The editors of the New York Times criticized Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s insinuating herself into the presidential campaign on the side of Hillary Clinton:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling.
Three times in the past week, Justice Ginsburg has publicly discussed her view of the presidential race, in the sharpest terms. In an interview with The Times published Sunday, Justice Ginsburg said, “I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,†joking that if her husband were alive, he might have said, “It’s time for us to move to New Zealand.â€
adding two more statements of Justice Ginsburg’s to their litany. They followed up with this:
Mr. Trump responded on Tuesday. “I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly,†he told The Times. “I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.â€
The editors of the Washington Post wrote in a similar vein:
As journalists, we generally favor more openness and disclosure from public figures rather than less. Yet Justice Ginsburg’s off-the-cuff remarks about the campaign fall into that limited category of candor that we can’t admire, because it’s inconsistent with her function in our democratic system.
The editors of the Chicago Tribune declaimed:
If Trump is elected, Ginsburg may be expected to rule on the constitutionality or legality of the policies he pursues. Can anyone assume that she’ll put aside her disdain for him and give them a fair hearing? If President Trump were to lose a case, wouldn’t he have plausible grounds to claim, as he often does, “The system is rigged”?
The Supreme Court commands respect and deference from the citizenry partly because it stands outside of petty politics. When a member of the court strides into that muck, she may help a candidate, but she hurts the cause of justice.
Here’s the scenario I think we should consider. Had Ruth Bader Ginsburg made these statements prior to being appointed to the Supreme Court, she wouldn’t be sitting there now due to her being perceived as lacking judicial temperament. Being appointed a Supreme Court Justice is not a license to abandon being a good judge.
That horse was out of the barn long ago. Judges can marry actual political activists and real live politicians. They attend the weddings of the most extreme political pundits. Vacation with politicians. Now we are expected to believe that a few comments on the upcoming election violates some ethics or conduct standard? Sure, she should not have commented, but this is trivial compared with what judges have been doing for years now.
Steve
Well, there are three Euro-American males left on the court of eight.
And Obama wants to reduce the erstwhile Majority to a third.
Which brings up an interesting question. What do you want the Supreme Court to look like? The United States? The ABA? The American judiciary? Just for reference 95% of American judges are white and three quarters are men.
steve:
Rather than allowing Supreme Court Justices to become political operatives, I think that’s an argument to start cracking down on the justices.
Note, however, that you’re arguing that Republican justices’ associations justify Democratic justices becoming political operatives themselves. Unless you’re arguing slippery slope, there’s no logic there. And the way to deal with a slippery slope is to stop the slide.
Basically, I think that she should be censured and both Democrats and Republicans should feel the need to do so.