Replies

At least they aren't openly masonic. It's possible that they decided that the legal environment was sufficiently dominated by their liberalism by 1968. It's also possible that they simply are no longer overt. Stevens is certainly radically leftist; he was appointed by a freemason; he has ancestral ties to the right lands. But we don't KNOW he's Masonic. I will say that I doubt that Ginsburg is, since I can't help but notice that none of the Jewish justices in the era of Masonic domination were Masonic. I wouldn't be surprised if Souter is Masonic, but there's vastly insufficient (i.e., no reliable) evidence to support that conclusion.

Ginsberg can't be Masonic because it's a mens group. I suppose she could be Eastern Star, I don't know all their requirements. I guess what you are saying in your post is that Masons are leftist? We have Democrats and Republicans as members. We have union members and business owners also. The comment about Thurgood Marshall would be challenged by a Mason. Blacks are Masonic in Black lodges. Most white lodges won't accept them as "real" Masons. That may be changing today, I don't know.