Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Trump remarks will have long
Late last week, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg tried to put the controversy over her recent criticisms of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump behind her, issuing a written statement of regret and telling NPR’s Nina Totenberg: “I did something I should not have done. It’s over and done with, and I don’t want to discuss it anymore.”
But the issue of judicial speech on political matters is hardly over and done with. It will remain fodder for the 2016 presidential election because Donald Trump criticized Ginsburg, even questioning her mental competence (“her mind is shot”) and calling on her to resign. Many court watchers worry what might happen if the court is called upon to rule on any kind of election dispute and that brings a reprise of calls for her to recuse in any Trump-related litigation. And on top of all that, the court itself will soon decide whether to weigh in on a case challenging an Arizona rule that bars judicial candidates from doing the very thing Justice Ginsburg did: openly supporting or opposing a candidate for public office.
If Justice Ginsburg follows her past judicial writing and not her personal example, she’d likely decide—correctly, we think—that states can stop judicial candidates and judges from endorsing or opposing candidates for office (aside from opponents in their own elections). Even though we all know that judges have political opinions, it is better for their own legitimacy and the integrity of our elections to keep the judicial and political roles separate. If the court votes to allow yet more political speech from sitting judges, we will have a great many more Ginsburggates to look forward to.
AdvertisementCampaign regulation opponent Jim Bopp (the man who brought you Citizens United) has filed a cert petition with the high court in Wolfson v. Concannon, arguing among other things that Arizona’s rule forbidding candidates to endorse or oppose candidates other than in their own races violates the First Amendment. Bopp lost that case unanimously before an en bancpanel of 9thU.S. Circuit Court of Appeals judges (some liberal and some conservatives), and he should lose at the Supreme Court, too. But Ginsburg’s anti-Trump tirades may ironically give Bopp a better chance of succeeding at the high court by highlighting the issue of the First Amendment rights of judges and judicial candidates.
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementThe court has already weighed in a few times on the question of limiting the political activities of judicial candidates, and Ginsburg herself has been at the forefront of arguing that such limits don’t violate the First Amendment. In the 2002 case, Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, Justice Ginsburg dissented from a Justice Scalia opinion striking down a law preventing judicial candidates from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues on First Amendment grounds. To Ginsburg, judicial elections are different from regular elections, and the state has a stronger interest in limiting the speech of judges and judicial candidates. As she wrote in White: “Judges are not politicians, and the First Amendment does not require that they be treated as politicians simply because they are chosen by popular vote.”
AdvertisementJustice Ginsburg agreed with a majority of the court in the 2009 case of Caperton v. Masseythat it violated due process for a West Virginia Supreme Court justice to hear a case involving a party that had contributed more than $3 million to a super PAC to help get that justice elected. And in last year’s judicial speech case, Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, Justice Ginsburg agreed with the majority that Florida could stop judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions for their electoral races. Justice Ginsburg again wrote separately to emphasize that states should have more leeway to control the speech of judges and judicial candidates than of other candidates, to promote the values of judicial integrity.
Advertisement AdvertisementSo what is the interest at stake in keeping judges and judicial candidates from endorsing or opposing others for office? Why not simply say that judges should have a First Amendment right to say whatever they want, as our friend Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the University of California, Irvine’s law school, has recently suggested about Justice Ginsburg? After all, we know these judges have political opinions, and many of us would just as soon know those opinions than not.
AdvertisementThe First Amendment, like all constitutional rights, is not absolute, and there are important systemic reasons to keep judges from spouting off on political matters. To begin with, judges are sometimes called to decide election disputes, and having a judge take sides in an election will inevitably render suspect any decision that judge makes for a candidate he has endorsed.
AdvertisementBut there is a more fundamental problem with judges injecting themselves in political campaigns. Imagine Ginsburg sitting down with MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow to talk politics, or Justice Samuel Alito weighing in on Trump’s vice presidential choice on Fox News’ Hannityshow. Nobody doubts that the justices have strong viewpoints about specific candidates, but the judicial branch is already politicized enough. Consider that we frequently identify judges with the president who appointed them or the political party with which they affiliated. But most judges will tell you, correctly we believe, that these political affiliations count far less than their oath to administer the laws fairly and objectively. To borrow from Mark Twain for a moment, “It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are impartial than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Advertisement Advertisement AdvertisementThe judicial speech rules do not exist to punish judges, who have myriad other opportunities to express their political preferences. They exist to preserve the impression that judges can rise above politics for a larger interest: the interest in a neutral, independent judicial branch. The rules exist not because anyone believes judges are apolitical but as a reminder to judges that they must aspire to hold themselves out as apolitical. Judges who have an extra obligation to appear neutral might be more likely to act in a neutral way. The appearance of independence is not a trivial value in our judicial branch. It is arguably the very backbone of judicial legitimacy.
