Skip to main content

The Notorious RBG



So Ginsburg has spoken out against Donald Trump.

"I can't imagine what this place would be -- I can't imagine what the country would be -- with Donald Trump as our President."

Yes, this is very unusual. By way of comparison, Justices Douglas and/or Black, not to mention Chief Justice Warren, spoke in no such way about Richard Nixon in 1968. Surely they despised him, and saw his then-still-hypothetical presidency as a threat to their judicial legacy. But they retained what is considered proper judicial decorum in such matters.

For a sober, professorial, discussion of why Ginsburg was in the wrong and why the defenses of her comments are also "mostly wrong," go to PrawfsBlawg.

But of course this is the Justice widely known as the "Notorious RBG." If she's not going to be the court's badass, who will be?






Comments

  1. Here is an article titled, "The criticism of Ruth Bader Ginsburg ignores much of the nation’s history":
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-criticism-of-ruth-bader-ginsburg-ignores-much-of-the-nations-history/2016/07/14/02ad6a6e-49c8-11e6-90a8-fb84201e0645_story.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b

    In particular, it notes that, "In 1944, Justice William O. Douglas lost a convention fight to be Franklin Roosevelt’s vice-presidential candidate. Four years later, Douglas turned down Harry Truman’s offer to be his running mate, reputedly because Douglas wanted the top job for himself." That's not quite the same as criticizing (or praising) a candidate, but it could have raised similar conflicts concerning future cases that came before the Court.

    I do not endorse Ginsburg's actions, mostly because of the criticism that they have brought her. But, for three reasons, they don't trouble me much.

    First, because Trump is a threat to the Constitution and to our democracy, all justices, liberal and conservative, ought to be warning against him. If they all did, then they presumably none would recuse himself or herself from a case involving Trump.

    Second, Scalia and Thomas have spoken before the Federalist Society, and Scalia went hunting with Cheney (and then would not recuse himself). Why should liberal justices unilaterally disarm?

    Third, we all know that justices have political opinions, so why go through the charade of pretending otherwise? A judge would be incompetent if she could not separate her political biases from her legal analysis, and she would be unethical if she did not seek to do so. I realize that this argument would also justify a justice campaigning for a candidate, and that would seem to go too far. That's why I do not endorse Ginsburg's comments. But I think that far too much has been made of them.

    ReplyDelete
  2. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One more thing. To blatantly decide cases on the basis of one's political biases is far more serious than to state one's political biases. Yet the right-wing justices do the former regularly. They did so, of course, in Bush v. Gore, and that seems to have given them a license to continue to do so. Yet they have not faced even a small fraction of the criticism that Ginsburg has faced for her lesser crime.

    Recent examples of this action by right-wing justices are Thomas's and Alito's dissents in this past term's Texas abortion case. Their legal analysis was so specious that they could not have believed what they wrote. They dissented solely to express their opposition to abortion or their support for the Catholic church's opposition to it.

    Their opposition to abortion is so strong that they feel that their duty to stop it overrides their duty to decide cases according to the law. As Supreme Court justices, they could have legitimately dissented on the grounds that they believe Roe v. Wade and Casey to have been incorrectly decided. But they didn't. Instead, they dishonestly pretended that those cases did not demand the result that the majority reached.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Great Chain of Being

One of the points that Lovejoy makes in the book of that title I mentioned last week is the importance, in the Neo-Platonist conceptions and in the later development of the "chain of being" metaphor, of what he calls the principle of plenitude. This is the underlying notion that everything that can exist must exist, that creation would not be possible at all were it to leave gaps.

The value of this idea for a certain type of theodicy is clear enough.

This caused theological difficulties when these ideas were absorbed into Christianity.  I'll quote a bit of what Lovejoy has to say about those difficulties:

"For that conception, when taken over into Christianity, had to be accommodated to very different principles, drawn from other sources, which forbade its literal interpretation; to carry it through to what seemed to be its necessary implications was to be sure of falling into one theological pitfall or another."

The big pitfalls were: determinism on the on…

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.



We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majestic wate…