Christopher Johnson at Midwest Conservative Journal makes the best argument I have seen yet on behalf of Donald Trump: to see the look on Justice Ginsburg’s face as President Trump nominates her successor:
Elderly, senile woman publicly humiliates herself:
Unless they have a book to sell, Supreme Court justices rarely give interviews. Even then, they diligently avoid political topics. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes a different approach.
These days, she is making no secret of what she thinks of a certain presidential candidate.
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
It reminded her of something her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, a prominent tax lawyer who died in 2010, would have said.
“‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,’” Justice Ginsburg said, smiling ruefully.
Even some of Ginsburg’s friends can’t believe that anyone would be that stupid.
“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.
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 [Jeff] 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.”
And did I happen to mention that the loopy old broad is a eugenics fan?
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Go here to comment.
In their heart, leftists are always narcissists. Of course she’s a eugenics fan. How could she not be? After all, she’s already been born.
Please don’t let Don the Kiwi see this post!
It could ruin his day.
If she DID move there….well it would be a boost for Liberty in America. GoFundMe campaign starting up to get her there…now!
Sorry Kiwi Don.
From the Oliver Wendell Holmes “three generations of imbeciles are enough” school of legal theory.
OWH, Jr., of course.
British judges scrupulously avoid commenting on political matters, or current affairs in general.
However, as a good number of them have been Members of Parliament and former Law Officers (Lord advocate or Solicitor-General in Scotland or Attorney-General of Solicitor-General in England & Wales), their political views are not difficult to guess.
Perhaps for that reason, the only ground of disqualification is patrimonial interest on the part of the judge or a close relative. Judges have not infrequently had to rule on legislation they supported or opposed in the House of Commons.
She says out loud what so many other judges in this country think. I wonder if judges didn’t make a practice of concealing their controversial views if those three Iowa judges who brought gay “marriage” to Iowa or the ones in California would have gained office
A telling quote from Ginsburg in that meme above. It confirrms everything I have always known about liberal progressive Democrats – intolerate elitist racists and insanely genocidal to the core. Fathom that a nation which defeated Nazism has a Nazi like Ginsburg as a Justice on SCOTUS!
I wonder if her good friend Justice Scalia were still alive, if she would have said these outrageous statements in public.
Another liberal Democrat woman channelling Margaret Sanger.
Eugenics has a long history in this nation. It went underground after WWII, but Sanger and her cohorts skillfully disguised their motives, with the help of the media, academia and entertainment.
Ginsburg is a jackass. She hasn’t the brains of a woodchuck. She was promoted and moved up because he is a woman. Politics is the theater of the ugly-ugly ideas and ugly people, ugly for what they believe and ugly for what they want enacted.
Philip on Tuesday, July 12, A.D. 2016 at 5:53am
“Please don’t let Don the Kiwi see this post!
It could ruin his day”
Haha. 😆
Actually, this was the subject of a post yesterday on own own http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz.
My comment there was that the USA would applaud her move. I’m sure you guys would be happy to get rid of an aging Lefty Liberal Progressive and transport her to the fringes of civilisation. Not that we need her here – we have too many homegrown lefties of our own. But the up side is, that she would have to migrate here with a minimum of $10 mil. dollars to invest and have adequate resources to support herself – no bludging on our national Superannuation.
But it’s a bit cold at the moment – unless she like the cold and the big outdoors – we could shunt her down to the spectacular central Otago in the South Island. Alternative ly if she preferred the warmth, she could go up to the winterless north – Northalnd – where the beaches are fantastic, sparsely populated, by a large proprtion of our Maori people. Her liberal views would probably suit them – about 20% of the Northalnd economy is blackmarket green culture – if you get my drift.
“Take another toke, Bro – cooool ” 🙂
In France, I do not suppose one person in a thousand could name a single member of the country’s supreme tribunals. Even among lawyers, they are virtually unknown.
