Breaking News, Gossip, Pop Culture, Arts, Music, Theater, Film&TV, Fashion, Events |

Subscribe To TheImproper's Email Newsletters, Free!

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Needs To Shut The Hell Up: Violated Judicial Ethics

 Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg violated judicial code of conduct by slamming presidential candidate Donald Trump in recent interviews. (Photo: YouTube)

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg violated judicial code of conduct by slamming presidential candidate Donald Trump in recent interviews. (Photo: YouTube)

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should shut the hell up and do her job, which is to adjudicate cases not slam Republican candidate Donald Trump while the presidential race is still underway.

In bizarre senile rants in separate interviews with the Associated Press, The New York Times and CNN, Justice Ginsburg slammed Trump, calling him an egotistical blowhard.

“He is a faker,” Ginsburg told CNN (see video). “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego.”

Ginsburg, who was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, suggested she would move to New Zealand if Trump got elected (Bye Felicia! ? ?)

“I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president,” said Ruth. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

In response, Donald Trump clapped back at the 83-year-old judge on Twitter, suggesting she’s senile and should resign.  “Her mind is shot resign!” he tweeted.

“I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign,” Trump told The Times. “I think it’s a disgrace to the court.”

While freedom of speech is one of America’s most cherished ideals, as an appointed not elected public servant, it’s totally inappropriate for Ginsburg to inject her personal opinions into the political realm outside the court.

donald trump ruth bader ginsburg resign tweet

First, no one votes for a presidential candidate based on what a Supreme Court judge says. More importantly, as a federal judge, Ginsburg is bound to a code of judicial ethics aimed at preventing the appearance of partisan partiality.

With her statements, Ginsburg blatantly violated the Code of Conduct for federal judges, which states a “judge should not publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.”

Supreme Court justices are not strictly bound by the code, but they are viewed as role models by the rest of the judiciary, and should act accordingly.

judicial code of ethicsGinsburg has been condemned by both liberals and conservatives for being out of line and unprofessional, including by the editorial boards of the Washington Post (which is anti-Trump) and the liberal, pro-Hillary Clinton New York Times.

Jeffrey Toobin, a liberal political pundit and CNN legal analyst, said Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s naked display of political bias is setting a dangerous precedent for Supreme Court justices and for all federal judges.

“[Judges] are expected to refrain from telling us their opinions, in part because they are expected to be above such considerations, but also because they rule on cases that have a strong political content,” Toobin, a Harvard-educated attorney, wrote on CNN. “And all presidents have lots of business before the Supreme Court.”

Toobin, author of  The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, added: “Imagine if all nine justices announced their presidential preferences in the advance of each election. Imagine further that they took sides in primary battles, too. Ginsburg’s statements have set a precedent that the court as an institution will want to avoid.”

Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives, agreed: “For someone on the Supreme Court who is going to be calling balls and strikes in the future based upon whatever the next president and Congress does, that strikes me as inherently biased.”

Update: On July 14, a regretful Ruth Bader Ginsburg apologized for her inappropriate remarks in a statement:

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them. 

Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.”

Related: Bernie Sanders must disavow Hillary endorsement: Election was rigged

  • Lisa2011

    At least she admits she was wrong. I give her some credit for that.

  • Anna

    Haha, RBG is sorry. Even she knows what she did was wrong.

  • tprop

    Uh – Noooo, they did not understand this.
    Still don’t.

    So Sad.

  • tprop

    Thanks for the chuckle!

  • tprop

    Emperor has no clothes, sure she need not have stated the obvious, but it’s a big –WHATever–

    All this hystrionic reactionary wailing simply reinforces that what she thinks and says matters very, very, very much indeed to the wailers. Especially the most thin-skinned wailer of all.

    R e l a x. Don’t take yourself so seriously. Have a good time! I am, this is quite entertaining. It’s hilarious! :-D

  • pmacdee

    I find it amusing that this article is hosted with some pictures of half-naked women and every comment I make is on hold waiting to be approved by the editors. Typical Right Wing values.

  • pmacdee

    Since the Supremes are not bound by the code that is quoted, then RBG did nothing improper. OK, another false crisis for the GOP.

  • pmacdee

    I guess the authors of this piece are not old enough to remember Sandra Day O’Connor making similar public statements in favor of Bush and then not recusing herself in Bush v. Gore.

  • JMack

    Love the headline here esp considering the other articles available! First Frist crass all the way!

  • Salander

    otoh, there never will be a president Trump so there never will be a president Trump with a case before RBG.

  • Supreme Court justices are not strictly bound by the code, but they are
    viewed as role models by the rest of the judiciary, and should act

    This sentence was added to the article after numerous comments, including some few pointing this out about the Code of Conduct. But is it not a standard practice in journalism, when making such a material change to an article, to note that the article has thus been changed? Rather, that is, than merely inserting the correction as though it were part of the original piece. In any case, commentators below who pointed this out did not, it deserves to be noted, overlook this remark, as it did not at the time of their comments exist. The original article merely stated that Justice Ginsburg had violated the Code.

