My thanks to Justice Ginsburg for her unethical behavior

The Mask has dropped from Justice Ruth Ginsberg:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she doesn’t want to conjure up the possibility of Donald Trump in the White House.“I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg told The New York Times in an interview published Sunday. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”Ginsburg, on the high court since 1993, told the Times the prospect of a Trump presidency reminded her of the type of wry comment her late husband might have made.“‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,’” Justice Ginsburg said.

Not only did the mask of impartiality drop she refused to put it back on and doubled down:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s well-known candor was on display in her chambers late Monday, when she declined to retreat from her earlier criticism of Donald Trump and even elaborated on it.

“He is a faker,” she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

As you might have heard this got some critique from Donald Trump but it also got a lot of critique from liberals as well:

The New York Times:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling. …

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?

The Washington Post

I first wrote about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s controversial comments about Donald Trump on Monday. Since then, the situation has erupted into an all-out feud, and now the editorial boards of both the New York Times and The Washington Post have weighed in against Ginsburg’s decision to insert herself into the 2016 campaign…I’ll say at the top what I’ve said before: It’s hard if not impossible to find a direct analog to what Ginsburg has said in recent days. Supreme Court experts I’ve spoken to were unaware of any justices getting so directly and vocally involved — or involved at all, really — in a presidential campaign.


There is really very little to debate about the ethics of Ginsburg’s comments. They were plainly a violation, the kind of partisan partiality that judicial ethics codes strive to prevent. But Ginsburg, who is a quietly canny judicial and political strategist, surely knows that her comments were an ethical error. That leads to a fascinating question: Why would the justice risk her reputation and good standing—and even her power to hear cases involving Trump—for a few quick jabs at the candidate? The answer, I suspect, is that Ginsburg has decided to sacrifice some of her prestige in order to send as clear a warning signal about Trump as she possibly can. The subtext of Ginsburg’s comments, of her willingness to comment, is that Trump poses an unparalleled threat to this country—a threat so great that she will abandon judicial propriety in order to warn against looming disaster.

To be clear, what Ginsburg is doing right now—pushing her case against Trump through on-the-record interviews—is not just unethical; it’s dangerous. As a general rule, justices should refrain from commenting on politics, period. That dictate applies to 83-year-old internet folk heroes as strictly as it applies to anybody else who dons judicial robes. The independence of our judiciary—and just as critically, its appearance of impartiality—hinges on a consistent separation between itself and the other branches of government. That means no proclamations of loyalty to any candidate, or admissions of distaste of any other.

Even CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin was not happy as reported by Newsbusters:

No, I don’t think there’s any chance she will resign, but I think it’s appropriate to criticize her about this. This is not how Supreme Court justices have talked traditionally. They do not get involved in day-to-day political controversies. They do not endorse or un-endorse candidates.

Describing himself as a “great admirer” of Justice Ginsburg, he then got to the subject of recusal as he added:

And I think there are lots of good reasons for that, not least of which, something involving the election may come before the Supreme Court in a Bush V. Gore type case. And I think she’d have to recuse herself at this point. 

I just think, as someone who is a great admirer of Justice Ginsburg, she is completely wrong in this situation, and she should not be making these kinds of political statements.

And cartoonists as well:

In bashing Donald Trump, some say Ruth Bader Ginsburg just crossed a very important line

— The Patriot (@ThePatriot143) July 13, 2016

A lot of people are upset about this ethical violation.

I’m not.

Don’t get me wrong, it was a complete abrogation of her duty as a judge on the highest court in the land and an action unworthy of her and her position. Furthermore it sets a horrible precedent for the future.

However there is one other consideration.

If there is one thing that anyone who watches the court knows it that any 5-4 decision will involve a “conservative’ justice voting with liberals. You will not and have not seen any of the liberals, Kagan, Sotomayor or Ginsberg being the deciding vote for a case going in the direction of conservatives.

Justice Ginsberg’s public statements make it plan for all to see that our liberal friends on the Supreme Court are simple ideologues and that their vote on any key issue dividing left and right would be no different if every brief in support of the liberal position consisted of the sentence: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” repeated ad infinitum.

Ann Althouse gets it

In the case of Justice Ginsburg, Trump isn’t inferring bias and politics from whatgroup she belongs to. It’s a reaction to her particular statements. It’s individual. She openly displayed her political leanings and her desire for political allies on the Court and her intent, going forward, to use those allies to get to a majority that would overrule cases that recognize important constitutional rights — includingHeller, the case that says there is an individual right to bear arms.

