In the annals of American judicial history, moments when Supreme Court Justices step beyond the traditional boundaries of their role remain exceptionally rare and profoundly significant. The institution of the Supreme Court has long maintained an aura of detachment from the rough-and-tumble world of electoral politics, with its members carefully cultivating an image of impartiality that transcends partisan allegiances. This carefully maintained separation between the judicial and political spheres serves as a cornerstone of public confidence in the American legal system. However, during the tumultuous summer of 2016, one of the Court’s most celebrated members ventured into territory that would ignite a fierce national debate about the proper role of judges in democratic discourse.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who had become an unlikely cultural icon in her later years, found herself at the center of an unprecedented controversy when she openly expressed her deep concerns about the possibility of Donald Trump ascending to the presidency. Her stark declaration about being unable to imagine what the nation would become under his leadership represented a dramatic departure from the customary restraint expected of Supreme Court Justices. This episode would ultimately force a reckoning with fundamental questions about judicial ethics, the boundaries of free expression for members of the judiciary, and the increasingly blurred lines between law and politics in contemporary America.
The incident serves as a fascinating case study in the tensions that arise when deeply held personal convictions collide with institutional norms and professional obligations. For Ginsburg, a jurist who had spent decades building a reputation for meticulous legal reasoning and principled advocacy for equality under the law, this moment represented an uncharacteristic lapse in judgment that would complicate her otherwise sterling legacy. Yet it also revealed something profoundly human about even the most revered figures in American public life—their capacity to be swept up in the passions and anxieties of a particular historical moment.
To fully appreciate the significance of Ginsburg’s remarks, one must understand the extraordinary political environment in which they were made. The presidential election of 2016 unfolded against a backdrop of intense polarization and widespread anxiety about the nation’s future direction. Donald Trump’s candidacy had upended conventional political wisdom, as the real estate developer and reality television personality captured the Republican nomination despite—or perhaps because of—his rejection of traditional political norms and rhetoric. His campaign was characterized by inflammatory statements, unconventional policy positions, and a combative approach to media and political opponents that energized some voters while alarming others.
On the Democratic side, Hillary Clinton represented a more conventional political figure, though one who carried considerable baggage from decades in the public eye. The contest between these two candidates seemed to encapsulate broader cultural and ideological divisions within American society. Questions about immigration, trade, social values, and America’s role in the world took on heightened urgency. The electorate appeared more fractured than at any time in recent memory, with political disagreements increasingly spilling over into personal relationships and everyday interactions.
During this charged atmosphere, Justice Ginsburg agreed to sit down for an interview with Adam Liptak of *The New York Times*. The conversation ranged across various topics, but it was her comments about the presidential race that would dominate headlines. She expressed her inability to fathom what would happen to the country should Trump win the election. Source Her words carried particular weight given her position on the nation’s highest court. She went further, even suggesting in a lighthearted manner that her late husband would have recommended relocating to New Zealand if Trump were to prevail.
These comments did not emerge in a vacuum. The Supreme Court itself stood at a critical juncture. Justice Antonin Scalia, Ginsburg’s ideological opposite but personal friend, had died unexpectedly in February 2016. His passing created a vacancy that threatened to shift the Court’s ideological balance significantly. President Barack Obama had nominated Merrick Garland, a respected appellate judge, to fill the seat. However, Senate Republicans, led by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, took the unprecedented step of refusing to hold hearings or a vote on the nomination. They argued that the next president, whoever that might be, should make the appointment.
This standoff meant that the outcome of the November election would have profound implications for the Court’s future. A Clinton victory would likely result in a more liberal justice joining the bench, potentially creating a progressive majority for the first time in decades. A Trump victory, conversely, would probably lead to a conservative appointment that would maintain or strengthen the Court’s rightward tilt. For Ginsburg, who had spent her career fighting for progressive causes and expanding civil rights, the stakes could hardly have been higher. Her comments reflected this acute awareness of what hung in the balance.
