Judicial ethics do not apply to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Judicial ethics do not apply to Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg July 13, 2016

Ruth Ginsburg has blasted Donald Trump in a public interview. This is unprecedented.

According to an NYU law professor writing in the New York Times, the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges says that judges should not “make speeches for a political candidate, or publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office” or “engage in any other political activity.”

Although this language binds every lower court federal judge, it does not bind the justices.

This means that the Supreme Court justices are above the law–even on judicial ethics.

It is crazy that we have allowed any institution in government to be the judge of the extent of its own power.

We have to put real checks and balances on the Court, not only by forcing the Court to comply with legal ethics but by giving the states the ability to vacate the blatant political decisions rendered by the Court.

The only way to put these kind of checks on the Court is through a Convention of States.

The most fundamental policy questions of this country must be made by elected legislators or the people themselves–not five to four votes among the alumni of a handful of Ivy League law schools.

Michael Farris a constitutional scholar and co-founder of the Convention of States Project. This article was originally published on Michael Farris’s Facebook page.

Join the only movement that can stop government overreach. Click the button below to support a Convention of States team in your state.


"The founding fathers created a country a fraction of the size of the one we ..."

The Founding Fathers Never Intended America ..."
"Without govt regulations, we'd be eating rotten meat, inhaling asbestos dust, and the Cuyahoga River ..."

Your House Would be Massively Cheaper ..."
"It would seem that attempting to make Congress more honest by imposing term limits is ..."

Three out of Four Minnesota Voters ..."
"Soros funds efforts to increase voting... and this is bad?He is simply countering the extensive ..."

How George Soros’s Money Lets Him ..."

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Donalbain

    Look. You lost Loving v Virginia. Get over it. Move on.

    • David M

      They can’t. They are still fighting the good ole wars against race mixing, hurting “fags”, and making Christianity the one and only religion in America.

  • David M

    Unprecedented? Seriously???? WTF?????

    Scalia constantly openly said he cared nothing about the facts but instead used the end goal of preventing gay people the right to marriage. OPENLY!

    He saw that as such an assault on the US Constitution that he asserted it would be the death knell to America’s moral values.

    How the “F” can anyone rationally ok Scalia’s attack on the basic bottom line about USSC justices’ impartiality???

    This partisan hack can’t pass the laugh test when looking at the whole picture of USSC justices’ public comments about how they would judge a case. Ginsberg said her opinion. She did not say anything that violated judicial restraint or how she would come down on a constitutional issue. Scalia did it on many occasions. (gay marriage is at the same level as beastiality – YES! Scalia said that on numerous occasions!)