I have previously criticized Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg for her continued political comments in speeches to liberal and academic groups. While not unique on the Court, Ginsburg is something of recidivist in abandoning the long-standing avoidance of political discussions by justices. Despite repeated controversies in speaking publicly on political issues, Ginsburg is clearly undeterred. Ginsburg was back this week holding forth on political issues that justices have historically avoided in maintain the integrity of the Court. As in her 2017 speech, Ginsburg again repeated her view that sexist voters prevented Hillary Clinton from being elected president.
Speaking at a Columbia University Women’s Conference event, Ginsburg said
“I think it was difficult for Hillary Clinton to get by even the macho atmosphere prevailing during that campaign, and she was criticized in a way I think no man would have been criticized. I think anyone who watched that campaign unfold would answer it the same way I did: Yes, sexism played a prominent part.”
I 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. I have been equally critical of other justices, including the late Antonin Scalia, for such comments. She previously called President Trump a “faker.” Ginsburg remains a notable recidivist in this type of conduct.
It would not seem much to ask for justices to avoid commenting on politics while on the Court. These justices are allowed to sit on a court of nine. The price of that ticket should be utter neutrality in politics. Instead, Ginsburg appears to relish her public persona.
Moreover, Ginsburg appears out of her element as a political commentator. Polls continue to show that Clinton remains deeply disliked by a huge number of voters who view her has dishonest and untrustworthy. Indeed, after an active speaking tour promoting her book and her retrospective on her loss to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton has actually become even more unpopular. We have previously noted that polls have shown Trump would still beat Clinton in a head-to-head election (and here). While Trump is also facing declining polls, he is at the same level or even higher than Clinton. Clinton posted the lowest polling numbers yet with only 36% popularity and an unfavorable rating of 61%. Polls are showing Trump at 38 percent. While a new poll shows that half of people feel Trump should resign, it is clear that they want Clinton even less — the very same position held by many in the campaign.
Ginsburg refuses to accept that Clinton could be viewed simply as a bad candidate regardless of her gender. The establishment all but anointed Clinton as their candidate in the primary, polls clearly showed that the voters did not want an establishment figure so the DNC worked to guarantee the nomination to the ultimate establishment figure. However, it clearly goes deeper than that. Even against one of the most unpopular figures in history (Trump was even worse at 63 percent unfavorable), Clinton could not even maintain a majority of women with favorability ratings.
While Ginsburg previously apologized for her past political commentary as “ill-advised,” it is equally ill-informed. Yet, Ginsburg is not alone in ignoring polls before and after the election. After the election, Clinton alternatively blamed sexism, racism, self-hating women, domineering boyfriends, Russian hackers, Bernie Sanders, and of course, James Comey.
In the end, it does not matter if Ginsburg is right or wrong in seeing voters as sexist. Her continuing discussion of political issues out of the Court undermines both the Court and her legacy.
97 thoughts on “Ginsburg (Again) Holds Forth On Politics, Hillary Clinton, and Sexism”
I wish she would treat the position she is in with the respect it deserves.
This is very much akin to the (excessive) use of Twitter by President Trump. Not identical, but similar, in that both cases involve people speaking with abandon on any issue they want. However, the President is given some latitude in the fact that he is an elected leader. A Supreme Court justice is never elected, and is sometimes chosen for their political viewpoint. But when a person is supposed to have a view of neutrality on all subjects that may come before them, then they should use discretion in how they express any opinions that are out of the courtroom.
In the past, there have been judges who have used statements of the President on Twitter as official positions, in the manner of showing certain biases. Would it be correct for critics of certain Supreme Court justices to use their public statements as a reason to demand recusal from hearing certain cases? Or have we passed the point of peak commentary, where everyone feels the absolute right to express their own opinion, no matter how improper the setting?
I feel also that this will make judicial appointments more polarizing, since we will never return to where the judge’s opinion should only be expressed in the courtroom, and more Senators are going to use every silly statement made by those up for judicial confirmation as a reason to vote down those that are from different political persuasions.
Notorious RBG! Superstar! Keep up the good work; if you’re irritating the mouth-breathing, drooling trolls, you are doing outstanding service to the United States of America. A true patriot and an American hero.
We salute you as well, Mark M., for the same reason you stated for saluting RBG.
P. S. In the same CNN interview with Poppy Harlow to which Turley objected, Ginsburg said that The #MeToo Movement will eventually put the ERA back in play with help from The Millennials. Turley neglected to mention that comment from RBG. I wonder why not.
Yes and revolution of da pink hat ladies that are winning throws T urley and his boys and girls into whirling fits. One won in Florida in a T rumpie diistrict. Da pink wave continues no matter how much this old blog makes fun of em.
I guess it would be to much to ask for a justice to make judicial decisions based solely on the content of our constitution, and not on their personal political beliefs. That would go for anyone,of any persuasion.
The trouble is in agreeing on what the constitution, as amended, actually states. The framers knew that and so included a court system.
When one talks about liberal and conservative courts there is a problem. When one talks about liberal and conservative MSM there is a problem.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg: the liberal Anotnin Scalia. Hopeless politicization of the Supreme Court is yet another symptom of a country that is headed towards implosion.
They were good friends.
deviant or problematic lawmaking drives out orthodox or legitimate lawmaking. This occurs in both constitutional law and administrative law.
