Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg now is in the business of publicly bashing politicians who don’t think like she does.
I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.
We can also turn her remarks around.
I can’t imagine what this place would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Hillary Clinton as our president. For the country, it could be four years—or a dozen, with her insistence on extending Obama even further, and even farther left. For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.
And Ginsburg had these gems:
I don’t expect that we’re going to see another affirmative action case [regarding Fisher v University of Texas, wherein Justice Anthony Kennedy gutted his own prior ruling in the case]. I think [Justice Kennedy] comes out as the great hero of this term.
It would be an impossible dream. But I’d love to see Citizens United overruled[.]
The problem here isn’t that she’s engaging in political speech, though. It’s that her political speech, because of her position and role in our Federal government—a Supreme Court Justice—means that whatever she says in the political arena can only prejudice all of her subsequent rulings. With such political bashing, she’s predetermining her position on any case that comes before the Court, and not only those that might be brought under or by a Trump administration.
On the other hand, it’s good to know her prejudices—as well as those pre-written opinions on cases yet to come—beforehand, rather than discovering them in her opinions after the rulings have been announced. Which emphasizes the importance of a question asked by a tweeter and quoted in The Washington Post piece at the first link above:
If there’s a redo of Bush v Gore, how does Ginsburg not recuse herself, given her Trump comments?
How, indeed? Worse, how could we expect her to?