Re “If not now, when should Ginsburg have spoken out?” (Editorial notebook, Shawn Hubler, July 14): Shawn Hubler misses the point in her defense of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s public criticism of a presidential candidate.
Citing apparent transgressions by other justices doesn’t make Ginsburg’s actions proper. More importantly, judicial canons of ethics are designed not just to preserve public faith in the independence of the judiciary, but also public faith in the impartiality of the judiciary and confidence that the merits of each case will be adjudicated solely on the evidence presented and the applicable law. Even an appearance of personal bias erodes public confidence and is the basis for recusal of any judge.
Dennis Franklin Coupe, Granite Bay
Ginsburg shouldn’t apologize
Did Justice Antonin Scalia ever apologize for calling the president a liar? Did Clarence Thomas ever apologize for his wife’s outspoken right-wing views? Of course not. How about Donald Trump? Never an apology from his mouth. They’re right wing, and they’re men.
Why shouldn’t Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg speak out? Well, let’s see. She’s liberal, female and Jewish. Those things make her polite, thoughtful and knowledgeable of history, including how Hitler was elected, yes elected. Trump is a danger to our democracy and she knows it.
She absolutely should speak out and she shouldn’t apologize. I hope she continues to speak out. It’s her right and we need to hear her voice.
Claudia Krich, Davis
Double standard for justices?
Why is it the Supreme Court can get involved in a presidential campaign (Bush v. Gore), but one justice is not allowed to express her opinion on politics?
Gary Miller, Roseville
Inappropriate but on target
It is an interesting paradox that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is being severely criticized at so many levels for her comments regarding Donald Trump, while many in this country are flocking to a person with a large unfiltered mouth who is praised for speaking his mind.
Jeffrey Pries, Rocklin
Court should not play politics
This column points out that politics, not judicial neutrality, is involved in nominating justices. Voters from both parties are concerned about who the potential nominees will be. They want justices to rule on the side of their ideologies. It is reprehensible that justices are nominated based on their liberal or conservative views. The Supreme Court has a duty to base rulings on constitutional law, not politics.
John Hightower, Orangevale
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.