Supreme Court

Ruth Bader Ginsburg 'Can't Imagine' Trump as President, Says She Wants to See Citizens United and Heller Overturned by Liberal SCOTUS

The liberal justice speaks with The New York Times.


White House /

Have you ever wondered what a sitting justice of the U.S. Supreme Court thinks about the idea of Donald Trump being elected president? Ruth Bader Ginsburg is happy to tell you all about it. In an interview with The New York Times, Ginsburg had the following to say about the prospects of Trump in the White House:

"I can't imagine what this place would be — I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president," she said. "For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don't even want to contemplate that."

It reminded her of something her husband, Martin D. Ginsburg, a prominent tax lawyer who died in 2010, would have said.

"'Now it's time for us to move to New Zealand,'" Justice Ginsburg said, smiling ruefully.

Ginsburg's negative comments about Trump raise an interesting question. Suppose the Clinton-Trump presidential contest results in a Bush v. Gore-style dispute in which the Supreme Court is required to settle the results of the 2016 election. Would Ginsburg need to recuse herself from that case as a matter of basic judicial ethics due to her comments?

Ginsburg also shared her thoughts on which Supreme Court cases she would like to see overturned if the late Justice Antonin Scalia is ultimately replaced by a differently minded jurist. "I'd love to see Citizens United overruled," Ginsburg said. The Times also reported this exchange:

The court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said.

"I thought Heller was "a very bad decision," she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.

NEXT: University Might Expel Student Who Criticized Black Lives Matter

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I would pay all my life savings to help Ginsburg move to New Zealand.

    Trump may be dangerous, but how dangerous would Clinton’s court be, libertarians? No more guns, no more free speech, no limits to pretty much anything.

    Enjoy the LIbertarian Moment

    1. I hear you, but a cyanide pill is so much cheaper.

    2. Filthy senile hobbitses.

    3. The guns aren’t going anywhere. Legislate from the bench all you want, they aren’t going anywhere. There is a limit to how far the American people will allow the authoritarianism to go.

      1. Yep. Treat us like criminal resistance fighters and we’ll become criminal resistance fighters. Although as noted this will require the soldiers they ask to come shoot us to not obey the unlawful orders. But if they obey the orders, the country won’t be America anymore anyway.

        I actaully am pretty depressed that the rule of law died on July 5th, because I had celebrated Independence Day. Had they pulled that shit on the 3rd, I’d have said fuck it.

  2. “‘Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,'” Justice Ginsburg said, smiling ruefully.

    I’ll carry your bags to the car, even help pack. Need boxes, tape?

    1. I’m willing to put together a kickstarter to fund her ticket

      1. I would donate to that.

    2. Notice how none of these Liberal loudmouths ever, EVER make good their promises to move to (blank) if ( blank) happens?

  3. She’ll be gone soon and Hillary will appoint someone much, much worse to replace her.

    1. Al Sharpton ?

      1. Barack Obama?

        1. Obama and Lynch before her first term is up.

        2. And the smug pedantry will be endless. Plus, he’d be the only black man on the Court!

          1. Isn’t Kennedy like half black?

            1. Roberts is 8% black.

  4. Yes, Ginsburg absolutely would need to recuse herself from the proceedings. She wouldn’t want to risk making a sweeping, history-changing decision that should by rights be left in the hands of voters, a la Roberts or Comey.

    Oh, wait, I forgot, that argument only works when it comes to sweeping, history-changing decisions that don’t favor the left.

  5. Preet is watching.

      1. Wouldn’t.

  6. She should move to South Africa. They’ve got the bestest constitution ever.

  7. What a piece of [censored] she should be [ censored,censored,censored,censored] soon.

  8. Another old hag who needs to completely retire from politics. As other commenters have implied, please move to New Zealand.

    1. I know she brought it up, but what did New Zealand do to us that merits such punishment?

      1. what did New Zealand do to us that merits such punishment?

        Peter Jackson’s LOTR franchise?

