Take the Constitutional Quiz Take the Constitutional Quiz

CakeHow much more of this are we going to take?

Am I talking about Orlando, Dallas and Baton Rouge? Well, yes, that too. Of course.

Am I talking about Hillary Clinton’s email server misconduct? Well certainly that too.

But, no, what I’m talking about now  are U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

How do they each possibly engage in these glaring faux pas? They had to know better, but did it anyway.

So, first Lynch, then Ginsburg.

 What Lynch Did?

 She took a private meeting with former President Bill Clinton when his wife, Democratic Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and their foundation, were/are both the subjects of criminal investigations under Lynch’s ultimate jurisdiction. Bill and Hillary Clinton clearly do not know better (as demonstrated by their long standing, checkered history), but Bill is no longer a civil servant and there is not really much to make of his continuing misconduct, apart from perhaps visiting the sins of the husband on the wife. However, Lynch still is a public servant. Even if she does not behave like one, at least not in this instance. Not only should she have known better, but she acknowledged after the fact that she did know better. But did it anyway.

What Ginsburg Did?

 A sitting Supreme Court Justice critically shot her mouth off about one of our Presidential candidates in the midst of a Presidential campaign. Perhaps not illegal, and maybe not even technically unethical, but certainly immoral and inappropriate, both as a matter of custom and as a matter of common sense. Supreme Court justices are certainly entitled to vote in the election, but they should not politicize the Supreme Court (any more than it sadly already is) and they should not abuse their public office and standing to essentially campaign for the other Presidential candidate. Once again, another public representative of we the people who acknowledged after the fact that she too did know better. But did it anyway.

No Accountability; No Consequences

But why? The answer is . . . why not? There doesn’t seem to be any accountability or any consequences. Just do or say what you want to do or say and then throw up a quick “Oops, pardon my boner” mea culpa. And all is well and we just move on. A free pass.

Well, I submit that we should put an end to these free passes. Abuse your office; lose your office, and the retirement benefits that go with it. You’d be amazed how quickly these representatives who knowingly abuse their positions would quit doing so.

Am I the only one who is troubled by this pattern? Because, if I am, this pattern of abuse of office will just continue.

So, what next?

Join the discussion either by logging in just below or by signing into your favorite social media outlet. If you’re having trouble, please follow these instructions to guide you! Thanks!

  • The Clinton-Lynch meeting was worse than the e-mail issue with Hillary. I understand why Hillary wanted a private server, after years of being haunted by Republicans eager for any tidbit they could use against her. But the insensitivity of Bill Clinton and the downright stupidity of the attorney general was both shocking and troubling. As for Justice Ginsburg, I think she is well within her rights to bark out when she is moved to do so. Because the prospect of Donald Trump as president is so troubling on so many levels, Ginsburg was moved to shout and shout she did.This says more about Trump than it does about the justice.

    • First of all, thanks for visiting, Barry. I hope you’ll do so again. That said, you and I disagree in at least two of your remarks. While Hillary’s desire for a private server may be understandable, it does not justify breaking State Department published policy, if not the law itself, and it does not justify her lying to the public about the facts in attempting to cover up the magnitude of what she did. (As for her being taunted for years by her opponents, if she had not given them so much ammunition, they might not have persevered.) As for Trump and Ginsburg, nothing about Trump would justify a sitting Supreme Court justice from actively criticizing one Presidential candidate to impliedly campaign for the other. I’m certainly no fan of Trump, but Ginsburg embarrassed herself and she embarrassed the Court–one of the few things on which Democrats and Republicans alike have been able to agree. Among other things, she would now have to recuse herself from any number of cases that might come before the Court. The taxpayers don’t pay her salary in order for her to disable herself in that manner. And one last observation about your remarks: You find nothing wrong about Ginsburg’s criticism of Trump but at least impliedly you do find something wrong about the criticism of Hillary. Could that possibly be because of the criticisms with which you do and don’t agree? Is that possibly analogous to today’s “safe space” students who are big proponents of their first amendment rights but adopt a much less open mind when it comes to the first amendment rights of their opponents? Just saying. 🙂

  • Jose Sigal

    Hi Ronaldo, me again, your independent friend. I will also divide my comment in 2 parts. With the Lynch issue, only the left gets a free pass no matter what they do, so why are you shocked? If it had been on a Republican watch in this days that person would have had to resign or something else, no free pass. I attribute many of this to the press and the majority of the people as we have discussed in the past.
    In respect to the Judge, we also know the courts are already politicized on both sided and this is a fight that has been going on forever. The proof is if that if it was not the case any president from any party would not have such a problem nominating judges, they want somebody who will interpret the law or even worse, change it to their way of thinking. Justice Ginsburg was silly in vocalizing her position in the open; t would be like a wrestler saying in wrestlemania (that we all know it is fixed) who is going to win before the show. Like you always put it, just saying. Love to Barbie. Pepe

    • “Just saying,” yes. The “problem” is that there is not much about which you and I disagree. There is clearly a double standard today between what is ok for the liberal elite and what is not okay for the conservatives. I don’t think I can be pigeon-holed with one or the other, but I definitely disrespect the double standard. It’s like the “free space” youth who demand their first amendment rights but diss the first amendment rights of their opponents. (See my reply to Barry Irwin just below/before your post.) What do Lynch and Ginsburg have in common? They are both members of the liberal elite. Same to Rita!