Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court's Ginsburg says at New York lecture `any woman will not do'
AP ^ | 9/21/05 | Nahal Toosi

Posted on 09/21/2005 8:10:54 PM PDT by 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."

(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: ginsburg; judicialnominees; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-171 next last
To: Crackingham

Justice Ginsberg is proof that her own quote is correct.


61 posted on 09/21/2005 8:55:20 PM PDT by Republic of Texas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vn_survivor_67-68
"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me," Ginsburg said during a brief interview Wednesday night.

Hmmmmmmm. The Constitution says the President has the power to appoint Supreme Court justices. And that the Senate must advise and consent.

But nowhere does it say that Associate Justices have any role in the appointment process. Perhaps Justice Ginsburg's copy of the Constitution reads differently than mine...?

62 posted on 09/21/2005 8:56:55 PM PDT by okie01 (The Mainstream Media: IGNORANCE ON PARADE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hsalaw
I've always wondered about this: I'm a woman, too, and why do I need a separate set of rights? I have human rights, and I have all of the freedoms bestowed by God - so why does my womanhood give me more rights? Oh, I get it: I was a "victim" so now I have, what's Spectre's phrase, "super-duper" rights? Ginsberg is another old 60s leftist hippie loon. Fade away, Ruth; go back to the ACLU (All Criminals Love Us).

Maybe it is because we don't have a penis and that is just separate but not equal. So we need the court to balance this out. :-}

63 posted on 09/21/2005 8:57:11 PM PDT by msnimje (Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AlienCrossfirePlayer

Well, she's Jewish and female, so Ruthie should be happy.


64 posted on 09/21/2005 8:58:09 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: kennedy

I will be so lonley on the court without Sandy


65 posted on 09/21/2005 8:58:55 PM PDT by msnimje (Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

I hear this elitist attitude come from her. No wonder why the rest of the Justices DO NOT like her. Even the libs on the court can't stand her....


66 posted on 09/21/2005 8:59:19 PM PDT by Sprite518
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ncountylee

Sooner the better.


67 posted on 09/21/2005 8:59:40 PM PDT by Arizona Carolyn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
"any woman will not do,"

She's the living proof.

68 posted on 09/21/2005 9:01:01 PM PDT by Rocky (Air America: Robbing the poor to feed the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pravious
(which, as I've argued before, I consider sexist on the face of it)

It is in deed and in fact racist. It is also affirmative action. That is exactly how such important decisions should be made. Not

69 posted on 09/21/2005 9:01:30 PM PDT by msnimje (Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
"any woman will not do,"

Is she looking for a date?

70 posted on 09/21/2005 9:02:29 PM PDT by msnimje (Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: okie01
Perhaps Justice Ginsburg's copy of the Constitution reads differently than mine...?

Your copies of the Constitution are the same, but you hold the Constitution in higher regards than she does.

71 posted on 09/21/2005 9:03:32 PM PDT by Vision Thing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: KoRn

"Scary" is an understatement.

Potential nominees should be questioned on their understanding of which law takes priority, world court or the US Constitution.

I wonder if Ginsburg would answer such a question?


72 posted on 09/21/2005 9:04:23 PM PDT by incredulous joe ("I guess I'm gonna fade into Bolivia." - Iron Mike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Impeach this Socialist NAG.

Freakin unbelievable!!!

73 posted on 09/21/2005 9:04:48 PM PDT by PISANO (We will not tire......We will not falter.......We will NOT FAIL!!! .........GW Bush [Oct 2001])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

wasn't she the witch in the land of oz???? it would be priceless to see her pedaling a bike....


74 posted on 09/21/2005 9:05:29 PM PDT by fatteddy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
This little troll, Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg, just cracks me up.


75 posted on 09/21/2005 9:07:59 PM PDT by Hank Rearden (Never allow anyone who could only get a government job attempt to tell you how to run your life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham

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

She's got to be joking, Right??


76 posted on 09/21/2005 9:09:04 PM PDT by freekitty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
The justice said using foreign sources does not mean giving them superior status in deciding cases. ....

scary
77 posted on 09/21/2005 9:11:06 PM PDT by stocksthatgoup (Polls = Proof that when the MSM want your opinion they will give it to you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sprite518
No wonder why the rest of the Justices DO NOT like her. Even the libs on the court can't stand her....

It sure seems that way to me, just from the body language I witnessed during the Rehnquist funeral.

But she's just dumb, too. She can look the world over and not find a better beacon of human rights and women's rights than the USofA.

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.

. . .

Ginsburg defended some of the justices' references to laws in other countries when making decisions, a practice strongly opposed by some U.S. legislators. . .

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

Arrogant and stupid. That's what she is. She'd look to Sharia Law for human and women's rights.

78 posted on 09/21/2005 9:12:56 PM PDT by Kryptonite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
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.

To hell with the men I guess.

79 posted on 09/21/2005 9:13:36 PM PDT by Centurion2000 (CAT5 conservative reactionary here. Just devastating to the minds of liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crackingham
Forbid she stop at the only Constitution and Laws she has been given the authority to interpret!

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

My estimation of the President rises again.

80 posted on 09/21/2005 9:14:49 PM PDT by Soul Seeker (Barbour/Honore in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 161-171 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson