by Sharon Rondeau

(Jul. 14, 2016) — At approximately 10:11 AM EDT on Thursday, Politics1 tweeted that US Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologized for comments she made on July 10 with The New York Times stating that if Republican presidential presumptive nominee Donald Trump is elected in November, “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”

In another interview with CNN, Ginsburg called Trump “a faker.” “He really has an ego,” she said, while criticizing the media for failing to press Trump harder to release his income tax returns.

After seeing Politics1’s tweet, The Post & Email searched the Internet for mainstream media confirmation of the claim, and, upon finding none, answered P1’s tweet with a question (right). However, within 2 to 3 minutes, we had our answer, as several minutes later, Bloomberg News issued a similar report of Ginsburg’s apology.

The Post & Email then tweeted to P1 its thanks for posting the news about Ginsburg.

The 83-year-old Ginsburg was appointed in 1993 by then-President Bill Clinton and amplified on her dislike of Trump in an interview with CNN in which she called him “a faker.”

On Wednesday, Trump responded to Ginsburg by calling her mental state “shot,” demanding that she resign, apologize to her fellow members of the high court, and opining that her remarks constituted “a disgrace.”

Some Democrats, echoed by The New York Times and The Washington Post, opined that Ginsburg should not have entered the political fray, while others agreed with her assessment of Trump and felt the comments were justified.

According to CNN, “It is highly unusual for a justice to make such politically charged remarks, and some critics said she crossed the line.”  A CNN commentator told anchor Jake Tapper that Ginsburg is “known for her bluntness” but is “not out there the way Donald Trump is out there.”  However, the commentator stated in conclusion that Ginsburg’s remarks were “highly unusual” for someone in her position to make.

The Associated Press also reports having interviewed Ginsburg on the same topic.

The Chicago Tribune posted an editorial responding to Ginsburg’s comments in which it stated, “Supreme Court justices don’t – at least until now – take public stands on presidential or other elections. One reason is that they are barred from doing so by the federal code of judicial conduct, which states that as a general rule, judges shall not “’publicly endorse or publicly oppose another candidate for public office.’”

On Thursday The Los Angeles Times reported Ginsburg’s apology as:

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.

In commentary concerning Bader’s decision to voice her opinions, The Times wrote, “The code of conduct for federal judges forbids them from supporting political candidates or taking partisan stands. But the justices are not directly bound by the code and decide for themselves how to carry out their duties.”

The Code of Conduct for federal judges can be read here.  Canon 5 reads, in part:

Canon 5: A Judge Should Refrain from Political Activity

(A) General Prohibitions. A judge should not:

(1) act as a leader or hold any office in a political organization;

(2) make speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office; or

(3) solicit funds for, pay an assessment to, or make a contribution to a political organization or candidate, or attend or purchase a ticket for a dinner or other event sponsored by a political organization or candidate.

Under “Commentary” following that section, it states:

Compliance with the Code of Conduct

Anyone who is an officer of the federal judicial system authorized to perform judicial functions is a judge for the purpose of this Code. All judges should comply with this Code except as provided below.

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution devised a form of tripartite government incorporating the “separation of powers” doctrine which was intended to preclude any two branches from colluding or any one branch from becoming overly powerful.

Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution states that judges can be removed from their posts for failing to maintain “good behaviour.”

On Thursday, Ginsburg’s apology was reportedly issued through the Court.  As the New Republic suggested on Wednesday, Ginsburg now says that her remarks were “ill-advised.”

The Post & Email was not able to locate an official statement at the website of the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is contemplated that the next president might nominate between one and four new justices to the highest court in the land. Constitutionally, the president nominates federal judges, who are seated only upon the “advice and consent” of the United States Senate.

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. J Mayer,
    You present a very interesting story – do you have hard evidence to support it? Or is this speculation on your part?!
    (I’m sure I’m not the only one interested).
    We all know Barry is a phony, but this is the first I have heard of this scenario.
    Please Advise

  2. Why are Marxist/Socialist/Liberals on the payroll in DC on taxpayer funds? Was Ginsburg in on the “inside” judicial group that took orders from Hillary/Jarrett to illegally block “Criminal Presentments” out of our courts for nearly 8 years to prevent prosecution of any DNC Operartives? Is Ginsburg one of the “insiders” that worked with Biden/Pelosi that falsified Obama’s POTUS eligibility and covered up his “dual citizen” in 2008? Obama alias: Barry Owens/Bari Shabazz/Bari Malik Shabazz/Barrack Obama/Barrack Hussein Obama/Barrack Obama II/Barry Soetoro. Many people talk about Bill Ayers as a Domestic Terrorist, no one is talking about Obama’s real mother who was a Domestic Terrorist with Bill Ayers in The Weather Underground. Who is that person that has so carefully been kept from public recognition and mainstream media? She was the daughter of Dr. Fred Delano Newman, a radical Marxist/Socialist shrink who lived and Practiced in Bronx, New York. She used several aliases and when she bombed the Pentagon and The Washington Navy Yard Computer Building with Bill Ayers in The Weather Underground she used “Ann Duke”. After being on the FBI Most Wanted List for years, she was able to do a lot to damage America. Her name was Elizabeth Ann Newman, later, after her affair with Malcolm X in the Bronx, she took her pregnancy to Coast Province General Hospital in Mombasa, Kenya in 1961 where she labored to have baby Obama. On that long form COB, Elizabeth changed her name to “Stanley Ann Dunham” from Kansas and the Bill Ayers narrative began. The mother moved to Hawaii and later married Soetoro. They brought young Obama to Jakarta’s Muslim Boy Prep School where Obama attended for 8 years. During that time, Indonesian Constitutional Law required adopted student children to become “Indonesian Citizens” in order to attend their schools. At that time Obama became a “dual citizen” as he was born of two US citizen parents but was a “dual citizen” by default which disqualified him for US POTUS. Pelosi and Biden falsified his eligibility in 2008 and they had to have help from the judicial. We need to know who they were that committed Perjury/Election Fraud/Treason/Misprision Of Felony and other Constitutional violations against the US and it’s citizens. Was Ginsburg part of this cabal?

  3. John Roberts has already gone on record (after Kagan and Ginsburg refused to recuse themselves on the gay marriage case even though both had officiated at gay weddings)saying that the Supreme Court is not bound by the Code of Ethics that binds the lower courts. There have been attempts in the past to extend the Judicial Code of Ethics to cover ths Supreme Court but those efforts have failed to this point.
    I agree with Jeff. There seems to be a double standard. Supreme Court Justices should have some kind of Code an article from “The Hill” indicates there is a bill before Congress now, but the Supreme Court would probably find it a violation of the separation of powers and declare it “UnConstitutional” if it were to pass and be signed (even if signed by a VALID President.

  4. It seems to me in organizations that there are two sets of rules.
    The rulers rule their subjects, but they themselves are not subject to the same rules they inforce.

    While on active duty, as a junior enlisted personnel we had a saying, “rank has it’s privileges”. So too it is in the real world.

    While serving in the Marines, I worked in Logistics. Starting as a
    private, I knew not to mishandle records and mind my own business.
    Suppose for example I would have had removed records from the office, does one thinks I’d get a pass like HILLERY? No way!!!
    Like Ginsburg, “I misspoke…”. This too would not help me.

    Also as a Junior Marine or when I had gained some rank, if I made any kind of political statement in uniform or spoke on behalf of
    the Marines without their approval and permission, I would have
    been “cooked”.

    Hillery and Ginsburg can make statements that are rude, incorrect, and fabricated. Many of us don’t get redos or allowed to make
    do-overs. Two rules for two different classes here. However, there is only one truth.