We already know what Ginsburg thinks of the president. She told us more than a year ago that she “can’t imagine what the country would be . . . with Donald Trump as our president.” Facing criticism for her apparent endorsement of Hillary Clinton and her attacks on Trump, Ginsburg doubled down, emphasizing in a CNN interview: “He is a faker.” She then went on “point by point, as if presenting a legal brief,” the CNN analyst said.This reminds me most of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, watching the election results at a party on November 7, 2000, as described (on Christmas Eve, 2000) by Michael Isikoff in Newsweek, :
Her statements are particularly troubling in the context of the travel ban case, in which the crucial issue — at least, according to the lower courts and the plaintiffs — is the personal credibility of Trump and whether he delivered his executive order in good faith — in other words, whether he is faking it....
[S]urrounded for the most part by friends and familiar acquaintances, she let her guard drop for a moment when she heard the first critical returns shortly before 8 p.m. Sitting in her hostess's den, staring at a small black-and-white television set, she visibly started when CBS anchor Dan Rather called Florida for Al Gore. "This is terrible," she exclaimed. She explained to another partygoer that Gore's reported victory in Florida meant that the election was "over," since Gore had already carried two other swing states, Michigan and IllinoisNot long after that outburst, O'Connor participated in the Bush v. Gore litigation. Should she have recused herself?
Moments later, with an air of obvious disgust, she rose to get a plate of food, leaving it to her husband to explain her somewhat uncharacteristic outburst. John O'Connor said his wife was upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona, and a Gore win meant they'd have to wait another four years.
Ah, here's a Washington Post piece by Aaron Blake from the summer before the 2016 election, talking about whether Ginsburg should have to recuse herself:
It's not clear that there is any real precedent for what Ginsburg just did.In some ways, what O'Connor did seems worse, since she revealed a personal interest in seeing Bush elected (though she did not retire until after he was re-elected). But Rotunda identifies a special problem with Ginsburg's indiscretion: The case may turn on whether to trust Trump about whether the purported reason for the ban is the real reason. She's asked to decide if it's real or fake, and she called Trump a faker.
Then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was criticized by some in 2000 after Newsweek reported her saying, "This is terrible," at an election-night watch party after Florida was prematurely called for Al Gore. Some argued that she should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore.
Posts
81 comments:
Like there could have been the remotest doubt about her vote had she kept her yap shut, Washington Post call for theater notwithstanding.
O'Connor's remarks were made in private among friends and family and could not have affected the outcome of the election. RBG's were made in public and were intended to affect the election. They are not the same thing at all.
Of course she should recuse herself. Recusals and admissions of bias is for Republicans. Partisans like Ginsburg simply don't follow those rules.
Bush V Gore never should have gone to the Supreme Court.
All recusal demands should be regarded as utter bullshit until proven otherwise.
But Rotunda identifies a special problem with Ginsburg's indiscretion: The case may turn on whether to trust Trump about whether the purported reason for the ban is real or fake
The reason for the ban is none of the Supreme Court's business. (nor the business of the political judges in Hawaii) The only thing that matters is the president's right to issue executive orders to executive agencies dealing with the running of the government.
If we applied this rule to abortion we'd have 9 Justices recusing themselves.
People can demand recusal all they want. The Justices get to make their own decisions and they don't have to explain. That's the way it has been and I see no reason to change. Anything else would be worse and end up making the Court even more political.
I'd prefer retirement over recusal......
Sometimes you fake to fake out your opponent not your friends or supporters. Faking is tactic not strategy.
She's asked to decide if it's real or fake,
I know some other Philosopher Kings claimed they can read minds, but aren't they all really 'sposed to determine if something is "constitutional"?
Here's a Wiki list of SCOTUS recusals. I wonder if all were "self-inflicted"? I also wonder how the recusal naysayers here would respond to a Justice refusing to recuse him or herself in the case of a financial conflict of interest.
Ginsburg is a fine example of age ≠ wisdom. Or she may have dementia. Heaven knows the SCOTUS has harbored many a justice well past his cognitive faculties.
