- And “Ginsberg Is Not a President”, Mr. Trump Could Have Responded
- And “the Justice is not a Senator or a constitutionalist” we would add
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave a brief answer earlier this week to a President Trump tweet earlier this month suggesting he could appeal to the Supreme Court to stop impeachment proceedings.
“The president is not a lawyer,” Ginsburg said Monday.
— On Dec. 2, Trump tweeted, “I read the Republicans Report on the Impeachment Hoax. Great job! Radical Left has NO CASE. Read the Transcripts. Shouldn’t even be allowed. Can we go to Supreme Court to stop?”
“He’s not law-trained,” Ginsburg continued at a New York City event where she was being honored, according to the BBC.
“The truth is, the judiciary is a reactive institution,” she said. “We don’t have a program, we don’t have an agenda. We react to what’s out there.”
And thus was the solemn pronouncement from on high by the Supreme Court’s oldest (86), and most liberal Justice
But, then, “Ruthie” turned around and ‘advised’ the Senate on their prerogatives:
“Ginsburg also suggested that senators who show bias on impeachment should not be allowed to serve as jurors in the impeachment trial.
“If a judge said that, a judge would be disqualified from sitting on the case,” she added.”
“THE JUSTICE IS NOT A SENATOR”, WOULD CERTAINLY SEEM TO BE AN APPROPRIATE RESPONSE IN OUR OPINION
Numerous members of the Senate of both parties have already stated their opinion on Trump’s impeachment even though the trial isn’t expected to be held until January, if the House follows through with impeachment this week.
——————————–
IN THIS WORLD, IT SEEMS TO BE ACCEPTED FORM AND PROPRIETY TO NOT ONLY ‘RESPECT’ THE JUDUCIARY (AND WITH THAT, THE ‘LEGAL PROFESSION’ TO AN EXTENT), BUT TO BOW DOWN IN ABJECT ACQUIESCENCE TO ITS ALWAYS WISE PRONOUNCEMENTS AND DICTATES ??.
In the vignette setforth above Justice Ginsberg seems to seek to reinforce that concept: “The President is NOT a LAWYER…you may now feel free to gaze upon my countenance”, she seems to say.
How many times, before someone wishes to make an observation on a legal action taken by some judge or attorney, have you heard them say, almost apologetically, “I’m not a lawyer, but…”, as though saying, “I know I have no right…and certainly not the wisdom…to suggest that the judge erred, or the lawyer was off base in his remarks…”
Donald Trump is often described as ‘unpresidential’, in part because he doesn’t show such undeserved deference to lawyers and judges. That’s one of the many things I like about 
him! And that has nothing to do with being “presidential”…that’s just being “human’ and having good old common sense.
And thus, let me say, “I’m not a lawyer”, and I don’t know if Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberly Strassel is or not; however, in my ‘oh so humble’ opinion, Ms. Strassel is right on target in her column this Friday: dlh
FISA COURT OWES SOME ANSWERS (excerpt, pay wall)
The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court this week blasted the Federal Bureau of Investigation for “misconduct” in the Carter Page surveillance warrant. Some would call this accountability. Others will more rightly call it the FISC’s “shocked to find gambling” moment.
Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer issued her four-page rebuke of the FBI Tuesday, after a Justice Department inspector general report publicly exposing the FBI’s abuses. The judge blasted the FBI for misleading the court by providing “unsupported or contradicted” information and by withholding exculpatory details about Mr. Page. The FISC noted the seriousness of the conduct and gave the FBI until Jan. 10 to explain how it will do better.
The order depicts a court stunned to discover that the FBI failed in its “duty of candor,” and angry it was duped. That’s disingenuous. To buy it, you’d have to believe that not one of the court’s 11 members—all federal judges—caught a whiff of this controversy until now. More importantly, you’d have to ignore that the court was directly informed of the FBI’s abuses nearly two years ago. . . . .
