Posted on 09/21/2020 5:09:27 AM PDT by MtnClimber
She would have treated her fellow Jews at the trains and pointed them to the “showers”. A vile and evil woman.
Are you trolling or just unaware of RBG's core beliefs?
Back in 2012
"...."I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done."
...." But asked about models for the Egyptian people, Ginsburg said Egyptians "should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II."
"She then pointed not only to South Africa's constitution, but to Canada's 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights."
...." Why not take advantage of what is else there in the world? I'm a very strong believer in listening and learning from others," Ginsburg added."
"....indeed, Ginsburg's comments are not foreign to her overall philosophy. The justice has previously stated that she weighs foreign law as well as U.S. law when forming a legal opinion."
"The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification," Ginsburg told an audience at the American Society of International Law in April 2005."
The usual slick academic, "yes, but...." polemic attack using velvet gloves before naive freshmen. Such as saying the old Soviet Constitution is almost exactly like the US Constitution, which in a cursory reading seemed so, but with critical differences. In so planting the seed of moral equivalence in minds filled with mush.
Her whole life reads like the Alger Hiss story, publicly a reasonable caring "progressive" acquiring surface academic credentials all the while behaving like a sleeper agent. In fact a case could be built that her parents immigration to the USA from the USSR could be the old COMINTERN practice of establishing sleeper agents with a low key legend the timing fits. Not saying that it's 100% the case, but it would come as no surprise if that were the case.
I don’t follow.
Now v Scheidler was a RICO case, and it was unanimous, and the court ruled that Scheidler could be prosecuted under RICO (regardless of economic motive). Basically it assisted the prosecution of a pro lifer.
How did Ginsburg vote “pro life” in that case? What am I missing?
Exactly!
Somewhat similarly, McCullen is a very simple, black letter first amendment case (well until this last term...). It used to be the case that the state can’t discriminate based on viewpoint/view expressed, which is exactly what the buffer zone legislation did.
The court acted constitutionally, and unanimously, in the case. Sure ginsburg voted with the majority, but that was neither courageous nor did it matter. An 8-1 decision would just have made her look like the little communist POS that she was. She just didn’t want to be embarrassed and wasn’t ready to scrap the first amendment yet.
As I reflect on your post, I have to strongly, strongly, strongly disagree.
We need not say anything nice about this creature.
She was a serious activist and of the most insidious kind.
“ She started out with her conclusion and then did some proof texting to make it look legitimate.”
You sound like my lawyer nephew (who I respect).
I just know she was an awful woman.
I also note she died hours before sunset of Rosh Hashanna.
Unsure of the significance, but I assume it was a snub.
She made many errors but to call her a Commie sleeper agent is unfair. Yes, she was probably influenced by Marxist thinkers at Cornell and Harvard, but in this she fits well within mainstream liberalism. Her career's most radical moments occurred before she joined the Court, as part of the ACLU, when she led a litigation campaign to eliminate sex differentiation in the employment market. But these were natural extensions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, imo, even though they were to some extent socially destructive.
The greatest damage that has been done to the Court was done either before she joined (e.g., Roe), or with the concurrence of many others, particularly Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O'Connor (e.g., Lawrence). She neglected to join her female colleagues in heckling Scalia in later years, which shows her deference for institutions which she had the power to help destroy.
This is mostly academic, of course. She should never have been on the Supreme Court, and neither should Anthony Kennedy. She did great damage to the country by her votes in Whole Women's Health and Obergefell (let alone Lawrence). But to say she was an anarchist or communist is wrong. Everyone's life reads like an Alger Hiss story, which is why Alger Hiss was so successful before Chambers' conversion. But RBG didn't need a COMINTERN to direct her, she had the New York Times editorial board.
The final NOW v. Scheidler, from 2006.
Glad she is gone.
Right off the bat you twist my words.. I said a “case could be made...” not that she certainly was.
You command of judicial history may be extensive and well ground in case law, but....maybe a refresher seminary in Soviet foreign policy, espionage, and embedded cadres would be of benefit.
Cheers, nice talking to you.
Not every Jew was a card carrying member of the Communist Party, you know.
That is why I continue to support Free Republic. You are all smarties.
this site is endlessly informative!
“so help me God”,///
Its no big deal since they don’t believe in God.
The supreme judge threw her fetid soul into hell (hades), where she will suffer eternal torment in the flame. Right now she sees afar off, across the “great gulf fixed”, the millions of slaughtered innocents she put there being comforted in the “bosom of Abraham.” See Luke 16.
None will be able to comfort her, as she fathoms the consequence or her error of disobedience and unbelief.
It gets worse. After Satan is defeated and cast into the lake of fire (see Revelation 20), the dead will stand before God at the great white throne of judgement. Imagine their horror when they realize that they are NOT being reprieved but are judged and cast into the lake of fire.
It’s horrific, but this is what Jesus came to save us from. We must bury our pride and accept him alone as Savior, for there is no other. (Isaiah 43).
Which means she DID NOT CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION! That wonderful document speaks PERFECTLY WELL for itself, and it is brief for that reason.
Any deviance from its basic principles, no matter how minor, is deviance. And everyone knows the original author of deviance as well as the horrible ramifications it yields.
Common courtesy requires some basic respect for the departed, but unworthy praise is WRONG in ALL situations.
Bttt
As opposed to an ex-wife, or a girlfriend who never says yes to his proposals.
One might argue that there is no distinction between these deviations against marital love, or that it would be better to be one instead of the other, but I think it's important to make these distinctions especially about someone we all know.
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.
