“My Own Words”: Ginsburg Holds Forth On Trump, Kaepernick and Other Subjects In Latest Public Commentary

225px-ruth_bader_ginsburg_scotus_photo_portraitI have long been a critic of the Supreme Court justices engaging in public appearances where they hold forth on contemporary issues and even pending matters before the Court. I have been particularly critical of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Associated Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who clearly relished appearances before ideologically supportive groups. I have called this trend the “rise of the celebrity justice.” Recently, Justice Ginsburg started another firestorm over public comments where she joked that she would move to New Zealand if Donald Trump is elected. Ginsburg apologized for that latest public controversy, though I discussed in a column how the incident spoke to a much larger problem on the Court. While she express “regret” in that instance, it did not deter Ginsburg in continuing to speak publicly and hold forth on contemporary issues, though she did make a curious distinction on this occasion.

Ginsburg was back to public speaking in a new interview with Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric. While it is not clear if different sporting federations will move to stop the demonstrations (and thus the issue could come before the Court), Ginsburg did not hesitate to condemn the decision of various athletes to refuse to stand for the national anthem before games, including San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick. Ginsburg said that “I think it’s really dumb of them.” She then added “Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it’s dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.”

I happen to agree with Ginsburg’s view on this and a number of other issues. However, once again, having a justice opining on political and social controversies (which could come directly or indirectly before her Court) is reckless and undisciplined. Nevertheless, Couric led Ginsburg on a discussion of possible free speech defenses: “But when it comes to these football players, you may find their actions offensive, but what you’re saying is, it’s within their rights to exercise those actions?”

“Yes,” replied Ginsburg. “If they want to be stupid, there’s no law that should be preventive. If they want to be arrogant, there’s no law that prevents them from that. What I would do is strongly take issue with the point of view that they are expressing when they do that.”

Ginsburg was more restrained when Couric returned her to the subject of her prior controversy: Trump. Couric asked her about Trump’s proposal and asked “Can you ban an entire religious group from entering the country? Is that constitutional?” asked Couric.

Ginsburg declined and said “I think the question you ask is a question that could come before this court. I can’t answer a hypothetical question when it may turn into a real question. I can’t preview my decision.” However, Couric only had to mention Ginsburg’s book, “My Own Words,” and signs against Jews to induce a response. Ginsburg said “All I can say is I am sensitive to discrimination on any basis because I have experienced that upset. … I looked at that sign, and I said, ‘I am a Jew, but I’m an American, and Americans are not supposed to say such things. America is known as a country that welcomes people to its shores. All kinds of people. The image of the Statue of Liberty with Emma Lazarus’ famous poem. She lifts her lamp and welcomes people to the golden shore, where they will not experience prejudice because of the color of their skin, the religious faith that they follow.” She then added “It’s distressing, but I am also hopeful that it will go away.” That does not seem to leave much ambiguity on the Justice’s views of Trump or his proposal. She then added a distinctly different view of Trump’s running mate with a not so hidden jab at Trump: “For me, it’s very refreshing to see a woman with the knowledge that she has, with the poise and the — command of language.”

Ginsburg also, again, criticized the Senate for not moving on the nomination of Merrick Garland. She noted that, with her nomination, “Any senator could have put a hold on me and kept — kept the confirmation going into the fall, but they didn’t. I think they all appreciated the value of the court starting out the term with a full house.”

Despite my respect for Justice Ginsburg as a jurist, it is distressing to continue to see her penchant for public commentary on legal, political, and social controversy. It is part of a growing pattern that has undermined the integrity of the Court and demonstrates the lunacy of a Court that maintains that justices must be their own judges of ethical misconduct. In the past, justices have dismissed ethical rules like they are pesky matters for lesser jurists. Various justices have ruled in cases where they have clear financial interests. Justices also speak publicly on matters before the Court — thrilling ideological groups. Others have been accused of reporting violations. Others have appeared at political fundraisers.  Many justices have embraced the celebrity status by appearing before a type of ideological base where they throw red meat to ecstatic liberal or conservative groups. This includes speaking on issues before or coming to the Court.  It has to end. Congress has to act.

