The Defense Department Lost Track of Millions Sent to Chinese Labs
Does Everyone Hate Caitlin Clark Because She's a Straight White 'B**tch'?
Why The Associated Press' Article About the TX Girl Murdered by Illegal Aliens...
GOP Congresswoman Plans to Invoke Extraordinary Measure to Hold Garland Accountable Over B...
Code Pink Showed Up at Jake Tapper's House and Got Quite the Surprise
CNN's Top Legal Analyst: Anger at the Supreme Court Over Trump Case Should...
Strategy for Winning Thursday’s 3-on-1 Debate
Get Ready for a 'Once-in-a-Lifetime' Thermonuclear Space Explosion That Will Be Visible Fr...
Alexander Hamilton and The Right to Fight the Government
Contract From the American People
A Valuable Investor Asset Class Is At Risk. Congress Should Act.
Our Tragically Foolish Border Policy
Unpacking the 10 Commandments
Presidential Election Farce in Iran
Arizona Voter Rolls Contain Massive Number of Unqualified Voters. We’re Suing to Clean...

Even The New York Times Agrees with Trump on Ginsburg

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg couldn’t help but weigh in on the 2016 presidential race in recent days, making pointed attacks at presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump in three separate interviews.


Ginsburg said she couldn’t “imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president.” She also knocked the real estate mogul as a “faker” who “has no consistency about him.” And, well, if Trump won the general election, Ginsburg doesn’t even “want to think about that possibility.”

Trump slammed the justice’s comments as “highly inappropriate” and it seems even the liberal New York Times agrees with him on this.

In an op-ed written by the editorial board, the Times points out that if this were 2000, when the result of the election was in the hands of the Supreme Court, “Could anyone now argue with a straight face that Justice Ginsburg’s only guide would be the law?”

“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,” the board writes.


And after Trump caused a firestorm of criticism for questioning the impartiality of Gonzalo Curiel, the judge overseeing the case against Trump University, the Times wonders why Ginsburg would “descend toward his level and call her own commitment to impartiality into question.”

“Washington is more than partisan enough without the spectacle of a Supreme Court justice flinging herself into the mosh pit,” they conclude.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos