The published story, which Couric wrote for Yahoo! News in 2016, did include quotes from Ginsburg saying refusing to stand for the anthem was 'dumb and disrespectful', but omitted more problematic remarks. Ginsburg went on to say that such protests show a 'contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life.' She said: 'Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from... as they became older they realize that this was youthful folly. And that's why education is important.'
Much worse than what Ginsburg said is the possibility that Ginsburg didn't understand the question in 2016! Couric is hurting Ginsburg much more now, but at least she's confessing her own journalistic sins.
We're told that the day after the interview "the head of public affairs for the Supreme Court emailed Couric to say the late justice had 'misspoken' and asked that it be removed from the story." It seems more likely that Couric allowed Ginsburg to edit her remarks than that Couric decided Ginsburg didn't understand because she was elderly! If Ginsburg couldn't understand things because of her advanced age, then she did not belong on the Court!
We're also told that Couric sought help from her "friend, David Brooks," and he agreed that "Ginsburg probably didn't understand the question." Give me a break!
Posts
50 comments:
Katie just did what any LLR would do, and does do, in covering for and protecting democraticals at all costs.
Kneeling was stupid for two reasons
1. It's a bad reading of race relations
2. It's a stupid ceremony in any case. The flag is a piece of cloth and the ceremony is there to get the crowd to shut up and pay attention.
It did set the patriotism enforcers against the riot enthusiasts though.
RBG playing the role of Uncle Leo in Couric's story.
They have destroyed their own feedback loops and wonder why they keep on stepping on rakes.
This is the kind of transparently lame load of bullshit and badly-crafted self-exoneration that one would laugh out of the room if offered by a third grader. Go Katie!
Kagan and Sotomayor understand the question and vote the wrong way. How can it be worse for another leftist not to understand the question. It's 50/50 she'd get the vote right.
The fact that Couric felt the need to "protect" RBG, tells me that she and her peers knew the lady was way past her sell-by date.
We're also told that Couric sought help from her "friend, David Brooks," and he agreed that "Ginsburg probably didn't understand the question." Give me a break!
Cmon Althouse. These are two honest, hardworking journalists. They just made a mistake that's all.
It is only a coincidence that their mistakes are always in the direction that favors the Democrat party line. Just a coincidence.
I think you've scrambled something here: shouldn't "didn't understand the question in 1983!" be "didn't understand the question at age 83!"? She turned 83 in 2016, the year of the interview. (Easy to remember because I turned 63 the same day.) The point seems to be that implying senility is worse than implying mildly right-wingish ideas.
If no one else, Michelle Dulak Thompson will be amused to know that one of my college teachers turned 73 the same day: Wye (Wendy) Jamison Allanbrook, who wrote two excellent books on Mozart. I suspect writing 1983 for 83 years old comes from jotting down a note with just '83!' on it.
1983? Where does that come from?
The liberal press has been corrupt in its protection of its Democrat friends for decades. Ben Bradlee covered up what he knew about his friend Jack Kennedy, but hated Nixon and acted based on that personal animus. Imagine if the Post had disclosed that “Deep Throat” was a disgruntled FBI hack out to get Nixon because he hadn’t been given Hoover’s job? Might that tidbit have been relevant to evaluating what he said? Kay Graham was buddies with Bob McNamara, and even closer with Warren Buffett.
Sorry for the error of writing 1983 for 2016! How does *that* happen? Ginsburg was 83 in 2016. That sort of explains it!
Don't downplay it.
According to Couric, she ‘wanted to protect’ Ginsburg and felt that the issue of racial justice was a ‘blind spot’ for her.
Couric essentially called Ruth Bader Ginsburg racist.
Clean up in Aisle 7!
Agree or disagree with it, but RBG's answer seems totally lucid. And it gets to the Achilles heel of the argument for reparations, which obviously is why Katie suppressed it. I trust Katie even less now than I did before.
I have no less respect for Katie Courie after reading that post than I did before.
Ginsburg had reading comprehension issues too.
So it wasn't just this interview.
Ginsburg just made up whatever she wanted in general. This answer was actually fairly cogent.
The broken clock is right every now and then and that upset Couric and Brooks.
RBG was an Edgelady?
Now they tell us.
