Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Media, Politics

DID JUSTICE GINSBURG VIOLATE JUDICIAL ETHICS IN HER CRITICISM OF DONALD TRUMP?

225px-ruth_bader_ginsburg_scotus_photo_portraitI 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.

72 thoughts on “DID JUSTICE GINSBURG VIOLATE JUDICIAL ETHICS IN HER CRITICISM OF DONALD TRUMP?”

  3. In the near future the poutine eating Canadian will lose Obama, gain Trump, and lose that vapid, pretty boy, woman beating, French Canadian PM. It’s going to be some tough days for the polemic writer.

  4. The Canadian is the best example of liberal insularity. He will create 100 Trump voters by his asinine comments between now and November.

  5. And from the MSM we hear crickets. Alito merely shook his head “no” when Obama flat ass lied in front of the Court @ the SOTU and he was front pages nationwide. Let me say for the 57th time. All of this stuff by liberals just gets more votes for Trump. It is classic self destructive behavior but their insularity and pomposity precludes their seeing the nose on their face.

  6. Could you imagine a similar comment from a conservative Justice and the after effect. Liberal media led by NY Times would be all over for days and weeks and nothing happened attitude when it comes to a liberal Justice. By the way she told of moving to New Zealand if and when Trump become President.

  7. Pingback: Did Justice Ginsburg just violate judicial ethics in her criticism of Donald Trump? | Southern Arizona News-Examiner

  8. If German judges had criticized Hitler before he was elected perhaps he would not have been elected. Our judges at Nuremburg Trials certainly criticized the German government and Hitler after the war. Read: Whitney Harris, Tyranny On Trial.

    This particular judge might resign if Hillary gets elected and can replace her with a Democrat and not a nut like Scalia.

    1. Mental Midget – if the Vienna Academy of Art had accepted Hitler there probably would not have been WWII.

  9. “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.”

    David, you seem devoid of any understanding as to how the so called ‘people’ ‘speak with money’. The special interest groups and corporations that bundle enormous sums of cash to threaten our candidates with oblivion or buy their election have absolutely nothing to do with the intentions of the founding fathers or the Constitution. This perverse interpretation is, as with that of the second amendment, simply another example of the erosion of the morality intended. America was created as a democracy where the populace would be enlightened to a point where collectively they could vote in or out their representatives, one vote at a time. A cause is just when the majority believe it to be so based on as full an understanding as possible. A cause is not just because an elected representative is told by a specific special interest with unlimited funding that if he or she doesn’t do as told he or she will be destroyed in the next election. America is the only democracy that buys and sells its leaders this way. Here again is a clear example of, “Look at my boy, he is the only one in step.” If it weren’t so shameful it would be funny. It is good for America that Scalia is gone.

    1. issac wrote: “A cause is just when the majority believe it to be so based on as full an understanding as possible.”

      The majority determines morality? Then why do we have a Constitution that takes more than a majority to amend? The reason is because the majority often is WRONG. The majority does NOT determine what is moral and what is immoral.

      So if I band together with others in support of a political candidate and we put our money together to buy some television time and newspaper space to explain to the American people why a particular candidate is the best one to vote for, you want to tell me that should be illegal? Sorry, but as Scalia rightly perceived, that would be violating my First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and freedom of the press.

      Limiting a person or group of persons (a corporation’s) right to express their viewpoint about a political candidate is immoral because it violates the principle of freedom of expression. I don’t care if you get 99% of the people to vote to deny their speech and form of expression, it would still be immoral.

  10. yes she did.

    and it was good that she did

    and she can face the consequences that come her why for disparaging Mr Trump…..a vile little turd who publicly questions whether Mexican-American judges preside fairly within their courtrooms

    1. fuster – Trump is concerned whether A particular Mexican-American judge can preside fairly.

  11. Pingback: Did Justice Ginsburg Violate Judicial Ethics In Her Criticism Of Donald Trump? – MyLegalHelpUSA

  12. Issac, live long and prosper…….Judging is interesting!

    An insubordinate, career minded, opportunist, violating the chain of command when ever suited.

    Chief medical office DR. McCoy & Captain James T. Kirk gives testimony, to a Klingon court.

  13. Nothing explains us or them, without any real logical reasoning or rational understanding of what it means for America than the posts on this blog, other than my own of course. They’re all wrong. I’m all right, Jack, pull the ladder up.

  14. I just don’t see the exception for the Federalists being Federalists and somehow RBG can’t be RBG.

    2. Roscoe P Coltrane – I have always been of the opinion that if a person of equal standing to me insults me, I will insult them back.

  17. When Donald Trump gets elected President this won’t be a problem anymore. If any judge or Supreme Court Justice says anything critical of Donald or rules against Donald in a case, the new rules of Judicial ethics will require them to resign. If they won’t voluntarily resign, they will have to attend the Donald Trump School for Judges.

  18. Absurd, self-serving, sociopathic, victim-victimizing rulings and recycling mad-dog-psychopaths seem to pale in comparison to trashing Trump the trash-mouth ‘Eh?????

    What’s wrong with the Courthouse Gangsters? – insatiable greed perchance?

  19. How does one get to New Zealand and if I arrive will they let me in and will they let me stay? I am short enough to walk in under the radar. Trump will probably win.

    1. R.P. Coltrane…..those “comments” by Obama were a criticism of a court’s decision…..an unusual comment in that setting.( State of the Union address).
      It’s not surprizing that Alito reacted to an “in your face” remark by Obama.

    2. TSA – they keep saying they will leave, but they never do. Bunch of damn liars!!!

Comments are closed.