DEBUNKENING: Ruth Bader-Ginsberg is Unethical Because She Endorsed Clinton

This may have been doctored. Maybe.

Claim: Ruth Bader-Ginsberg endorsed Hillary Clinton, which is super unethical and totally unprecedented. She should resign!

Important Omitted Information: Well, she didn't endorse Clinton; she implied that she believed that Clinton would win. "The next SCOTUS nominees will be made by a woman" is not the same thing as "Vote for Clinton! She's the best for the job!" It's a prediction. When she got called on it, she doubled down on her criticism of Trump.

And sorry, has anyone heard of Scalia? Unprecedented? Do you have a form of amnesia that both disallows you to remember events prior to yesterday and convinces you otherwise? Or have you really never paid attention to the SCOTUS either? The man has stated in interviews that the Constitution does not support equal rights for women or LGBT people. He thinks that the right to privacy doesn't apply to either group, giving random strangers power over my health procedures and a "right" to search houses on suspicion of homosexual activity in private between legally consenting adult humans, which he equates to bestiality and child molestation and toaster-sex. He has said these things in opinions, lectures, and interviews.

I realize that people believe that the SCOTUS should be apolitical, but that's not possible. Scalia claimed to be apolitical but often used his religion as justification for his stances and nearly always argued a very far right wing position. His preferred interpretation of the Constitution was that "all men are created equal" applies only to people considered men at the time in which it was written, so the equality and fairness dictated by the Bill of Rights apply only to white men of certain religions. (Yes, I know that the quote is from the Declaration of Independence. It's also the core belief embodied by the Bill of Rights.)

People have been claiming that the Federal rules for Judges and Justices say that they must avoid an appearance of impropriety. However, there are a few problems with that. They must avoid an appearance of impropriety in regards to a case, recusing themselves from it if it would show impropriety. In most cases, this is done because the Judge has a financial tie to a party to the case, but this might reasonably fall under this rule too. Therefore, the worst that she has done here is give herself an appearance of impropriety in any court cases involving Trump that are appealed to SCOTUS and are selected for full-court review, requiring that she recuse herself in those cases. Unless Trump wins the Presidency, which she has said she refuses to think about because it's too terrible and maybe she should move to New Zealand, this would be the numerous fraud and civil cases against him. If he wins, she might have to recuse herself if he's impeached or something. Can impeachments be appealed to the SCOTUS?

RBG grinning like a schoolgirl at HRC, Duh.

But "required" is a pretty strong word in this case, since the SCOTUS Justices are not bound by these rules. Each Justice, individually, looks at the case and decides whether they have a conflict of interest with it or some other appearance of impropriety problem with it, and recuse themselves if they decide that they do. And if they decide that they don't any everyone else on the planet disagrees? Oh well. Too bad for everyone else! There's no consequence for them refusing to recuse when people disagree. There's no process for holding them accountable.

This has been a problem in the recent past, and I hate to harp on the dead dude, but he just gave us so many examples of terribleness. I mean, the man died on a free hunting trip with a far-right-wing conservative group. I will grant that I searched specifically for Scalia examples but that's because I knew that there were tons of extremely clear ones.

When called upon to recuse himself in cases involving groups that gave gifts like trips to Scalia, he stated that something is very wrong with the country if people think that a Supreme Court Justice can be bribed for so very little.

By the way, Justices Thomas and Alito went to those conferences as well and they undoubtedly will continue to go. Thomas may have gone on a trip paid for by a conservative group already this year. I might be outraged when the right is outraged that Thomas gets free gifts from a group whose views he then espouses in court. That's way worse than pointing out the indisputable fact that Trump changes his stance within a single sentence,

Debunk: Did you think she's be voting for Trump? Did you think that a great legal mind whose career has been spent fighting for civil rights would vote for a guy who insists that he can do things contrary to civil rights because he has the balls to ignore the Constitution? A man who has said as part of his platform that he will simply ignore a SCOTUS decision?

Would a woman who fights for women's rights vote for the woman who fights for women's rights or for the guy who thinks that he has the utmost respect for women but says sexist things several times a day just to the media?

Besides, unlike Scalia, Thomas, Alito, or Trump, she's apologized.