Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s opinions about Donald Trump caused a firestorm when they became public a couple of weeks ago. Speaking candidly to the New York Times, the Supreme Court Justice surprised nearly everyone when she said, “I can’t imagine what this place would be – I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president.”
Ginsburg, who is 83 and has been on the bench for nearly 20 years, had to know her words would be controversial. Although she is known as one of the liberal members of the Supreme Court, her personal and political opinions about Trump had never been publically disclosed.
She followed up later with more comments on CNN: “He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”
By this time, Ginsburg was all over the news, and I suspect the publicity made her very uncomfortable. She was heavily criticized by just about everyone. Of course, Trump was terribly offended. The legal community generally disapproved, Democrats were shocked and Republicans were outraged.
It didn’t take long for Justice Ginsburg to take back her words, “On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them. Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”
And that was that, case closed. And most were pleased to hear her apologize for her remarks, especially since apologies are in short supply in this less than classy campaign.
Ginsburg’s comments about candidate Trump were definitely out of line. Accurate perhaps, but not her place to say, as justices should be above politics. They should keep their political opinions to themselves and should not be engaged in activities that promote one political philosophy over another.
So, then, how does one explain the political activism of some of the other justices? Ginsburg made her off-the-cuff liberal opinions public, which is definitely a no-no, but there are other justices who routinely engage in activities with extreme right-wing organizations – just not so public. Where is the criticism for that behavior?
Our country’s legal system depends on the idea that court decisions are made in an impartial manner based on legal considerations, not partisan political ones. Although the justices have never implemented a formal Code of Conduct for themselves, we should be able to expect them to be above partisanship. How then is it okay for some of our justices to have very close ties to organizations such as the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society? Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and the late Antonin Scalia have regularly attended fundraising events for these groups, even sometimes serving as featured speakers.
Some of these organizations are well-funded by the Koch brothers. It is documented that Scalia and Thomas attended a secret Koch Industries policy meeting in 2010 – with advocates for Citizens United present – just before the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in the Citizens United case giving corporations the right to make unrestricted campaign contributions. That decision is criticized by both Democrats and Republicans for making political campaigns obscenely expensive.
Since it seems highly unethical for Supreme Court Justices to regularly attend functions of the ultra-conservative Federalist Society, Chief Justice John Roberts was asked to rein in the activities of Thomas, and of Scalia before he died. So far, there’s been nothing done to discourage their participation in those organizations. Nor has there been any objection to Thomas’ wife, Ginny, who is a highly paid lobbyist for several conservative groups, including those who fought the Affordable Care Act. Similar issues will likely come before the Court, but since Thomas refused to recuse himself on Obama Care, he probably won’t on future cases, either. He will likely still hand down opinions on cases while his wife makes a lot of money lobbying on those same cases.
And here I thought it was Justice Scalia who told Thomas how to vote.