Posted on 09/26/2020 3:02:42 PM PDT by fwdude
Leftist/Democrats currently are in an absolute panic over the death, and very probable replacement by a Republican president, of US Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg. They are now promoting the unsubstantiated and wholly strange ideology that a justice - no, just THIS justice - should be replaced:
- with a woman
- with a person of similar judicial philosophy
- by a Democratic President, purportedly the next president
Where did ANY of these bizarre demands have their genesis?
As far as the last demand, it has been emphasized in several rational recent public discussions how that the appointment of a Supreme Court justice in the last year of a president’s term has been the overwhelming RULE, not the exception. There is nothing untoward about the president fulfilling his constitutional duty, no matter where it occurs in his administration. This has even occurred as recently as the Obama administration, when he nominated a replacement justice well less than a year from the end of his term.
As far as the replacement justice being a cookie-cutter judicial mind of the predecessor, I’d like to ask how and why this is now some kind of hard-and-fast rule. A simple question that drops a nuclear bomb on that insistence is simply: Whom did Justice Ginsburg replace? What was the judicial philosophy of the previous Justice? What was the sex?
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was nominated in 1993 by President Bill Clinton to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Byron White, a long-serving justice nominated by President John F. Kennedy in 1962. In case it isn’t obvious, Byron White is a man, a white man to be exact. A former highly recognized football player, he played pro football for the Detroit Lions until his career was cut short with the advent of World War II, when he entered the Navy to serve. After the war, he opted to use the money he earned in pro football to attend law school, where he excelled as a law student at Yale, graduating magna cum laude and first in his class. A jock with a brain is virtually a Renaissance man.
White was decidedly conservative in his judicial philosophy. Along with William Rehnquist, White was one of the only two dissenters in the infamous Roe v. Wade case, characterizing the majority opinion as “an exercise in raw judicial power, and “ interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life.” While being a champion of the judicial philosophy of stare decisis White nevertheless never stopped opposing abortion and voted several times in cases to limit abortion.
White also wrote the majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which upheld Georgia's anti-sodomy law against a substantive due process attack.
The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution.... There should be, therefore, great resistance to ... redefining the category of rights deemed to be fundamental. Otherwise, the Judiciary necessarily takes to itself further authority to govern the country without express constitutional authority.
Bowers was overruled over 15 years later by the pernicious Lawrence v. Texas, a decision joined by Justice Ginsburg. So much for stare decisis.
On many other social and personal freedom issues, White took a middle approach, but never lost sight of the ultimate consideration of personal freedom. He voted to strike down state contraception bans in Griswold v. Connecticut, though he refused to join in the majority opinion of “right of privacy” foundations for the decision. White supported the death penalty as long as the penalty was applied proportional to the crime.
It’s not hard to observe that Justice White was hardly of the same legal mind as Ginsburg. However, Ginsburg sailed through judicial confirmation hearings with a final vote of 96 to 3 a modest month-and-a half after nomination.
So, a Jew for a Christian (Episcopalian.) A woman for a man. A rabid abortion advocate for an abortion opponent. An ivory-tower academic elite for a Bronze Star-awarded war hero. A homosexual-“rights” Nazi for a homosexual acts opponent. A stare decisis hater for a stare decisis respecter.
It doesn’t get any starker than this. I’d say it’s time, in the interest of “equal time,” to switch back to a true conservative, which we largely see in Amy Coney Barrett.
That is an excellent analysis. An amazing job.
Outstanding work. Thank you
The highly relevant question needs to be promoted, FAST. I’m not a networking or promotions expert by any means, but the pernicious Demonicrat opposition needs to be confronted with it ASAP. If anything, it might take a little opposition wind out of their sails.
Gee, sounds just like Ginsburg. ;)D
Whizzer White.
Thank you. And great point of your own.
Wow. All I can say. Wow. Great analysis.
Thanks. Spread it around all you want. The question needs to be forced onto Democrats to answer.
Good write up!
bump
This is a great post! Thanks!
MAGNIFICENT ARTICLE!
You wrote the post about things I’ve been wondering about. Thanks for doing the work for me, lol.
Thanks for this...am sending it to me brainwashed lawyer niece who also thinks she knows history.
Needs sending to the Whitehouse or Trump campaign, too...
Was wondering today how many Democrat picks turned out to be conservative.
Still wondering ...
Excellent find...
P
Ginsburg was a radical leftist feminist ACLU lawyer when nominated.
Do you know how many Republicans voted against her?
She got 96 confirmation votes in the Senate.
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.