Justice Ginsburg says she regrets comments on Trump

[DonViejo]

Source: The Washington Post

By Washington Post Staff July 14 at 10:14 AM

In a statement, Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: “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.”

This is a developing story. It will be updated.

###

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/07/14/justice-ginsburg-says-she-regrets-comments-on-trump/

[kimbutgar]

1. So the Cheeto is going to force her to resign now?

[L. Coyote]

12. My guess, he won't apologize for being such a name-calling, whiny asshole.

https://twitter.com/search?q=Ruth+Bader+Ginsburg+apologizes

Janice Abbey ?@jdabbey Jul 12
Trump never apologizes but he expects people to apologize to him? What a hypocrite!
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/86994616/ …

[tavernier]

42. She didn't apologize to him.

I believe it was a general apology to her employers... we the people.

I the people accept, with a wink.

[toddwv]

36. I'm thinking RBG will resign, when she's ready to resign.

And not a moment before.

[kimbutgar]

46. We can only hope

[B2G]

2. Whoops. nt

[L. Coyote]

13. But, she brought out the best in Trump for all to see. His best is second grade insults!

Ginsburg apologizes for 'ill-advised' criticisms of Trump

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Thursday said she regrets disparaging Donald Trump.

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them," she said in a statement. "Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

[Skinner]

3. She was probably wise to express regret.

But it was fun to hear her say it in the first place.

[mr_liberal]

4. She should have retired for Obama

Then she wouldnt have to worry about who wins this election.

[Raster]

6. Retired for President Obama? Why? The Senate already has one vacancy to fill....

...which they show no interest in doing so.

[mr_liberal]

8. Before this year like Kagan and Sotomayor.

This year is too late now, its an election year.

[HelenWheels]

28. So what if it's an election year

There are no laws or rules against a president naming a Supreme Court Judge during an election year.

[mr_liberal]

41. Right, but that is the reason along with it

being Scalias and Republicans wanting to keep balance.

Ginsburg had all those previous years 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011 she could have retired and been replaced by Obama, and not Trump.

[FBaggins]

9. I think that Mr. Liberal means back when we controlled the Senate

A few years ago

[mr_liberal]

15. That would be best.

But if its a well qualified candidate you can even get confirmed in a senate controlled by the other party. Theres always crossover votes.

Ginsburg herself got confirmed 96 to 3 for example.

Garland very likely would have been confirmed just last year.

[toddwv]

37. That needs a change...

"It used to be if its a well qualified candidate you can even get confirmed in a senate controlled by the other party."

The GOP just set a new precedent that they will complain about if and when it is used against them.

[mr_liberal]

43. Kagan and Sotomayor both got Republican votes.

It is worse now than it use to be though, by both parties tbh.

[L. Coyote]

14. You should read all her opinionsduring the recent years, then apologize for saying that. :-)

[mr_liberal]

17. An Obama replacement for her would have voted the same way just like Kagan and Sotomayor.

and wouldn't be at risk of being replaced by Trump.

[merrily]

52. Kagan has not always voted the same as Ginsburg.

[niyad]

60. you are under the impression that der drumpfenfuhrer could fire her? seriously?

[rug]

5. She should have simply said she regrets trump and left it at that.

[ananda]

7. Exactly!

This is ridiculous.

[sarae]

26. Agreed.

Asshat doesn't deserve an apology.

[toddwv]

38. I'm sorry...

I'm sooo sorry that I stated what everyone is thinking about Donald Trump.

Sooooo sorrrrryyyyy!

#sorrynotsorry

[Blue Idaho]

10. That's Unfortunate

I don't remember Scalia ever expressing regret for any of the right wing screed he was constantly airing in public. Again the double standard here is pretty obvious.

[Calista241]

16. Scalia never said he feared for our country under Obama either.

Last edited Thu Jul 14, 2016, 05:40 PM - Edit history (1)

I love her to death, but RBG showed clear political bias in her quote. If don't know if she'll ever be able to sit in judgement on a case involving Trump,

Later in the interview she said she'd like to overturn Heller. She's going to have do a to dance to avoid recusing herself in future 2nd amendment cases also.

[Blue Idaho]

20. I see your point

But if we assume the Justices vote then they have a political bias. Does it matter if that bias is public or private? So the real question is: can they set that bias aside when judging a case before them? That is the responsibility of every sitting judge in America.

I think there are times in history when we all need to speak out about candidates and ledgislation that are a real and genuine danger to our democracy. In my book that includes Supreme Court Justices as well.

[joealexander]

24. Sadly, I Agree

Us saying that Scalia did this stuff doesn't negate the fact that RBG just made trump 'right' and a 'victim' in the eyes of ALL conservatives and probably half of Democrats. It also reinforces the importance of the MANY unmotivated Republican voters that there are potentially a few Supreme Court seats up for grabs.

