The idea would be that she has publicly shown she is biased against him which could prevent her from giving him a fair hearing. Her remarks are more suited for political pundits on cable television than for a Supreme Court justice, and it can only be hoped her remarks don't further erode public faith in government and the impartiality of the courts.
She told CNN on Monday, "He is a faker". He has no consistency about him.
Speaking to reporters on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called her comments "totally inappropriate".
It's no surprise that Ginsburg isn't a big fan of Trump (she is known for her liberal views and was nominated by former President Bill Clinton.) But justices usually avoid commenting on politics; particularly politics related to who should be the next president, likely to nominate at least one other justice they'll work with. "I do not believe anything that comes out of his mouth".
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been saying unflattering things about Donald Trump over the course of the past week in three different interviews. That her mind is, quote, "shot" and he's even calling for her resignation. So there's not a lot of strong support for this among the Democrats and people who ordinarily would like and adore and revere and respect Justice Ginsburg.
Supporting Ginsburg are University of California at Irvine law dean Erwin Chemerinsky and Georgetown University law professor Paul Butler, who also wrote posts for the Room for Debate column. "He says whatever comes into his head at the moment", said the Brooklyn-born justice, a diminutive but tough-as-nails figure who has earned the nickname "Notorious RBG".
The newspaper said it is "vital that the court remain outside the presidential process".
The unusual and apparently unprecedented battle of words between a justice of the Supreme Court and a presumptive presidential nominee continued Tuesday. Secondly, assuming Mr. Trump wins in November, it would beg the question whether any kind of litigation making its way to the Supreme Court, involving Mr. Trump's policies, his actions as president of the United States, would themselves trigger a recusal obligation.
Once again, the billionaire popular presidential candidate gives a concrete example of the saying: any publicity is good publicity. While highly unlikely, the editorial cautioned that there is always a chance this year's election could end in a virtual tie, which ends up before the high court.
Didn't Justice Antonin Scalia ridicule President Obama during oral argument, and make homophobic comments from the bench? "Because we're already suspicious about the way the Supreme Court is going".
However, there are numerous instances in which justices have refused to step aside from cases where their public activities, dinners they attended, endorsements by their spouses, made it clear that they were probably something less than completely impartial.