Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has recently given extensive, and therefore controversial, interviews to both the Associated Press and the New York Times. In the Times, Justice Ginsburg commented on the current presidential election, expressing her dislike for Donald Trump and suggesting that it might be time "to move to New Zealand" if he were to win. She explained that she did not "even want to contemplate" what a Trump victory would mean for the Court. She also commented on recent, and potentially future, SCOTUS decisions, stating her views on standing, immigration, gun control, and campaign finance — all issues that are almost certain to be considered in future cases.
Although Supreme Court several justices have been more and more outspoken in recent years, the RBG interviews break new ground — and not in a good way. Her warning about potential Trump-nominated justices certainly looks like an attempt to influence the election, and her speculation about legal issues crosses a line that most other justices have respected in the past.
As many readers of this blog know, SCOTUS is the only court in the United States that lacks a formal Code of Conduct. Justice Ginsburg's recent comments underscore the reasons that the Court should adopt such a code. Even if it were unenforceable, a Code would at least formalize public expectations for the justices' conduct. It could begin with a rule against political activity, and it could include a prohibition on commentary about issues that are likely to come before the court. It would also address issues that have been raised concerning other justices, including recusal and the acceptance of gifts.
As matters now stand, unfortunately, each justice is a law unto herself or himself, setting their own standards whatever they might be. In my opinion, many of Justice Ginsburg's statements were inappropriate and imprudent. Regrettably, the absence of a SCOTUS Code of Conduct makes it impossible to say whether they were improper.
Once again, I find myself in complete agreement.
Time to set a mandatory retirement age for judges, at least those on SCOTUS? This reminds me of the time that Justice Marshall stopped by the office in summer 1971and found that Justice Douglas was getting ready to issue an order declaring the Vietnam War unconstitutional. He promptly contacted the other justices to strike this down and was able to keep it out of the papers until years later, but the eight justices agreed among themselves that no decision would be issued in which Douglas would have been the deciding vote.
She is absolutely correct. The alarm needs to be sounded. It needed to be sounded before Kristallnacht and it needs to sound once again. Dump is a demagogue, a race baiter and uses unethical rhetoric to foment his right wing extremist base. They are content with tearing down government. Why do people run for office if they hate government?