Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a BIG problem for the left Updated: She apologizes!

Having outlived cancer, her husband, and her best friend on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is speaking out and doesn’t give a crap what anyone else thinks.  She’s telling what she thinks is the truth, and in the process, she is exposing the raw politics at the heart of the Supreme Court, the left’s most valuable tool for imposing its agenda.

The sitting justice has revealed that she would approach any future case involving the First Amendment protections of Citizens United with the intent to overturn it: “I’d love to see Citizens United overruled.”

This explodes the mythology that justices weigh constitutional jurisprudence in a scholarly manner and explain what the Constitution really means.  It reveals the Court to be a political body, like Congress, where the members vote their political interests.  Just like Congress, except no democratic accountability.

At a very critical point – the next justice appointed will determine the political balance of the Court – Ginsburg is delegitimizing the Court.  Whoever wins the presidency, and therefore appoints the next justice to replace Scalia, that nominee will face extensive questioning on political beliefs and their relevance to decision-making.

There really isn’t that much that can be done, practically speaking, to Ginsburg.  She decides whether or not to recuse herself on cases involving a possible Trump administration.

Ginsburg is taking hits from both the left and right, but is she likely to pay attention?  Don’t forget that she was pressured to step down from her seat, to allow Obama to appoint a younger replacement, and did not react as hoped.  I’d guess she is not open to such pressures today.  She’s a survivor.

Impeachment is unlikely for now, as it has been done only once before to a justice:

Samuel Chase in 1805 was charged with trying to influence “politically sensitive cases,” according to the U.S. Senate website. Chase, a voluble jurist, was accused of “refusing to dismiss biased jurors and of excluding or limiting defense witnesses” in the cases but argued in return that he was being targeted for his political beliefs, which stood at odds with the Jeffersonian Republicans who held the majority in Congress.

Chase was ultimately acquitted and served until his death in 1811. Since then, justices have been often threatened with impeachment, but those hearings have never happened.


If Trump wins and Ginsburg refuses to recuse herself, will she be impeached?  It would take some stretching to find a “high crime and misdemeanor” in her decision-making.

What about her colleagues?  Is she in for an intervention?  The Wall Street Journal’s Review and Outlook column called for one.  Would we ever find out if such a meeting occurred?

I suspect that Ginsburg will continue to speak her mind.  And continue to hand rope to those who yearn for a Supreme Court bound to the Constitution.

Update: Well, I was wrong.  The criticism got to her.  Maybe it was the New York Times editorial board saying Trump is right.  Or maybe the i-word was whisepred by someone who matters.

US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Thursday apologized for statements she made criticizing Republican presidential contender 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 issued by the court.

"Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect," Ginsburg added.

Having outlived cancer, her husband, and her best friend on the Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is speaking out and doesn’t give a crap what anyone else thinks.  She’s telling what she thinks is the truth, and in the process, she is exposing the raw politics at the heart of the Supreme Court, the left’s most valuable tool for imposing its agenda.

The sitting justice has revealed that she would approach any future case involving the First Amendment protections of Citizens United with the intent to overturn it: “I’d love to see Citizens United overruled.”

This explodes the mythology that justices weigh constitutional jurisprudence in a scholarly manner and explain what the Constitution really means.  It reveals the Court to be a political body, like Congress, where the members vote their political interests.  Just like Congress, except no democratic accountability.

At a very critical point – the next justice appointed will determine the political balance of the Court – Ginsburg is delegitimizing the Court.  Whoever wins the presidency, and therefore appoints the next justice to replace Scalia, that nominee will face extensive questioning on political beliefs and their relevance to decision-making.

There really isn’t that much that can be done, practically speaking, to Ginsburg.  She decides whether or not to recuse herself on cases involving a possible Trump administration.

Ginsburg is taking hits from both the left and right, but is she likely to pay attention?  Don’t forget that she was pressured to step down from her seat, to allow Obama to appoint a younger replacement, and did not react as hoped.  I’d guess she is not open to such pressures today.  She’s a survivor.

Impeachment is unlikely for now, as it has been done only once before to a justice:

Samuel Chase in 1805 was charged with trying to influence “politically sensitive cases,” according to the U.S. Senate website. Chase, a voluble jurist, was accused of “refusing to dismiss biased jurors and of excluding or limiting defense witnesses” in the cases but argued in return that he was being targeted for his political beliefs, which stood at odds with the Jeffersonian Republicans who held the majority in Congress.

Chase was ultimately acquitted and served until his death in 1811. Since then, justices have been often threatened with impeachment, but those hearings have never happened.


If Trump wins and Ginsburg refuses to recuse herself, will she be impeached?  It would take some stretching to find a “high crime and misdemeanor” in her decision-making.

What about her colleagues?  Is she in for an intervention?  The Wall Street Journal’s Review and Outlook column called for one.  Would we ever find out if such a meeting occurred?

I suspect that Ginsburg will continue to speak her mind.  And continue to hand rope to those who yearn for a Supreme Court bound to the Constitution.

Update: Well, I was wrong.  The criticism got to her.  Maybe it was the New York Times editorial board saying Trump is right.  Or maybe the i-word was whisepred by someone who matters.

US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Thursday apologized for statements she made criticizing Republican presidential contender 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 issued by the court.

"Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect," Ginsburg added.