The SCOTUS is political.....First there's no connection between O'Connor and Ginsberg. Second, Ginsberg is not legally obligated to recluse herself or explain her decision, so she won't do either. Third, because Ginsberg should recuse herself and she would tell others in similar situations that they should recuse themselves, she knows she is wrong and won't explain anything.
The Supreme Court has had a bad record on judicial recusals going back to the very beginning. Chief Justice Marshall should have recused himself in Marbury V Madison. The controversy in Marbury was created by Marshall's failure to deliver a judicial commission to Marbury as was his duty while he was simultaneously acting as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and the Secretary of State.
I was actually more concerned about a need for Scalia to recuse himself from consideration of Cheney v. US District Court for the District of Columbia.
That was the case where the Sierra Club was suing for FOIA disclosures on Cheney's meetings. And while the case was being considered by SCOTUS on appeal, Scalia went duck hunting with Cheney. And had dinner with Cheney and Rumsfeld together.
If Scalia had been an ordinary district judge, and had that level of contact with a litigant, there'd have been a pretty good claim for his recusal.
Scalia did eventually address it in a lengthy memorandum; he declined to recuse. I have zero reason to suspect that any personal contact changed the way Scalia would rule on the case; I don't think anybody does. I do think it was unwise on the part of Scalia to engage in those contacts.
Ginsberg is not going to recuse in this case.
Wow....a leftwinger behaves badly and Chuckles attempts to mitigate by bringing up a Rightwinger he believes has done the same or worse.....
Who could have seen that coming?
We all see what they're doing there. Who ya kiddin' with the recusal stuff...
" I was actually more concerned about a need for Scalia to recuse himself from ..."
Sgt. Schultz (aka Chuck),
Are you still pretending to be a lawyer and a Republican?
Since there is no real enforcement of rucusal rules at the level of SCOTUS absent impeachment and conviction, Ginsberg is free to do what she wants, isn't she? In the lower courts, a higher court can always overturn a ruling if it thinks recusal was appropriate for a presiding judge.
What, anyone around here expects a prog feminist to act ethically?
Shouldn't we all expect Justice Ginsburg to rule in accordance with what I've been told is fairly clear law? To do otherwise violates her oath of office. It would be to place the person apart from the law.
@Gahrie "Wow....a leftwinger behaves badly and Chuckles attempts to mitigate by bringing up a Rightwinger he believes has done the same or worse....."
Isn't that fair in this case? Isn't the case of Scalia relevant here? Not so much "right-wing" / "left-wing" - but just as an example that this is another occasion where one might have made a good case for recusal?
Also - on a related side-note - a significant majority of commenters on this site use the "But what about....(some other person on the opposite side of the political spectrum did something reprehensible)" all the time when anyone vaguely "liberal" criticises someone on the right. Really. All the time. It is the most utterly maddening thing, because then the conversation veers away from whatever it was discussing. It is a brilliantly effective technique, but has nothing to do with extending the conversation.
In this case, as it happens, Chuck is bringing up a really relevant example. though.
"...a significant majority of commenters on this site use the "But what about....(some other person on the opposite side of the political spectrum did something reprehensible)" all the time when anyone vaguely "liberal" criticises someone on the right. Really. All the time."
Step away from the bong, KittyM.
"In this case, as it happens, Chuck is bringing up a really relevant example. though."
Unexpectedly.
Seeing as she's not recusing herself, and doesn't have to, I don't see any point in asking for an explanation. If she gave one, it would be considered brilliant legal reasoning and a sick burn on Trump by the left, and self-serving gobbledygook by the right. And would change nothing. So, no point.
Dunno, Chuck. While going duck hunting with somebody whose case your adjudicating was clearly a bad idea, as it implied a tendency to favor one party in the suit, a judge explicitly saying that they have an all-encompassing bad opinion of one party seems a lot worse.
But, as previously said, it doesn't matter. She won't recuse herself, she doesn't have to explain. The reason is obvious anyway.
@Fabi "Step away from the bong, KittyM."
Hahahaha.
No, but seriously - that is really my experience of this site.
"But what about..."
Hardly unique to Althouse, KittyM.
