Justice Ginsburg Stays Out of Trouble in Talk With Students

, The National Law Journal

   | 5 Comments

Donald Trump didn't come up Thursday as U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made her first public appearance in Washington since the controversy over her criticisms of the Republican nominee.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Nino‘s Ghost

    It seems you‘re utterly delusional too, Ms. Russell, not unlike like your heroine. In any case, the fact is I always liked the cute little commie justice, her pluck in the face of cancer, and her capacity to put ideology aside to enjoy a delightful friendship with me, among other things. But again, the headline is neither sexist nor dismissive. If a senile male justice in his death throes behaved as embarrassingly as she has recently, the same headline would have been appropriately written. As for her skills as an advocate, they are largely irrelevant to the duties of Supreme Court justices. Justices are not there to advocate for anyone. There are plenty of $1,200-an-hour lawyers who come before the justices to advocate. The justices are there to question those lawyers‘ arguments, evenhandedly interpret the law and otherwise uphold the plain-English meaning of the Constitution. If Justice Ginsburg wants to be an advocate, she can retire from the court today and begin a syndicated column or talk show tomorrow. She can give speeches, head a left-wing special interest group, write books, burn down a Baltimore ghetto or plot ambush killings of police. But there‘s no place for such advocates on our nation‘s highest court. Those on the court are there to advocate only for the Constitution and the freedom and individual liberty it was written to ensure.

  • Susan M. Russell

    Mr. Ghost, that you may dislike the good Justice or her politics or dismiss the idea that sexism is ubiquitous, the headline is dismissive and disappointing when considering that we are talking about a remarkably skilled advocate ad courageous jurist. As a individual citizen, she is entitled to her opinion about Donald Trump. She expressed it in a rather mild way. Contrast that with Alito, openly disrespecting the President at the State of the Union address a few years ago (and it turns out the Obama was correct and Alito wrong), and the fact that Thomas lives and votes his conflicts of interest, both personal and political regularly, and it is clear that you don‘t recognize sexism and the double standard, even in your own reply. I won‘t make any comments about Scalia except to say he was no different and maybe worse than Thomas.

  • Charles Eaves

    While in Egypt a few years ago, speaking before a crowd of journalists and others, Ms. Ginsburg was asked what nation‘s constitutional model would she recommend for Egypts‘ government (then in flux). She replied that she would not recommend Americas‘ constitutional model. She continued that her ideal would be a constitution that spells out what Egypts‘ citizens could and could not do. She never said directly that she preferred tyranny over liberty, but this is exactly what she meant. In what is a great irony, the good Ms. Ginsburg was approved with very little controversy as our next Justice by a Republican senate. Why? Because she was a proven and able jurist. A left wing liberal, for sure, but the Republicans were less concerned by her politics than her ability as a jurist. As a glaring counterpoint, one of the most able and qualified nominees ever to be presented to our senate for a hearing was Robert Bork. He was subjected to all out political warfare and persecution by the Democrat controlled senate. All they cared about was his unbending allegiance and devotion to the Constitution of the United States of America. Justice Ginsburg could not be more diametrically opposed to the preservation and protection of our constitution that she swore to do, on the Holy Bible, no less. Our constitution is NOT a living, breathing, and politically correct document, any more than the Bible is. It‘s wisdom is timeless; it‘s precepts incorruptible. But this brilliant and liberty granting document is only as good as the citizens of this land are willing to show respect and even reverence for it. But Justice Ginsburg has no real idea of what I‘m talking about, nor does she care.

  • Nino‘s Ghost

    There‘s nothing sexist nor disrespectful about the headline, Ms. Russell. All justices, regardless of gender, should keep their partisanship to themselves until they retire from the bench. And in fact, it is my friend Justice Ginsburg who has repeatedly shown disrespect for both the Constitution and the legislative branch -- a disrespect that unifies progressives all along their fluid gender spectrum.

  • Susan M. Russell

    What a disrespectful, sexist header.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202764460311

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.