Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s  Inappropriate Trump Statements and Passive-Aggressive Non Apology – Removal? 

Screen Shot 2016-07-14 at 11.54.10 AM

This is not a political blog nor am I expressing any political opinion or bias.  As a Body Language and Communication expert, I remain objective and  report what I see from a body language standpoint and what I hear from a communication standpoint.

When Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg weighed in with her political opinion and called Presidential Candidate Donald Trump “a faker,” I was shocked by her  very poor judgement. She said , “I can’t imagine what a country would be with Donald Trump as our president. I don’t even want to contemplate that.”  She also said  “A faker…He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment.” 

Her political statement was of great concern to me as I  wondered if this lapse in judgement also affected her ability to be a judge on the Supreme Court and remain unbiased in any of her other decisions.

How could this woman decide on anything that may involve him in the future without being biased?  How will she  conduct herself  should he be elected the next President? What if there was a close  race and something took place like it did with the Florida election recount in 200o with the  Bush and Gore election, where the US Supreme Court  with final ruling, stopped a recount that had been proposed by the Florida Supreme Court ultimately landing in Bush’s favor?  If something similar happened in this election, could she remain unbiased? Would she show more  favor towards Hillary Clinton?

Screen Shot 2016-07-14 at 11.54.37 AM.png

Another thought I had was whether she was “losing” it or showing signs of dementia. After all these years on the court ,she knows the rules both written and unwritten rules. She knows how to conduct herself and clearly knows that no judge should ever weigh in with their political views. So when Donald Trump responded by saying Ginsberg was ‘ losing it and must be removed from the Supreme Court.”   the same thing crossed my mind.

She knew exactly what she was doing with regard to expressing her feelings about Trump. After all, she did three separate interviews  about him with news organizations since last week.

Then she received harsh backlash on both sides of the political fence. Democrats and Republicans alike, chastised her and were very upset about what she said in the media. Even Speaker Paul Ryan said that her behavior was inappropriate. Of course she regretted her statement when everyone was against her statement.

Screen Shot 2016-07-14 at 11.59.25 AM.png

Trump  said  that Ginsberg’s comments were “Highly inappropriate and a disgrace to the court.” He then called for  Ginsburg to resign, tweeting “Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot – resign!”

No matter what your political beliefs, Trump demanded an apology and rightfully so. Had Ginsberg said the same thing about Hillary, it would be and equally inappropriate comment coming from a Supreme Court Judge.

She didn’t apologize to Trump. Instead, a statement was  issued by the court’s public information office, that Ginsburg seemed to agree with the criticism and was reported to have said that she regretted  her statement.

The statement said ” On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,” “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

The key word here is “ill advised.”  It indicates she is not holding herself accountable but rather blaming someone else for their ill advice to her. That is very telling in that it is a passive-aggressive action.  In making this statement, she is trying to take the onus off of her and place it on someone else  who “ill advised” her. Who was that person who ill advised her? Was it someone in the Clinton campaign? Was it Hillary? Was it a fellow Supreme Court Justice? Was it a family member? Was it one of her  young law clerks? WAs it her hairdresser?

Saying that you regret  your statement is a non-apology. It is very passive-aggressive behavior. Had it been heartfelt, she would have not had the public information office sent out the statement for damage control. Instead, she would have done a presser and appeared throughout the media, just like  she willingly  appeared when she made her scathing comments about Donald Trump on three different media appearances. So clearly, it was a non-heartfelt apology and PR  spin control.

Her statement in my view is a big enough breach of public trust that she should be removed from the Supreme Court or she should resign. Political tensions are high enough without her added fuel to the fire.

 

People already have concerns and criticisms over James Comey and the FBI’s handling of the State Department email situation. In fact the FBI’s credibility was called into question by many. Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s refusal to answer questions directly and speak in double talk also made many question her motives and for many her behavior  instilled a lack of confidence in the Justice Department. Many believed that it supported people’s beliefs that the system was rigged. Now,  Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s comments added one more reason why so many people may be losing trust in the system and may feel that the system is rigged in favor of one political candidate over another.

This is a nation who uses a system of checks and balances where all three branches of the government are checked and balance by the others. How can this occur if someone in one of those branches is completely prejudiced and biased?

Supreme Court justices should not insert themselves into the elections and communicate about these matters. In fact, the judicial ethics forbids judges from endorsing or speaking about candidates and that includes the highest court in the land. That is why so many are calling for her resignation from the bench.

Once again, there is no political bias here as I would have done the same blog had Hillary demanded an apology and not received it from Judge Ginsberg.

 

 

 

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s  Inappropriate Trump Statements and Passive-Aggressive Non Apology – Removal? 

  1. Dear Dr. Glass:
    I am a book editor, trained to see through linguistic dodgery. I am as qualified in my profession as you are in yours. Your repetitive protests of being apolitical and completely objective regarding Justice Ginsberg’s remarks about Donald Trump show deception to my trained eye: “Methinks the lady protesteth too much.”

