Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has issued an apology over her tirade against GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump. A statement was issued today stating
“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them. Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”
The statements of course were a bit more than “ill-advised.” They were unethical. Moreover, some have noted that expressing regret is not an apology. I do believe an apology is in order. However, the statement makes no excuses and promises to avoid such transgressions in the future. It should defuse much of the current controversy, even though Ginsburg’s conduct was quite shocking. With three separate interviews and a well-established ethical rule against such statements, the violation was frankly breathtaking. I have great respect for Justice Ginsburg but this incident will tarnish an otherwise inspiring legacy on the Court.
Moreover, if this election produces another court challenge like the one in Bush v. Gore, I believe that Ginsburg would have to seriously consider recusing herself. It would be highly inappropriate for her to sit on such a case after saying that she might move to New Zealand rather than live in a country headed by Trump.
I still hope that the incident will refocus attention on the need for the reform of the Supreme Court. I have long advocated an enforceable system of judicial ethics. The apology today should not detract from the need to have such a system. The Supreme Court is the only part of our federal government that has no enforceable ethical code. This is not the first such violation by a member of the Court. Indeed, a majority of justices have been accused of ethical violations.
I also hope that the incident will force greater circumspection on the part of Ginsburg and her colleagues over their growing public appearances and speeches. I have been a long critic of what I have called the “celebrity justice” model of the modern Court. The corrosive effect of such public engagements is evident in the unethical statements made by Justice Ginsburg.
@RalphA
Oh thank you!!! I am glad people appreciate the effort! I have been wanting to use oeurve for quite a while, Plus, gauche. I want to use gauche one day. And panache. And roue, which would fit right into a Bill Clinton Irish Poem. Oh, I am getting all inspired! Plus, belle epoque and that finny de sickle thingy. Eau, I wish I spoke French! One day I will learn!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeek, LOL! Ginsburg has spoken about her love of wine. On a serious note, her wise paisan Scalia would have sat her down after the first interview and gotten her mind right.
Wow, Squeeky, that was magnifique! Love that “nerve”-“oeurve” rhyme. Can’t say I’ve seen that before. I’m gonna have to répétez s’il vous plaît:
Gin’s Burg???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a Justice named Ruth,
Who spiked her Ensure with Vermouth!
Thus explaining the nerve,
Which expanded her oeuvre,
With these comments we find sooo uncouth!
Ralph – Squeeky’s poem does explain soooo much.
If Ginsberg was not wise enough to know in advance that her comments, about Trump and her choice of Hillary, would bring such condemnation to her door, then why do so many of you continue to give support of this old woman being allowed to pretend that she is spry and intellectually fit?
She was appointed by none other than William J. Clinton, and wanted so desperately to pay him back for her retirement plan.
She is a disgrace, but will be allowed to remain so long as the Jews support her.
“the double standard of the right wing”
A little too much Reynolds Wrap again.
I can understand her comments since she was a good friend of Scalia, and was only following his lead. What I find MORE objectionable is the refusal to impeach Justice Thomas for his criminal perjury and outright lies. At least we now know who was telling the truth in his confirmation hearing. I can understand Prof Turley not writing about Thomas lying on his forms and his lying excuses to try and justify his perjury, since if one has to go before the SCOTUS, it does ones case no good to have called for such a thing. Conservatives on this site have no such excuse. Once again, we can all see the double standard of the right wing.
“This really only speaks to the paint job or illusion that the Supreme Court is unbiased.”
But your bias should not rewrite the law, yet she has done so.
She’s a liar, pretending to judge by the law that is rather than the law she’d prefer, but instead legislating from an unelected position.
Surely Trump knows where New Zealand is, after all, it is one of the 57 States. Isn’t that right, Barak?
This is nothing more than Ginsberg letting her veil of objectivity down and speaking her mind. There is no argument one way or the other here. Anyone that believes that anyone in any role is totally objective and does not have personal opinions about stuff is simply full of BS.
It is obvious that Ginsberg leans to the left. It is equally obvious that she has done an excellent job on the court. This is so with all Supreme Court Judges from the beginning. Some were card carrying Republicans, Democrats, served as governors and in government as such. Some such as Scalia did excellent jobs walking the dividing line and yet blundered so obviously at the same time.
This really only speaks to the paint job or illusion that the Supreme Court is unbiased. It cannot be wholly unbiased as no one is wholly unbiased. This is the reason why it leans to the left or right depending on its make up.
So, we are left with a faux pas made by Ginsberg of allowing herself to be pulled into a back and forth with and idiot. That is the real issue here, her appearance. Perhaps, just perhaps, she doesn’t want to sit by and watch as so many Americans scramble for the first fist pounder that comes out of a beer hall. As a judge, Ginsberg is versed in what it means to be American and she voiced her opinion. If she had said nothing and Trump had squeaked in and the country could have been saved from his obvious disasters, would she have been more of a Supreme Court Judge, perhaps but less of a person and everyone is a person first.
In the end she simply did not play the sleaze game of politics that well. She should have left it at the remark of moving to New Zealand. Trump doesn’t even know that New Zealand exists let alone where it is. It would have taken him a week to figure out a retort. He would have probably just forgotten. Scalia, Alito and others have made remarks that exhibited their bias, prejudice, and sometimes bigotry, however, it was typically in passing, as a remark, and viewed with a ‘Well he is human after all.’ Ginsberg’s failure here was to actually discourse with the idiot.
@KCF
Thank you!!! I am glad you liked it! Feel free to use it whenever, wherever. BTW, Did you know there are some bars that serve only various Vermouths and nothing else??? Or so I have heard.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky hits another homer.
Gotta steal the ‘Ensure with Vermouth’ bit.
How dare a justice be outspoken, thats only for times when they appoint a president……….
Oh heck, I might as well do an Irish Poem for the old biddy! Here Antonin! This classy bit of word-smithed wit is for you!
Gin’s Burg???
An Irish Poem by Squeeky Fromm
There once was a Justice named Ruth,
Who spiked her Ensure with Vermouth!
Thus explaining the nerve,
Which expanded her oeuvre,
With these comments we find sooo uncouth!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
“…I believe that Ginsburg would have to seriously consider recusing herself”
I admire your ability to believe in an extant US Constitution.
But it is really most sincerely dead, not just pining for the fjords
…. and I’ll take your little dog too Dorothy! Does anyone have a bucket of water?
83 years old and a mind like a balsa wood trap.
I guess that she didn’t pose for that statue that was blind folded and holding a scale.
Compared to Jay Bybee, Mark Everett Fuller, John Yoo and David Addington, all stellar representatives of the legal mindset of the Last Bush administration, I think RBG is a much safer jurist regarding her potential political biases and their effect on Democracy and the rule of law.
Her apology was no apology at all. A real apology would have been the following:
“Look, I’m sorry for saying what I did. I guess at heart, I’m just a biased leftist political hack in robes. I regret telegraphing my thoughts the way I did, but it’s tough to keep the leftist in me bottled up.”
Now that would have been a sincere apology, instead of the phony attempt at trying to unring the bell.
The only way to deal with Trump is to double down on his doubling down. She should just; shame the GOP for allowing their monster out of the cage, wait ’til HRC wins the election and then retire.
Let’s see what she does after the election.
The hell with niceties and protocols existing as some sort of phantom wall of objectivity from our judges. If judges as Supreme Court nominees were truly objective then the Senate would approve any well qualified jurist. Right?
I forgot, it’s all about interpreting the law.
Righhhht.