re: #389 EPR-radar

I’ve edited my comment above. If two moral imperatives collide (e.g., opposing fascism and judicial impartiality), one is obliged to make a hard choice.

That’s a level of nuance I can appreciate.

I wish Ginsburg had taken a somewhat different tack and expressed that, in her role as arbiter of what the document does and does not mean, she hasn’t seen much evidence that Trump understands, values, or respects the Constitution. Had the comment been on this level or of this form, not only would I have applauded it but I would say it would have been her professional duty to make it.