# Should Ginsburg recuse herself from cases involving Trump administration? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 6, 2017, 1:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237 "2017-06-06T01:36:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/41 "2017-06-06T14:42:08Z")
I often mock **Okrahoma** in his blatantly one-sided political threads, but I’ll give him credit – this is an issue that should be give serious consideration. Ginsburg did indeed vocalize that Trump is a clown, though in slightly nicer terms. That a substantial majority of the American people also believe this may or may not be relevant. I think there’s a substantial chance that Roberts also thinks Trump is a clown, though he has not said so. As others have pointed out, the likelihood that Thomas, Alito, and the late Scalia had very negative opinions of Obama is very, very high. It’s almost a lock, in my opinion. And the opinions of former liberal justices about Reagan or Nixon So the question in my mind is: are we concerned about bias only to the degree that it is spoken? That doesn’t make sense to me. In my opinion, Ginsburg certainly opened herself up to some kind of admonishment for speaking so bluntly about a candidate in an election. I’m not sure how that admonishment would work, though. But recusal? I think that’s too extreme a step. ---
**Author:** ![ganthet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de0a6/32.png) [@ganthet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ganthet)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/42 "2017-06-06T14:45:04Z")
> [@El\_Kabong](#): > > Seems to me that to justify recusal, one would have to demonstrate that the supposed prejudices of the justice(s) has actually affected a Supreme Court ruling in some way. Since Justices generally write lengthy individual opinions on their rulings, it should be pretty easy to demonstrate such a prejudicial attitude, if it exists. > > The OP is therefore welcome to provide an example of a Court ruling where the supposed prejudice of Ms. Ginsburg toward Mr. Trump is on display, if there is one. That’s putting the cart before the horse, though. If a theoretical justice is biased and not impartial concerning a party whose actions form the basis of the case in front of the Court but that party has never been in front of the Court before, there would be no prior opinion to point out that possible bias or prejudice. Even if there was a prior opinion, you still might not detect any bias or prejudice if that individual justice merely voted one way or another without writing a majority, concurring, or dissenting opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Atamasama](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/atamasama/32/12961_2.png) [@Atamasama](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Atamasama)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/43 "2017-06-06T15:28:18Z")
> [@buddha\_david](#): > > She did not express any personal bias. She expressed grave, unspeakable fear for the future of our nation, to say nothing of human civilization itself, should Trump become President. It’s a perfectly logical response that any rational, reasonable person would have. He’s president of a nation that has pretty strong checks and balances, not God-Emperor of The Americas. One clown in office isn’t going to threaten the fate of the entire free world and it’s completely unreasonable to think otherwise. In Justice Ginsburg’s defense I believe you exaggerated her expressed concerns. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/44 "2017-06-06T15:56:46Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > So the question in my mind is: are we concerned about bias only to the degree that it is spoken? That doesn’t make sense to me. > > In my opinion, Ginsburg certainly opened herself up to some kind of admonishment for speaking so bluntly about a candidate in an election. I’m not sure how that admonishment would work, though. But recusal? I think that’s too extreme a step. If Ginsburg had said, _“Dude, if Trump gets elected and tries to implement a Muslim travel ban I’ll enjoin that so hard!”_ then I could see it. Barring that, her voicing her general opinion of a candidate should not be enough to conclude bias against a particular matter before the court. General != particular. I would guess she probably doesn’t celebrate that she made that statement, but it’s no big deal. Just because she said something out loud isn’t the criteria for which to judge bias. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/45 "2017-06-06T15:59:21Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > If Ginsburg had said, _“Dude, if Trump gets elected and tries to implement a Muslim travel ban I’ll enjoin that so hard!”_ then I could see it. Barring that, her voicing her general opinion of a candidate should not be enough to conclude bias against a particular matter before the court. General != particular. > > I would guess she probably doesn’t celebrate that she made that statement, but it’s no big deal. Just because she said something out loud isn’t the criteria for which to judge bias. It doesn’t bother you that she violated the Code of Conduct for federal judges? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/46 "2017-06-06T16:10:44Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > It doesn’t bother you that she violated the Code of Conduct for federal judges? I do not think Ginsburg violated the Code, and if she did in this matter it bothers me zero. It’s not like her stating her opinion revealed any great secret. Ginsburg: \*I don’t like Trump, he’s a poopy pants. \* TOTALLY NEW INFORMATION! No, the act of stating something that is incredibly obvious doesn’t transform it into an ethical violation. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/47 "2017-06-06T16:10:48Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > It doesn’t bother you that she violated the Code of Conduct for federal judges? I’ll say it: Justice Ginsburg did not violate the Code of Conduct for federal judges. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 4:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/48 "2017-06-06T16:15:22Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > I’ll say it: Justice Ginsburg did not violate the Code of Conduct for federal judges. From the Code of Conduct: “(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not: … (2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office” ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/49 "2017-06-06T16:16:08Z")