I have long favored the tradition model of jurists like former Justice John Paul Stevens who spoke primarily through his opinions and avoided public speeches of this kind.  That should be the price of the ticket to be a member of this Court.  If you want to be a celebrity, other professional opportunities can be easily pursued.  If you want to be one of nine, you should speak through your opinions.

52 thoughts on ““My Own Words”: Ginsburg Holds Forth On Trump, Kaepernick and Other Subjects In Latest Public Commentary

  1. I bet she’ll retire quickly after Clinton is elected especially if the Senate goes democrat. She’s a bit off.

    Also, McConnell should put up Merrick Garland for a vote in the Senate. The republicans needs to salvage something out of all of this, although it would certainly signal total capitulation in the entire congress and they may not want to do that.

    Except for the fact that it’s totally tragic, watching this whole fiasco unfold would be hugely entertaining. Trump is burning down the village and salting the earth.

  2. Some things are not over-the-line for Justices. For example, a Justice could publicly state that terrorism is a bad thing, and I don’t see it being a problem. Sooo, is the question of some stupid negro disrespecting the Flag and the National Anthem for a silly, ginned-up bunch of crap like Black Lives Matter one of those type of things.

    I think it is. Ginsberg represents an American Judicial System, under the American Flag, and frankly, if she was iffy on whether not America was a good and legitimate place or not, I would be for impeaching her. I don’t think you have to be neutral about your own damn country.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    • Even if she thought America was not “a good and legitimate place” this would not be grounds for impeaching her or any other justice who might think this.

    • You are correct that a person is not required to be neutral about their own country. You can love it, like it, dislike it, despise it, praise it, criticize it. No matter which you do, the Constitution protects your right to hold and express any of these views.

  3. While I certainly agree that it is, at best, inadvisable, for members of the Supreme Court (or most any court) to make extensive commentary on current and potential legal issues generally—not just those that could potentially come before their court—there is one unintended positive side effect. That is, that those who engage in such activity are letting the public know what their actual outlook and views on the world are and that provides an indication of the sort of person and political/legal mentality they operate with. Scalia was, in my view, an embarrassment and for all intents and purposes a neofascist, small minded, bigoted blowhard who never had any business on the court. Just being smart and “qualified” isn’t enough in my book. While I believe Ginsburg to be a far superior intellect and human being I also believe she is drifting dangerously close to the same sort of inadvisable showmanship that Scalia engaged in from day one. I don’t see her as an ideologue anywhere near the level of Scalia but it still diminishes her and the Court and compromises the integrity of both for her to make these sorts of public comments. She’s too old to leave the Court and run for office so there’s absolutely nothing to be gained by her or the public for making her views known like this.

    • I don’t often agree with her, but I think Ginsberg got it about right on Kaepernick. I find it difficult to believe she has compromised herself on any matter likely to come before the Court.

      Scalia was a brilliant legal scholar who almost single-handedly created respect for his textualist approach to Constitutional interpretation. After many years on the Supreme Court, even liberal justices often rely more on Constitutional text than in years past.

      This is what Ginsberg said about Scalia: (as quoted in USA Today) “’We are different, we are one,’ different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the ‘applesauce’ and ‘argle bargle’—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his ‘energetic fervor,’ ‘astringent intellect,’ ‘peppery prose,’ ‘acumen,’ and ‘affability,’ all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.”

      I am glad that we had giants like Scalia and Ginsberg on the Court who could elevate the discussion of their differences and remain friends, rather than people who believe those who disagree are not just wrong, but evil, narrow-minded or stupid.

  4. My prediction: HRC will be elected, Ginsburg will retire, and HRC will appoint Obama to the SCOTUS as its first Muslim. And no, that’s not a conspiracy theory. Obama’s father, step-father, sister and most likely his mother were/are Muslims, and he attended a Muslim school while growing up in Indonesia. Islam is the only formal religious instruction he ever had. Yes, he joined a black church in South Chicago as an adult, and married a black American Christian, but both events were as much to launch his political career as anything else. I believe he is probably agnostic, but should he reclaim the religion he was raised in, he could be celebrated as America’s first Muslim Supreme Court justice.

