Ruth Bader Ginsburg Suggests Senators Can Be Disqualified From Upcoming Impeachment Trial If They Are Not Impartial

WASHINGTON - MARCH 03: U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg smiles during a photo session with photographers at the U.S. Supreme Court March 3, 2006 in Washington DC. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

(Gateway Pundit) – Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke with the BBC this week about the upcoming impeachment trial in the US Senate.

During her questioning Justice Ginsburg suggested that US Senators could be disqualified from the proceedings if they are not impartial.

Justice Ginsburg: “The House indicts, and the Senate tries. Should a trier be impartial? Of course, that’s the job of an impartial judge.”

Allahpundit wrote at HotAir about Ginsburg’s careless comments.

If Schumer or Pelosi (or whoever might have standing) sues McConnell and Graham, arguing that they’ve disqualified themselves from the trial, presumably SCOTUS could choose to hear that appeal. Could Ginsburg take part in that case now, having already stated her opinion that senators have a duty to be impartial as the triers of fact in impeachment? “I would not be surprised if some members of the Senate quoted RBG’s remarks to criticize their colleagues neutrality,” Blackman noted at one point in today’s post. Indeed. Ginsburg is now a player in this dispute, inadvertently or not, not just a potential adjudicator. Way to go.

Flashback: Ruth Bader Ginsburg Jabs Trump On Impeachment: ‘The President Is Not A Lawyer’

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Monday spoke out in response to President Donald Trump’s repeated calls for House Democrats to end their ongoing impeachment effort, reportedly stating: “the president is not a lawyer.”

Ginsburg made the comment while appearing at an event in New York City, where she received the Berggruen Institute Prize for her contribution to philosophy and culture, according to CNN. The 86-year-old reportedly plans to donate the $1 million prize to non-profits focused on promoting economic opportunities for women.

Speaking to BBC at the event, Ginsburg expressed hope for “good people on both sides of the aisle to say let’s stop this dysfunction” and “work together for the good of the country.” She did not say whether her comments were related to the impeachment proceedings.

On Tuesday, the House Rules Committee met to debate the parameters of the impeachment voting process, the final step before the full lower chamber votes on whether to impeach President Trump over his contacts with Ukraine.

The House Judiciary Committee presented two articles of impeachment against the president last week — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — both of which are expected to be approved in the full House but expected to fail in the Senate.

Earlier Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) rejected Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) call to have new witnesses testify in the upper chamber’s likely impeachment trial, even hinting that he will move to dismiss the impeachment articles against the president following opening arguments.

“The House chose this road. It is their duty to investigate,” McConnell said in a floor speech. “It’s their duty to meet the very high bar for undoing a national election. As Speaker Pelosi herself once said, it is the House’s obligation to, quote, ‘build an ironclad case to act.’”

“If they fail, they fail. It is not the Senate’s job to leap into the breach and search desperately for ways to get to guilty. That would hardly be impartial justice,” he added.

President Trump has called the impeachment inquiry a “hoax” designed to harm his re-election prospects in 2020.


  1. Wasn’t it the very same RBG who stepped into the political fray when Trump was campaigning? Seems her objectivity was shot to H… then. She should have subsequently recused herself from any decision related to our duly elected President, his executive orders and his administration. Assuming she awake enough to recuse herself that is.

    • No Jim, It’s Democrats that Hate the Constitution ! Who wants to eliminate the “Electoral College”. ? Who wants to flood the “Supreme Court” with Progresssive Justices who don’t believe in the Constitution ?
      Answer: Democrats

    • This was a statement by Ginsberg, not an excerpt from our Constitution. The Constitution makes no mention of a test for impartiality or even mentions political parties. First of all, she has already let her attitude towards Trump publicly known, since before his election, and should recuse herself from any ruling or temarks on impeachment. Second of all, so far this impeachment has been strictly Democrat partisan. I doubt enough impartial Senators can be mustered from either party to hold a trial in the Senate. So by Ginsberg’s logic, there can be no trial. It is obvious her bias has motivated a moronic claim on her part.

  2. She only awakens from cryogenic sleep to prove again, and again that she is, and has always been anything but objective on the Supreme Court. It will be a great day when actual Constitutional believers are on the court.

  3. RBG where was your disdain for the Democratic investigation refusing the let republicans call witnesses, not allowing republicans to ask certain questions and their secret hearings and obvious partisanship! We didn’t hear a word from you during that!

  4. Ruth Bader Ginsburg Suggests Senators Can Be Disqualified From Upcoming Impeachment Trial If They Are Not Impartial

    Following that ‘legal’ determination, NO DEMOCRAT is also DISQUALIFIED including EVERY representative that vote to impeach.

    It’s time for her to go for MENTAL INCOMPETENCY”!

  5. How does her statements not violate the constitutional separation of powers. The fact that she only refers to republican senators as bias when the House vote was 100% partisan is proof. Her words are seditious and constitutes unconstitutional SCOTUS interference. She deserves to be impeached.

  6. Constitutional wording confirm that??? Where does the Constitution say this? It’s alright for the House to violate the Bill of Rights though???


  8. When is that old bat going to leave? She keeps coming back from one ailment after another! Retire, already!!! She’s only 86? She acts and talks like she’s 96. After all her of personal Liberal comments over the last few year, she should NOT be on the Supreme Court, she will NOT be impartial. Crazy, old coot!

    • Sadly, I suspect RBG won’t retire. She will die in office still serving the Clintons who put her there in the first place. The big question is when she dies in her chair, how will the rest of us know she’s dead? The woman has appeared brain dead for over a decade now. Oh, and who gets to poke her in that chair?

      • How unbelievably rude you are about an incredibly brilliant, pace setting woman, who’s very best friend happened to have been a Republican Supreme Court Judge. Having a personal opinion & being impartial, when it’s time to do your job are two entirely different things. I’ve had to do it for years in my job.

  9. In order for the senators to be impartial, they would have to admit, they know nothing about this case, they did not see any TV, read newspapers or have been involved in any way, including any association with the accused. (Trump). Justice Ginsburg is applying the rules of criminal procedure to a political case. Given her senility, it’s no suprise she would say that.

  10. Take the same measure as the house did. Senate calls the witness’s rule’s over whether the senate witness’s would be called or not. Only let witness’s answer the questions the senate allows. Have a talk with witness’s in the basement befoe hand. Fair is fair. The rules are then laid out so nancy can send the impeachment

  11. This senile old hag should just retire. Does she mean impartial in the Senate, the same way they were impartial in the House? What a jerk. And she wants to determine law based on the constitutions of other countries. She has lost all common sense.

  12. Are we ever going to grow up?
    This is like children play:
    You are not impartial!
    No….you are not impartial!
    No….you are not!
    After that…some physical fight may follow.
    Two years old may have more sense 😂


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here