rb_ginsburg

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Ginsburg has promised to retire when she can no long work at “full steam.”

For the past six weeks or so, following surgery, she’s been working from home, according to the court.

On Monday, however, she reportedly attended a concert put on by her daughter-in-law at the National Museum of Women in the Arts.

But the American Mirror blog points out that in the age of digital cameras, no one apparently has documented her public appearance.

“Attendees at the Notorious RBG in Song described Ginsburg as ‘glam,’ and ‘resplendent,’ and ‘magnificent,’ but you’ll have to take their word for it,” the blog said. “In an era when every person is carrying a camera and isn’t afraid to use it, there wasn’t a single snap of the 85-year-old to be found. Every media story that covered her alleged appearance used file photos.”

One confirmation of her appearance was a tweet by Washington Post contributor David Hagedorn that later was deleted.

“What a delight to see RBG tonight at ‘Notorious RBG in Song,’ written & beautifully performed by her daughter-in-law, Patrice Michaels,” Hagedorn wrote.

The event sponsored by the National Constitution Center was intended to pay tribute to Ginsburg’s legal work.

Several reporters “claimed to have spotted Ginsburg,” the blog said.

NPR reporter Nina Totenberg wrote on Twitter, “Spotted at a concert by her daughter-in-law, the notorious RBG out for the first time after her surgery in December!”

But the American Mirror said: “Folks online aren’t buying it, with more than a few pointing out the obvious: Why no pictures?”

Twitter user Edwin Motes wrote, “Well until I see her in a new video or sitting on the SCOTUS hearing cases, I won’t believe the likes of the Washington Post!”

If Ginsburg steps down, the Washington Examiner noted, it would create a crisis for the left.

President Trump already has nominated two conservative justices from his list of judges he considers to be in the mold of the late Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.

Replacing Ginsburg’s reliable left-leaning vote with a reliable conservative vote would create a 6-3 conservative majority that could overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision establishing a right to abortion.

Recently, a same-sex couple Ginsburg married were arrested for rape. Her performance of their marriage ceremony in 2014 was highly publicized. Ginsburg later cast a decisive vote in the Supreme Court case in 2015 establishing a right to same-sex marriage, rejecting the will of millions of voters in many states.

She also publicly advocated for same-sex marriage as the case was under review. She told an interviewer it would not be a big adjustment for Americans to recognize homosexual marriage. She then ignored a formal request to recuse herself from the case, since she already had signaled her position.

WND reported at the time the Supreme Court was considering the marriage case that there were calls for both Ginsburg and Associate Justice Elena Kagan to recuse themselves.

Fox News reported they were urged to recuse themselves because they both tacitly endorsed same-sex marriage by performing ceremonies. Also cited was Kagan’s prior work to promote homosexual rights and Ginsburg’s public commentary on the issue.

The Foundation for Moral Law filed a motion asking for their recusal, but the justices refused to respond.

Also, the American Family Association conducted a campaign urging citizens to explain to their representatives in Congress why the two justices shouldn’t participate in the case.

“U.S. Supreme Court Justices Elena Kagan and Ruth Bader Ginsburg should recuse themselves from any cases involving the homosexual marriage issue on the basis that they have conducted same-sex marriage ceremonies,” the campaign letter stated.

“Both of these justices’ personal and private actions actively endorsing gay marriage clearly indicate how they would vote on same-sex marriage cases already before the Supreme Court,” AFA said.

But there was a simple solution, AFA contended.

“Congress has directed that federal judicial officers must disqualify themselves from hearing cases in specified circumstances. Title 28, Section 455 of the United States Code states ‘any justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.’

“Both Kagan and Ginsburg have not only been partial to same-sex marriage, they have proven themselves to be activists in favor of it! … Urge your members of Congress to privately and publicly call on Justices Kagan and Ginsburg to properly and legally recuse themselves from cases involving same-sex marriage,” the campaign said.

Ginsburg had publicly voiced her opinion, as WND reported.

The far-left justice revealed her preferences in a Bloomberg News interview 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?” asked National Review columnist Ed Whelan. “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.”

Without either of those two votes, the same-sex marriage case would have failed.

She’s also been the subject of discussion of how crazy liberals can be.

It was when a social media statement speculated whether 10,000 people would be willing to die a day early if they could give that time to Supreme Court justice Ruth Ginsburg.

Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh pointed out that unhinged idea.

“This is beyond ludicrous. This is asinine,” he told his listeners.

The tweet from Roger Simon, the chief political columnist of Politico.

“If it were possible, would you subtract one day off your life and add it to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s life for one extra day of good health?” he asked.

“If just 10,000 people did this, it would add 27 productive years to her life.”

“Who thinks this way?” Limbaugh asked. “This is illustrative of a certain kind of thinking that is scary, funny, hilarious and quite illuminating at the same time.”

Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.