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

Skip to comments.

(Ruth Bader) Ginsburg Criticizes Roe v. Wade Abortion Ruling (Huh???)
Citizen Link ^ | 10/28/2008 | Stephen Adams

Posted on 10/28/2008 6:52:57 PM PDT by markomalley

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: jpeg82; All
Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsberg has made these comments in the past, this is not a new stance.I remember her saying this a couple of years ago.
21 posted on 10/28/2008 7:06:35 PM PDT by scott says (MSM-- Morons Spouting Misinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Ginsburg’s concern is that the court decision violated left-wing strategy by creating a “rallying point”. The boiling a frog analogy is appropriate in this case. She merely thinks the heat was turned up too fast and the frog should have been cooked more slowly. She is still an unabashed supporter of murdering innocent children and only regrets the strategy used to advance that goal was violated and created resistance.


22 posted on 10/28/2008 7:06:43 PM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Ginsberg jukes right to affect the election. A temporary ploy from the most liberal judge EVER to be elected to the Supreme Court.


23 posted on 10/28/2008 7:07:55 PM PDT by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
Same "too far, too fast" as here.

recriminations should focus on California Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald George. This state was gradually moving toward a gay-marriage consensus. But it just wasn't there yet when George, in his own way, declared it's gonna happen, whether you like it or not.

I found George's legal reasoning to be sound and persuasive. But given his past moderation and unadventurousness, his decisive vote to impose gay marriage on California was deeply uncharacteristic. It may well have been principled. Yet given George's history, it looks far more like posturing for the history books than anything else.

24 posted on 10/28/2008 7:10:04 PM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Sounds like someone is trying to get into heaven late.


25 posted on 10/28/2008 7:11:16 PM PDT by mbraynard (You are the Republican Party. See you at the precinct meeting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Not everyone is reading it carefully. She’s not saying she regrets universal abortion on demand. She’s just saying that it might have been done more effectively by a more gradualist approach.

The problem with Roe v. Wade is not that it killed 50 million babies. The problem is that it energized the Right to Life movement.

What IS interesting is that she is as good as admitting what Democrats NEVER admit—that a majority of Americans are against abortion, even after SCOTUS laid down the law and thought that the issue had been settled.

Being pro-life is a winner at the polls. Palin doesn’t have to hide her views; Obama has to hide his.


26 posted on 10/28/2008 7:15:37 PM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpeg82

She has changed her mind? WOW.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.


27 posted on 10/28/2008 7:16:23 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

She’s mentioned this before. Ruth B-G knows that Roe v. Wade was a leftist power grab wrapped in twisted legal logic. It’s a bit surprising she didn’t see the same in Kelo.


28 posted on 10/28/2008 7:16:28 PM PDT by jimfree (Dems beat up girls who don't toe the line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

Right on Cicero. You and I are on the same page. She did not move right. She is criticizing the left for moving too fast and causing a reaction from the right.

Ginsburg would be happy with 15 ro 25 million dead babies, as long as the right wasn’t energized to resistance.

To those that think she has moved right or putting in her bid for heaven, read the article again, and slowly.


29 posted on 10/28/2008 7:23:41 PM PDT by trubolotta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: All
Check out this article from Nov 29, 2005,a different "opposition" to Roe

Judge Ginsburg Still Voices Strong Doubts on Rationale Behind Roe v. Wade Ruling

And here is a similar statement made in the posted thread article July 24, 2005, SFGate

Is it time for Roe vs. Wade to go away? Then the debate over abortion would begin
30 posted on 10/28/2008 7:26:09 PM PDT by scott says (MSM-- Morons Spouting Misinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: jpeg82

What did Campbell Brown say/do?


31 posted on 10/28/2008 7:26:36 PM PDT by Prov3456
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Raider

Ginsburg knows that it was Supreme Court decisions, not anything in particular that the legislative or executive branches did which caused conservatism to coalesce as a political force to be reckoned with. I well remember when Barry Goldwater got thumped by Johnson as badly as McGovern and Dukakis got thumped by Republicans once the Conservatives had found their political voices. I think Ginsburg remembers that, too. She is doing what she can to take the heat of Obama on the abortion issue in hopes that the Conservatives will not quite coalesce sufficiently to keep Obama out. Once he’s in, Ginsberg can safely retire, as can other liberal justices, secure in the knowlege that Obama will appoint other ones as bad or worse than they are.


32 posted on 10/28/2008 7:27:29 PM PDT by mathurine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Evil old woman. I read that she also favors the age of consent for sexual relations be lowered to 12.


33 posted on 10/28/2008 7:32:17 PM PDT by chronicles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
But Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said Ginsburg is fully committed to unrestricted abortion.

People like Ginsburg and obama have no heart or soul.

34 posted on 10/28/2008 7:38:47 PM PDT by Dr. Scarpetta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
Exactly--check out my post number 30- Two articles from 2005 where she basically states what you posted--

"She’s not saying she regrets universal abortion on demand. She’s just saying that it might have been done more effectively by a more gradualist approach. The problem with Roe v. Wade is not that it killed 50 million babies. The problem is that it energized the Right to Life "
35 posted on 10/28/2008 7:39:56 PM PDT by scott says (MSM-- Morons Spouting Misinformation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

The bag is sand-bagging. She’s campaigning from the bench in order to calm fears.


36 posted on 10/28/2008 7:43:28 PM PDT by mabelkitty (If Bush was an illegitimate President, Obama is the ILLEGAL candidate by Acorn and citizenship)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley
She's getting old and feeble and is best friends with Scalia.

Given his powers of persuasion, maybe she's having a little attack of conscience?

Throwing the decision back to the states changes it from a 1/1 to a 1/50 matter. That would be huge.

At 1/1, it's easy to say "It's legal, therefore it's ok."

At 1/50, it gets a leeeeetle bit harder to say that.

Attack of conscience.

37 posted on 10/28/2008 8:04:50 PM PDT by FlyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Now that she is approaching the end of her life she may be weighing the weight of 40M abortions that she will have to answer for.


38 posted on 10/28/2008 8:07:15 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (TAZ:Untamed, Unpredictable, Uninhibited.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

I think most legal scholars—even liberals—today would hesitate from an academic standpoint to make the jumps the courts did in the ‘60s. Nonetheless, when it comes down to an actual decision, they would fall in line.


39 posted on 10/28/2008 8:10:01 PM PDT by Arguendo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: markomalley

Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has always maintained that the Supreme Court screwed up Roe v Wade.


40 posted on 10/28/2008 8:15:32 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 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