And here’s where it becomes clear that the NYT editorial proceeds upon the second reason I posited above, that Justice Ginsburg’s particular political statements are dangerous and damaging to the political cause she and the NYT support. “In this election cycle in particular,” it’s important to keep voters believing that judges will be impartial and above politics, and here’s Ginsburg “call[ing] her own commitment to impartiality into question.” The Times tries to pass this off as Ginsburg “choos[ing] to descend toward [Trump’s] level,” but she’s not joining Trump, she’s proving him right: Judges are political, and that’s a bad thing. Perhaps Curiel didn’t deserve the criticism, but Ginsburg does, and it’s very irritating to the NYT, it would seem, because the Curiel incident was so effectively used against Trump, and then along comes Ginsburg displaying herself as pleased to be political.

Justice Ginsburg unethical behavior has provided a valuable service to the entire nature by allowing them to see that lie that the NY Times and other want to keep hidden.  The question becomes will the American people react the way the NYT and the left fears they will?

One can only hope but no matter how they do, rest assured the American people will get the president and the justice system we deserve.

Sorta Update: Justice Ginsburg has finally figured out she was not helping her cause.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Thursday she regrets remarks she made earlier this week to CNN and other news outlets criticizing presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said in a statement. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

The best part of this non-apology is it allowed Donald Trump the high ground in response:

“It wasn’t really an apology, but we have to move on anyway. It’s just something that should not have taken place,” the presumptive GOP presidential nominee said.

“It’s just a very disappointing moment for me because the Supreme Court is above that kind of rhetoric, those words. … But she acknowledged she made a mistake, and I’ll accept that.”

The greatest ally Trump has in this election are the people who oppose him.

I’m Old Enough to Remember When Big Spending on Ads won Elections

Do you remember when Jeb Bush won the 2016 GOP nomination due to his massive cash advantage and the massive amounts of money his superpacs spent on Ads?

Hillary Clinton and her allies continue to outspend Donald Trump and his backers over the airwaves by a 15-to-1 margin, according to ad-spending data from SMG Delta.

Team Clinton has spent $57 million on ads so far in the general election — $25 million coming from the campaign and another $32 million from pro-Clinton Super PACs.

By comparison, Team Trump has aired $3.6 million in ads, with all of the spending from two outside groups, the National Rifle Association ($2.3 million) and Rebuilding America Now ($1.3 million). The Trump campaign has yet to spend a single cent on ads so far in the general election

Well apparently according to Quinnipiac the voters in swing states don’t remember it either:

The presidential matchups show:

Florida – Trump at 42 percent to Clinton’s 39, compared to a 47 – 39 percent Clinton lead June 21;
Ohio – Clinton and Trump tied 41 – 41 percent, compared to a 40 – 40 percent tie June 21;
Pennsylvania – Trump at 43 percent to Clinton’s 41 percent, compared to June 21, when Clinton had 42 percent to Trump’s 41 percent. With third party candidates in the race, results are:
Florida – Trump leads Clinton 41 – 36 percent, with 7 percent for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 4 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein;
Ohio – Trump at 37 percent to Clinton’s 36 percent, with Johnson at 7 percent and Stein at 6 percent;
Pennsylvania – Trump over Clinton 40 – 34 percent with 9 percent for Johnson and 3 percent for Stein.

“Donald Trump enters the Republican Convention on a small roll in the three most important swing states in the country. He has wiped out Hillary Clinton’s lead in Florida; is on the upside of too-close to call races in Florida and Pennsylvania and is locked in a dead heat in Ohio,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

The PDF of the poll is here and just for fun this is the chart of the comparative spending in swing states from that NBC piece:


Two thoughts:

If Hillary is having this much trouble when she’s outspending trump 10-1 or more and with the media turning on him bigtime, what will happen once Trump actually starts to spend?

This chart and poll results are the single biggest threat to the consultant class that has come down the pike in decades.

Update: How bad is it for Hillary? Last night she Called into the O’Reilly Factor and took questions from Bill without restriction talking tough on terror.

If I was Jill Stein I’d be tweeting out that fact to the feel the bern crowd every hour on the hour from now till election day.

Donald Trump or Civil War, I Choose Trump

Robin Hood: You know, we Saxons aren’t gonna put up with these oppressions much longer.

The Adventures of Robin Hood 1938

For the second time in this election season the time has come to speak up.

I’ve really resisted endorsing Donald Trump for a long time.

I’ve been worried about his past record of liberalism (although given his primary business involved dealing with liberals in big cities such behavior might have been necessary for business reasons). I’ve been worried about his statements concerning planned parenthood & abortion (Although not only did Mitt Romney who I voted for flip on abortion, but Fr. Frank Pavone who I respect a lot has come out for Trump). I’ve been worried about his dealing with face cultures (Although with a long business recorded all over the world the idea that he doesn’t know how to diplomatically deal with difficult people is laughable) and finally I was disgusted by his attacks on Ted Cruz’s wife and his father, for which I have no answer in parentheses to provide as a counterpoint.