    • Gosh, Catholicism was the only formal religious instruction I ever had, I left that religion philosophically at age 16 and in practice at age 19. I am now a somewhat lazy buddhist. I read, I learned, I grew up, I changed, I created new and different value systems for myself. I wouldn’t reclaim that religion under any circumstances.

    • Obama’s father, step-father, sister and most likely his mother were/are Muslims,

      Obama’s stepfather was what Indonesians call a ‘statistical Muslim’. Islam in Indonesia is lax and syncretistic most places. He died of liver disease, which is suggestive. There’s no doubt that BO, Sr. was a drunk, and careering around in automobiles while blotto is what killed him; in any case, during the course of his life he spent all of nine weeks in the same city with BO Jr (who was just one of his 11 children). It’s a matter of public record that Ann Dunham was a vociferous atheist from her late adolescence. As for Maya Ng, her mother was an atheist and her father was a cultural-Muslim and her husband’s ethnic Chinese. The reasonable inference is that her religious profession is just what her grandfather’s was: “whatever”.

      Read Steve Sailer on BO’s associaiton with Jeremiah Wright. Of all the black churches in Chicago – AME, convention Baptist, and Holiness, how does he manage to land on Wright? Per Sailer, it was because Wright was light on religion and heavy on political blather stuffed into an africanisant pita pocket. It’s the sort of thing a man with no serious religious profession would do.

    • and HRC will appoint Obama to the SCOTUS as its first Muslim.

      If you pro-rate part time and seasonal employment, BO spent about 4 years working in law offices. He was never offered a partnership. He was on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School (p/t) for 12 years, during which time he published no scholarly papers. He taught boutique courses (“__& the Law”). He’s never worked as a judge or hearing examiner of any description or sat on a regulatory commission. He’d be regarded disrespectfully by the other justices. He does not want that job.

  5. Jonathan agrees with Ginsburg that refusing to stand for the anthem at games is “dumb”. Please Jonathan, does us a favor and run or throw them past us please.

  6. I think this would be a great reason to have term limits on these justices. When you come out publicly and give your opinions you are obviously not judging from the constitution. Maybe the people should vote on who holds these seats rather then politicians?

    As far as TIN’s remarks go I don’t know who or what Obacala is. Yes he has provided a birth certificate which to this day many contest pro and con. I accept it because there is nothing to counter its authenticity. My concerns are why his education records were and still are locked up. What is there that is so bad that we can’t see? Did he get a bad grade in math or political science, who cares show us what’s there that you refuse to show.

    For those of you who continue to label anyone who question what, who, where or how Obacala is just give good reason why they are wrong. The labeling seems just an attempt to shut the person down and I think people are getting tired of it.

    • I don’t want to shut anyone down. I’d just like people to give an HONEST answer about why they demanded these things from Obama.

      I haven’t heard a single call for Trump’s birth certificate or his transcripts or those of any other candidate in my lifetime. HMMM, wonder why that is??

      • If you don’t want to shut someone down don’t label them just ask why do you want to see his education records? My answer to you would be because you locked them up, they are just innocent education records what’s the harm. Just like Trumps tax reports or Hillys emails or her Wall Street speeches.

        If your going to run for the highest position in America I want to judge who is better or worse. I’m not going to call you a birthed, racist, KKK member, just a guy or girl who wants to know why you will show me one thing but hide the other, that’s all. If that puts me in the crazy or insane column then I’m nuts.

      • PS:@Fund – Here’s something that will P you and a couple others off when it come to Obacala. He is not the first black American president, he’s the first bi-racial president. He is as much white as he is black. If you want to make him the first he’s the first Malato president.

        As long as he’s the first black president the dems and libs lock in the black vote. The first black American president has yet to be elected, maybe Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Denzel Washington, Whoopi Goldberg or Herman Caine will someday be the first black American president.

      • I haven’t heard a single call for Trump’s birth certificate or his transcripts or those of any other candidate in my lifetime. HMMM, wonder why that is??

        You haven’t heard calls for transcripts because candidates of consequence provide them, or (as was the case with John Kerry and George W Bush) moles in the educational bureaucracy provide them.

