Ginsburg (Again) Holds Forth On Politics, Hillary Clinton, and Sexism

225px-ruth_bader_ginsburg_scotus_photo_portraitI 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 sexismracismself-hating womendomineering boyfriendsRussian hackersBernie 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

          • Please elaborate on this “Deep State” cabal of ne’er-do-wells which you have so cleverly uncovered through your dogged sleuthing. It seems that your keen investigative skills have uncovered a conspiratorial network of fifth-columnists which is hell-bent on eradicating our love of apple pie, football and reality television. Your sacrifice has saved the ‘Merican way of life. I lift my hot dog to you in salute.

            this is to “inspector gadget” paulie

      • Her reign would have been just as tumultuous as that of Mr Trump. There would have been as many demands to impeach and claims of collusion, etc. Is there any individual who would satisfy the emotions of the majority of the electorate? Perhaps a President Turley would.

    • Per Wikipedia, take away the popular votes for both Clinton and Trump in only California, and Trump won the national popular vote by over two million votes.

        • So what if they were mespo? English is not the official language of this country. Do you have a prejudice against people because of the language they speak? If you are implying, as it appears you are, that those votes were cast illegally, then you are just plain full of crap, not to mention repeating another one of Trump’s many lies.

      • Dave, where a voter resides doesn’t matter when voting for President. One voter’s vote should count as much as that of any other voter no matter what their geographic location. No citizen’s vote should be treated as inferior or suspect simply because of where they live. If you are going to play that game then it is just as legitimate to question your vote because of your geographic location.

        • In this country, we don’t elect the president by a popular vote. We elect the president through the electoral college system. Several of our previous presidents have been elected through the electoral college, but did not receive a majority of the popular vote. Trump’s election, by not winning the popular vote, is not unprecedented. Much is made over the simple fact that Hillary won the popular vote. Somehow, sore losers seem to think that this invalidates Trump’s election. The electoral college system prevents a highly populated state, such as California, from dominating an election. California is dominated by liberal Democrats. The only point I’m making here is that by not considering California’s popular votes, Trump would have won the national popular vote, thus negating the whining from the naysayers. In other words, the majority of the voters outside of California elected Trump. The whiners need to quit whining and accept this.

          I’m not questioning any votes or who lives in what state one votes in. The popular vote in each individual state determines who wins that state’s electoral votes, so where you live to cast your vote does matter. Each state’s electoral votes are the sum of its US Senators and Representatives.

          The electoral college system gives low populated states a say in national elections.

          From your comment, you seem to think that national presidential elections should be determined by a popular vote. Our founding fathers thought a popular vote would disenfranchise the smaller states, hence they developed the electoral college. See Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution.

  1. In a house, in a square, in a quadrant,
    In a street, in a lane, in a road,
    Turn to the left on the right hand,
    You see there my true love’s abode.
    I go there a courting and cooing,
    To my love like a dove,
    And swearing on my bended knee,
    If ever I cease to love.
    May sheeps heads grow on apple trees,
    If ever I cease to love.

    If ever I cease to love,
    I fever I cease to love,
    May the moon be turn’s in to green cheese,
    If ever I cease to love.

    She can sing, she can play the Piano,
    She can jump, she can dance, she can run,
    In fact she’s as sweet as a rosebud,
    And lily flow’r chang’d into one.
    And who would not love such a beauty
    Like an Angel dropp’d from above.
    May I be stung to death with flies,
    If ever I cease to love.
    May I be stung to death with flies,
    If ever I cease to love.

    If ever I cease to love,
    If ever I cease to love,
    May little dogs wag their tails in front,
    If ever I cease to love.

    For all the money that’s in Wall street,
    All the stocks of a railroad line,
    I wouldn’t exchange the girl I love,
    She’s good as a silver mine;
    To see her dance so graceful,
    I could faint with radiant love,
    If ever the Custum house a hornpipe dance
    If ever I cease to love.
    May we never have to pat the Income Tax,
    If ever I cease to love.

    If ever I cease to love,
    If ever I cease to love,
    May we all turn into cats and dogs,
    If ever I cease to love.

    May all the seas turn into ink,
    May black be turned to white
    May the pumpkins grow on apple trees,
    May cow lay eggs, may fowls yield milk.
    May the hawk become a dove,
    May beggars refuse to eat cold meat,
    If ever I cease to love,
    May I be frozen to death with heat,
    If ever I cease to love.

    If ever I cease to love,
    If ever I cease to love,
    May all the rivers run up hill,
    If ever I cease to love.

  2. “It would not seem much to ask for justices to avoid commenting on politics while on the Court.”

    It appears that expecting some people to keep their political views private is too much to ask of everyone from Supreme Court justices to those who call themselves reporters.

  3. Well, personally, I voted against Hillary because she has a vagina. Other than that she was a fully qualified candidate with a squeaky clean background. /sarc off

  4. “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.”

