The late Sam Kinison, reflecting on his own failed marriages, once included the following line in his act, “I don’t condone wife beating, but I understand it.”

I was reminded of Kinison’s attempt at shock humor as the discussion unfolded concerning Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s comments about Donald Trump’s fitness to be president.  Even if you agree with her sentiments, it was both inappropriate and unnecessary.  Not only must justice be blind, it must be apolitical.  I am no Pollyanna and know this is not the case, otherwise Merrick Garland would be a sitting justice.  But it is the ideal to which the Court should strive.

To their credit, several Hillary Clinton supporters and Democratic officials such as Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy chastised Ginsburg for her inital comments to the Associated Press and later in a CNN interview.

Those who chose to defend Ginsburg made the following arguments.  The politicization of the Court began with Gore v. Bush.  And where was the outrage when the late Antonin Scalia would go hunting with Vice President Cheney when the court was deliberating over the process by which Cheney had developed the Bush Administration energy policy?  Even if these events raise legitimate concerns about the impartiality of the Court, they do not justify Ginsburg’s actions.  The last time I checked, “Two wrongs STILL do not make a right.”

Which brings me back to Kinison.  While I do not condone what Justice Ginsberg did, I’m trying to understand it.  And then I remembered this is not the first time Ginsberg has seemed out of character.  Many of her staunchest fans were shocked to learn of her close personal and professional relationship with Justice Scalia.  Polar opposites in terms of ideological bent, both appreciated each others’ knowledge of history and the law and their respective ability to craft legal arguments based on fact and reason.

The second factor may have been the negative synchronicity associated with the decision by Donald Trump to re-tweet the now infamous Hillary/Jewish Star/Money image on July 2nd, the day Elie Wiesel died.  Was Justice Ginsburg driven by Wiesel’s admonition that silence, intentional or complicit, was largely responsible for the rise of the Third Reich?  As a student of history, was she concerned that Trump’s action empowered and legitimized white supremacists and neo-Nazis who see him as their “glorious leader?” (Source: The Daily Stormer)  Was she even more disgusted when the neo-Nazi chat room (Chan8.net/pol/) which originally posted the Clinton image on June 22, included an anonymous post referencing Wiesel’s death which stated, “Ding Dong the Wicked Kike is Dead?”

If that is case, I still do not condone what Justice Ginsburg did, but I certainly understand it.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP