While it was unusual that Justice Ginsberg spoke out against presidential candidate Donald Trump, there was no conflict of interest, no actual breach of law or morality.

In a post on Yabberz.com, David Murray said: “Should this election be close enough to be thrown to the Supreme Court, Ginsberg will now have no choice but to recuse herself.” He didn’t say why. And indeed, she should not.

Unusual behavior

Trump has violated normal standards of behavior over and over again. That’s what Ginsberg did. She was merely outspoken.

A judge should recuse herself if she has a conflict of interest. Consider an earlier case:

Scalia had actual conflicts of interest

Justice Scalia was a friend of Dick Cheney’s. In 2004, Scalia went on a hunting trip with Dick right before deciding a case about case over whether the White House had to turn over documents relating to the energy task force Cheney headed in 2001. The article also said, “Scalia and Cheney also had a private dinner with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Maryland’s Eastern Shore in November, when the Supreme Court was considering Cheney’s appeal.” Scalia ended up being one of only two justices to support Cheney.

This was a clear conflict of interest. Scalia was ruling about the a case involving a friend. He had an interest of justice in the case, plus he had a conflicting interest to be loyal to his powerful friend. Yet Scalia didn’t recuse himself.

An opinion is not a conflict of interest

On the other hand, everyone has an opinion about Trump. Ginsberg was different from the other justices only in that she spoke hers. She has no conflict of interest. If she had never spoken her opinion, her opinion of him would be no different. She has no more conflict of opinion than any other justice.

There was nothing illegal or immoral about what Ginsberg did. It only violated tradition and expectations.