Courts, Free Speech, Media, Supreme Court

Ginsburg Again Publicly Discusses Political Issues With Renewed Criticism Of Congress, Praise for Protesters, and Hope For “Better Times”

225px-ruth_bader_ginsburg_scotus_photo_portraitI have long been a critic of Supreme Court justices embracing the era of what I have called “the celebrity justice.”  Justices are increasingly appearing before highly ideological groups and inappropriately discussing thinly veiled political subjects or even pending issues. She previously called President Trump as “faker.”  Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been a notable recidivist in this type of conduct and does not appear to be deterred by criticism that she is undermining the integrity of the Court.  She is back at it with a new interview with the BBC.

Ginsburg, who has been openly critical of President Trump, says the US is “not experiencing the best of times” but assured viewed that the “pendulum” will swing back.  She also weighed in on the fight between the media and Trump: “I read the Washington Post and the New York Times every day, and I think that the reporters are trying to tell the public the way things are.”

I happen to agree that the attacks on the media are unwarranted and unwise, though not as unprecedented as some have suggested.  I am far more concerned over Ginsburg’s seeming inability to revisit the public spotlight and injudicious statements as I am a politician like Trump attacked the media.  Ginsburg seems drawn to the adoring crowds or coverage that comes from being the most recognized liberal justice on the Court.  It is a highly inappropriate role to play as she appears to maintain her “base” of supporters.

Ginsburg again criticized Congress, saying “Our legislature – which is the first branch of government – is right now not working.”  She also cheered the recent Women’s March, which had a distinctly anti-Trump message: “I’ve never seen such a demonstration – both the numbers and the rapport of the people in that crowd. There was no violence, it was orderly. So yes, we are not experiencing the best times but there is there is reason to hope that that we will see a better day.” That seems pretty political in my view.

I was equally critical of Justice Antonin Scalia for his similar proclivities.  This is also a sad statement about Chief Justice John Roberts. Just as I criticized Roberts for failing to take Associate Justice Samuel Alito to task for his highly inappropriate conduct in a prior State of the Union, I believe that it is Roberts’ role to take a stand against these public appearances of justices where they hold forth on contemporary controversies or criticize Congress or a president.

While liberals denounce other justices as being ideological on the right, they seem to relish the role of Ginsburg is being openly partisan in some of her comments. What is particularly sad is that Ginsburg has had a distinguished tenure on the bench with profound opinions that will stand the test of time.  Yet, she is undermining her own legacy with these public appearances and commentary.

118 thoughts on “Ginsburg Again Publicly Discusses Political Issues With Renewed Criticism Of Congress, Praise for Protesters, and Hope For “Better Times””

  1. I am deeply distressed at the politicization of so many agencies of the government that are supposed to remain unbiased – SCOTUS, IRS, FBI, NSA, ICE…

    This is how dictatorships arise, by aligning all parts of government with a single political party, and weaponizing it against dissenting citizens.

    Do we really want to go down this path?

  2. I see no problem with Ginsberg acting like a celebrity and going around making political comments. She’s a leftist political hack, not a legal scholar, and never has been. Nobody with any intelligence considers her to be anything other than a partisan hack who can be depended upon to spin an opinion in whatever way the leftist winds blow, regardless of the law and regardless of the facts.

      2. Just scrolling back catching up on comments –and am dee-lighted to see your post!!!

      3. Squeek, check out yesterday’s post “Is There A Legal Barrier To Cities Holding Illegal Immigrants For Federal Authorities?” and you’ll see you were a topic of conversation. =)

        And NOW, can you give a great cartoon? or limerick? =)

        HAPPY Fat Tuesday BTW – I assume as a ragin’ Cajun you are celebrating? My cat is currently sporting green and purple beads.

  3. SCOTUS Judges are not really Judges for life. They can be indicted (impeached) tried,convicted and removed. The procedure is clearly spelled out. Shumer and Pelosi want to impeach President Trump. How about we impeach the pedophile Bader Ginzburg? Tat for Tits.

  4. > I happen to agree that the attacks on the media are unwarranted and unwise <

    That deceiving special interest group known as the mainstream media?

    I'll just have to disagree.

    I don't like conflict. I like the mainstream media even less.

  6. Ginsburg toys with the press for the same reason old people adore grandchildren — no one else in her life pays attention to her.

  7. Justice Ginsburg is no longer able to Judge according to our Founders. She should stop the dishonor to the people and resign. At 83 years of age, she should be with family not giving her opinions instead of following the Law. We need term limits or age limits and there should be no such thing as a job for life!

