The Supreme Court justice continues to be

the victim of terrible timing. She’s the victim of bad timing

Article continues below …

In recent weeks, three prosecutors have come forward

and attempted to charge her with perjury for using the now-infamous phrase

“mishandling government business.” The question is: How did the Solicitor

General stop a case in which there was no evidence, in another

case, that Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn’t do anything wrong?

Here’s what we had to say.

Let’s be honest here — Ginsburg was a woman, of today’s university

sphere. At that time, she was the embodiment of the leftist-influenced

silence she was working to prevent, and yet she said the following:

“What troubles me most is that all the people who were paid by

the government — lawyers, accountants, secretaries,

health care professionals — they think it is my job to hold back

information that would open my office to the public,” she said.

“They don’t understand that the Constitution allows the

government to do anything to the most consequential and

important things that have never been done before or did not before.

That the people of the United States now have much more power

than they think they have, and they should be able to access much more

information than we ever could.”

Listen here.

With no real evidence for those charges or of her having “mishandled

government business,” here’s how she handles the current

situation.

I don’t know if the person who tried to charge Ginsburg with perjury

was trying to pull a fast one or a lollygagging scheme. But

I think it’s safe to say that she didn’t feel good about herself.

She stopped the high-profile case before it went to court and

then addressed it later when in no way accused of having done anything

wrong.

“I think what’s so ironic about this situation, and what

has bothered me the most, is that you’ve now decided in court the

case that I’m missing something, but in reality I’ve only told you that

the case was not closed on everything,” she said.

I guess this is what defenders of the the bogus and

mishandled charges call “protective action.” As well as saying that Ginsburg did

not take part in the decision-making process, she also said that she

kept her office closed for a few days to think.

I guess by “not knowing what the case was about” she could

and do what most other people would not have done. Plus she stood by

the decision she made even after knowing the lawyer who brought

it was “absolutely against her.”

Maybe she worried about becoming part of the problem.

Maybe even in this instance, she was just looking out for herself. I

wouldn’t have made that choice.

Again I have no idea if this is something that even the prosecutors had

in mind, or if they were doing this out of spite. I just know that

it took out the high-profile case, gave up an opponent, and

then attempted to undo the harm done by the complaint.

Here’s how I saw the situation. The chief prosecutor

announced that no charges would be filed, and put an end to a

fishing expedition that did not create anything. He also repeated

that Ginsburg’s office was not doing anything improper.

Yet now, the Justice Department is prosecuting Ginsburg’s

charge, and Ginsburg is being scapegoated. The president has tweeted

that Ginsburg has been “mishandled” — all without even knowing what the charge

was.

While my friend and colleague Mark Hollis wrote about what happened, I

thought it was a smart move to just apologize. According to

the Associated Press, she didn’t keep her comments on the case quiet

until after it was decided.

“In the end, Justice Ginsburg’s apology did nothing

to slow the onslaught of negative publicity that has followed her

over the course of this case,” Hollis writes. “Given the past events and the

vocal and determined opposition to her leadership of the Court, it

might have been best for her and her office to simply apologize

for the charges and ignore them while also trying to work around

them.”

I think she said “yes.”

The Sentinel’s Editorial Board

by Amy Colbert

Florida Sentinel

Charlie Frederick at

the Sentinel

Editor’s Note:

Charlie isn’t a lawyer, but he is part of the publishing group

at The Sentinel. So we wanted to give