Supreme Court's Ginsburg says at New York lecture `any woman will not do'

AP ^ | 9/21/05 | Nahal Toosi

[Crackingham]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience Wednesday that she doesn't like the idea of being the only female justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. But in choosing to fill one of the two open positions on the court, "any woman will not do," she said.

There are "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights," Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association.

The retirement of Ginsburg's colleague Sandra Day O'Connor has fueled speculation about whether President Bush will nominate a woman to her position.

Federal Judge John G. Roberts originally was Bush's nominee for O'Connor's seat but now is facing a Senate vote on the position of chief justice, a role empty after the death of William H. Rehnquist.

Ginsburg stressed that the president should appoint a "fine jurist," adding that there are many women who fit that mold.

"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me," Ginsburg said during a brief interview Wednesday night.

Ginsburg arrived in New York to attend an annual lecture named in her honor. The lecture's focus is on women and the law.

This year, Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, delivered it, while Ginsburg participated in a question-and-answer session afterward.

During the session, which was attended by hundreds of people, Ginsburg defended some of the justices' references to laws in other countries when making decisions, a practice strongly opposed by some U.S. legislators. The justice said using foreign sources does not mean giving them superior status in deciding cases.

"I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."

[Moorings]

"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me,"

Here's a clue. You don't supervise the president of the United States. He does not have to consult you. You were not elected to lead the country.

"I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."

You take enlightenment from the constitution of the United States, not "wherever you can get it". If you can't follow OUR constitution, get out of the Supreme Court of the United States!!

[SierraWasp]

Remember Rose Bird out here in CA's Supreme Court? At least we were able to get rid of her!!! (finally!)

[NormsRevenge]

Remember? all too well..

[SierraWasp]

"Here's to an ultraconservative W.A.S.P. being the next appointee."

Why... Thank you so much!!! (blushing)

[indcons]

There are "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights homosexual and islamic agenda or women's rights abortion agenda," Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association.

[Mr. Mojo]

There are "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights," Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association.

Specifically Ruth, what rights are denied to American women?

The justice said using foreign sources does not mean giving them superior status in deciding cases. ..... "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."

And the spineless Pubbies let this socialist-internationalist waltz right through the confirmation process, 97 to 3.

[NickatNite2003]

CANON 5: A JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM
INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY

A. Partisan Political Activity. A judicial employee should
refrain from partisan political activity; should not act as
a leader or hold any office in a partisan political
organization; should not make speeches for or publicly
endorse or oppose a partisan political organization or
candidate; should not solicit funds for or contribute to a
partisan political organization, candidate, or event; should
not become a candidate for partisan political office; and
should not otherwise actively engage in partisan political
activities.

[NickatNite2003]

F. Conflicts of Interest.


(1) A judicial employee should avoid conflicts of
interest in the performance of official duties. A
conflict of interest arises when a judicial employee
knows that he or she (or the spouse, minor child
residing in the judicial employee's household, or other
close relative of the judicial employee) might be so
personally or financially affected by a matter that a
reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts
would question the judicial employee's ability properly
to perform official duties in an impartial manner.

[zendari]

Advice and consent with the current sitting justices. LMAO.

[holden]

...at the New York City Bar Association

Were there no friends of the court at this once-august venue to howl and stamp feet upon hearing such blatantly impeachable actions and utterances?

HF

[bronxboy]

Ginsberg-like Clinton-spits on American Tradition. She should shut up. Justices should not be involved in politics. This woman should be impeached.

[gakrak]

This ACLU piece of lint was the GOP's biggest blunder in the past 30 years. Amen.

[RetSignman]

"any woman will not do," She's right...she has to have good taste in eyeglasses, know how to cackle and ride a broom.

[Vaquero]

They chase lemmings into the sea which is why I still vote for Repubs....but new partys do come and prosper. the Republicans were a new party right before the civil war. The time is ripe.

[Vaquero]

Me and me droogs....I see you have our picture. Actually I read Burgess's masterpiece before I saw the movie, in the early 70's. Both excellent.

[Puddleglum]

Mercy, she sounds megalomaniacal.

[Robert A Cook PE]

No agenda?

Here she is, talking about BLATANT political agenda's while sitting AS A MEMEBER on the court!

"Advancing women's rights and human rights" ....

At least she "seeks enlightenment" from other nations, but not as the "most important" source of (what used to be) US Constitutional Law. /sarcasm

[Labyrinthos]

It really is not her place to say who the President chooses for seat on the USSC. But I guess she is like the rest of the people around the Clinton administration and have no respect for tradition.

Forget about tradition, she has no respect for the Constitution which does not require the POTUS to seek the advice or consent of anyone other than the Senate in selecting justices to the court. Nor does the Constitution require or even suggest that the POTUS must or should nominate a person who will advance the rights of women or any other group. The constitutional role of SCOTUS is to decide cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States, no more, no less, without regard to personal beliefs and agendas.

[RoadTest]

This viscous woman is a communist lawyer from the Anti Christian Litigation Unit, out to destroy everything American.

[Dems_R_Losers]

OMG, I cannot WAIT until John Roberts gets there as Chief and slaps a gag order on this harpy. She had better get all her loony leftist comments out now, because a new sheriff is coming to town and he is not gonna put up with this kind of crap from his Justices. (BTW, I think that will go for Scalia as well - it is simply not fitting for Supreme Court Justices to go around giving speeches on politics and policy.)