Posted on 05/20/2015 7:33:15 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Since there was no bride to be the “belle” at the ritzy D.C. wedding of Shakespeare Theater Company artistic director Michael Kahn and Manhattan architect Charles Mitchem this weekend, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who officiated, was happy to play the part. And she did so with panache, says Maureen Dowd:
The most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word “Constitution,” Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States. . . . The guests began applauding loudly.
For a sitting Supreme Court justice facing a case on precisely this divisive issue, her remark seems — let’s put it mildly — injudicious. But Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not just some Supreme Court Justice. She is “Notorious R.B.G.”
The coinage, a mashup of Ginsburg and murdered rapper The Notorious B.I.G. (a.k.a. Biggie Smalls), was the brainchild of then–NYU law student Shana Khiznik in 2013, shortly after Justice Ginsburg issued much-feted dissents in Fisher v. University of Texas, an affirmative-action case, and Shelby County v. Holder, a case dealing with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Since then she has become an Internet sensation: ubiquitous meme, Halloween costume for infants, arm tat, the likeliest candidate on the Supreme Court to be made into an ice-cream flavor. In February, U.S. News & World Report recalled how Ginsburg drank before the 2015 State of the Union (!), once rode an elephant (!!), and another time went parasailing (!!@#$%!!!) — all dredged up “just in case you need more reasons to love Notorious RBG.”
I’m good, thanks.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Not that republicans always choose much more wisely.
I’d like to see him and Clarence Thomas go to Chick-Fil-A for lunch :)
The fault is hers; why punish yourself?
“why punish yourself?”
Just sheer frustration I guess.
The problem is too much of us, too little of God.
She is biased, she sleeps during court hearings.
She is no longer (if she ever was) worth being on the court.
Impeach and remove her.
Yesterday.
Agree with that.
She has not died of cancer yet?
I think she died 10 years ago. Its just that she,like most prog/commies refuse to admit it.
she uses international law and her own whims, everything but the US constitution
The optimistic news about such a situation is that it’s amenable to changing. We call the process of socializing the idea “evangelism.”
Nobody preaches the gospel (at least I hope nobody preaches the gospel) because they want a better government. The gospel is preached because we want the good Lord to be our government, and everything else to begin being a witness to that.
When the world gets so full of itself it has no more room for God, then it falls. The bible warns us that such an event is coming. It, however, does not pinpoint a time for it. If we can express care to the point of bringing the Lord into our picture to make a difference instead of merely hiding in holes, we should express that care. The opportunity to do that will not last forever.
She may be selfish but if it looks like Cruz is gonna win no telling what her fellow travelers will do to “encourage” her to quit while there is a rat president.
I am Cruz all the way. I hope so. Her? No doubt she is under relentless pressure to retire now. The one thing you can count on, however, is that a liberal will never give up their elitist selfish mien - not for one second. They will have to rely on other means than ‘voluntary’ if they want her out before November 2016.
I don’t think Democrats would want to cede defeat until Election Day. At that point, perhaps Cruz, with bully pulpit before official inauguration, could convince the Senate to wait “for nominees that better reflect the values of America,” no matter who quits and what the president proposes.
Let’s just hope and pray that nothing bad happens to Thomas, Scalia and Alito during this current administration.
I read, and agreed with, an argument on FR a few weeks ago that the Preamble holds to it as “...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity....”
‘Doesn’t mention homosexuals at all.
She must be so proud of the queering of America and her great role in it.
So very proud.
But Megyn Kelly says she makes Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg decisions strictly on the law.
Remember when she and O’Reilly got into a bit of a row about that a few years ago?
But Megyn Kelly says Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg makes decisions strictly on the law.
Remember when she and O’Reilly got into a bit of a row about that a few years ago?
Orin Hatch: Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.
I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.
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.