    • Anna

      Omg, what a stalker. Get a life! RBG apologized and said she was wrong.

  • Sid

    What a dumb ass reporter who doesn’t know the Code of Conduct of US judges doesn’t apply to the Supreme Court Judges…..Did this person go to college? Or as Trump would say “Loser” & Liar

  • Dr. Nostradumas

    By being coming out against him she in effect is making him right about Washington insiders and providing him press. It behavior like this that is getting people to come out against the establishment which makes Trump look viable.

  • Voyce Suvreason

    She’s a paid Clinton hack and has been a disgrace to the court for years. Out with the old, in with the new.

  • Lizard

    She didn’t violate judicial ethics. You clowns need to stop watching reruns of Perry Mason.

  • writer512

    Sounds like this is coming from the PRESUMPTIVE nominee itself, who can’t even define the word PRESUME. LOL. The American public presume that SCOTUS is knowledgeable of and follows the law. This is one thing you can’t presume about the Republican Party, certainly ever since their repulsive Senators fail to do what is in the best interest of the court – to advise and consent SCOTUS nominees!
    Oh, by the way, she can do WHATEVER is necessary to protect the best interest of the court!!

  • safaid dhan

    You need to shut the hell up and tell Drumpf also to grow thicker
    skin…when you play with fire don’t complain about burning…Her speech is
    protected under 1st amendment (I know you only know 2nd amendment but
    there is 1st amendment as well)

  • fpleti2

    It becomes increasingly apparent that a Supreme Court consisting of seven justices would be more efficacious. Let the good Justice depart without comment.

  • marik

    I think she violated an unenforced “code of ethics” as well. However, I also think the current Supreme Court is totally politicized, and the “code of ethics” only serves to inadequately disguise that reality.

  • Trickster Wolf

    How is it partisan when Trump isn’t remotely a Republican, and that’s half of what she’s calling him out for?

  • steinpiaz

    But he is a fake. She’s not expressing an opinion, merely stating a widely known fact.

  • Eric Hendershott

    yet Scallia and Thomas do even worse, and none of you conservatives have a problem with their behavior

    • pmacdee

      Not to mention O’Conner : As recently as election night, 2000, when NBC declared for Democratic candidate Al Gore, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor told the guests at an election party that the Democrat’s election victory was “terrible.” (Of course, her criticism was a little premature, as we now know.) She then went on to participate in making sure nothing so terrible would happen, casting the crucial fifth vote in Bush v. Gore without blinking an eye. O’Connor had a long history of rooting for the Bushes in presidential elections. In 1988, she wrote to longtime political ally Senator Barry Goldwater, in a letter now in his public archives, that she “would be thankful if George B wins. It is vital for the Court and the nation that he does.”

  • Charles Calkins

    The truth does hurt doesn’t it?

  • Sandra Palmo

    this behavior is really disappointing in someone who is judge of the highest court of the land. i would expect them to be above political partisanship and give us confidence that they are impartial, composed, wise and ethical enough to not stoop to expressing opinions publicly (and especially what amounts to a personal attack) or getting involved in the processes of the executive branch which is one of the branches they are to balance. they have made the court no better than a reality show.

    • marik

      What you “expect” and what exists on the Court are apparently two separate things. The Court is a political animal, just like the other two branches of government.

    • pmacdee

      Did you have the same complaint with Scalia’s and O’Connor’s commments? Try looking them up.

  • Erasure 25

    Silly people. Everyone is a lawyer on teh internet. That Code of Conduct does NOT apply to Supreme Court Justices. RGB has not violated any ethics codes. Period.

    • tprop

      You are correct. Code applies to lower court judiciary.

  • Don Chandler

    Ginsburg can say what she wants. She has served this country honorably. And she managed to be friends with Scalia. So she has done more than her duty. Trump? He’s done nothing for this country. STHU AH.

  • Don P

    senile dementia

  • SuperPac

    Funny, but you didn’t hear any conservatives complain when Scalia or Thomas opened their political blowholes. And boy have they!

    • Freddy Kreuger

      You might have missed the FACT that Scalia is dead.

    • JMack

      In Nino’s defense, he did find a pillow for his…

  • Brock

    To become a supreme court justice, she swore an oath not endorse or oppose a political candidate. She opposed a political candidate. She broke the oath she made in order to be a supreme court justice. Why people would question why she should remove herself from office is scary to me. She broke the oath! How stupid the masses must be, or ideologically driven (really some combination thereof), to defend her outright breaking of an oath, is truly nightmarish.

    • steinpiaz

      She did no such thing. The text of the supreme court oath is online and there is nothing whatsoever in it that would prevent a justice from opposing a political candidate.

