Washington Post And New York Times Tell Ruth Bader Ginsburg She Needs To Zip It
[guest post by Dana]
Surprising to see the editorial boards of both the Washington Post and the New York Times actually take Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to task for her repeated attacks on Donald Trump this past week.
From the Washington Post “Justice Ginsburg’s inappropriate comments on Donald Trump”:
However valid her comments may have been, though, and however in keeping with her known political bent, they were still much, much better left unsaid by a member of the Supreme Court. There’s a good reason the Code of Conduct for United States Judges flatly states that a “judge should not . . . publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.” Politicization, real or perceived, undermines public faith in the impartiality of the courts. No doubt this restriction requires judges, and justices, to muzzle themselves and, to a certain extent, to pretend they either do or do not think various things that they obviously do or do not believe. As the saying goes, however, “hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.”
…
When the story of Justice Ginsburg’s career is written, there will be many highlights — her pioneering work as a lawyer advocating women’s rights; her many trenchant opinions on the high court in defense of American society’s underdogs. Her performance this week, alas, confirms her fallibility.
From the New York Times “Donald Trump is right about Ruth Bader Ginsburg”:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling.
…
There is no legal requirement that Supreme Court justices refrain from commenting on a presidential campaign. But Justice Ginsburg’s comments show why their tradition has been to keep silent.
In this election cycle in particular, the potential of a new president to affect the balance of the court has taken on great importance, with the vacancy left by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. As Justice Ginsburg pointed out, other justices are nearing an age when retirement would not be surprising. That makes it vital that the court remain outside the presidential process. And just imagine if this were 2000 and the resolution of the election depended on a Supreme Court decision. Could anyone now argue with a straight face that Justice Ginsburg’s only guide would be the law?
While the editorial boards of the WaPo and the NYT surely didn’t appreciate being pushed to the point of having to publicly side with Trump, at least we can all still count on the White House high-fiving the naked partisanship of a loyal progresive Democrat on the Supreme Court:
–Dana
No one should be surprised by RBG’s comments.
Dana (995455) — 7/13/2016 @ 1:27 pmIsn’t it funny how when left wing judges are being questioned during their Supreme Court confirmation hearing, they have no opinions about anyone or anything. Yet once they’re on the Court, they just can’t shut their mouths.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/13/2016 @ 1:32 pmThe end might be nigh (e.g. a re-occurence of the cancer) and she’s like eff it.
urbanleftbehind (5eecdb) — 7/13/2016 @ 1:37 pmI think she plans on retiring and doesn’t care about maintaining any pretenses. And obviously she is making it known which kind of replacement she expects…
Dana (9ec88a) — 7/13/2016 @ 1:42 pmIts okay everyone, the Supreme Court is apolitical. Nothing to see here.
TheNaBr (0c7c2f) — 7/13/2016 @ 1:46 pmharvardtrash hoochie made a damn fool of herself
happyfeet (28a91b) — 7/13/2016 @ 1:50 pmAunt Ruth looks like the elderly shut-in with coke-bottle glasses and a hearing aid whose biggest thrill of the day is when Meals-On-Wheels delivers a tuna sandwich, apple, and milk.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 7/13/2016 @ 2:05 pmThe Times and the WaPo aren’t striking a blow for judicial impartiality, or even for mere decorum.
They don’t like to see an agent blow her cover.
They’re saying she should stick to the votes, and leave the cheerleading and propaganda to someone with a lower profile.
tom swift (536c2f) — 7/13/2016 @ 2:58 pmWhether RBG or Helen Thomas, I do prefer the libs honest rather than sneaky. Though if you were more than #NeverTrumpers, you could have pulled examples of this honesty more readily from, say, the Twitter accounts of highly Democrat demographic profiles. They’ll say what they think no matter who’s watching.
Dystopia Max (76803a) — 7/13/2016 @ 3:11 pmThe comparison that Dystopia Max makes of Ginsburg to Helen Thomas is an apt one. A lot of people reach a point in their old age where there is no longer any filter between their mind and their mouth, and they feel free to let fly with whatever beliefs they hold no matter how improper or bigoted. When I was a kid growing up, I had a friend whose grandfather was a respected citizen and considered to be an all-around nice man, but when he hit his 80s he suddenly developed a tendency to let slip a racist or sexist comment which only a few years earlier he would have managed to suppress. I think that both RGB and Helen Thomas are like that in their old age. It eventually caught up to Thomas and cost her the cushy job she had where she could annoy us with her bigoted invective, but I guess a Supreme Court Justice isn’t held to the same standard as a McClatchy columnist.
