Ruth Bader Ginzburg: If Trump wins move to New Zealand
- Thread starter Banjo
- Start date
She's been a far left partisan hack her entire career. Her husband was a rich tax lawyer in NYC. She was general counsel of the ACLU as I recall.
I doubt there are three cases where she deviated from the leftwing pre-determined result. If you just look at the names of the parties, you can tell how she will vote without even knowing anything about the cases. Of course that is true of all the democrat-appointed justices.
Jeff Greenfield is totally correct. She cannot meet an appearance of impartiality in a Trump case any more than that La Raza judge in Mexifornia can.
I'm not sure anyone alive can meet an appearance of impartiality in a Trump case.
Whereas your hero, Scalia, was utterly unpredictable, eh? Let's try not to forget which party has a "purity test."
Last edited:
It's not her personal opinion of Trump that is the problem. It's her undermining of our political system. The voters speak, a person gets elected, and that's it. At that point we come together and try to work things out. That's what keeps us from having tanks in the street, military coups and violent revolutions.
To be fair there's too much of this nonsense coming from all ends, but to see it coming from a Supreme Court Justice...that should give everyone pause regardless of political affiliation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-ginsburg-just-crossed-a-very-important-line/
It's a political cliche at this point to joke about moving to another country if a certain presidential candidate doesn't win. Gobs of Americans were headed to Canada if George W. Bush was reelected in 2004. A similar contingent threatened to flood across our northern border when Barack Obama was elected and reelected.
Generally, though, you don't hear a Supreme Court justice talking like this. In fact, you generally don't hear a Supreme Court justice talking at all — much less about the big political issues of the day.
Most justices aren't Ruth Bader Ginsburg, though. And in a new New York Times interview, Ginsburg doesn't hold a thing back when it comes to the 2016 election.
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg told the Times' Adam Liptak. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
Meet Trump's Supreme Court picks
Embed Share
Play Video2:54
Here are the 11 justices Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says he would consider for the Supreme Court if elected president.(Sarah Parnass, Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
Ginsburg also recalled something her late husband said about such matters: "Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand."
This appears to be a joke, but Ginsburg's sentiment here is crystal clear: She thinks Donald Trump would be a dangerous president. And in saying it, she goes to a place justices almost never do — and perhaps never have — for some very good reasons.
Ginsburg is known for pushing the bounds of a justice's public comments and has earned something of a cult following on the left. But some say she just went too far.
"I find it baffling actually that she says these things," said Arthur Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. "She must know that she shouldn’t be. However tempted she might be, she shouldn’t be doing it."
Similarly, Howard Wolfson, a former top aide to Hillary Clinton and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, said Ginsburg shouldn't have said it.
Follow
howard wolfson
✔@howiewolf
I
RBG but I don't think our Supreme Court justices should be publicly offering their opinions about POTUS candidates.
5:54 AM - 11 Jul 2016
Follow
Jonathan Chait
✔@jonathanchait
Has a SCOTUS justice made an endorsement like this before?http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 …
7:10 PM - 10 Jul 2016 · Washington, DC, United States
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, No Fan of Donald Trump, Critiques Latest Term
Justice Ginsburg took stock of a tumultuous term for the Supreme Court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and gave her thoughts about a Trump presidency.
nytimes.com
Others wondered what impact this might have on Ginsburg's decision to hear cases involving Trump.
Follow
Jeff Greenfield @greenfield64
2/2 If there's a redo of Bush v. Gore, how does Ginsburg not recuse herself, given her Trump comments?
4:06 AM - 11 Jul 2016 · Manhattan, NY, United States
And that's really a key reason justices don't talk like Ginsburg did. Sometimes they have to hear cases involving political issues and people. Having offered their unprompted opinions about such things can lead to questions about prejudice and potential recusal from future cases.
As Greenfield notes, Ginsburg was a part of the court that decided who the president was when the 2000 election was thrown to the Supreme Court, so this isn't uncharted territory. Had she said something similar about either Bush or Al Gore, would she have been able to hear the case?