Not sure I follow you here. A judge should recuse himself when he has a personal interest in a case, but that is a rather narrow meaning of "interest". It does not mean simply that he finds the case interesting, or has a preferred outcome. The Law is a machine made out of human beings, and they will always have preferences. The presumption is that Ginsburg is capable of distinguishing between what she prefers and what the law requires, and will find in favor of the latter. That is a dubious presumption, but a necessary one.
Ginsberg is one of the most partisan, ideological, SCOTUS judge ever. I don't think she's ever voted for the "conservative" side in her 25 years on the SCOTUS. You can tell how she's going to vote on almost every case that involves a Right/Left split.
The others in the "liberal bloc" aren't much better, but at least Breyer has shown a little independence of thought.
And why was Ginsberg giving her political opinions on National TV? She no doubt thought Trump would lose, so was this going to be the start of an honest, partisan, in-your-face, Hillary SCOTUS?
The Case should be about the limits to Judicial power. The Courts have no right to be overruling the POTUS on foreign policy and immigration - especially since Congress gave the POTUS absolute authority in 1952.
Of course, Kennedy disagrees. He's been against any Judicial power, since it would mean a reduction in HIS power.
A partisan hack sits on our Supreme Court and she's not the only one (all lefties by the way). Lovely.
SCOTUS nominations are some of the 1,322 reasons I voted for Donald Trump.
0
Sorry about that space in my post- I would fix it if I could.
Ruthie hasn't been the same since she realized she'll never be on the court with Justice Obama.
"Seeing as she's not recusing herself, and doesn't have to, I don't see any point in asking for an explanation."
Exactly how I view it- there is really no authority to overrule her here, and no reason for an explanation that would change nothing.
You can parse it all you want, but, ultimately, the case for recusal hinges on whether you are Democrat or Republican, This is especially worthy of notice when you consider the politics of those reporters who present the background information......Michael Isikoff., for example, should recuse himself from reporting on politics. He's the Newsweek reporter who tried to bury the story on Monica's Alice blue gown......This precedent can be extended to reporting on sexual abuse cases. NBC sat on Trump's tape for over eleven years. They did not see that it got released during the primaries but only in the general election. Contrast that with the way they suppressed Farrow's story on Harvey Weinstein. Some of their best known reporters and contributors have their own problems with sexual harassment. Given this record, it's only fair to ask NBC News to recuse itself from any further reporting on sex abuse cases.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg apparently desires to be the William O. Douglas of the 21st century. Like him, she’s an unabashed left wing extremist. Douglas, for those of you too young to remember the 1970s, tried to stay on the court despite a stroke that left him wheelchair bound and incontinent in his 80s.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg dying in her sleep, whether on the bench or in bed, or keeling over in the Supreme Court Gym is a pragmatic reason for Alabama voters to elect Moore.
Should Justice Ginsburg at least explain why she does not recuse herself in the travel ban case?
At her age? I don't expect her to talk...
"That's what old people do."
I know, that was mean. I couldn't help myself. Sorry.
As usual, Althouse; I post something on the topic you raised, and because it doesn't neatly fit with the Trump mindset, I am attacked personally. By commenters whom I have not named or even mentioned.
And as usual, Althouse, the baseless (not to mention, repetitive) charge against me is that I am a leftist, a partisan Democrat and/or an apologist for liberal politicians and judges. I am none of those things. I am a personal critic of Trump, and so in TrumpWorld, I must be attacked and the seeming presumption in TrumpWorld is that any critic of the Current Occupant must be based on the critic's own softness and lack of a conservative backbone.
On the topic at hand, here is the lengthy memorandum authored by Justice Scalia (who I greatly admired and whose legacy I largely adore) in response to the Sierra Club's motion for Scalia's recusal in the Cheney case:
http://news.findlaw.com/wsj/docs/scotus/chny31804jsmem.pdf
The relevant part is how Scalia distances himself from Cheney personally as opposed to the office held by Cheney. And you could almost substitute Ginsberg for Scalia, Trump for Cheney, and personal animus for personal friendship and come up with the basis for Ginsberg's refusal to recuse.