    • Olympus Mons

      I know right! How stupid or ideologically driven people must be! Like people who don’t know what the oath she took to serve as a supreme court justice. But here’s a link for you to look at in your spare time.

    • Trickster Wolf

      Um, no. She swore no such oath, not even remotely. You have no idea what you’re talking about.

      • Brock

        My answer has multiple parts that come together to highlight my argument. Read if you wish to improve your intelligence.

        1) Read up on the code of conduct first, or I’ll summarize for you shortly after:

        This is the code of conduct for those admitted to the judicial system. If you become a judge, you agree to this code of conduct, which was created by bi-partisan judges. All those in the judicial community are given this, and are required to follow this code, or they can be removed from their position. The part I’m specifically addressing, which was also cited in the article you read and we are currently commenting on, is Canon 5, Section A, part 2 prohibiting “making speeches for a political organization or candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office”

        Taking into consideration RBG has been a judge for 36 years, at many levels, she has not only seen this code, but been privy to enforcing it- judges are constantly under review for violating this code, and a 36 year judicial career would have come across many instances of the judicial code of conduct being enforced. But this isn’t my point just yet-

        Now when taking to the Supreme Court RBG had to take an OATH (the one I referred to in my original comment) which reads verbatim: “I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

        She specifically swore to “faithfully and impartially” That word, impartially, is the one I’d like to focus in on.

        Now, listen closely, because here is where your education comes:

        The Code of Conduct I posted for you specifically addresses the “impartiality” of a judge- by not prohibiting endorsing or opposing a candidate. The Supreme Court Oath swears for the judge to be impartial. The violation of the Code of Conduct in regards to impartiality, therefore, is a breach of the oath. I hopefully did not lose you on this quite simple logic flow.

    • fpleti2

      Oath? Do your homework; then comment.

  • Marco Poloneck

    I agree with Trump, this old lizard’s mind is GONE! She should resign immediately.

  • Frank Sims

    I can understand why she did it. It was not the right thing to do. Maybe it was the sheriffs star.

  • Jared Williams

    Hahahahahahahahahahahaha. She doesn’t seem senile to me.

    • ron goodin

      hahahahahaha yes she does. She’s as fruity as a nut cake.

  • gumby2

    Justices take an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the United States, which those like ginsberg, refuse to do on many occasions, solely because of ideology. Shie has violated her oath from the moment she was appointed. All of those justices who refuse to follow the clear intent of the constitution are traitors to the revolution and are more properly called counter-revolutionaries than progressives.

    • Trickster Wolf

      “All of those justices who refuse to follow the clear intent of the constitution are traitors to the revolution…”

      Revolution ended in the 1770’s, and if the “intent of the constitution” were truly clear, we probably wouldn’t be arguing about it on the internet. I think it’s safe to say the Founding Fathers never intended Americans to own automatic rifles capable of murdering a dozen people in a few seconds, but today’s sensibilities are different, and to an extent that’s the way it should be.

  • 99rider

    She’s an American hero.

  • Russell Backman

    This is ridiculous. Most people can make a separation between their personal and professional lives. She knows her job and can certainly do it unbiased regardless of her personal opinions. What would be inappropriate would be some type of blatant personal opinion without legal merit in a court ruling. Then people would have the right to call her bias.

    • Eric Hendershott

      You conservative knuckleheads never had a problem with Scallia or Thomas doing worse. Dopes.

  • Immir

    If one of the right wing appointees had criticized Clinton the Republicans would all be leaping to his defense. Trump deserves criticism from any intelligent American.

  • A.P. Butler

    So, if someone pushes back on your contributors columns, you just block them out? Talk about a biased newsrag!

  • politicalzoo

    She should respect the honors bestowed her or step down and comment all she likes…

  • Freddy Kruger

    For all you neoliberal idiots read Cannon 5 above with the underlined sentence and with your pea brains try to understand that this idiot judge’s’ opinion doesn’t mean squat or jack! She needs to shut up or resign. It as simple as that! She is a much worse judge than Trump will be as president! If she is lucky when trump is president that he doesn’t call and demand her resignation! Hopeful your daughter is not as stupid as R.B.G.! Ginsberg is no roll model, but maybe she should resign as a Supreme clown of the court. She broke the oath she swore by lady! Is that what you want your daughter to grow up and be a corrupt oath breaking idiot?

    • tprop

      You may not realize it, but this is just hilarious!
      Read it loud and fast facing a mirror for full effect. Wave the arms about randomly.


  • A Thinking Conservative

    She didn’t mention his political affiliation, just that he was a stupid pretentious fraud. And everyone with a brain knows that.

  • Wildest_Science_Female

    You’re a dummy. No, you are. No, you should quit. No, you should!


