Posted on 07/18/2016 8:51:54 AM PDT by John Semmens
This week Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg waded into the political domain and unintentionally bolstered the chances for Donald Trump to win the presidency. Calling him a "faker with a big ego," the 83-year-old Justice threatened to move to New Zealand if Trump wins in November.
Alarmed that Ginsburg's outburst could work in Trump's favor, the Washington Post's editors criticized "her abandonment of the veneer of judicial impartiality. The acceptance of the Court's authority to strike down legislation enacted by the people's representatives relies on a perception of unbiased application of basic legal and constitutional rules. Taking sides in an electoral contest undermines this perception."
The editors of the New York Times concurred with those at the Post and expressed a fear that "Justice Ginsburg might have to recuse herself from any future cases in which Trump is a party. This would nullify a reliably liberal vote on the Court from deciding cases in a way that advances the progressive transformation underway since the Roosevelt Administration."
Stung by this criticism from papers she considered "allies in the struggle for social justice," Ginsburg says she regretted her remarks. "The only saving grace is that my ill-advised 'burp' will be lost in the cacophony of rhetoric and news going forward and will be forgotten before the next Court session convenes in October."
Not all on the left were critical of Ginsburg's efforts to sway the election outcome. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo) praised "Justice Ginsburg's great courage. The idea that the courts ought to stay out of politics is an artifact of the Founders' maniacal insistence on separation of powers. President Obama has managed to sidestep this antiquated notion by using Executive Orders to bypass congressional obstruction. The courts have done a wonderful job of neutralizing errant legislation by looking to a higher law than a 200-year-old piece of paper. It is essential that this momentum be continued. Electing Hillary is the best way to ensure that."
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news/semi-satire posts you can find them at...
http://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,216103.0.html
Satire or otherwise, that is a VERY carefully and intentionally crafted sentence. Read it a few times and let the genius of the implications, both right and wrong sink in. Note the double entendre associated with the satirical side whilst still piercing at the truth and the way it is but shouldn't be.
"Perception" - "Authority" - "People's Representatives" - "Legal AND Constitutional Rules"
I'm impressed.
Ginsberg’s attack on Trump concerns me. Is Trump the genuine article or is he a fraud being secretly pushed by the elite? These leftist are not completely stupid. If I was an ugly, despicable old hag and I wanted to damage a cause I would come out in support of it. Conversely I would publicly attack those causes I supported.
We give most people too much credit for being so clever and conniving. When liberals shoot from the hip and speak their mind, they are by and large honest initially and have to redefine and reinvent what they "meant" later. And the media helps them with that effort. There was no secret about who Obama was before he was elected. He said lots of "honest things". "Energy Prices would have to necessarily skyrocket... They can build a new coal plant but they would go out of business quick." "You have to spread the wealth." "I want to fundamentally change America."
Ginsburg is no different. There are two types of liberals, in my opinion.
1) They don't know any better, are misinformed and lazy to the point where they believe the emotional "IDEA" of every person having equal wealth in a society completely controlled by a noble central government. "If only we can get the right people to rule over us..." For this type o liberal, it's the utopian idea where neighbors happily and freely share any wealth they have above a governed level of "need". This way, the people don't want more than they need and all would be happy with what they can have because it is no more or less than any other. We'll call these the stupid liberals and most liberals at all levels fall into this category.
2) Conniving, fraudulent, evil, power hungry, strategic, greedy intellectuals. Soros, Alinsky, Clintons, Vallery Jarrett, (The Weather Underground friends), a handful of politicians (on both sides of the isle), etc. These people are actually the ruthless and evil schemers that craft the narratives and verbiage to be used in propaganda and disguised as news. These are engineers of the media narrative and the misdirection. These are the folks that have perfected the false premise and straw man to whip the Type 1 liberals into a frenzy. This is the intentionally divisive rhetoric to split our culture and turn Americans against one another. This is racism, war on women, white privilege, Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter, "Pro-Choice", War on Poverty, etc. These are the people that must "create" problems that only themselves can sell an idea to fix. These are the folks engineering the centralization of power in the democratic party. And each have their own selfish and personal motives. Their ideology has no universal good intent for the masses.
It should be noted that there are folks, I believe, that think they are the Type 2 liberal but are simply faces used for the cause and more likely the Type 1 liberal. Ginsburg is a good case in point. Throw in Boxer, Pelosi, etc. Obama? Don't know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.