“A Judge Would Be Disqualified”: Justice Ginsburg Again Wades Into Political Controversies In Interview
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
I have previously criticized Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her continued political comments in speeches to liberal and academic groups. While not unique on the Court, Ginsburg has repeatedly crossed the line of traditional public speaking in discussing political controversies, pending issues before the Court, and even criticizing the President. Despite repeated controversies in speaking publicly on political issues, Ginsburg remains undeterred. Earlier this year, Ginsburg again repeated her view that sexist voters prevented Hillary Clinton from being elected president — a repeat of controversial comments in her 2017 speech . This week, Ginsburg commented on the merits of President Donald Trump’s call for a review of the Supreme Court and even criticized senators who have made public statements about the impeachment.
Indeed, the most ironic part of her commentary was Ginsburg noting how inappropriate it is for senators to be discussing their views of the merits before any actual impeachment. She insisted “if a judge said that, a judge would be disqualified from sitting on the case.” That raises a rather uncomfortable question as to what Ginsburg was doing in that very interview.
In discussing these issues with the BBC’s Razia Iqbal, Ginsburg commented on Trump’s desire for a review of the basis for impeachment. She dismissed the idea and noted “The president is not a lawyer, he’s not law trained.” The Court just took a case with potential bearing on the impeachment and particularly the article of obstruction of Congress. For Ginsburg to make any comments on the issue is wildly inappropriate.
She then added criticism of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and other senators who have discussed their views of the merits: “Well if a judge said that, a judge would be disqualified from sitting on the case.”
Some of us have raised concerns over such comments, but we are not members of the Supreme Court.
However, Ginsburg was not done. She turned to abortion and declared “I think society needs to be more active on this issue. And the truth is that with all these restrictive laws, the only people who are being restricted are poor women. They normally can’t pay a plane fare or the bus fare, they can’t afford to take days off of work to go.”
That is not just direct commentary on political and legal issues but a direction to what people should do on a political issue. It is facially inappropriate and the media would not be so silent if another justice like Samual Alito was advising pro-life forces on what they needed to do. Ginsburg was also discussing disparate impact issues on abortion services — an issue that has come before the Court and is likely to be before the Court again.
It was an ironic moment for the justice who is credited with the “Ginsburg Rule” where she refused to answer questions during confirmation that might be raised in cases before her. I have been critical of that rule. However, after being confirmed, Ginsburg regularly discussed the issues that she declined to discuss in the confirmation.
I have long been a critic of Supreme Court justices embracing the era of what I have called “ the celebrity justice .” Justices are increasingly appearing before highly ideological groups and inappropriately discussing thinly veiled political subjects or even pending issues. I have been equally critical of other justices, including the late Antonin Scalia , for such comments. She previously called President Trump a “faker.” Ginsburg remains a notable recidivist in this type of conduct.
It would not seem much to ask for justices to avoid commenting on politics while on the Court. These justices are allowed to sit on a court of nine. The price of that ticket should be utter neutrality in politics. Instead, Ginsburg appears to relish her public persona.
While Ginsburg previously apologized for her past political commentary as “ill-advised,” it is equally ill-informed. Yet, after the election, Clinton alternatively blamed sexism , racism , self-hating women , domineering boyfriends , Russian hackers , Bernie Sanders , and of course, James Comey .
In the end, it does not matter if Ginsburg is right or wrong. Her continuing discussion of political issues out of the Court undermines both the Court and her legacy.
Jonathan Turley
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
80 visitors
Inappropriate comments?
I doubt if she will last through Trump's second term. Perhaps she can be removed for dementia.
Can you imagine what that's going to be like?
She's a politician on the bench. She doesn't really try to hide it.
I have no problem with RBG discussing women's individual freedom of choice or the religiously challenged forces still determined to overturn that decision and impose their unamerican non-secular values on the unwilling in a secular country, especially since the issue was settled by the SCOTUS 47 years ago.
But don't you agree that some common sense restrictions be placed on abortion? Like prohibiting very late abortions unless the life of the mother is threatened?
Since the legality of abortion is not a Constitutional right, should the States have the final say about it?
we already have that, check, but it's still not good enough for the life begins at conception crowd. states cannot supersede SCOTUS decisions.
When does life begin, in your opinion? First breath, or at that point in the pregnancy that it can survive outside the womb?
as far as thumpers are concerned, first breath, just like it says in the bible.
Sounds like a manifesto! How about all judges acting like judges?
only the judges?
Ya, the topic is judges. It's not really difficult.
In what way hasn't Ginsburg acted like a judge? Before you answer that, I suggest you review some of the videos of Thomas' and Scalia's interviews.
Better yet, I'd love to hear what they said while at the Koch Industries 'seminars'.
What does the actions of one judge have to do with the ethics of another?
Well gee Vic, since there are NO standing ethics rules for the SCOTUS, NOTHING.
Roberts didn't make a peep when Thomas and Scalia did interviews, participated in neocon seminars, went to political fund raisers or when Thomas failed to report receiving expensive personal gifts from people who were before the court.
Judging from all of that silence, I'm still wondering in what way you think Ginsburg wasn't acting like a judge.
Sleepy Smurf shoulda done EVERYONE a favor, and retired years ago.
But..… She's "Ideologically SELFISH" !
I'm going to disagree with Turley, here. I don't have a problem with the justices doing interviews and expressing opinions on the issues of the day, including issues they might soon have before them. Any appellate judge - but particularly the justices of the SCOTUS - will potentially have to rule on the full spectrum of legal and social issues at some point, but you can't use that as an excuse to muzzle them for the rest of their lives.
Silencing RBG won't prevent her from developing opinions on the issues. She's going to have opinions. Might as well get used to it.
For one thing, it's actually useful for litigants. If I am someone who might someday have to argue a case in front of her, I would rather know where she stands. I can then focus an argument that will appeal to her priorities.
Secondly, whether you like the politics of an individual justice or not, they are all smart people who have had a lot of experience considering complex issues. I have had the fortune of hearing some of them speak to groups and appreciated their insight. We can learn from them even if we don't always agree with them.
Ultimately, the duty of any justice will be to set aside their personal beliefs and interpret the law consistent with the requirements of the Constitution. I think they all understand that this is expected of them and I do believe that they try to do that even if they sometimes aren't very good at managing it.
I actually agree with you. A lot of justices go on a speech circuit.
Imo people are allowed to have opinions on things. As long as it doesn't interfere with their work.
I would much rather them express their opinions in public than to 'give talks' to partisan groups behind closed doors without transparency.
Standard moderating procedure.
THAT is a lie. It isn't the question Ginsburg was asked. HERE is what she WAS asked:
"What is your reading of the Constitution in the context of the POTUS saying that the Supreme Court should stop this impeachment?"
Why yes, YES she did and her answer is cogent. As Turley well knows, the SCOTUS has already ruled that they have no jurisdiction over impeachment.
Note that Turley doesn't cite what case he is talking about nor what 'potential bearing' it may have had. Secondly, stating that Trump isn't a lawyer and is untrained in the law has NO bearing on any case before the court. It's just more of Turley's hyperbole.
Since this article was written 12/18/2019, Turley's hype is moot now.
Who said the "Supreme Court" actually did ?
Comical when you have the federalist society running things on the right.
Do you even research before you post? If you want to start on this, lets go. And I can't WAIT to start in on Barr. May not be on SCOTUS, but sure has a lot to answer for. And one day he will. But this must really put your knickers in a twist.
How about you direct your post to somebody?
I don't agree with her on most things, but I will give her credit. She must be tough as hell. I have no doubts that she is ready to take the robe off for the last time.