Kevin Daley, DCNF

Fifty-eight House Republicans signed a letter to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg demanding her recusal from the forthcoming travel ban case, given her previous public criticisms of President Donald Trump.

The letter argues that Ginsburg is bound by law to recuse herself in cases where she has a “personal bias or prejudice concerning a party” or from cases where her “impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The congressmen argue that the justice publicly evinced prejudice towards the president in a series of interviews given at the conclusion of the 2016 term, in which she called the president a “faker” and mused about moving to New Zealand if he prevailed in the general election.

“You are bound by law to recuse yourself from participation in this case,” the congressmen write. “There is no doubt that your impartiality can be reasonably questioned; indeed, it would be unreasonable not to question your impartiality. Your participation in Trump v. International Refugee Assistance Project would violate the law and undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court of the United States.”

What’s more, the congressmen argued that the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals placed the president’s credibility directly at issue in this case, as it concluded that the administration was not being forthright about its true motives with regard to the order. Relying on the president’s tweets and campaign statements, the court concluded that the travel ban’s national security rationale was little more that a pretext for implementing a discriminatory policy.

As Ginsburg has already publicly impugned Trump’s credibility, they say she must recuse herself.

The justice offered candid assessments of the president in a series of interviews beginning in a July 2016 interview with Adam Liptak of The New York Times.

“I can’t imagine what this place would be — I can’t imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president,” she said.

She went on to double down on her remarks.

“He is a faker,” she told CNN’s Joan Biskupic. “He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment.”

Her criticisms, unprecedented in the modern period, prompted The New York Times and The Washington Post to chastise her political interventions. She walked back the remarks in short order.

“On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised, and I regret making them,” Ginsburg said. “Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future, I will be more circumspect.”

Fix the Court, a watchdog group that advocates for greater transparency at the high court, urged Ginsburg to publicly offer “convincing reasons” for her continued participation in the case.

The Supreme Court Public Information Office has not yet returned TheDCNF’s inquiries.

Follow Kevin on Twitter

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

• Author
• Recent Posts

BPR Wire

Latest posts by BPR Wire (see all)

• The Florida candidate laser-focused on eradicating horrific animal crimes - March 22, 2024
• Sabo: ‘Rush was our GOAT, there was no equal and he made it look easy’ - February 18, 2024
• Dana Bash appears to want to crawl out of her own skin when Ramaswamy ‘goes there’ on J6 - December 7, 2023

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.