Justice Ginsburg has finally recognized that she was wrong to attack Donald Trump (an attack that she carried out in at least three separate interviews):

On reflection, my recent remarks in response to press inquiries were ill-advised and I regret making them. Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office. In the future I will be more circumspect.

Some quick comments:

1. Good for her, I suppose—though I might prefer to be able to continue to give her credit for being consistent, both in her judicial decisionmaking and in her public statements, in failing to respect the line between judging and politics.

2. I agree with legal ethicist Stephen Gillers and others that she can’t “unring the bell.” In other words, the recusal obligations that she has incurred as a result of her comments continue to exist. (In my judgment, she is obligated to recuse, at a minimum, from any matter that materially involves Donald Trump’s electoral interests in the current campaign.)

3. Ginsburg did not express any regret for the other inappropriate comments she made—most especially, her criticism (see point 2 here) of Senate Republicans for not acting on the Garland nomination.

4. Some folks wove elaborate theories about how thoughtfully strategic Ginsburg was being in challenging what she saw as Trump’s existential threat. Among other flaws, those theories couldn’t explain why Ginsburg was being a blabbermouth on multiple fronts, and they also failed to deal with the pedestrian quality of Ginsburg’s attacks on Trump (e.g., “faker,” “really has an ego,” “How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns?”).

5. I’m no fan of Trump’s, but I would find it very amusing if (as seems likely) Ginsburg’s attack on him ends up having helped him.