SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speaking at a conference in upstate New York earlier this year. (Photo: Mike Groll/AP)
'He is a Faker': Ruth Bader Ginsburg Publicly Spars with Donald Trump
Supreme Court Justice's anti-Trump comments earn centrists' ire, leading others to wonder, why does 'neutrality' override fears of a candidate 'threatening to the democratic order?'
Jul 13, 2016
In recent media interviews, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has publicly decried the candidacy of Donald Trump for president, characterizing the presumptive Republican presidential nominee as a "faker" with "no consistency" and "an ego."
Her unusually partisan comments earned some condemnation from centrist media commentators as well as Trump himself.
In an interview with CNN published Tuesday, Ginsburg said: "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."
The CNN comments followed similar remarks Ginsburg made to the New York Times on Friday, when she 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."
"For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be-- I don't even want to contemplate that," she said, referring to the prospect of Trump nominating someone to the bench.
Trump responded with a Tweet on Wednesday calling on Ginsburg to resign, saying "her mind is shot."
Ginsburg's openness regarding her opinion on Trump is highly unusual for a Supreme Court justice, as the members of the court tend to avoid media interviews and usually strive to appear non-partisan, refraining from commenting on electoral politics. The Code of Conduct for United State Judges also states that "a judge should not[...] publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."
And it was for those reasons that the editorial boards of the New York Times and the Washington Post on Wednesday came down on Trump's side, arguing that Ginsburg "needs to drop the political punditry" (the Times) and that her comments were "much, much better left unsaid by a member of the Supreme Court" (the Post).
Yet journalist and commentator Glenn Greenwald jettisoned those arguments on Twitter, where he wrote that he found it "hard to take seriously court impartiality/Ginsburg furor after 5 GOP-appointed judges stopped vote-counting & made George W. Bush president."
Moreover, Greenwald wondered, does the supposed obligation for neutrality ever become less important than confronting a candidate "threatening to the democratic order?"
Greenwald continued to argue that the media's response to Ginsburg's comments was hypocritical, as the same newspapers now loudly criticizing Ginsburg for condemning Trump have filled many of their pages with articles describing Trump as a bigoted right-wing fascist who poses a threat to democracy.
And so Greenwald posed the question:
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, The U.S. is on a fast track to authoritarianism like nothing I've ever seen. Meanwhile, corporate news outlets are utterly capitulating to Trump, twisting their coverage to avoid drawing his ire while lining up to stuff cash in his pockets. That's why I believe that Common Dreams is doing the best and most consequential reporting that we've ever done. Our small but mighty team is a progressive reporting powerhouse, covering the news every day that the corporate media never will. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. And to ignite change for the common good. Now here's the key piece that I want all our readers to understand: None of this would be possible without your financial support. That's not just some fundraising cliche. It's the absolute and literal truth. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. Will you donate now to help power the nonprofit, independent reporting of Common Dreams? Thank you for being a vital member of our community. Together, we can keep independent journalism alive when it’s needed most. - Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In recent media interviews, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has publicly decried the candidacy of Donald Trump for president, characterizing the presumptive Republican presidential nominee as a "faker" with "no consistency" and "an ego."
Her unusually partisan comments earned some condemnation from centrist media commentators as well as Trump himself.
In an interview with CNN published Tuesday, Ginsburg said: "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."
The CNN comments followed similar remarks Ginsburg made to the New York Times on Friday, when she 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."
"For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be-- I don't even want to contemplate that," she said, referring to the prospect of Trump nominating someone to the bench.
Trump responded with a Tweet on Wednesday calling on Ginsburg to resign, saying "her mind is shot."
Ginsburg's openness regarding her opinion on Trump is highly unusual for a Supreme Court justice, as the members of the court tend to avoid media interviews and usually strive to appear non-partisan, refraining from commenting on electoral politics. The Code of Conduct for United State Judges also states that "a judge should not[...] publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."
And it was for those reasons that the editorial boards of the New York Times and the Washington Post on Wednesday came down on Trump's side, arguing that Ginsburg "needs to drop the political punditry" (the Times) and that her comments were "much, much better left unsaid by a member of the Supreme Court" (the Post).
Yet journalist and commentator Glenn Greenwald jettisoned those arguments on Twitter, where he wrote that he found it "hard to take seriously court impartiality/Ginsburg furor after 5 GOP-appointed judges stopped vote-counting & made George W. Bush president."
Moreover, Greenwald wondered, does the supposed obligation for neutrality ever become less important than confronting a candidate "threatening to the democratic order?"
Greenwald continued to argue that the media's response to Ginsburg's comments was hypocritical, as the same newspapers now loudly criticizing Ginsburg for condemning Trump have filled many of their pages with articles describing Trump as a bigoted right-wing fascist who poses a threat to democracy.
And so Greenwald posed the question:
In recent media interviews, Ruth Bader Ginsburg has publicly decried the candidacy of Donald Trump for president, characterizing the presumptive Republican presidential nominee as a "faker" with "no consistency" and "an ego."
Her unusually partisan comments earned some condemnation from centrist media commentators as well as Trump himself.
In an interview with CNN published Tuesday, Ginsburg said: "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."
The CNN comments followed similar remarks Ginsburg made to the New York Times on Friday, when she 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."
"For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be-- I don't even want to contemplate that," she said, referring to the prospect of Trump nominating someone to the bench.
Trump responded with a Tweet on Wednesday calling on Ginsburg to resign, saying "her mind is shot."
Ginsburg's openness regarding her opinion on Trump is highly unusual for a Supreme Court justice, as the members of the court tend to avoid media interviews and usually strive to appear non-partisan, refraining from commenting on electoral politics. The Code of Conduct for United State Judges also states that "a judge should not[...] publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."
And it was for those reasons that the editorial boards of the New York Times and the Washington Post on Wednesday came down on Trump's side, arguing that Ginsburg "needs to drop the political punditry" (the Times) and that her comments were "much, much better left unsaid by a member of the Supreme Court" (the Post).
Yet journalist and commentator Glenn Greenwald jettisoned those arguments on Twitter, where he wrote that he found it "hard to take seriously court impartiality/Ginsburg furor after 5 GOP-appointed judges stopped vote-counting & made George W. Bush president."
Moreover, Greenwald wondered, does the supposed obligation for neutrality ever become less important than confronting a candidate "threatening to the democratic order?"
Greenwald continued to argue that the media's response to Ginsburg's comments was hypocritical, as the same newspapers now loudly criticizing Ginsburg for condemning Trump have filled many of their pages with articles describing Trump as a bigoted right-wing fascist who poses a threat to democracy.
And so Greenwald posed the question:
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.