I'm just going to take her at her word until I have reason not to.
Does she have a history of being dishonest?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg tells it like it is
- Thread starter mjvcaj
- Start date
I'm just going to take her at her word until I have reason not to.
Does she have a history of being dishonest?
I have no idea. She's supposed to be an intelligent lady so I assume she understood what she was saying the first time.
Is she becoming senile? The original question shouldn't have been too hard for her.
Unlike many on the right who 'just know' I generally look for some support for an idea. I have never known RBG to be a waffler or dishonest so I will take her word for it.
That's a possibility. Seems unlikely for a smart lady. Maybe she should have said my gut reaction was my first statement and after I considered the fallout my gut reaction was wrong.
How is it unlikely? She gave a classic non-apology apology. "I regret saying it in the manner I did." That's basically all she said. Big deal.
The only big deal is the left doesn't allow her to make the original statement. If she felt that way a non-apology apology wasn't needed. Really shouldn't be a problem for all the justices to be human and say what they think sometimes.
If that's the only big deal, then why are you asking inane questions about which of her two statements was honest?
Because she has to appease her party, even if she doesn't agree with everything. She, like far too many in this country, feel the need to abide by party politics in every instance, instead of selectively.
Why? Because we are a divided nation that is only growing further apart and more sick of the other side. Party support is everything when you have a flawed two party system.
All she said was, "Yeah, that came off a bit harsh, and I wish I hadn't said it."
Gods, you people sure know how to milk a sound bite.
You mean like how most of the pubs aren't openly supporting Trump, yet refuse to pull their previous endorsements of him
. If that's not "political correctness", I'm not sure what qualifies. It's trying to have it both ways- and not really taking a position on it. Contrast that with Ginsburg. She never really backed off what she said. She merely said she regretted saying it in the MANNER in which she said it. She still meant it. And if bet if you asked her again, she'd tell you she meant it. She's appointed for life, after all. Why would she play political games now?
Contrast that with what Ryan, McConnell and others in the pub leadership are doing. It's not the same thing. At all.
Draw it as out a logic puzzle. It'll make more sense then. At least that exercise sometimes helps me realize distinctions in situations.
You mean she is apologizing for calling someone a dumbass in a way that wasn't PC?
No, that is not PC, it's that people put party above everything and that is the biggest problem our country has. People don't think, they just follow whatever their party supports.
RBG is on the court because
She had an ACLU pedigree and she is a female. She is not the brightest bulb on the tree. She is given to say off the wall things when her robes are off.
She and Scalia were best friends on the court. That's more telling then anything you could tell us.
You...of all people....agree that it's a problem? The ultimate in party water carriers.
That's very rich.
They were, so what?
Only the left thinks it is remarkable when friendship bridges ideology. Is that why you say their friendship is "more telling"?
A close friendship between an extremely intelligent SC judge and another SC judge has all the hallmarks of that other judge being extremely intelligent. My point has nothing to do with ideology but rather with being intelligent and having experienced close friendships with intelligent people.
One can be friends with all walks of life. A person is as rich as he has friends. The depth of any given friendship depends on various factors. For anyone who's delved into friendship deeply, my assertion in the previous post is patently obvious and there's nothing to argue about or dispute.
Of course I read it.... did you? You liberals need to quit being so worried about being PC.
Let me tell you a secret. This will help you out in the future. Here it is: not every single thing any liberal ever says or does has anything to do with political correctness.
We are at the point where PC is just something you say when you have nothing intelligent to add, but feel a desire to insult liberals, anyway.
No, it's something I say when you insult conservatives every way you can. If you can't take it don't dish it out.
Good grief
I didn't say she is unintelligent; I said she is not the brightest bulb on the tree. There are 100's of smart people who are judges and are not good judges.
You pulled the same sophistry twice in a row. I see these things, Lawyer Guy. I said "best friends," which you generalized to "friends" in your response. I said "extremely intelligent" which you generalized to "intelligent" and defended the opposite.
