I have written this oped for Reuters Opinion. A snippet:

Some observers, such as my dean, Erwin Chemerinsky, have defended  Ginsburg’s right to speak her mind on political issues. Others have stated that Trump is a uniquely dangerous candidate for American democracy — and desperate times call for desperate measures.

The First Amendment argument misses the point. It is not about what Ginsburg might say, but what the consequences of her speech are for the Supreme Court and for American democracy.

It is certainly possible that litigation involving the Trump campaign will make it to the Supreme Court on an emergency basis before the election. After all, the rates of election-related lawsuits have more than doubled in the period since the disputed 2000 election. Every election since has seen emergency litigation over election rules get to the court.

Indeed, if we are extremely unlucky, we could be involved in a “Clinton v. Trump” post-election litigation, in which the court’s decision could help determine the outcome of the presidential race.