Close Menu
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Return to Fordham Law School
    X (Twitter) Facebook LinkedIn Instagram RSS
    Fordham Law News
    • Home
    • Law School News
    • In the News
    • Fordham Lawyer
    • Insider
      • Announcements
      • Class Notes
      • In Memoriam
    • For the Media
      • Media Contacts
    • News by Topic
      • Business and Financial Law
      • Clinics
      • Intellectual Property and Information Law
      • International and Human Rights Law
      • Legal Ethics and Professional Practice
      • National Security
      • Public Interest and Service
    Return to Fordham Law School
    X (Twitter) Facebook LinkedIn Instagram RSS
    Fordham Law News
    You are at:Home»Faculty»Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Confirmation Fight Still Matters, 25 Years Later

    Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Confirmation Fight Still Matters, 25 Years Later

    0
    By Newsroom on August 3, 2018 Faculty, In the News

    Professor Aaron Saiger was quoted in a Time article about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Saiger served as a law clerk to Justice Ginsburg from 2001 to 2002.

    With the 25th anniversary of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s confirmation to the Supreme Court on Friday, a precedent set during her hearings has become a hot topic on Capitol Hill.

    Under the so-called “Ginsburg standard,” a nominee for the Supreme Court may withhold from commenting on topics or cases that could come up before the bench in the future.

    …

    “What has happened to the rule since is that, as the nominations and the hearings became more and more partisan, the reticence of the nominees grew,” said Aaron Saiger, a former Ginsburg clerk who now teaches at the Fordham School of Law. “I wouldn’t say that I can say that with respect to every nominee… but as a trend, the unwillingness of judges to answer questions has gone up.”
    …

    Saiger notes that Ginsburg wouldn’t have seen her conduct as anything novel. The Model Code of Judicial Conduct was created in 1989 — before Ginsburg’s hearings — to reflect norms for judges. One section counsels judges not to opine on subjects that may later arise at the bench. “All she did was memorably articulate that rule for the committee,” Saiger said. “So to say that it was a precedent in that sense — she would not, and I would not either.”

    Read full article.

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email

    Related Posts

    The Big Idea: Who Counts (and Who Doesn’t) in the U.S. Census 

    Bloomberg Law: Prof. Bruce Green on Whether Judges Can Face Sanctions for the Kind of Errors They Find in Lawyers’ Work

    The New York Times: Prof. Bruce Green on Conflict of Interest in Epstein Scandal

    Comments are closed.

    • The Big Idea
    August 5, 2025

    The Big Idea: Who Counts (and Who Doesn’t) in the U.S. Census 

    March 31, 2025

    The Big Idea: Local Politics, Reform Prosecutors, and Reshaping Mass Incarceration

    March 3, 2025

    The Big Idea: Forced Labor, Global Supply Chains, and Workers’ Rights

    November 6, 2024

    The Big Idea: Partisanship, Perception, and Prosecutorial Power

    READ MORE

    About

    Fordham University - The Jesuit University of New York

    Founded in 1841, Fordham is the Jesuit University of New York, offering exceptional education distinguished by the Jesuit tradition to more than 15,100 students in its four undergraduate colleges and its six graduate and professional schools.
    Connect With Fordham
    © 2025 ThemeSphere. Designed by ThemeSphere.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.