opinions and that’s all they are thank goodness

    Reply
    1. Elliot J. Stamler July 12, 2016

      By calling her an old hag, Mr. Samaras, you identify yourself as filth, scum and vermin.

      1. Jim Samaras July 12, 2016

        I see Elliot, a purist are you? Even though the old hag counseled fledgling governments to model their constitution after that of South Africa as opposed to the one that she’s taken an oath to protect and uphold? Supporting her identifies you as a know nothing leftist

        1. Elliot J. Stamler July 12, 2016

          You are even lower than filth, scum and vermin but they’d censor unprintable words.
          P.S. I am a “leftist” because I denounce your filthy and nasty description of someone you disagree with? Anyone who disagrees with you is a leftist, huh? – you pathetic neo-fascist fart?

          1. Jim Samaras July 12, 2016

            She let her alligator mouth overload her hummingbird ass. Even the WP rag had to admit it. The words I use pale in comparison to some of the graffiti filled responses I get here on this site after posting my opinion Mr. Stamler. Now if you must retreat to your safe space or need counseling after reading my viewpoint I’ll understand and chalk it up to your PC environment that most of you people hide behind on a daily basis

          2. Jess July 12, 2016

            Jim, you’re not here for discussion. In your opening salvo, you called Justice Ginsburg an “old hag.” You immediately revealed yourself as a troll. Hey, I think you’re needed on the Breitbart site..

          3. Elliot J. Stamler July 12, 2016

            I strongly disagreed with Justice Scalia and frankly did not like him at all…by the way he was Justice Ginsburg’s best friend on the court and wept at her funeral. BUT I never described Justice Scalia as for example a fat, flabby, pot-belled old crud or Samaras words of like nature. I confined my strong criticisms to his opinions and the bases he had for making them. YOU ARE FILTH. And you are exactly why Donald Trump is going down to a massive landslide
            defeat. There are far more decent people in our country than you and your ilk.

      2. Box July 13, 2016

        But liberals can use any disparaging description against Trump or anyone and thats OK? Gotta love those double standards of yours.

        1. CrankyToo July 13, 2016

          Comparing Donald Trump to Ruth Bader Ginsberg is like comparing a cow patty to your grandma. Silly con.

        2. jmprint July 13, 2016

          Twist and shout!

    2. CrankyToo July 12, 2016

      This woman, whom you disparage with flagrant gratuitousness, will be remembered as a great American. You, on the other hand, will likely never amount to a pimple on the “old hag’s” ass.

    3. jmprint July 13, 2016

      You just don’t get it!, you are voting for a con, a rapist, a liar, a thief. You have very low standards.

  2. A. D. Reed July 12, 2016

    Thank god Justice Ginsburg is willing to speak out as a rational, brilliant, principled and experienced individual. Not only does she have the same right to share her opinions on our culture and politics as anyone else, she’s almost always correct in them.

    I notice that none of the hand-wringing professors and DC lawyers has ever expressed any indignation about the late Injustice Scalia and the incompetent Justice Thomas attending, year after year, secret getaways with the Koch Brothers and their corporate friends. At those gatherings, according to hundreds of news reports over the past 20 years, the two injustices addressed their billionaire audiences with comments on politics, politicians, and laws that they would then have to apply in cases involving some of their fellow guests. Scalia was particularly outspoken in his disdain for Democrats and progressive policies, and frequently salted his “judicial” opinions with her personal opinions (based on his Catholic faith) disparaging women, abortion, sexual freedom, gay rights, etc.

    This double standard is just more hand-wringing by the Post and other beltway media. They, like CBS News president Moonves, proclaim that though Donald Trump is bad for the country, they will do everything they can to promote his candidacy because it’s good for their bottom line. Here, the media cringes because Ginsburg points out the truth, which they don’t have the balls to do.

    Reply
    1. Jim Samaras July 12, 2016

      The truth? As she thinks it to be…does she have a crystal ball? Reminds me of an old movie, The World According to Garp. The World According to Ginsberg huh? Come on…..