Given what was published it's hard to see how one could think RGB didn't understand the question. When I first heard this it was not clear that there were published remarks from the Justice back in 2016. But like Justice Stevens on flag burning (the only WW2 vet on that panel), she is a product of her time.
Justice Ginsberg certainly understood the question! And her comments-- before Couric censored them-- should increase our respect for her.
There are so many levels of corruption and dishonesty in this story that is hard to know where to begin. Couric was sleazy at best and RBG apparently was senile. Hell of a way to run a republic.
What a pathetic set of creatures they all seem like!
Ginsburg sounds like Trump.
It's even worse than Althouse reports. The whole quote is:
Couric called a friend, David Brooks, a New York Times journalist, who advised her that Ginsburg probably didn't understand the question, even though she was still serving on the Supreme Court at the time.
RBG "stuttered."
Notably, Ginzberg conflates "the government" with the actual nation which the flag stands for.
Which is sort of a big deal.
Of course, that's not what Katy and Brooksie think the problem is.
But yeah, she understood the question.
I had no respect for Katie Couric, but I now have more respect for Justice Ginsburg. I am older now than she was then. I know right from wrong, as did Ginsburg. We were brought up in an age to respect the government, the flag and be patriotic. I don't think Katie is so young they didn't recite the pledge at school. I do think she is liberal enough to think taking a knee is perfectly okay. Justice Ginsburg had it right, they should know better.
Katie Couric is being a mean girl, so is David Brooks.
Sort of like she assumed that Sarah Palin didn't understand some of her questions, so she just had answers to other questions entirely swapped in (so I've heard tell). Wonder when ABC will show us the raw video of that interview...
Either she understood the question, or she was unfit to be a Supreme Court justice at that point. It's one or the other.
what is the point in telling this now?
somebody please explain!
So RBG says kneeling for the anthem was dumb and disrespectful. She then gives a paragraph-length, articulate elaboration of this, explaining persuasively why it was dumb and disrespectful.
And yet Katie claims she didn't understand the question! What a tool!
LOL! And, exactly how many years have the media been hiding/manipulating information for the people? "RBG is an icon!, I can't let the nation know what she thinks about this issue!. Therefore, I'll cut it for the interview".
Next, "Trump said this. Makes too much sense. So, since I hate him and want Hillary to win, I'll cut and splice the video until it appears he said something else".
We, us poor, poor rubes, fall for it time and time again as their "Breaking News" headlines tell us what to think.
More evidence that "the news" shouldn't be believed. The people presenting it are incompetent when they are not outright lying.
Everything Trump says has been said by progressives before except his frequent declarations of love for America. They won’t say that without a bunch of qualifiers.
The best that can be said about Couric is that she was being paternalistic towards RBG. She assumed the right, power and in her mind responsibility to protect RBG from herself. It seems almost condescending.
Media lies and withholds information to make Conservatives seem like they are racist?? What else is new??? Anybody who is surprised by this, hasn't been paying attention. They lie to you daily. The Russian hoax is STILL being spewed as is the January 6th paraders that the left and their merry band of lying media still call an insurrection, even though the only one murdered was murdered in cold blood by a Capitol police officer who received a gold medal from Nancy Pelosi for their bravery that day. Maybe we should give the Police officer who killed their Saint George Floyd a gold medal too??
Katie Couric is a sniveling liar and always has been. Remember she was caught blatantly lying in her anti-gun documentary “Under the Gun,” and was discovered intentionally trying to make pro-gun advocates look like ignorant, and unintelligent bumpkins when they were actually knowledgeable and succinct.
She pushes the progressive agenda. Always has, always will...as most TV news critters do and always will. It is pathetic, and they brought down journalism...as there is no such thing anymore with people like this that lied to us for years whilst making millions of dollars doing it.
The funny thing is that this is brand new "news" to some.
Ruth Ginsburg was chums with Anthony Scalia. Now we understand a bit.
If anyone has a pooch who likes being screwed and has not so far, send an invite to this dumpster fire.
If anyone has a pooch who likes being screwed and has not so far, send an invite to this dumpster fire.
One of the fundamental values of Marxists/leftists is to win the battle of how history is written. Couric has learned her lesson well. Gold star from her comrades.
I'm still trying to figure out why Couric would ever want to mention this story in public.