The fact that French courts deliver a single arrêt with no concurring or dissenting opinions and the baldest statement of the grounds (motifs) means that even the judges’ views on the cases they decide are known only to their colleagues. As a result, in their opinions and arguments, advocates rely far more on the views of jurists (la doctrine) than on decided cases (la jurisprudence). The teaching of the four great commentators on the Code Civil, Demolombe (1804–1887), Guillouard (1845-1925). Gaudemet (1908-2001) and Carbonnier (1908–2003) enjoys the same sort of authority that a Supreme Court decision does in the US.
This taste for anonymity characterises the French bureaucracy as a whole and this impersonal character of the administration is widely seen as a guarantee of impartiality and consistency. In fact, fonctionnaires or, as they are usually referred to, « La fonction publique » are generally respected, unlike politicians, who are held in great contempt.
Both Justices Ginsburg and Kagan should have recused themselves from the Obergefell gay marriage case since they had both presided over gay weddings at least a year before the case was heard. It rankles me that NO ONE mentioned this at the time. They didn’t judge the case; they merely voted. They’d made their minds up prior to the case being heard.
Recall that Justice Thomas was hounded to recall himself from the Obama Care case because of his WIFE’S political activities.
Dennis DiMuzio.
Great points.
I forgot about the hounding of Thomas…your right on point.
The left believe that they are untouchable.
They will continue to plunders as long as the right continues to trip over their limp…(whatever).
Dennis DiMuzio wrote, “Both Justices Ginsburg and Kagan should have recused themselves from the Obergefell gay marriage case since they had both presided over gay weddings at least a year before the case was heard”
I don’t see the logic of that at all. Presumably, the marriages were lawful in the jurisdictions in which they were performed and no one was arguing in Obergefell that states could not allow SSM, if they chose.
A judge who is an elder in a church that espouses the Voluntary Principle and opposes church establishments, may, quite properly, sit in the Teind Court. It would be a different matter, if he were himself a Titular of teinds, for that is a patrimonial interest.
“don’t see the logic of that at all.”
It doesn’t seem to you as if it were an indication that they had already made up their mind on the issue? Which of course they had, all pretense aside. Our Supreme Court is supposed to be a Court, but it functions increasingly as a non-stop Constitutional Convention, constantly amending the Constitution to fit the intellectual prejudices fashionable among the majority of the Court. In Obergerfell these prejudices mandated that the Court manufacture an amendment of the Constitution preventing the States from restricting marriage to only mixed sexes, something that humanity has followed until the present generation. This is a complete betrayal of what the Founding Fathers bequeathed to us, Hamilton’s “least dangerous branch” has become poison to our most precious civil right: the right to rule ourselves.
Donald R McClarey wrote, “It doesn’t seem to you as if it were an indication that they had already made up their mind on the issue?”
A strong indication, certainly, but consistent with the position that marriage is a matter for the states.
Be that as it may, many judges, especially those who have been text-book writers or who have held high political office, are well known to hold strong views on a whole range of legal and political issues. The line has to be drawn somewhere and, traditionally, that has been patrimonial interest or kinship (iudex qui litem suam fecit as the Classical Jurists call it)
“Be that as it may, many judges, especially those who have been text-book writers or who have held high political office, are well known to hold strong views on a whole range of legal and political issues.”
Traditionally we could expect a judge to not attempt to write his political preferences into law under the pretext of construing the law. When a legal decision is clearly not a legal decision but an attempt to legislate from the bench, the judge is no longer acting as a judge but rather engaging in an illegitimate power grab. A decision from such a judge or group of judges lacks any moral authority and merely enjoys the authority of the might behind it, and only that transient authority.
@Don the Kiwi
“Ginsberg picks NZ over Trump.”
I just priused your blog.
I truly enjoyed the comments.
Funny folks.
Otago in the South island…hummm.
I’m certain that you have a cozy damp cave for someone of her …. non-biased…. stature.
So she is backtracking now:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/us-supreme-court-justice-ginsburg-apologizes-for-trump-remarks/ar-BBukt9C?ocid=ansmsnnews11
Seems the women of prominence from the left have great difficulty in being professional.
Incompetents seems to be their trademark.
Poor weasels.
Donald R McClarey wrote, “Traditionally we could expect a judge to not attempt to write his political preferences into law under the pretext of construing the law.”
I agree with that.