What’s relevant: the difference between a legal opinion and a personal opinion

In his recent letter to the editor, Gerrard Wilbur labeled me hypocritical in suggesting Supreme Court Justice Ruth “Sleepy” Ginsburg recuse herself from sitting on cases originating from the POTUS in response to her personal attack on the then-candidate Donald Trump.

I believe he is only bringing this up as an excuse to launch his platform on marriage and abortion rights. He uses examples wherein justices, having predisposed ideological opinions, have been questioned whenever marriage and abortion cases appear before the court. He further quotes a law professor as saying “There’s a widespread misperception that it’s somehow improper for justices to have opinions about legal issues before they hear cases about those issues...” I’m in absolute agreement with Professor Kermit Roosevelt here, including predisposed ideological opinions, but that’s irrelevant here.

Apparently Mr. Wilbur doesn’t know the difference between a legal opinion and a personal opinion. Justice Ginsburg’s comment was aimed at the character of then-candidate Trump, labeling him, among other things, a “faker,” and had nothing to do with any ideological point of view he might have had. To say that her personal opinion of the POTUS might not come into play is pretty naïve of basic human nature. One would certainly think more from a justice, but there would always be a doubt and, for that reason, I believe she should sit out cases involving any person she made disparaging comments about. Bottom line, ask yourself, would a Supreme Court justice apologize (in which she said her statements were “ill advised”) if she wasn’t in the wrong? She also commented, “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office” and “In the future I will be more circumspect.” Sorry, but for me the dye has been cast.

He further suggests the appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch violated the Constitution. I believe he’s referring to the “nuclear option.” Two things here, he has conveniently and hypocritically forgotten that is was a Democrat, Sen. Harry Reid, who introduced the idea of a rule change in order to pack the D.C. courts with liberal judges. More importantly, Mr. Wilbur demonstrates a lack of knowledge about the Constitution, a trait which is prevalent among liberals. The simple fact is that the rule change was well within the parliamentary provisions of the Senate. I believe that enacting the “nuclear option” is highly risky and might come back and bite both parties in the butt. But it was, in no way, unconstitutional.

This story was originally published July 19, 2017 at 1:09 PM with the headline "What’s relevant: the difference between a legal opinion and a personal opinion."