Dr. Weevil, thanks for the mention! And for calling to mind Wye Allanbrook, a great classical (as in the period, not the genre) music scholar, who was an enormous benefactor to me at Cal.
so I go looking ....
when was Couric book released?
October 14, 20165:10 PM ET
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaks at Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., earlier this year.
Michael Dwyer/AP
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is walking back a critical comment she made about some NFL players for refusing to stand for the national anthem at football games.
In a recent book interview, Ginsburg was asked how she felt about the protest by San Francisco quarterback Colin Kaepernick and two of his teammates.
She replied that while entirely legal, she thought it was "dumb and disrespectful." But trying to make such protests illegal, she said, would be "dangerous."
No, Ruth Bader Ginsburg Does Not Intend To Retire Anytime Soon
LAW
No, Ruth Bader Ginsburg Does Not Intend To Retire Anytime Soon
"What I would do is strongly take issue with the view they are expressing," she said.
In response to press inquiries, Ginsburg released a statement Friday saying that in view of the fact that she had been "barely aware of the incident or its purpose," her comments were "inappropriately dismissive and harsh." Said the justice, "I should have declined to respond."
This summer, Ginsburg caused a far more serious stir and apologized after she expressed negative views about Donald Trump. She said then that judges should not make comments about political candidates.
Ginsburg's racism was also kept hidden by The New York Times
Ginsburg on Roe v. Wade:
The ruling surprised me. Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the Court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.”
This is mind-boggling for many reasons. If Blackmun had won the day in McRae, Ginsburg's opinion (and rightly so, I think) would have been that the Supreme Court wanted to keep poor women from reproducing. (Roe itself acknowledges that race might play a secret role in the Court's opinion). Ginsburg only abandoned her eugenics view of Roe when the Court refused to go down the socialist road and require state governments to pay for abortions.
It was a mind-boggling gaffe. And the reporter ignored it!
Here the NYT journalist (Emily Bazelon) blames herself for what Ginsburg said.
I didn’t ask the follow up question that would have given Ginsburg the chance to clarify what she meant—to explain who was concerned about population growth at the time, and in what context. Because I didn’t do that, some conservatives pounced.
Conservatives pounced!
Is it the job of the reporter to hide the truth to protect the powerful? It's mind-boggling that Ginsburg assumes a eugenics motivation in government officials and Bazelon completely rejects the possibility. Ginsburg is the practical realist and Bazelon the ideological tool. Worst watchdog in the world.
what is the point in telling this now?
somebody please explain!
Leftists journalists suppress the truth in order to protect their political narrative. Once enough time has passed, you can share the true story.
Stalin really was an asshole. Oops.
King cheated on his wife. Huh.
87-year-old woman was a bit of a racist.
They used to wait decades. But we've already celebrated her. Now the truth can be revealed.
Next up: CNN explores what happened at Chappaquiddick. "Shocking! I can't believe it! Why is this coming out now?"
"It's 50/50 she'd get the vote right."
That makes the assumption that cases directed to SCOTUS are in truth half for the plaintiff and half against. It may be that a preponderance of cases brought before SCOTUS should be decided a priori only for the plaintiff (or defendant). There may be selection bias in who gets certiorari based on whether they are for or against existing law.
Shorter, a Liberal Justice will have a greater than 50% probability of voting no if all the cases brought include facts that show the conservative case is true.
MDT:
I miswrote when I said WJA turned 73 in 2016, since she died in 2010. She was my freshman seminar 'tutor' at St. John's College in 1971, and her co-tutor was also a woman, probably the first all-female pair at SJC. We all pitched in and got them a dozen red roses for the last seminar, which went over very well. She got married over Thanksgiving without telling us beforehand and by the spring I think I was the only one who remembered that the Traynor-Allanbrook seminar had been Traynor-Jamison for the first few months. An excellent teacher and human being.
“Ginsburg went on to say that such protests show a 'contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life.' She said: 'Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from... as they became older they realize that this was youthful folly. And that's why education is important.' “
Is that answer either racist or senile? I can see a couple of readings that aren’t:
(1) RGB thought the question was about children of immigrants in schools. That could just stem from a complete lack of interest in pro football.
(2) RGB was thinking of African-Americans coming out of agricultural peonage in the Deep South a couple of generations ago.
Post a Comment