Skip to content
Washington football team and Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Quarterback Taylor Heinicke plays for a team to be named later in Landover, Maryland on Sunday.


Stephen Lew / Zuma Press

For over a year, this column has campaigned for the National Football League team representing our nation’s capital to be renamed Washington Bader Ginsburgs, in honor of the late Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Now, the revelation of comments Ginsburg once made to TV presenter Katie Couric – and Ms Couric’s decision to delay publication for years – raises new questions about the name change campaign and its prospects.

Daniel Bates reports for the Daily Mail:

Katie Couric admitted to “shielding” Ruth Bader Ginsburg from public backlash by suppressing negative comments she made about people kneeling during the national anthem …

The published story, which Couric wrote for Yahoo! The 2016 news included quotes from Ginsburg saying that refusing to run for the anthem was “stupid and disrespectful,” but omitted more problematic remarks.

Here is an excerpt from the Yahoo 2016 story:

When Couric asked her what she thought of San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick and other athletes, refusing to defend the anthem, Ginsburg replied, “I think it’s really stupid to their share. “

“Would I stop them for doing it?” No, ”Ginsburg explained. “I think it’s stupid and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag engraving. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock anyone up for doing it. I would like to stress how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.

Couric then asked, “But when it comes to these football players, you may find their actions offensive, but what you are saying is that it is within their rights to exercise those actions?”

“Yes,” Ginsburg said. “If they want to be stupid, there is no law that should be preventative. If they want to be arrogant, no law prevents them from doing so. What I would do is strongly challenge the point of view they are expressing when they do this.

What were the “most problematic” remarks that were not included in the Yahoo 2016 report? Mr Bates of the Daily Mail writes this week:

Ginsburg went on to say that such protests show “contempt for a government that has allowed their parents and grandparents to live decent lives.”

She said: “They probably wouldn’t have been able to live in the places they came from… as they get older they realize it was a youthful madness. And that’s why education is important.

In 2016, Ms Couric decided not to reveal how much Ginsburg deviated from the established media narrative. Mr. Bates now writes:

According to Couric, she “wanted to protect” Ginsburg and felt that the issue of racial justice was a “blind spot” for her.

Yet in order to “protect” Ms Ginsburg from making her views known, it appears Ms Couric had to ignore the good advice of a former ABC executive and adopt the tortured logic of a friend at the New York Times. According to the Daily Mail account:

Couric called a friend, David Brooks, a reporter for the New York Times, who told him that Ginsburg probably didn’t understand the question, even though she was still on the Supreme Court at the time.

However, David Westin, the former director of ABC News, advised Couric to keep him.

“She’s at the Supreme Court. People should hear what she’s thinking, ”he said, according to Couric.

Did Mr. Brooks and Ms. Couric really believe that Ginsburg was incapable of fully navigating a Couric interview yet was competent to decide the most important constitutional cases in the country?

Not everyone will embrace the politically incorrect way Ginsburg touted the virtues of living in America, just as not everyone endorsed his militant jurisprudence. But she was an independent thinker with guts. In a city of political and media conformists, the Washington Bader Ginsburgs could represent a refreshing change.


Alright, unhappy

In August, this column was about the dreaded Dr Rochelle Walensky, director of the Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and her illegal efforts to maintain a national moratorium on evictions in the name of public health:

Until the Supreme Court quashes this latest attack on homeowners’ property rights, Dr. Walensky’s order says Americans who violate his directive can face criminal penalties of up to one year in prison. Imprisoning people for such dubious motives is sure to leave Americans with a sense of impending due process doom. And for the record, the alleged emergency is a sham, and not just because daily Covid deaths are thankfully well below their early January levels.

The American consumer is not in crisis. One day, the fiscal and monetary excesses of this era will be borne by American children. But for now, extensive government aid programs have left American households with money to spare.

A few weeks later, the Supreme Court indeed rejected Walensky in its entirety and today the newspaper Will Parker reports:

When the federal moratorium on evictions ended in August, many feared hundreds of thousands of tenants would soon be on the streets. More than six weeks later, that did not happen.

Instead, a more modest increase in evictions reflects how city and state-level tenant protections persist in parts of the country, lawyers and housing advocates have said. Landlords, meanwhile, say the risk of an eviction epidemic has always been overestimated and most building owners have been willing to work with cash-strapped tenants.

Both groups also believe that federal rent assistance, slow to start earlier this year, is now helping prevent many new eviction filings.

According to the Eviction Lab, a Princeton University research initiative that tracks eviction requests in more than 30 cities, eviction requests through the courts – this is how homeowners begin the process of removing property. renters in their homes – increased 8.7% in September compared to August. But the rate is still low on a historic basis and, with 36,796 reports, it is about half the average rate for September before the pandemic.


Hippocrates shrugged his shoulders
“It is normal for doctors to refuse to treat unvaccinated patients,” Medscape, October 13


Annals of Organized Work
Jeong Park reports for the Sacramento Bee:

The executive director of California’s largest union resigned after the attorney general’s office this month charged her and her husband with multiple counts of tax evasion, embezzlement, perjury and non-payment of unemployment insurance contributions.

The office filed its charges against SEIU California Executive Director Alma Hernández and her husband Jose Moscoso on October 4 in Sacramento County Superior Court.

Hernández, whose union represents more than 700,000 workers across the state, had been in her post since 2016. She led the union campaign against the recall of Governor Gavin Newsom, the organization having donated more than $ 6 million. dollars in the countryside.


James Freeman is the co-author of “The Cost: Trump, China and American Revival”.


Follow James Freeman on Twitter.

Subscribe to the best email on the web.

To suggest articles, please email

(Teresa Vozzo helps compile Best of the Web. Thanks to Anne Lauenstein, Tony Lima, and Monty Krieger.)


Copyright © 2021 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All rights reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8