  8. I agree it is reprehensible, but I’m glad it’s happening. The center doesn’t hold. Whatever self-restraints existed for the other two branches are long gone, so I’m not surprised that SCOTUS follows the trend. Today, ideology rules and we have actually come to expect public officials to advance their biases – proudly! – as if the appearance of objectivity is a relic from the past.

    I’m not sure that citizens have any coherent understanding of how our democracy is supposed to work any more. Maybe that’s why the media encourages it. Since all “compromise” was hypocrisy, let’s just reveal the naked power struggle behind it. And public officials, even Supreme Court justices, seem to welcome the change. But I think that decorum and order, even if hypocritical, are better than what we have now, and it’s getting worse.

    The best choice may be to admit there’s a total breakdown coming. If we are headed for a change in the structure of government – and I believe we are – let’s acknowledge it now and choose who the next Founders will be.

  9. I haven’t seen a single comment about the actual content of her remarks. Just a revelation of attitudes and predispositions. She didn’t criticize Trump, she did criticize Congress (who on either side of the spectrum likes Congress?) She spoke of a pendulum which seems to indicate that both sides go to far before it swings back the other way. She’s not being condemned here for what she said, but for existing.

    1. Who cares what she said? That’s Turley’s twee shtick.

      She’s a manifestation of most of what’s wrong with the elite bar and with the bourgeois progtrash subculture. She’d be that even if she scrupulously minded her lousy p’s and q’s.

    2. I so agree with you enigmainblackcom. I did not see her comments as relating to any cases that might be pending. How dare she speak! [sarc]

      1. When the Judiciary has assumed the role of the Legislature, then we have every right to criticize every action and word that comes from these unelected members of government. If the Nine limited themselves to their constitutional function then the People would not have to fear the “ideology” of the court. But of course we know they are no more ideologically blind than the partisans that nominate and confirm them.

      2. Turley’s crew detests feminists

        You say that like it’s a bad thing.

    4. Ok, enigma, where do want to start:

      Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

      (A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

      (1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;

      (2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or

      (3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.

      (B) Resignation upon Candidacy. A judge should resign the judicial office if the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office.

      (C) Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political activity. This provision does not prevent a judge from engaging in activities described in Canon 4.

      I’ll take A(2) &(C) to get the ball rolling.

      1. If you want to consider everything she’s ever done including previous comments about Trump I’ll grant you she’s been wrong before. I saw nothing in her interview with the BBC to trigger much offense except from those who see no good in her every action. How did you feel about Scalia’s comments, hunting trips, speeches?

        2. Scalia never bothered me. Ginsburg’s ex parte remarks I can ignore. It’s everything else about the woman I can’t stand.

            1. Scalia, of course. My rights are delineated in law. For Scalia, that was controlling. For Ginsburg, her crappy social projects have been controlling and the language of the law was a medium for her exercises in sophistry.

              And it’s not just ‘my’ rights. It’s the privileges and immunities of any party duly enacted.

              1. Scalia was an originalist, so allegedly is Neil Gorsuch. I and “my ilk” as someone (not here) once referred to me, had no rights originally delineated by law. They had to be carved out in Amendments (subject to interpretation), laws and even executive orders. Sessions for example just switched the govt. position on the Texas Voter Suppression Law. He also suggested to the nation’s Attorney Generals they need worry no longer about the Federal Government looking over their shoulder. Scalia would likely have supported all that’s going on. I don’t know where you stand on Roe vs. Wade but another right may soon fall soon. We’ll just agree to disagree.

                1. Enigma,
                  You, me and everyone else have always had rights by natural law. Equal rights. We are blessed to live in a country where our constitution can be amended as we continue towards becoming a more perfect union. We won’t ever get there but that needs to be our vision. Read Lincoln’s “Fragment on the Constitution and Union. The amendments were not by accident.

                  1. The Constitution was not an accident. Despite the hype it’s an imperfect document. The result of compromise between “Men” with radically differing views. The Electoral College exists to both save the Republic from the people and offer greater voting strength to slave states so their “rights” weren’t voted away by Northern States with greater numbers. If you’re inclined to disagree, please research it first and I’ll be happy to entertain a differing view.

                    1. I don’t know who’s “hyping” the constitution as a perfect document. The mere fact it is amendable is evidence that it was never considered perfect. Regarding the Electoral College. Your assumption is of course I’ve not actually researched it at all IF I disagree with your view. The EC, 3/5ths clause and every other consideration in that imperfect of documents exists to save the republic from not ratifying the thing. The amendment process has always been there to continue improving it.

