Ginsburg's public Trump critique raises ethical quandaries

WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's public criticism of Donald Trump is dividing legal experts over whether the leader of the court's liberal wing should recuse herself in any future case involving him.

While Ginsburg's remarks were relatively tame in an era of hyper-partisanship, experts in legal ethics told AP that she likely ran afoul of Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which says a federal judge "should not . publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office."

[...] those rules aren't legally binding on Supreme Court justices, who as the highest ranking officials in the U.S. justice system are the final arbiters of their own legal ethics.

Ginsburg had previously said she expected a Democrat to win in 2016, meaning she could delay retiring because her replacement would be chosen by a member of that party.

What if a situation were to arise this year like that in Bush v. Gore, the case in which the Supreme Court decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election on a partisan 5-4 vote?

While it's the expectation these days that judges keep their political views private, Supreme Court members haven't always been divorced from partisan activities.

President Barack Obama's spokesman on Wednesday declined to respond directly to Ginsburg's comments, but praised her overall competence.