Thursday, July 14, 2016

Ruth Tells The Uncomfortable Truth And The Court Has Been Politicized For Decades

The Great Grey Trollop, the New York Times, a paper which, during an election season which long ago offered a prospect of another and likely more horrific Republican presidency, not merely drifting toward fascism but overtly promising it spent quite a bit of its time lying about Hillary Clinton, the only alternative to that.   And now it  has agreed with Donald Trump about Ruth Bader Ginsburg telling the truth about that horrific prospect.   It makes Madame Times very nervous when someone violates the agreed to rules of propriety and decorum, even more than the country careening toward fascism.

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.”

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.

As someone who has long figured the Paper of Record had an editorial policy of upholding the corporate state which has financed and promoted the drift toward fascism for the past fifty years and which had an obvious double standard in that, it comes as no surprise that, when a true crisis in American democracy was imminent, it would emphasize putting the forks and spoons in their prescribed places.

Considering the role the Times played in smoothing over the Supreme Court confirmed coup in 2000 their concern about Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comments for future electoral crisis fomented by Republicans shows what a discreditable rag it is.

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?

Yeah, the New York Times would argue with a straight face that Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas would, the two remaining members of the Bush v. Gore five who installed a Republican president of their party. And there was also Sandra Day O'Connor, having been on record as expressing the hope that a Republican would replace her, as her chosen winner in that case did.  There is no doubt that partisan considerations were the deciding factor in that case just as there could be no doubt that those who would favor Trump over Hillary Clinton would include the two Republicans who Bush II placed on the court.  Fruit of that poison tree.

As others have pointed out, there has been a decades long effort and overt by Republicans and radical right-wing groups like the Federalist Society to pack the federal court with politicized, ideological hacks.  All they have to do is lie about their intentions to the equally courtly courtesans of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  That is what the pantomime of judicial nominations have been, open lying about what everyone in the room and anyone with any knowledge knows they will do on the court. Barring those rare times when they put up a pretense of judicial impartiality or have a score to settle or are laying the path for future mischief.

As I said, yesterday, Ruth Bader Ginsburg stepped out of the phony pantomime of judicial non-partisanship, a remaining habit from the time when the Republican Party actually was not a fascist party, to signal the real danger that today's Republican nominee is to democracy.  The flaws in our Constitution surrounding elections came home to roost in 2000, including partisan Supreme Court members installing a member of their party.  The impossibility of really changing that built into the amendment mechanism made fixing that beyond reach, saving democracy from corporate domination through the media had to try other things.  The rulings of previous ideological courts from the time of Buckely v. Valeo, knocking down every legislative attempt to work around the corruption of our politics has led us to the second real crisis of democracy in two decades, this time with an overtly fascist candidate having the nomination of the Republican party.   If the Grey Lady is confused, it is only the more remarkable that it's supposed to be a NEWS paper.   But, then, it pretty much got things going in 1964 by making lies about politics immune from action so the regime of lies that built on that isn't something it should be expected to notice.  It's what any rational person could have concluded would be the likely result of enabling the telling of lies by the media.

I think that Justice Ginsburg knows how dangerous this situation is, she has watched it developing her entire career in the law and as a member of the Supreme Court.  That she is breaking the rules of etiquette shocking the dainty sensibilities of the media which has presided over the selling of the lies that have brought us here shows how dangerous things are.  Its unprecedented danger calls for unprecedented acts and hers is one of the bravest of them all.

Note:  A draft of this post was published by mistake, I've edited that and will let it stand.

1 comment:

  1. And Trump makes more and more blatantly racist comments, but even the NYT can't use the word "Racism" in direct connection to Trump, because, well, that's just not done.

    So the real scandal is that Justice Ginsburg said something about Trump in an interview.