Brilliant

Sotomayor background.  (By his answer here, I don't think he even knows what she said.)

Ginsburg shoud recuse because she didn't support his election.  Hmmmm.  Using that as the standard, why not just eliminate the Supreme Court and allow the president to adjudicate all cases?

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.

UPDATE:

Weighing in on a domestic matter as he began a day of ceremony, meetings and a joint news conference with Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India, Mr. Trump seized on a dissenting opinion last week by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and a years-old comment by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to demand that the two Democratic-appointed jurists recuse themselves from any cases involving him.

[...]

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Justice Ginsburg called Mr. Trump a “faker” and said she could not imagine him as president.

He responded at the time that she should resign. She did not, but expressed regret, saying her remarks were “ill advised” for a Supreme Court justice and promised that “in the future I will be more circumspect.”

[...]

“Claiming one emergency after another, the government has recently sought stays in an unprecedented number of cases, demanding immediate attention and consuming limited court resources in each,” [Justice Sotomayor] wrote. “And with each successive application, of course, its cries of urgency ring increasingly hollow.”

[...]

Writing on Twitter Tuesday morning, [Trump] quoted Laura Ingraham of Fox News: “‘Sotomayor accuses GOP appointed Justices of being biased in favor of Trump.’”

“This is a terrible thing to say. Trying to ‘shame’ some into voting her way? She never criticized Justice Ginsberg when she called me a ‘faker’. Both should recuse themselves on all Trump, or Trump related, matters!”

[...]

Later, during the news conference at the Indian presidential palace, he added of Justice Sotomayor, “Her statement was so inappropriate.”

[...]

But Justice Sotomayor did not overtly accuse Republican-appointed justices of being biased in favor of Mr. Trump, as the president asserted. She complained in her dissent that the court “is partly to blame for the breakdown in the appellate process,” because it “has been all too quick to grant the government’s” reflexive requests.

  NYT

Pretty overt.

She added: “Perhaps most troublingly, the court’s recent behavior on stay applications has benefited one litigant over all others,” a reference to the Trump administration.

[...]

[B]ut Justice Sotomayor did not frame her disagreement in partisan terms, and her dissent was written in much the same way as others by justices who lose divided rulings.

Mr. Trump did not seem familiar with what Justice Sotomayor actually wrote but instead seemed to be reacting to a headline that characterized her statement in a far balder, more political way than she had.

Bingo.

Asked by a reporter what exactly he found inappropriate, Mr. Trump demurred, saying “you know what the statement was.”

When the reporter accurately summarized part of the justice’s dissent, the president said, “No, I don’t think that was it.”

[...]

[T]he president’s attack raised the temperature of his continuing assault on the law enforcement and justice systems, which he has tried to bend to his will in increasingly bold ways.