Perhaps some of the more literate and intelligent Althouse posters can read the complete Scalia memorandum and think about the Ginsberg recusal issue with a bit more circumspection. Perhaps you can read it and find additional reasons to distinguish the two cases and make further demands for Ginsberg to recuse. As it always is with Scalia, the writing is as potent as it is readable.
I don't care. Do whatever you want, because I just don't care about you and what you do or what you think.
Just be clear on my own view of Scalia; he was the best and most important jurist of my lifetime.
"No, but seriously - that is really my experience of this site."
I'm sure it has.
"I don't care."
Hence the thousand word rebuttal.
What President Trump FEELS or what his through process was means NOTHING in regards to his Constitutional authority to control the border. Why are we even arguing this? That this has even become an issue is proof how broken and partisan our entire Judicial system is. The courts are the last refuge of the tyrannical left, who when they are in power do whatever they want, damn the law or tradition, and when out of power, can always find some activist judge willing to strike down whatever they don't like. It's pathetic and there should be consequences for these black-robed bastard's abuse of power.
I don’t recall the law that bans justices with political opinions from ruling on cases, so perhaps you could refresh my memory on that.
And before anybody tries to catch me on it, it is "Ginsburg" for Ruth. Not "Ginsberg."
("U-and-Ruth" is the mnemonic and I failed to check it above. Sorry.)
If Kagan - who argued FOR Obamacare as Solicitor General - didn't recuse herself when the case came before her on SCOTUS, then nobody needs to recuse themselves from any case.
Ever.
She set the precedent. Screw everything else.
Chuck said...
"... the baseless (not to mention, repetitive) charge against me is that I am a leftist, a partisan Democrat and/or an apologist for liberal politicians and judges."
Chuck, you appear to find Trump's election to be the single most odious occurrence of what I presume has been a fairly long life. Your invariable (not to mention, repetitive) response to any criticism of leftists, Democrats and/or liberal politicians and judges is to rehearse the justifications for your abiding sense of grievance regarding that election. As this is all we know about you, you really should not be surprised that we assume you must be a leftist, a partisan Democrat and/or an apologist for liberal politicians and judges. Repetitive, perhaps. You do persist. Baseless, hardly.
Caught myself almost reading a post by Chuck. I tap to hide it, ever since I realized his inane, self-serving posts are a waste of my time. Reading posts on Althouse go much more smoothly with Chuck hidden.
If we applied this rule to abortion we'd have 9 Justices recusing themselves.
It's above their paygrade to decide matters of life and death, and, apparently, a separation of Church and State, so they ruled for establishment of the Pro-Choice Church rationalized by the twilight faith... or something along that line.
Yes, otherwise, the press may construe, perhaps mistakenly, that she was colluding with special and or peculiar interests in subterfuge of the American government, People, and our Posterity.
She has claimed a preference for the progressive constitution of South Africa, the only Nation with a constitution that establishes racism, sexism, and selective-child as the highest laws of the land.
That, or she has a misandrist bent that requires diversity training and perhaps special counsel to remove all doubt.
Jim's mention of Kagan's role in NFIB v. Sibelius is a good point. Kagan should have recused, as Ed Whelen argued in NRO:
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/441315/kagan-obamacare-recusal
I pretty much always agree with Ed Whelen.
But Kagan did recuse herself in a number of other cases with factual bases arising out of Obama-era executive branch decisions. (When she was the administration's Solicitor General.) The first one or two Trump immigration-order cases, most notably. So I don't know what sort of "precedent" she set on recusals. I continue to think that the Scalia/Cheney case is the closest comparable.
Oh, I a forgot to add, Jim; aren't you mistaken about Kagan having actually argued an Obamacare case in a lower court or at the Supreme Court before it coming on for argument with her having joined the court? I am not aware of her having done so, and as Ed Whelen convincingly points out, it does seem that perhaps her involvement in any litigation at that stage was deliberately limited or hidden. In any event, I don't think she ever appeared in any court at any time on the case she heard as a Supreme.
