Ruth Ginsburg

Ruth Ginsburg

Two members of the U.S. Supreme Court are being called out by the well-known Family Research Council, a Christian group, on its blog, for having two standards.

Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Ginsburg apparently dislike religious bigotry when it’s alleged to be against Muslims and influencing the president’s policies. But when it’s against Christians, and influences a case involving First Amendment rights, it really doesn’t matter, they’ve concluded.

“Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor can’t have it both ways,” the posting said.

“If they believe religious hostility can serve as a basis for relief, as they state in Trump v. Hawaii, they also have to be prepared for to provide that relief for Jack Phillips. Conversely, if a decision can still be valid despite evidence of religious bias (as they argued in Masterpiece), then they should have supported the president’s reasonable national security regulations in Trump v. Hawaii.

“The justices cannot ignore obvious religious bias when it is politically convenient, and turn around and use the same argument to attack other measures they don’t like,” the posting said.

The facts are straightforward. Giving Trump a victory in Trump v. Hawaii, the court’s majority upheld his travel restrictions on unvetted newcomers entering the United States from parts of the world that foment terror.

Some of the locations, obviously, are Muslim majority, but not all. And Muslims are not mentioned in the order.

The two, however, pulled out statements from Trump’s campaign two years ago in which he generalized terrorists as Muslim, which many times they are, in seeking a ban.

In the Masterpiece ruling, the majority said the state of Colorado’s case against a Christian baker who refused to use his artistry for a cake celebrating a homosexual wedding, which then was illegal in Colorado, was fatally flawed because state officials attacked his Christian faith publicly, likening Christians to Nazis.

“Sotomayor (joined by Justice Ginsburg) drew from the court’s recent opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission to argue that President Trump’s ‘bias’ against Muslims invalidated the travel ban because government actions cannot be motived by anti-religious sentiment. Yet less than a month ago, Justice Ginsberg (joined by Justice Sotomayor) dissented in Masterpiece, ignoring the blatant religious hostility against Jack Phillips that served as the basis for the court’s ruling in his favor. The position of these two dissenters in Trump v. Hawaii would seem to lead to support for Jack Phillips, but it never materialized,” the FRC noted.

“In Trump v. Hawaii, much biased media coverage obscured the facts of a relatively simple case. President Trump issued a proclamation that temporarily suspended entry into the U.S. of persons from countries which did not provide adequate background check information. It made no mention of any religion (six of the eight countries on the list are mostly Muslim, but the other two were not – and numerous Muslim-majority countries were not on the list),” the posting said.

Sotomayor and Ginsberg claimed that the travel restrictions were aimed at Muslims, and they cited the Masterpiece decision.

But they ignored the fact that they opposed the Masterpiece ruling.

They did not think, in that case, that state comments exhibiting “obvious religious hostility” were of any account.

Then.

WND reported when the Masterpiece ruling was announced that it was the hostility from Colorado officials that undermined their attack on Jack Phillips’ faith.

“Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack’s religious beliefs about marriage,” said one of the lawyers for the Masterpiece shop. “The court was right to condemn that. Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a society like ours. This decision makes clear that the government must respect Jack’s beliefs about marriage.”

Justice Anthony Kennedy, in an overwhelming 7-2 ruling, said “the record here demonstrates that the commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs.”

It’s not the first time the integrity of some of the leftists on the Supreme Court has come under public challenge.

It was during the runup to the 2015 creation by the Supremes of same-sex “marriage” that Ginsburg, and Justice Elena Kagan, both publicly performed same-sex “weddings” even as the issue was being debated in their court.

WND also reported at the time Ginsburg revealed her preferences when she said it “would not take a large adjustment” for Americans “should the justices say gay marriage is constitutional.”

“How can Ginsburg possibly think that it’s proper judicial conduct for her to speak out on this issue while the marriage case is pending before the court?” wondered National Review columnist Ed Whelan at the time. “If she had any sense of her duty to maintain both the appearance and the reality of impartiality, she would recognize that she is now obligated to recuse herself from the case.

“But of course she won’t.”

Despite a formal court motion for her to recuse, she didn’t.

WND at the time contacted the Supreme Court for comment, leaving messages for both Ginsburg and Kagan, but both refused to respond.

Supreme Court staffers also declined to respond to WND requests for copies of or references to any code of ethics that the justices would follow. Most courts stipulate that even the “appearance” of partiality on an issue should be avoided by all judges.

 

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.