I RBG but I don't think our Supreme Court justices should be publicly offering their opinions about POTUS candidates.
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.
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 …
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.
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.
"AND IF o GETS A THIRD TERM WE MIGHT AS WELL HEAD FOR THE HILLS"
Peggy, this Constitutional usurpation you describe, would be a starter for civil war. Progressives already know the general population is restless due to their decades long rapacious abuses. Due process legitimacy has been the collectivists basic tool to pacify their victims. To attempt such a blatant illegal act simply is suicidal (literally and figuatively). So the panicky collectivists are tightly holding onto their seat edges concerning their only viable hope, because they now fear Hillary is dead in the water at this point. Any gestures at martial law would be unfortunate. The USA is an armed society.
yup ! Obama is counting on everything that is going on right now to insure him of that third term ...- a decision that will be made during his call for ML and :civil" uprising .... and (false flags)
Let me more emphatic Peggy. Look for flying donkeys in the sky first, before Barak Hussein Obama dares to decide for the Nations well-being to: not bother with another election until things simmer down, or blow off the 22nd Amendment. I pointed out in a previous topic when this worry appeared, that during our civil war (somewhat more worrisome than todays state of affairs) President Lincoln had to stand for re-election in the North.
And he was was no timid school girl when it came to the Republic. I feel confident if he thought it possible and prudent, he might have tried simplifying things temporarily. But by what stretch of the presidential crack pipe, could Obama talk himself into such a naked breach of Constitutional due-process?
The organs of the federal government would simply refuse to act on his directives, if he tried.
She's old and probably senile
America is terminally ill.
Pushing the bounds my aching ass she is a progressive, liberal and most likely a commie who hates this country as much as Obaboonzo
AMEN. ANOTHER....good reason for Trump to win
She should keep her opinions to herself. She is a Supreme Court Justice. She needs to act like one.
THIS IS THE MAIN REASON THAT TERM LIMITS FOR THE COURT , the average age of the Justices is over 70.
BYE Ruth! Take the rest of those BO puppets with you! We need Judges who can up hold the U.S. Constitution! You'll be just fine in Russia or Kenya! Be sure to take BO back to where he was REALLY BORN, too!!