But the thing that has held me back beyond all others is unlike people like Scottie Nell Hughes or NH State Rep Al Baldasaro or Senator Jeff Sessions all of who I respect a lot I have no idea what his core beliefs are and don’t expect a private meeting anytime soon to assess them.

Thus voting for Trump becomes a leap of faith.

Of course there have been some significant pluses to Trump’s Campaign that should be acknowledged.

He has called Islamic Terror what it is at a time when the administration and the media are spinning, acknowledging what already exists is the first step in stopping it.

He has bluntly talked about the cost of illegal immigration at a time when stories like this are constantly ignored:

Did you hear about that mass shooting? No… not the one in Orlando. Not some Planned Parenthood clinic. Not even Bunny Friend Park. This one took place last week in the small town of Woodburn, Oregon. Three people were murdered in cold blood and fourth one was seriously injured. By the definitions established by the liberal media, this qualifies as a mass shooting. Yet I’m willing to bet that most of the country which gets its news from cable television doesn’t even know it happened. I wonder why?

The basic facts as we know them so far are that Bonifacio Oseguera-Gonzalez shot and killed three people, ages 60, 30 and 26, as well as shooting and injuring a fourth person, age 27. It all took place on a farm. But as KXL news informs us, there’s something of note about the shooter which may be making the story a bit less interesting to the media. (Emphasis added)

The man accused of shooting and killing three people and injuring a fourth on a blueberry farm outside of Woodburn, has been deported from the U.S. six times since 2003. The U.S. Immigration and Customes Enforcement spokeswoman says in a written statement:

And of course he FIGHTS, nobody has hit the media or Clinton like Donald Trump has and his willingness to do so has been the difference between some stories being ignored or not.  For example if Donald Trump was not running would the MSM have talked about the Katie Steinle murder at all?

But all these things were not enough to push me over the line without a face to face meeting that didn’t consist of a question or two asked at a press conference.

However the last 10 days, several factors have, in my opinion forced this decision on me.

The Supreme Court:

Several cases at the Supreme court came up of significance, we saw a key abortion case go to the left thanks to Justice Anthony (now you know why the left fought so hard to dump Bork ) Kennedy, We saw the Obama executive order on immigration only fall by a 4-4 tie. Between these and other cases that were not taken letting decisions by liberal judges stand I have come to the conclusion that, given the fact that the Obama appointees are ideologues and that Hillary Clinton’s appointments would be more of the same, the only chance for the constitution to be enforced as written is to keep her out of the oval office.

The Justice Department and Loretta Lynch:

From Fast and Furious to  the Black Panthers in Philly to the IRS Scandal and Lois Lerner the Justice Department and both Loretta Lynch and her predecessor have ignored or pooh poohed violations of law, refused to enforce or defend existing law and ignored attempts to use the power of the federal government to attack their political opponents.

The meeting with Bill Clinton might be the actions that has brought this to the forefront but this type of thing has been going on for nearly eight years and there is absolutely no reason to believe that if the left is rewarded with another four to eight years this will not continue.

Hillary Clinton:

Between Benghazi and the email server and the foreign donation to the Clinton foundation it has become clear that Mrs. Clinton would 1.  Use the White House and the presidency as  her own private slush fund.  2. Continue to use the power of the presidency to attack the civil rights of conservatives, particularly believing Christians of all denominations and gun owners for political reasons.  3.  Continue to protect radical Islam as it continues to march forward not only in America but overseas.

And none of that even begins to touch on what Bill Clinton will be doing during the 4 to 8 years.

The Media:

If we had a media in the cut of a Jake Tapper a Carl Cameron or a Byron York then a lot of the worries I’ve talked about would be mitigated, but that is not what he have.

We have a media that has at every turn defended this administration, turned a blind eye to scandal, relentlessly misrepresented events and actions and acted as the political wing of the radical left, Democrats with Bylines is the word that’s been used.  The two final straws were the Orlando attack and the Bill Clinton Loretta Lynch meeting.

When the left and the Democrats tried to turn an Islamic Terror attack into a gun control event and blame Republicans and christians for these killings, did the media challenge them?  Did they point to the radicalization of the shooter, the Father’s radical pronouncements, the wife’s escape and more?  No they went along whole hog with this false narrative for the same reason they advanced a false narrative at Benghazi, because it is an election year and they feared the truth would hurt the Democrat party.

Not as deadly physically but just as deadly to the republic was their reaction to the Loretta Lynch meeting with Bill Clinton to talk about the Grandchildren Ms. Lynch doesn’t have.  With the notable exception of Mika Brzezinski the spin to defend the Clinton and to buy the “oh we just bumped into each other” BS was astounding.  And for the few on the left who did object, their object was based solely on optics that might affect the election.