The response to Ginsburg’s unprecedented political commentary arrived with remarkable speed and intensity. Donald Trump, never one to let a perceived slight go unanswered, took to Twitter to demand her resignation. He characterized her mental faculties as diminished and questioned her fitness to continue serving on the Court. While Trump’s reaction was predictable given his combative style, the criticism extended far beyond his campaign and supporters. Legal scholars, ethics experts, and even sympathetic commentators expressed serious concerns about the propriety of her remarks.
The fundamental issue centered on the principle of judicial impartiality, which serves as a bedrock of the American legal system. Judges at all levels are expected to approach cases without predetermined biases or allegiances. They must be capable of fairly evaluating arguments and evidence regardless of their personal preferences or political leanings. When a judge publicly expresses strong opinions about a political candidate, it raises legitimate questions about whether they can maintain the necessary objectivity if cases involving that candidate come before them.
Critics pointed to the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, which provides ethical guidelines for federal judges. Source While Supreme Court Justices are technically not bound by this code, they have traditionally adhered to its principles as a matter of institutional integrity. Canon 5 of the code explicitly advises judges to refrain from political activity and to avoid creating the appearance that they are swayed by partisan considerations. By openly criticizing a presidential candidate, Ginsburg appeared to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of these ethical guidelines.
The criticism came from unexpected quarters as well. Editorial boards at major newspapers, including those generally sympathetic to liberal causes, published pieces questioning Ginsburg’s judgment. The *Washington Post* and *The New York Times*, both publications that had praised her judicial work over the years, expressed disappointment and concern. Legal ethicists who admired her jurisprudence nevertheless felt compelled to note that she had crossed a line that should remain inviolate. The breadth of the criticism underscored how fundamental the norm of judicial restraint in political matters truly is.
Some defenders attempted to contextualize her comments, arguing that Trump represented such an unprecedented threat to democratic norms and institutions that extraordinary warnings were justified. They suggested that Ginsburg was acting not as a partisan but as a guardian of constitutional values who felt compelled to speak out. However, this defense gained little traction, as it essentially argued for abandoning the principle of judicial neutrality whenever judges deemed it sufficiently important. Such a standard would be impossible to apply consistently and would ultimately undermine public confidence in the judiciary’s independence.
The controversy also highlighted the unique position of Supreme Court Justices, who serve lifetime appointments and face no formal oversight body. Unlike lower court judges who can be sanctioned by judicial councils, Supreme Court Justices answer to no one except through the extraordinarily rare process of impeachment. This independence is designed to protect them from political pressure, but it also means there are few mechanisms for accountability when they step outside traditional boundaries. Ginsburg’s comments thus raised uncomfortable questions about whether the Court needed clearer ethical guidelines and enforcement mechanisms.
As the criticism mounted and showed no signs of abating, Justice Ginsburg took a step that is vanishingly rare among Supreme Court Justices: she issued a public apology. In a brief statement released through the Court’s public information office, she acknowledged that her comments had been “ill-advised” and stated that judges should avoid commenting on political candidates. Source This admission represented a significant moment in Supreme Court history, as Justices almost never publicly acknowledge mistakes or apologize for their statements.
The apology was carefully crafted to address the ethical concerns without completely disavowing her underlying sentiments. She did not claim that her assessment of Trump was incorrect or that she had been misquoted. Rather, she acknowledged that expressing such views publicly, regardless of their validity, was inappropriate for someone in her position. This distinction allowed her to maintain her personal integrity while recognizing that she had failed to uphold the institutional standards expected of her office.
The statement appeared designed to draw a line under the controversy and allow everyone to move forward. By acknowledging her error promptly and clearly, Ginsburg hoped to prevent the incident from causing lasting damage to the Court’s reputation. She pledged to be more circumspect in future public appearances and interviews, effectively promising that such a breach would not recur. For many observers, this apology demonstrated admirable self-awareness and a genuine commitment to the institution she served.
