Posted on 07/09/2018 5:37:38 AM PDT by ATOMIC_PUNK
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's writings show her to be a radical, doctrinaire feminist, far out of the mainstream. She shares the chip-on-the-shoulder, radical feminist view that American women have endured centuries of oppression and mistreatment from men. That's why, in her legal writings, she self-identifies with feminist Sarah Grimke's statement, "All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off our necks," and with feminist Simone de Beauvoir's put-down of women as "the second sex." (De Beauvoir's most famous guote is, "Marriage is an obscene bourgeois institution.") A typical feminist. Ruth Bader Ginsbura wants affirmative action quota hiring for career women but at the same time wants to wipe out the special rights that state laws traditionally gave to wives.
In a speech published by the Phi Beta Kappa Kev Reporter in 1974, Ginsburg called for affirmative action hiring quotas for career women, using the police as an example in point. She said, "Affirmative action is called for in this situation." On the other hand, she considered it a setback for "women's rights" when the Supreme Court, in Kahn v. Shevin (1974), upheld a Florida property tax exemption for widows. Ginsburg disdains what she calls "traditional sex roles" and demands strict gender neutrality (except, of course, for quota hiring of career women). Ginsburg's real claim to her status as the premier feminist lawyer is her success in winning the 1973 Supreme Court case Frontiero v. Richardson, which she unabashedly praised as an "activist" decision. She obviously shares the view of Justice William Brennan's opinion that American men, "in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage," and that "throughout much of the 19th century the position of women in our society was, in many respects, comparable to that of blacks under the pre-Civil War slave codes." Anyone who thinks that American women in the 19th century were treated like slaves, and in the 20th century were kept in a "cage," has a world view that is downright dangerous to have on the U.S. Supreme Court.
She's another Brennan, and no conservative should vote to confirm her. Of course, Ginsburg passed President Clinton's selfproclaimed litmus test for appointment to the Supreme Court — she is "pro-choice." But that's not all; she wants to write taxpayer funding of abortions into the U.S. Constitution, something that 72% of Americans oppose and even the pro-abortion, pro-Roe v. Wade Supreme Court refused to do. It has been considered settled law since the Supreme Court decisions in a trilogy of cases in 1977 fBeal v. Doe. Maher v. Roe, and Poelker v. Doe) that the Constitution does not compel states to pay for abortions. These cases were followed by the 1980 Supreme Court decision of Harris v. McRae upholding the Hyde Amendment's ban on spending federal taxpayers' money for abortions. The Court ruled that "it simply does not follow that a woman's freedom of choice [to have an abortion] carries with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices."
Ginsburg has planted herself firmly in opposition to this settled law. In a 1980 book entitled Constitutional Government in America. Judge Ginsburg wrote a chapter endorsing taxpayer funding of abortions as a constitutional right and condemning the high Court's rulings. "This was the year the women lost," Ginsburg wrote in her analysis of the 1977 cases. "Most unsettling of the losses are the decisions on access by the poor to elective abortions." Criticizing the 6-to-3 majority in the funding cases, Ginsburg asserted that "restrictions on public funding and access to public hospitals for poor women" were a retreat from Roe v. Wade, as well as a "stunning curtailment" of women's rights.
Here are some of the extremist feminist concepts from the Ginsburg book, Sex Bias in the U.S. Code:
521 . . . in Moral Standards 1. The age of consent for sexual acts must be lowered to 12 years old. "Eliminate the phrase 'carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years' and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. . . A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person, . . . [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old." (p. 102) 2. Bigamists must have special privileges that other felons don't have. "This section restricts certain rights, including the right to vote or hold office, of bigamists, persons *cohabiting with more than one woman,' and women cohabiting with a bigamist. Apart from the male/female differentials, the provision is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships." (pp. 195-196) 3. Prostitution must be legalized: it is not sufficient to change the law to sex-neutral language. "Prostitution proscriptions 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." (p. 97) "Retaining prostitution business as a crime in a criminal code is open to debate. Reliable studies indicate that prostitution is not a major factor in the spread of venereal disease, and that prostitution plays a small and declining role in organized crime operations." (p. 99)
"Current provisions dealing with statutory rape, rape, and prostitution are discriminatory on their face. . . . There is a growing national movement recommending unqualified decriminalization [of prostitution] as sound policy, implementing equal rights and individual privacy principles." (pp. 215-216)
She also wanted for abortion to remove from society certain categories of undesirables.
She’ll die soon, and the paeans of praise will resound from the Left.
But I say, good riddance!
And yet, how many Repuke Senators voted for this radical’s confirmation?
I hope the people here who voted for Perot in 1992 are happy about the ‘statement’ they made.
Just like the people here willing to sit out the Florida Senate race because Scott isn’t conservative enough for them.
Sorry, Ruth. The word “submissive” and phrase “subject to” is still in the Bible. Now if she had been blindfolded and just, she would also explain the concept of the greatest love, when a man lays down his life for his friend, which should include his wife.
Ephesians, Colossians, 1 Peter
I don’t think the state should ever have the deciding word in whether someone has the right to life or not.
Time for her to go.
Great article. Gives me reasons for hoping that she has a pleasant retirement real soon.
Wondering why this shriveled up old hag wants the law to allow sex with 12 year olds.
What is it about ugly turkey-neck, stern, angry-looking shriveled up hags with short hair?
Exactly right.
It is not the job nor does the Court have the constitutional mandate to change society.
The job of the USSC is to judge cases with in the very narrow scope of the US Constitution. They do not have the power to change the constitution or to interpret the constitution in the light of their own conscience or prejudices.
Sounds like she should be RECUSED from hearing most cases because of her Admitted Bias. See “dissenting Opinion” by the fat mexican in the Travel Ban case.
Leftists on Amy Coney Barret: "She's catholic and has seven kids? Dangerous nutjob!"
“Marriage is an obscene bourgeois institution.”
Which her deceased husband found out the hard way. Probably wanted to die after it dawned on him what he had done.
The irony about Ginsberg not retiring, or perhaps being kept on life support, till after the election is she expected that other paragon of feminism Clinton to win the election and select her successor. I don’t believe she was confident the Muzzie would appoint another woman after finding the two incompetents he found.
She is exhibit-1 in the dereliction of duty charge against the “conservative” GOP that did not match the Democrats commitment to principles by “Borking” her confirmation.
Not even for the death penalty?
The good thing is that she was 63 when appointed-shorter tenure. You would think that BJ would have preferred young women more ways than one.
Glad she had the ego to hang on and not retire, so that Trump can appoint her replacement.
I think President Trump replaces at least Ginsberg (85.32 years old) and Breyer (79.90 years old).
If Pence follows him, they’ll also replace Thomas 70.04 yeas old) and Alito (68.27 years old).
That would make the Sotomeyer and Kagan two of the three oldest on the court. Sixteen total years of Trump and Pence would be a disaster for the democrat’s agenda.
I think her seat will be vacant during the current presidential term.
Think Ginsberg, Reno, Albright, Shalala... and you can’t doubt that Hillary was making those picks... while Bill spent his time chasing the young good-looking women around his office or wherever he found them.
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.