Nobody is trying to deny them the ability of free speech. They are free to disparage the president all they wish, but if a trump case comes before them, the perception of impartiality will vanish.He is not a politician. He is the president. As such, yes, he should be impartial as he represents all of the country.So Trump can exercise his free speech but judges can't exercise theirs to Islam the president? Maybe both should be more circumspect.Take what Ginsberg said. "Trump is a faker" and "I cannot see how he could be president".And that would have been equally wrong. Any judge that shows bias one way or another to the subject of the case before them should recuse themselves.
An example of this bias would really be kind of a good thing to post about now.
Those statements show she obviously does not like trump, and apparently does not agree with him as president.
It would be the exact same if kavanaugh came out and said I'm 100% on the side of trump. Any cases involving trump that comes before him, he should recuse himself because it would be hard to know if he was giving a law driven opinion, or a personally biased opinion.
SC Judges are supposed to be impartial Politicians, not so much.
Get a clue.
On the other hand, you are lacking a clue. Impartiality is only required in the conduct of their duties.
However...optically, it would be better if the justices refrained from attacking the president refrained from attacking judges, and worse, individual jurists.
You also can't demand free speech rights for the president to attack with impunity and then deny the same for others. Make up your mind.