September 23, 2005
Ginsberg Usurps The Role of President and is stuck on stupid.
I always thought Ruth Bader Ginsberg was a flake. She advocated lowering the age of consent for sexual relations to a sex neutral age 12 and her votes on the USSC indicate to me that she is firmly on the lefty plantation with no hope of escaping, nor do I think she has any desire to escape.
Now she is telling the President WHO he must appoint to the vacancy caused by the retirement of Sandra Day O'Connor.
Ginsberg has stated "...any woman will not do..." and this of course gives rise to more than one question. First, who says it has to be a woman, just because a woman is retiring? For that matter, why does it have to be any person of a given race, creed, national origin, or sex? Why not a black male or a black female or a hispanic female or ...? There is a pernicious belief, growing, that future nominees for the courts must meet some kind of quota. How stupid can we get. The next qualified nominee must be a good jurist first and foremost. Given that Bush was the victor, it should be someone who meets his political belief system and that says generally conservative. Other than that, and to be totally honest not even that, is all that Bush has to do.
Ms. Ginsberg, it is the PRESIDENT who makes the choice, who decides on the qualifications he is looking for and who is bound to make the best choice possible. Get that? Don't be stuck on stupid! (Gadzooks I love that phrase.)
Ginsberg says that "...some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights..." Uh, excuse me?
Since when does the constitution dicate that Federal Judges, including Justices on the United States Supreme Court are required to advance human rights or women's rights? I thought that the requirement is that they intrepret what the law says. Now, granted that many interpretations have stuck in my craw, and many have been overturned by higher courts, but that doesn't mean that the principle is not correct. If a court decision has the advantage of advancing "human rights" or "women's rights" or "men's rights" or the "right's of victims of crimes" or any other legally sanctioned "right" fine and dandy. But that is a side issue and not the issue itself. The issue at hand is deciding the law. That is all, that is it, that is what is required.
Seemingly, Justice Ginsberg then would decide in favor of a woman if the issue was a male vs. a female even if the law stated clearly that the male was protected under the law. How dumb can she be?
President Bush, please feel free to ignore the ravings of that particular Justice. She doesn't know what she is talking about whether it is about sexually active 12 year olds or about who the next Justice should be. She is "STUCK ON STUPID."
Others reporting on this issue: Ankle Biting Pundits, Shooting The Messenger, The Uncooperative Blogger, A Man Over Thirty, Conservative Thinking, The Not So Silent Majority, and many many others.
Posted by GM Roper at September 23, 2005 07:11 AM | TrackBackMaybe the Republicans should have filibustered Ginsberg's nomination like the Democrats have done Republican ones. She's clearly not in touch with the mainstream or our consitution. What bothers me most about her comments is the reliance on international law to interpret our constitution. Here's that section of the story:
"...Ginsburg defended some of the justices' references to laws in other countries when making decisions, a practice strongly opposed by some U.S. legislators. The justice said using foreign sources does not mean giving them superior status in deciding cases. 'I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it,' she said. 'I don't want to stop at a national boundary.' When reminded that Roberts has indicated he disagrees with the practice of referring to foreign laws, Ginsburg said it appeared he 'is a man who does listen and is willing to learn.'
Willing to learn?! Willing to learn?! Why, referring to laws from other countries to interpret our constitution is not learning--it's getting stuck on stupid. (I didn't make up that term.)
This woman is dangerous if she can't stick to the job she was confirmed to uphold--faithfully and honestly interpreting our constitution. What's next? Put the Supreme Court under the U.N.?
Posted by Woody at September 23, 2005 09:22 AM
Isn't this just typical of the Radical Left? Reid, Leahy, Frist and Specter meet (repeatedly) with Bush concerning a nominee, then the Dem's come out whining about "No one talked to us like Clinton did the Republicans."
There is no requirement, especially to ask a sitting Justice who obviously doesn't share the views of Bush or the millions who elected him. The Senate has the role to "advise and consent." The SC doesn't have any role in the process.
The Minority party is the minority for a reason. Fewer and fewer people agreee with their positions. Its that simple.
As for the part about "advance(ing) human rights or women's rights," run for office if that's your agenda. The role of SCOTUS is to apply the rule of law, interpret the Constitution (not make up invisible "privacy" rights) and review the actions of the Executive and Legislative branch as to Constititutionality.
The Dems have long tried to diminish the last of those, calling any justice who override the Legislative branch "activist." Apparently that does not apply to those justices "advancing" their agenda.
AAARGH!!!!
Posted by Scott at September 23, 2005 01:40 PM
I know it's been many years since we had Supreme Court vacancies, but I can't recall a sitting Justice "advising" the President as to whom he should appoint as her (his) colleague on the Court. If anyone can find such a statement, I'd be glad to learn of it. Otherwise, it would appear Justice Ginsberg is way out of line and violating the separation of powers (and by implication her oath of office).
Posted by civil truth at September 23, 2005 07:00 PM
So she's not allowed to have an opinion about who Bush should appoint or express it? Riiiiiight. Tell me another one...
Posted by Michael B at September 24, 2005 02:22 AM
Michael, as a sitting judge, she should not project a particular viewpoint. She has a right to an opinion, but she should keep it to herself. If Scalia or Thomas had said something similar to influence a Clinton or a Gore or a Kerry, you guys would go balistic.... so, tell ME another one...
Posted by GM Roper at September 24, 2005 08:09 AM
Roper's right, Michael.
And if Ginsberg wants to "make" law rather than "interpret" law, I suggest she abandon her post and run for the Senate.
I'm just glad that Bush made a choice on O'Connor's replacement (which ended up being Rehnquist's replacement) based on abilities, not gender, race or any of a myriad of things others think should be the deciding factor. These are not just any job applicants. This is the highest court in the land.
Posted by Oyster at September 28, 2005 02:09 PM