AdvertisementThink about the bipartisan outcry when Donald Trump suggested this spring that all judges of Mexican heritage would be biased against him because of his widely shared dream of building a wall between the United States and Mexico. The reaction was as pointed and angry as that directed at Ginsburg last week. And it was not because Americans need to cling to their illusions about the judicial branch—it’s because we want our judges to cling to those illusions as well and to do their level best to live them and embody them. The court should ensure, as it did last year in Williams-Yulee, that state efforts to undermine appearances of judicial impropriety are unsuccessful. And Justice Ginsburg, who learned the hard way last week what happens when justices run afoul of those obligations, should continue to lead that charge.
Tweet Share Share Comment(责任编辑:新闻中心)
- 11 Unique Amaros and Liqueurs to Level Up Your Aperol Spritz
- 全国农产品品质规格营养功能评价江门技术中心揭牌
- Everyone is freaking out about President Trump, according to Merriam
- Lego will no longer give away free toys with the Daily Mail
- Which is Faster for Gaming, Windows 10 or Windows 11?
- Amazon Android Days sale 2024: Save on unlocked phones, tablets, and more
- N. Korea remains low key over anniversary of 'nuclear armament'
- 'Avengers'
- 国道318线多营至飞仙关段主体工程基本完工
- Understanding Relational vs. Non
- Queer astrology is having a moment. And it's a big one.
- Writers hop on Twitter to air out their weirdest celebrity interview
- Colin the Caterpillar crashed Prince Harry's stag do and the photos are frankly outrageous
-
I got a chance to play around with the Pixel 9 Pro XL, and man, it looks like we have to completely ...[详细]
-
Queer astrology is having a moment. And it's a big one.
There's something about astrology that's always been, well, kinda queer.Travel all the way back to t ...[详细] -
Artificial intelligence in 2017 still can't truly understand humans
At the Star Wars: The Last Jedi Hollywoodpremierethis week, Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke sat down c ...[详细] -
回眸2023,我们见证了”村BA”这些闪耀时刻_南方+_南方plus岁末之时,闭上眼睛回想,在乡村激动跃动的身影,篮球与水泥地碰撞的声音,犹如昨日。2023年,我们始终会记得“村BA”那些激动人心的瞬 ...[详细]
-
How much will PCB's Champions Cup mentors be paid?
ListentoarticleThe Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) has appointed five distinguished mentors for the upc ...[详细] -
World powers welcome new U.N. sanctions on N.K.
The international community Thursday welcomed the passage of a new U.N. Security Council resolution ...[详细] -
送“技”下乡,韶关南雄科技特派员为特色产业保驾护航_南方+_南方plus“林教授,遇到这种严寒天气,阳光玫瑰葡萄要注意什么?”葡萄种植大户李丙生询问韶关学院驻南雄市雄州街道特派员林昌华副教授,向他请 ...[详细]
-
John McCain doesn't want Trump at his funeral
Senator John McCain has made it very clear that when he dies, Donald Trump isn't invited to his fune ...[详细] -
患者制作香囊“这是我们自己做的香囊,有安神助眠、除湿等功效,价格不贵,10元钱一个。”8月14日,雅安市第四人民医院门诊大厅的“爱心义卖”吸引了医院里不少人的目光。售卖香囊的是该院精神康复科的患者,售 ...[详细]
-
South Korea, US plan biweekly 'working group' consultations on North Korea
U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, second from left, accompanied by U.S. Ambassador to the Philipp ...[详细]
Sinner vs. Michelsen 2024 livestream: Watch US Open for free
Liverpool want to be a team no one wants to play: Klopp
- Cyrix: Gone But Not Forgotten
- N. Korea arrests retired official for criticizing Kim Jong
- N. Korea remains low key over anniversary of 'nuclear armament'
- Artificial intelligence in 2017 still can't truly understand humans
- We Bought the Cheapest DDR5 RAM Modules We Could Find, Are They Any Good?
- South Korean train travels to the North for joint railway inspection [PHOTOS]
- Outbound travelers hit record high in Feb.