However, the apology could not erase what had been said or fully mitigate the consequences. The words were part of the historical record, and they would inevitably color how some people viewed her subsequent decisions. When Trump did ultimately win the presidency in November 2016, observers scrutinized Ginsburg’s votes and opinions in cases involving the administration with particular care. They looked for any evidence that her expressed antipathy toward the president influenced her judicial reasoning. To her credit, she maintained her characteristic professionalism and analytical rigor, treating cases on their legal merits rather than allowing personal feelings to dictate outcomes.
The episode involving Ginsburg’s comments sparked a wider conversation about the relationship between the judiciary and politics in modern America. The Supreme Court has always operated at the intersection of law and politics, as its decisions inevitably have political implications and its members are appointed through a political process. However, the institution has traditionally maintained a careful distance from electoral politics and partisan battles. This separation serves important purposes, allowing the Court to retain legitimacy as an impartial arbiter even when its decisions favor one political faction over another.
Ginsburg’s breach of this norm occurred during a period of increasing politicization of the judicial appointment process. The battles over Supreme Court nominees had grown increasingly bitter and partisan over the preceding decades, with each vacancy treated as a high-stakes political contest. The Republican blockade of Merrick Garland’s nomination represented an escalation of this trend, as it marked the first time a president had been effectively denied the opportunity to fill a Supreme Court vacancy due purely to partisan considerations about timing.
In this environment, Ginsburg’s comments could be seen as both a symptom and a cause of the judiciary’s entanglement with politics. They reflected the reality that Supreme Court Justices are human beings with political views and concerns about the country’s direction. At the same time, by making those views explicit, she contributed to the perception that the Court is simply another political institution rather than a neutral forum for resolving legal disputes. This perception, once established, is difficult to reverse and can undermine the Court’s authority and effectiveness.
The incident also highlighted the absence of formal ethical guidelines specifically applicable to Supreme Court Justices. While lower federal judges are subject to the Code of Conduct and can face consequences for violations, Supreme Court Justices have operated under an honor system with no explicit rules or enforcement mechanisms. This gap became more glaring in the wake of Ginsburg’s comments, as critics questioned whether such an arrangement was adequate in an era of intense political polarization and media scrutiny.
Interestingly, the controversy surrounding her political comments intersected with Ginsburg’s emergence as a pop culture icon. The “Notorious RBG” phenomenon, which transformed the diminutive octogenarian jurist into an unlikely celebrity, was already well underway by 2016. Young progressives celebrated her as a feminist hero and champion of civil rights, creating memes, merchandise, and even workout videos inspired by her. This cultural phenomenon reflected genuine admiration for her legal accomplishments but also represented a form of political identification with her as a liberal icon.
For her devoted fans, the comments about Trump were not a bug but a feature of what they loved about her. They saw her willingness to speak out as refreshing honesty rather than an ethical lapse. In their view, she was refusing to play by outdated rules of decorum when the stakes were so high. This perspective treated her as a resistance figure rather than a neutral judge, which was precisely the problem that concerned legal ethicists. The celebration of her political outspokenness by progressive activists reinforced the perception that she was a partisan figure rather than an impartial jurist.
Conversely, conservatives and Trump supporters seized upon the comments as confirmation of what they had long argued: that liberal judges were political actors in robes who could not be trusted to apply the law fairly. They pointed to her remarks as evidence that the judiciary was biased against conservative causes and candidates. This perspective, while arguably overstated, gained credibility from Ginsburg’s own words. It became more difficult for liberals to complain about politicized judicial appointments when one of their heroes had so explicitly injected herself into electoral politics.
This partisan divide over how to interpret the incident reflected broader trends in American society, where even institutions that were once viewed as relatively apolitical have become sites of political contestation. The Supreme Court, like universities, media organizations, and other institutions, has been drawn into the vortex of partisan conflict. Ginsburg’s comments, and the divergent reactions to them, illustrated how difficult it has become to maintain shared standards and norms when political polarization runs so deep.
