Posted on 10/28/2008 6:52:57 PM PDT by markomalley
While conservatives worry about the kind of Supreme Court justices a President Obama might appoint, new questions about the rightness of the high courts abortion rulings have arisen from within. In remarks last week at Princeton University, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was highly critical of the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which effectively allowed abortion on demand nationwide. She suggested the court had gone too far and that a more incremental decision would have been an opportunity for a dialogue with the state legislators and a chance for states to take the lead on the issue. Ginsburg also lamented the rallying point it provided for launching the pro-life movement. I never questioned the judgment that it has to be a womans choice, but the court should not have done it all, she said. But Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said Ginsburg is fully committed to unrestricted abortion, as seen in her strong dissent in the 2007 partial-birth abortion decision, Gonzales v. Carhart. There, Ginsburg argues that the right of privacy theory doesn't go far enough in protecting abortion, arguing a new theory that would result in all abortion regulations being struck down as violations of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution a step even beyond Roe. |
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.
Ginsberg jukes right to affect the election. A temporary ploy from the most liberal judge EVER to be elected to the Supreme Court.
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.
Sounds like someone is trying to get into heaven late.
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.
She has changed her mind? WOW.
GOD BLESS AMERICA.
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.
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.
What did Campbell Brown say/do?
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.
Evil old woman. I read that she also favors the age of consent for sexual relations be lowered to 12.
People like Ginsburg and obama have no heart or soul.
The bag is sand-bagging. She’s campaigning from the bench in order to calm fears.
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.
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.
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.
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg has always maintained that the Supreme Court screwed up Roe v Wade.
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.