Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has proved herself incapable of hearing President Trump's travel order without a partisan agenda, many are arguing. Last year, during the 2016 presidential campaign, Ginsburg gave one too many opinions of Trump, then just a candidate.
“He is a faker," she called him in a CNN interview. "He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego. How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?”
In separate interviews, she noted that if Trump wins the presidency, she's seriously considering "moving to New Zealand."
With partisan remarks like these, some are wondering how she can possibly consider the president's travel order neutrally. Gregg Jarrett, in an op-ed for Fox News, cited Federal statute, 28 USC 455 to argue for Ginsburg to recuse herself from the case. The statute in question reads that a U.S. justice should "disqualify" him or herself if their "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Ginsburg unfortunately fits that bill, Jarrett argued.
The law’s application to the case at hand is straight forward. Is there any doubt that Ginsburg’s comments demonstrate a personal bias or prejudice against President Trump? Indeed, they show an outright hostility.
How can she possibly be fair or, equally important, be perceived by the public as fair? She cannot. The appearance of partiality is just as damning to the fair administration of justice as any genuine personal bias.
Social media users echoed Jarrett's concerns, demanding Ginsburg politely exit stage left in this particular instance.
Dear @SCOTUS Ginsburg, please recuse yourself from the #TrumpBan case. Sincerely, The American People
— Lori Hendry (@Lrihendry) June 6, 2017