Not fair, you say, portraying her as an evil looking crone.
Posted on 09/11/2014 12:01:47 PM PDT by wagglebee
It seems as if every few months pro-abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg gives a speech and/or interview in which she talks about how if only the Supreme Court had reached the same decision it did in Roe but over time, step by step, “the public would have reacted in a more positive way than it did,” as she told Jill Filipovic of Cosmopolitan this week.
This is what I have previously described as the “tempo” argument. Justice Ginsburg has not a single pro-life metacarpal in her body, but she often argues that it would have placed the “right” to abortion on surer footing if instead of getting everything in one fell swoop (in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton), abortion litigants had won more gradually.
She recycled her argument that Roe/Doe crystallized the Pro-Life Movement by establishing a “target.” Ginsburg told Filipovic
“Roe v. Wade, that case name is probably the best-known case of the second half of the 20th century. And a movement focused on ending access to abortion for women grew up, flourished, around that one target. Nine unelected judges decided that one issue for the nation.”
Last year, in a speech, Ginsburg remarked, “And that’s not the way the Court ordinarily operates.”
Likewise her concurrence, expressed many times before, that the Texas law at issue in Roe should have been overturned. It’s not a “what” for her but a “how.” And Ginsburg reiterated that she had problems with the “how.” Filipovic writes
“the court’s decision to issue a sweeping judgment establishing the right to abortion in all 50 states was a strategically poor one and led to modern-day political battles over reproductive rights.
“’There might have been a backlash in any case,’ Ginsburg said. ‘But I think [because of Roe] it took on steam.’”
To be sure it’s Filipovic paraphrasing Justice Ginsburg, but shouldn’t it be unsettling that a Supreme Court decision would be judged on whether it was a ‘strategically’ smart one or not?
We all understand that Justice Blackmun’s turgid opinion was steeped in politics. So, too, with the lawyers that brought the case to the Supreme Court. As we posted the other day, the central claims in a law review article written by Cyril Means that Blackmun relied on so heavily were not true, as David Tundermann, a Yale law student and part of the team challenging the Texas law, warned in 1971.
We quoted scholar Justin Dyer who wrote that Tundermann concluded
”Where the important thing to do is to win the case no matter how, however, I suppose I agree with Means’s technique: begin with a scholarly attempt at historical research; if it doesn’t work out, fudge it as necessary; write a piece so long that others will read only your introduction and conclusion; then keep citing it until the courts begin picking it up. This preserves the guise of impartial scholarship while advancing the proper ideological goals.”
So it is only appropriate to talk about politics and how Roe was a “strategically poor decision.”
In response to a question, Ginsburg reaffirmed what she had said at her 1993 confirmation hearing. “A woman’s control of her own body, her choice whether and when to reproduce, it’s essential to women and it’s most basic for women’s health.” The “health” of the unborn child is not even worth mentioning, even if only to deny its significance.
And like many older pro-abortion feminists, “Ginsburg worries that young women are complacent about their rights.” No, they are abortion “survivors” who have grown up in an era when the visibility of their unborn sisters and brothers is more evident each and every day.
As a final touch Ginsburg caricatures the “Hobby Lobby” decision to the point of absurdity. As NRLC pointed out last July, the ruling provided a modest victory for religious conscience rights but did nothing to truly correct any of the major abortion-expanding problems created by Obamacare.
But in Ginsburg’s hands, the decision could portend the day that companies can claim “they wouldn’t hire a woman without the permission of her husband or father, if that’s what their religion dictates.”
Does anyone believe that, even Ginsburg? Of course not, although this kind of reductio ad absurdum argument was essential to the dissent of four justices.
A much more realistic future scenario would start with the fact that what was at issue in Hobby Lobby was the attempt by Obama’s Department of Health and Human Services to force family-owned for-profit corporations to directly purchase health insurance covering certain drugs and devices that violate the employer’s religious and moral beliefs.
What would prevent HHS from issuing a further expansion of its “preventive services” mandate to require that most employers also provide coverage for surgical abortions, or for doctor-prescribed suicide, that would be just as expansive as the contraceptive mandate?
