Remember this in 2010? Jonathan Turley does:
In a breach of protocol, Associate Justice Sam Alito was filmed during the State of the Union address last night shaking his head and mouthing “not true” in response to the President’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling on corporate campaign finance limits. Ironically, Rep. Joe Wilson promised to restrain himself during this speech and not scream “you lie” again during the President’s speech. For a justice, this breach (shown below) is no less remarkable. It is, in a word, injudicious.
Justices are expected not to express support or opposition to a president during the State of the Union — symbolizing the neutrality of the Court. This demonstration of Alito’s views undermines that principle and makes the Court look partisan and rather petty. Whether or not Obama overstated the holding is completely immaterial — just as immaterial as what Obama was referencing when Wilson screamed “You Lie!’
Justice are expected to speak through their opinions alone. Indeed, the relatively recent trend of justices speaking at conferences and associational meetings have troubled many of us. I have long favored the prior view that justices rarely speak in public — largely confined to graduations, funerals and the like. While Alito clearly experienced an uncontrolled moment, justices are expected to control themselves and act judiciously — particularly at major events like a State of the Union.
Alito should apologize to the President and to Congress (he and his colleagues are guests of the United States Congress) for the incident. Notably, if a president (or any citizen) goes to a court of law and mouths objections, they risk a contempt warning or sanction from the judge. No one requires a justice to come to the State of the Union. The price of this particular trick is to remain stoic and neutral. As with Wilson, there is limited audience participation. This is not Oprah, it is the State of the Union. When it comes to the justices, they should ideally not even applaud let alone express their views. They are present to show the unity of the tripartite system, but also to reaffirm the strict neutrality and apolitical role of the Court.
The press crucified Justice Alito at the time. But he was a Conservative.
Today Ginsburg said about Trump, “He is a faker. He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
“Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”
REALLY??? And this is OK to do? Is this a Justice controlling herself and act judiciously? Oh, I forgot, she is a Liberal/Leftie and that excuses her actions.
Would Ruth Bader Ginsburg have to recuse herself if Donald Trump wins?
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s scathing comments about Donald Trump have created a political firestorm, but they may also have a dramatic impact on the final result of the race for the White House as well.
If the Supreme Court finds itself in the position of deciding the presidential election — as it did in 2000 between Al Gore and George W. Bush — some legal experts say the liberal icon would likely have to recuse herself.
“A federal law requires all federal judges, including the justices, to recuse themselves if their ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned’,” said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethicist at New York University School of Law.
“Under this test, Justice Ginsburg’s remarks would prevent her from sitting in the unlikely event of a ‘Clinton v. Trump’ case that determines the next president,” he said.
Ginsburg attacked Trump in no uncertain terms this week, calling him a “faker” in an interview with CNN legal analyst Joan Biskupic. To The New York Times, Ginsburg said, “I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.”
“A federal law requires all federal judges, including the justices, to recuse themselves if their ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned’,” said Stephen Gillers, a legal ethicist at New York University School of Law.
Gillers was referring to 28 U.S. Code 455 that says “Any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
The Times editorial board said Ginsburg’s decision to “descend toward his level and call her own commitment to impartiality into question,” is “baffling.”
“Washington is more than partisan enough without the spectacle of a Supreme Court justice flinging herself into the mosh pit,” the paper said in aneditorialWednesday.
And Paul Begala, a CNN commentator and adviser to pro-Hillary Clinton super PAC Priorities USA, said Ginsburg may have been in the wrong but also alluded to the 2000 Bush v Gore case, in which the court essentially ended the presidential race with a 5-4 decision along ideological lines in favor of the Republican nominee Bush.
“Of course Justice Ginsburg wrong to state political views before election. Sup Crt is supposed to wait and then steal the election for GOP,” Begala tweeted.
Lexington Libertarian 