phgreek
New member
- Messages
- 6,956
- Reaction score
- 433
Oh, I see. Yeah, that is a really interesting point by Millman and definitely a fair reading of her comments.
Personally, I don't agree with his reading though, and I don't think she made her comments about Trump for any sort of strategic purpose. The "she is getting old and forgot herself" explanation is probably closer to the truth, but there's something else going on there.
Jeffrey Toobin has written and spoken about how RBG is a naturally shy and retiring person whose husband Marty Ginsburg (a great tax/bankruptcy lawyer in his own right) was the funny, outgoing one in their relationship. When he died in 2010, she dealt with his death, in part, by becoming more like him. She started to speak out more and be more outgoing. That more outspoken attitude is what has earned her this "Notorious RBG" persona people are hanging on her in recent years. These Trump comments are growing out of that. She even mentioned her husband in her comments to the papers about Trump.
Again, her comments are TOTALLY inappropriate and out of keeping with judicial ethics. I just think the reaction is a little overblown at this point because she hasn't objected to Trump's policies; she has just objected to him personally. That seems less likely, as a practical matter, to affect her judicial decision-making.
I guess I'm a little raw over pants suit lucifer skating on the email debacle, and the machinations the justice department went through to let her off. But I gotta ask...when is an ethical or rules based transgression really just that, on its face. And when do rules apply?