I felt a great disturbance in the Force.
The New York Times has an editorial (not an op-ed or a column, the newspaper's main editorial representing its position as an institution), headlined Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Wow. Who would have thought we would read the words "Donald Trump is right" in a New York Times editorial about anything, but especially about one of the Left's favorite jurists.
The New York Times has an editorial (not an op-ed or a column, the newspaper's main editorial representing its position as an institution), headlined Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Wow. Who would have thought we would read the words "Donald Trump is right" in a New York Times editorial about anything, but especially about one of the Left's favorite jurists.
Mr. Trump's hands, of course, are far from clean on the matter of judicial independence. It was just weeks ago that he was lambasting Gonzalo Curiel, the United States District Court judge overseeing a case against Trump University, saying that as a "Mexican," the Indiana-born judge could not be impartial.Disturbance number two: Your humble blogger agrees with an NYT editorial. I can't remember the last time that happened. Another previously reliable contrarian indicator goes awry.
All of which makes it only more baffling that Justice Ginsburg would choose to descend toward his level and call her own commitment to impartiality into question. Washington is more than partisan enough without the spectacle of a Supreme Court justice flinging herself into the mosh pit.
Fear not, Kent. The NYT knows what it's doing. The polls have tightened considerably now that Comey has explained that Hillary is a liar of epic proportions. A very close election is not an unrealistic possibility at this point.
If we get another Bush v. Gore (unlikely but no longer impossible), Hillary will need every SCOTUS vote she can get. As the NYT knows, if Justice Ginsburg continues in her anti-Trump ways, there will be enormous pressure for her to recuse herself.
And what does that mean? It means a greater likelihood that Trump wins Bush v. Gore II by a vote of 4-3.
The NYT knows exactly what it's doing.
Interesting theory, but I'm not buying it.
Jonathan Adler at VC speculates that Justice Ginsburg disqualified herself from a future Trump v. Clinton just to avoid a tie. Pretty sure it's tongue-in-cheek.
Ginsburg has beclowned herself. She is unfit.