# When was the last time a Supreme Court Justice aired views publicly on a presidential candidate? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [July 11, 2016, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658 "2016-07-11T15:17:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/121 "2016-07-13T18:29:23Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, you just want her to recuse herself from any case that might have political impact? Leaving what, exactly? Judging the Westminster Dog Show? Question answered! > **[The Supreme Court would be Tom Brady’s last stand](https://www.si.com/nfl/2016/07/13/tom-brady-suspended-deflategate-appeal-supreme-court)** > > Deflategate as a legal controversy appears to be finally over ... unless the Supreme Court can be swayed to weigh in. **Tom Brady’s last shot: Taking Deflategate to the Supreme Court** ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/122 "2016-07-13T18:31:47Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Fighting your hypothetical, here but - as a Supreme, she’s not _legally_ obligated to recuse herself, if it comes down to the wirem regardless of the public’s opinion. I think she’s decided that she needs to speak up now, about how the Emperor is unfit and unclothed, but she’d still be able to drop the hammer on him as a last resort. > > And let’s face it - the odds of this becoming another Bush v Gore scenario is pretty slim. That was an extraordinary circumstance all by itself. She certainly isn’t obligated, but such a blatantly partisan decision on her part would be used against any future liberal justice nominated. “Liberal justices don’t care about the law, they only care about outcomes!” would have much more resonance with the public if she was the deciding vote in Clinton v. Trump. It would pretty much give Republicans carte blanche to block all liberal justices and the voters would be cool with that. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/123 "2016-07-13T18:38:04Z")
So, before this they simply weren’t acting on nominations, but now they’ll block them? Wow. ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/124 "2016-07-13T18:39:28Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > She certainly isn’t obligated, but such a blatantly partisan decision on her part would be used against any future liberal justice nominated. “Liberal justices don’t care about the law, they only care about outcomes!” would have much more resonance with the public if she was the deciding vote in Clinton v. Trump. It would pretty much give Republicans carte blanche to block all liberal justices and the voters would be cool with that. So what you’re saying is - Democrats currently have carte blance to block all conservative justices and the voters are cool with it? ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/125 "2016-07-13T18:42:00Z")
I think Ginsburg is a smart cookie and I’m disappointed about this. I think calls for her to retire over it are a complete overreaction and largely partisan. I also think that justices shouldn’t go there. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/126 "2016-07-13T18:54:05Z")
> [@Peremensoe](#): > > Jackson did proceed with Cherokee removal in famous disregard of _Worcester v. Georgia_, did he not. He did not. Worcester v Georgia was about the constitutionality of a Georgia law that said non-Cherokee couldn’t go on Cherokee land without a permit from the state. Samuel Worcester, a missionary, was arrested for doing so. The court ruled that Georgia didn’t have the power to legislate in Cherokee territory. ---
**Author:** ![kenobi\_65](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kenobi_65/32/13178_2.png) [@kenobi\_65](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kenobi_65)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/127 "2016-07-13T19:04:24Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I think Ginsburg is a smart cookie and I’m disappointed about this. I think calls for her to retire over it are a complete overreaction and largely partisan. I also think that justices shouldn’t go there. Agreed with all of this. I like RBG a great deal, and while I do actually agree with what she said about Trump, I would rather that she (or _any_ SC Justice) not go there publicly. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/128 "2016-07-13T19:21:25Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > So what you’re saying is - Democrats currently have carte blance to block all conservative justices and the voters are cool with it? Conservative justices haven’t publicly announced opposition to any candidates and then decided cases where those candidates were involved. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/129 "2016-07-13T19:29:32Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I think Ginsburg is a smart cookie and I’m disappointed about this. I think calls for her to retire over it are a complete overreaction and largely partisan. I also think that justices shouldn’t go there. Agreed. But the question is still open as to which cases, in a Trump administration, she should reuse herself from. Let’s keep in mind that she didn’t just say: Oh, I think Hillary would make a better president. She said she’d flee the country if Trump were elected. ---
**Author:** ![D\_Anconia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/67e7ee/32.png) [@D\_Anconia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/D_Anconia)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/130 "2016-07-13T19:30:17Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > So you found the Code, and read that paragraph, but didn’t manage to read the introduction to see if it even applies to RBG? Did you manage to understand the larger point, i.e., the Justices of the Supreme Court should hold _themselves_ to at least the same, if not higher standards than the rest of the judiciary? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/131 "2016-07-13T19:33:51Z")
Yes, they should. And if they do not, the correct response is “Tsk! Tsk!”. Leaping upon it like a starving dog on a Bolton is, well, unseemly. ---
