History of Supreme Court worth learning

I read with interest, the letter to the editor on May 20, written by David W. Kunkel, regarding Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s “inappropriate” comment that she “and her husband” would move to New Zealand if Trump was elected. He also asked why she and her husband were still here.

Mr. Kunkel’s comments are reflective of the mindset and social awareness of many Trump devotees, and that of Trump himself. I wonder if Mr. Kunkel realizes that Martin Ginsburg died of a long and tragic battle with cancer in June 2010. That being the case, I suspect that Mr. Kunkel’s quoting of Justice Ginsburg is (at least) not entirely correct. While Justice Ginsburg’s comments may have been inappropriate, it is mind-boggling to think that Mr. Kunkel could criticize Justice Ginsburg’s singular comment in the wake of Trump’s immense trail of inappropriate comments and lies since his inauguration, much less his outrageous lies and malicious comments about multiple individuals during his campaign, as well as those in the years prior to his campaign.

May I suggest that Mr. Kunkel educate himself on the Supreme Court? There are many good and interesting books on the subject, such as Jeffrey Toobin’s “The Nine.” I assure Mr. Kunkel that Justice Ginsburg’s comment was mild by comparison to other comments made by Justices in the past. Our history and the evolution of its institutions are quite interesting. It is a shame the president and others don’t feel that facts and history are worth learning.

This story was originally published May 25, 2017 at 5:00 PM with the headline "History of Supreme Court worth learning."