  • Me Notanyoneelse

    Welcome to the liberals New America. Where the President intentionally divides the country’s citizens into groups, white/black, Christian/Muslim/Jewish, rich/poor, right/left in order to create chaos, where judges say it isn’t worth your time to study the Constitution (a document they have sworn to protect & defend), where judges ignore the code of ethics of their office, even as high as a SC justice, and face no consequences, where the DOJ can meet with the husband of someone the FBI is investigating, and no immediately be removed from her position. Vote Hillary for more of the same and the complete dismantling of any law & order, morality, ethics, honesty or freedom for America.

  • Post American

    Perhaps its because she is Jewish, and Trump is tweeting out Alt-Right Fascist Tweets?

  • hamishdad

    Too bad the author doesn’t care about violating journalism ethics.

  • Whether Justice Ginsburg’s comments were ill-advised or unbecoming of a Supreme Court Justice is a very good question, but it is worth noting that Supreme Court Justices are not bound by the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. She can’t very well violate a set of rules that do not apply to her.

  • Justin Case

    I’m going to exercise my right to free speech and say that is one ugly woman.

    She’s obviously a frustrated old bat and seems to be losing her mind. It’s time to retire that old bat.

  • judasknows

    trump is nothing more than a immature cry baby who will not be president….good for Ginsburg

  • AustinGentleman

    It was Ginsberg’s ethics and sense of moral responsibility that made her comment on Trump.
    She should be applauded for her bravery and conviction to speak out as she did. I would hope that my daughter would see her as a role model.

    • Ancalimon

      lol wow you are a complete idiot.

    • You have no morals or ethics if you let your personal opinion overcome your presumed neutrality,she has shown she cannot be fair in her interpretation of the law and should resign or be removed by congress! You obviously have a lack of morals and honor yourself,my sympathy to your daughter!

      • Olympus Mons

        The problem with having a below average intelligence is times like these were you seem to somehow think personal opinion has relevance to interpretation of the law.

        It’s similar to my linking your below average intelligence to having a size 11 foot.

        • Yes you are far superior,like all liberals you think as long as they cheat to help your cause it is fine! This bitch should be fired and all her decisions should be vacated and put up to honest judges! As for you, total piece of shit that supports murdering and your opiniin mean nothing to me!

    • V Pruszynski

      If she was such a steadfast moral beacon, she should’ve known that what she did is grounds for removal from the court.

      • Olympus Mons

        And if you were anything that resembled a burnt out flashlight of intelligence you’d know that you’re utterly wrong.

    • Michael Vartanian

      Absolutely not. Trump has his ethics and moral responsibility also. Ginsberg must stick to the law.

      • Olympus Mons

        The law of Michael Vartanian which says that if you read it on the internet it must be true. Oh wait, you’re wrong, I bet you hate it when that happens.

    • Brock

      Wow, where to begin- I guess the fact that she swore an oath not to oppose a political candidate. So essentially you’d like your daughter to break promises- hope she doesn’t get married.

      • steinpiaz

        Perhaps you’d like to cut and paste the specific wording in the oath that prevents her from speaking out against the orange one? Oh, that’s right, you can’t as it doesn’t exist.

      • Olympus Mons

        Wow, where to begin – I guess the fact that you’re wrong and that she didn’t swear an oath that looks anything like that. So, essentially I hope you find friends who don’t require a level of intelligence greater than a rock.

    • tom laf

      It was stupidity.

    • D. McCue

      Then she can resign and slam Trump as much as she wants. There is a code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices for a reason. Her comments are inexcusable for a sitting Justice.

      • Olympus Mons

        Your right about… well nothing actually. There isn’t a code of conduct for supreme court justices, and she has a level of professionalism that apparently you don’t have. A level of intelligence too it seems.

    • Donald Mack Flippin

      The old hag has no ethics and absolutely no sense of moral responsibility
      of any kind. Her motto: “Kill more babies!!”

    • disqust101

      Sorry bub. RBG should have kept her yap shut. Now every time a political case appears before the SCOTUS there will be calls for her to recuse herself because of obvious bias. I like RBG but this was sheer stupidity

  • HaroldAMaio

    Supreme Court Justices are political appointees. They represent personal political points of view.
    They have done so maliciously in the past in court decisions, they have done so benevolently in the past, sometimes trapped by present prejudices and sometimes escaping them.

  • PulSamsara

    Who wouldn’t heed such professional journalism as this – with it’s ‘Shut the Hell up’ headline.


  • Is there some part of “freedom of speech” you REALLY don’t understand? Maybe it’s time to go back to grade school…

    • Nathan Merrill

      I don’t think you understand.

      Ginsberg isn’t violating the law by making her statements. However, she is behaving in a manner unbecoming of her station.

      The Supreme Court is not supposed to involve itself in political matters.

      This was a stupid thing to do.

    • Ancalimon

      There is no freedom of political speech when you sit on the highest court of the land. She should resign immediately.