    1. That was terrific, Jerry. Marie Rudisill–aka, the Fruitcake Lady would be perfect to replace Ginsburg, but, unfortunately, she died in 2006.

  12. Doesn’t she have some sort of serious illness? Besides being a hateful, senile, old biddy, I mean.

    1. All federal judges. Twelve year terms, retention-in-office referenda, recall referenda, and mandatory retirement at age 76. Also, devolve the advice-and-consent function for federal district judges to the state and territorial legislatures.

        1. Waal, if the judges can instruct us all that conventional matrimonial law ‘violates’ the ‘constitution’, we can instruct them that ‘during good behavior’ means ‘until we can your a**’.

          1. dds – can your a** means impeachment, and a few of them have. However, Congress impeaches and does or does not convict.

      2. The minute she or any other justice starts commenting about any candidate for office (Republican, Independent or Democrat) they should be required to step down from their post. There are questions about the Russians involvement in our Presidential process without proof and that comes from all the agencies. I ask those of you who did not vote for Clinton if the Russians determined your vote, speak up and tell us all why and how? Here we have a Supreme Court Justice making derogatory remarks about a candidate for the Presidency whether it be before or after the election and nothing is said or done. Her comments would have more of an impact then Vlad Putin. Why aren’t both sides saying she must step down?

  15. I believe that it is Roberts’ role to take a stand against these public appearances of justices where they hold forth on contemporary controversies or criticize Congress or a president.

    Yadda yadda. Some of us would be pleased if the appellate judiciary would adjudicate individual cases and quit the repulsive and dishonest freebooting. I suppose it’s too much to expect all that many people with law professor gigs to tell the world that appellate judges and law professors have and should have very circumscribed competence.

  16. I’m getting tired of these leftists, supreme court justice or not, who refuse to identify the idealogical shortcomings on their own side as they relentlessly virtue signal each other. The left keeps forwarding idealogical nonsense, like the wage gap, orgender being a social construction or that out culture is best described as “the patriarchy” while insisting it’s the other side that is responsible for “fake” news. Double speak seems to be the norm and the left refuses to acknowledge that they’re engaged in it.

  17. They don’t live in a bubble. They interpret the law, and so long as they’re not providing cloaked tentative rulings, they should not be criticized for speaking in public per se. The First Amendment protects their speech as much as anyone’s, and J. Ginsburg’s comments – which are being construed as one would terrorist outbursts – are the least of our worries. You expect too much from the Judiciary and complain too little about the last two presidents murdering tens of thousands of innocent people and the current President on way to doing the exactly the same. Ginsburg is doing what any other red-blooded American would do.

    Have a great day!

    2. last two presidents murdering tens of thousands of innocent people and the current President on way to doing the exactly the same.

      I’ve never figured out whether you’re a dim-witted pacifist or a sectarian fraud.

      1. Pacifists are among the most courageous people in world history. I’d reserve the term dim-witted for those who only know how to use clubs [or whatever iteration of weaponry] to “solve” problems.

        1. No, they’re not.

          Mennonites and Amish are decent people. It’s a reasonable inference that they’re not afraid to die. They haven’t faced that dilemma for a while, however, at least in this country. Jehovah’s Witnesses did face that dilemma and Germany during the most recent unpleasantness and acquitted themselves well, AFAIK.

          The Brethren and Quaker went suburban. The pacifism is a family heirloom, for the most part. For the most part, they give it little thought, or they collapse into sentimentalism. The Brethren, at least, are vigorous about service projects.

          You’re not going to pass off a cretin like Chris Hedges or Victor Navasky as an unworldly farmer / carpenter / dairy employee. You’re not going to pass either off as a BVS veteran either. These people aren’t pacifists. They just pick the worst side in any quarrel as a repulsive little self-aggrandizing gesture.

    3. “Ginsburg is doing what any other red-blooded American would do.”

      Then confirmation hearings should be limited to their professional record and not their personal conduct?

        1. Why do you suppose we put so much stock into what these fellow citizens believe? Every aspect of their lives are scrutinized because they and the other 8 are no longer expected to shed their ideology when they put on their robes. Ginsburg should be able to freely express her views away from the bench, Alito should be able to shake his head when he believes the President has insulted him and his colleagues in front of millions of people. They should be able to do that because they have the humility and integrity to put on the robes and shed their ideology for the rule of law. Unfortunately that is not the standard we hold them to and for that they’ve earned every bit of harsh criticism heaped upon them.

