Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg scored a $1 million dollar prize thanks to her history of liberal court decisions, though the organization making the payout has a worrying background.

The Berggruen Institute announced Wednesday that its 2019 Berggruen Prize for Philosophy & Culture would go the Ginsburg, essentially because she’s used her position to  advance liberal causes.

“Throughout her career, Ginsburg has used the law to advance ethical and philosophical principles of equality and human rights as basic tenets of the USA,” institute founder Nicolas Berggruen said in a news release.

“Her contributions have shaped our way of life and way of thinking and have demonstrated to the world the importance of the rule of law in disabling discrimination.”

Considering the release calls Ginsburg a “trailblazer for human rights and gender equality,” it’s clear that Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch are not likely candidates for next year’s prize.

The prize money will be directed to organizations and charities of Ginsburg’s choice of course as not to appear a bribe payoff of course.

The most worrying aspect of this entire competition however, is the Berggruen Institute’s background.

The institute is a pro-China think tank that unashamedly supports China’s invasive social credit system, which allows that country’s communist regime to exert even more control over its citizens’ lives.

Another project by the organization, The WorldPost, seeks to push its dangerous liberal narrative on the internet via willing outlets like The Washington Post.

The WorldPost is a dizzying mix of radical environmentalism, anti-right fearmongering and cheerleading for China’s oppressive government.

Just last week, the project published an article warning that climate change could lead to a surge in right-wing environmentalists. In the piece, the institute’s vice president of programs, Nils Gilman, predicted a world in which climate-conscious conservatives shoot refugees at the border.

In another shocking post, the organization gave its take on the current and ongoing Hong Kong crisis.

“Only Beijing can help reduce inequality in Hong Kong,” writer Chandran Nair asserted, “but a large portion of the population view the Chinese government as a threat to their freedom.”

Sure, Chinese paramilitary forces are massing in the area surrounding Hong Kong, apparently ready to take the port city at the point of a bayonet, but let’s focus on inequality that the communists can’t even seem to fix in their own country.

With these viewpoints in mind, the “prize” for Ginsburg’s use of the law is even more worrying.

If a Supreme Court justice is eligible for trophies and money simply because of their stance on an issue, at what point do we need to begin considering whether their impartiality is affected?