I have long been a critic of the Supreme Court justices engaging in public appearances where they hold forth on contemporary issues and even pending matters before the Court. I have been particularly critical of the late Justice Antonin Scalia and Associated Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg who clearly relished appearances before ideologically supportive groups. I have called this trend the “rise of the celebrity justice.” Now, Justice Ginsburg has started another firestorm over public comments where she joked that she would move to New Zealand if Donald Trump is elected. Canon 5 of the judicial ethical rules expressly states that judges shall not “make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.” The problem is that the Court has long maintained that ethical codes are not enforceable against its members as opposed to every other jurist in the country. This absurd position has continued because Congress has failed to act, something that I have previously criticized. Ginsburg’s statements this week reflects the continued sense of impunity enjoyed by justices who violate the core maxim that “no man shall be the judge of his own case.” The justices are the judges of their own ethical cases and they show vividly why that is a dangerous and corrupting power.
Ginsburg left no question as to her opposition to Donald Trump. She stated “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.” She then added a reference to something that her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, said: “‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”
The sense of impunity reflected in Ginsburg interview was equally evident in her criticism of the GOP for failing to act on President Obama’s nominee to the Court and her defense of Obama’s right to get things done in his final year. She also clearly endorsed the qualification of nominee Judge Merrick B. Garland.
In my view it was a thoughtless and unethical exchange for any jurist. It undermined the integrity of the Court and demonstrates the lunacy of a Court that maintains that justices must be their own judges of ethical misconduct. In the past, justices have dismissed ethical rules like they are pesky matters for lesser jurists. Various justices have ruled in cases where they have clear financial interests. Justices also speak publicly on matters before the Court — thrilling ideological groups. Others have been accused of reporting violations. Others have appeared at political fundraisers. Many justices have embraced the celebrity status by appearing before a type of ideological base where they throw red meat to ecstatic liberal or conservative groups. This includes speaking on issues before or coming to the Court. It has to end. Congress has to act.
I have long favored the tradition model of jurists like former Justice John Paul Stevens who spoke primarily through his opinions and avoided public speeches of this kind. That should be the price of the ticket to be a member of this Court. If you want to be a celebrity, other professional opportunities can be easily pursued. If you want to be one of nine, you should speak through your opinions.
So the answer to the question above is that Ginsburg did violate the principle underlying Canon Five but it doesn’t matter. For just nine jurists, judicial ethics remains a purely advisory set of rules that are often honored in the breach.
Is this any worse than Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. making derisive gestures to comments made by the President of the United Saates at the State of The Union address?
Roscoe P. Coltrane – is there nothing worse than a president bad-mouthing the SC during the SOTU?
Comey twisted and tortured the English language as well.
Then, after trying to “explain” the difference between “extreme carelessness” and “gross negligence” at the July 5 press conference, he then repeats his claim on July 7 (to Congress) that “no reasonable prosecutor” would prosecute gross negligence.
Why did he even bother going through that extreme carelessness/ gross negligence farce in the first place?
I’d never seen Rep. Will Hurd before….as a former CIA covert operative, he may have thought there were laws…..laws that were enforced….to protect classified material.
I was impressed with Hurd’s questions and statements.
There were three Republicans who did a nice job. The Democrats were a disappointment.
I am with Squeeky. Compared to the way Comey twisted the law, this is small potatoes.
What do you expect from Democrats??? The leadership is nothing but a criminal enterprise whose only goal is to get re-elected and stay in power. They are no different than the Commie leadership in the old USSR, or the Nazi bigwigs in the Third Reich. To heck with what is happening to the country or the people, as long as they can stay in charge. Race-baiting? Sure why not if it rouses the base! Illegal aliens who depress wages and take jobs? Sure, why not! Poor people need Democrats to give them some freebies!
They would not be able to get away with it if it weren’t for all the Yankee college-educated white people, who will fall for any sort of foolishness if somebody tells them it is the “sophisticated” or “tolerant” position.
Brainless damn liberals.
Plus, bams, that was a good characterization of the stupid old biddy!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
No charges for Hillary and THIS bothers you?
Well, I’m a believer that Scalia was us and Ginsberg is them!!
Issac,
Nice redirect. You need to read the post again. It was about the partisan Ginsberg.
