Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
Ginsburg's statement is also binary: "not 100% sober" is a binary condition. If you have not had ANY alcohol, you are 100% sober. If you have had so much as a drop of alcohol, you are "not 100% sober." Your problem is that "not 100% sober" can be one drop of wine, or a gallon of wine, or anything in between (and even beyond). You are making assumptions about where on that continuum Ginsburg was, and your assumption makes the worst (and unwarranted) assumptions. I can only assume that it's because you need to paint her in the worst possible light to affirm your pre-existing bias.
I have no such need. She ate some food and drank some wine, and she took a nap during a boring speech. It deserves about as much attention as the weather report - unless you can demonstrate she was actually drunk. And even if you COULD do that (which I doubt) who on earth cares? She wasn't on the bench. She wasn't driving a car. So <yawn>.
Which makes me realize that I've already spent far more time on this than it warrants. You'll continue to insist you have it right in the absence of adequate evidence, and continue to see Ginsburg in the worst light you can paint her. So...have at it. I really shouldn't even have bothered to begin with.
Last word is yours.
Comment