Professor William Jacobson of the Legal Insurrection blog recently asked an outstanding question. Given Justice Ruth Ginsburg’s frequent and public criticisms of President Trump, how can she possibly rule on the Supreme Court case on his travel ban?
How can Ginsburg participate in Travel Order case after her *campaign* statements about Trump?
Donald Trump’s second Executive Order on visa entry from six majority Muslim countries is now before the Supreme Court.
Trump is seeking review of the 4th Circuit’s decision upholding a Maryland District Court injunction halting the Executive Order. In addition to the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari asking SCOTUS to hear the case on the merits, Trump has a request for a stay of the lower court injunctions pending a decision on the merits. The application is on a fast track, with the Court setting June 12 as the deadline for opposition papers.
The 4th Circuit’s decision found that the Executive Order, though facially neutral, “in context drips with religious intolerance, animus, and discrimination” and that context was “a backdrop of public statements by the President and his advisors and representatives at different points in time, both before and after the election and President Trump’s assumption of office.”
Ginsburg showed her cards through her various anti-Trump comments.
How are people supposed to believe she would be impartial?