I’d say no for several reasons. The nomination process has already been horribly politicized. The Bush v Gore decision was exactly along party lines and already tainted the notion that the Supreme Court justices themselves are above politics. I would assume all of the justices vote in the Presidential Election. Should Ginsburg be more “eligible” to recuse herself because she expressed an opinion out loud?
William O. Douglas was so controversial that there were three different attempts to impeach him, one by Gerald Ford when Ford was in the House. Douglas was certainly no fan of Richard Nixon, but I can only find one public comment he made about Nixon, and that was more of a backhand swipe than real criticism. I guess he saved his actual criticism for his court opinions.
I would think so (but IANAL). More importantly, what about any case brought before the court that concerned Trump Administration policies?
Well, I wouldn’t go that far; I figure saying someone shouldn’t be president doesn’t mean you disagree with each action he’d take as president, only that it means you think he shouldn’t be president. So I figure it’d only directly bear on a case of deciding, y’know, who should be president.
Her feeling it no. Her advertising to the world that Trump is going to ruin America so much that she would give up her esteemed Historical job, and letting that go to a Trump pick, and move to another country is.
Yes she should recuse herself, but she won’t. Ginburg should have retired after she told Egyptians that she preferred the South African Constitution over the U.S. Constitution.
Personally, I believe ol’ Ruth has gotten a bit senile and should voluntarily step down.
Yes, and yes. You should add the words “former” or “retired” to the title.
It doesn’t seem all that remarkable to me. Scalia made lots of political comments throughout his term, to note a recent example. He even went as far as to comment on political topics that were likely to be upcoming cases. Never heard any right-wing outrage about any of it.
But in any case, even if Ginsberg’s comments are remarkable, they are a reaction to a major-party candidate who is remarkably unsuitable and unqualified for the Presidency.
Of course Ginsburg shouldn’t recuse herself. Why? So the rest of the nation can pretend that the Supreme Court isn’t as politicized as the other branches? It’s like adults believing in Santa Claus, ffs.
Your linked article is titled “Supreme Court Justice Under Fire for Obama Remarks” and includes “a public rebuke from a well-respected conservative federal appeals court judge”.
All these big tough strong conservatives quivering with rage at a tiny old Jewish bubbe. Gotta love it! And may the Goddess hold her snug and safe to Her warm and bountiful bosom all the days of her life!
Hardly noticeble. Is Richard Posner a major player in the Limbaughsphere? No? Is he particularly known as a right wing pundit? Yes? No?
Answer: not in the slightest.
There’s an article in the Washington Post noting that, under the code of conduct for federal judges, a judge should not publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office. Does the Washington Post count as big tough strong conservatives?
Can I assume that the thrust of your point is that since there was no Right wing outrage then a lack of Lefty outrage now is perfectly fine? Or more general “both sides do it”?
I believe what you have there is an “editorial”. Is that the universal and unopposed opinion of all legal punditti? And if the answer is “No”, what is your point?
To be clear, SCOTUS justices are not bound by that, but it sure sets a terrible example. Also, Drezner isn’t a liberal, if that matters.
And yeah, I thought the issue at hand was the rightness or wrongness of this action, not whether one side or the other is being hypocritical about it.
I’m not sure. Is it the opinion of a majority of punditti? A small majority? A large majority? Is it the opinion of more than half of the right-wingers, and more than half of the left-wingers? What’s typically happened in the past when a judge has publicly opposed a candidate running for executive office, and said judge has then wound up as the go-to jurist for ruling on a dispute over the ensuing election?
I honestly don’t know. Do you?
Well, is this offering from the Washington Post better or worse, in your opinion?
Essentially, except that in fact Scalia’s outspokenness was far more inflammatory and at odds with a supposedly non-partisan judiciary. There is not a balance here on both sides, by a long shot.
Ideally, judges should continue to refrain from partisan comments. But this specific example is so mild, drumming up outrage about it seems a bit precious at best.
Surprised by RBG. Maybe she’s just at that “I don’t give a fuck about any rules any more, I’m going to say whatever the hell I feel like until I die” age.