I submit and suggest we will not have a media that challenges misdeeds in Washington until and unless the GOP is in the White House.


All of this points to the necessity of Trump but there is one other factor that I think is even more decisive.  It’s a subject I brought up a few years ago.

American culture traditionally is like an old Popeye cartoon. It takes hit after hit after hit until finally it exclaims:

I think the breaking point is near, I think there are a lot of people in this country who are deciding that the Government is openly hostile to them.  I think that the sight of women and gay men being beaten by leftists because they support the presumptive GOP nominee, having it happen in full sight of police ordered to do nothing AND SEEING THOSE OFFICERS CHOOSING TO LET THEM BE BEATEN means that they can not count on the authorities to obey their oaths of office if they think doing so might cost them their jobs.

Even worse than this is the obvious question it raises: If leftists are willing to resort to violence and boast about it before an election when it might hurt their ability to persuade the people to vote for them, how much more willing will they be to violently suppress their political foes when such behavior is rewarded with electoral victory by the people?

What will that tell a populace that has already been arming itself nonstop for the last 4-6 years?

Three years ago I quoted the blog Camp of the Saints in speaking about the results of ignoring the use of the IRS to suppress conservatives.


people are going to start concluding this:

The government of The United States is not legitimate.

Act accordingly.

That’s all he can stands, he can’t stands no more!

If enough people start thinking that in our well armed society, bad things happen. I really don’t think the left sees this danger or if they do perhaps they have decided that an armed paramilitary IRS etc is the way to solve it.

Things have already gotten worse, we’ve already had bloodshed in the west and we’re reached the point where the Clintons are even bothering to hide it anymore (please don’t insult my intelligence in suggesting that Bill Clinton is stupid enough to think his meeting with Lynch would get out, he knew it would) I submit and suggest he wanted to send the message that this is the way it is and there’s nothing you can do it.

I think if these people are elected before the end of a second term enough Americans will decide if they are not going to lose their rights without a fight and there will be bloodshed on a scale we haven’t seen in over 150 years.

And even if it doesn’t come to that, if somehow the Clintons are wise enough to show restraint enough to keep this from happening, the paralysis at home will embolden Al Qaeda, ISIS the Russians, the North Koreans the Iranians and the Chinese. I think we are going to see nuclear proliferation on a global scale because nations will decide a paralyzed US that believes its own citizens are it’s primary enemy can’t or won’t protect them, I think is very possible Israel will be put in the position where they will have to choose between a nuclear first strike or their destruction.

I suspect I and a lot of the faithful will have to spend a lot of the next 8 years praying, fasting and begging God to help both our country and the world avoid this horrible fate but while spiritual steps to prevent these catastrophes are good and proper temporal steps must also be taken.

And the single best temporal step will be the election of Donald Trump and the breaking of the power of those Americans who have decided their fellow citizens are the enemy.

Again I don’t take this step lightly, I know that there will be times that Donald Trump will disappointment me just as I expected Mitt Romney to disappoint me on social issues and John McCain to disappoint me on immigration and George W Bush who disappointed me on spending and the bank bailouts.

But while Trump will occasionally disappoint me (when he does I’ll call him on it) I am convinced he will neither persecute me nor strip me of my rights for holding my Conservative Catholic beliefs and acting on them.

I am very sorry to say I can not make that same statement about Hillary Clinton, and I’m even sorrier to see the day when I would say this about a presidential candidate.

I suspect a lot of people on the right see the very same thing that I do coming and don’t want to admit it either out of fear or in the vain hope that pretending these things are not happening will keep them from happening.

That is no way to deal with an unpleasant reality, the only way to do so is to admit it and act upon it and the time to act and speak is now before the GOP convention not after.

Therefore I am voting for Donald J Trump for president, and I encourage you, whatever your misgivings to do the same, because if we reward the behavior of the left and their press enablers for their actions during the Obama years, the Hillary years will make the previous eight seem like a walk in the park.


Well the year his half over and despite a horrible June (My worst traffic month in many years) We are still way over our pace at this time last year and slightly over the previous six months here at DaTechGuy Blog the first six months of last year.

DaTipJar however continues to lag, sitting at 20.95% of our annual goal or less that half of where we might hope to be by now.

I’d like to think we do good work here If you’d like to help us keep up the pace please consider hitting DaTipJar

[olimometer id=3]

Please consider Subscribing. If less than 1/3 of 1% of our readers subscribed at $10 a month we’d have the 114.5 subscribers needed to our annual goal all year without solicitation.

Plus of course all subscribers get my weekly podcast emailed directly to you before it goes up anywhere else.

Choose a Subscription level