      1. A. D. Reed July 12, 2016

        Anyone who looks at the Trump campaign and envisions him as president can foresee turmoil in the U.S. Not only is his campaign itself tumultuous and incompetent, but the emotional disturbance he evokes from his followers, including their racism, bigotry, misogyny, and resentment of diversity, would produce turmoil across the country. One doesn’t need a crystal ball, just a working brain, to predict the outcome of a set of behaviors that have occurred before with those results.

        Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. We went through Nixon’s terms, and we’ve been through a long Jim Crow era; we’ve seen what happens when the KKK is empowered by those in charge of government; and just as anyone with knowledge and insight predicted the economic disaster of Reaganism and Bushism, and were proven correct (because we understood the Gilded Age and the Roaring 20s), those who predict turmoil under a putative Trump administration are confident that, yes, we know what would happen.

        1. Jim Samaras July 12, 2016

          A.D. I for one looked at the first Obama campaign and envisioned him as a breath of fresh air as he promised the most transparent administration in history. As we’ve found out, nothing could be farther from the truth. He has created the most division I’ve seen in this country since the civil rights demonstrations in the 60’s. My point is nobody can play Nostradamus when it comes to how things like an administration will turn out as it depends on many things. Jim Crow was too many years ago to even think that it could be repeated and lest we forget it was the democratic party who championed the KKK. Today it’s Wall St and big business who dictate the order of the day in BOTH parties and I look forward to a Trump administration who will change all of that. But who knows. I nor anybody else can be a soothsayer when it comes to how things will play out. All I feel I know is a HC presidency will be more of the same and while you’d be okay with that, many in the country would not

          1. charleo1 July 12, 2016

            Oh pleeze!! Shut the F, up about Obama being divisive!!!
            It reminds me of some of the bigoted crap my parents would say. Like, “Things were real peaceful, until that Commie Preacher King came down in here stirin’ up our local “Nee’grows.” Do you feel me Bro-tha? Do you know what I’m saying’ to you? No, I don’t think you do.

          2. Box July 13, 2016

            Divisions take many forms. Currently Obama is sacking returning vets (against the law) and replacing them with illegal aliens (against the law). He does this by executive order even though the Constitution says he cant. This is extremely divisive not only against the military but against the citizenry which expects him to not only obey the law but do whats in the best interest of Americans. You can see it here: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/allen-west-tells-military-disobey-barack-obamas-unlawful-executive-order/

          3. charleo1 July 13, 2016

            This from the Party of propagandist, and conspiracy theorists, that warned of death panels, FEMA Camps, E-Bola coming across the Mexican border, on, and on. And for the first time ever questioned the citizenship of an elected Pres. As to your link, more of the same. People like Jeanine Pirro, who make a living lying, and echoing RW fairy tales, and conspiracy theories about Pres. Obama, and others. Brings on “guests” who tout their latest books, that continually spout completely vacuous fringe crapola. on her Fox T.V. “opinion” program. She opines goofy on their face statements like “America’s racial wounds were healed long ago.” in order to accuse the President’s referring to our history of race relations, in order to bring today’s unrest into perspective, as being divisive, or having an ulterior motive. In fact, whenever the Country’s first President of color says anything about race, the way we police, comments on the systematic problems within the criminal justice system, or in any way attempts to address the concerns of a group of citizens,the African American Community, that supported his campaign for Pres. by 98% margins. Well then, that just won’t do! For according to the RW liars, and assorted anti-Obama obsessives, the illegitimate Pres. of the illegal Left, just needs to shut up, quit trying to whip up anger, and divide the Country!

          4. A. D. Reed July 13, 2016

            What the hell are you talking about? More made-up theories from Breitbart and Newsmax?

            When you make claims like this one, Box, you better damn well have proof and links and references to back it up.

            And no, opinions from Allen West broadcast on Faux “news’ don’t qualify as “evidence,” Box.

          5. Sand_Cat July 12, 2016

            Yeah, I’m sure you did. I know you think we’re stupid, but get real.

          6. dpaano July 12, 2016

            Gee, Jim, don’t you think the “division” may have started when O’Connell got the gang together and told them to make this president a one-term president? As for the Trump administration changing all that….sure, it’ll end up being an utter chaos and you’ll be standing there with your balls in your hands wondering what in the hell happened!!! Hang in there!