        You haven’t heard calls for birth certificates for a variety of reason’s: it’s atypical for candidates of consequence in the last 50-odd years had any foreign born parents (Shirley Chisolm, Edmund Muskie, Henry Jackson, Michael Dukakis, Paul Tsongas, Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio the exceptions), candidates generally supply such documentation when requested by the papers (BO didn’t), and no one’s claimed in a marketing brochure that any other candidate was born abroad (as the marketer for one of BO’s books did). While we’re at it, some people did fuss over John McCain’s birth in the Canal Zone, and if you’ve been paying attention, you know there’s been an ample supply of Cruz birthers, leavened with Rubio birthers, Jindal birthers, and Santorum birthers. Included in the Cruz birthers was some soi-disant IT tech who claims he can prove that the birth certificate for Eleanor Darragh (Ted Cruz’ mother) circulating on the internet is fake.

    • Amen! Many Birthers are just conspiracy theorists who are about on the same level as people who think Building 7 was blown up by controlled demolition, or that Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA. Which at heart is simply a major distrust of what government tells us.

      However, there is another group of Birthers – the two citizen parent birthers- who are completely apesh!t insane. They have decided that “natural born” citizen means two citizen parents in complete disregard of the 1898 Wong Kim Ark case, and nothing can dissuade them. I think what they have is a form of insanity that is maybe based in the language processing center of their brain.

      They can walk, talk, and feed themselves – and have responsible jobs. But something just ain’t right on a very fundamental level. That same affliction seems to affect Sovereign Citizens who obsess over capitalization and fringe on flags. And seems to affect Biblical numerologists and kabalist types as well. Something in the processing of language and symbols just drives them crazy, and they can’t seen to break out of it.

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      • about on the same level as people who think Building 7 was blown up by controlled demolition, or that Kennedy was assassinated by the CIA. Which at heart is simply a major distrust of what government tells us.

        xxx

        No, they vet reality to see if it’s in accord with fictions they’ve decided a priori are true. They don’t accept what any authority tells them. They don’t accept an ordinary person’s understanding of what motivates people. (See the numbnutz who tells me in this forum that Larry Silverstein had the twin towers blown up in a massive insurance fraud). They don’t accept what their eyes tell them. Morgan Reynolds has for over 10 years been promoting the idea that no jets few into the twin towers. It was a Cessna or some such, he says.

        • I think you are partially right. There are some idiots who believe every mass killing, like Sandy Hook, the Aurora Movie Massacre, or the Orlando thing was a fake. Then they scour the videos to find anything to confirm their opinion. But seeking to confirm a pre-existing belief is common to a much wider group.

          Like the guy above who implied Birthers are racists. If to a hammer, everything looks likes a nail, then to a Freedom Rider Wannabe, everything looks like a racist. Or like with Democrats who are virulently anti-Trump. There was no chance they would ever vote for the Republican, no matter who it was. Sooo, they heap the calumny on him to confirm their pre-existing bias, and to self-rationalize voting for a flawed Democratic candidate.

          Sooo, I think maybe a different seed is needed for certain conspiracy theorists other than just confirmation bias. Because criminy, confirmation bias is everywhere.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          PS: for anybody who have never tried any calumny, it is a very spicy Cajun side-dish which tends to set your mouth on fire!

    • Yes he has provided a birth certificate which to this day many contest pro and con.

      There’s no point in contesting it. It’s a perfectly ordinary period long-form certificate. There is zero reason to believe he was born anywhere but Honolulu. The notion that he was born in Kenya is patent nonsense and the notion he was born in Vancouver is completely unsupported speculation.

      • He was making a policy statement. In any case, the justices have no grounds for complaint if they’re legislatively ejected from office.

  7. I enjoyed reading the opinions of Justice John Paul Stevens, and felt that such was his venue to speak to the public.

    “I think the question you ask is a question that could come before this court. I can’t answer a hypothetical question when it may turn into a real question. I can’t preview my decision.” If Justice Ginsberg had only left it at that. She has a right to free speech, but in doing so, she clearly is prejudicing her opinion on matters that come before the court.

