Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Supreme Court Getting Caught Up In Politics

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg expressed concern over the increasing influence of politics on the Supreme Court in a recent interview with USA Today.

"What I care most about I think most of my colleagues do, too," the liberal leaning justice explained, "is that we want this institution to maintain the position that it has had in this system, where it is not considered a political branch of government."

While Ginsburg wouldn't say if her worries about the court's politicization pertained to the actions of any of her colleagues specifically, she did point to the growing divisiveness of the judicial nomination process as evidence that political leanings were working their way into the system.

From USA Today:

"It will take a real statesman to blow the whistle" to stop the pattern, she said. Ginsburg, who was nominated by President Clinton in 1993, was approved on a 96-3 vote. She said she doubted she would enjoy the same bipartisan support today.

Ginsburg went on to describe a particular case in which the court ruled -- 5-4, along ideological lines -- to overthrow a $14 million judgment granted to a former death row inmate convicted of murder after New Orleans prosecutors withheld evidence that might have proven his innocence.

USA Today relays her comments:

"It was an instance of extreme injustice. I thought that the court was not just wrong but egregiously so," she said. She said she decided not simply to let the written statement speak for itself, as is the usual practice, to bring attention to a criminal justice system that "had misfired."

"I was doing it to influence my colleagues and (lower court) judges who could stop this kind of thing," she said of prosecutors' concealing exculpatory evidence.

While Ginsburg did voice apprehension about polarization in the Supreme Court, she also appeared somewhat optimistic.

"There are some 5-4 decisions this term that were not the usual" breakdown, she told USA Today. "Probably the decision that most annoyed the home crowd that Tony Kennedy belongs to is that California (prison) decision."

In that case, she joined fellow liberal justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and the more conservative Justice Kennedy in ruling that the Golden State must shed some 33,000 inmates to deal with the issue of overcrowding in its prisons.

Comments

[leonel]

11:13 PM on 08/22/2011

The courts are continuously packed with partisan judges. The biggest open secret in the country.

For a good review listen to 9.5 hour account on CDs:

PACKING THE COURT, By James MacGregor Burns.

This note is on the back cover:

"From renowned political theorist and Pulitzer Prize winner James MacGregor Burns comes an illuminating critique of how an unstable, unaccountable, and frequently partisan Supreme Count has come to wield more power than the Founding Fathers ever intended.

"Much as we would like to believe that the Supreme Court remains aloof from ideological politics, PACKING THE COURT reveals how often justices behave like politicians in robes. Few Americans appreciate that the framers of the Constitution envisioned a much more limited role for the Supreme Court than it has come to occupy.

"In keeping with the founders' desire for balance government, the Constitution does not grant the Supreme Court the power of judicial review---that is, the ability to veto acts of Congress and the president. Yet throughout its history, as PACKING THE COURT details, the Supreme Court has blocked congressional laws and, as a result, often derailed progressive reform."

[Littlewords]

04:13 PM on 07/04/2011

Just amazing that Ginsberg is viewed as 'Liberal Leaning.' She is a moderate centrist at the very extreme.

That said, she is right on her argument. The Roberts and Alito appointments loaded the court with activist jurists that have made a mess of SCOTUS.

[Harvee Wallbanger]

06:25 PM on 07/03/2011

The nightmare began when George W. Bush was appointed POTUS. Up until then, Republicans were just a bad dream...

[wayne the pain]

10:41 AM on 07/03/2011

You. Think? Duh!!!!!!

[Cunningham]

12:55 AM on 07/03/2011

Gee, Ruth, you didn't catch on during Bush v. Gore?

[LeftRight]

10:33 AM on 07/03/2011

Or Citizens United....

[JBaker]

02:12 PM on 07/03/2011

No sure what you mean, since Ginsburg argued, together with Stevens and Breyer, that the voting in Florida should NOT be stopped. In their harshly dissenting opinion they reprimanded the majority decision: "Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence [in the Supreme Court] that will be inflicted by today's decision."

That sounds to me like a very alert and damning appraisal in real time. What did Ginsburg fail to realize in your estimation?