    Like

    1. No, the reason I put in the comment is not to protest too much. I can assure you that no dogery is going on with me and as you must do in your profession, I too am not biased when I use my professional skills and over 30 years of experience. I state it to get rid of and to address any potential haters like I have had in the past, who have been accusatory of my being biased no matter which candidate’s body language and communication skills I discuss. So it has nothing to do with” methinks I do protest too much”. As I said in the blog if Ginsberg said the same about Hillary I would be doing the same blog.

      Like

      1. Linda,it is also painfully obvious that you refuse to want to see these toxic Ginsberg comments as exactly what they are TOXIC. Stop attacking Dr. Glass because you are running your own agenda. I have been schooled as well by Glass on what people say in comparison and regard and in addition to their body language and I understood the science even better. You do not want to learn you are just nit picking Glass because you obviously are anti-Trump as well.

        Like

  2. Thank you Dr. Glass because I totally agree. Furthermore this relentless attack on Trump just shows the real intolerance of people who claim to be such victims of intolerance. I have been labeled a hate monger just for liking Trump and thinking he would be a fairly good president.

    Like

    1. Of course it is a discussion about Body language as communication and what someone says is a large part of their overall body language as I have discussed in my various books ont he topic. You can agree with Linda Sperling all you like, but you are hearing it directly from me so it is not speculation. I am objective in this analysis and if Ginsberg said the same thing about Hillary I can assure you would be the same blog.

      Like

    2. Of course it is a discussion about Body language as communication and what someone says is a large part of their overall body language as I have discussed in my various books on the topic You can agree with Linda Sperling all you like, but you are hearing it directly from me so it is not speculation. A book editor is not a credible or reliable than my telling you directly what the situation is. I am objective in this analysis and if Ginsberg said the same thing about Hillary or any other political candidate I can assure you would be the same blog.The only reason I mention in the preamble that I am not biased is to deter haters who never fail to say I am biased no matter which candidate I discuss in terms of their body language or communication.

      Like

      1. Dear Dr. Glass:
        When you discuss body language, I am inclined to believe you; when you air your opinion of a distinguished jurist’s language and sanity, your lack of analytical linguistic experience is rather painfully obvious. I will continue to read your blog in the hope that you will apply more self-examination to your remarks and not be unkindly misled by your ego. Best wishes.

        Like

      2. Linda Sperling I do indeed have linguistic experience and studied the subject in depth during graduate school. I use a form of linguistic analysis when I do statement analysi for criminal cases. A book editor does not a body language expert make with all due respect. And as far as self examination is concerned I have spent a lifetime examining myself so no one knows me better than me. In my self analysis, I can assure you that my ego is quite healthy. I stand by my comment that a Supreme Court Justice needs to be objective at all times and keep out of politics and I would say the same thing if Ginsberg made comments about Hillary. Best wishes to you as well.

        Like

      3. Dear Dr. Glass ….. Here’s another vote for you to toss LINDA SPERLING’s comments in the compost heap where they belong. Linda Sperling, part-time book editor of New Mexico, is a registered Democrat, a relevant fact regarding her hidden agenda and criticism of you. And Linda Sperling, shame on YOU for not comprehending how Ginsburg’s comments were disgusting, inappropriate, and a dis-qualifier for her position in the Supreme Court (not to mention her previous disgraceful comments on the U.S. Constitution). …………. And on the related topic of disgusting political stunts ……… Linda Sperling, since you are Jewish, what do you have to say about the phony “big deal” that the Democrats made out of the sheriff’s badge on a Trump poster? The Democrats accused him of being anti-Semitic just because the graphic designer used a stock graphic that look liked a sheriff’s badge (i.e. law and order). As a Jew, this is a topic about which I am sensitive. The Democrats are the HEIGHT of hypocrisy considering the brazen anti-Semitism on display in party emails about Bernie Sanders. That’s right, the party run by Hillary Clinton displayed blatant anti-Semitism. Don’t get me started on that power-mad congenital liar. Btw, the congenital liar line is a quote of William Safire of the NY TImes.

        Like

      4. You really a lot of help, Alan. You are very deluded. I don’t know how to help you but perhaps Dr. Glass can make some useful suggestions.

        Like

      5. to Linda Sperling ……. You are angry because you’ve been exposed regarding your agenda and your party affiliation which led to your phony criticism of Dr. Glass’ article on Ginsburg’s disgraceful behavior. So in your agenda-driven anger, you retaliate at the messenger and impugn my character but debate with NO facts, not even with ill-informed opinions (of which, apparently, you have many). I will leave you to your irrational attacks on all who do not “see the light” of your skewed and warped opinions, and I will instead stick to facts. Have a nice day.

        Like

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