Note, July 15: Scratch out the word “heroine” above. Ginsburg has now apologized for daring to speak out against Trump — a candidate whose racism, authoritarianism, and support for torture and mass box-car deportations should motivate EVERY PERSON OF GOOD WILL IN THIS ENTIRE COUNTRY to stand up and denounce him publicly. It looks like Ginsburg is no Eartha Kitt, much less a new Ida Wells or Emma Goldman. Did her co-liberals on the Court tell her, please, we beg you, back down, you’re embarrassing us? But sometimes people who back down have already raised issues that won’t go away. The Justices of the Supreme Court in this age of polarization are neither objective nor neutral (if indeed they EVER were: John Jay, while serving as our first Chief Justice ran for Governor of New York as a Federalist). To pretend they are neutral is a lie! There was nothing neutral about Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito boycotting President Obama’s 2015 State of the Union address. And there was nothing neutral about the actions of these and the other Republican-appointed Justices who voted for Citizens United and for the gutting of the Voting Rights Act — cases which had been brought before the Court for the clear purpose of gaining for the Republicans a grotesquely unfair advantage in electoral politics. Certainly these two decisions show a far greater spirit of partisanship than is embodied in Ginsburg’s denunciation of Trump. Ginsburg was talking about the soul of the Republic; these conservative justices were crafting (essentially) an excuse for ignominious cheating at the ballot box. Do we want Justices who lie and deceive us, or rather do we want Justices who tell us forthrightly where they stand? I still honor Ginsburg for the issue she raised and the example she set prior to her tactical retreat.
The front page of Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post has a headline today (July 14) accusing Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of “‘Supreme’ bias” for blasting Trump. And the Post includes a moronic photo of her in a Darth Vader helmet with the words, “Darth Bader.”
A number of cowardly liberals in the media have also said she went too far, and that the Supremes should always remain neutral and above the fray.
Bull****! Justice Ginsburg should be regarded as an American heroine for thrusting aside the objectivity myth. She did what Muhammad Ali and Eartha Kitt did during the Vietnam War–speak truth to power AND to the people. She should keep it up and the other liberal justices should join her. Maybe they could even get a majority of the eight to speak out against Trump–now THAT would be a blow to his sinister campaign.
The liberal Supremes could even invite Rep. John Lewis to amble down the street and show them how to launch an anti-Trump sit-in. In other words, they could do now what the Court’s liberal minority SHOULD have done in 2000 when they sat back and let the Republicans fix the election by way of Scalia, Thomas & Co. (I know there won’t be any sit-ins at the Court, but it feels good to suggest it.)
As to Rupert Murdoch, the man behind Fox News, he has no basis for accusing ANYONE of “bias,” he who has been whipping up racist hate for years and now is on the verge of helping usher a proto-fascist into the White House–a proto-fascist who has the support of every closet Neo-nazi and white supremacist in America, as well as the open ones such as David Duke.
The Republicans have caved into Trump; they are ready to do anything he says. To them, the relatively trivial matter of Hillary’s emails has become the biggest issue in the world–to divert attention from the disastrous consequences of a Trump presidency.
Trump’s entire career reeks of lies, fraud and corruption. The Post concentrates on Hillary and ignores the vast mass of evil deeds and statements that prove Trump is unfit to be President under any circumstances. Now THAT’s real bias.
Editor’s note: Socialist Currents has a new blogger. Dennis King was born and raised in North Carolina, but has lived most of his life in NYC. King is an investigative journalist and author of Lyndon LaRouche and the New American Fascism (1989) and of Get the Facts on Anyone (1991, 1995, 1999). His articles have been widely published in local and national newspapers and magazines. As with all bloggers, the writer’s opinions are his own.
.. hardly the most egregious partisanship exhibited by a Supreme Court Justice.. and I must admit I totally agree with her sentiments, I only halfheartedly agree with her voicing her opinion.. (halfheartedly because I dream of a perfect world, where all branches of our government would be far less partisan and vocal)…
I must admit, I was shocked to hear the apology. Basically, it’s as if Trump won. His supporters don’t understand the effort to maintain civility. Being polite probably will not serve its purpose. It looks, to some, like Trump was right and that she was wrong.
I wholeheartedly agree with everything that you said here, except for one issues: Hillary’s email issue is not “trivial.”
Let me get into a slight bit of background before anyone reading this tries to troll me and state that I am somehow a Trump supporter for mentioning this.
I am a Bernie Sanders supporter in this election, although my views are much more in line with the ideas of a pure socialist state than his “democratic socialist” views, which are really nothing more than New-Deal era Democrat views.
However, now that he has sold out to the corporatism that is Hillary Clinton — fuck him, too!
I believe that socialism, in its purest form, is our only hope as a species. The idea of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need” is the principle with which I live my life, whether it be helping out a guy on the side of the road with a $20 bill or if it means bringing my neighbor a small basket of my balcony-grown vegetables.
With that said, I am also a legal professional, and I have been viewing the e-mail scandal with increased scrutiny, because I knew deep down how far this would go. I knew that our most powerful institution of justice would allow her to walk scot-free for violating the security of our nation. The statute that the FBI director quoted while he was saying that he could not prove “intent” is a statute that does not allow for intent as an element of the crime. It only relies on an act of “gross negligence.” Now, for those of you who watched the Comey press conference, he said that she clearly demonstrated “extreme carelessness” with some of the most critical information related to the security of our country., The legal definition of the gross negligence required to prosecute her under the statute is just that — extreme carelessness.
Everyone needs to wake up. Hillary Clinton is not a friend to socialism! She is a corporate pawn that is above the law. I guarantee you that if I were a federal employee at the state department who did what she did, I would be sitting in a federal holding facility without a bond waiting to go to trial and be sentenced to over 10 years in a federal prison. Is this the type of government we want? Fans of socialism are undoubtedly familiar with George Orwell. Do we want an Orwellian society, where members of the Inner Party of Big Brother are the only ones who prosper? They enjoy freedom from prosecution because they push a capitalist agenda, allowing for the corporations to take over while we — the labor and means to production that they control — are under ever increasing totalitarian rule by the state that caters to them.
Hillary is not the answer, and Donald Trump is DAMN SURE not the answer. Her emails were indeed a HUGE deal that was covered for by a corrupt system that doesn’t give a damn about the common man. We have at least 4 more years of a corporate agenda being pushed down our throats, ladies and gentleman, no matter how you slice the fucking cake. I hope you all are ready!
Also — if you guys are looking for writers for blog posts, articles, etc.; I’d love to help the cause out. I am a career writer, with pieces geared towards public, academic, and legal audiences. I’d love to help spread the message. Let me know!
Thanks,
William