I gave solid evidence that Scalia considered her one of the brightest bulbs on the tree. You give nothing but _________ Derangement Syndrome.
Incidentally, this:
is non sequitor to this:
If being smart does not guarantee quality judging, then why would you judge her judging based on her smarts?
Get on that tandem, CoH, and take a looooooooong ride. The air will do you well.
Last edited:
If I said RBG is
one brick shy of a load, you both would have a point. But I didn't say that, I deliberately said she is not the brightest bulb on the tree. If you don't see the difference, maybe this will help. The SCOTUS tree is full of bright bulbs. A load of bricks is either a full load or not and you don't need to compare it to other loads.
"Not the _____est _____ in/on the ______" is a common formation in English that comes in near countless varieties, but they all mean the same thing: stupid. To suggest that you were only talking about the SCOTUS tree, and that all you're saying is that she isn't the most intelligent of the eight current SCOTUS justices is patently ridiculous. Either you were calling her stupid, and now you're trying to walk it back, or you're extremely sloppy with the English language.
I meant EXACTLY what I said
RBG is not the brightest bulb on th tree. If you don't understand what the tree is in this metaphor don't blame me.
Meh.
You blatantly used this phrase knowing exactly what it would be inferred as. Your doubling down insisting you weren't calling her unintelligent makes YOU look unintelligent.
We agree Goat that it wasn't much of an apology. But, the fact that she felt the need to try and downplay the original comment loses respect in my book.
Only because you're assuming a dishonorable motive (namely, that she feels the need to deflect unwanted/unwarranted attacks from liberals). If you take her at her word - that she simply felt bad that her remarks came off as dismissive - then there is no reason to lose respect for her.
Idioms and cliches. Their meaning has been set in stone by conventional usage, and you don't get to redefine them. Either you were calling her stupid, or you're bad at words.
Also, I find it humorous that you claim you "meant EXACTLY what" you said...in a metaphor.
You mean like how most of the pubs aren't openly supporting Trump, yet refuse to pull their previous endorsements of him
Contrast that with Ginsburg. She never really backed off what she said. She merely said she regretted saying it in the MANNER in which she said it. She still meant it. And if bet if you asked her again, she'd tell you she meant it. She's appointed for life, after all. Why would she play political games now?
Contrast that with what Ryan, McConnell and others in the pub leadership are doing. It's not the same thing. At all.
Draw it as out a logic puzzle. It'll make more sense then. At least that exercise sometimes helps me realize distinctions in situations.
I doubt you can find many that will defend the GOP establishment. There is a reason Trump gained popularity and won the primary. It isn't because of his politics.
I despise both parties and there is nothing worse to me than someone that doesn't have the cajones to create their own set of values and stick to it, even if that means they are against their party on a couple of issues.
Sidebar:
I blame the nationalization of the parties (and especially of election funding) for this. It's harder and harder to be a moderate, because it's more difficult than ever to win with only funding from within your district. If you take the wrong stance on abortion or guns, for example, you run the risk of your party not making a serious attempt to support your candidacy, and if your opponent does have his party's support, you're basically screwed.
It's a little easier to be an extremist. The GOP isn't likely to abandon you for being "too pro-choice and too pro-gun," for example. But that's only going to work in districts where your extremism will be acceptable, anyway.
I didn't.
Although I just read it, and I agree with the mod who did delete it, and I disagree with you claiming it explained anything.
You used a cliche that means "stupid." Now you're claiming you intended it to mean something else. Either own up to your original comment or don't, but don't sit here and give us this bullshit about how it's our fault we didn't understand your misuse of a cliche.
As I explained
If I say you are not the brightest bulb on the tree, you would be wrong to believe I think you are the equal to RBG. Brightest bulb on the tree, the way I said it, necessarily applies to a discrete set.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
So we have Justice Alito flying upside down flags. We have Trump dry humping our Flag.
- Latest: HeyThereHoosiers
-
-