    There’s nothing new about that. Hillary as a long history of being more popular the less people hear from her, and less popular the more people hear from her There are polls that have shown that over and over — which means she’s a terrible candidate, period.

    That’s easy to understand. The first office she ran for was Senator from NY — a state that would vote for Hitler if he had a (D) next to his name. She began her political career as close to the top as you can get, in a state where she’d won the moment she’d announced. Other politicians start at the bottom and work their way up (Trump being one remarkable exception), and in the process they learn how to campaign and how to communicate and most importantly how to connect with an audience. Hillary never learned anything, because she never had to campaign before. She’s a horrible public speaker. And she doesn’t even actually like people. She called Trump supporters Deplorables, but it’s pretty clear that she thinks anyone that isn’t a millionaire or a celebrity is deplorable.

    Bottom line: A pile of wet laundry is more interesting than Hillary. But her audiences are peppered with people that know when they’re supposed to cheer or applaud. The usual fraud is for the audience to start cheering as Hillary nears the end of a sentence, so Hillary has to raise her nails-on-a-chalk-board voice in order to be heard over all the adulation. It’s all a scripted show. People in the audience are cheering on cue. People watching at home are yawning or going into the kitchen to make a sandwich.

    The pundits claim it was a huge mistake for Hillary not to have campaigned in Wisconsin, but per Hillary’s history, it’s possible (or probable) that she’d have lost votes, not gained any, if she’d have campaigned in Wisconsin.

    Ginsberg is clueless about politics. Maybe she’s thinking of retirement and her politican nonsense is just auditioning for a spot on MSNBC or The View. Hard to figure how anyone can be foolish enough to think of Hillary as a feminist, when she launched her political career by cashing in on the name recognition she got from being married to some dude. Her actual trailblazing message about feminism:

    “That’s right, all of you little girls watching out there can grow up and run for president. Step One, marry some guy that gets elected president.”

    It’s frightening that there’s someone on the Supreme Court that is so out of touch with practical reality that she doesn’t see that.

  5. Ginzberg is a mentally impaired, senile old biddy who needs to check into a nursing home: permanently.

    Of course, her Leftist BS line about “sexism” also demonstrates that she hasn’t the foggiest bit of knowledge of reality. More than 53% of white women voted for Donald Trump, and that figure included many Democratic white women. So, does Ginzberg “think” those women are “sexist?” What an ultrasubcretin.

  6. “I have been equally critical of other justices, including the late Antonin Scalia, for such comments.” This is true but if there’s a chance to keep “Clinton” in the news, no matter how meaningless, it seems to be a calculate effort to do so.

  7. Justice RBG has become another sufferer of TDS. She just can’t let it go. I wonder if she’ll recuse herself during any cases involving the White House….

    Doubtful.

  8. Ginzberg has made herself historic on two counts. Support of age of consent at 12 and support of victimization of women. Perhaps she is jealous of the third of three items absolutely guaranteed for all of us. Birth, life, death but only one per customer.

    • What does Ruth have to look forward to? The sure and certain knowledge of her replacement helping to demolish her legacy and turning her entire life into …. nothing.

  9. Who was that fella… Scalia? He spoke to conservative groups. Went hunting with people who could and did end up with cases that could reach the court on paid trips.He mingled with Republican legislators. And that Thomas, the one whose wife is the hear of a right-wing lobbying firm. Where was/is Hurley’s outrage in those cases?

    • Maybe you missed this line in the piece: “I have been equally critical of other justices, including the late Antonin Scalia, for such comments.”

      • You cant spend the entire article except for one line on Ginsburg when Scalia was by far the biggest offender. That’s not “equally.” And Thomas has an outright conflict of interest. Hurley always says he’s fair-handed in his criticism but not so much.

          • I could be eatin an etoufee at da Commander’s Palace or a Po boy at Jimmy’s but instead I see another article by Turley blasting Ginsburg. He does not like da feminist type of ladies. Neither does Rushbo. Maybe Turley and El Rushbo can boo da feminaziz as they call em.

            • Is an etoufee served for breakfast? I’ve never had one. Actually I’ve never heard of it, either. I like crepe suzette. But Dr. Schmachter says no way. As for Turley, he seems to think that Ginsburg said that sexism was the only reason Hillary lost to Trump. Ginsburg said sexism played a part in it. But she neglected to mention any other reasons. Besides, it was another interview. If they ask her, then she answers.

              Happy Fat Tuesday to you, too, Ken. (Lent is coming).

              • Etouffee looks like paella with crawdads. Sounds good. (The blawg won’t take the pictures.) They’d just make you hungry, anyway.

        • Enigma,

          Today is February 13, 2018. Just keep telling yourself that. Scalia is dead. It is a whole ‘nother year now. Remember, it’s February 13, 2018.

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          (Psst: I had to tell him that before he links the Ginsberg criticism to the Civil War or the Titanic or something.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s