      • Olympus Mons

        And yet there is freedom for you to open your mouth and say something stupid. What a sad world we live it.

        • Ancalimon

          You should be happy there is not a law against stupidity or you would be serving a life sentence.

    • Brian Hemphill

      Melete, if you bothered to read before hitting comment you would note that she violated the code of ethics she swore to uphold. Grade school would sure teach you to finish your work before moving to the next project

      • Olympus Mons

        Wow Brian it’s amazing that you call him out on not reading when the code of ethics is for “Federal Court Judges” and not “Supreme Court Judges”.

        If he needs to go to grade school, maybe you need to go back to daycare.

    • Donald Mack Flippin

      Her job is to rule on the constitutionality of laws and other matters brought
      before the Court. Her job is not to run her filthy mouth in the political arena.
      What part of that is it that you don’t understand, Melete?

      • truthheatseeker

        what the heck is your problem? You’ve called her flithy and a bunch of other insults. You’re seriously a weirdo.

      • Olympus Mons

        Her “JOB” is to rule on the constitutionality of laws.. however like most people she also has a personal life where she’s allowed to express her opinions.

        “What part of that is that you don’t understand Donald Mack Flippin?”

  • Raji

    Ginsberg has a responsibility to be unbiased if she is sitting on the very top of the judicial system. Whether she likes it or not, she has to work towards that unbias as the job demands it. If she is incapable and is running her mouth worse than Trump, I agree, she has to resign. Not only that, in light of this, all her rulings are seriously suspect and should be struck down, otherwise it is a mockery of the judicial system we have in place.

    • Nathan Merrill

      Uh, no.

      Wow, you really have no clue.

      I mean, let’s face reality here – the only reason Bush became president was political bias by the supreme court.

      Judges do indeed have personal opinions. They are not supposed to allow that to influence their rulings, but many do – see also the opposition to Obergefell and Citizens United.

      • Raji

        By opening her mouth and clearing any doubt, she may have to recuse herself if it came to the court again. D’uh!

    • Russell Backman

      Your opinion is totally unfounded unless there is proof that her decisions lack any creditable legal merit and were based solely on a person bias.

      • Raji

        Really? I haven’t seen any ‘creditable legal merit’ but name calling from her. Care to point out where it is?

    • badself

      Our whole system is already a mockery and an international joke, so why can’t she join in?

      • Raji

        Yup…she is NOT above the law or fray, as I hoped, it seems.

    • 99rider

      I’m proud of her. She could have said even harsher things and still be right. Trump and his followers represent everything that is wrong with the country. Con’s make trouble and then say: “See what you made me do.”The jig is up for the Con game..

      • Raji

        I used to be. I totally am aghast and have come to doubt all her rulings in light of this bias. I think you mean hardworking people are disgusted with the rampant corruption, opacity, obstruction, and unaccountability of the current adminstration and would like to see that not continue. You can go back to chugging your koolaid. no hope.

    • Jared Williams

      Where did you get your law degree? You seem to know so much…

      • Raji

        One doesn’t need one to see right, wrong, decency, and inappropriateness.

    • Erasure 25

      So, where were you when Scalia and Thomas were freely attending luxurious retreats paid for entirely by the Koch brothers who fund organizations that would come to benefit from the forthcoming Citizens United ruling? No conflict of interest there?

      But I guess you would excuse that because they tend to vote they way you personally prefer…… silly….

      • Raji

        I repeat- NO Supreme court justice has come down on a presidential candidate or a president ever. Completely out of line. Get out of your partisan mode and see it for what it is. What you point out is no way a parallel to the current comments by RBG.

      • Raji

        So why is she taking it back and apologizing?

  • Mike Schmidt

    This is a democracy. If Trump is elected, it will be so through the constitutional process, and therefore represent the will of the people. Any bill he would send to the supreme court, Ginsberg will vote on. She might vote against a Trump bill even if it made solid sense, just out of spite. And even if she or others maintain otherwise, how can we be sure? That’s why the code of ethics states a supreme court justice must be unbiased and impartial. They have to at least give that impression. She HAS to resign or be impeached if he becomes president otherwise how can we trust any vote she casts?

    • Nathan Merrill

      Roberts supported Bush. Should he resign?

      That’s not how it works.

    • isonespal8

      You can trust Trump if he’s elected but you can’t trust Ginsberg be cause she calls out Trump for what he is? Go figure.

    • 99rider

      Republicans don’t represent “The people” they only represent other Republicans. That in essence is the biggest reason for their failure to lead. They call themselves a movement, but is a movement a movement if they never move forward?

    • Erasure 25

      How are you sure ANY judge, such as Thomas, Alito, or Roberts does not vote out of spite? I mean, Scalia and Thomas attended luxurious retreats paid for entirely by the Koch brothers who fund organizations that would come to benefit from the forthcoming Citizens United ruling. Was that mere coincidence? How can we be sure Scalia and Thomas were impartial after receiving tens of thousands of dollars in free goods?

  • badself

    If Trump – who is accurately described by a woman with about 100 IQ points over him – would act like an adult maybe he could be taken seriously. He immediate resorts to 12 year old playground tactics. Name calling, shouting, labeling, character attacks. It is getting redundant and old. He should smile and shake his head and appear to let it go. That is what adults do. They don’t accuse a Justice of senility or call them names. He’s a punk, pure and simple. So is the writer of this article.

    • Tammo

      “accurately described by a woman with about 100 IQ points over him” really, I was thinking Ginsberg was senile all this time.

    • V Pruszynski

      Trump’s IQ is 129. Are you honestly trying to tell me she has an IQ 30 points higher than Einstein?

      • badself

        How do you know that Mr. Russian?


    Oooh, Perhaps the BIGGEST question is WHO is out of line, Congress for refusing to to set up hearings for a replacement judge(no politics there) or having a Presidential Candidate spew racial slurs at a Federal Judge.

    Lets just acknowledge before you start criticizing a Supreme Court Justice with your commentary and very news worthy other articles (see side bar, REALLY Mariah Carey weight loss).

    Just perhaps Justice Ruth Ginsberg is a woman of honesty and conviction, maybe her statements could be TRUE.

    • Freddy Kruger

      the whole point a legal stature is that she should not have an point or opinion whatsoever or if she cannot keep her stupid neoliberal mouth shut then resign! Did you really read the article! It is there right in front of you! You must not be able to obey rules when they are spelled out in plain underlined language! Does Hellary illegal emails turn you senile or something like Ginsberg. Why doesn’t Ginsberg worry about old corrupt lying Hillary that committed a felony and just because other Obama appointee did not prosecute her doesn’t get her off! She also violated the american public’s rights in the freedom of information act that Hellary violated by having a private server. BTW Collin Powell did not use a private email server to send classified and secret and top secret and beyond from a private email server. Another one of Clinton’s lies!

    • Brian Hemphill

      Congress May set up hearings not must. Ginsberg Must follow the code of ethics. Do you understand? lets Acknowledge you should invest in a dictionary? cool.

  • seatrak

    If Scalia had said worse, and he did at times , Republicans would break into the happy dance.One thing is certain, Justice Ginsburg did not lie.

    • Freddy Kruger

      Ginsberg did not do anything, but break the ethic code she swore by and look stupid! Lying is not relevant to her job! She either stupid or senile or both!

      • Olympus Mons

        Actually stupid would be you thinking that she swore by the “Federal Court” code of ethics. But you probably get that a lot.

  • Miike Drrop

    Ruth – you have no place in the US Presidential elections.
    Delete your a-Court

    • 99rider

      That was a stretch did it hurt? Con humor is terrible

  • Christian Coopersmith

    Bader Ginsburg has jumped the shark. She’s a senile old twit. Stick a fork in her, she’s done. Another idjit who’s so blinded by fear of DJT that she’s made an unthinkable unforced error. Which in the end will only help Trump — Trump voters do not look at the Bader Ginsburgs of this world and think, oh, there’s someone I trust, there’s someone who’s looking out for me. More likely they look at her and think, who is she going to let into the locker room with my daughter?

    • 99rider

      Of coarse you don’t, we don’t expect anything greater from Trump or his supporters so the bar is pretty low.

      • safaid dhan

        morons electing morons

  • Cathy McCray

    Setting a bad example? Geez no she’s not. She has more integrity in her little finger than Trump could ever think of having. Look at the behavior of Scalia, and John Roberts. And Clarence Thomas whose wife led a tea party group which he attended meetings of. Everything is okay as long as it is on the conservative side, but if a more liberal or progressive position is state then all hell breaks loose. She has also commented, quite rightly, against Citizens United. Donald Trump for some reason appeals to those uneducated lemmings and whose campaign has been more like watching the gestapo than a United States Presidential candidate.

    • Freddy Kruger

      Her opinion is not relevant or that she is an example. She broke the ethics code she swore by. Maybe she really should consider resigning! Donald Trump will make many thousands of factors better president that any neoliberal lying rotten Hellary Clinton will. Hellary is a felon and a criminal and the Obama appointees should have not been allowed to adjudicate anything. The democratic party is turning into a group of thugs. The democrats use to be called the people’s party, but know I don’t think so!

  • BatRastardson

    Donald Trump has made a laughing stock of the American political process. Wait – let me restate: Donald Trump and his followers have made us the poster child for toxic third-world politics. If I were a member of SCOTUS, I might have used a little more restraint in light of the ethical expectations, but speaking out ain’t exactly an impeachable offense. For that matter, I expect a Presidential candidate to display a measure of decorum too, but that has counted for nothing where Trump is concerned. So have at it, RBG!

    • safaid dhan

      totally agree with you I migrated from a 3rd world country and you see this stuff there all the times.

  • concernedcitizen20099

    Scalia and Thomas were/are the biggest violators of judicial ethics from appearing at fundraisers and speaking before right wing groups with business before the Supreme Court to Thomas’s wife on the payroll and bringing money into her household from right wing groups with business before the Supreme Court…Scalia and Thomas both have disgraced the Supreme Court.

    Trump is a serial liar, breaks laws, rips people off continually, won’t release his tax returns
    because it shows he is a huge tax cheater, is named over 3.500 times in the Panama Papers
    disclosures as a huge tax cheat internationally….the list is too long to detail here. Trump is not qualified by background, experience and/or temperament to be president the US.

    • Erasure 25

      Even worse, Scalia and Thomas were freely attending luxurious retreats paid for entirely by the Koch brothers who fund organizations that would come to benefit from the forthcoming Citizens United ruling. No conflict of interest there? I think not…..

  • njva17420

    Given that the Supreme Court has already inflicted itself as a body into a Presidential election (remember 2000?) all these nay-sayers have no leg to stand on regarding RBG’s statements about DT. So shut up!

  • LiberalRedneck

    If you are going to be a reporter, you should learn about the subject before writing something so clearly wrong. It is not a violation of judical ethics for the Supreme Court Justices to do such things because they are exempt from the code you just cited. That is why Scalia got to spend his weekends hunting quail a luxurious private ranch or sitting in a duck blind with Veep Cheney when the SCOTUS was hearing cases challenging everything from GITMO to Torture to the Patriot (Surveillance) act.

    Now, should the cannons apply? That is a good debate to have and most people would say yes. But right now, they don’t so the point of the whole article is just flat wrong. Very sloppy reporting.

  • Al in SoCal

    “Ginsburg is bound to a code of judicial ethics aimed at preventing the appearance of partisan partiality.” – tell that to Clarence’s wife who has BOTH her and Clarence’s $$ tied into right-wing causes that he votes on. A clear violation and as usual – a conservative is a disgrace to the robe.

  • kenrubenstein

    Trump, who’s violated every tenet of human decency (and even invented some new ones to violate) is the one who needs to shut up and go back to selling steaks and fake get rich courses. Ginsburg spoke truth to bull crap.

  • sharpss

    The real double triple shocker would be that she supports Trump. I think every voter should review last Wed. night’s trump rant. Weird doesn’t cover it. It’s hard to believe the country has gone this far into wacko-land. I think he should call up Sarah Palin, Michelle Backman, Jonie Ernst or Glenn Beck to see if they would like to run as vp. THE POPULACE HAS GONE BONKERS!!!!

  • Andy Everett

    Give him Hell Ruth!

  • Bob Jacobs

    She’s merely exercising her first amendment right…and she happens to be correct as well.

  • ocerg1111

    Well, well, well. After Republican congressman after Republican congressman uses their position to criticize, attack and attempt to falsely indict Hillary Clinton, they suddenly think the actions are unethical. And to say “her mind is shot” when this dolt hasn’t two neurons to rub together? You’d have to be equally moronic to vote for him. Just listen to him. He’s a child throwing a tantrum with a vocabulary to match. Ditch this dullard.

    • 99rider

      Republican voters don’t like people who are smarter than they are. They prefer their leaders to be idiots.

  • kredacter

    To the reporter who expressed her obvious partisan commentary of Justice Ginsburg’s criticism of a wanna be presidential candidate who has no clue what the presidency entails, she spews her opinion as if it is the gospel.

    Hurray to a Justice for expressing a view that perhaps many Democrats wanted to hear. A reporter has a right to report, not to sound subjective and certainly not to use your organization as her bully pulpit.

    Fortunately for liberal Democrats, there are many other news outlets that, during the campaign, will turn its ire on a man described as racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, and thin-skinned. Is it just possible your reporter has ignored all of Twump’s negatives in favor of painting him as palatable to the electorate?

    So, your reporter needs to examine her motives for her article.

    Jim Wells

    • Al in SoCal

      Journalist would hardly be a word used to describe the writers on this site – or many political (left & right) biased sites.

    • Bill Kleinsturn

      LOL… only described by other liberal Dims as “racist, misogynistic, xenophobic.” There, fixed it for you. The rest of us simply see Mr. Trump as a straight talker with the testicles of many New Yorkers (Carpetbaggers like Clinton excluded). As for “thin-skinned,” again, LOL, you’re right up there, child, way beyond Mr. Trump. Sorry, no cheese with your whine, even if I had it to give you.

      Back to the facts: Ginsburg acted inappropriately to her role in the SCOTUS. The New York Times cited the code. There is bi-partisan support to knock your silliness out but, for those still on a partisan rant like you, let the rest of us ask you: What do you think is appropriate should a SCOTUS case now involve the election of Mr. Trump or Mrs. Clinton? Do you think Ginsburg has the mental capacity to recuse herself? We’ve seen other Dims like AG Lynch don’t hold themselves to that standard. Why should the liberal Ginsburg?

