Wednesday, July 13, 2016

Trump vs. Ginsburg: Battle Lines Drawn, Words Heat Up. Nasty Stuff

Trump vs. Ginsburg (Washington Post): One gets to yap, insult, spread hate and discontent and the other one has to keep quiet and just rule on the merits of important and pressing constitutional issues. Guess who is who.

Short clip is here - FYI and some of the “faux” GOP outrage (a hoot):

Also, here (CNN) and here (CBS)

Trump gets to keep and practice his 1st Amendment rights and freedoms, but Justice Ginsburg does not as many expect her to shut up and just be a judge. I think she has more sense than that and would be impartial in any case dealing with Trump before the high court, or any other case before her as well. To think differently is utter speculation and quite frankly, nonsense.  Trump wants to ban Muslims and build a wall between the U.S. and Mexico (but not Canada) and hang out a huge Trump Tower II Sign: “Welkom to Trump Amerika.” This is view in his clearly stated words and comments.

FYI: Re this story, Justice Ginsburg merely quoted her late husband almost in jest with that an analogy and uncertainty of a Trump presidency. Now the rabid 24/7 media cycle kicks into high gear with their wackiness to see who can get the most ratings and comments at their shrinking newspaper comment sections and at on-line public forums, and all across rightwing Talk Radio. This is a field day for them. Yippee…!!! I wonder if this all GOP-run Congress will wade in demanding a string of hearings and committees for more of their craziness, too.

The synopsis of what she said as reported in the WaPost story:

Generally, though, you don't hear a Supreme Court justice talking like this. In fact, you generally don't hear a Supreme Court justice talking at all — much less about the big political issues of the day.

Most justices aren't Ruth Bader Ginsburg, though. And in a New York Times interview, Ginsburg doesn't hold a thing back when it comes to the 2016 election, saying in part: “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 speaking to Times' Adam Liptak) “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

Now my take: I think she expresses the view of the vast majority of Americans who follow this election cycle closely and right so. One person/one vote is the principle – she has one and does the rest of us and an opinion as.

We can’t wave the flag of freedom and democracy and say we are #1 (and we are BTW) and praise the rule of law, the blessed Constitution and all it stands for and then pick and choose who can say what about anything just because they sit in a certain station in life … that is not the America I see nor the one want, either. Do you?

It is a fact that if one supports Trump, it matters not what he says or does, they will defend him even by attacking others over weak arguments, and to be fair many will do that for Hillary Clinton, too. Most rational people will not evaluate things that route, but sadly that is a shrinking number in my view.

I would say for anyone who believe in “pick and choose what can be said and by whom,” then may I suggest a one-way ticket to Pyongyang (North Korea, BTW). I’ll be happy to pick up their tab. Harsh; nope, not one bit and not any sillier than nonsense we hear about this story.

Thanks for stopping by.

No comments: