By now the story is familiar: A well regarded and progressive Supreme Court Justice speaks her mind about a candidate for the Presidency of the United States, in three publications, receives responsible criticism from credible sources(the editorial boards of both the New York Times and the Washington Post), some less than credible criticism (the candidate's criticism with an ageist insinuation about the justice's intellectual faculties), and finally an apology, a week before the candidate will likely be officially nominated as his party's candidate for office.
Here are some links (copy and paste):
AP Interview: Ginsburg doesn't want to envision a Trump win
bigstory.ap.org/article/0da3a641190742669cc0d01b90cd57fa/ap-interview-ginsburg-reflects-big-cases-scalias-death">
New York Times: Ruth Bader Ginsburg: No Fan of Donald Trump; Critiques Latest Term
www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html">
CNN: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Doesn't want to Imagine a Trump Presidency
www.cnn.com/2016/07/08/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+(RSS%3A+CNN+-+Most+Recent)">">
New York Times Editorial: Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/opinion/donald-trump-is-right-about-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg.html?_r=0">
Washington Post Editorial: Justice Ginsburg’s inappropriate comments on Donald Trump
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/justice-ginsburgs-inappropriate-comments-on-donald-trump/2016/07/12/981df404-4862-11e6-bdb9-701687974517_story.html">
Donald Trump Tweet:
twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/753090242203283457">
Washington Post: In bashing Donald Trump, some say Ruth Bader Ginsburg just crossed a very important line
www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/11/in-bashing-donald-trump-some-say-ruth-bader-ginsburg-just-crossed-a-very-important-line/">
And here are some other links regarding other Supreme Court Justices:
The New Yorker: Justice O'Connor Regrets
www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/justice-oconnor-regrets">
Bush vs. Gore Has Personal Angle For Some Supreme Court Justices
www.wsj.com/articles/SB976572470116168521">
New York Times: Scalia Angrily Defends his Duck Hunt with Dick Cheney
www.wsj.com/articles/SB976572470116168521">
Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia
scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3663421335325675419&q=cheney+v.+usdc+district+of+columbia&hl=en&as_sdt=6,44&as_vis=1">
The last four links are of course about behavior by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia that raised eyebrows. O'Connor's expression of regret when at a party on election night in 2000 when it looked like Al Gore was going to win the presidential election is a classic cocktail party conversation piece and was originally reported by Jeffrey Toobin and recounted in his New Yorker article about regrets about the wisdom of the Court in taking the Bush v. Gore case, which decided the election that she was distressed about at that election night party.
Other interesting comments and associations that also raised eyebrows were reported by the Wall Street Journal shortly after the Bush v. Gore oral arguments. And finally Justice Scalia's infamous hunting trip with then Vice President Dick Cheney is recounted by the New York Times, a trip that took place while the Court was considering Cheney v. United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the case about Cheney's secret energy task force meetings and the effort to force disclosure of the attendees. Finally, his memorandum, published as a court document, describing his reasons for not recusing himself, including the fact that the Cheney case deals with Cheney in his official, and not personal, capacity.
O'Connor like Ginsburg, expressed displeasure with regard to a presidential election. But O'Connor's expression was private, overheard by Toobin's source, and not intended for public consumption. And seriously, does anyone believe that she would be overjoyed by a Gore victory?
Ginsburg, on the other hand participated in three interviews with major media outlets. Her language was detailed and the product of deliberation. Indeed she is one of the most accomplished wordsmiths in the United States, and at least in the English language. And so I concur with the New York Times and Washington Post--public discourse can do without partisan statements by Supreme Court justices. I prefer my progressive heroes and issues free of distracting blemishes, and this is just that. Avoidance of evident bias, the obligation to employ and to maintain the appearance of judicial temperament is an important part of the game we play when we talk about the Supreme Court's legitimacy. Of course we know, that the really controversial cases before the Court are political. Though occasionally a Justice will vote against his/her own political or social mores, I do not believe that this happens often.
But on the other hand, all she did was state the obvious. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Notorious One, is well known to be a political liberal as her background as the Thurgood Marshall of feminist litigation and her numerous opinions, concurrences, and dissents will attest. What she said was not news. The fact that she said it was.
Antonin Scalia's behavior was perhaps different from Ginsburg's. He openly associated with a litigant in a case he was to hear, though the case was about Vice President Dick Cheney in his official capacity. But it was not a private show of displeasure, or a detached dissing. It was hanging out. That is a different degree to my mind, and recusal should have been more seriously considered by the justice, even though the case involved official actions with no personal stake of the Vice President involved, with the exception perhaps, of his political prestige. And political prestige is a big thing for the Washington power crowd. Damn near personal!
As to whether Ginsburg would need to recuse herself in a case involving a President Trump--it's doubtful. As far as official capacity cases, the Scalia precedent would apply. However, another Bush v. Gore case (God forbid), would be another matter.
Well, anyway, she apologized this morning. Contrition shows character, something woefully missing in today's political discourse.
New York Times: Ruth Bader Ginsburg expresses regret for criticizing Trump
www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-donald-trump.html">
No comments:
Post a Comment