Ginsburg’s final observation is extremely telling. Filipovic writes
“Roe, she said, could serve as a lesson in how the judiciary is vulnerable to accusations that they lack accountability, and how perhaps more can be accomplished — and accomplished more calmly — incrementally, even in the social justice realm.
“’You give it to them softly,’ Ginsburg said. ‘And you build them up to what you want.’”
So….”accountability” for the ‘nine unelected justices” is when you snooker the public by obtaining the verdict you wanted all along, but doing so “softly.”
Now that, even by pro-abortion standards, is cynical.
LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. This post originally appeared at National Right to Life News Today.
The first of these: Dred Scot v. Sanford, declared that former slaves were "property" and not persons.
The second of these: Roe v. Wade, applied the same standard to human embryos and fetuses.
Morality does not enter the lexicon of this harridan. She and the rest of her coven seek only the demise of any and all who are not similarly depraved.
Apparently he popped in her teeth after he woke her up on the toilet.
What a sweet little goblin.
So I guess they’re trying to improve the “tempo” by waiting a few months before they invalidate all the remaining state constitutional amendments that define marriage. Is it supposed to be more palatable that we went from treating this behavior as criminally insane to a wild public celebration of deviant sex in more than the flip of a switch?
As a consequence of parents not making sure that their children are being taught why the Founding States enumerated certain rights into the Constitution, the activist justices who decided Roe v. Wade got away with doing the following. These justices put on their "magic glasses" to find the "enumerated" right to have an abortion in the 9th Amendment, and then used the 14th Amendment (14A) as an excuse to apply the "constitutional" abortion right that they had self-deceptively legislated from the bench to the states.
The problem is that not only had John Bingham, the main author of Section 1 of 14A, officially clarified that the amendment applied only enumerated rights which the states had amended to the Constitution to the states, but justices contemporary with the ratification of 14A had likewise clarified tha 14A applied only enumerated rights to the states.
“Mr. Speaker, this House may safely follow the example of the makers of the Constitution and the builders of the Republic, by passing laws for enforcing all the privileges and immunities of the United States as guaranteed by the amended Constitution and expressly enumerated in the Constitution [emphasis added].” — Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session. (See lower half of third column.)
“3. The right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that amendment does not add to these privileges and immunities. It simply furnishes additional guaranty for the protection of such as the citizen already had [emphasis added].” —Minor v. Happersett, 1874.
But since the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect the so-called "right" to have an abortion, the misguided Court actually had no constitutionally enumerated abortion right to apply to the states via 14A.
She must have one of those Derek Flint watches to get her hear, what passes for a heart, started again.
You had to post her picture. Was it for emphasis? What a fugly female. And even more fugly on the inside.
Just a damn shame that Ginzburg’s mother was so pro-life!
Ah, “incrementally.” What the Bible has revealed to be a tactic of Satan himself, called a “foothold” and also the way our nation has been taken into communism. Little by little. Problem is, God does warn us long before His wrath is unleashed, too, and we all know it’s coming.
reproductive rights have never been challenged....you can choose to reproduce or not to reproduce....however, once that you reproduce, you cannot kill the BABY.....that should be very clear.
So Ginsburg basically admits for the 10th time to making up law.
Matthew 6:22-23
“The lamp of the body is the eye. If your eye is sound, your whole body will be filled with light;
but if your eye is bad, your whole body will be in darkness. And if the light in you is darkness, how great will the darkness be.
Oy vey.
That shriveled little hag is just plain evil.
Her brain is probably more shriveled than any other organ in her body.
Someone define “murder” for her. I don’t think she understands the word.
I lament that Ginsberg’s mother apparently did not have a choice and spawned this evil wench anyway.
What part of that sarcasm went over your head?
If her mother had had the option she might have aborted this marxist wench saving the US from a lot of crap down the road.
The Miracle of Life just for Justice Ginsburg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4rJwgAQkSM&feature=youtu.be
She is a vile hateful person and has no idea what awaits her in the next life if she doesn’t wake up to the demonic spirit she worships and empowers over her countrymen,
“And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Moloch” Leviticus 18:21
“It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” Luke 17:2
Jesus himself tells us that children have Guardian Angels:
“Take heed that ye despise not one of these little ones; for I say unto you, That in heaven their angels do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven” Matthew 18:10
“And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.” Revelation 18:21
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.