The New York Times editorial board wrote in a piece published Wednesday that Donald Trump was “right” to say it was inappropriate for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to criticize him.
“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling,” the board wrote in its editorial, titled “Donald Trump Is Right About Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”
The board noted that there are no legal rules that dictate whether a justice can comment on a presidential campaign, but argued Ginsburg’s remarks show why the justices have a tradition of not weighing in during election season.
The board acknowledged that Trump’s hands were “far from clean on the matter of judicial independence,” citing the businessman’s attacks of the ethnicity of U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel.
“All of which makes it only more baffling that Justice Ginsburg would choose to descend toward his level and call her own commitment to impartiality into question,” the board wrote. “Washington is more than partisan enough without the spectacle of a Supreme Court justice flinging herself into the mosh pit.”
Ginsburg has criticized the real estate mogul in interviews with three separate media outlets in recent days, including in the Times. She has called Trump a “faker,” said that she “can’t imagine” a Trump presidency and that “everything” would up for grabs with him in the White House.
Trump said those comments were “inappropriate,” calling for Ginsburg to get off the high court and proclaiming her “mind is shot.“
If anyone thinks this country is going through a “normal” election cycle, I have a bridge to sell them.
All bets seem to be off…
Did the Times agree that Justice Ginsburg’s “mind is shot”? Or are hits below the belt just fine if they’re from Mr Trump?
RBG needs to put a sock in it. I love her, but, not the place of the SCOTUS.
I think they are correct in saying that Ms. Ginsburg should not be commenting on the election. She should have limited her comments to the criticism of federal judge in the University case.
Cowards