Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s descent into partisan political commentary was a bridge too far for many of the nation’s largest newsrooms.
She “crossed the line” and “erred” this weekend when she criticized Donald Trump, the Tampa Bay Times‘ editorial board wrote, adding her “partisan observations are beneath her office.”
Not to be outdone in tone, the Wall Street Journal wondered Wednesday whether it’s time for the other Supreme Courts justices to “stage an intervention” and coax Ginsberg into retirement.
“The more we think about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s recent public outbursts, the more we wonder if the 83-year-old Justice can still perform her duties on the Supreme Court,” the paper wrote. “Her fellow Justices need to stage an intervention and suggest that she make way for someone who knows how a judge is supposed to behave.”
“Justice Ginsburg talks as if the Court is a purely political body and seems oblivious to the damage she is doing. All of this raises questions about her judgment, her temperament, and her continuing capacity to serve as a judge. She should resign from the Court before she does the reputation of the judiciary more harm,” it added.
Ginsburg revealed in a Times interview this weekend she is no fan of presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump, and claimed it would be disastrous for the United States should the billionaire businessman win the White House.
“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
She said later in a separate interview that Trump, “is a faker.”
The casino mogul shot back Tuesday, and characterized her remarks as “highly inappropriate.”
“Her mind is shot – resign!” he added the next day in a note on Twitter.
Though they haven’t gone as far as Trump and suggested Ginsburg is a dotard, an overwhelming number of editorial boards have sided with the GOP candidate’s position that her remarks were “inappropriate.”
“However valid her comments may have been … they were still much, much better left unsaid by a member of the Supreme Court,” said the Washington Post’s editorial board.
The Times’ board added in a similar but harsher note that Ginsburg “needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling.”
“Washington is more than partisan enough without the spectacle of a Supreme Court justice flinging herself into the mosh pit,” they added.
The Omaha World Herald‘s board wrote that “judges need to approach the law separate from the often self-serving world of partisan politics.”
“Ginsburg’s comments undercut that principle. It’s an unfortunate development in what was already an election season too often marked by ill-considered rhetoric,” they added.
The Chicago Tribune’s editorial board said, “The Supreme Court commands respect and deference from the citizenry partly because it stands outside of petty politics. When a member of the court strides into that muck, she may help a candidate, but she hurts the cause of justice.”