          7. A. D. Reed July 12, 2016

            Anyone who imagines that Obama “has created the most division I’ve seen in this country …” is not well-grounded. Since the very beginning of his administration, the president has reached out to all parts of the country: to Republicans, independents, left-wingers, right-wingers, Wall Street, the military, the poor, etc.
            But from the night of his inauguration the opposition swore a pact to divide the country by making him an “illegitimate” president; to opposed him on every initiative, including the ones they themselves had proposed only months before; in short, to make sure the public would not support him, either while in office or for re-election.

            Donald Trump was the number-one proponent of the birther movement. He didn’t originate it– that was yet another group of right-wing racists who were so ignorant they didn’t even know that Hawaii was a state! — but he latched onto the movement and, for three years, was its cheerleader and loudest pusher.

            When racist cops in Boston arrested a prominent black Harvard professor for trying to enter his own elegant, upper-class home — simply because the racist cop did not believe a Negro could or should own such a house — Obama brought them together on the White House lawn — while Donald Trump and other right-wing dividers called him every name in the book and denigrated the “beer summit.”

            If you believe that Donald Trump will bring this country together, you are either delusional or so intellectually dishonest that there is no hope for your redemption. I truly feel sorry for you; I’ve always respected people who can learn and are engaged with reality — but not those who delude themselves in order to justify their ideological fanaticism.

        2. Box July 13, 2016

          you said: “emotional disturbance he evokes from his followers, including their racism, bigotry, misogyny, and resentment of diversity, would produce turmoil across the country. ”

          Just for the record, as someone who may vote for Trump I feel none of those things. What do you think now? And how could I? All my grandparents were emigrants to US more than 100 years ago. “Diversity” as you call it built the country so I could never be opposed to the next emigrant. But my grandparents didnt do crime or take one cent of welfare, they learned English and educated themselves and became seriously industrious. They never carried the flags of their home countries. They assimilated and integrated and gratefully so.

          Does that describe the current crop? Trump asked for vetting and its not unprecedented. In the Ellis Island days of 1905, many people were turned back, often because of their illnesses and the real crime was that the government left them to rot. They couldnt enter and couldnt go back. I dont actually know the final outcomes of turned-away emigrants but I dont think it was pretty. And who complained? Who called it racism and bigotry? Nobody. Because it wasnt, just like now.

          So, vetting in these times right now has NOTHING to do with diversity or racism or bigotry so stop saying it. This is proved by the fact that there has been heavy vetting since 911 and there are 12 hotlisted countries from which USA doesnt allow tourist visas except under very special circumstances. Did you know that? Where were the accusations against Obama for continuing the vetting started by Bush? Did you know that since 911 if you are a Muslim from several countries you will not be permitted a tourist visa? So where were you to protest that for the past 15 years? Trump says it and its racism and bigotry, but not under Bush and Obama vetting rules? You are kidding right?

          1. jmprint July 13, 2016

            You jerk, slavery wasn’t considered racism either in those day. So those are the good old days you was to take us back to.

        3. Box July 13, 2016

          Also, Im a white guy who voted for Obama and there was no accusation of racism until I started to criticize. So it wasnt racist to vote for him, only to criticize? What a joke you people are. I also liked Herman Cain but he didnt get the nomination. I also like Allen West but he isnt running. All are blacks and nobody accused me of racism. But I also like Trump and suddenly its racism? Can you see where you are wrong? YOU are inserting color when someone does something you dont like. I never cared and that is what liberals are doing, putting words in peoples mouths.

          1. jmprint July 13, 2016

            yeah, yeah, white guy voted for black yeah, so that proves you are not a racist, just a dumb $hit.

        4. Box July 13, 2016

          You call Trumps campaign incompetent but he rose to the top and stayed at the top. Where is the incompetency? Sounds pretty competent to me, said Cruz and all the others he beat out.

          1. jmprint July 13, 2016

            The followers, they are incompetent.

      2. Geraldine Cheney July 13, 2016

        <<o. ✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤✤:::::::!gq508p:….,….

      3. jmprint July 13, 2016

        No she know what she is saying FAKE Trump, John Baron, John MIller, Fake Hair, Fake human being!

