In bashing Donald Trump, some say Ruth Bader Ginsburg just crossed a very important line

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.

❤️ RBG but I don't think our Supreme Court justices should be publicly offering their opinions about POTUS candidates.

Has a SCOTUS justice made an endorsement like this before? 

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the Supreme Court in May. In an interview in her chambers on Friday, she chastised the Senate for refusing to act on President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee.

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.

Others wondered what impact this might have on Ginsburg's decision to hear cases involving Trump.

2/2 If there's a redo of Bush v. Gore, how does Ginsburg not recuse herself, given her Trump comments?

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.

read more:

Views: 529

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion


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" looks like a stale shrimp, but has the mind of a rabid rat, I think that's the main reason IT has such an equally stale and unfortunately for our time, a huge following.

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!! 




Political Cartoons by Tom Stiglich

Political Cartoons by Lisa BensonPolitical Cartoons by Gary Varvel


CONFUSION:   Pelosi Says Constitution Spells Out ‘Two Co-Equal Branches’ Of Government

No Nancy. No.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi must be taking night classes at the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez School of Government.

Pelosi, the 79-year-old third-highest ranking official in the U.S. government, was speaking to the Center for American Progress today when she mistakenly said there are “two co-equal branches” of government, before correcting herself to say there are three.


“First of all, let me just say, we take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” Pelosi said.

“Democrats take that oath seriously, and we are committed to honoring our oath of office. I’m not sure that our Republican colleagues share that commitment, and I’m not sure that the president of the United States does, too,” she claimed.

“So, in light of the fact that the beauty of the Constitution is a system of checks and balances— two co-equal branches— three co-equal branches of government,” she corrected with a laugh.

“A check and balance on each other,” she continued. “Con— Constitution spells out the pri— pa, uh, the duties of Congress and one of them is oversight of the president of the United States, another one of them is to impeach the president of the United States,” Pelosi said.

In November, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez rallied supporters on Facebook to pitch in and help Democrats take back “all three chambers of Congress.”

“…the Progressive movement works and it wins in all districts…If we work our butts off to make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress– three chambers of government…,” she said during the virtual appearance.

She clarified that she meant the “presidency, the Senate and the House.”

According to the Constitution, the three branches of government are the legislative, executive and judicial.

Below: Nancy Pelosi is continuing to promote the false narrative that President Trump is involved in a cover-up and therefore may be guilty of an impeachable offense. Millie Weaver joins Alex to break down the propaganda being used to overturn the democratic election of 2016 


© 2019   Created by Steve - Ning Creator.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service