I have been previously critical of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s public speeches and interviews (as well as those of some of her colleague’s like Justice Scalia). Ginsburg has again crossed the line of judicial decorum in my view with yet another interview. In this case, she openly discusses the danger of Republican influence on any replacement in the context of her decision to stay on the Court. The interview with Elle magazine is another public appearance that continues the corrosive influence of politics on the Court and the maintenance of political contingencies by some of the justices.
I have long been a critic of the increasing public personas maintained by justices like Scalia and Ginsburg. I have previously written about the advent of the celebrity justice. Scalia clearly relishes the public attention, even though his public controversies likely cost him the Chief Justice position on the Court. This trend is a serious erosion of past restraint as justices like Ginsburg make controversial public statements before rapturous crowds.
I greatly valued the model of John Paul Stevens who avoided public controversies and speeches — speaking through his opinions.
Ginsburg has been criticized for hanging on to her seat despite her advanced years. She is now 81.
She swatted back critics in the interview by saying that she is not resigning because of the influence of the Republicans on the likely nominee:
“Who do you think President Obama could appoint at this very day, given the boundaries that we have? If I resign any time this year, he could not successfully appoint anyone I would like to see in the court. [The Senate Republicans] took off the filibuster for lower federal court appointments, but it remains for this court. So anybody who thinks that if I step down, Obama could appoint someone like me, they’re misguided. As long as I can do the job full steam…. I think I’ll recognize when the time comes that I can’t any longer. But now I can.”
While liberals thrill at the increasingly political nature of Ginsburg’s comments, I do not. There has been a long-standing tradition on the Court to avoid politics and political discussions. Ginsburg’s public comments on calculating Republican moves in Congress and engineering a replacement to her liking is a further deterioration of the decorum of the Court. Many liberals would be outraged by Scalia talking about how he needs to stop Obama from making another appointment or seeking to curtail the role of Democrats in shaping the court. This is not the province of Supreme Court justices. No one is suggesting that these justices are apolitical personally. However, the vast majority of justices have refrained from political discussions to maintain of the authority and standing of the Court. To further discuss political changes in the filibuster role in Congress (as a condition for possible retirement) puts her seat at the center of the political debate and legislative process.
Ginsburg’s position also makes little sense since, under this logic, there is unlikely to be a time to vacate the seat while the filibuster rule remains. The Congress has long been divided as has the country. If predictions prove valid, the Democrats will lose seats in both houses and could lose the Senate entirely. Ginsburg has guaranteed the worst possible timing for Democrats if she truly has been calculating the political odds. In the end, it sounds more like a rationalization than a calculation to hold on to her seat.
In the past, it has been the role of the Chief Justice to enforce a sense of restraint and decorum for members of the Court. Chief Justice Roberts has failed to do so in the past. Indeed, I was highly critical of Justice Alito’s display at a past State of the Union (and past appearances at public events) in showing opposition to President Obama’s statements. I was even more shocked when Roberts appeared, if anything, to support Alito rather than rebuke him for such a public demonstration.
In the end, we are responsible for the trend of justices courting constituencies and popularity. Bar groups scramble for these justices to speak and the public is overjoyed when they throw red meat to one side of the political spectrum or the other. While citizens constantly denounce the other side as political “ideologues,” they lionize “their” justices for consistently taking the opposing positions and giving public commentary to their liking. Few of these justices would have been selected by a merits based vote of the legal academy. Indeed, many were selected precisely because they were easy nominees with little written or said in the past on major issues. They are incredibly fortunate to be on the Court. The price for that ticket is a modest one. They should speak through their opinions and leave political considerations to those in the two political branches. By portraying herself as a Democratic member (and conversely suggesting that the GOP is the enemy), Ginsburg reinforces the view of justices as carrying out political agendas.
If Ginsburg thinks that she is still fully functional as a justice as an octogenarian, so be it. However, the attempt to justify her decision on political grounds is neither judicious nor credible.
Also, Alito “mouthed” a comment because the President was lying to their faces. And Wilson’s”shout” was a warning the President was lying; we should have taken seriously.
I was livid when Ginsburg said wives and daughters would change the minds of the men on the court after the Hobby Lobby decision. How rude. If my husband, father, brother, whatever was on the court I would never try to influence the decision. It isn’t my job, it’s his! Liberal Democrats have made the nomination process a circus. Ted Kennedy used every avenue possible against Bork, now we have “borking.” And the public “lynching” of Clarence Thomas was a disgrace! I think Anita Hill would like to erase those days. Where is she? Dems didn’t give her a job after ruining her. Every woman in this country who have worked for “jerks” knows she would never have offered him a two-hour ride to the airport alone. Period.
And it’s not damn aggravating…………it’s expected.
Annie – cats barking does not make any sense either. Someone is CWI.
Um…………Here is Annie NOT putting words in someone’s mouth (pay no attention to the fact Olly never said “he’s a commie”): “If one listens to Jill, he’s a neocon, if one listens to Olly, he’s a commie.”
