Ginsburg’s bush league remarks hurt court credibility
If, as Chief Justice John Rob- erts famously said, the job of a Supreme Court justice is to be an “umpire” calling balls and strikes, then Ruth Bader Ginsburg whiffed big time by publicly criticizing presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump.
It’s as if Ginsburg declared herself a huge National League fan, and trashed the American League, before umpiring this week’s All-Star game. Fans would have questioned her calls, and they would have been right.
Ginsburg, a Bill Clinton nominee known for her feminist and liberal views, has attacked Trump three times in recent interviews, which is three times too many. She told the AP she didn’t “want to think about that possibility” (Trump being elected), told The
New York Times it might be “time to move to New Zealand” if that happened and told CNN that Trump is “a faker” who ought to release his tax returns.
Trump retorted that her comments were “highly inappropriate,” and for once he was right. Does Ginsburg have a First Amendment right to express her views about the presidential race? Sure. Should she be doing so? No.
A judge’s most important job — whether on a local court or on the highest court in the land — is to be impartial in decisions and pro- ject that sense of impartiality in public, too. When a Supreme Court justice announces her contempt for a presidential candidate, she places in jeopardy any pretension of fairness toward that candidate’s administration, should he win.
The Supreme Court’s claim to impartiality has suffered ever since the justices split along ideological lines in handing the presidency to George W. Bush in December 2000. Although the facts in Bush v. Gore focused on hanging chads and counting votes, it was seen by the public as the court picking a president. Were a Trump v. Clinton case to arise this fall, Ginsburg ’s vote would be deservedly suspect.
For good reasons, the Code of Conduct for federal judges admonishes them to refrain from publicly endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. The Supreme Court is the only court in the land that does not have a formal ethics code, a void that should be remedied.
Even without a code, the nation expects justices to adhere to the highest ethical standards.
Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in February, was known for blunt public comments on everything from gay rights to abortion. But pointing to those inappropriate comments, as some Ginsburg defenders have done, doesn’t excuse her lapse or make it any less grievous.
Trump, who initially took the high ground but was characteristically unable to stay there, tweeted Wednesday: “Her mind is shot — resign!”
There’s no indication that Ginsburg, 83, has lost her mind, but she might have to recuse herself in future cases involving the famously litigious Trump.
As chief justice, Roberts has labored mightily to protect the court’s reputation and ensure that the public sees its members as more than politicians in robes. By inserting herself so bluntly into the presidential race, Notorious RBG has struck out.