  3. TZToronto July 12, 2016

    I fear that a Trump win in November will embolden the more crazy of his followers to begin acting on their prejudices–roving hordes of thugs looking for anyone who might be Hispanic, Muslim, black, Jewish, disabled, female–or just not like “us.” And these bigots will surely be armed and very cranky.

    Reply
    1. charleo1 July 12, 2016

      A crazy bunch of adoring followers acting on their prejudices, and looking for anyone Jewish, disabled, not sufficiently Aryan… I think they called themselves, “Brownshirts,” once upon a not all that long ago. I don’t know what Trump is going to call them. Red Caps?

    2. Jim Samaras July 12, 2016

      Yeah, right after the election they’ll be bused in like the protesters at the Trump rallies to run havoc on our country. Let me quell your fears

      1. TZToronto July 12, 2016

        No, they won’t need to be bused. They’ll just crawl out their holes, wondering why their prejudices weren’t sufficient to get their savior into The White House. They might need a guide, so be ready to direct them.

    3. Box July 13, 2016

      Thats very paranoid and unreasonable. But……… its OK for BLM and Trump protesters to do exactly the same right now as we speak? BLM calls for acting on their prejudices by killing white cops and you said what about it? Trump protesters ARE roving thugs and you said what about it? Im listening for your condemnation of them.

      I can tell you that should I vote for Trump I dont believe in anything in your post. You dont suppose there are many reasons to vote for someone and my reasons are nothing on your list. So what now, care to revise your list?

      1. TZToronto July 13, 2016

        Where did I say that I’m in favor of anyone killing white police officers? Violence is not the way to accomplish social change with any permanence. I’m sure there are some well-meaning, if misguided, people who will vote for Trump in November, just as I’m sure some violence-prone people will vote for Clinton. However, the primary season has demonstrated that there are some Trump followers who accept their favorite’s call to bigotry as a call to action, as evidenced by the way in which some people at Trump “rallies” have assaulted protestors, reporters, and non-white attendees who have dared to make an appearance.

        1. charleo1 July 13, 2016

          You didn’t say you were in favor of anyone killing Cops. Exactly no one in the Black Lives movement has said anything like that. But accusing you, and the movement of promoting that, is a transparent attempt to shut down a conversation they know full well they will come out on the other side of looking for all the World like the prejudiced, uncaring bigots, many of them know full well they are. After all, look who they are supporting, and listen to what Trump is saying that is appealing to them. This is the truth behind the agenda of the radical Right extremists today. And they would rather not have that revealed. Trump in the wake of the shootings, and the subsequent unrest, has branded himself the “law and order candidate.” Translation: I’ll crack down hard on these Black malcontents! If they believe too many of their Sons, and Daughters are being shot, and going to prison now. Just wait until I’m Commander in Chief! Nothing divisive there right? In a pigs eye! But they act baffled anyone could interpret their reactions any other way, but as a patriotic America’s backlash against an illegal uprising urged on, and incited by a divisive Black President. Again, in a pigs eye it is!

      2. A. D. Reed July 13, 2016

        BLM does no such thing, Box. You don’t need to lie about BLM to oppose them, but by lying about the organizations premises and what it calls for, you prove yourself to be a right-wing troll.

        Black Lives Matter is completely opposed to violence in response to violence; it has consistently called for peaceful protests and for the police and others to respect their rights, pointing up the fact that for many uniformed officers, black lives DON’T matter nearly as much as white lives do.

        Go away. This website doesn’t need liars in the mold of Donald Trump.

  4. Jess July 12, 2016

    Where was WaPo when (as some have pointed out) Alito, Thomas, and Scalia gave keynote speeches for right wing fundraisers (unprecedented)? Where were they when Justice Thomas refused to recuse himself on the Citizens’ United case, when his own wife was director of an organization which was party to that case? Where were they when it was discovered that Thomas has filed several inaccurate (deliberately) tax returns?

    The double standard as “standard operating procedure” by MSM, which favors conservatives over liberals, Repubs versus Dems, is mind blowing.

    #ImWithHer (and RBG, of course)

    Reply
    1. dpaano July 12, 2016

      Definitely, if she had said something against Hillary, they’d be congratulating her all over the place, but heaven forbid, she told the truth about Trump!!! Typical hypocrites!