**Author:** ![Orwell](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/dfb087/32.png) [@Orwell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orwell)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/132 "2016-07-13T19:38:54Z")
> [@Johnny\_Ace](#): > > Manufactured baggage that for by far the vastest part isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. Manufactured baggage is 100% correct. But it’s her and hubby Bubby who have manufactured it over decades of corruption and believing they are above the law, unlike all of us peons. Amazingly like the fictional Underwood couple, who were clearly modeled after the Clintons. Go ahead and rationalize/justify your vote for the lying liar who lies about everything, both important and inconsequential. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/133 "2016-07-13T19:40:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Agreed. But the question is still open as to which cases, in a Trump administration, she should reuse herself from. Let’s keep in mind that she didn’t just say: Oh, I think Hillary would make a better president. She said she’d flee the country if Trump were elected. Ahem. **Ruth Bader Ginsburg Jokes That She’ll Move to New Zealand If Trump Is Elected** > **[Ruth Bader Ginsburg Jokes That She’ll Move to New Zealand If Trump Is Elected](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/07/rbg-jokes-that-shell-move-if-trump-is-elected.html)** > > In case she was unclear last week, she’s Team Hillary. > [@](#): > > …“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.” > > She recalled a line her late husband, Martin Ginsburg, used to say. “‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,’” she said, smiling “ruefully.”… If she _were_ to flee, what’s to stop Il Douche from nominating Chris Christie? ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/134 "2016-07-13T19:46:12Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Senile ol’ Ginsburg can continue to exercise her Constitutional right to free speech AFTER she resigns from the Supremes. Until then, it’s expected that she be able to rule in an unbiased manner, based on the laws of the U.S.A… In what part of a Supreme Court ruling were here remarks about Trump found? I hear she doesn’t like buttered toast as well. Lord help anyone from the Buttered Toast lobby who happens to happens to end up before the Supreme Court, eh? \*Welcome to Ginsburg’s Supreme Court of the United States. All you sons of bitches who voted for Trump know you’re guilty of whatever the other side says you’re guilty of. We’ve only agreed to hear this case because we’re bored. Our opinion has already been written and is only waiting for your summation before we publish it. Thanks for playing. - R.B. Ginsburg\* [/QUOTE] That’s a real terrible thing she’s said there. In some notional future that hasn’t happened yet. And except for the fact that it’s something you just made up. But other than that, that’s a real terrible thing she said there. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_Ace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/6bbea6/32.png) [@Johnny\_Ace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_Ace)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/135 "2016-07-13T19:47:59Z")
> [@Orwell](#): > > Manufactured baggage is 100% correct. But it’s her and hubby Bubby who have manufactured it over decades of corruption and believing they are above the law, unlike all of us peons. Amazingly like the fictional Underwood couple, who were clearly modeled after the Clintons. Go ahead and rationalize/justify your vote for the lying liar who lies about everything, both important and inconsequential. Still Berning over his loss, huh? Get over it. Or don’t, I really don’t care. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/136 "2016-07-13T20:35:48Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I actually don’t have a problem with Ginsburg or any other justice speaking out, but if it comes down to another BUsh vs. Gore, she’s going to have to recuse herself. Why? I never saw Scalia recuse himself from decisions regarding abortion or capital punishment after he had already made clear declarations of his feelings on those topics. And I never saw anyone call on him to recuse himself, despite having given _a priori_ declarations of his beliefs, even though no arguments had yet been presented when he made his statements. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/137 "2016-07-13T20:39:15Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > Why? > I never saw Scalia recuse himself from decisions regarding abortion or capital punishment after he had already made clear declarations of his feelings on those topics. And I never saw anyone call on him to recuse himself, despite having given _a priori_ declarations of his beliefs, even though no arguments had yet been presented when he made his statements. Didn’t he recuse himself on the Pledge of Allegiance case, after commenting on it? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/138 "2016-07-13T20:43:18Z")
Stating that she doesn’t want Trump to win is not taking a position on the outcome of a particular case. Recusal is unwarranted unless the fact she is asked to decide is whether Trump would be a wise President. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/139 "2016-07-13T20:46:44Z")
> [@Orwell](#): > > Go ahead and rationalize/justify your vote for the lying liar who lies about everything, both important and inconsequential. So, are you are voting for Johnson or Stein, (since your caustic comment means that you could not possibly be voting for the _Mendax Turpis_ leading the GOP)? ---
**Author:** ![Merneith](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/57b2e6/32.png) [@Merneith](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merneith)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/140 "2016-07-13T20:48:19Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Conservative justices haven’t publicly announced opposition to any candidates and then decided cases where those candidates were involved. Samuel Alito called Barack Obama a liar during one of the State of the Unions. Of course, Obama wasn’t a candidate at that point. Has Alito recused himself from any of the lawsuits involving Obama? But your remark, to which I was responding was - "“Liberal justices don’t care about the law, they only care about outcomes!” would have much more resonance with the public if she was the deciding vote in Clinton v. Trump. It would pretty much give Republicans carte blanche to block all liberal justices and the voters would be cool with that. " My point is that a bunch of known conservatives were the deciding vote in Bush v. Gore and the Democrats didn’t take it as carte blanche to block all conservative justices (just the opposite, in fact). The Supreme Court has been political for decades. The conservatives on the court haven’t been shy about voicing their opinions of liberal policies and liberal politicians. Getting the vapours because someone on the court dares to say the truth about Donald Trump … is pretty standard Republican behavior, I guess. Carry on! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658.md?page=8)