TOM DAVIES: The Verdict — No Need For The Notorious RBG To Apologize

Donald Trump, the media talking heads and the media in general have their collective heads up their behinds. While this might seem a little harsh, I can’t use the language I would like to use.

Lawrence O’Donnell and Rachel Maddow of MSNBC have done their homework. Here’s what I’m talking about.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, aka “the notorious RBG,” expressed her personal opinion of Donald Trump. In his usual fashion, Trump replied by saying her mind was shot and she should resign. (He is, of course, an expert on shot minds.) Then the man who states he never apologizes demanded that she apologize … to him.

After much media commentary, Justice Ginsburg said her comments on Trump were “ill-advised.” This feisty judge obviously has class. She did not need to apologize … but you would never know that from the flurry of broadcast commentary by the so-called media constitutional scholars, aka talking heads.

These not-so-well-informed legal minds were quick to declare it was unethical for her to comment, though there is no Code of Ethics or Code of Professional Conduct for the Supreme Court. They went on to claim that no Supreme Court judge had ever gotten involved in politics before.

A legal scholar is defined as “one who has thorough knowledge and experience of law, especially an eminent judge, lawyer or legal scholar.” One would assume that such a scholar would research and study the issue before shooting from the mouth before the brain has been fed.

I didn’t know until recently that Justice Ginsburg, one of my all-time favorite Supreme Court judges, is the same height as my all-time favorite federal judge, Ronald N. Davies. Both are 5 feet, 1 inch tall. Yet each casts a giant shadow. If you had the brains God gave a goat, you wouldn’t mess with them — Donald Trump excepted. He does not have the brains God gave a goat, and I don’t want to offend goats.

I’ve found people short in person and gigantic in stature are great role models. So let’s take a look at the facts: Remember that those self-styled media legal experts, except O’Donnell and Maddow, claim that no justices had ever previously been involved in political events ….

Political Lesson No. 1: Our first chief justice, John Jay, both ran for and was elected governor of New York while he was still a sitting justice. He lost in his first attempt. Only when he won on the second attempt did he step down.

Political Lesson No. 2: Justice David Davis ran for president in 1877. He narrowly avoided a congressional tie-breaker by accepting a position as senator.

Political Lesson No. 3: Justice Charles Hughes ran, as a sitting justice, for president against Woodrow Wilson. He lost. Later, he became secretary of state. After serving as a diplomat, he returned to the Supreme Court to become chief justice.

Political Lesson No. 4: It was not necessarily political, but surely fell outside the function of the judiciary, when Chief Justice Earl Warren chaired the Warren Commission, which investigated the assassination of John F. Kennedy. And when Justice Robert Jackson prosecuted the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

One can speak their disagreement or show it by their actions. Take, for instance, current sitting Justice Samuel Alito, who during President Obama’s 2010 State of the Union address, clearly expressed his displeasure at the president’s criticism of the court’s Citizens United decision with his facial expression. (In fairness to Alito, I don’t think it was appropriate, either, for the president to criticize a decision of the Supreme Court while they were in attendance en masse, listening to his speech.)

And what about the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a witty, funny, likable and competent jurist? A regular on Fox News, the Republican media outlet; Scalia attended Koch Brothers gatherings, accepted trips from lobbyists and actually died during an all-expenses-paid vacation at a private hunting club.

The evidence and precedents are clear. Yet the even lofty New York Times and Washington Post went right along with the so-called “scholars” the TV media featured in chiding Justice Ginsburg for speaking her mind.

Goodness! Even The Forum published a guest editorial from Bloomberg without checking its facts. It was full of the same erroneous, one-sided BS.

I was taught to treat my elders with respect, though at 77 I don’t have all that many left. Justice Ginsburg is 83 years young. She is bright, funny, alert and extremely talented and active on our Supreme Court. For Donald Dimwit to refer to her as “having a shot mind” only demonstrates that he himself is an expert by virtue of “shot mind.” Anyone with any knowledge would understand that this feisty female judge is of both the soundest mind and body.

Why would anyone would criticize her for telling the truth? I’m mystified. What did she say, anyway? “Trump is a faker” — good lord, if you just follow his business history, you can see that remark is TRUE. And she joked about moving to New Zealand if Trump was elected. Oh, horrors, poor Dippy Donald went berserk at that!

Justice Ginsburg spoke the truth in her comments, and that’s what drives her critics nuts. I, for one, applaud her comments. Unlike Supreme Court justices, I was bound — as a municipal judge — by the Canon of Ethics and Conduct that kept me out of the political arena (kinda). After 45 years of the professional muzzle from which I am now freed, it’s nice to be able to express myself — whether you agree with my opinions or you don’t.

Justice Ginsburg, if your mind is shot, we should all be so lucky to have exactly the same kind of shot minds!

* * *

It was neat to notice that Trump may be filing another bankruptcy to pay for the GOP National Convention, since he’s broke unless the Koch Brothers come to his rescue. They seem to think too much of this country to support that clown.

Wow! Trump picks Mike Pence as his vice presidential choice! Pence is being clobbered in his home state of Indiana; he might well have lost his reelection bid as governor. So he has tied his mule to Donny Doofus. That eliminates any doubt that in November he will be officially unemployed.

Remember what I said a few weeks ago: You will know if there is any chance that Trump will win election because, if that seems possible, both Canada and Mexico will start building walls to keep the Yankees from fleeing across their borders. Not to worry, though. That isn’t going to happen.

One final note: Have you noticed that when female dogs pee, it kills the grass, but male dogs don’t? Two male dogs live next door, and there’s not a dead spot in sight. My female dog has been killing the lawn as fast as I can plant. Suggestions?

OK, I’m off to the lake to work on all those projects I’ve put off for years. Amen.

3 thoughts on “TOM DAVIES: The Verdict — No Need For The Notorious RBG To Apologize”

  • Jean Schmith July 27, 2016 at 11:28 pm

    Tom, another insightful commentary. Thank you for taking time to read, reflect, and write. Your thoughts are much appreciated.

    1. Thomas A. Davies July 28, 2016 at 2:20 pm

      Thanks Jean, it’s nice of have an awesome sister, and that would be you.

  • schmithj July 28, 2016 at 12:15 pm

    Tom, thank you for your reflection and your writing. Given the state of the nation–the state of the upcoming presidential elections–and the state of the world in general, it’s refreshing to hear a reasonable voice


Leave a Reply