Washington Post on Ruth Bader Ginsburg

You’ll remember that a few days ago I wrote about Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s speech, wherein she said she had been threatened by an “irrational fringe,” and she partially blamed Republican lawmakers who criticized the Supreme Court, and who tried to pass laws dictating what sources justices could consider in their decisions.

The Washington Post has an editorial (pointed out by the astute Maryland Conservatarian) today that explores these assertions, and concludes that, perhaps, Ginsburg put things a little too strongly.

We don’t support such legislation, but its advocates present one side of a valid debate, and there is no cause to blame them for the incitements of others. In the debate over foreign law, neither side has a monopoly on wisdom.

This is more or less true, and while I also do not support the legislation, there is a debate here. In my original post, I asserted that representatives were obliged to use extreme caution when criticizing justices, and I stand by that. The independent judiciary is necessary for our country, and when Tom DeLay asserts that judges will pay for what they’ve done, it does contribute to an atmosphere where anger at judges can flourish, and possibly lead to violence.