Oh grow a pair Chuck. I counted only 4 comments in response to your initial comment. The first was an observation. The second was sarcasm. The third was a defense of you, and the fourth was a substantive response. And out of these, you concoct an eight paragraph whine about how personally put upon you are. It's pathetic.
CWJ: "And out of these, you concoct an eight paragraph whine about how personally put upon you are. It's pathetic"
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
@Drago @CWJ @Jupiter @Rance Fasoldt @Fabi
I am not a new reader, but I am a relatively new (very occasional) commenter. Because I've only just started commenting, I've also only just started reading the comments carefully.
I can confirm that Chuck's account above of the reaction to just about *anything* he posts is as he describes. I find his posts well-reasoned and clear. Obviously people will disagree on the content of his comments. But I have noticed (and been shocked by) the vitriol and low personal attacks that are written in response.
Rance's comment above is a good example, in which he writes (and this is his comment in its entirety): "Caught myself almost reading a post by Chuck. I tap to hide it, ever since I realized his inane, self-serving posts are a waste of my time. Reading posts on Althouse go much more smoothly with Chuck hidden."
That comment is not "responsive to the post" and it is entirely a "personal attack" on another commenter. I mean, I read a lot of super crap comments here which I simply ignore. Writing "I'm ignoring this post" is not ignoring it. And calling someone's comments "inane and self-serving" isn't brilliant arguing; it's just rude and childish.
No RBG should not have recused herself. As Gahrie notes this wasn’t a private comment, it was public electioneering. She should have *resigned*. She still should.
Loosen up, Sandy Baby!
"...it's just rude and childish."
You were decrying non-responsive comments and personal attacks, KittyM?
KittyM: "Because I've only just started commenting, I've also only just started reading the comments carefully."
Thank you.
Lighten up, Ruthie Baby!
Why must the nation rely on a Justice to recuse himself? Can't the Chief Justice intervene and recuse a Supreme Court Justice who has so betrayed conventional judicial manners and the traditions of the Court as has Ginsburg?
Isn't that fair in this case? Isn't the case of Scalia relevant here? Not so much "right-wing" / "left-wing" - but just as an example that this is another occasion where one might have made a good case for recusal?
I was also perplexed at first, but now that I've read many more of his posts I will try to explain.
Chuck could simply pointed out that Scalia found himself in a similar spot, wrote a note about it, didn't recuse himself, and has likely set the standard going forward. RGB in all likelihood will not recuse herself, she could cite Scalia's precedent if she wished, and she should at least do the electorate the courtesy of putting down why she'll hear the case.
Her reasoning might be gibberish. It might be insightful. But at least it would be an on the record admission that what she had done and said has not gone unnoticed by the electorate - nor should it.
Chuck however, as is his way, turns that well-reasoned thinking into.
1. This makes me think of Scalia.
2. Scalia's actions were much worse than RGB's.
3. Let me tell you all about Scalia's actions, which were so bad.
4. They were bad because they were with Cheney and Rumsfeld.
5. Scalia should have recused himself.
6. If he were anyone other than a SC Justice, he would have had to do so.
7. Scalia wrote a lengthy memo on why he wouldn't recuse.
8. Although I don't think it affected Scalia's ruling, he should not have had contact with Cheney and Rumsfeld in the first place.
9. Ginsberg will not recuse (not a word about whether she should, or write a letter if she doesn't, which was the subject of the original post).
10. PS - Scalia is his favorite judge.
This is almost a perfect Chuck post. Before discussing the original issue, he immediately brings up a Republican, denounces him as having done worse, throws in Cheney and Rumsfeld's names for good measure, says Ginsburg won't recuse, doesn't say whether he believes she should, and then for good measure reminds everyone in another post that Scalia is is favorite SC Justice so as to deflect the rising storm of criticism.
In a thread about RGB, Chucks post was 156 words long: 147 of them were about Scalia. Nine were about Ginsburg.
It would get a perfect score on the Chuck Scale if it only included the words "Trump" and the decision in "Lawrence".
Can't the Chief Justice intervene and recuse a Supreme Court Justice who has so betrayed conventional judicial manners and the traditions of the Court as has Ginsburg?
