But it started because of the OPs interest and disagreement with my position. How can I be improperly responding if I’m just reiterating and explaining my position that sparked the OP to start this thread?
Because the OP is trying to separate out the two issues, and you’re insisting that they can’t be separated. I don’t know why, since an admission that she opposed Trump is not an admission that she must recuse herself.
No he isn’t-he’s trying to justify his opinion from the first thread with the poll positions he hoped to get from this thread.
I’m saying that the meaning of “opposition” hasn’t changed context from the other thread.
If the OP means the word in a different context, then my position might be different, but I think it’s reasonable to assume the context is the same since it’s a spin off from that thread and started because of my response in that thread.
Those are not mutually exclusive. So far, he seems to be winning.
So you agree with the OP, that Ginsburg’s statements could/should be considered “opposition” in the context of the discussion in the other thread? Or do you think this thread had nothing to do with that context, and the OP is only asking about “opposition” in a more general sense?
The “opposition” in the context of the discussion in the other thread was:
“(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:
…
(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office”
Ginsburg’s statements were clearly (IMO) a public opposition to the candidate for public office. That is what the question was about.
Okay, then I’ve correctly interpreted your intent, and I stand by my position.
It’s not “intent”. It is clear language.
And I know your position. I’m glad you’re in a minority. Even on this board.
Thank you. If it makes you feel any better, I’m glad you’re in the minority in most of your positions on this board as well.
I think that she needn’t recuse herself from the case in question, even though her statements unambiguously show her opposition to Trump. Besides being able to read plain English, I don’t think she would have apologized otherwise.
See how easy that was? 
You didn’t really answer my question – dodging is always easy ;).
I agree that her comments were inappropriate, and an apology was warranted, and I believe with near-certainty that she personally opposed Trump’s elections, but I also believe that her comments (which I characterize as sarcastic and indirect expressions of worry about Trump) don’t constitute anything close to “opposition or endorsement” in the context of the discussion about possible recusal.
Bad Ginsburg for making such inappropriate comments! Good Ginsburg for apologizing!
That’s because it was the wrong question. I answered the correct one.
The context is irrelevant. (Why am I tempted to write “you will be assimilated” after that?)
Apologies. Please, next time, let me know in advance what question I should ask. Actually, you can even skip that step – just ignore my questions and ask yourself the “correct” questions… that way I wouldn’t have to waste time by trying to communicate my obviously inferior and pathetic thoughts!
I’m so baffled by this that I can’t even come up with any snark.
Oh, I’m just pulling your leg a bit because I think you’re overthinking the whole thing. It’s pretty simple to look at the words and draw your won conclusions.
I believe you. The context might matter if it were determinative in terms of her recusal. But it’s not, and so it doesn’t.
Sure, but I didn’t think that’s what this thread was actually about, and the OP’s later clarification confirms (IMO) that my interpretation was asking about. I can’t figure out how to think of it any differently.
(From the other thread: I have no problem is saying that despite these words, RBG should not recuse herself except in some extremely unlikely and narrow hypothetical cases, so narrow I can’t even craft the hypo.)
For this thread: I have no problem saying that RBG’s quotes indicate a clear opposition to Trump’s candidacy.
See? Easy peasy.
Do you think the OP is trying to trick you into agreeing that RGB must recuse herself if you fall into the trap of saying her words indicate opposition to Trump’s candidacy?
If the OP is trying such a trick, he’d dead wrong. It just doesn’t work that way for RGB.
No; I don’t think my position really has any bearing on whether or not she should recuse herself (as Bricker noted). But that doesn’t mean I should change my belief.
OK. If she wasn’t trying to communication opposition to Trump, can you tell us what meaning you think she was trying to convey when she said: “I don’t even want to contemplate that [a Trump presidency]”.