Skip to comments.Clinton Picks Moderate Judge Ruth Ginsburg for High Court
Posted on 09/21/2020 7:49:39 AM PDT by Stravinsky
WASHINGTON In a surprise ending to a tortuous three-month search, President Clinton on Monday nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an appeals court judge and former womens rights activist, as a Supreme Court justice, making her the first appointment to the high court by a Democratic administration in 26 years.
Ginsburg, 60, who serves on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, was hailed by Clinton in a Rose Garden ceremony. He said that she is a moderate who has proven herself to be a healer and consensus builder and who has put her convictions into deeds during a long career as a law professor, advocate and judge.
She is known as a cautious interpreter of the law and her selection is expected to add weight to the ascendant center of the court, which includes Justices Sandra Day OConnor, Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter.
The Institute for Justice, a conservative watchdog group, said that it is giving her cautious support and praised her moderate views.
But the National Right to Life Committee, an anti-abortion group, accused Clinton of subjecting her to a pro-abortion litmus test before naming her. From the other side, the National Abortion Rights Action League said that it looked forward to a hearing that would determine whether Judge Ginsburg will protect a womans fundamental right to privacy.
People for the American Way, a liberal group, called her a significant improvement over other recent nominees, but cited questions about her stands on access to the courts, privacy rights, and her capacity to forge effective coalitions among justices on the moderate-liberal wings of the court.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
“Moderate judge” Ruth Bader Ginsburg - in which universe?
At the time, nobody talked about her previous career as general counsel for the ACLU, in her background. She became the ACLU representative on the Supreme Court. But this was never talked about and was not controversial among Senators, who voted something like 95-3 to confirm her. There was no real controversy about her nomination.
The cover-up was worse than you think: www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/09/ruth_bader_ginsburgs_support_for_racial_quotas_was_hidden_from_the_public_during_her_supreme_court_confirmation_hearings.html
RE: Clinton Picks Moderate Judge Ruth Ginsburg for High Court
If RBG is moderate, then I’m an extreme left wing radical.
One who made their name as an “advocate” almost always ends up being a mediocre judge. Many can’t turn off the advocacy. That is they can’t adapt to the new role as an impartial moderator. Example Thurgood Marshall great advocate, mediocre SC justice. Admitted he still acted as an advocate from the bench.
If I can see this why can’t our “so wise” elected representatives ?
There were a few surprises here and there - in the last term there was actually a 5-4 conservative ruling where she voted with the conservative bloc and I believe Gorsuch was in the dissent, but overall she was probably the most left-wing jurist ever on the Court.
They didn't need to appoint liberals, The GOP Presidents did that.
Yes they knew, but so did we. It was an open secret that she was a hard core lefty. Most of that awareness came from looking not at what she did as a judge but rather what she did as a lawyer for the ACLU. Then it was obvious where she stood on just about everything.
Well fake news has been faking way before President Trump.
Trump just calls them out on it
Her mominayion eas recommended by GOP Senate Judiciary chair, Orin Hatch.
Exactly.The Progressive Media (same as the Main Stream Media) has been lying to us for decades.
It is how they controlled the nation. They did it by controlling the information flow, thus the narrative, and by determining what is a scandal and what is not.
Spin can’t even describe how they operate.
If you watch the news media in America, you learn NOTHING. Zero general knowledge gained, no actionable information. 24 hours of watching the news will gain nothing regards any tangible actions you should take regards your finances, health, safety and security, travels and hobbies, relationships with others... A complete waste of time.
It makes no difference if you watch the news or Hanna Montana. Even something as simple as the weather or a frigging virus is a political issue that is spun and contorted to a point were it is near comical if it were not for the fact the government regulators and politicians always looking to demonstrate what a great leader they are will make policies, pass laws or regulations based on shoddy science, political show boating, hyperbole...
In the words of Samuel Clemmons: “You are either uninformed, or misinformed.” Your pick.
If you want to be able to fit in and gossip about the same crap everyone else gossips about at the water cooler, watch the news.
Well, I hope right about now she’s “moderately” roasting in hell.
The Dems never miss with their SCOTUS picks. They always vote the right way ideologically.
Fake news started when Og promised everyone a pterodactyl in every pot.
When Clinton nominated her, nobody knew who she was. That’s usually how it is with these nominees from either side. It’s rare for a Court of Appeals judge to achieve notoriety in the general public. She was never a “trailblazer” nor was she a “cultural icon.” All fake news. By the time she was nominated, at least she was qualified, so she had that advantage over Kagan. Moderate? Wow.
Did Souter ever vote with the right on anything?
On top of all that, he waited until a Democrat was president before retiring, five months into Obama's first term at the age of 69.
His wiki page still lists him as a "Republican."
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.