Um Jill… No I’m NOT saying that drone strikes are OK anywhere anytime. You shouldn’t put words in people’s mouths and as a leftist you should know how aggravating that is when rightists do it. Don’t be like some commenters here who want to try to read people’s minds and go on to mischaracterize and misrepresent what that commenter actually said, or didn’t say at all. Jill, as a leftist, why do you do this? You really should stop, its damn aggravating. I think you might get more fellow leftists to agree with your stances if you were more careful not to make such wild assumptions. IF we are in a declared war, drone strikes would be part of warfare. However, as I said before, my instincts would be to leave them to their own devices. No war, enough already.
Where do I go to get my comment back? Just disappeared!
Can’t get the second half of this quote to post. Would someone be willing to retrieve it please?
“This is a vision of the world in which might makes right, a world in which one nation’s borders can be redrawn by another.” President Obama said this at the UN yesterday, in his long lecture to the world’s nations about violence and justice. Of course, his criticism was directed only at countries with which the US is currently at war, not to his current allies in the war of terror in the region. But certainly this accurately describes the U.S. method for holding on to empire.
Needed now: a powerful anti-war movement in the world’s most dangerous country. That would be the one expanding its nuclear arsenal, according to Monday’s New York Times.
Monday, the United States began a bombing campaign in Syria, months after it began 200 airstrikes on Iraq. We are told that the strikes targeted ISIS bases in at least four provinces of Syria, and a newly-identified “terrorist organization.” Pretense under Bush, as now under Obama, of “humanitarian aid” fails to disguise the true nature of U.S. aggression — attempting to strengthen U.S. domination of the region.
Once again, from the most powerful military in world history, protecting the largest-ever economy, bombs. As in 24 years of bombing Iraq, 13 of Afghanistan, like Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Has this done anything to liberate anyone or save lives? These illegitimate, unjust immoral wars of aggression have not.” (World Can’t Wait)
Jill, I retrieved your comment at 5:10.
To continue from World Can’t Wait:
““This is a vision of the world in which might makes right, a world in which one nation’s borders can be redrawn by another.” President Obama said this at the UN yesterday, in his long lecture to the world’s nations about violence and justice. Of course, his criticism was directed only at countries with which the US is currently at war, not to his current allies in the war of terror in the region. But certainly this accurately describes the U.S. method for holding on to empire.
Needed now: a powerful anti-war movement in the world’s most dangerous country. That would be the one expanding its nuclear arsenal, according to Monday’s New York Times.
Monday, the United States began a bombing campaign in Syria, months after it began 200 airstrikes on Iraq. We are told that the strikes targeted ISIS bases in at least four provinces of Syria, and a newly-identified “terrorist organization.” Pretense under Bush, as now under Obama, of “humanitarian aid” fails to disguise the true nature of U.S. aggression — attempting to strengthen U.S. domination of the region.
Once again, from the most powerful military in world history, protecting the largest-ever economy, bombs. As in 24 years of bombing Iraq, 13 of Afghanistan, like Libya, Somalia and Yemen. Has this done anything to liberate anyone or save lives? These illegitimate, unjust immoral wars of aggression have not.”
Jill, I retrieved your comment at 5:08.
Annie,
I am speaking about Obama’s drone kill policy. He has said he has the right to kill anyone, anywhere on his say so. This is not the law of the US nor is it international law. You say, well, he has to kill the terrorists. Does he? Up until 9/11 terrorism was considered a criminal offense and people accused of it were tried in civilian court. They were often convicted and some are serving life sentences.
Secondly, is he only killing the terrorists? So far he has actually killed 1000s of civilians to include babies and children. He has deliberately killed a 16 year old boy. He has also deliberately killed a man who a grand jury refused to indict for the crime of terrorism (see Scahill).
You say that you are a left wing person yet you are also saying that it’s O.K. with you if Obama picks out people to kill and kills them,– no trial, no nothing. How did you arrive at that being O.K. with you? How do you see this as part of our Constitution? How do you see this as a left wing position?
SMM, here is something you can do. It’s from World Can’t Wait:
“The most frequently asked question I’m hearing, including among people who have been active in opposing U.S. wars, is “but, don’t we have to do something about ISIS?”
Yes, “we” do. We — people living in this country — do have to send a loud message to the rest of the world that we are completely against the killing, theft of resources, subjugation of women and denial of peoples’ rights in the region by the forces responsible. The Islamic State (ISIS or ISIL) is both a response to U.S. occupation of the region, and also literally, in some cases, was created by torture in U.S. prisons in Iraq; by billions of dollars in U.S. arms strewn about the region; and funded by close U.S. allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar, societies where people also have scarcely any rights. The Islamic State offers a disastrous future for the people, and is no damn good.
But U.S. occupations, bombs, economic exploitation, and support of every reactionary regime in the region have done more damage, by far, than any Islamic fundamentalist group in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was the Bush regime that sold the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq — countries which never attacked the U.S. — on the basis of defeating the Taliban and al Qaeda, only to have strengthened the basis on which they operate.”
Haven’t seen Nick much today, but Sadie Hemings showed up, so I guess that’s an indication…
It’s so wonderful when a Supreme Court Justice is openly hyper-partisan. So much for the appearance of unbiased jurisprudence.