And wouldn't that be turned into a political tool to get the "jury" you want hearing particular cases?
In this instance, Roberts might genuinely have reason to force RBG to recuse herself. And the NYT would go nuts telling the left that this is unconscionable and only to give Trump the verdict he wants.
Roberts knowing the sensitivity of the case would likely try to keep her on, thereby enraging the right.
Once the left made the SC the final arbiter of truth, all of its actions - even those to promote the proper working of the court - would be seen through the lens of partisan politics.
No need for Ginsburg to explain. She's a secular progressive. It is understood that it is a religion that has displaced Judaism as a force in her life. See: http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/251164/ben-shapiro-why-jews-vote-leftist-truthrevoltorg.
It justifies everything: Unethical extra-judicial behavior, distorting the Constitution from the bench, advocating for Planned Parenthood baby killers and parts vendors, sleeping during oral arguments before the Court, refusing to recuse herself, etc.
On lower courts, if a judge recuses, he or she is replaced by another judge. The change from Judge A to Judge B will not necessarily affect the outcome of the case. But the judge considering recusal knows that failure to recuse may subject him/her to public and professional criticism. Thus, there's an incentive to recuse where there's good reason to do so. On the Supreme Court, however, there are only 9 judges, so if a Justice recuses, there is no replacement and the case is decided by the remaining 8. On hot button idealogical issues, the Justice knows that his/her recusal could change the outcome of the case from a 5-4 reversal to a 4-4 tie, which means the lower court decision stands. I doubt that anyone here who is arguing that the Notorious RBG should recuse would feel the same way about recusal by Thomas or Alito or Gorsuch.
I do agree with the commenters who said RBG should retire, but as long as Trump or any other Republican will appoint her successor, she won't do so as long as there's breath in her body, and maybe not even then -- Remember Weekend at Bernie's?
Everybody knows how Ginsberg is going to vote.
It's how she has always voted and will vote until she takes her dirt nap.
Find the most left wing position and see what the vote should be to fulfill it.
@KittyM in re Chuck:
To know him is to love him. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCnUsInBQws
Sorry KittyM, I just came back online and saw your latest comment. I reply only because you chose to address me directly (with others). I stand by my comment. Read it. Chuck chose to go crying about personal attacks after only 4 comments. Your example was posted well after Chuck complained so it's not Germaine to my comment. Of those 4, only Francisco D's might be considered a personal attack. Based upon Chuck's well established MO, Gahrie's observation was if anything a blinding glimpse of the obvious. Your comment was Chuck sympathetic, and Paco wove's was a substantive response. But rather than address Paco's contrary interpretation, Chuck chose to once again cry to Althouse about personal attack. As you say, there are times Chuck is cringingly attacked. This was not one of them. Repeat, this was not one of them. Hence my comment.
That was the case where the Sierra Club was suing for FOIA disclosures on Cheney's meetings. And while the case was being considered by SCOTUS on appeal, Scalia went duck hunting with Cheney. And had dinner with Cheney and Rumsfeld together.
Remember all of those evil meetings with energy companies on a strategy for energy independence, and stopping sending money to war zones in the Middle East, and topping sending money to Russia? What a fool! That' was impossible! Didn't he know about peak oil?
What an evil, stupid man! But wait, we are energy independent today!
Giddy Ginsburg IS liable to someone: her fellow justices. If she does not recuse herself when there is a blatant reason to, she faces the prospect of the Chief Justice et al to go on the media and denounce her publically. I am shocked they have not done so about her electioneering for Hillary.
But they are very hesitant to call anything on each other.
And to be fair to Old Giddy, IIRC, she HAS voted against Liberal interests. Didn't she join a 9-0 against some of Obamacares diktats?
But I am hoping on blood clots to finally cure her liberalism.
she faces the prospect of the Chief Justice et al to go on the media and denounce her publically.
John Roberts couldn't get it up to chastize a colleague on the court if you pumped a truckload of Spanish fly into his scrotum.
Kevin nails it.
As I've said before, Chuck isn't a Moby - someone who pretends to be a Republican and then posts awful, racist, bigoted things to make Republicans look bad.