The Supreme Court is supposed to see that the Constitution is interpreted, but according to what? Scalia interpreted it to mean that concentrated money can buy our supposedly freely elected representatives. He was a disgusting example of what it meant to be a Supreme Court Judge. There is no comparison with a snide remark made by Ginsberg regarding the potential of perhaps the most catastrophic President ever, if he gets elected.
Ginsberg stepped out of her robes but when one lines them up and considers that they are all humans first, she is far more ensconced in judicial ethics than that wing nut Scalia ever was. The bottom line is that in this country with the us and them construction of government, the Supreme Court will be loaded by us or them with us and them. Scalia was them and Ginsberg is us, both humans first, Americans second, and Supreme Court Justices third. It’s kind of like when the truth is told to the jury but outside of proper protocol and the judge orders the jury to forget they ever heard it. Personally, the more people say against Trump, the better, no matter what sacred privileges they violate. Where was the outspoken rhetoric when Scalia went off the beam.
issacbasonkavich wrote: “Where was the outspoken rhetoric when Scalia went off the beam.”
Professor Turley has been critical, but in my opinion, as well as the opinion of many millions of other Americans, Scalia never went “off the beam.” People vote with money. They support causes. People form corporations to rally groups of people in support of political candidates. They have a First Amendment right to support candidates with their money. For you to try and take this away from the people is wrong. Scalia was right to protect us from those who would trample our right to speak with our money.
“So the answer to the question above is that Ginsburg did violate the principle underlying Canon Five but it doesn’t matter. For just nine jurists, judicial ethics remains a purely advisory set of rules that are often honored in the breach.”
So we see yet another demonstration of how ethics and law does not apply to the powerful elite.
Does Ginsburg think that four-eight years of HRC, a liar and warmonger beholden to the corporations will be better than Trump? We have no idea what a Trump presidency would bring, but we do know what a Clinton II reign would entail.
I’m Bernieorbust and like millions of others we will NOT vote for HRC because we do adhere to personal ethics.
Well, she better start organizing her move with hubby to New Zealand – if they’ll have them.
Per the original post:
What Canon 5A of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges states in full is:
There is a significant difference between “expressly prohibits” and “should refrain” or “should not.” The former is mandatory; the latter two are advisory.
http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#f
Ethics and laws no longer have any meaning to our Supreme Court or to our citizens. We have unjust judges and lawless courts. If we do not enforce the least of our laws, then neither will we enforce the greatest of them. Without meaningful laws, we elect and appoint tyrants to rule us.
Charming
Ginsburg, a member of the Supreme Court, claims that she will move to New Zealand if Trump is elected, and Rich doesn’t enjoy snark and vitriol? Hysterical. Don’t like the purportedly demeaning characterization of the old bat? I apologize. I was way, way too tactful. I should have written what I really think of her.
U.S. Judges & Lawyers always do tricky talking
Luk 7:30 But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves, being not baptized of him.
Luk 11:45 Then answered one of the lawyers, and said unto him, Master, thus saying thou reproachest us also.
Luk 11:46 And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
Luk 11:47 Woe unto you! for ye build the sepulchres of the prophets, and your fathers killed them.
Reblogged this on Truth Troubles: Why people hate the truths' of the real world.
Of the three branches of govt. I find this one to be the most disappointing. They are supposed to be our last line of defense against an over reaching govt. and they are failing us year after year.
In principle I think you make a good principled argument. But I ponder how it is that you think these minor violations are the problem. Maybe you don’t. You state the number of much more egregious violations.
My laugh is created on this line:
In my view it was a reckless and highly unethical exchange for any jurist. It undermined the integrity of the Court
The integrity of the Roberts court seems to me to be in shambles. They are a political institution. Whatever vaunted place they once held is long lost.
The entire judicial system has been knocked off its principles and foundations. Until that gets resolved somehow these silly , though accurate , statements seem the very least of ones concern.
I look at the larger picture. The end of ‘law and order’ has begun.
Oh, for the days when one could criticize without snark and vitriol. I am more a Scalia man than Ginsburg, but this blog doesn’t need bam bam’s demeaning characterization of,a vibrant, though wrong jurist whatever her age.
What did you expect from a petrified corpse in a black robe, whose days of sanity are a distant memory? If this latest antic can’t have the senile, old mummy removed from the bench, it’s a lost cause until she takes her final dirt nap.