Is he wrong?
Paul Butler is a former federal prosecutor and a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center. He is the author of "Let’s Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice.''
"Normally Supreme Court justices should refrain from commenting on partisan politics. But these are not normal times. The question is whether a Supreme Court justice – in this case, the second woman on the court, a civil rights icon and pioneering feminist -- has an obligation to remain silent when the country is at risk of being ruled by a man who has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a sexist and racist demagogue. The answer must be no.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent critique of Donald Trump has drawn bipartisan jeers. Ginsburg is being pilloried for publicly saying what many other Americans think, likely including some of her colleagues on the Supreme Court.
Still I understand the concern about Ginsburg going public with her views. Perceptions are important for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court -- that’s why the justices wear those silly black robes, sit high on a bench, and make everybody stand up when they enter the courtroom. Pretending that they are above the political fray is part of the same bag of tricks.
It is significant that Ginsburg chose to speak out now. She has been on the court during the presidential campaigns of several conservative Republicans, including George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney. She never criticized them. But there is, as even many Republicans have acknowledged, something different about the Donald.
It’s not just Trump’s misogyny.
It’s not only that he described Mexican immigrants as rapists and proposed barring Muslims from entering the United States.
It’s not just that he questions whether Mexican-American and Muslim-American judges are capable of being fair to him.
It’s not just his statement, as an African-American protester was being ejected from one of his rallies: “See in the good old days this didn’t happen because they used to treat them very very rough.”
It’s not only that Trump was reluctant to reject the endorsement of white supremacist David Duke, or that he has found nice things to say about Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un.
It’s also that Trump has no governing principles or coherent ideologies other than “believe me and do what I say” and an appeal to a radical ethnocentrism among white people. This is the mark of a fascist.
When despots have ascended to power in other regimes, one wonders how judges should have responded. Should they have adhered to a code of silence while their country went to hell? Not on the watch of the Notorious R.B.G. She understands that if Trump wins, the rule of law is at risk.
In speaking out, Ginsburg has refused to elevate the appearance of justice over justice itself. The Washington chattering classes may not appreciate the breach of protocol, but history -- should the United States remain a democracy - will be a kinder judge."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/can-a-supreme-court-justice-denounce-a-candidate/ar-BBueCsf
Paul Butler is a former federal prosecutor and a law professor at Georgetown University Law Center. He is the author of "Let’s Get Free: A Hip-Hop Theory of Justice.''
"Normally Supreme Court justices should refrain from commenting on partisan politics. But these are not normal times. The question is whether a Supreme Court justice – in this case, the second woman on the court, a civil rights icon and pioneering feminist -- has an obligation to remain silent when the country is at risk of being ruled by a man who has repeatedly demonstrated that he is a sexist and racist demagogue. The answer must be no.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent critique of Donald Trump has drawn bipartisan jeers. Ginsburg is being pilloried for publicly saying what many other Americans think, likely including some of her colleagues on the Supreme Court.
Still I understand the concern about Ginsburg going public with her views. Perceptions are important for the legitimacy of the Supreme Court -- that’s why the justices wear those silly black robes, sit high on a bench, and make everybody stand up when they enter the courtroom. Pretending that they are above the political fray is part of the same bag of tricks.
It is significant that Ginsburg chose to speak out now. She has been on the court during the presidential campaigns of several conservative Republicans, including George W. Bush, John McCain and Mitt Romney. She never criticized them. But there is, as even many Republicans have acknowledged, something different about the Donald.
It’s not just Trump’s misogyny.
It’s not only that he described Mexican immigrants as rapists and proposed barring Muslims from entering the United States.
It’s not just that he questions whether Mexican-American and Muslim-American judges are capable of being fair to him.
It’s not just his statement, as an African-American protester was being ejected from one of his rallies: “See in the good old days this didn’t happen because they used to treat them very very rough.”
It’s not only that Trump was reluctant to reject the endorsement of white supremacist David Duke, or that he has found nice things to say about Saddam Hussein, Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un.
It’s also that Trump has no governing principles or coherent ideologies other than “believe me and do what I say” and an appeal to a radical ethnocentrism among white people. This is the mark of a fascist.
When despots have ascended to power in other regimes, one wonders how judges should have responded. Should they have adhered to a code of silence while their country went to hell? Not on the watch of the Notorious R.B.G. She understands that if Trump wins, the rule of law is at risk.
In speaking out, Ginsburg has refused to elevate the appearance of justice over justice itself. The Washington chattering classes may not appreciate the breach of protocol, but history -- should the United States remain a democracy - will be a kinder judge."
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/can-a-supreme-court-justice-denounce-a-candidate/ar-BBueCsf