JVW (eabb2a) — 7/13/2016 @ 3:32 pmhttp://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/ginsburg-obviously-inappropriate-obama-cruz-says/#sthash.cxNmGYy2.dpuf
Ginsburg ‘Obviously Inappropriate’ But So Was Obama, Ted Cruz Says.
papertiger (c2d6da) — 7/13/2016 @ 3:35 pmThey’re saying she should stick to the votes, and leave the cheerleading and propaganda to someone with a lower profile.
This implies that the WaPo and NYT care about appearances. Obviously, they no longer do.
Dana (995455) — 7/13/2016 @ 4:16 pmI think the New Yirk Ties and Washington Post have considerations other than the next election. It may be that they have said elsewhere that judges should stay away from politics.
I don’t know really what the fuss is about RBG’s comments.
1. She didn’t speak about political/legal issues that might come before the court, like immigration, or even Supreme Court appointments. If they did, who was president wouldn’t be much of factor in the case. The three cases she mentioned that she would like to see overturned are 1) an impossible dream – i.e. I guess they are far from a majority 2) there is no way it can be done (the Voting Rights Act case that got rid of the Section 5 list) and 3) possibly could happen in an appeal from a gun control case..
2. Her attacks on Trump were mostly personal – that he’s erratic etc.
3. What she said about Trump is almost the conventional wisdom among liberals.
Sammy Finkelman (372aad) — 7/13/2016 @ 4:39 pmclearly she isn’t fit for any high office,
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model.html
narciso (732bc0) — 7/13/2016 @ 4:47 pm“1) an impossible dream – i.e. I guess they are far from a majority 2) there is no way it can be done (the Voting Rights Act case that got rid of the Section 5 list) and 3) possibly could happen in an appeal from a gun control case..”
Possibly you’ve been asleep for most of the “NO WAY THIS COULD BE DONE” things that have most certainly been done by motivated sociopaths over the past 20 years or so.
“When I was a kid growing up, I had a friend whose grandfather was a respected citizen and considered to be an all-around nice man, but when he hit his 80s he suddenly developed a tendency to let slip a racist or sexist comment which only a few years earlier he would have managed to suppress. I think that both RGB and Helen Thomas are like that in their old age.”
The prudent would learn from and judge both of them, and probably judge the society that suppressed their speech much more harshly for what it hides.
Dystopia Max (76803a) — 7/13/2016 @ 5:41 pmwithout a scalia, on the court, the range of what is possible, is quite broad,
narciso (732bc0) — 7/13/2016 @ 5:52 pmIn any case, given the levels of naked fraud these ‘people’ seem quite willing and able to perpetrate via their naked ‘change agents’, what sort of force do you think would be appropriate if they manage to scrape up enough votes from their dead dependent diversities to eke out a technical win? Or do you propose counter-fraud/pandering?
Dystopia Max (76803a) — 7/13/2016 @ 5:57 pmMeanwhile, you do seem to leave out Donald Trump’s Tweets:
“Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 6h6 hours ago
If I win the Presidency, we will swamp Justice Ginsburg with real judges and real legal opinions!
5,097 retweets 16,218 likes
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 6h6 hours ago
Even the @NYTimes and @WashingtonPost Editorial Boards condemned Justice Ginsburg for her ethical and legal breach. What was she thinking?
3,580 retweets 11,325 likes
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump 6h6 hours ago
Is Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg going to apologize to me for her misconduct? Big mistake by an incompetent judge!”
Read dem Tweets and internalize their logic: you going to say “well TECHNICALLY RBG did some competent things that one time” or roll with it and hammer your very avowed enemies who do in fact want to kill you till they give up in despair?
Dystopia Max (76803a) — 7/13/2016 @ 9:48 pmharvardtrash judgeslut experiences moment of clarity
happyfeet (a037ad) — 7/14/2016 @ 8:07 am