For reasons unfathomable to the ordinary American citizen, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg decided to inject herself (and the Court) into politics. Which justices aren’t supposed to do. Ideally, they’re supposed to be above petty politics and be more concerned with interpreting the law and upholding the Constitution.
I’ll wait while you have a hearty laugh about that.
If you recall, Ginsburg remarked publicly about how awful Donald Trump would be as president and that she couldn’t imagine a country where that could occur and what it would mean for the Supreme Court.
Remember – SCOTUS is supposed to be impartial and not actively political and that petty partisan politics actually undermine what the Court is meant to do. Just, remember that.
After the outcry, Ginsburg is now apologizing and retracting her statements, saying they were “ill-advised” –
JUST IN: SCOTUS Justice Ginsburg on Trump comments: “My recent remarks…were ill-advised and I regret making them.” pic.twitter.com/VhHUdaj0ay
— ABC News (@ABC) July 14, 2016
“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 says as she surreptitiously hides her “HILLARY 2016!” pom-poms under her desk)
Regardless of her apology and backtracking (which I do appreciate), this does put her in a precarious position on the off-chance that anything related to the 2016 election goes to the Supreme Court. Let’s say we have a repeat of 2000 – for those Millennials in the audience, that was the year of the hanging chads in Florida and Democrats screaming for recounts and we didn’t know who was going to be president for MONTHS. But let’s say that happens again and the Supreme Court ends up ruling on it – how are we supposed to trust Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s impartiality now?
In the meantime, I’ll be praying for a decisive loss for Queen Hillary so it doesn’t come to that.