Yesterday a supreme court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, made shockwaves around the US and especially the political arena when she made the highly unorthodox comments for someone in her position about her reaction to a Trump presidency, telling the NYT that should Trump become president it would be time to move to New Zealand. “I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
Even the traditionally liberal Washington Post was amazed by her comments: “This appears to be a joke, but Ginsburg’s sentiment here is crystal clear: She thinks Donald Trump would be a dangerous president. And in saying it, she goes to a place justices almost never do — and perhaps never have — for some very good reasons.”
Ginsburg is known for pushing the bounds of a justice’s public comments and has earned something of a cult following on the left. But some say she just went too far.
“I find it baffling actually that she says these things,” said Arthur Hellman, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. “She must know that she shouldn’t be. However tempted she might be, she shouldn’t be doing it.”
The WaPo noted that some “wondered what impact this might have on Ginsburg’s decision to hear cases involving Trump. – If there’s a redo of Bush v. Gore, how does Ginsburg not recuse herself, given her Trump comments?”
Ginsburg’s comments could muddy the waters when it comes to decisions not just involving Trump but also his policies — something that could come up regularly should he win the presidency. “It would cast doubt on her impartiality in those decisions,” Hellman said. “If she has expressed herself as opposing the election of Donald Trump, her vote to strike down a Trump policy would be under a cloud.”
Ginsburg’s fascinating lack of judgment was promptly used by Trump to fire back: as the Hill reports, the presidential candidate dismissed Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s criticism of his presidential campaign, calling her remarks “beneath the court.”
“I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly,” Trump said in an interview with The New York Times, and he was right judging by the media response to RBG’s comments. “I think it’s a disgrace to the court and I think she should apologize to the court. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it,” he added.
And yet, despite the broad criticism of her comments from both the right and the left, instead of backing out of the stunning verbal duel with Trump, the 83 year old supreme court justice doubled down, and as CNN reports, she declined to retreat from her earlier criticism of Donald Trump and even elaborated on it.
“He is a faker,” she said of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, going point by point, as if presenting a legal brief. “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.“
“At first I thought it was funny,” she said of Trump’s early candidacy. “To think that there’s a possibility that he could be president… ” Her voice trailed off gloomily, seemingly shocked that there is a chance the majority of Americans may be revolting at the status quo.
“I think he has gotten so much free publicity,” she added, drawing a contrast between what she believes is tougher media treatment of Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and returning to an overriding complaint: “Every other presidential candidate has turned over tax returns.”
As CNN’s Joan Biskupic who interviewed Ginsburg redundantly added, “it was evident in our interview on Monday that when Ginsburg imagines who would succeed President Obama, she does not expect Trump to prevail over Clinton.”
Meanwhile, one wonders if the clear antipathy and bias by a person who represents America’s highest legal institution, one which even people on her own “team” say has gone too far, won’t end up simply boosting Trump’s odds of winning. Recall what Gundlach said over the weekend:
One of the reasons I believe Trump might win is that Brexit won. The parallels are far too great to be coincidental. They are identical in time. They are identical in mood, in the attitude of “I’m not doing what you say anymore.” People don’t want to admit that they support Trump. They hide it. A lot of people in Britain didn’t want to admit that they were voting to leave. My suspicion is that if Trump is even within the margin of error come November, he’ll win by a few percentage points.
If Gundlach is right, we wonder if the most vocal member on the Supreme Court will do as she has promised and board the first airplane out fo New Zealand, or end up just like the target of her scorn: all words.
via http://ift.tt/29Bcxss Tyler Durden