    Also, people ask for birth certificates and question eligibility of anyone that calls into question the exact definition of natural born citizen. It wasn’t because Obama was black. It was because he had an African father and his book bio indicated he was a foreign exchange student. Just like Cruz’s eligibility was questioned. Although this has never been thrashed out in court, and it would have been had Cruz won the primary, most experts believe that as long as an infant was a citizen of the US the moment he or she drew breath, it satisfied the requirement for natural born citizen, regardless of nationality of one of the parents or place of birth. Likewise, transcripts were sought for Obama because he, himself, said he was a poor student, but somehow got into Harvard, where admission is difficult with a 4.0. I think the birther movement went on long after the issue was settled.

    And I think that Trump should have bit the bullet and released his tax returns a long time ago. We all know what’s on it. He’s used every deduction and tax shelter possible, unless he employed complete morons as CPAs. All of us claim every deduction possible, and tax preparers advertise that they will ensure you will not pay a single dime more than you owe. Like the NYT and Warren Buffett, when he claimed a loss, he did not pay taxes on it. Why would you pay taxes on a loss? That makes no sense. Inexplicably, people think that it’s immoral for the rich to save as much money as they can, but a virtue for the poor and middle class to do so. No one that I know of abstains from claiming a deduction because they feel it is unethical to do so, because they want to pay extra in taxes. Now, politicians who know they will be running for high office at some point plan their taxes years in advance, and ensure that there is nothing too offensively thrifty to the public. And since the rich have more capital to invest, a lot more of their income is investment income, which typically has a lower tax rate. This is to encourage investing, as well as to open it to people of lower socioeconomic status. If investment income was heavily taxed, what do people think that would do to investment behavior and economic growth? You just disincentivized it. For me, the taxes are a non issue. Trump’s access to Twitter, his phone, and his boorish behavior are irritating. He needs a handler to elbow him occasionally to remind him to be tactful, and that someone is always, always recording.

  8. “Couric asked her about Trump’s proposal and asked “Can you ban an entire religious group from entering the country? Is that constitutional?” asked Couric.”

    This is a very important issue. Because it is entirely wrongly phrased, in this context.

    Islam is not a religion. It is a political ideology with a thin religious patina. It is closer to communism than anything else, and was created solely to destroy Christendom–and did a fantastic job of it for many centuries. What if Ruth Buzzy had been asked if an entire political group dedicated to replacing our constitutional system should be vetted, when those who adhere to it desire to enter our country? How would she reply?

    But that’s not the problem, really. It is Marbury against Madison. No president should have ever paid the least bit of attention to that pronouncement of John Marshall. Wiki tells us about the decision, in Worcester v. Georgia, that “In a popular quotation that is believed to be apocryphal, President Andrew Jackson reportedly responded: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!””

    Well, I hope he really did say it, and I wish every president would have said the same thing about the asinine lawyers in black robes ever since.

    This stupid court has been elevated to an unreasonably, unconstitutionally, powerful position, and we have become accustomed to treating them like the gods on Olympus. But they are in fact just hacks. Bums. People with opinions, no more.

    The tragedy, in recent decades, is that our fate has been reduced not down to just five hacks in tattered cloaks, but to just one worthless lawyer, Anthony Kennedy, who has been holding our fate in his hands (alright, the current Chief Justice is tag-teaming with him in recent years for that sorry position).

    Why we put up with this is a mystery for the ages. Marbury is the problem. Ruth Buzzy should be laughed at, not listened to, much less interviewed. Olympus, pffftttt!

  9. Since this was a Katie Couric story RBG should check the editing. Remember how this lying bimbo Couric falsely edited the piece she did on the 2nd Amendment?

  10. I have to agree with Prof. Turley’s assessment, but I would go further. John Paul Stevens was not only a “model” jurist, but he was the last REAL Supreme Court Justice in America. All the rest have been political hacks, not genuine jurists. And Ginsberg and the late Scalia have been egregious political hacks, usually without principle of any kind, except, perhaps the wrong ones.

    And of the two, Ginsberg is the worse when it comes to expressing her private views. Ginsberg, for example, infamously made a grand appearance at the New York premiere of a performance of “The Death of Klinghoffer”–a pro-terrorist, anti-Israel piece of leftist propagandistic trash masquerading as “art.” Ginsberg might as well have brought with her a team of banner carriers proclaiming “I am a anti-American Leftist concerned about the rights or terrorists!”