Check out the comments at the end of the article. They actually discuss the law and remain civil, even when disagreeing.
Just more leftist cancer in our system. They are already trying to undermine the next election, since they still have nothing to offer and look to be cleaned up on once again:
That’s it, if Republicans win, it’s because, well… Russia!!
Maybe there is no integrity in the Court.
What is more important than public statements, is checking personal politics at the door. Each Justice has his or her own opinions about politics, religion, and every case before them. The public needs to know that such personal prejudice is put aside, and that each case is judged according to its merits and the law.
That may not be the case.
Does she need to recuse herself regarding all 2016 election related cases coming forward?
Susan Rice, 15 minutes after losing her White House job, wrote herself an e-mail that named the anti-Trump “prime conspirators”, Obama, then-FBI Director James Comey, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, then-Vice President Joe Biden and Rice, while attempting to absolve them:
“President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities ‘by the book.’ The president stressed that he is not asking about, initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed as it normally would by the book.”
Was it SOP for Obama’s folks to NOT conduct business “…by the book”?
“She writes the memo after Barack Obama is out of office, it’s 12:15 in the afternoon, his term ended 15 minutes earlier, after she no longer had a job. My suspicion, and I think Senator Graham shares this as well, is that they learned something between January 5th and January 20th which caused them to want to change the narrative about this meeting.”
“None of us knew about the meeting, there’s no reason for anyone to know about the meeting, it’s a private secret meeting in the Oval Office. Suddenly word comes out. And why would ‘by the book’ be in quotations? Who would believe this?”
Sounds like memorized talking points to me.
Yes, but whose “A”? Obama, Biden, Comey, Yates? Or Rice? In any case, a note like this probably reveals to political gurus what she is trying to hide. In the meantime, Grassley and Graham are taking the nose to the grindstone route and sent Rice a letter asking her to explain a couple of things (see letter at https://www.scribd.com/document/371382226/Chuck-Grassley-Letter-to-Susan-Rice)
This further gross demonstration of bias, subjectivity and treason demands that Supreme Traitor Ginsburg be impeached and convicted with extreme prejudice. Crimes, such as Ginsburg’s, must carry the maximum penalty for treason which, correct me if it is anachronistic, requires the perpetrator of high treason to be Drawn and Quartered.
Thanks for the update on today’s Pravda Faux News talking points. Not that anyone who’s on to the scam really cares; but that hat looks good on you, though.
this is to “curses, you crazy kids, get off of my lawn!” georgie
One could argue that like racism – Sexism – could be viewed as a core “constitutional” issue more than a political issue.
There is hard evidence over several decades that most women receive less pay for doing the same or better job than their make co-workers.
Gun rights – 2nd Amendment – also appear to be enforced differently based solely on one’s sex. In Florida a women served about 3 years in prison for firing a gun into an inanimate object harming nobody, while fearing for her family’s life from a husband with a history of violence. That’s the same state and same Castle Doctrine law that doesn’t prosecute male shooters that actually kill people. U.S. Attorneys still haven’t indicted Florida prosecutors for these 14th Amendment violations – which are also federal crimes.
Core constitutional rights – that result in unequal treatment – are not merely petty politics! Ginsburg has good reason to expose it.
She’s prostituting her position on the Court to publically promote her own extra-judicial political agenda. That undermines the Court, whose function is to apply the Constitution to the issues of cases brought before it.
The issues you mention come to the Court often enough, and that’s when she’s supposed to apply the Constitution and, if she feels like it, express her written opinions, either in concurrence or dissent.
William Bayer – I keep hoping she will move to New Zealand, but I hear they have strict entrance requirements.
Correct post William, as she IS pushing HER agenda/bias onto anyone who is within ear shot. That, is not a good thing, as we have “Plenty of Politicos MORE than willing to convey Their agenda/bias. The Court is supposed to be BLIND to all things that they hear cases on…she Definitely should NOT be voicing HER opinions to “Sway things FOR the Criminal Hillary.” Again, good post..thanks
Ginsberg can barely stay awake and very likely she has a hard time staying dry. At some point love of the law, Justice, and country should prevail. She needs to step down.
Perhaps this is just a dog-whistle for the activist judges in the lower courts to remain steadfast in their obstruction of the Trump administration.
GOOD POINT OLLY…SHE IS ‘SENDING HER BIAS OPINIONS OF CRIMINALS, LIKE HILLARY OUT THERE TO WHOMEVER HEARS HER’ AND HOPING SURELY THAT JUDGES WILL HEAR HER.
Whistle heard loud and clear:
U.S. District Judge Nicholas Garaufis in Brooklyn ruled that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, cannot end in March as the Republican administration had planned, a victory for Democratic state attorneys general and immigrants who sued the federal government.
Another true patriot. Unlike the deplorables, he understands what Marbury means.
this is to “my team, right or wrong; to hell with the country” olly
How’s the weather in St. Petersburg, comrade?
this is to “Putin signs my check” itsie
I think she and other Justices should discuss such issues at public forums.
The topic here, which is ignored so far by bloggers, is sentence structure:
“While not unique on the Court, Ginsburg is something of recidivist in abandoning the long-standing avoidance of justices of political discussions.”
Now I woiuld say that it should be: … by abandoning the long standing policy by justices of avoiding political discussions.
Comments are closed.