Ginsburg may have trumped her usual outspokenness

A

anatta

100% recycled karma
Unlike many of her Supreme Court colleagues, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has never been shy about granting news interviews and speaking her mind when she does so. It’s made her the fierce“Notorious RBG” to her young, feminist fans and a scourge to conservatives who say her off-the-bench musings are inappropriate and could be disqualifying in future cases.

But she went even further than usual last week in her comments to the Associated Press and The New York Times about presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg told the Times. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
Click to expand...
She recalled a joke her late husband Marty used to make about unfortunate political outcomes:
“Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”
Click to expand...
Similarly, she told the AP that she assumed Democrat Hillary Clinton — the 83-year-old Ginsburg was nominated to the court in 1993 by President Bill Clinton — would win the November election.

Asked what would happen if Trump won instead, she said: “I don’t want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs.”

The Supreme Court has emerged as an important issue in the election — the current ideological balance of four liberals and four conservatives will be broken by the next president.

The court would have a liberal majority for the first time in decades if Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to replace the late Justice Antonin Scalia, is confirmed, and the next president is likely to be able to influence the court’s future as well.

find it baffling actually that she says these things,” said Arthur Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh who studies the judiciary. “She must know that she shouldn’t be. However tempted she might be, she shouldn’t be doing it.”
Click to expand...

think this exceeds the others in terms of her indiscretions,” Whelan said. “I am not aware of any justice ever expressing views on the merits or demerits of a presidential candidate in the midst of the campaign. I am not a fan of Donald Trump’s at all. But the soundness or unsoundness of her concerns about Donald Trump has no bearing on whether it was proper for her to say what she said.”

The most immediate consequence of Ginsburg’s comments would be if a case involving the election — a 2016 version of Bush v. Gore — came before the court. But there could also be concerns should Trump be elected.

Louis J. Virelli III is a Stetson University law professor who just wrote a book on Supreme Court recusals, titled “Disqualifying the High Court.” He said that “public comments like the ones that Justice Ginsburg made could be seen as grounds for her to recuse herself from cases involving a future Trump administration.
Hellman said Ginsburg’s comments could muddy the waters when it comes to decisions not just involving Trump but also his policies — something that could come up regularly should he win the presidency.

“It would cast doubt on her impartiality in those decisions,” Hellman said. “If she has expressed herself as opposing the election of Donald Trump, her vote to strike down a Trump policy would be under a cloud
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...-top-table-main_supreme-0725pm:homepage/story
 
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has crossed way, way over the line

Unless they have a book to sell, Supreme Court justices rarely give interviews. Even then, they diligently avoid political topics. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes a different approach.

These days, she is making no secret of what she thinks of a certain presidential candidate.

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

As my Post colleague Aaron Blake notes, this was not a stray comment by Ginsburg. She has made this point repeatedly this month:


For Ginsburg, it’s clear that this has become a calculated risk that she is going to take. The New York Times comments weren’t even the only time she has been critical of Trump. In an Associated Press interview published Friday, she also said a Trump presidency is basically unthinkable. …

That’s twice in two interviews — i.e. not a coincidence.

A fun “Notorious RBG” meme has burbled its way into political discourse about Ginsburg, and the promoters of that meme seem perfectly delighted with her Trump comments. And, goodness knows, the hard-working staff here at Spoiler Alerts agrees very strongly with the substance of what Ginsburg said.

But because Ginsburg believes in speaking plainly, then let us return the favor: This was a remarkably stupid and egregious comment for a sitting Supreme Court justice to make on the record. Say what you will about Justices Antonin Scalia, who died in February, or Clarence Thomas, but they never weighed in on presidential politics quite like this. The closest example I can find is that in January 2004, during an election year, Scalia went on a hunting trip with Vice President Dick Cheney. That action alone got legal ethicists into a lather.

What Ginsburg did was way worse, though. Indeed, I can find no modern instance of a Supreme Court justice being so explicit about an election — and for good reason. As the Chicago Tribune noted in an editorial:


To say her public comments are unusual is like saying dancing cows are scarce. Supreme Court justices don’t — at least until now — take public stands on presidential or other elections. One reason is that they are barred from doing so by the federal code of judicial conduct, which states that as a general rule, judges shall not “publicly endorse or publicly oppose another candidate for public office.” They also aren’t allowed to make speeches on behalf of political organizations or give money to candidates. …

Nowhere is that impartiality more important than in the highest court in the land, which has the final word on a host of grave questions. For justices to descend into partisan election campaigns would undermine public faith in their willingness to assess each case strictly on its legal merits. It would also encourage justices to let their political biases affect, if not determine, their deci

Indeed. As my Post colleague and Volokh Conspiracy contributor Jonathan Adler writes,
“For the record, I share many of her concerns about Trump, and will not support him for President under any circumstances, but these comments seem quite inappropriate for a sitting member of the federal judiciary.”
Click to expand...
As I noted earlier this year, trust in the Supreme Court was bound to take a hit after the death of Scalia and the partisan deadlock over filling his seat. But if eroding trust was a slow-burning political fire, Ginsburg just poured gasoline on it. There are certain privileges that one sacrifices to be a sitting member of the federal judiciary and making explicitly partisan comments about presidential elections is one of those privileges.

I cannot see any possible defense of what Ginsburg did, given that she violated Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Supreme Court Justices are not strictly bound by that code, but they nonetheless act as exemplars for the rest of the judiciary, and this canon seems pretty important. She should repair the damage and apologize for her remarks as soon as possible. Otherwise, she bears almost as much responsibility as Trump for the slow-motion crisis in American democracy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f:homepage/story
 
really sad to see she can't keep her thought to herslf while still serving on the Bench.
She can retire and "go to New Zealand" if she wants to partake in partisan politic. The woman is intemperate.
 
think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly,” Mr. Trump said. “I think it’s a disgrace to the court and I think she should apologize to the court. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”
 
I think it would be hilarious to see yet another presidential election end up in front of the courts where she has to recuse herself because of these remarks.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I think it would be hilarious to see yet another presidential election end up in front of the courts where she has to recuse herself because of these remarks.
Click to expand...

But she wouldn't recuse herself and the left would excuse her behavior. People have to stop thinking leftists play by the rules. They only play by the rules if the rules help them achieve their goals.

Notice how quiet they are on this?

Imagine if Clarence Thomas said this about Crooked Hillary?

The Pussy Posse would be aghast in indignation and calling for a lynching
 
She may have got out over her skis a little bit and (been) more forthright and political than she should have been. It’s very unusual,” added Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois.
~~
Two other Democratic Senate leaders, Patty Murray of Washington and Chuck Schumer of New York, refused to comment.
~~
“Some jurists thought it was not something that a Supreme Court justice should do. I don’t really feel that way,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). “I feel that people can make statements that are generally cautious. This is a difficult time, difficult period, and she said what she thought.”
 
Islam Sucks said:
When Trump is elected he will be able to replace the batty old shrew. She will try to stay on but her health is poor.
Click to expand...
:whoa: & then he will awaken to the sounds of his own sobbing, as he now is a loser, living in a country controlled by the evil clinton's & their liberal american hating minions.... :whoa::whoa:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top