Thanks for printing! Don't forget to come back to Herman Cain for fresh articles!
New York Times editorial board agrees with Trump - rips Ginsburg over her comments
Go home Ginsburg, you're embarrassing us!
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one our most revered left-wing dinosaurs, has had quite a week. After a creepy comment in which she seemed to indicate that the world was better off with her "dear friend" Antonin Scalia dead, the Supreme Court Justice laid into Donald Trump with a series of questionable insults.
Calling him a "faker," and suggesting he's an out-of-control egomaniac, Ginsburg concluded by saying “I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
She also said her late husband would have moved the Ginsburg clan to New Zealand if he'd been alive to see Trump elected.
All of this is unprecedented for a Supreme Court Justice, and Trump responded about how you'd expect:
Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot - resign!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 13, 2016
Lo and behold, the New York Times - the original source of at least some of Ginsburg's comments - seems to agree. In a piece, headlined "Donald Trump is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg," the Times editorial board say she needs to ditch the "punditry and name calling" and stick to the law:
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.
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?
Of course, that's where they show their legendary bias. No sane person, anywhere, would ever say with a straight face that Ginsburg's "only guide would be the law." She's proven herself to be the most reliable ideologue on the court. Only the drones at the New York Times, their minds addled from endlessly ingesting delusions of self-importance, could come to the conclusion that Ginsburg is in any way impartial.
The fact that the Times is calling out Ginsburg's comments indicates only that they're aware that she's verbally exposed all of her rulings to criticism.
Like all left-wing institutions, the Times doesn't care about impartiality, the rule of law, or 'the presidential process,' and they certainly don't care whether Trump is treated fairly. They care about agenda.
Clearly, they feel that Ginsburg's senior moment has impugned her judgement at a time when they can almost taste a statist victory.