The past 24 hours ought to have been the beginnings of a grand coalescence of progressives to begin a campaign to — unlike the GOP victimhood mendacity — truly take our country back from a troglodyte philosophy that is so ideologically rigid, flawed and fossilized that it ends up as an endless round of “There’s a hole in the bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza” circular reasonings, e.g. “We cannot raise taxes for any reason” and “We must fight an [un]just war” both of which lead to an irreducible and ineluctable contradiction*. Solution? Declare victory and move on. The examples are infinite. Which is why our nation stands teetering on the brink of disaster, a death by ten billion paper cuts aided and abetted by Grand Old Party lemon juice. But, instead?
Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
New York Times
— Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling. — Three times in the past week, Justice Ginsburg has publicly discussed her view of the presidential race, in the sharpest terms….
Ironic, considering that the selfsame New York Times elicited the interview which they use to pile on to our Supreme Court Justice.
Now, who would these craven Monday morning quarterbacks be? The faceless New York Times Editorial Boors. (sic) Er, I mean “Bored” … er, “Board.”
It is an exemplar and a symptom of a far greater malaise, characterized not so much as the infamous “circular firing squad” but, rather, shooting ones’ self in the foot. INTENTIONALLY. Let me Liberal-splain it for you.
This is what Presumptive First Victim Donald Trump thinks about the New York Times …
Here’s some more goosh from the NYT Star Chamber:
On Monday Justice Ginsburg doubled down, calling Mr. Trump “a faker,” who “has no consistency about him.” In that interview, with CNN, she added: “He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego.”
Mr. Trump responded on Tuesday. “I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly,” he told The Times. “I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”
And then, predictably, the notation that Ginsberg had a right to say what she said:
There is no legal requirement that Supreme Court justices refrain from commenting on a presidential campaign. But Justice Ginsburg’s comments show why their tradition has been to keep silent.
Which signals the SLAM:
In this election cycle in particular, the potential of a new president to affect the balance of the court has taken on great importance, with the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, other justices are nearing an age when retirement would not be surprising. That makes it vital that the court remain outside the presidential process. And just imagine if this were 2000 and the resolution of the election depended on a Supreme Court decision. Could anyone now argue with a straight face that Justice Ginsburg’s only guide would be the law?
Followed by the false equivalency:
Mr. Trump’s hands, of course, are far from clean on the matter of judicial independence. It was just weeks ago that he was lambasting Gonzalo Curiel, the United States District Court judge overseeing a case against Trump University, saying that as a “Mexican,” the Indiana-born judge could not be impartial.
And, The Sniff from On High by Anonymous the Omnibus:
All of which makes it only more baffling that Justice Ginsburg would choose to descend toward his level and call her own commitment to impartiality into question. Washington is more than partisan enough without the spectacle of a Supreme Court justice flinging herself into the mosh pit.
That oughta teach that uppity woman not to color outside the lines, you know, like Scalia and Cheney going hunting together whilst Cheney was a party in a case before the Court, or Clarence Thomas’ karazee wife Virginia vetting Bush Administration appointees at the Heritage Foundation, WHILE the aforementioned (and in bad taste, I might add) Bush v. Gore abomination was selecting the Residency of the Usurper, George W. “W is for War Crime” Bush. Naw. We must hold to a high standard, and it is UNSEEMLY for a Supreme Court Justice to foresee a barbarian in the White House whose respect for the selfsame institutions that the New York Times chides Ginsburg for is utterly and exponentially NIL.
[Yes, I understand that you cannot actually adjectivally modify NOTHING, but if I’ve heard idiots modfying “unique” which ALSO cannot be modified, *I’ve heard it a gazillion times just in the past month, so indulge me. Else take up sword and come with me on a holy crusade to try and make words actually mean something again. Or, most likely, go back to your nap.]
Oh, and speaking of Awesome Public Responsibility? This is the Trumpian Tweet from the land of Twitzkreig that the network media are running:
Thus, the New York Times’ Headline:
Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Her mind is shot- resign!
New York Times agrees with Donald Trump that Ginsburg should resign.
Liberalz is out of control. Even their biased corrupt media says so.
In the mind of Joe Twelve Gauge.
And the mighty snootification of New York Times has managed to do Trump’s dirty work for him.
Back when Dick “Dr. Evil” Cheney was Judith Millering his talking points onto the front page of the Gray Lady, even The Bushinistas never gamed the Times as effectively as Trump seems to have managed with just a single double tweet: one expression to the NYT as official “comment” and one tweet to everybody else saying the “same” thing quite differently.
Coincidence? Accident? If this had happened once or twice, sure. Every dog has his day, as they say, but this is consistent gaming of the media (really, the MANHATTAN media, as 9-11 so clearly pointed out) and even the individual reporters from the Center of All American Media in the World. So, when you think about it, Trump has a certain home court advantage built in. Think about what he was already perfecting decades ago, when he called reporters planting “Trump” stories as his own press flak, whatshisname.
Now, KNOWING that, the NYT ought not to have opened themselves to this by idiotically going after a sitting Supreme Court Justice who knows EXACTLY what she is doing, no matter how unflattering her scores on the Long-Distance Psychically-Channeled Trump Standard Legal Aptitude Test ( or, the LD-PC-T-SLAT, as it is known in testing circles.)
They OUGHT to have understood that. No. Because the Times was, as per usual with progressives and their causes, making the perfect the enemy of the good.
I begin to understand what Scott Adams is talking about.
UPDATE 10:00 PM EDT: As predicted, this blog showed up on Memeorandum:
Tyler Durden / The Burning Platform:Donald Trump Rips Ginsburg: “Her Mind Is Shot, She Should Resign” As NYT Says Trump Is Right
And no, I am not linking to it because of the high incidence of Antisemitic comments. However, “Tyler Durden” is a group pseudonym for Zero Hedge blog writers (founded 2009).
* Yes, Virginia: that was one sentence.