“Without justice being freely, fully, and impartially administered, neither our persons, nor our rights, nor our property, can be protected. And if these, or either of them, are regulated by no certain laws, and are subject to no certain principles, and are held by no certain tenure, and are redressed, when violated, by no certain remedies, society fails of all its value; and men may as well return to a state of savage and barbarous independence.” —Joseph Story (1833)

There is an old comic strip called Pogo.  One of the witticisms that I recall best from Pogo signals a key controversy faced by American society.  This witticism is “We have met the enemy- and he is us”.    We here in America were blessed to have strong and until relatively recently well established principles based on the work of Founding Fathers who vigorously studied the mankind’s history in all of its richness.  These gentlemen also carefully studied the mankind’s follies as well.

Insert blurb re importance of independence and impartiality as key

Section 28 US Code 455 clearly states, “Any justice, judge or magistrate judge of the United States must disqualify himself in any proceeding.in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned”.  Further, the federal code of judicial conduct for U.S. judges,  states that a “judge should not … publicly endorse a candidate for public office.”

Endorsement of a candidate for public office can also be seen in its negative context.  Trashing one candidate in favor of another constitutes a negative endorsement.  How then does our society adequately explain away the continued presence of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg “Ginsburg” on the United States Supreme Court (“USSC”) bench?

In or about July, 2016, Justice Ginsburg specifically stated aloud in the midst of a public interview:

“I can’t imagine what this place [the Supreme Court] would be—I can’t imagine what the country would be—with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be—I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

In the same interview, she set out to clarify her meaning.  I think she amply did so.

“Trump is a faker.  He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head. … He really has an ego. … How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that.”

In doing so, she showed herself as not only negatively endorsing President Trump’s opposition, Hillary R. Clinton, but vapidly exhibiting extreme bias against President Trump.  As a matter of law, Justice Ginsburg must now recuse herself from any decision pertinent to his governance.  It is this, or, the rule of law no longer is meaningful.

This is particularly unsatisfying after now President Trump has launched missiles into Syrian territory without deliberating with Congress.  That act will, or should, lead to some pressing litigation that will surely elevate itself to the USSC.  By the very fact of her showing  of extreme bias if the rule of law means anything, Ginsburg must of necessity recuse herself .

Ginsburg also stated that her late husband had thought perhaps the time had come “to move to New Zealand.”  Perhaps, she should.  Or, at least step down from a bench in which so many cases will come that by law she should be prohibited from considering.

Given the current angst of the Left against so much of what has traditionally been thought of as clear cut law and the procedures of what and how these things are done, I have no real delusion that Ginsburg will do the correct thing.  But, then let’s at least try to make sure her very vocal record is widely reported.  In every instance that she has demonstrated open bias, let’s call for her to recuse herself.  This is, by law, as it should be.  The absence of objecting to this would be to idly stand by while our judicial mores further dissolve into an abysmal morass.  Regardless of which side the reader might be on, if the reader is not for the rule of law, the reader has completely misconstrued the noble experiment of the American republic.

Rabid partisanship has no real place in the American experiment other than to be on the peripheral of public debate as society’s self appointed gadflies .  Deconstructive criticism is merely destructive without the ointment of moderation and deliberate consideration over the myriad of issues facing our nation.  Ginsburg has again and again expressed her vehement impatience to exercise her judicial prowess to impose her radical ideology on the rest of the United States.

In our republic, she has the right to express these views and to hold them.  What she has no right to do is to override the legislative voice in America by voicing her own thoughts and then imposing them against the will of the people as expressed through their voice, the legislative branch.  Article III of the US Constitution clearly delineates which branch has the right to do any such social engineering.  It’s about time that the Legislative Branch shackle the judicial activism that our founders warned against.  There is no time like the present to say clearly and firmly, no more.  This republic will not stand with justices unwilling to follow the law.