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ruth-bader-ginsberg-klinghoffer-opera

    Meanwhile, when John Paul Stevens has gone public on personal matters, he has done so in a most erudite way. For example, Stevens has publicly stated that he is an Oxfordian, i.e., a proponent of those who hold that the Earl Of Oxford was the real author of the plays credited to Shakespeare.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123998633934729551

    But Stevens is in good company on this issue. Among the Oxfordians are the following, to name but a few: Percy Allen, Marjorie Bowen, Gelett Burgess, A. Bronson Feldman, Sigmund Freud, Sir John Gielgud, Warren Hope, Christmas Humphreys, Sir Derek Jacobi, J. Thomas Looney, Charlton Ogburn, Mark Rylance, and Michael York. However, Stevens isn’t/wasn’t the only Oxfordian Supreme Court Justice. Others include Harry Blackmun and Scalia. Nonetheless, Stevens, without a doubt is the most well-versed in Shakespeare, history, and English literature of all the Supreme Court Justices–quite apart from his attainments as a legal scholar. We may never see his like ever again on the SCOTUS, except by accident, like he was.

      • Hah-hah. That’s good. I’m delighted that you know “The Purple Cow.” You may also know that Burgess was the inventor of the word “blurb,” which has entered the English language.

        So, as a tribute here’s his famous verse, to those unacquainted with it:

        I never saw a Purple Cow,
        I never hope to see one,
        But I can tell you, anyhow,
        I’d rather see than be one!

        However, Burgess didn’t want to be known only for this wonderful piece, so he penned this riposte:

        Ah, yes, I wrote the “Purple Cow,”
        I’m sorry, now, I wrote it;
        But I can tell you anyhow
        I’ll kill you if you quote it.

        • I just discovered him a few weeks ago, when i looked up the source of the Purple Cow. I ordered his “Look Eleven Years Younger” from 1939, and got a few of his freebie books for my Kindle. He really was an interesting person, and still readable. But I am 12 books or so down for the month, and am currently on Alfred E. Neumann’s “Amor and Psyche – The Psychic Development of the Feminine.” Sooo, Gelett B. is on the reading stack, which is getting higher. Plus, switching back and forth with one by Marie-Louise from France, who wrote about fairy tales and things.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

    • Ralph Adamo – Stevens is wrong on Shakespeare, as are the other twits, If it is not William Shakespeare, it is Kit Marlowe. However, the evidence shows Shakespeare was Shakespeare.

  11. I wish the bitch Ginsburg and all others like her – as well as the immigrants both legal and illegal, who are polluting the culture – would leave the country. As to La Clinton, she is clearly unbalanced – and a lying, thieving hypocrite into the bargain.

    As to the silliness about tax returns, there is no moral virtue in paying taxes. What affair is it of an illegitimate and thoroughly derisory organisation, what one does with one’s money? There can be no such thing as a: ‘fair share’, when money is being extorted by a thief, under threat of force.

    • How can we be sure it isn’t you who is polluting the culture? As a citizen Ginsburg has as much right to live here as do you and as much right as you to help determine the substance of our culture.

      It is irrelevant whether there is any moral virtue to paying taxes. If you think taxes are theft and you don’t believe you have any obligation to pay your share of the funds necessary to operate the nation, then perhaps it is you who should consider leaving.

    • JT does, Darren does not — recognize the difference.

      Darren has snipped many a comment at his own whim.

      The following referenced post by Darren shows that his perspective is hardly sanguine:

      https://jonathanturley.org/2016/10/12/university-of-california-at-irvine-students-push-for-ban-on-uc-police-from-campus/comment-page-1/#comment-1556216

      Let’s see what is there, in the above link, shall we:

      First, Darren talks of, “Useful Idiots”, which is important to note.

      Then, Darren claims that useful idiots are, “stupid and easily influenced, they make for cheap warm bodies with mouths to carry a particular objective to fruition.”

      This statement of Darren’s shows much of his perspective. Granted, useful idiots are what they are, but Darren’s choice of words conveys an anger that he does not explain; but expects agreement with. This is very telling.

      He rambles on after this in the referenced post, but it is merely more of the same.

      Though Darren considers himself above the fray — seeing himself as fair and patient — it is very obvious that his words and actions belie this self-implied claim.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s