It must be nice, being a progressive and therefore able to publicly say one thing while behaving in a contradictory way. Consider Katie Mulvaney’s Providence Journal report on comments made by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg during a “fireside chat” at Roger Williams University School of Law:
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg assured a crowd at Roger Williams University School of Law that the bitter partisanship that grips Washington, D.C., will pass, as did the Red Scare of the 1940s and ’50s.
“That time has passed. This time will pass,” Ginsburg said Tuesday at the law school, during a fireside chat with 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Senior Judge Bruce M. Selya.
“We will see this time end, this fierce partisanship,” Ginsburg continued during a wide-ranging and spontaneous discussion with Selya, whom she has known since their time at Harvard Law School.
She observed that there were only three votes against her in the U.S. Senate when she ascended to the Supreme Court in 1993, unlike the great political divide that has faced the past four high court nominees. Her fear, she said, is that Americans will begin to view federal courts as yet another political branch of government.
“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.”
Well, we can now say that the country with Donald Trump as president is still a place in which progressive jurists can walk around publicly as hypocrites on stilts. Of course, this is nothing surprising from a jurist whose position on any given case can much more reliably be predicted by its politics than its law.