Louis Virelli is a Stetson University law professor who just wrote a book on Supreme Court recusals, titled "Disqualifying the High Court." He said that "public comments like the ones that Justice Ginsburg made could be seen as grounds for her to recuse herself from cases involving a future Trump administration. I don't necessarily think she would be required to do that, and I certainly don't believe that she would in every instance, but it could invite challenges to her impartiality based on her public comments."
Hellman said Ginsburg's comments could muddy the waters when it comes to decisions not just involving Trump but also his policies — something that could come up regularly should he win the presidency.
"It would cast doubt on her impartiality in those decisions," Hellman said. "If she has expressed herself as opposing the election of Donald Trump, her vote to strike down a Trump policy would be under a cloud."
Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and who once clerked for conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, has criticized Ginsburg before for her public comments. But he said this one is more indefensible than any of its predecessors.
"I think this exceeds the others in terms of her indiscretions," Whelan said. "I am not aware of any justice ever expressing views on the merits or demerits of a presidential candidate in the midst of the campaign. I am not a fan of Donald Trump's at all. But the soundness or unsoundness of her concerns about Donald Trump has no bearing on whether it was proper for her to say what she said."
Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, said it's valid to question how Ginsburg might have to handle a potential Trump case — up to and including a Clinton v. Trump case.
"I think this is ultimately a question for judicial ethicists, but I do think following these comments it is a legitimate question to raise, should Donald Trump’s campaign come to the Court with any legal questions before the election," Hasen wrote on his blog.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg loves 'Notorious RBG'
Embed Share
Play Video4:21
Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg talks about her collection of Notorious RBG t-shirts and the opera about her and Justice Antonin Scalia’s friendship. (Courtesy of 92nd Street Y)
It's not clear that there is any real precedent for what Ginsburg just did.
Then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was criticized by some in 2000 after Newsweek reported her saying, "This is terrible," at an election-night watch party after Florida was prematurely called for Al Gore. Some argued that she should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore.
more at link...
It's a political cliche at this point to joke about moving to another country if a certain presidential candidate doesn't win. Gobs of Americans were headed to Canada if George W. Bush was reelected in 2004. A similar contingent threatened to flood across our northern border when Barack Obama was elected and reelected.
Generally, though, you don't hear a Supreme Court justice talking like this. In fact, you generally don't hear a Supreme Court justice talking at all — much less about the big political issues of the day.
Most justices aren't Ruth Bader Ginsburg, though. And in a new New York Times interview, Ginsburg doesn't hold a thing back when it comes to the 2016 election.
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” Ginsburg told the Times' Adam Liptak. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
Meet Trump's Supreme Court picks
Embed Share
Play Video2:54
Here are the 11 justices Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says he would consider for the Supreme Court if elected president.(Sarah Parnass, Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)
Ginsburg also recalled something her late husband said about such matters: "Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand."
This appears to be a joke, but Ginsburg's sentiment here is crystal clear: She thinks Donald Trump would be a dangerous president. And in saying it, she goes to a place justices almost never do — and perhaps never have — for some very good reasons.
Ginsburg is known for pushing the bounds of a justice's public comments and has earned something of a cult following on the left. But some say she just went too far.
"I find it baffling actually that she says these things," said Arthur Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. "She must know that she shouldn’t be. However tempted she might be, she shouldn’t be doing it."
Similarly, Howard Wolfson, a former top aide to Hillary Clinton and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, said Ginsburg shouldn't have said it.
Follow
howard wolfson ✔@howiewolf
I
5:54 AM - 11 Jul 2016
Follow
Jonathan Chait ✔@jonathanchait
Has a SCOTUS justice made an endorsement like this before?http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0 …
7:10 PM - 10 Jul 2016 · Washington, DC, United States
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, No Fan of Donald Trump, Critiques Latest Term
Justice Ginsburg took stock of a tumultuous term for the Supreme Court after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia and gave her thoughts about a Trump presidency.
nytimes.com
Others wondered what impact this might have on Ginsburg's decision to hear cases involving Trump.
Follow
Jeff Greenfield @greenfield642/2 If there's a redo of Bush v. Gore, how does Ginsburg not recuse herself, given her Trump comments?
4:06 AM - 11 Jul 2016 · Manhattan, NY, United States
And that's really a key reason justices don't talk like Ginsburg did. Sometimes they have to hear cases involving political issues and people. Having offered their unprompted opinions about such things can lead to questions about prejudice and potential recusal from future cases.
As Greenfield notes, Ginsburg was a part of the court that decided who the president was when the 2000 election was thrown to the Supreme Court, so this isn't uncharted territory. Had she said something similar about either Bush or Al Gore, would she have been able to hear the case?
Louis Virelli is a Stetson University law professor who just wrote a book on Supreme Court recusals, titled "Disqualifying the High Court." He said that "public comments like the ones that Justice Ginsburg made could be seen as grounds for her to recuse herself from cases involving a future Trump administration. I don't necessarily think she would be required to do that, and I certainly don't believe that she would in every instance, but it could invite challenges to her impartiality based on her public comments."
Hellman said Ginsburg's comments could muddy the waters when it comes to decisions not just involving Trump but also his policies — something that could come up regularly should he win the presidency.
"It would cast doubt on her impartiality in those decisions," Hellman said. "If she has expressed herself as opposing the election of Donald Trump, her vote to strike down a Trump policy would be under a cloud."
Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and who once clerked for conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, has criticized Ginsburg before for her public comments. But he said this one is more indefensible than any of its predecessors.
"I think this exceeds the others in terms of her indiscretions," Whelan said. "I am not aware of any justice ever expressing views on the merits or demerits of a presidential candidate in the midst of the campaign. I am not a fan of Donald Trump's at all. But the soundness or unsoundness of her concerns about Donald Trump has no bearing on whether it was proper for her to say what she said."
Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, said it's valid to question how Ginsburg might have to handle a potential Trump case — up to and including a Clinton v. Trump case.
"I think this is ultimately a question for judicial ethicists, but I do think following these comments it is a legitimate question to raise, should Donald Trump’s campaign come to the Court with any legal questions before the election," Hasen wrote on his blog.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg loves 'Notorious RBG'
Embed Share
Play Video4:21
Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg talks about her collection of Notorious RBG t-shirts and the opera about her and Justice Antonin Scalia’s friendship. (Courtesy of 92nd Street Y)
It's not clear that there is any real precedent for what Ginsburg just did.
Then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was criticized by some in 2000 after Newsweek reported her saying, "This is terrible," at an election-night watch party after Florida was prematurely called for Al Gore. Some argued that she should have recused herself from Bush v. Gore.
more at link...
Interesting, this sentiment has been missing for 8 years.
The democrats have a long list of taboos that any potential nominee must not fail. Republicans are generally so cowardly they force their nominees to pretend they have no opinion on various important issues, which is absurd too.
This is what happens when the judiciary strays into activist lawmaking. Suddenly their political loyalty becomes more important than their judgment.
The current court is one of the worst in history. Four democrats who vote in mindless lockstep in every issue, a moral narcissist named Kennedy who makes up legal doctrine out of whole cloth and a chief justice who tries to justify a lack of backbone by being too clever by half.
The Warren Court of the mid-20th century was probably worse in terms of sheer activism and making up constitutional law, but this court has essentially forfeited all legitimacy. Of course, pretty much all our other national institutions, eg military, FBI, CIA, Justice Department, IRS, have as well under this awful president.
Actually it's been missing for 16. The left went off the rails when Dubya got elected. Now the right is swinging back. I expect it will get worse regardless of who wins this time.
Like I said, this is serious stuff. Even the NYT admits it. You know you've gone off the hardcore leftist rails when the NYT says you've gone too far. Whatever capacity for objectivity, the rule of law and adherence to the constitution this woman may have had is now gone. She needs to be removed immediately. She is a threat to liberty and freedom. Congress needs to act on this and NOW. If we need an amendment to do it, then it's needs to be written. You cannot call yourself an American and support her position.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/o...t-about-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/o...t-about-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg.html?_r=0