Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has no use for Donald Trump. In two separate interviews (here and here), she took him to task as a dangerous demagogue, doubling down on Monday when she called him 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.”
Powerful — and accurate — words, and many on the left have been cheering her on. But I’m ambivalent, as I wrote to a friend on Facebook. Here is what I said to him:
The court is supposed to stay out of electoral politics — which is different than acting politically — and yet Trump stands outside normality in such a way that this seems to make sense.
I pointed to this piece from Slate, which offers a good overview and attempts to explain her comments. Basically, as the Slate piece points out, Ginsburg’s comments were far more strategic than the kind of conflicts we’ve deemed acceptable in the past (Vice President Dick Cheney and Justice Antonin Scalia going hunting on a lobbyist’s dime; Justice Clarence Thomas hearing a case that had a direct impact on someone who employed his wife).
My concern is this: If we have another 2000 situation, she will be put in the position of ruling directly on whether Trump should be president. It is a slim chance — I just don’t see Trump getting above 200 or so electoral votes, let alone getting the 270 he will need to win) — but if he does get close and there is a dispute, what happens? (Let’s also be honest and admit that we know how six of the other seven of the justices would vote if this came up again.)
Ginsberg also may need to rule on the use of presidential power — which was the central issue in the immigration case the court just ruled on, and which has come up regularly over the last two decades.
And yet, all she really did was say publicly what others have been keeping close to the vest. John Roberts’ line that judges are no more than umpires calling balls and strikes has always been bullshit — not so much a lie but a myth that we all know just ain’t true. Viewed this way, perhaps this is the ripping off of the mask of false objectivity?
As I said, I’m ambivalent.
Please, go to my Facebook page and join the debate.
Send me an e-mail.
Hank Kalet 
This just in from ABC news: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has apologized for her \”ill-advised\” comments on Donald Trump, in which she called the presumptive Republican presidential nominee “a faker” who lacks consistency, described a Trump presidency as unimaginable and suggested that she’ll move to New Zealand if he wins in November.“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them,\” the 83-year-old justice said in a statement released by the Supreme Court today.\”Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”I think RBG had every right to speak the truth about Trump because we have never had a candidate this blatantly bad in many years. Bush junior was bad but his rhetoric was not as corrosive or divisive as Trump's. However, Bush did incredible damage to the country with his unnecessary wars of aggression. The Iraq war should have never happened. Bush almost privatized Social security which would have been a major disaster for countless Americans. All that being said, Trump is a horror, I hope he doesn't win. Sadly he could win because Hillary is so unpopular with massive swaths of Americans including former Bernie supporters.