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."

[rock58seg]

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.

I was under the impression they were there to decide if certain laws meet constitutional requirements. Not to advance a partisan cause. sounds likes grounds for removal for cause to me.

[bigsigh]

as far as Ruthie is concerned, we need a woman from Europe so we can base our decisons on international law.

[RobFromGa]

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.

Since when is a SCOTUS judge supposed to "advance" anything?

[OKIEDOC]

Sure, let the wackos at the ACLU choose another extremists judge to balance out the court.

[kcvl]

"some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights,"

Excuse me, but when did that figure into her job?!

[WOSG]

"It is unbecoming and improper for a sitting associate justice to be politicking such as this."

Par for the course for an ACLU/NOW-RadFem Clintonista Jurist.

She should be thankful Souter is on the court, so she escapes the 'worst Justice on the Supreme Court' label.

[McGavin999]

"some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights,"

It's not a Supreme Court Justice's place to advance human rights OR women's rights. It's a Supreme Court Justice's job to interpret the constitution of the United States of America. Good grief, it's absolutely chilling that something like this would come out of the mouth of a USSC Justice!

[rdcorso]

This ACLU loser sounds like she's talking though giant nostrils when she talks.I didn't hear any of her answers at her conformation hearing but that's probably because she refused to answer any questions.Teddy Kennedy (Drunk-MA) must have been too bombed to ask questions that day.Having Ruth on the supreme court is the same as having Cindy Sheehan on it.Disgraceful.

[FreedomCalls]

"she proves to have a bigger pair of yarbles ..."

Been watchin' Clockwork Orange, eh Alex?

[Soul Seeker]

Why not? If they can have Ginsburg, we can have Rush Limbaugh.

In seriousness the woman's actually effectively made the case for a woman Justice to me. I balk at the idea of replacing a woman with a woman, or a male for a male, based on gender status quo. Aside from JRB, there is no woman I'm particularly enamored of. Far more male candidates I'm sentimental towards.

But the idea of THIS woman being the ONLY woman to represent my Sex on the high Court is as outrageous as NOW contending they speak for me. I'm now open to persuasion it should be a woman just so that Ginsburg can be humiliated by a woman of class, grace, character (qualities it's almost guarenteed our nominee will possess) and MOST importantly..someone that RESPECTS this country, her constitition, the role of a Judge in our three branches and interprets the Constitution accordingly. It's sort of the way I experience a malacious delight at watching Condi or Laura stand in direct comparison to Hillary. She fails each time.

But if it's male I'll also delight in this woman forced to spend time with a sex I'm not entirely certain she likes.

[grey_whiskers]

(s)so Ginsberg only wants woman lawyers who advocate age of consent to sex at 12.(/s)

Anti-Ginsburg Sarcasm Torpedo ARMED. FIRE!!

Gee, maybe because 12-year-olds are the only ones who will have her.

Cheers!

[FreedomCalls]

Imagine if Bush nominated a lawyer from the NRA legal staff.

We can dream, can't we?

[samantha]

I have something to enlighten Mizzi Ginsburg. Pick your ugly a$$ up and leave if you do not like who George Bush picks. You do not get consulted in who sweeps the floor or dumps the trash, and it is none of your radical leftist business who gets selected to be a Supreme Ct justice. What would you know about womens rights? Good golly, you barely look human let alone female, and it is not the job of a Justice to do anything but interpret the Constitution. Do you understand that crone?

[grey_whiskers]

Does this mean if the President nominates a big Hairy man who smokes cigars she will RESIGN???

So not just any woman will do...
this brings Bill Clinton to mind, for whom any woman WOULD do...
...which brings us directly to your mention of cigars!

Cheers!

[zipper]

She looks like Norman Bates' mother, pre-mortem.

Okay, post-mortem.

[Lancey Howard]

There are "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights," Ginsburg told

LMAO!! It only took until the third line of this report to identify Ginsburg as a loathesome scumbag who views her seat on the Supreme Court as an opportunity to advance her own agenda. By the way, doesn't she have cancer?

[Finalapproach29er]

Do we still have any sedition laws on the books?
---

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.
--
This is not the purpose of the courts for heaven's sake.

[Finalapproach29er]

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.
--
This is not the purpose of the courts for heaven's sake.

[RAY]

It is not the place of Supreme Court Judges to "advance" rights, rather, it is the business of judges to interpret the constitutionality of laws passed by our elected officials.

[Mr. Rational]

That was my exact reaction. That one sentence says it all.