      But, of course, all objective, honest people know the answer: If it weren’t for double standards, liberals today would have no standards at all.

      GFY, gruber. It’s what you’re best at.


    • ladychurchillusa

      Apparently you have no clue what judges do and how they are to behave, professionally or ethically but then you are a democrat so neither means anything to you; corruption is a resume enhancer as far as democrats are concerned as evidenced by the number of criminals who you still have in your party who are reelected even after prison sentences

    • William Mill


      First, the idea of an “ethics” for reporters has been dead for at least 2 generations. It wasn’t ever much, but it’s been nothing for at least 50 years now. It’s just shameful hypocrisy for a self-identified lefty to argue that reporters need to check their biases. Just shut up.

      Second, you didn’t answer either of the 2 main arguments of the piece. Didn’t even try. Just strung together some lurid adjectives and plopped onto the screen like a giant stanky turd.

      Those arguments were 1) Ginsburg violated the Code of Conduct for federal judges and 2) Turley, a qualified centrist judicial analyst, concluded that Ginsburg committed a party foul.

      I understand that as a Hillary supporter the concept of an ethical code of conduct does not process and the concept of competence is foreign, but you could at least pretend to care about arguments.

      Third, shut up.

      • Erasure 25

        The Code of Conduct quoted in this article does not in fact apply to the Supreme Court. The author of this article is simply uneducated on this matter. So, there’s your answer.

    • bubblebust

      What were Ginsburg’s motives?

      • A.P. Butler

        It’s called “Freedom of Speech”

      • 99rider


  • Bob Jacobs

    She’s exercising her first amendment rights….and she is also spot on about Trump.

  • Erasure 25

    First Amendment applies to ALL americans, especially when it comes to voicing political concerns. Do you think the other 7 Supreme Court Justices have no political views whatsoever? Please. Don’t be naive.

  • it me

    I’m pretty sure this site has no fncking business telling a woman to shut up with the dispicable sidebar they’re running.

    • ladychurchillusa

      She is not just a woman she is a judge. That is the point here. Her behavior is totally unethical even by liberal moron standards. You apparently are beyond even that.

    • William Mill

      You are a sexist jerk. Why did you call attention to Ginsburg’s gender identity?

      You are also a fool. The sidebar is a piece about someone calling out an actress for exploiting socio-cultural body image to accumulate vast wealth: how does that disallow a critique of an extremely powerful person who violates ethical standards of conduct?

      Just rank.

  • DJ

    Outrageous! She needs to resign or be impeached. The idea of a US Supreme Court justice interfering in a public election and showing a clear and unmistakable bias against a candidate is’horrific and without precedent. Her comments erode public trust in the court system where cases are supposed to be judged on the facts with impartiality and fairness. She needs to go now!

    • Bob Jacobs

      Without precedent? What about the supreme court justices that actually ran for president while still on the court?

    • delighted_curmudgeon

      Nothing new for you to be getting your undies bunched up about.
      Think Cheney / Scalia. You can read this article for other similar examples – like Clarence Thomas endorsing Cruz last year, etc. Can’t blame her for being disgusted in public with the Trumpoid.

    • concernedcitizen20099

      Horsebleep! Sandra Day O’Connor and other right wingers on the Court were open and verbal about the recounts in Bush v Gore stating their political preference for Bush in the WH and not Gore….a very political and disgraceful decision..

  • jimmy


  • fredric jameson

    Are we supposed to be quiet while Hitler takes over?
    Manners are out the window when the threat of an openly racist regime is looming.

    • Bill Kleinsturn

      Well, no, only grubers want Hitlary to “take over.”

      That’s why sane people are voting for Mr. Trump.

    • Miike Drrop

      no , see Hillary will be defeated, so the one worldist , $150 million dollar crook will be sent back to the lecture circuit but without the power to sell us out further

    • bubblebust


  • jimrussell

    The joke Trump. Really, a lightweight trying to fight a heavyweight, not too smart. Winner and
    undefeated heavyweight intellectual champ, Rocky Ruth Ginsburg. No contest. Someone that is smart vs someone so pathetically insecure he needs to say he is smart. Where was the outrage, whining, and hand wring about that great 19th century thinker and loud mouth Antony Scalia ?

    • ladychurchillusa

      Ginsberg couldn’t find common sense if it hit her in her birdlike head. The fact that she would support complete corruption over someone who doesn’t meet her phony elite standards is pathetic.

    • bubblebust

      “Where was the outrage, whining, and hand wring about that great 19th century thinker and loud mouth Antony Scalia ?”

      We don’t act like you do.

  Article Reprints

To TheImproper’s Email Newsletters, Free!