Judge Ginsburg Campaigns for Hillary
It is atrociously appalling that a judge of the Supreme Court takes sides in a presidential election (recent interview with Katie Couric). Ruth Bader Ginsburg is known for her liberal and leftist views already.
Quoting Sarah B. Boxer: “Ginsburg is no stranger to controversy. This summer, she walked back comments she had made calling Donald Trump a ‘faker’ and criticizing his ego. Trump, in turn, had tweeted out that Ginsburg should resign because ‘her mind is shot.’”
Appointed by then-president Bill Clinton, it seems the 83-year-old judge Ginsburg is trying to repay that debt with interest by praising Hillary and criticizing Trump just as the nation prepares to vote. She, in a way, defends Hillary’s crimes related to email scandal, dubious donations for the Clinton Foundation, Benghazi fiasco and lost American lives, dereliction of duties, conflict of interest and other grave irregularities by not mentioning even one of them. Instead, she admires her for being a woman, her knowledge, her poise and command of the language etc. (as if these are the most essential qualities for the president’s job).
About Trump’s idea of a ban on Muslim immigration, RBG has given enough hints on how she will vote if there is a case before the Supreme Court. She said: “All I can say is I am sensitive to discrimination on any basis because I have experienced that upset. 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.”
That interview makes it clearer about her biased views and it sets a very bad precedent for judges – unelected judges of the highest court of the country – to participate in electioneering and influencing the voters through interviews and public expression of their preferences.
Madam Ginsburg, all that may not be technically unconstitutional but it’s unethical, unfair, prejudiced, jaundiced and totally unacceptable.
Is there any punishment for such a conduct of a sitting top judge? Has the Supreme Court, collectively, any views about this? Will some judge take issues with RBG for publicly expressing her biased views and admiring one candidate and criticizing the other? Is this not joining the Clinton bandwagon in the election campaign by a sitting judge?
God save America!
Wealth and Taxes
In our great country of America, the land of opportunity, there are many avenues of acquiring wealth. Sometimes it is talent, intellect, imagination, hard work, dedication, taking risks or luck.
In today’s present political run for the President, we have two very wealthy candidates. One is an entrepreneur who takes risks, employing many people and is personally involved in the hard work required to achieve success in the business world. Those who take risks frequently face losses. In our tax system, the government taxes gains and allows income to be reduced by certain losses. Even a gambler can reduce his winnings by his verifiable losses.
We have another candidate who has acquired great wealth by shamelessly taking donations from other peoples’ pockets. For a new low, this candidate even profited while in the White House by charging thousands for a room in a property that belongs to the people. On her income tax return she took an income tax deduction for a $1 million donation to her own Foundation, over which she has complete control. She paid no taxes on this $1 million which are funds denied to the American people. Her Foundation is not an arm’s length organization as is the Red Cross, where she would have no personal control over the monetary operations. Also, according to news accounts, it appears that some of this money is laundered through Canada for tax avoidance purposes and the amount for charitable purposes is low.
So make your choice: an entrepreneur risk taker or one who takes no risks, just collects donations from individuals and country leaders, possibly for future favors. Both have used tax laws for their benefits, one in a business sense and one in a very personal sense.
Finally, this comparison shows we need new tax laws that prohibit people from taking tax deductions when they are the beneficiaries. In fact, many revisions are necessary in our current tax laws.