In a CNN interview, Ruth Bader Ginsburg came close to endorsing Hillary Clinton. It was out of line. As I said on Twitter, “[W]e have to be consistent about this. It is very bad and dangerous to lose a politically neutral judiciary, regardless of partisan valence.”
However, it’s crazy to say that one jurist’s slip of the tongue was this campaign’s low point. Below are four events that could drive you into the camp of “Giant Meteor 2016: Just End It Already.”
1. Trump slanders a war hero
Donald Trump, who dodged military service, ridiculed John McCain’s war record. McCain endured torture at the hands of North Vietnam that left him with permanent injuries. Given the opportunity to escape his tormentors, the young officer refused, insisting that he must remain with his men. Trump’s verdict? “I like the ones who weren’t captured.”
2. Political rhetoric jumps the shark
The weeks before the March 15 primary were perhaps the all-time low point for political discourse. Serious Candidate Marco Rubio taunted Donald–or should he say CON-ald?–Trump for having “small hands.” Whether they smell like cabbage was not addressed. In any event, Mr. Trump took care to reassure us: “I can assure you, there’s no problem.”
3. HB2
Back to seriousness. Pat McCrory signed the worst law passed by any state in modern memory. It eviscerated civil rights protections for 300,000 people and turned one of society’s most vulnerable groups into a target. Endlessly cynical, Ted Cruz weaponized HB2 against Trump, who, incredibly, appears less bigoted toward the LGBTQ community than many NCGOP’ers. It was a despicable moment for all concerned.
4. Trump declares war on the judiciary
Having deservingly lost a fraud trial, Trump unleashed his racist fury on the judge. The next ten days saw an extraordinary attack on Judge Curiel for his skin color and ethnic heritage. Trump’s behavior proved that he sees politics in terms of ethnic antagonisms and brute, power-based struggle. He his no respect for institutions and cannot be trusted to uphold the Constitutional order.
I have no doubt that this list will lengthen until we finally reach November.
Alexander Jones is an original contributor to PoliticsNC.
Anyone can say anything as there is no effect of the Law of Unintended Consequences at a point of crisis & chaos.
The Heroic RBG reached her melting point with Donald Trump and his supporters. She let go some straight talk to the self-proclaimed King of straight talk. He couldn’t take it incoming so turned to the political correctness he had previously scorned to say how awful that a judge wasn’t PC.
Although she has apologized, her words remain, a clarion call to those who value our political system as it was intended to be: rational, civil, thoughtful, responsible and not the rule of the Mob.
After a lot of thinking, I am not so sure that Justice Ginsberg was out of line to speak about Trump. First, we have had Supreme Court Justices who ran for the presidency and stayed on the bench while doing so. Yes, it was during the early years of this country, but neither the union nor the Court seems to have suffered from those events. Secondly, every member of the Court votes, so they certainly have political preferences and views. We just don’t know them. Does knowing someone’s preference make them less capable as a judge? I can’t see why. Thirdly, almost every analysis of a Court decision focuses at some point on the “conservative” versus the “liberal” apparent bias of the justices. Reality is that the decisions are seen as reflective of the political beliefs of the court. The real question is whether that is actually an accurate view. Personally, I have seen very well reasoned opinions from the Court that I had to acknowledge were rational and sound, despite my deep misgivings about their social and political impact. In other cases, I find some decisions that I prefer politically to be obviously influenced by social and economic changes that have informed the logic. I don’t have a problem with the latter since I don’t believe that the Constitution is a document to be read and considered completely out of the current time. I want the basic premises of that document honored, but there are realities today not even imagined when the Constitution was written. I don’t believe the men who wrote that document would have us ignore today’s social, technological and political facts. In fact, I suspect they would have been the first to argue for those factors to be evaluated. So, bottom line, I was quiet surprised but am not in the final analysis disturbed.