Ginsburg’s comments on Trump made her a participant in the election. That’s unethical

To the editor: As a lawyer, and with all due respect to Erwin Chemerinsky, I vehemently disagree with his position that it was appropriate for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to voice her negative opinion of Donald Trump. (“Ruth Bader Ginsburg has nothing to apologize for in her criticism of Donald Trump,” Opinion, July 18)

The basis of the separation of powers under our Constitution is so that each branch of our government provides a “check and balance.” Justices are akin to referees, and imagine if referees were to state their personal preferences before any sporting event.

Opinions after adjudication are understandable, but offering opinions as an attempt to influence the outcome makes one a participant. A justice offering her personal opinion is inconsistent with the ethics applied to the judicial system (if not specifically to the Supreme Court), and wisely, Ginsburg has expressed regret for criticizing Trump.

Ginsburg disagrees with Chemerinsky, and I am pleased to be in agreement with her rather than him.

Jean-Claude Demirdjian, Los Angeles

..

To the editor: A sincere thank you to Chemerinsky for defending Ginsburg. The Trump campaign is truly terrifying in its wielding of irrational, insulting language as a dangerous weapon.

Associating Ginsburg’s remarks with Trump’s blindness to the importance of fascist symbolism helped me to understand why I wake up each day more anxious about the future. This general madness, which clearly distressed Ginsburg, has infected the constitutional process. A sitting president has been denied his right to nominate a Supreme Court judge.

Where are the precedents? John Adams, after the tumultuous 1800 presidential reelection campaign that he lost, nominated John Marshall to the bench just before he left office. The Senate quickly confirmed Marshall as chief justice.

And, yes, my family too now wonders aloud about moving to New Zealand.

Lynne Culp, Van Nuys

..

To the editor: Chemerinsky misses the point. Ginsburg’s comments were unprofessional and, dare I say, unethical to the extreme.

We as citizens expect our justices to set aside their personal biases. Ginsburg does not get a free pass just because of who she is. This is elitism at its worst.

On the other hand, if she wants to publicly make a personal statement as “citizen” Ginsburg, there are other avenues available to her.

Thomas G. Page, Los Osos, Calif.

Follow the Opinion section on Twitter @latimesopinion and Facebook