Chuck is a Tokyo Rose - someone who pretends to be a Republican, and then spends all their time talking about how awful Republicans are. The idea is to demoralize Republicans about their own side - "look how bad the Republicans' current policies (or leadership or both) are, they're so bad even 'life-long Republicans' hate them!"
The tell is that Tokyo Roses will never volunteer any bad observations about Democrats. At best you'll get a reluctant, throat-clearing, "I don't agree with their policies/I wouldn't vote the way they do." As Kevin observes: 147 words about Scalia, 9 about RBG. Because RBG isn't the point.
"Chuck is a Tokyo Rose"
Harsh. She never lied about being a Republican.
Wow, some of you people have set a new record for stupidity if you think I was criticizing Scalia.
I happen to have been the guy who posted the link to Justice Scalia's complete memorandum outlining his response to the motion.
I didn't criticize Scalia, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld. If tomorrow, I became God and could revive Justice Scalia and put him back on the court, and if I could replace President Trump with a President Cheney or a President Rumsfeld, I'd do so without a moment's hesitation.
CWJ said...
...
... As you say, there are times Chuck is cringingly attacked...
Like, every day. And I want to make special mention of "Francisco D." Francisco D is a special sort of troll. Regularly claiming that I am not a lawyer at all, and/or that I was a Republican poll-watcher in Detroit in 2016, who somehow allowed rampant voter fraud in the general election.
I am a lawyer. I am a registered Republican, a member of the RNLA and the Federalist Society, and while I have in the past been a credentialed poll watcher for the Michigan Republican Party, I didn't volunteer in 2016.
"What President Trump FEELS or what his through process was means NOTHING in regards to his Constitutional authority to control the border. Why are we even arguing this?"
We're "arguing this" to sustain the illusion that SCOTUS remains a legitimate judicial body, acting in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
We'd really like to believe it is (despite evidence to contrary) because, what's the alternative?
I didn't criticize Scalia, or Cheney, or Rumsfeld. If tomorrow, I became God and could revive Justice Scalia and put him back on the court, and if I could replace President Trump with a President Cheney or a President Rumsfeld, I'd do so without a moment's hesitation.
"If I were God." How sad for you that you haven't even got enough power to hold up your own end on this blog. Sadder still is your lack of imagination. Uh-huh, you're the Lord God Almighty, and your first concern is to reshuffle a couple nodes of the US government.
I don't even have the heart to insult you anymore. To call you a poopy head or a traitor or whatever, magnifies you and insults traitors and poop. You are a speck of dust.
BTW - though I would have loved the idea of a President Cheney (in good health please) or a President Rumsfeld, I even now wonder what they would have done in these circumstances, and whether the rottenness in the US government and associated institutions would be revealed and fought against as it is now.
To tell you the truth, while Obama was of course unbearable, and while I never like to puff up Lovely Emerita by saying she was right, one actually may reasonably wonder whether McCain could have been, in his own way, worse. Perhaps he would have died quickly and left us a President Palin. The real pity is Cheney's health - if fit, he would have been the ideal candidate in 2008.
Chuck is a Tokyo Rose - someone who pretends to be a Republican, and then spends all their time talking about how awful Republicans are. The idea is to demoralize Republicans about their own side - "look how bad the Republicans' current policies (or leadership or both) are, they're so bad even 'life-long Republicans' hate them!"
No, you seem to be confusing me with Steve Bannon, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Michael Savage.
I am a loyal Republican and I am happy to say so. It is those people whom I just listed, who are constantly attacking Republicans. The only "Republican" to whom I am disloyal is Donald Trump. And Trump is the guy who donated to the Clintons and their Foundation. It was Trump, who was a Democrat. It was Trump, who favored a single-payer national health care system, who said that he was pro-choice, and who supported the 1996 "assault weapons" ban. It was Trump who, in 2016, engaged in name-calling nearly the entire field of GOP primary candidates and who insulted GOP "donors."
So yeah. I like Republicans and I am loyal to my fellow Republicans. It's Trump, and Trumpism, that I don't like. And I don't much consider Trump to be a real Republican.
Post a Comment