And lastly, unlike Scalia, RBG will recuse herself if there's even a slight conflict. This could keep a sane, liberal voice out of future important court decisions.

Whenever some conservative tv host or radio show personality says something racist, we defend their firing by saying, 'yes you have free speech--but not freedom from the consequences of your speech.' When I saw her comments, I cringed because this does not help the cause.

[citood]

27. In the unlikely event we have another Gore v Bush case this year,

she may have made it impossible for her to participate in the case.

[mopinko]

44. you wish.

there are no rules requiring the justices to recuse themselves for diddly. this is a tempest in a teapot.

[citood]

47. I wish?

BTW, you are wrong. SCOTUS does have rules about recusal...they are subject to the same policy that all federal judges have to abide by.

The only difference is that, SCOTUS being the highest court, there is no higher authority to review a justice's decision on recusal. IOW, it relies on the integrity of the justices.

And justice Ginsburg has painted herself into a corner, in the unlikely event the election once again went to SCOTUS. Sitting in on such a case would risk her reputation and legacy...that's just the facts, no matter what I may or may not 'wish'.

[Yo_Mama]

39. I saw that too - that was a bad error. Maybe she's planning on retiring soon

and doesn't expect to hear such a case, but in all honesty, it did give Trump's crude remarks some foundation.

[Yallow]

11. Speaking Your Mind = Baaaaaad!!!!

Amerika! F Yeah!

I am sure deep down she feels Trump is 10 times as bad as she said......

[LuvNewcastle]

18. She's doing the right thing.

Sometimes apologizing is the right thing to do, even when you really didn't do anything wrong. Justice Ginsburg is quite the lady to admire. Since she's apologized, hopefully everyone will just drop it.

[christx30]

19. She said what many of us have.

She should have doubled down on what she said. And added something to the effect of "my only regret is that I didn't say something sooner." Trump wouldn't apologize for anything he's said about her, and her apology is giving the right more ammo. "See? Even she says she's wrong. She needs to resign." (I looked up the story on FR, and this is the jist of what they're saying
Her apologies right now are probably what's expected of her, and I do understand that. But a lot of us on the left are too tentative about calling out our political enemies, not wanting to offend anyone. What we saw from Ginsburg was a refreshing breath of fresh honestly. I'd hate to see her punished for it.
Trump and his ilk are dangerous for the country. If he gets into the White House, we're going to look at the Bush II administration as the good ol' days.

[Orrex]

21. A classy and smart response

Trump wanted her to get into a pointless back-and-forth that would only aggrandize him in the eyes of his crazed followers and would only help him convince Republican mouth-breathers that they need him to save them from an unhinged Liberal court.

RBG is an iconic figure whose positive influence will be felt long after the Trump campaign has vanished into the embarrassing shit-heap of history. She loses nothing with this apology and in its wake winds up looking once again like a grownup dealing with loud, obnoxious children.

[randr]

22. Democrats expected to apologize while the white privileged

monkey makes a farce of our political system. We are living in a land where all people not privileged are to genuflect to the privileged class.

[turbinetree]

23. She has a right to say whatever she wants and

she is protected under the Constitution for that right, why should she apologize-------------I mean really.

She has voiced her concern in what she has seen and heard from someone that is narcissistic

Good on her

Honk-----------------for a political revolution

[former9thward]

50. No, she doesn't.

She is governed by the Judicial Code of Ethics. She violated Canon 5.

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office;

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#f

[turbinetree]

54. Thanks for the update--------------

I was just wondering when reading your information how Ginny Thomas fits into that ethics department and her PAC with her husband, good old Clarence sitting on the bench, and then having Alito, making a comment and mouthing words during a State of Union speech, and Roberts and Kennedy, in fact all making little trips to the Aspen Institute, or out to Palm Springs for get a ways with the Koch's and friends, seem like some others should up hold these canons as well, why doesn't Herr drumpf say something about that also

Have a nice day

Honk--------------for a political revolution

[24601]

55. My understanding is that SCOTUS Justices generally observe the Code of Ethics; however, they are the

one federal court not bound by it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/06/opinion/judicial-ethics-and-the-supreme-court.html?_r=0

[former9thward]

59. They are not bound by it but are expected to follow it.

As an example to all the lower judges below them. They are not bound by it because there is no authority above them that can bind them.

[uawchild]

25. I am glad she realized her comments were inappropriate

I like Ginsburg a lot, but it was still unseemly for a sitting Supreme Court Justice to comment on politics, even the gutter politics of Trump.

[Paladin]

29. Justice Ginsburg demonstrates the sort of class that is beyond Trump's understanding.

And I continue to support every insult The Notorious RBG directed at his sorry ass.

[asiliveandbreathe]

30. Too bad - no apology necessary - but then, just shows how

classy this gal is -

I don't remember SCJ Alito apologizing to the Prez for calling him a liar during the SOTU address.....

[Akicita]

45. That was some other repug House rep. who said "you lie" when the Prez stated that

undocumented immigrants would never be eligible for benefits under the ACA. BTW, California is now planning to provide benefits to undocumented immigrants under the ACA.

Alito shook his head when the Prez was criticizing a Supreme Court decision during a SOTU address.

[asiliveandbreathe]

49. Yep - that POS Walsh - thank goodness he is gone from the halls

of congress - as for Alito - you are right - I stand corrected -

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. responded to President Obama's criticism Wednesday night of a Supreme Court decision last week by appearing to mouth the words "not true."

Obama took issue with a ruling that overturned two of the court's precedents and upended decades of restrictions on corporations being able to use their profits to finance campaigns for and against candidates.


Citizens United

[secondwind]

31. I wish she should have stood her ground... free speech applies to her as well!!

[Chemisse]

32. I was surprised she made these comments.

Much as I enjoyed her saying these things, I thought it was inappropriate.

[Initech]

33. "See Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a stupid loser."

"Under a Donald J. Trump presidency, on my watch there will only be winners on the Supreme Court. Winners who have large hands and gigantic penises. Because that's what winners do. They win all the time. I only pick winners. I hire the best winners, and the winningest winners. I got no time for losers here!"

[katsy]

34. Sometimes I wish we'd double down instead.

[SummerSnow]

35. I wouldn't have apologized.That's just me.

[Yo_Mama]

57. If you were a US Justice, you would be bound by a Code of Conduct!

A private person would have no need to apologize for such an opinion.

A federal justice is supposed to comply with a Code of Conduct. It specifically prohibits precisely what she did.
http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges#e

[NurseJackie]

40. At least she didn't apologize out right.

[Akicita]

48. Supreme Court justices have a long and wise tradition of staying out of politics, especially during

election years. RBG's bashing of a candidate for prez breaks that tradition and she shouldn't have done it.

I don't believe we would think it alright if Alito publicly offered an opinion that HRC's classified email problems should disqualify her from being prez as some politicians and talking heads are saying. I know I would be pissed off if he did that.

[Yo_Mama]

56. More than tradition - Code of Canon for Federal Judges

http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges

Specific item:

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or

(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.

(B) Resignation upon Candidacy. A judge should resign the judicial office if the judge becomes a candidate in a primary or general election for any office.

(C) Other Political Activity. A judge should not engage in any other political activity. This provision does not prevent a judge from engaging in activities described in Canon 4.

COMMENTARY

The term “political organization” refers to a political party, a group affiliated with a political party or candidate for public office, or an entity whose principal purpose is to advocate for or against political candidates or parties in connection with elections for public office.

She's a nice, classy lady and I think she got baited into overstepping the line. Regardless, she did, and it is appropriate that she should have stated her regret and her intention to comply with the Code of Canon in the future.

[merrily]

51. She was right about Trump and right to say she should have avoided commenting.

The jury will disregard Justice Ginsburg's remarks.

Simply unhear what she said about Trump, folks.

[wordpix]

53. "she's 83 y.o. and her mind is shot"---where is Trump's apology for that?

Shows he's an ageist. You're not that far from being 83 yourself, Drumpf. And BTW, I know 90+ y.o.'s with perfectly good brains, far better than his!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

58. Everyone knows I hate to nitpick, but....

There are some posts in this thread in which I believe a distinction needs to be made. The distinction is between what in a Federal regulatory agency would be regarded as "standards" and what would be regarded as "guidance."

Justice Ginsburg is free to exercise her First Amendment right to say what she wants, because "Congress shall make no law ...," blah, blah, blah.

However, according to the Code of Conduct, to which links have been posted elsewhere, it is [font color=red]inadvisable[/font] for her to do so.

The Code of Conduct lists things that judges [font color=red]should[/font] not do. It does not, at least in this section, discuss things that judges [font color=red]shall[/font] not do. There's a big difference in those two words.

The distinction is analogous to the means by which the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) goes about promulgating worker safety. In print form, OSHA does this through two different avenues. One is standards, and the other is guidance.

Standards are regulations. They say what employers shall or shall not do. They are enforceable.

Guidance is advice and tips. Guidance says what employers ought to do. Guidance is not enforceable.

An illustration may help.

You may wish to remove any impressionable youngsters from the room. Are they gone? Okay.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is well within his rights to walk around shirtless at the beach:



It is, though, inadvisable for him to do so.

That said, I do not know what enforcement power there is to "encourage" judges and justices to follow the Code of Conduct. Can they be impeached? I do not know. Who would have the power to do that?

Thanks to DonViejo for the great thread.