Posted on 05/11/2013 7:08:08 PM PDT by BenLurkin
One of the most liberal members of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg could be expected to give a rousing defense of Roe v. Wade in reflecting on the landmark vote 40 years after it established a nationwide right to abortion.
Instead, Ginsburg told an audience Saturday at the University of Chicago Law School that while she supports a woman's right to choose, she feels the ruling by her predecessors on the court was too sweeping and gave abortion opponents a symbol to target. Ever since, she said, the momentum has been on the other side, with anger over Roe fueling a state-by-state campaign that has placed more restrictions on abortion.
"That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly," she told a crowd of students. "... My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change."
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
And there, her own words recorded in print, is why this person should NOT be on the Supreme Court
An 80 year old witch speaks on the killing of cute little newborns.
A little conflicted there about the glorious 1973 abortion ruling aren’t we lil Ruth Buzzie? You putrid leftists won and 50 million aborted babies lost. Its what you wanted little gremlin so rejoice without reservation—unless the innocent bloody screams come haunting in the night shadows.
i am happy when the liberals piss and moan about their plight.they can’t even be happy when they win. they are implacable, which is why you have to fight them forever. they don’t get their “solutions” won’t work because they’re starting out with flawed beliefs from a fundamentally messed up worldview, nothing they ever propose will work, they will always be implacable because nothing they try will ever work.
it’s why their views can’t be allowed to be the dominant views driving society. progress means reclaiming society from liberals.
The Supreme Court CREATED LAW when it passed Roe v. Wade, which it cannot do.
Congress did not exercise it oversight power on the Court, and ceded it the power to make law in this instance.
The Supreme Court could have struck down a law or upheld it, but it could not change it, nor create a new law with the notion of trimesters,etc.
60 million babies have paid the price for that error.
A Supreme isn’t supposed to be advancing any particular agenda. A Supreme is only supposed to verify that a law is or isn’t constitutional.
Any Supreme that seeks to do more than this is seeking to govern. And, therefore, needs to be removed from the bench. Let them run for office if thats what they want to do.
Legislators advance agendas. Executives advance agendas. Judges are just the umpires. But too few of them seem to understand this.
The court obviously didn't think the thing through all that well ~ bunch of drunks and perverts Fur Shur.
That's implicit in Ginsburg's argument BTW. She knows it was willful, arbitrary and capricious and DOOMED. Eventually we get rid of it.
So if I understand Ginsberg, a better path to abortion on demand would have been incrementalism rather than the sweeping change that occurred in Roe Vs Wade.
As if killing the unborn is something acceptable as long as it’s spoon fed to the public a little at time.
She’s completely out of it.
A soulless animal in a black robe.
Well, obviously this nitwit has not been following the Gosnell trial. Either this woman has an evil heart or she is stuck on stupid. Maybe a combination of both.
An 80 year old maggot, whose main concern is winning, and least concern is 50 million plus dead humans.
I’d sure like first crack at this human waste’s headstone.
When did Ginsburg wake up?
A roomful of adoring women — made her feel positively girlish.
Here's what Justice Charles Evans Hughes proclaimed:
"The law is what we say it is."
And that's what we're stuck with.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
In other words, more and more people are becoming PRO LIFE! Despite the efforts of the pro-murder crowd.
If anyone wants on/off either ping list, freepmail me.
She knows it’s a weakly argued opinion and an Achilles heel for her pro-abort pals. She’s looking at the trend and is justifiably worried. I hope she lives long enough to have defeat rubbed in her face.
“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law.”
“No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.