“SHOULD not”. That is different than “SHALL not”. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/50 "2017-06-06T16:17:10Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > “SHOULD not”. That is different than “SHALL not”. It is under “General **Prohibitions** ”. As in, it is prohibited. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/51 "2017-06-06T16:17:12Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > is there any doubt Ginsburg has a “personal bias or prejudice” towards President Trump? If it were an objective assessment of the facts, how different would it sound? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/52 "2017-06-06T16:20:28Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > It doesn’t bother you that she violated the Code of Conduct for federal judges? At an election night 2000 party, Sandra Day O’Connor commented, “This is terrible!” when the media called Florida for Al Gore, presumably handing him the election. The meaning of the comment was apparently clear: that she did not want Gore to win the election. Do you believe O’Connor should have recused herself from the Bush v. Gore case? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/53 "2017-06-06T16:24:44Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > From the Code of Conduct: > > “(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not: > … > (2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office” And I contend that she did not publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office. You’ve made your contention; I’ve denied it. Go ahead and make your case. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/54 "2017-06-06T16:24:54Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > At an election night 2000 party, Sandra Day O’Connor commented, “This is terrible!” when the media called Florida for Al Gore, presumably handing him the election. The meaning of the comment was apparently clear: that she did not want Gore to win the election. > > Do you believe O’Connor should have recused herself from the Bush v. Gore case? Did she do it in a public interview? If so, definitely. As I said before, SC Justices have all kinds of opinions, all humans do. But if your opinion is so strong and so defined that you’re making it public in the media, that is crossing the line and is definitely cause for recusal. Note the “publicly” part in the Code of Conduct that I cited above. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/55 "2017-06-06T16:26:16Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Did she do it in a public interview? If so, definitely. > > As I said before, SC Justices have all kinds of opinions, all humans do. But if your opinion is so strong and so defined that you’re making it public in the media, that is crossing the line and is definitely cause for recusal. And you have case law that backs up your assertion? Go ahead and lay it all out for us, then. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/56 "2017-06-06T16:26:33Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > And I contend that she did not publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office. > > You’ve made your contention; I’ve denied it. Go ahead and make your case. The case had been made in the OP. Anyone who can rub two neurons together can see from her statements that she publicly, unequivocally, opposed Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/57 "2017-06-06T16:29:17Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > Did she do it in a public interview? If so, definitely. > > As I said before, SC Justices have all kinds of opinions, all humans do. But if your opinion is so strong and so defined that you’re making it public in the media, that is crossing the line and is definitely cause for recusal. Wait – saying something in an INTERVIEW is the test of bias? Are you fucking joking? As in, let’s say Justice Scalia was so enraged by socialist Barack O’Bummer that he would go home each night and hold a voodoo ritual to hex the seekrit Muslim, non-American President… BUT he never gave an interview on the subject. You’re saying that Scalia would be in the clear? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/58 "2017-06-06T16:30:06Z")
> [@Okrahoma](#): > > The case had been made in the OP. Anyone who can rub two neurons together can see from her statements that she publicly, unequivocally, opposed Trump. I saw some very vague sarcasm from Ginsburg, but nothing that was anything close to clear opposition to Trump or anyone else. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 4:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/59 "2017-06-06T16:31:43Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Wait – saying something in an INTERVIEW is the test of bias? Are you fucking joking? Again, see the “publicly” part in the Code of Conduct for federal judges. > [@](#): > > As in, let’s say Justice Scalia was so enraged by socialist Barack O’Bummer that he would go home each night and hold a voodoo ritual to hex the seekrit Muslim, non-American President… BUT he never gave an interview on the subject. You’re saying that Scalia would be in the clear? No, he wouldn’t be. But it would not be a violation of the Code of Conduct. It would still clearly show his inability to be objective in cases involving the individual and would be cause for recusal. As should be the clearly expressed bias of Ginsburg toward Trump. ---
**Author:** ![Okrahoma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/90db22/32.png) [@Okrahoma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Okrahoma)\ **Post date:** [June 6, 2017, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237/60 "2017-06-06T16:32:43Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I saw some very vague sarcasm from Ginsburg, but nothing that was anything close to clear opposition to Trump or anyone else. … of course. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-ginsburg-recuse-herself-from-cases-involving-trump-administration/788237.md?page=4)