NY Times

New York Times Editorial Says Donald Trump is Right About Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Jul 13, 2016  •  Post A Comment

The New York Times agrees with Donald Trump in an editorial published today about recent comments by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

“Three times in the past week, Justice Ginsburg has publicly discussed her view of the presidential race, in the sharpest terms,” the piece notes. “In an interview with The Times published Sunday, Justice Ginsburg said, ‘I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,’ joking that if her husband were alive, he might have said, ‘It’s time for us to move to New Zealand.’”

Trump responded negatively to Ginsburg’s comments, telling The Times on Tuesday: “I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly. I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”

The editorial notes: “There is no legal requirement that Supreme Court justices refrain from commenting on a presidential campaign. But Justice Ginsburg’s comments show why their tradition has been to keep silent.”

The piece also says Ginsburg “needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling.”

Click on the link near the top of this story to read the full editorial in The Times.


  1. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor didn’t say anything in public, but she told Barry Goldwater it was “vital” that George Bush defeat Al Gore…and then she went ahead and made sure that happened. She later came to regret that. Wouldn’t you rather a judge was open to the public about biases rather than keeping them secret but acting on them?

    • C’mon, Michael. Barry Goldwater died in 1998, long before Bush or Gore were nominated. Your story is full of holes.

  2. Goldwater died in 1998. The letter you reference was written in 1988, regarding George H.W. Bush, and had nothing to do with Bush v. Gore. It was a private, person-to-person communication, with no intent of influencing the electorate, and in no way comparable to Ginsburg’s unprecedented and inappropriate political commentary.

    • You said it better.

  3. If Trump wins the election, he will be head of the Federal Government. If Ginsburg has any integrity, she will recuse herself on any case that comes b/4 the Supreme Court that involves the Federal Government as she has already expressed her dislike for Trump. Conversely, if Clinton wins, Ginsburg should also recuse herself from any case involving the Federal Government as she has already expressed her pre-disposition towards Clinton. No matter who wins, Ginsburg should not sit in judgement on any case involving the Federal Government. She is not unbiased. She has sullied the reputation of the Supreme Court; but the good news is the court would be back to an odd number of justices. It would have been far wiser for Ginsburg to keep her opinion to herself and just rule against Trump or for Clinton, as she felt appropriate. For a supposedly smart person, she sure did something dumb.

  4. And what a shock that the New York Times actually made the editorial statement they did. Pigs must be flying somewhere. Kudos to those who corrected “Michael” on his erroneous statement. “Private” conversations by Supreme Court members regarding political persuasions are acceptable (we don’t live in a police state…YET). But “public” statements like those made by the “Notorious RBG” completely undermine the idea that the court is neutral and beholden only to the law. What tremendous irony when, despite the Supreme Court striking down as unconstitutional ALL of the executive orders President Obama has tried to ram down the throat of the American people, that RBG bemoaned that the Constitution would suffer if Trump was elected President…

Your Comment

Email (will not be published)