FWIS3

Remember how Justice Ginsberg said some negative stuff about Donald Trump, and Trump responded by calling her senile?

Ginsberg just apologized for that.

Yes, really.

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/14/486012897 ... p-comments

WTF? What is the deal with everyone getting held accountable for Trump's stupidity except for Trump himself? The guy has no credentials, a history of horrible business practice, and he lies enough to make Hillary Clinton look downright honest. The only political stances he hasn't waffled on are sexism and racism. Yes Ginsberg was being unseemly, who cares; Trump's entire political presence is unseemly. That such an utter narcissistic slimebag of a man is even being considered for the most powerful office on the planet, is a damn excellent reason to be unseemly.

Stop backing down, dammit. STOP BACKING DOWN. Jesus Christ. There is never, ever a time to play polite patty-cake games with raving megalomaniacs.

Ugh.

(And yes, yes, yes, I know Clinton is awful! I don't care. I don't want to hear about it. She is not talking about ethnic cleansing, and right now, that needs to be enough.)

"On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them," Ginsburg said in a statement Thursday morning. "Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect."

Seems like a reasonable apology

It's the Marbury v Madison of judicial activism

Gullible Jones wrote:Remember how Justice Ginsberg said some negative stuff about Donald Trump, and Trump responded by calling her senile?

Ginsberg just apologized for that.

Yes, really.

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/14/486012897 ... p-comments

WTF? What is the deal with everyone getting held accountable for Trump's stupidity except for Trump himself? The guy has no credentials, a history of horrible business practice, and he lies enough to make Hillary Clinton look downright honest. The only political stances he hasn't waffled on are sexism and racism. Yes Ginsberg was being unseemly, who cares; Trump's entire political presence is unseemly. That such an utter narcissistic slimebag of a man is even being considered for the most powerful office on the planet, is a damn excellent reason to be unseemly.

Stop backing down, dammit. STOP BACKING DOWN. Jesus Christ. There is never, ever a time to play polite patty-cake games with raving megalomaniacs.

Ugh.

(And yes, yes, yes, I know Clinton is awful! I don't care. I don't want to hear about it. She is not talking about ethnic cleansing, and right now, that needs to be enough.)

Justice Ginsberg is one of my heroes and will forever be that to me. But, yeah, she needed to apologize. Supreme Court justices really need to stay above the political fray, even if next the incarnation of Hitler is running (which he is).

(And Clinton is not awful. She will lead this country well.)

grapes wrote:

"On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them," Ginsburg said in a statement Thursday morning. "Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect."

Seems like a reasonable apology

It's the Marbury v Madison of judicial activism

I am not sure that is actually an apology per se. She didn't say "I am sorry for calling Trump a faker" or "I apologize for saying Trump would be bad for the country". Instead she stepped above the fray and stated that she feels judges should avoid attempting (or giving the appearance) to influence elections.

Exactly. She gives up a little thing, still got her point across, maintains control, and establishes a wide-reaching precedent.

Nice M v M move

So Gullible, you okay with this now, or you still at DefCon 9?

I'm not sure.

I still don't see the sense of it, and I still don't think anything good will come of it. It looks like backing down, and I think that matters; you don't show weakness to predators.

She probably should have remained above the fray in the first place and not made those comments. It shows her humility and grace that she offered the apology.

Thumper wrote:She probably should have remained above the fray in the first place and not made those comments. It shows her humility and grace that she offered the apology.

d

This. Saying what you really think, punching the asshole, killing the evil person - this all works in movies, but in real life, we have to rise above the fray. It sucks, but it's the only hope for real peace.

@SFC, I think there's a pretty stark difference between being insultingly blunt and committing murder.

And in this case, I think that being insultingly blunt is what's needed. It's completely insane that we have a Republican presidential nominee who's on speaking terms with neo-Nazis, and nobody is allowed to call him what he by all appearances is. It is insane that people are expected to be polite and civil when they are being blatantly threatened.

Seriously, fuck the bipartisan shit. Some items simply should not be allowed on the table in a democracy.

And what does this fit you're throwing accomplish? What does it accomplish if we all start calling Trump names? It will only galvanize his supporters. It will do no good whatsoever in fact.

Gullible Jones wrote:@SFC, I think there's a pretty stark difference between being insultingly blunt and committing murder.

And in this case, I think that being insultingly blunt is what's needed. It's completely insane that we have a Republican presidential nominee who's on speaking terms with neo-Nazis, and nobody is allowed to call him what he by all appearances is. It is insane that people are expected to be polite and civil when they are being blatantly threatened.

Seriously, fuck the bipartisan shit. Some items simply should not be allowed on the table in a democracy.

Plenty of people are not only allowed to call him what he is but have been. It's just that Supreme Court justices - or any federal judge in my opinion - need to work really hard to remain nonpartisan in the public eye. That said, as others have pointed out recently, Justice Alito and the late Justice Scalia have stepped over the line of partisanship. They shouldn't have and Justice Ginsberg recognizes that she shouldn't have either.

But everyone else? Hell yeah, call Trump what he is. I personally prefer 'Cheeto-faced ferret-wearing shitgibbon'.

geonuc wrote:But everyone else? Hell yeah, call Trump what he is. I personally prefer 'Cheeto-faced ferret-wearing shitgibbon'.

"Chavez-Clone" is much shorter