          1. Olly: “Why do you suppose we put so much stock into what these fellow citizens believe? Every aspect of their lives are scrutinized because they and the other 8 are no longer expected to shed their ideology when they put on their robes. Ginsburg should be able to freely express her views away from the bench, Alito should be able to shake his head when he believes the President has insulted him and his colleagues in front of millions of people. They should be able to do that because they have the humility and integrity to put on the robes and shed their ideology for the rule of law. Unfortunately that is not the standard we hold them to and for that they’ve earned every bit of harsh criticism heaped upon them.”

            With regard to “because [she] and the other 8 are no longer expected to shed their ideology when they put on their robes,” I don’t know that this statement is true.

            There is no law that says a justice cannot speak her mind. There is no Supreme Court rule of court that prevents her from speaking her mind. I’d guess Congress would be very hesitant to test the imposition of such a rule when the the Supreme Court is a co-equal branch of government, final arbiter of the federal Constitution, and Article III of that foundational law does not speak to commentary by the justices, who are for all intents and purposes sovereigns subject only to political impeachment and Senate conviction for lack of good behavior.

            Justice Ginsburg’s remarks were outside of the tribunal, tepid in substance compared to some of Justice Scalia’s commentary over the years both inside the courtroom and out, and did not relate to any matter on the Court’s docket. She has the right to comment like any other citizen under the First Amendment.

            1. Sorry. This was the statement I was referring to: “Unfortunately that is not the standard we hold them to and for that they’ve earned every bit of harsh criticism heaped upon them.”

            2. Steve Groen – honorable people keep their word. Ginsburg needs to move to New Zealand.

              1. I’m sure that you were highly critical of Alito for shaking his head when Obama criticized Citizens United not fifty feet in front of him. That’s about the same level of substance that Ginsburg’s comments had. Should Alito be impeached and tried now that the Republicans might be able to extort a two-thirds majority in the Senate?

                1. Steve Groen – Alito did not say his was going to New Zealand if Obama won. Apples to apples.

    4. There is a difference between legality and discretion, that one would hope a Supreme Court justice would understand. As a senior federal employee, I don’t lose my First Am rights, but I know better than to openly say anything that might cause embarrassment or concern to my agency. Same was true when I was in the military.

    5. Steve G – I’ve heard that argument before, that Supreme Court Justices have the right to free speech, and it’s a compelling one.

      However, I always think that if a supreme court justice showed extreme bias publicly on issue X, and if I had a case before the court on that same issue, but on the opposing side of opinion, could I feel sanguine about my chances for fairness? No, I would not.

      1. Karen, that circumstance happens with every case. The justices have personal opinions about all of them as does anyone who reads the briefs and knows the facts, and it doesn’t matter whether they express those opinions in public because their obligation is to follow the law.

        The Judiciary is a co-equal branch of government. Congress and the President are allowed political banter whenever they want but the Justices aren’t allowed to comment on matters of national interest? That doesn’t sound like an independent Judiciary were it the case.

  18. The senile old biddy probably thought that since it was the BBC no one in the US would see it.

  19. Let her yowl – Pinkos love to pontificate to anyone who will listen, but Ginsburg is now known to partisan/biased; hardly a good reputation for a jurist.

    Many of us discount anything that she says as the partisan mumblings of a senile old woman.

    1. I don’t believe she is senile, but there have been cases of SCOTUS justices deteriorating mentally and becoming a burden on the Court. I think there should be a mandatory retirement age of 75 or 80.

      1. Tin – or at least a mental health check annually. Why do we take more care issuing drivers licenses to the elderly than we do with the Supreme Court? 1 in 3 people will die with dementia after the age of 75. It’s hardly unreasonable to check mental acuity annually after a certain age. It would be an early warning sign for all of us, so that we could immediately lose our peace of mind and start panicking about dementia.

  20. She said she was moving to New Zealand if Trump won. Why isn’t she packing? Why believe anything that comes from her lips? She is irrelevant.

    1. Her son lives in Chicago and has a business to run and her daughter and son-in-law live in New York where they have faculty positions and a law practice, respectively. Presumably they told her that if she wanted to buy a condo in Wellington or Auckland, she was on her own. (She’d also have to concede her seat on the Supreme Court to a Republican President and Senate). There came a point where the taxidermy skills of Thurgood Marshall’s clerks just couldn’t cut it anymore, and presumably she’ll reach that point as well.

    2. Who knows…maybe she applied and New Zealand wouldn’t let her in. I was amazed by the arrogance of some of these celebrities…..Ginsburg, Cher, Barbra Streisand, etc….who announced that they would be moving to New Z. or Canada if Trump were elected, as though the other country had no say in the matter. Apparently these are all open borders folks who think you can just move to a foreign country as easily as moving to another state.

Comments are closed.