# 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:** 8
**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, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/141 "2016-07-13T20:54:55Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 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)? Almost certainly Johnson. I identify as libertarian. Usually I have to decide whether voting for the L candidate facilitates handing the election to the worst of the main two. In this instance, I think both major party candidates are thoroughly and obviously unfit to be president, and I disagree with both on most of the issues (as best you can nail down either one on the issues). Both are unethical, corrupt, authoritarian and completely unappealing on every level. But what prompted my comment is how people on both sides are willing to hold their noses and overlook the horribleness of their party’s candidate by throwing stones at the other one. Glass houses, people. ---
**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, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/142 "2016-07-13T21:00:32Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Samuel Alito called Barack Obama a liar during one of the State of the Unions. No, he did not. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/143 "2016-07-13T21:12:32Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > I seem to recall a [time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War)when things were just a little more crazy: Good point – when half the nation is fighting the other half in outright civil war, things are pretty crazy. So more accurately, Trump is the craziest thing to have reared its ugly orange head in modern times. > [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Yes, Donald Trump could permanently damage our democracy. But it’s also true that the slow slide of the legitimacy of the Supreme Court will also damage our democracy. Since Trump has a 77% chance of losing, I’d say the bigger threat to democracy is justices trying to use their position to affect the outcome of the election. In the final analysis I have to agree that Ginsburg’s comment was inappropriate, but the idea that the Supreme Court is non-political and impartial has become a laughable fiction. They are at least as clearly delineated as Congress itself if not perhaps even more so. As far as " trying to use their position to affect the outcome of the election", how about Bush v Gore when they actually appointed a president? ---
**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, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/144 "2016-07-13T21:15:57Z")
> [@D\_Anconia](#): > > No, he did not. Oh, right, [Alito’s actual words were “not true”](http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2010/01/justice-alito-mouths-not-true-024608)- so I guess that doesn’t count as public criticism from a sitting Supreme Court member about a president[ial candidate]. Grab them pearls! ---
**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, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/145 "2016-07-13T21:18:51Z")
Politicization and partisanship aren’t binary states. They happen by degrees. As the Court becomes more partisan, it loses more legitimacy. Bush v. Gore really hurt the Court. That’s a good reason for trying to get the pendulum to swing the other way for awhile. People seem to assume that the criticisms of Ginaburg are coming from people who never criticize Scalia & Co. I don’t think that’s correct. ---
**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, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/146 "2016-07-13T21:24:27Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > Oh, right, [Alito’s actual words were “not true”](http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-now/2010/01/justice-alito-mouths-not-true-024608)- so I guess that doesn’t count as public criticism from a sitting Supreme Court member about a president[ial candidate]. Grab them pearls! “Not true” is not the same thing as calling someone a liar. Perhaps you were confusing Justice Alito with Rep. Wilson, who did say “You lie” (at a different SOTU, no less) which IS calling someone a liar, IMHO. Confusing Congressmen with Supreme Court Justices is a common mistake, I’m sure. :rolleyes: ---
**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, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/147 "2016-07-13T21:26:07Z")
> [@Orwell](#): > > Almost certainly Johnson. I identify as libertarian. Usually I have to decide whether voting for the L candidate facilitates handing the election to the worst of the main two. In this instance, I think both major party candidates are thoroughly and obviously unfit to be president, and I disagree with both on most of the issues (as best you can nail down either one on the issues). Both are unethical, corrupt, authoritarian and completely unappealing on every level. But what prompted my comment is how people on both sides are willing to hold their noses and overlook the horribleness of their party’s candidate by throwing stones at the other one. Glass houses, people. Please. You’re the one I see throwing stones. Might wanna use a little Windex there. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/148 "2016-07-13T21:28:45Z")
When Alito mouthed “not true” after a rebuke directed squarely at him we got: > [@](#): > > Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., echoed the president’s criticism of the decision made by the court and slammed Alito for displaying his disagreement. > > “There were days when judges stayed out of politics,” he told NBC News. “It would be nice to go back to those days.” > **[Justice openly disagrees with Obama in speech](https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna35117174)** > > The man in the House chamber openly disagreeing with President Barack Obama as he spoke to Congress wasn't an over-the-top Republican or a seething Democrat. He was a Supreme Court justice, Samuel Alito. But coming right out and disparaging a candidate within months of the election is merely a “tsk tsk” moment. Yeah, yeah. Both sides do it alright.:rolleyes: ---
**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, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/149 "2016-07-13T22:26:18Z")
What Alito did wasn’t even politics. He was just questioning Obama’s facts. Facts aren’t poiltical and Obama did lie, right there with the SCOTUS justices present. ---
**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, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/150 "2016-07-13T22:27:26Z")
> [@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. The only case she should recuse herself from would be an election case. I don’t think she needs to recuse herself from cases on Trump policies. ---
