Hey, Ruth! C'mon!!

I Humbly find those two words to be the most irritating of arguments: C'mon! It's a synonym for "No intelligent person could possibly disagree with me." Should we not register guns? C'mon! Should taxpayer money not go towards college educations for the disadvantaged? C'mon! Shouldn't all medical care be administered by the federal government? C'mon! Shouldn't tobacco be flat-out banned? C'mon! Shouldn't Constitutional rights be limited whereever there exists a potential for abuse? C'mon! You're a fool and a jerk if you disagree with the C'mon argument.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg used essentially just this argument, recently. She referred to an argument from an Israeli Supreme Court Chief Justice, Aharon Barak, to wit, "Torture? Never." C'mon! Nope, no legal discussion necessary. No careful reasoning, no thought, just the raw emotion of that passionate appeal. Torture prisoners even under the most dire of circumstances? C'mon!

Ordinary people saying, "C'mon!" are signalling a closed mind. They clearly have a prejudice. They have decided, and YOU are the fool if you do not, upon hearing those two words, agree with them. Ordinary people do not have the extraordinary power of Supreme Court justices.

Justice Ginsberg, responding to a question about citing foreign law, said, essentially, "C'mon!" Yeah, of course the Supreme Court should hear citations of foreign law. Oh, she stated arguments that, early in this nation's history, foreign law was commonly cited. She appealed to the desire for status and popularity within the world community, saying Canada was cited more in foreign courts then we are! I try hard not to use profanity, but this kind of high-school argument has me biting my Humble tongue. The framers of the Constitution should have foreseen this idiocy, and put in a clause saying, "Whereas other nations upon this earth shall find it agreeable to jump off a cliff, the Supreme Court shall not do so."

Okay, not every issue facing the Supreme Court was considered by the Constitution. What remains is for the Supreme Courts to do what we pay them to do: decide the law. Are the actions of the other two branches of the federal government allowed by the Constitution? That's ALL.

C'mon!