En dos artículos editoriales, The New York Times y The Washington Post lamentan las críticas lanzadas contra Donald Trump por la juez del Tribunal Supremo de los Estados Unidos, Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Los editorialistas coinciden en que si bien no existe ningún requisito legal que obligue a los magistrados del más alto tribunal a abstenerse de hacer comentarios sobre una campaña presidencial la tradición de guardar silencio se ha revelado como la más conveniente, como se ha demostrado con las críticas de la magistrada Ruth Bader.
Esos comentarios han llevado a Donald Trump a pedir la dimisión o renuncia de la magistrada, que no se a retractado de sus comentarios.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to drop the political punditry and the name-calling.Más...
Three times in the past week, Justice Ginsburg has publicly discussed her view of the presidential race, in the sharpest terms. In an interview with The Times published Sunday, Justice Ginsburg said, “I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” joking that if her husband were alive, he might have said, “It’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”
Earlier, in an interview with The Associated Press that appeared on Friday, when asked to consider a Trump victory, Justice Ginsburg replied, “I don’t want to think about that possibility, but if it should be, then everything is up for grabs.”
On Monday Justice Ginsburg doubled down, calling Mr. Trump “a faker,” who “has no consistency about him.” In that interview, with CNN, she added: “He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego.”
Mr. Trump responded on Tuesday. “I think it’s highly inappropriate that a United States Supreme Court judge gets involved in a political campaign, frankly,” he told The Times. “I couldn’t believe it when I saw it.”
There is no legal requirement that Supreme Court justices refrain from commenting on a presidential campaign. But Justice Ginsburg’s comments show why their tradition has been to keep silent.
NOTHING SUPREME Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has said in recent interviews about the presidential election should surprise anyone familiar with her biography and her career on the court. A lifelong left-of-center lawyer and feminist innovator who was appointed to the high court by President Bill Clinton in 1993, the 83-year-old Justice Ginsburg fits the profile of a Hillary Clinton supporter to a T. Obviously, she would rather have a Democrat appointing her next new colleague, and possibly her replacement.Más...
Nor were any of Justice Ginsburg’s disparaging comments about the presumptive Republican nominee, Donald Trump, untrue, at least not as we read the evidence. When Justice Ginsburg, elaborating on her previous anti-Trump remarks to the New York Times, told CNN this week that Mr. Trump “has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego,” she certainly got no argument from us on the merits. (A brief dissent from the justice on one point, though: She rightly protested that Mr. Trump has not released his tax returns but incorrectly chided “the press” for being “very gentle with him on that.”)
However valid her comments may have been, though, and however in keeping with her known political bent, they were still much, much better left unsaid by a member of the Supreme Court. There’s a good reason the Code of Conduct for United States Judges flatly states that a “judge should not . . . publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.” Politicization, real or perceived, undermines public faith in the impartiality of the courts. No doubt this restriction requires judges, and justices, to muzzle themselves and, to a certain extent, to pretend they either do or do not think various things that they obviously do or do not believe. As the saying goes, however, “hypocrisy is the compliment vice pays to virtue.”