In a series of recent interviews, United States Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg described GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump "a faker." The liberal female justice said that Trump lacks "consistency," and admonished him for not releasing his tax returns.

Whatever "pops" into Trump's head.

Ginsburg not only accused Trump of being inconsistent, but she also stated that he is impulsive. Ginsburg exclaimed: "“He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment." Ginsburg continued, this time berating Trump for not paying his taxes: "How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?'

Ginsburg is criticized.

Legal experts, some of whom are prominent, have criticized Ginsburg for her remarks.

These experts have stated that it is "inappropriate" for a "sitting justice" to engage in political commentary.

An unimaginable presidency.

Ginsburg added that she was having a difficult time picturing a Trump presidency, and that it is unthinkable to try to grapple with such a possibility. Ginsburg also noted that if Trump is elected, then "Everything is up for grabs." The associate justice joked that if Trump is elected, that she may move to New Zealand.

Implications for the country and the court.

Ginsburg then described the implications of a Trump presidency for the country and for the courts. Ginsburg explained that the implications for the country could be "four years," but that the implications for the courts is something that she does not even "want to contemplate." Presidents appoint justices to federal courts and to the United States Supreme Court, and the ramifications of their decisions could last as long as two or three generations or longer.

Top Videos of the Day

This is what Ginsburg meant by her comments on the implications of a Trump presidency for the courts.

Lifetime tenure for Supreme Court justices.

Steven Lubet, professor of law at Northwestern University, alleged that Ginsburg's comments "diminish the neutrality of the court." Lubet then referenced the lifetime tenure enjoyed by the justices of the Supreme Court. Lubet stated that the purpose of the lifetime tenure was to "insulate" the justices from politics. Lubet added that if justices are going to start engaging in politics, that perhaps the lifetime tenure for the justices needs to be revisited by legal experts. However, Lubet failed to mention that if the lifetime tenure were to be taken away, that the justices could become more political as they volley for positions after they leave the Supreme Court.

Openness vs. silence.

University of California School of Law dean Erwin Chemerinsky had a totally opposite view of Ginsburg's comments than that of Steven Lubet. Chemerinsky stated that he thought that it is "valuable" to hear the opinions and beliefs of the justices of the Supreme Court.

The well-respected law professor said that he prefers to know what the justices are thinking than to have "enforced silence."

Obama's Supreme Court nominee.

Meanwhile, President Barack Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court in March 2016 upon the death of Associate Justice Antonin Scalia. The GOP led U.S. Senate, under the leadership of Mitch McConnell, has refused even to have hearings on Garland's nomination. Many observers believe that by refusing to have hearings on Garland, that the GOP senators are being remiss in their duties and not living up to their oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It is unknown if Clinton would uphold Garland's nomination if elected president, or if she would nominate another liberal justice.