In a New Republic interview with Jeffrey Rosen, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made reference to a court ruling associated with abortion in Texas which could wind up as a case in front of SCOTUS. Here is that coverage by Tony Mauro in The National Law Journal.
A lot of constituencies are bug-eyed. At the very least they are demanding that if the case is reviewed by SCOTUS, Justice Ginsburg should recuse herself.
However, more to the point perhaps, others are wondering how a legal player at that high level could have been seemingly so indiscreet.
Perhaps Justice Ginsburg would find formal media training useful. We have all had it somewhere along the way in our careers, often multiple times. What all the media experts hammered was how to gain control over the interview, without seeming to do that. Yes, anyone can become adept at appearing to address the interviewer's issue while still implementing his or her own agenda.
Among the tactics for doing that, especially when matters are sensitive, is providing generic examples. Justice Ginsburg could have framed the discussion about women's access to reproductive choices in a general way. She did not have to cite specifics.
The higher you move up in your discipline, be it law or artificial intelligence, the more circumspect you may have to become. No longer is it your voice. Your influence and power make it a voice representative of an institution and code of values.