Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says she regrets her "ill-advised" public criticism of Donald Trump.
After an outcry from Trump, other politicians, media organizations and legal scholars, Ginsburg apologized for what she called "ill-advised" remarks. While she commented on Trump's campaign to The Associated Press and The New York Times, she saved her most scathing remarks for a CNN interview. Mr. Trump, she said, "says whatever comes into his head at the moment" and has no consistency in his thinking. "He really has an ego", she told CNN. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?
Promising to be more discreet in the future, the leader of the court's liberal wing said in a statement that judges should not comment on candidates for any public office.
Ginsburg, a Bill Clinton nominee known for her feminist and liberal views, has attacked Trump three times in recent interviews, which is three times too many.
The left-leaning 83-year-old judge shocked the USA political establishment with her remarks: On Monday, she called Trump "a faker" who "says whatever comes into his head at the moment". The code doesn't apply to the Supreme Court, but the justices generally are guided by it.
The brief statement was a rare, public admission of fault by a member of the Supreme Court, an institution which jealously guards its traditions and nearly never acknowledges missteps in the conduct of the justices.
"Justice Ginsburg did the right thing by returning to a position of electoral neutrality", said Steven Lubet of Northewestern Pritzker School of Law".
Donald Trump called on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to resign early Wednesday morning, joining an outpouring of criticism that is giving a divided Republican Party a fresh common target. And given recent polls showing a statistical dead heat between Trump and likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, a repeat is hardly out of the question. Even though federal law requires federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, to recuse themselves from "any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned", the Supreme Court has made a decision to let justices determine their own recusals. Beyond that, her commentary serves only to diminish the institution on which she serves.