  9. Good to know what her opinions on the first two amendments are.

    1. This is what stands out to me as well.

      Interestingly enough I just had to explain the CU decision to someone. The guy is reliably progressive, and his understanding amounted to “corporate money in elections”. He became very quiet and contemplative when I explained just the facts of the case to him, and asked if he thought the FEC could stop the New York Times from printing a hit piece on a Republican during an election year.

      He instantly understood the implication on the First Amendment.

      Yet a Supreme Court Justice, who heard the case in person, doesn’t see the problem?

      1. Oh they see the problem. The prog justices saw the problem that their rubber stamping shutting us pleebs up permantly failed….

  10. But they’re soooo good on civil liberties.

  11. You would think that a descendant of Russian Jews would put a little more value in the Bill of Rights.

    1. -1 Anatevka

    2. Trotsky was a Russian Jew and he did not care much about Bills of Rights.

      1. I’m guessing his comment was more than a little sarcastic.

  12. Thank Jupiter the Supreme Court operates in an apolitical vacuum.

  13. It will be fitting when Trump replaces her in the next term.

    1. As much as I hate Trump, part of me would slightly be delighted to see him win simply so I can see the wailing and anger from the Progressive Left.

      1. Hell, not just the wailing. One of the few benefits I can see from a Trump win would be that the left might actually start holding the President accountable again and may even recognize the dangers of an Imperial Presidency. Of course that’d all go away the next time their chosen Democrat is in office, but four years of skepticism would be nice.

        1. The President’s having the legal authority to indefinitely detain American citizens and the extra-constitutional authority to execute American citizens suspected of terrorism will suddenly be less awesome when Barack H. Christ is no longer wielding that power.

          It’s almost as though these limits on presidential power were put there for a reason (besides the obvious racism, of course).

      2. It would be glorious, and might actually distract me long enough that I wouldn’t notice all the rotten things Trump would do.

      3. I’ve been saying for a while; both will be lousey Presidents, but Trump will at least be entertaining.

  14. For the court, it could be ? I don’t even want to contemplate that.

    Says the traitorous bitch who refused to retire in order to allow Obama to replace her with a youthful dedicated progressive.

  15. Hey Ginsburg!!! If you had done your f’ing job and protected the constitution and the separation of powers, then maybe you wouldn’t be so scared about a Trump presidency.

    1. ^This

    2. Thread Winner.

  16. Even when I agree with Ginsburg’s decision on a court case, her conclusions and reasoning are so faulty that it makes me wish that I can somewhat reconsider my opinion.

    The issue is that this lady has a couple of years on the Supreme Court before she retires or croak which would be fine if we had a liberty loving President and legislature. Unfortunately for us all, Clinton will most likely be in the White House when she leaves the Supreme Court.

    1. Even when I agree with Ginsburg’s decision on a court case, her conclusions and reasoning are so faulty that it makes me wish that I can somewhat reconsider my opinion.

      So she’s the Cytotoxic of the Supreme Court?

  17. But we all know that once a precedent is set by a SCOTUS ruling that it is sacrosanct and should never, ever be changed by subsequent courts.

    1. Unfortunately, that’s pretty much the way it works.

      1. Until they don’t like it anymore, then they just overturn it. SCOTUS: we don’t like making waves, except when we do.

  18. Citizens United vs FEC aka US Govt vs Free Expression:

    According to Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who argued the case, the government could theoretically regulate other forms of pre-election corporate speech as well, including books and the Internet. “That’s pretty incredible,” said Justice Samuel Alito. “You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?” Yes, Mr. Stewart said, if a corporation or union were paying for it. It would be possible to “prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds.”

    1. And then there’s the question of whether the New York Times is a corporation (yes!) and how a media corporation could be defined to allow the NYT and MSNBC but not Fox News or the Drudge Report.

  19. I read someone’s opinion once that if the Supreme Court ever eviscerated the Second Amendment, it would piss off enough states to call a constitutional convention and make it absolutely clear that gun rights are individual, and probably add in constitutional mandate for at least nationwide shall issue conceal carry. There are what, 7 constitutional carry states now and only 5 or 6 that don’t have easy shall issue? Getting Clinton to pack the Supreme Court might be the final straw that triggers a Constitutional Convention which would ruin a lot of Progressive goals.

