I can’t wait for Okrahoma to open a third thread on this same subject. But what forum will THAT one be in?
I think she was communicating opposition in the general sense, but that’s not the context of this discussion. The OP was asking about “opposition or endorsement” in the sense of the recusal discussion, and I don’t think her comments qualify, vague and sarcastic as they were.
Maybe you don’t know what ‘sarcasm’ is.
If I say “Hillary’s unspeakably vulgar.” that’s an opinion, not sarcasm. If I say “Donald ought to be locked up for his business frauds.” that’s potentially libellous, but a wish, not sarcasm. If I say “Ruth has a firm grasp of reality for someone her age.” that might well be sarcasm.
Why are we even discussing Ginsburg?
According to Eric Trump, she’s not even a person.
That’s because RBG is our new cyborg leader.
I’m not sure it matters. Other Supreme Court justices have made their opposition to Presidents pretty clear. Both Justices Scalia and Thomas come to mind with things they said about Obama and his policies. Also, Ginsburg was only saying what the vast majority of Americans, including a great many Republicans, were saying at the time. This is America, people are allowed to voice their opposition.
Can you explain the difference between “opposition” and “opposition in general”?
If you think about it for a minute, what she said was much stronger than just opposition. I was opposed to Mitt Romney. During the campaign, I would have said “I oppose Mitt Romney and will vote against him”. However, I could think about a Romney presidency without feeling a sense of dread or fear. I think he would have been an OK president. Had I said “I can’t even imagine what it would mean for the country”, that would have been voicing stronger opposition than the simpler statement.
But I’m genuinely curious about this “opposition in general” concept and how it differs from “opposition”.
My specific use of “opposition” (as to the “in general” use) refers to the context of the discussion about judicial ethics and a prohibition on public “opposition or endorsement”, for which I don’t think such a vague and off-the-cuff statement qualifies.
Depends on whether it’s:
Assholes who disagree that Ginsburg should recuse herself for her statements opposing Trump can eat shit
Speak to me about Ginsburg and Trump in song lyrics
or
For Sale: Handwritten manifesto - * 'Should Ginsburg Recuse Herself Over Her Statements About Trump?" and 999 Other Less Successful Partisan Gotcha Questions*
Yes, obviously. And not like it makes a difference. She has no more personal interest in Trump’s candidacy and election than any one else. It is a stupid thing for any judge to make such comments though.
The last one will be shut down since he can’t start a thread in The Marketplace.
So the “in general” actually had no meaning, and could be removed from your statement without changing your argument. Is that correct?
No – if this were a discussion just about Ginsburg’s statement alone, without regard to any judicial ethics concerns, I would agree that Ginsburg’s statement expresses opposition. But when the ethics concerns are brought in (most notably that clause about “opposition or endorsement”), I think the meaning of the word in the clause is more specific/stronger, such that her vague remarks wouldn’t qualify.
Of course, IANAL. And this issue is irrelevant anyway, for reasons many posters (such as Bricker) have outlined.
OK, so you never really explained the difference then. You only said there was a difference. What is the difference between “opposing Trump’s Candidacy in general” and “opposing Trump’s candidacy”? Might I suggest that “in general” is not the phrase you are looking for? To me, it adds absolutely nothing to the plain statement. Were you think more along the lines of an explicit opposition vs an implicit one?
I was thinking along the lines of what would stand up in court as clearly qualifying, beyond a reasonable doubt, as “opposition or endorsement” to a politician (since we’re talking about a judicial ethical standard). I don’t think vague, offhand remarks would qualify – for example, I think something like “I’m not a fan of that Trump…” or “I’m worried about Trump winning…” wouldn’t qualify, and I think the statements Ginsburg made are even vaguer and less direct than those.
OK, swap it out with
Worst #1 Hit Songs of the 60’s and 70’s Only Kidding I Really Want to Talk About Trump and Ginsburg
We can dance around it all day, but in the end it’s obvious she is opposed to Trump. But so what? Her ideology is well known and certainly isn’t influenced by his election. She can’t vote against his ideals more, her vote is equally one of nine and it was never going to be in agreement with anything Trump or his administration wants.
Doesn’t it bother you that 16 (so far) of your fellow liberal SDMB’ers are so blinded by their partisanship that they think those statement did not express her opposition to Trump’s candidacy?
“My fellow liberals”? When did that happen?
No, it doesn’t bother me, because it makes no difference one way or the other.
Reasonable people always agree with Okrahoma; only blind partisans could ever possibly disagree or think differently.