Annie,Jill Most people are tired of the terrorists and the wars. The idea that terrorists are getting ready to attack at any minute seemed to be fading until ISIS reared its ugly head. Now who knows what to do?
“Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation. This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.” Frederic Bastiat
You can argue over labels or you can argue over actions. When it comes to the administration of government, it’s important to measure its actions against its design. The labels will come naturally.
http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G024
on 1, September 25, 2014 at 4:19 pmJill
SMM, Annie and Rafflaw,
Is naming reality being hateful? If a person is speaking an uncomfortable truth about a person in power, is that being hateful? Why is speaking truthfully considered to be hateful?
****************************
No,not at all. But WHAT is the truth? No one really seems to know anymore. And NO ONE is ALL bad, are they?
Jill, no I don’t think he should kill anyone anywhere, BUT if one IS in a war, if American citizens join forces with the ‘enemy’, whoever the heck they are, they become an enemy. As for this ‘action’, it should cease immediately and not be resumed IF and UNTIL the Congress declares war. No declaration, no war. I don’t believe anything that comes out of the reporting on this ‘war’, this ‘enemy’, these so called ‘partners’. My instinct would be to leave them to their own devices, as tough as that would be for people like the Peshmergans. I think think we can’t afford to engage in endless war. I think Obama has been influenced by people who either know a lot more about clear dangers to our safety or those who are warmongers for personal gain. Who knows what is truly underfoot? It’s disturbing to know that who ever is President we will always be lied to, unless things change drastically. And I don’t see that happening an time soon, not in our lifetime anyway.
The singular American failure has been the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS has presided over the “evolution” of the Constitution with impunity. Congress is derelict and culpable. As mentioned here, politics, ideology and personal gratification shape decisions. The SCOTUS has but one charge which is to decide if actions comport with statute, legislation and the Constitution. The SCOTUS is to check and balance the Executive and Legislative branches. It was never mandated to legislate, modify legislation through “interpretation,”
“legislate from the bench” or execute.
John Roberts’ finding Obamacare constitutional is pernicious and a legislative not judicial decision. This was a deliberate act to nullify a portion of the Constitution that Justice Roberts did not agree with and thought should be “evolved.” The Founders made it clear that honorable men would be required for the success of the country. Justice Roberts perceived no consequences to his acts as an official acting with the public trust and the honor required by the Founders. That individuals agree an idea, particular piece of legislation or program, does not make it constitutional.
Ginsburg’s appointment is obviously based not on merit but affirmative action and other political criteria. This egregious act is not hers but the elected officials who appointed her. It is not honorable to introduce bias to the judicial branch. Political appointments to the SCOTUS are subversion. Merit without bias must define SCOTUS appointments.
Ginsburg is not ashamed of her affinity for collectivism and her antagonism toward the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights and their basis of individualism:
“The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification,” Ginsburg told an audience at the American Society of International Law in April 2005.
These words alone are grounds for impeachment.
It is impossible to “interpret” that what is established by the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights is the same as that which is established by the Communist Manifesto. Government control of the economy and redistribution of wealth, for example, are mandated by the Manifesto which unequivocally means they are precluded by the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights. If America is governed by the Constitution, the SCOTUS must find legislation based on the principles of control of the economy and redistribution unconstitutional. “…the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification,…” That is correct, Mz. Ginsburg. That is correct.
“It strikes me as a tad duplicitous, but then again little makes sense to me in American politics anymore.” – Law Professor.
It strikes me that the literal words of the Preamble, Constitution and Bill of Rights, as accurately perpetuated by honorable men, were written to stand in perpetuity from the “date of its ratification.”
James Madison, “I doubt, if such a door was opened, if we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the government itself…”
_______________________________________________________________
James Madison
Proposed Amendments to the Constitution, June 8, 1789
“But I will candidly acknowledge, that, over and above all these considerations, I do conceive that the constitution may be amended; that is to say, if all power is subject to abuse, that then it is possible the abuse of the powers of the general government may be guarded against in a more secure manner than is now done, while no one advantage, arising from the exercise of that power, shall be damaged or endangered by it. We have in this way something to gain, and, if we proceed with caution, nothing to lose; and in this case it is necessary to proceed with caution; for while we feel all these inducements to go into a revisal of the constitution, we must feel for the constitution itself, and make that revisal a moderate one. I should be unwilling to see a door opened for a re-consideration of the whole structure of the government, for a re-consideration of the principles and the substance of the powers given;
because I doubt, if such a door was opened, if we should be very likely to stop at that point which would be safe to the government itself:…”
“Obama would qualify as far-Left regime because of his Social Justice motivation.”
Annie,
You might need to get your eyes checked; I haven’t actually called Obama a communist but rather identified where his Social Justice agenda would fall in the political spectrum. That is easily found if you were intellectually curious.
I don’t know why you want to go hating on the man for being an advocate of social justice by labeling him a communist.
SMM, Annie and Rafflaw,
Is naming reality being hateful? If a person is speaking an uncomfortable truth about a person in power, is that being hateful? Why is speaking truthfully considered to be hateful?