    1. I’d prefer mass secession. The US could stand to be about 5 or 6 different countries and everyone would be better off.

      1. I’d be real happy with that. The individual states would still be about impossible to invade, and it would cut down overseas adventures something fierce. The free market ones would shame the progressive ones just as much and dampen all sorts of wasteful taxes and budgets when they couldn’t count on Uncle Sugar.

        1. For me the real advantage is to not be governed by the votes in New York and California while at the same time subsidizing their shit policies through federal taxes that pour into those states. Let them fuck over their own immediate surroundings and leave me the hell alone.

      2. The Scottish referendum has been overshadowed by Brexit, but the former was a game changer for nominally democratic societies. The prospect of voting yourself out of a disagreeable empire is gaining steam, and it’s difficult for the left to whinge about direct democracy (though they do try ever so hard).

        If a heavily right-wing coastal southern state, say, Alabama, finally had enough after another decade or two and passed the Albama Independence Referendum Bill, we might finally see the end of the empire of idiocy and actual nationalities reemerge.

        It’s getting close to time to cash in the chips on the whole United States gamble.

        1. Empire is the proper way to characterize it too. I can’t think of a libertarian defense for maintaining the empire.

        2. I think if one goes a whole bunch would join. I like to imagine a swath of the middle of the country breaking away and telling the coastal fucks it’s now “fly the fuck around” country.

  20. I think maybe this “lifetime appointment” thing with the courts should be reconsidered, and maybe downgraded to “forced retirement” at 80. I know it would probably require changing the constitution and therefore be impossible. but seriously…. most people didn’t lived this long in 1770s. do we want a bunch of cranky old kooks as an entire branch of government?

    1. There’s an alternative which would change the Supreme Court term to be some odd number of years such that every President would have two vacancies.

    2. Carrousel for renewal…of course.

  21. Dear Justice Ginsburg;

    Once you overturn Citizen’s United and Heller, have you considered what President Trump could accomplish with those new powers?

    1. Wouldn’t matter, she’d be in New Zealand by then.

      1. She’s obviously not thinking this through.

        What makes her think that living in New Zealand will protect her from the globe-spanning imperial Presidency she has so assiduously supported?

        1. +1 Hellfire

          Although dropping a Hellcat on her would also be fun.

        2. Ginsburg is all about the ends, never about the means.

    2. No, she hasn’t. Her kind never do.

      1. I can’t think of a single government worker who considers any consequences, whether elected, appointed, or hired. I might make exceptions for George Washington since he didn’t want to be President, but John Adams, for instance, couldn’t see how his Alien and Sedition Acts conflicted with the eight year old First Amendment. Cops are notorious for not understanding how they make their own jobs more dangerous. Government unions can’t see any connection between ridiculous pensions and bankrupt jurisdictions.

        There’s something about wanting lifetime job security and pensions that only attracts the non-thinkers. It’s just another evil of coercive government.

        Just about every stupid government trick can be traced back to coercive government. It has become an axiom with me.

  22. With all those celebrities threatening to move and now this… Trump must become president. The tears alone would be worth it.

  23. Okay Reason, are you trying to convince me to vote for Trump or not? Make up my damn mind already!

    1. I don’t think they could be anymore twatty about it. This whole NeverTrump debacle has certainly given me pause about the editorial decisions being made at Reason.

  24. “Would Ginsburg need to recuse herself from that case as a matter of basic judicial ethics due to her comments?”

    Since when has the left had any kind of ethics?

    I like that her pet peeves are about violating inalienable rights of individuals. What an execrable bitch.

  25. Fuck that fascist bitch.

  26. Would Ginsburg need to recuse herself from that case as a matter of basic judicial ethics due to her comments?

    I haven’t laughed this hard since Robin Williams died. Thanks, DR.

  27. So, I guess it would be okay for Justice Thomas to say that he hopes Hillary goes down in flames? The media people would be just fine with that?

  28. That whole interview is an excellent reminder that the left has been full of evil autocrats like the notorious RBG since the dawn of time, or shortly after Ginsburg’s hatching.

