After the impeachment verdict was delivered, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once again interjected her opinion into the political world.
Ginsburg was obviously not happy with the outcome, stating, “I can give an example of our own legislature: The US Senate was once a model of civility and good fellowship, readiness to compromise for the good of the public.
“Today it’s divided sharply, but when I remember back to how it once was, I am hopeful.”
Yeah, that was before Republicans found their backbone and refused to stand up to all the Democrat nonsense!
Silent During the Impeachment
One could take Ginsburg’s opinion a bit more seriously if she had chimed in at all during the House hearings.
When the Democrats were railroading Trump and rigging the hearings by not allowing Republicans to call their own witnesses, she was silent as a church mouse.
Ginsburg did later say that she would hope that both parties would figure a way to work all of this out.
She stated, “So I am hopeful that people of goodwill in both of our parties will say, ‘We have had enough of dysfunction. Let’s work together for the good of all of the people who compose the nation.'”
Depoliticizing the Judiciary
There was another comment I found rather interesting from Ginsburg and it goes to a point I have been making for some time.
Today, our judiciary has become more political than ever before.
When you look up and down the rulings during this administration, you can name the outcome long before it ever goes before a judge.
If it is a conservative-appointed judge, the ruling goes down in favor of Trump and if it is a liberal-appointed judge, the ruling goes against Trump.
That, quite frankly, is not how the judiciary is supposed to work.
President Trump has called out the judiciary for being biased based on ideology and he is 100 percent correct and the record of the cases decided both for and against him is proof of that.
Ginsburg seemed offended by that comment, stating, “Vital to the rule of law in any land is an independent judiciary, judges who are not under the thumb of other branches of government — the executive and legislative power holders — and therefore equipped to administer justice impartially.”
The problem, though, is that what she says and does are two different things.
I can look over the SCOTUS docket for upcoming cases and predict how Ginsburg will vote in just about every case.
How nine people can see the same case so differently is baffling to me, considering they are all supposed to use the same precedent and Constitution as their guideline.
The liberal ideology, however, has twisted things so far out of whack, the rule of law today means nothing.