I cannot say one word on that subject that would not violate what I said had to be my rule about [jurisprudence], no hints, no forecasts, no previews.
~ Ruth Bader Ginsburg, before the Senate Judiciary Committee (1993)
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg [is] the most extreme Marxist, socialist, revolutionary on the Supreme Court.
~ Dr. Michael Savage (2009)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the second woman to sit on the high court has recently been admitted to the hospital as a precaution for early stages of pancreatic cancer treatment. This started a media frenzy of speculation about whom Obama would choose as his first appointment to the Supreme Court. Analyzing the media rumor about Ginsburg, conservative intellectual and radio host Michael Savage this week posted on his website an interesting article on Justice Ginsburg by Edward Whelan titled, “The Ginsburg Record and Standard.”
This article is amazing because when President Clinton nominated Ginsburg to replace Byron White on the high court in 1993, despite her radical legal and judicial background as well as the litany of perverted legal ideas she has pioneered for decades as an ACLU volunteer lawyer, ACLU board member and ACLU general counsel, in addition to 13 years as an appellate judge on the D.C. Court of Appeals, Ginsburg was nevertheless given a ringing vote of 96 to 3 in the Senate. For comparison’s sake, Clarence Thomas, a paragon of conservatism and original intent, barely squeaked through his nomination process with a Senate vote of 54 out of 100.
Whelan, in examining her judicial temperament after a combined 25 years on the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, said, “Ginsburg had a record of extremist constitutional and policy views that placed her on the far left fringes of American society.” A summary of eight facts Whelan cited about Ginsburg to support his apologetic are below:
1. Protecting prostitution. Citing Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), and Roe v. Wade (1973) as judicial precedent in support of prostitution, Ginsburg theorized that federal laws against prostitution “are subject to several constitutional and policy objections. Prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” Ginsburg proposed that the federal laws against prostitution be repealed.
Recall that the right to contraception for married persons in Griswold was under a marital not a prostitution paradigm. The extension of that right to unmarried persons in Eisenstadt implied a privacy right “to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” The so-called “right of privacy” that Griswold, Eisenstadt, Roe and their progeny rely on is the crucial cornerstone justifying 50 years of perverted, radical jurisprudence – a body of judicial decision making that has no legitimate basis in the Constitution. Ginsburg’s jurisprudence extends this privacy nexus to legalize prostitution and beyond.
2. Protecting bigamy. Throughout her long legal career, Ginsburg has considered laws prohibiting the rights of bigamists “of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships.”
As judicial precedent for this admittedly bizarre and immoral practice, once again Ginsburg cited Griswold and Eisenstadt. Whelan was clear in his analysis about the dubious jurisprudence of Ginsburg to expand the “right of privacy” beyond the constitutional structures of Griswold, “an intimate relation of husband and wife” and a “bilateral loyalty.” Although, Eisenstadt put forth the “right of the individual, married or single,” neither of these cases can remotely be associated with bigamy. Whelan says that “Ginsburg’s constitutional argument is an extreme one that makes it most reasonable to conclude that Ginsburg had strong sympathy for that [bigamy] argument.”
3. Abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. Ginsburg had stated, “Replacing ‘Mother’s Day’ and ‘Father’s Day’ with a ‘Parent’s Day’ should be considered, as an observance more consistent with a policy of minimizing traditional sex-based differences in parental roles.”
4. Criticizing the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts. According to Ginsburg, “The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, while ostensibly providing ‘separate but equal’ benefits to both sexes, perpetuate stereotyped sex roles to the extent that they carry out congressionally mandated purposes.”
Don’t be fooled. Ginsburg’s little doily that she wears with her judicial robes and her slight, grandmotherly demeanor belies an utter perversity of her judicial ideas and how it even extends to outlawing something as benign and universal as Mother’s Day and Father’s Day. Likewise, what judge or rational American anywhere can find it necessary to besmirch the saintly work of the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts? Pornographer Larry Flynt, yes; a respected Supreme Court justice, never.
5. Urging co-ed prisons. Ginsburg said: “Sex-segregated adult or juvenile institutions are obviously separate and in a variety of ways, unequal. … If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.”
6. Reducing the age of consent to 12. Ginsburg had recommended legislative changes that would reduce the age of consent for statutory rape under federal law from 16 to 12.
These judicial opinions by Ginsburg attest to her segregated, cloistered existence within the liberal elite circles of the ACLU, the Ivy League academy, amongst the anarchist intellectuals and the Upper East Side crowd in Manhattan. These associations have prompted her to go against virtually every rational association between legality and morality since the Constitution’s framers. While admittedly there were people of this ilk in the days of the Founding Fathers like Thomas Paine (post-“Age of Reason”), Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold; however, not even these scoundrels would stoop to the level Ginsburg has with her utterly twisted views on law, morality and the Constitution.
7. Requiring taxpayer funding of abortion. In her chapter on the 1976 Term of the Supreme Court in a book titled “Constitutional Government in America,” Ginsburg was adamant in opposition to the Court’s ruling that taxpayers are not constitutionally required to subsidize non-therapeutic abortions.
This extreme liberal view reminds me of a debate I had with my intellectual mentor, Judge Richard A. Posner, of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding his ideas that certain legislators, judges and academics who like to “force” their morality upon others are “academic moralists” and “moral entrepreneurs.” (See “Reply” link in my bio section). Yet, when do you hear liberal law academics decry the fact that people like Obama and Justice Ginsburg for their entire careers have been zealous, uncompromising missionaries to promote abortion on demand? It is a disgusting double standard indeed.
8. Practicing “Limousine Liberalism.” Throughout her legal career, Ginsburg has always been aggressive in promoting artificial quotas to remedy racial and gender discrimination (affirmative action), yet she never had a single black person among her more than 50 hires on the Court of Appeals.
When I read the judicial opinions of Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Stevens and the other liberal jurists who’ve served on the Court, including moderate, “swing voters” like Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor, little of their rhetoric has to do with legitimate constitutional jurisprudence and much to do with forcing their own personal policy preferences under the color of law. On this point I am reminded of what Lawrence P. McDonald said in his seminal work, “We Hold These Truths,” – “If a judge can interpret the Constitution or laws to mean something obviously not intended by the original makers … then the nation’s Constitution and laws are meaningless.”
That Ginsburg received 96 out of 99 votes for her confirmation while a true American icon and hero, Justice Clarence Thomas, the most singular original intent jurist since John Jay, only received 54 of 100 votes from the Senate speaks heartbreaking volumes for how American society has fallen away from God’s eternal truths of morality and the Judeo-Christian traditions of the Constitution’s framers. Unfortunately, if Justice Ginsburg steps down for medical reasons, Obama will find an even more extremist jurist to replace her.
How not to think about Syria
Josh Hammer