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.
@issacbasonkavich
“When Clinton gets in….” NO she is not getting in unless Hell freezes over. Trumpsters and Progressives are uniting and we will defeat her. If not Bernie, then Jill Stein or Trump. We are tired of corrupt Clintons and endless war.
Steve Groen
“Judges shouldn’t be talking politics.”
The only valid question is, was her faux pas a faux pas or a major transgression. My take is that it lies somewhere in-between and given her failure to leave it as a remark as has been done by almost all judges, and be drawn into a tabloid pi**ing contest with the ilk of Donald Trump, she has exhibited poor enough judgement that coupled with her age might lead one to suggest that she step down after the election when the missing link is confirmed. When Clinton gets in and the Senate is taken back by Democrats, she would be the second vacancy filled by a reasonable candidate, possibly the second of three or more. Helping to design a Supreme Court of liberal moral and rational structure would be her greatest contribution as a comment on the dangers of Trumps and Gingriches.
Regarding her being an unrestrained radical and violent tempest, perhaps, but there again is the humanity of the Supreme Court. She has not exhibited any greater expressions of humanity than other judges, especially Scalia or Thomas. That is an opinion. What is factual can be read and reread in the rags that design opinions. She should have left it as a remark. As it turned out the vehicle took over from what it was transporting.
Issac writes, “Ginsberg’s failure here was to actually discourse with the idiot.”
I liked your post, although judge’s really shouldn’t be talking politics, let alone a Supreme Court Justice, but she knew what she was doing – she’s a sovereign and can afford the risk in such an indiscretion. Pretty gutsy move if one thinks about it.
When she called Trump “a faker” rather than a f**ker, however, Ginsburg showed the true unrestrained radical and violent tempest that we all know she is.
If we impeached the judges based on their bias then there would be no judges. Ginsburg’s failure here is not in being biased but in appearing biased in a ‘back and forth’ with a complete idiot. That tarnishes her by association. This is the weakness and perhaps for that she should retire. All those who label this left leaning whatever are simply just as stupid as Trump or just as hypocritical. There is the substance and then there is the vehicle.
For what it’s worth, I agree with her original statement. Especially her learned opinion on the predictable consequences for SCOTUS that can easily be foreseen under a President Trump. But JT is right and unless we start impeaching SCOTUS — which could happen right? — hopefully this show’s over for now. Next stop Cleveland.
@swarthmoremom
To give you an insight – Bernieorbusters consider The Nation, Mother Jones, Thom Hartmann, Cenk of TYT to be absolute sell outs.
Under NO circumstances will we EVER vote for Crooked Hillary.
If you are interested check out Tim Black, Jimmy Dore, Lee Camp and/or Will and Mike in my “home” state who put out videos constantly. In the words of the wonderful Nina Turner “enough is enough” So good luck discipable DNC party who has done its best to undermine the one candidate who could have stood against Trump.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8aIq_l3wnoWDVu3sasgoew
She is biased and incompetent. A disgrace to the Supreme Court! Not a doubt–She should resign! If she doesn’t, the Supreme Court will have no credibility, she will need to recuse herself many times over when Trump becomes President!
Mr Midget
Does your middle name begin with a “g”? I’m just wondering if your name was the inspiration for the MG Midget.
Ginsburg is a capable Justice but has no business commenting the way she did. There are plenty of Republicans who share her sentiments. She should let them do the comments about Trump.
“The Regretful RBG” isn’t a very snappy nickname.
She is a good Supreme Court Justice. She spoke her mind about a potential nutjob. We need more people to warn the voters what they are looking at.
Squeeky, Your gal ,Coulter, is no Pence fan. Seems like Trump passed up a lot of good choices only to end up with Pence and Newt.
@Swarthmoremom
Thank you! I always enjoy me some good gay-bashing! But Pence is kind of a week sister IMHO. He could not articulate very well why the Indiana bill was a good one. My guess is that he didn’t fully understand why he was even doing it.
I find that a lot among politicians, right and left. On the issues that I am more progressive on, the supporters are kind of dumb, too. And unable to explain why some things need to change.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Pence will be an anathema to Bernie supporters. On the bright side for Republicans, Pence has all the charm of Spiro Agnew. Adding Pence to the ticket could be the first time (but probably not the last) that a presidential ticket is being “balanced” more to attract more money from well-heeled donors (Kochs) than to attract certain categories of voters, although part of the motivation in adding Pence to the ticket would be to attract the votes of those who (rightfully) doubt Trump’s sincerity on issues that are important to social conservatives (gay marriage, etc.). Trump needs $$ right now, and adding Pence would be a play to attract $$ from the Kochs, who love him.
Ginsburg stepped in it big time when she publicly criticized Trump. Both an ethical lapse and just foolish. Nick is right that her criticism plays into Trump’s narrative. The fact that Scalia did this kind of crap and that Thomas’ failure to properly fill out financial disclosure forms should have been thoroughly investigated by the FBI the same way Clinton’s email activities were investigated doesn’t excuse her conduct.
Not only that, Ginsburg was entirely wrong to mention New Zealand. Australia is much better.
Don de Drain – I think both countries require you to be employable.
Squueky, I put up that tweet about Pence being anti-gay just for you. 🙂
Matthew Yglesias @mattyglesias 1h1 hour ago Washington, DC
“Pence would add valuable gay-bashing ballast to a ticket that is overweight on racial demagoguery and religious bigotry.”
@swarthmoremom
Thank you for the nice logical analysis from the very non-partisan Katrina vanden Heuval, who has no dog whatsoever in this fight, and is well known for being fair-minded and completely disinterested in either political party. If only Trump had picked another person as vice president, I am sure he could have counted on Katrina’s help and full support in the upcoming election.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Katrina vandenHeuvel @KatrinaNation 32m32 minutes ago
“Trump pick Pence is a Paleocon, Limbaugh-loving, Koch-connected member of GOP rightwing establishment / ” Trump can forget the Bernie voters going his way after this pick.
Insincere
This was calculated by her. She decided to step way out of bounds before she did so. She weighed the consequences and then did it for political propaganda purposes.
I have no doubt her entire behavior was scripted by her.
This is the typical liberal stupidity and then horsesh!t non apology. In the fascist liberal echo chamber, they are doing incredibly stupid acts that are just helping Trump, the person they hate. Just like the flyboy and Canadian, they shoot themselves in both feet. But, Ginsburg and flyboy at least are brief. The Canadian must be getting paid by the word.