**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, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/151 "2016-07-13T22:45:48Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > What Alito did wasn’t even politics. He was just questioning Obama’s facts. Facts aren’t poiltical and Obama did lie, right there with the SCOTUS justices present. This is a chestnut. Press this one into your scrapbook, it is a flawless example of your style and reasoning. One day, your biographers will be pleased to discover it. ---
**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, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/152 "2016-07-13T22:53:39Z")
Obama: "“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.” More than one falsehood in that sentence: 1. The decision didn’t overturn a century of law. It overturned a decade of law. 2. Foreign corporations can already spend without limit on our elections. Just turn to the BBC, and you’ll see millions of dollars backing opinions on our elections. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 13, 2016, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/153 "2016-07-13T22:59:40Z")
In 2011, several participants here argued that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from the ACA lawsuit because his wife was a lobbyist for Tea Party groups (and thus presumably opposed to the ACA) so by inference, his impartiality was in question. Now we have a Justice who herself directly (as opposed to inferentially via a spouse’s activity) has expressed a clear bias on an issue. So: should Justice Ginsburg recuse herself from a case involving Trump’s election, should one reach the Court? ---
**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, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/154 "2016-07-13T23:04:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In 2011, several participants here argued that Justice Thomas should recuse himself from the ACA lawsuit because his wife was a lobbyist for Tea Party groups (and thus presumably opposed to the ACA) so by inference, his impartiality was in question. > > Now we have a Justice who herself directly (as opposed to inferentially via a spouse’s activity) has expressed a clear bias on an issue. > > So: should Justice Ginsburg recuse herself from a case involving Trump’s election, should one reach the Court? Bit of a difference there, beyond just the spouse vs justice herself. In the Thomas case, his wife was being paid, so there was a financial issue which could possibly even be a quid pro tu quoque (just to pun it up a little). In The Notorious RBG’s case, there is no $$ involved. ---
**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, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/155 "2016-07-13T23:05:49Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …has expressed a clear bias on an issue… Which issue would that be? Single payer or Donald Trump? Voter confidence or Donald Trump? Hacked up hairball or Donald Trump? ---
**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, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/156 "2016-07-13T23:06:25Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Obama: "“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests – including foreign corporations – to spend without limit in our elections.” > > More than one falsehood in that sentence: > > 1. The decision didn’t overturn a century of law. It overturned a decade of law. > 2. Foreign corporations can already spend without limit on our elections. Just turn to the BBC, and you’ll see millions of dollars backing opinions on our elections. Actually, Alito was most likely upset about the implication about foreign corporations, which is the most questionable part of Obama’s claim. > [@Bricker](#): > > So: should Justice Ginsburg recuse herself from a case involving Trump’s election, should one reach the Court? The implication in that case was that Thomas’s wife stood to benefit [financially](http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/07/29/groundswell-ginni-thomas-and-continued-conflict/195117). Historically, financial biases are seen as more recusal-worthy than ideological biases. One good reason for that distinction is that financial biases are objective and it is possible not to have any. (Which is not to say those calls for recusal made sense–I don’t think they did–but they are clearly distinguishable.) ---
**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, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/157 "2016-07-13T23:07:08Z")
That’s an important distinction here, but the relevant law states that justices should recuse themselves if there is reason to believe they cannot be impartial. Justice Thomas MIGHT have been influenced by his wife’s job. Or he might have been one of those chauvanist pigs who doesn’t think his wife should be working anyway. He is a mean old conservative of course. But Ginsburg has stated a very direct view. She has said pretty directly that she is not impartial where Trump’s election is concerned. ---
**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, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/158 "2016-07-13T23:10:22Z")
Ideological partiality as to policy outcomes of a suit are not recusal-worthy. Stating a view on the law or facts of a particular suit is recusal-worthy. And having a financial interest in the outcome is recusal-worthy. ---
**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, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/159 "2016-07-13T23:16:17Z")
In Thomas’ case there was no financial interest in the outcome. His wife gets paid whether they win or lose. The Tea Party was not financially harmed by the ACA decision. ---
**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, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/when-was-the-last-time-a-supreme-court-justice-aired-views-publicly-on-a-presidential-candidate/759658/160 "2016-07-13T23:19:05Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > In Thomas’ case there was no financial interest in the outcome. His wife gets paid whether they win or lose. The Tea Party was not financially harmed by the ACA decision. Debateable, but that’s not the point. It is possible for a non-hypocritical person to believe that Thomas should have recused and that Ginsburg should not. Again, I don’t think Thomas should have, as I posted at the time in \*\*Bricker’s \*\*thread. I just don’t think it makes for a good test of consistency, unless the poster in question thought Thomas should recuse because of the inference about ideological bias (which seems doubtful, given that each justice’s ideological biases are well-known). [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=7) [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=9)