Because it’s Constitution Day, I’m catching up with some older news you may have missed during the whirlwind of America’s near-miss war with Syria.
This should have been screaming front-page news Sept. 6 when it broke. But Syria sucked up all the news media and talk-show oxygen.
Buckle your seat belts. Here it is.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia that the growing acceptance of same-sex marriage reflects the “genius” of the Constitution.
“So I see the genius of our Constitution, and of our society, is how much more embracive we have become than we were at the beginning,” she said steps from Independence Hall where, in her view, a bunch of white, male bigots and haters founded the nation on detestable principles.
Now, sit back for a moment and ponder this concept.
Take a deep breath, like I am doing and think about it.
Is there anything in the Constitution about marriage?
Is there anything in the Constitution about sex?
More to the point, did either of the recent Supreme Court decisions about same-sex marriage have anything even remotely to do with the Constitution?
The answer to that trifecta is, of course, no.
And that should give you an idea of what Ginsburg knows or cares about the Constitution.
To Ginsburg, the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that is to be read by enlightened jurists like her only to imagine what they believe it should really say by reading into the shadowy penumbra between the lines of the clearly understood words on the page, rendering decisions that far exceed the authority of the court and that would make scholars like John Jay turn over in their graves.
But it gets worse.
What else did she say at the forum?
Ginsburg criticized her colleagues for what she called “activist” decisions that overturned laws better understood by Congress.
Isn’t that exactly what the court did in the case of same-sex marriage?
Need I remind the octogenarian often known to doze off during sessions that the Supreme Court overturned a 20-year-old law, the Defense of Marriage Act, duly passed with overwhelming bipartisan support of both houses of Congress and signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton?
Not only does Ginsburg need to meet the Constitution, she needs to be introduced to a mirror.
If this isn’t a case of the pot calling the kettle black, perhaps she is also unfamiliar with kitchen utensils.
On the good-news front, however, Ginsburg did give me a little hope with her remarks to the apparently misnamed National Constitution Center: She indicated no intentions of stepping down from the court any time soon.
Why is that good news?
Because, if she steps down any time in the next three years, Barack Obama is sure to appoint someone younger and with even less regard for the Constitution than Ginsburg – if that is possible.
Do I exaggerate?
Let me remind you of just a few of her actions to date on the high court:
During her tenure, ruling with the majority she has:
- voted to strike down all sodomy laws duly passed by state legislatures;
- voted to permit local governments to seize private property for no other reason than raising tax revenue;
- voted to approve race-based preferences in hiring and student admissions;
- voted to approve the worst attack on the First Amendment in my lifetime – the so-called “campaign finance reforms” that limit political speech before elections.
I could go on and on. You either get it by now or you don’t. This woman cares nothing about the Constitution, our nation’s rich heritage of limited government, the rule of law, the will of the people, the notion of self-government or, frankly, freedom.
She wouldn’t know the Constitution if she tripped over it – and she probably has. After all, she makes a regular habit of walking all over the document that forms the very foundation of our republic.