[tamashi]

12:18 AM on 07/03/2011

Pot meet kettle.

[nixthetrix]

11:56 PM on 07/02/2011

It has been plainly obvious for a number of years that 6 , if not 8 of the Justices are basing their questions and opinions on their political views . This is reflective of the polarization of much of the population into left and right camps . Fortunately , many people are so fed up with this that they choose to be 'independent' voters with no party affiliation . If this trend continues here in Arizona , independents will outnumber either the democrats or the republicans in a few years .
Many comments here rightly point out that several of the current Justices are becoming unduly entangled in the political process not only in their words , but also in their deeds . Since they are allowed to be a self-regulating branch of government , the only recourse for the people is to ammend the Constitution to more specifically outline what is acceptable behavior for our Justices (and possibly to limit the length of their terms) . However , I suspect that will not happen so we will have to wait for a Justice to do something so blatant that his or her conduct warrants impeachment . Considering the recent actions of these several Justices we may not have long to wait . On the other hand , I sometimes wonder just how blatant that action would have to be considering the recent decision granting rights previously reserved for citizens to corporations .

[dave elliott]

11:39 PM on 07/02/2011

why do you think the republicans are trying so hard to hold onto seats in congress? they know that there will be talk of impeachment for a couple of those right wing political activist judges. and i say DEMOCRATS HAD BETTER GO FOR IT. it will be the only way to rid this country of the scourge that the scotus has become. and come 2012 progressive and liberals need to tell the candidates that we want this as a mandate if they want our vote.

[MUDPUPPY]

11:37 PM on 07/02/2011

Just put independents with no political leanings in the Supreme Court. Problem solved.

[wayne the pain]

10:42 AM on 07/03/2011

Show me someone with no political leanings and I will show you a corpse!

[ian0000]

10:42 PM on 07/02/2011

what a joke ,she and the other 7 justices that continually vote 4-4 are all just unelected pols. kennedy is the only real jurist on the court.the 2000 election was just one eg. all the conservative states rights justices all of a sudden voted for federal power and all the liberal federal power justices voted for states rights. it should really be renamed the lifetime political branch of govt

[wardropper]

09:01 PM on 07/02/2011

Well she should know...

[luapmi2]

08:48 PM on 07/02/2011

Ruth is an old lady...when asked her favorite brand of undergarments she replied: "depends."

I guess she needed further clarification.

[ohiostate98]

09:06 PM on 07/02/2011

That's a pretty stupid and old joke - nice fail.

[JBaker]

02:22 PM on 07/03/2011

Your ageism is showing.

[craneman]

08:23 PM on 07/02/2011

There are 11 circuit court districts, & only nine justices---why not add two more to better reflect the makeup?

[gtoya1331]

09:13 PM on 07/02/2011

all bullshyt aside the SCOTUS is a political entity...select 2 justices from each of the 11 circuits one Democrat one Republican...when the Chief Justice's chair opens up select the CJ from among the associate justices and then fill the empty AJ seat accordingly. Not anywhere near a perfect solution but i think better than what is in place now.

[JBaker]

02:28 PM on 07/03/2011

FDR attempted to pack the court with his Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937. It ultimately failed to pass, but it succeeded in getting the ultra-conservative Supreme Court to back off of obstructionist rulings to Roosevelt's New Deal policies. [Actually, the chief justice died, and the assistant chief justice switched teams, so to speak].

[Edbeason]

07:41 PM on 07/02/2011

She knows full well the court is politicized period, and it's obvious on the political right. They put in a lot of time to control the less than supreme court and as a result, the rulings that have come out of the court, especially since they gave the presidency to that disaster that was W in the white house have obviously been right wing examples of arrogance and GOP beliefs. These people deserve no respect whatsoever, and have been a huge reason the country is in the shape it's in. T

[Tulka2]

06:57 PM on 07/02/2011

There is nothing in the Constitution that says how many Supreme Court Justices may sit at any one time.  There have been fewer in times past.  When the New Deal was being hammered by wealth and power in the Supreme Court, Roosevelt threatened to add members.  It caused that Court to sober up and do the country's will.  Three more justices would look fine on the court.