    1. Stupid is their excuse, evil is their cause.

  29. Would Ginsburg need to recuse herself from that case as a matter of basic judicial ethics due to her comments?

    Wouldn’t she also need to recuse herself from any case that challenged Citizens United or Heller, since she has clearly stated that she’s biased?

    I know, I know. Anything is allowed if it’s in the service of the Socialist Worker’s Utopia.

  30. Go back to sleep, Ruth.

  31. Fuck off, slaver.

  32. RBG can fuck off. Lousy statist dingbat.

  33. Does Ginsburg forget Citizens United was originally trying to silence Michael Moore?

    1. Wait…What?

      Citizens United was about silencing Citizens United.

      1. From the link, under “Background”:

        During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization named Citizens United filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore’s film Fahrenheit 9/11, a documentary critical of the Bush administration’s response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election.

  34. Compare this with Trump’s list Supreme Court possibilities, and then tell me again how Trump and Hillary are basically the same.

    1. Well because I personally dislike Trump and because I want to socially signal my profound tolerance for third world welfare shoppers, Trump is Hitler. I’m voting Johnson because I want compulsory gay cakes and no criminal charges for Hilary.

    2. While there’s merit to your point about the SC or Trump’s arguments re: demographics, I’d like to remind you that RACIST SEXIST HOMOPHOBIC

      1. It’s an odd mindset that says we’re duty bound to celebrate the demographic rise in dominance of other groups but it’s totally racist and inappropriate to regret the demographic decline of the formerly dominant group. Seems to me that “diversity” is a euphemism for something.

        1. If you look at the SJW/feminist worldview not as a set of consistent principles but as an attack on Western civilization, it all makes more sense. E.g.: how can they be so against misogyny and homophobia and yet want Muslim immigration? Because destroying the West is more important than actually protecting women and gays.

          1. Oh I agree wholeheartedly about the various flavors of SJWs mission. But it’s a way of thinking that not necessarily restricted to the SJWs. There are numerous posters on this very board, ostensible libertarians, that are downright celebratory about the decline of whites in society at large.

  35. Letting President Trump fill her vacant seat would suggest she’s still got a keen mind.

    1. Fist, that’s barely even a euphemism.

      1. I actually considered rewording that but figured I’d try instead to get some heat with SugarFree-style subtle sexual innuendo.

        1. SugarFree-style subtle sexual innuendo

          It can be SugarFree-style, or it can be subtle innuendo, but I don’t think it can be both.

          1. You have to read between the lines to see his nuance.

  36. She looks like Mr. Lizard’s evil twin.

  37. Ginzberg also expressed her relief in that interview that her alleged friend Scalia is dead and thus unable to cast any more votes:

    “One of the 4-4 ties, Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, averted what would have been a severe blow to public unions had Justice Scalia participated. “This court couldn’t have done better than it did,” Justice Ginsburg said of the deadlock. When the case was argued in January, the majority seemed prepared to overrule a 1977 precedent that allowed public unions to charge nonmembers fees to pay for collective bargaining.

    A second deadlock, in United States v. Texas, left in place a nationwide injunction blocking Mr. Obama’s plan to spare more than four million unauthorized immigrants from deportation and allow them to work. That was unfortunate, Justice Ginsburg said, but it could have been worse.

    “Think what would have happened had Justice Scalia remained with us,” she said. Instead of a single sentence announcing the tie, she suggested, a five-justice majority would have issued a precedent-setting decision dealing a lasting setback to Mr. Obama and the immigrants he had tried to protect.”

    Thank god my “friend” is dead! Leftists, as always, are pure evil.

  38. I’d love to see Citizens United overruled

    So….what alternative, then? Trump won in spite of receiving significantly less contributions than his opponents. Is she suggesting that all campaigns should be self-funded, and thus only the wealthiest among us can hold public office? Or would she prefer publicly financed campaigns, and have her tax dollars go to support Trump?

    1. Or would she prefer publicly financed campaigns, and have her tax dollars go to support Trump?

      I have a sneaking suspicion that any publicly tax funded elections are going to skew left. They wouldn’t support the notion if it didn’t.

      1. Our superiors at the FEC will get to determine who is and is not a “legitimate” candidate, I would expect.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.