      1. Jess July 13, 2016

        Dpaano, this stuff drives me crazy. I can no longer tolerate the mainstream media!

      2. Jess May 15, 2017

        You’re absolutely right, dpaano (sorry, 10 months later – LOL). The MSM excoriated her for taking time for herself after the election. When she finally sat down for an interview, the same MSM slammed her for not accepting responsibility for her loss (which she did, and as we now know, she did not lose: Russians, Comey-Effect, multi-state cross check voter suppression, and MSM collective thumb on scale considered). The overwhelming response reminded me of Mitch McConnel telling Elizabeth Warren to sit down and shut up (essentially). Even left-leaning media had same response. Misogyny is alive and well!

        Yes, they literally embody hypocrisy!

    2. Grannysmovin July 13, 2016

      “Virginia Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas, has been actively involved with a new right-wing political group. “Groundswell” has been planning to take down President Obama’s agenda.” “Recent strategy sessions included conversations about how to re-brand issues like voter ID, an issue that came indirectly before the Court just this year when they ruled on the Voting Rights Act.” Did Justice Thomas recuse himself – no. http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/08/01/should-scotus-justices-have-a-code-of-conduct/“
      SCOTUS refuses to adopt a “Code of Conduct” like every other Judge in this Nation is required to adhere to.

    3. A. D. Reed July 13, 2016

      Or, speaking of that, where were they when Injustice Scalia ruled on Bush v. Gore, even though his own son was on the legal team representing Bush?

      You are 100% right, Jess.

      1. Jess July 13, 2016

        Exactly, A.D. The hypocrisy and double standards are rampant and unacceptable.

  5. dpaano July 12, 2016

    To Her Honor Ruth Ginsberg…..YOU GO GIRL!!! Sometimes it just gets to the point when you have to say something, and she just got to that point!! Where does it say that Supreme Court Judge can’t tell the truth when she has to!!! I’m with her!

    Reply
  6. Box July 12, 2016

    If judges are supposed to be neutral and impartial and weigh cases on evidence presented, whatever their personal options and ideas and preferences should be held quiet. Basically she is saying she would weigh against any actions brought to the SC by Trump. Thats pretty bad.

    Dpanno is wrong, I would hate if there were negative comments against Hillary or any candidate no matter how I feel about them. Wrong is still wrong.

    In the Gore Bush fight the SC should have refused to hear the case at all. I disliked Gore very much (the father of the internet) but according to two studies by Northwestern Univ and another one on the east coast, Gore won and that should have been the end of it. Bush stole the election by the entrance of the SC. I had no faith in the SC after that and Mrs. Ginsburg is again proving that distrust just.

    Reply
    1. A. D. Reed July 13, 2016

      Which case exactly is Justice Ginsburg not being neutral and impartial about? She can be neutral and impartial about a case even if she doesn’t like the plaintiff or defendant. In fact, that is what justices and judges are called on to do every single day — to rule based on law and the merits of the case. That responsibility has never precluded them from having personal opinions about individuals.

  7. latebloomingrandma July 13, 2016

    As soon as the 17 people running for Pres. in the Republican party started their clown show, they championed the idea of putting a knife into that stifling thing know as “political correctness.” You should be able to say anything, no matter how vile or untrue. First amendment, you know. So now RBG practices a little political incorrectness, and the right is screaming for her resignation. Ye reap what ye sow.

    Reply
    1. Jess May 15, 2017

      Notice the loudest bullies are the first to cry “foul,” and whine all into every microphone they can find..

  8. MDLiberalMike July 13, 2016

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg certainly has a right to speak out against bigotry and the chief proponent of hate and divisiveness who just happens to be running for President of the United States. Just because she is on the Supreme Court, she did not give up her right as a citizen of the U.S. to exercise her freedom of speech.

    Reply
  9. chino49p July 13, 2016

    Interesting that these cons are having a hissy fit about Ginsburg making some politically INCORRECT statements when they are supposed to be against being politically correct. Also very hypocritical considering they had no qualms about the sick cons on the bench going out and making speeches to stridently conservative groups—-hmmn I wonder what they spoke to those conservative groups ABOUT—probably just basketball or baseball, yeah right.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.