Gray-overcast this early Wednesday on California’s north coast, an air of moisture and fog.
The NWS, though, calls today, ‘Sunny,’ reacting to all the sunshine and nearly-clear skies slated for this afternoon — nice, too, with a ocean breeze.
Not nice at all, and maybe creates a bit of nausea (via Politico): ‘New swing-state polls released Wednesday by Quinnipiac University show Trump leading Clinton in Florida and Pennsylvania — and tied in the critical battleground state of Ohio.’
Frightful, and hopeful polls like this are too early in the season for reality at the end — because Ruth Bader Ginsburg nailed it: ‘“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president…For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”‘
Unveil the big-old “faker…”
(Illustration: Pablo Picasso’s ‘The Tragedy,’ found here).
Ginsburg explained in plain English: ‘“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.”‘
Despite the truth of the matter, some legal-asses got their panties in a bind, and scolded her — fuck them.
The media allowed such a turd as the “shit stain” to get this far in the process, and fuck them, too.
Mark Joseph Stern at Slate yesterday afternoon also explains:
Critics on the left and right have criticized Ginsburg’s comments as explosive, unprecedented, and unethical.
That’s the point.
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.
Pretty much covers it…