Wednesday, July 13, 2016


I agree with those who believe RBG was unwise to opine as clearly as she did on the obvious disqualifications and unqualifications of Donald Trump's candidacy, and on the serious, predictable consequences for our country were he to win. There is, after all, the pretense that the Supreme Court is apolitical; and that the myth should be protected at all times.

However. I don't recall hearing anything from the loudest critics of her outspokenness regarding Antonin Scalia's many trips paid for by conservative organizations (he was on one when he died, matter of fact); or his many speaking engagements to conservative groups. Or that after throwing the election to George Bush, his son got a job in that administration. And there was nothing but praise when, in Scalia's last few years on the court he abandoned all pretense of impartiality and "strict constructionism," i.e, mind-reading of people long dead. Corporations are people. Money is speech. Racism is over. Black people should go to less-challenging colleges than whites.

Does RBG's outspokenness mean she can't be impartial? Is there evidence that she's less so than anyone else on the court? Not to me. So, yeah, probably unwise. But damn. You gotta love the ol' gal. She's the best thing that's happened to the Court since Marbury v. Madison, and she proves it, in her opinions and dissents, time and time again.

[Image source]


Carl said...

When you're right, write.

Smoothtooperate said...

There's a few SCOTUS alum that ran for office...Here's one case. There's got to be more.

Smoothtooperate said...

She kinda said she shouldn't have made the comment today. She didn't say sorry

Popular posts