With the benefit of hindsight, we can now assess the incident within the broader context of Ginsburg’s life and career, as well as the tumultuous Trump presidency that followed. For some observers, her comments appear prescient given the controversies, norm-breaking, and constitutional crises that characterized Trump’s time in office. They point to events like the January 6th Capitol riot, the two impeachments, and various legal battles as vindication of her concerns. In this interpretation, she was sounding an alarm about genuine threats to democratic institutions, even if she did so in a manner that violated judicial protocols.
Others maintain that her comments were inappropriate regardless of whether her substantive concerns proved accurate. They argue that the principle of judicial impartiality cannot be conditional on the perceived merits of a particular candidate or the eventual course of events. In this view, accepting that judges can publicly oppose candidates they deem sufficiently dangerous would create an unworkable standard that would inevitably be abused and would ultimately destroy the judiciary’s credibility as a neutral institution.
The incident has also been examined in light of subsequent developments regarding Supreme Court ethics. In recent years, questions about Justice Clarence Thomas’s financial disclosures, Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s participation in cases involving the 2020 election, and other ethical concerns have prompted renewed calls for a formal code of conduct for Supreme Court Justices. Ginsburg’s 2016 comments are often cited as evidence that such a code is necessary, even if it would not have legal teeth, to provide clear guidance and set expectations for judicial behavior.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s legacy remains overwhelmingly positive among those who share her progressive values. Her groundbreaking work as a litigator fighting gender discrimination, her thoughtful opinions during her tenure on the Court, and her role as a trailblazer for women in the legal profession ensure her place in history. However, her political comments in 2016 represent a complicating element of that legacy, a reminder that even the most accomplished and admired figures are capable of errors in judgment.
The quote itself has become a historical artifact, a snapshot of a particular moment when political anxieties were running high and traditional boundaries were being tested. It captures something essential about the 2016 election and the fears it generated among those who opposed Trump’s candidacy. At the same time, it serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of institutional norms and the dangers of allowing political passions to override professional obligations.
For students of judicial ethics and constitutional law, the episode provides rich material for analysis and debate. It raises fundamental questions about the proper role of judges in a democracy, the balance between free expression and professional responsibilities, and the mechanisms necessary to maintain public confidence in the judiciary. These questions remain relevant and contested, particularly as the Supreme Court continues to navigate an increasingly polarized political landscape.
Ultimately, the story of Ginsburg’s controversial comments reminds us that the institutions of American democracy depend not just on formal rules and structures but on the willingness of individuals to uphold norms and traditions even when doing so is difficult or personally frustrating. The Supreme Court’s legitimacy rests on the perception that its members rise above partisan politics to render judgments based on law and principle. When that perception is damaged, whether by political comments, ethical lapses, or other breaches of expected conduct, the entire institution suffers. Ruth Bader Ginsburg understood this, as evidenced by her apology, but her moment of candor in 2016 nevertheless left an indelible mark on her legacy and on the ongoing conversation about the judiciary’s role in American public life.
Explore More About Ruth Bader Ginsburg
If you found this quote inspiring, you might enjoy these products related to Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
- The Unemployed Philosophers Guild Ruth Bader Ginsburg Doll – 12″ Soft Stuffed Plush Little Thinker – $24.95
- Bleacher Creatures Ruth Bader Ginsburg 10″ Plush Figure- The RBG Icon for Play or Display – $24.99
- The Unemployed Philosophers Guild Ruth Bader Ginsburg Magnetic Personality – Plush Finger Puppet and Refrigerator Magnet, Approx 4″ Tall – $9.95
- Feminist Wood Plaque Gift, Women Belong In All Places Where Decisions Are Being Made, Plaque with Wooden Stand, Wood Sign Plaque Gift, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, RBG Woman’s Rights B1 – $7.99
- Feminist Wood Plaque Gift – RBG Woman’s Rights, Wood Sign Gift with Stand – $9.99
As an Amazon Associate, we earn from qualifying purchases.