Michael Maiello's picture

    Fetch The Smelling Salts, RBG Violated a Norm!

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg issued some mildly opinionated statements questioning Donald Trump's fitness to be president and now the idiot wing of lefty America has stirred to admonish her for... saying what any reasonable person would expect her to believe about Donal Trump any way.

    These finger wagging articles, from The New York Times and Washington Post Editorial boards and from Jonathan Chait at New York Magazine all have the same "to be sure" construction because they all must admit that, to be sure, there is no actual rule or law in place that prevents a supreme court justice from having or stating this or that opinion about any candidate for elected office.  The problem is definitely not, then, that our Notorious RBG has ventured beyond any legal boundary.  Trump's call for her to step down is just Trumpian nonsense.

    No, no, the complaint is that she has "violated norms."  It just isn't done, you see.  Supreme Court Justices simply do not express opinions about who should and shouldn't be president.  Such a thing has only happened once before in this entire century, when a conservative court handed the presidency to a Republican candidate who lost the national popular vote. But by all means, let's freak out because RBG said stuff about Trump that anybody interested in RBG would have guessed she thought anyway.

    But, but, but, if Trump winds up with a case in front of the Supreme Court, would she have to recuse herself? He is very litigious, after all. It could happen. Indeed, the Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case brought by casino workers seeking to have their benefits preserved as part of the Trump Taj Mahal Hotel bankruptcy.  Which would seem to be a pro-Trump decision, actually. Except that Trump will tell you he just licenses his name to the Taj Mahal. Carl Icahn actually owns it.  Go figure.

    I'll just suggest that the topic of an RBG recusal can be tabled until it is actually relevant.  It will likely never be.  I guess it could be a problem if Trump is elected and then he'll know that at least one justice mildly can't stand him.  But this is always true.

    I hate to break it to America (well, the Dagblog reading portion of America) but all Supreme Court justices are somebody's haters and all haters are gonna hate (mildly).

    The norm that RBG broke is, of course, fundamental to a good and decent society.  I suggest you all prepare yourselves for quaking Earth, blood colored moons (yes, there will be multiple moons), and, of course, dogs and cats sleeping together.

    Give me a break. If she broke a norm it was in the service of honesty.  Let's hear all those opinions we know the justices have anyway.



    The best retort to these hypocritical bastards attacking Justice Ruth was brought to the fore by MSNBC last night.

    John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supremes ran for Governor of NY twice, and won the second time. hahahah

    Chris O'Donnell did this fine display of history last night. hahaha


    It turns out that during the 19th century, several Supreme Court Justices ran for office whilst still on the Supreme Court. hahaha

    And in the 20th Century of course, Taft went the other way. hahahaha

    Anyway Chris got it right last night.

    Justice Ginsberg is the greatest.

    But why she did not step down two years ago? I mean falling asleep during the State of the Union?

    I dunno, But Ruth stay just a little bit longer.

    I like Ruth. hahaha

    This whole thing makes me laugh. The emperor has no clothes and Trump is a naked baboon.


    So Scalia (et al) going to all-expense paid vacations funded by the Kochs and others, so they can give talks to conservative groups is OK because it doesn't see the light of day?   How about boycotting the State of the Union to express your disdain for the President (as one of the three branches of the Federal Government).

    The horse is out of the barn as far as the Supreme Court having pre-conceived political opinions.

    Does anyone think that when a case goes in front of the court, EVERY SINGLE justice hasn't already formed an opinion?  Really?  Why?  Haven't they demonstrated that they have by the questions?

    Why is Scalia going hunting with Cheney before deciding a case he was involved in is less of an issue than RBG saying what is completely obvious (probably even to the conservative Supremes -- YES!  There are conservative Supremes who (probably) hope on some level that a dolt like Trump should not be President.

    But I'm with you, Michael -- the only "norm" she broke is that she actually spoke her mind for a publication that was not a Conservative rag.

    The judges can all quit or get fired, Trump won't need them.

    The finger waggers will meet the same fate if they question the leader.

    Dahlia Lithwick's take on this.  She's my favorite court-watcher and a huge RBG fan, but she admits she has mixed feelings about it--wishing for the "norm", but cheering RBG on because, come on!  Donald Trump!

    We can't keep pretending times like these are normal.  Not with Donald Trump out front every single day, every gaffe giving him a leap ahead until right this minute he's one of two candidates for president.  You just know it's driving RBG crazy.  She had to blow and this is how she did it.  She's keeping it real and good for her.  That's why we love her.

    Make America normal again! You should put it on a hat.

    Love it.

    If you've got a copy hanging around pick up Isherwood's Goodbye to Berlin. There were elections , the newspapers were for or against  Hitler depending on editorial policy although pretty much everyone around the dinner table at Herr Issywoo's rooming house read the  communist one. Sally Bowles was good fun. Normal.

    There must have been some supreme judicial body and chances are it was normally "non partisan". As was the Army in 1931. 

    And it would be normal in 2016 for RBG to restrict any comment about a  Presidential candidate to  veiled references in her opinions.

    No, I'm not saying  Trump =s Hitler.  Neither did Lindberg, nor Fr  .Coughlin nor Huey Long nor Joe McCarthy.

    But they weren't normal  and neither is Donald.


    Ein Patriot Party of Real Muricans

    Ein Fortress Murica behind Ein Wall

    Ein Donald, Drei Wives

    Thanks Michael.  RBG broke no ethical rule, and I've never heard of prospective recusal.  The touchstone to this silly debate (IMO) is that judges retain their first amendment rights when they become judges.  Put another way, they do not become potted plants. With that, a standard for preventing judges to express themselves against first amendment protection must by necessity be extraordinarily high.  That they are not supposed to endorse candidates doesn't now and has never prevented judges, including incumbents like Justice Alito, from expressing negative views about presidents or candidates for the office.

    Nice work.

    I see RBG apologized today.  Of course, Trump the presidential candidate can say any wicked thing he wants to but RGB the supreme court justice can't point out the fact that the emperor really is wearing clothes and they're ugly and dirty.  I wish she hadn't apologized.  Nobody should have to apologize for any observation about Donald Trump.

    And Hi,Bruce!  Nice to see you here again!

    Latest Comments