She has no need to be more careful. Her opinion is out there and it isn’t going away. It was a very sly bit of campaigning for Sir Hillary on her part.

She’s not moving anywhere, Bob. If Trump makes it into the White House, bet you a dollar she dies on the bench in an attempt to eke out another 4 years. She will suddenly become the very imprimatur of judicial restraint and impartiality.

Stewart, Ginsburg’s commentary broke the norms of how Supreme Court Justices are supposed to act. That’s a problem no matter how you slice it—you argue for a change in the norms, but until that happens, the existing norms/rules are supposed to be followed–especially by those who expect that their decisions will be followed faithfully.

It’s bad enough that the Supreme Court liberals (and Kennedy) routinely blow off well-settled rules about stays of execution and when they should be granted or grant capital murderers like Maples the ability to change arguments on appeal after losing a judgment below, but Ginsburg’s naked partisanship is really inappropriate.

As for Bush v. Gore, you are contentious. I don’t make your point. Actually, I don’t see, for the life of me, how SCOTUS should not have taken the case, so I think that those who think that it shouldn’t are the partisan ones. The case clearly was of national importance, involved two federal issues (Article II and EPC) and was clearly decided wrongly by SCOFLA. The only real counterargument to that is the optics—but the optics would have been equally bad had SCOTUS allowed SCOFLA to blow off EPC, and really all the optics argument is–basically that the Court should not have had the courage to do what is unquestionably its duty.

No one is suggesting that people shouldn’t follow rules. Discussions of public policy are about what rules should exist; reformers aren’t automatically anarchists.

I’d prefer partisan cheerleading from judges, who we know are partisan even when they’re pretending they aren’t, to enforced silence – precisely because thinking people are not neutral on issues. Enforced silence gets you nowhere; that should be Lesson A-1 of the 60s. Hold the lid down on that pressure cooker long enough and it will blow. The results will be much worse than if you just let it out from the beginning. (BTW – when I went to high school, not all that long ago and in an urban school, people were fairly and sometimes very open about that stuff, and it turned out that about 10 people out of 500 were doing anything more than handholding. The rest of us generally regarded them as taking a monumentally stupid risk, not only with their physical health, but with their emotional health, too – and we didn’t hold back our opinion either. Had that information not been available, a few loud people could have dominated the discussion, created marketing buzz, and convinced the larger group that “everybody does it.” With that information, we all knew these people were full of it. See? Transparency works.)

Bush v. Gore is the only example of a Supreme Court decision effectively deciding a US presidential election. If one is considering the possibility of it happening again, why not look to the only time it’s happened before? Your point about the merits of the case vs. whether they should take it is exactly my point: on the legal issue, it was lopsided, but on the *opinion* of whether the case was any of their business or worth their time – where they could act purely politically – the split was purely political.

Bob

Well, Stewart, first and foremost, there are the rules. Yes, they are soft for SCOTUS, but nonetheless, those whose job it is to create rules ought to be good at following them. She has broken the norms of behavior. And it’s a problem.

Second, do we really want partisan cheerleading from judges, who are supposed to be neutral? How is anyone supposed to take seriously their opinions? Yes, judges have political views–but a concession to reality doesn’t mean that we just have a free-for-all. HS kids engage in sexual activity–does that mean we want them flaunting the behavior?

Third, the Bush v. Gore thing is a complete cheap shot. Was the 7-2 majority on the EPC issue (why that wasn’t 9-0 given the precedent is beyond me), and no one really, on the merits had a huge problem with the “you can’t change the rules mid-stream” opinion either. In other words, no one really had a problem with the actual legal reasoning reversing SCOFLA, but rather the prudential concerns about taking the case (which was weak–really, were we going to let the vote-counters in Palm Beach County decide the election?) and the remedy. But the remedy was eminently justifiable. (And one thing that Dems don’t like to talk about is that the end of the litigation meant that the military vote issue, which was a stick of dynamite, wasn’t going to get aired, and the Dems really played dirty on that one.)

Anybody who paid any attention to the Supreme Court – or even knew who was on it – could have predicted the Bush v. Gore split in advance. So why are we supposed to pretend that these people were impartially weighing the legal issues, and coincidentally all happened to come down on the political side that we all knew they were on? The fact that the Supreme Court has people on it, and that those people have political opinions, is news to nobody. What’s the fuss?

Essentially, what’s the sense in pretending? If you give these folks public policy questions on which to be our final arbiters, you should expect a public policy answer.

Do we really want a judiciary that is so good at concealing its biases that it has plausible deniability while carrying out a political agenda? That’s a threat to the rule of law! If we allow “sit there until the noise stops and then say what you were going to do anyway” to be the coping strategy for judges, people will get the feeling – accurately – that the justice system won’t listen to them, and is there to do whatever it as an institution can get away with. It’s not a long way from there to believing that the system is illegitimate. Why would it be legitimate, if it is actively trying to deceive you and force you to play along? Why, indeed, should you respect someone who lies to you and tries to cover it up?

Let’s not go there.

I didn’t say that there weren’t differences. Just that her appalling comments aren’t really out of character.

I”d say that there are significant differences between intemperance in a decision/dissent and intemperate public statements towards a potential party to future cases.