Ruth Ginsburg, the Supreme Court justice who has publicly lashed out at President Trump and actively lobbied for same-sex “marriage” by performing such ceremonies while the case was before the court, now says she’s afraid the public “will come to view the federal judiciary as ‘just another political branch of government,'” according to the Boston Globe.
The paper said the 84-year-old, who has been seen to be dozing off during public functions, spoke at the Roger Williams University School of Law.
She wants the nation to move past “its current state of bitter partisan gridlock,” the report said.
She said: “We have a great federal judiciary. I hope we can keep it.”
Ginsburg was approved in 1993 by a 96-3 vote in the Senate, despite reservations from conservatives about her history as an activist with the ACLU.
But they agreed she was qualified.
In contrast, only three Democrats voted for President Trump’s nominee, Neil Gorsuch.
The dissenters forced the majority Republicans to vote for a rule change requiring 51 votes, instead of 60, to end debate and proceed to a final simple-majority vote.
Ginsburg recalled, the report said, a “bipartisan spirit” back in her day.
“Someday I hope we will get back to the way it was. I think it will take great leaders on both sides of the aisle to say, ‘Let’s stop this nonsense and start working for our country the way we should,'” she said.
Ginsburg spoke more broadly about the current partisan animosity.
“My hope really is that we will get over this period,” she said, likening the current atmosphere to the “Red Scare” of the 1950s.
She boasted of the Obergefell ruling in 2015 that created same-sex “marriage,” which the minority of four justices criticized as unconnected to the U.S. Constitution.
AP reported during her appearance she “bemoaned the partisan atmosphere in Washington, in particular the divisive process for confirming judges.”
During the 2016 campaign, she apologized for her political condemnation of then-candidate Trump.
“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them. Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future, I will be more circumspect,” she said.
Her mea culpa came on the heels of several interviews.
To the Associated Press, Ginsburg said: “I don’t want to think about [a Trump presidency] possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs.”
And to the New York Times, she said, while reflecting on a Trump presidency: “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be – I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
Ginsburg also mentioned a joke she and her now-deceased husband Marty shared, in which they contemplated Trump in the White House: “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.” And she called him in an interview with CNN a “faker” who “really has an ego” and “has no consistency about him.”
Ginsburg’s remarks were widely criticized as inappropriate public commentary for a sitting judge. And Trump himself tweeted: “Justice Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court has embarrassed all by making very dumb political statements about me. Her mind is shot – resign!”
Legal minds also pointed to the fact that Ginsburg possibly “violated Canon 5 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which states judges should not ‘publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office,'” wrote Daniel Drezner, a professor at Tufts University, in a Washington Post piece.
And Stephen Gillers, a legal ethicist at New York University School of Law, warned about the ramifications of Ginsburg’s comments if the presidential election would have been contested, such as in 2000, in Bush v. Gore.
It’s not the only time Ginsburg has been accused of breaking judicial ethics.
As WND reported, Ginsburg performed same-sex wedding ceremonies and made supportive public statements while the issue was before the U.S. Supreme Court. Also, Justice Elena Kagan performed same-sex weddings and promoted “gay” rights while she was at the helm of Harvard’s law school.
Critics contend the two justices appeared to be violating judicial ethics rules that require recusal from a case in which there is even the appearance of a conflict of interest.
A brief from the Foundation for Moral Law explained that Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges provides: “A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.” 28 U.S.C. sec 455(a) mandates that a justice “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
The foundation pointed out in a submission to the Supreme Court prior to its creation of same-sex “marriage”: “Four weeks after this court granted certiorari in these cases, Justice Ginsburg was asked whether parts of the country might not accept same-sex marriage being constitutionalized. She answered: ‘I think it’s doubtful that it wouldn’t be accepted. The change in people’s attitudes on that issue has been enormous … It would not take a large adjustment.'”
The motion said the “extrajudicial comments about a matter pending before the court violate Canon 3A(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States judges: ‘A judge should not make public comment on the merits of a matter pending or impending in any court.'”
The controversy resurfaced, because even after being told of the appearance of a conflict of interest, Ginsburg again officiated at a same-sex wedding, as the New York Times reported.
The paper said that with “a sly look and special emphasis on the word ‘Constitution,’ Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States.”
“No one was sure,” the paper said, “if she was emphasizing her own beliefs or giving a hint to the outcome of the case the Supreme Court is considering whether to decide if same-sex marriage in constitutional.”
Had Ginsburg and Kagan recused themselves from the marriage case, the decision would have gone the other way.
See Ginsburg’s comments on marriage while the case was before the court: