[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.

Iceland Volcano Erupts For Third Time In 2 Months, State Of Emergency Declared

Tucker Carlson Interview with Vladamir Putin

How will Ar Mageddon / WW III End?

What on EARTH is going on in Acts 16:11? New Discovery!

2023 Hottest in over 120 Million Years

2024 and beyond in prophecy

Questions

This Speech Just Broke the Internet

This AMAZING Math Formula Will Teach You About God!

The GOSPEL of the ALIENS | Fallen Angels | Giants | Anunnaki

The IMAGE of the BEAST Revealed (REV 13) - WARNING: Not for Everyone

WEF Calls for AI to Replace Voters: ‘Why Do We Need Elections?’

The OCCULT Burger king EXPOSED

PANERA BREAD Antichrist message EXPOSED

The OCCULT Cheesecake Factory EXPOSED

Satanist And Witches Encounter The Cross

History and Beliefs of the Waldensians

Rome’s Persecution of the Bible

Evolutionists, You’ve Been Caught Lying About Fossils

Raw Streets of NYC Migrant Crisis that they don't show on Tv

Meet DarkBERT - AI Model Trained On DARK WEB

[NEW!] Jaw-dropping 666 Discovery Utterly Proves the King James Bible is God's Preserved Word

ALERT!!! THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION WILL SOON BE POSTED HERE

Pinguinite You have mail..

What did Bill Clinton and Gavin Newsom talk about in Mexico? I have an idea


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

United States News
See other United States News Articles

Title: The question is: will Justice Gindburg get a chance to explain her point of view to her Maker? Or, will she just go straight to Hell
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.lifenews.com/2014/09/11/ ... activated-a-pro-life-movement/
Published: Sep 11, 2014
Author: Dave Andrusko
Post Date: 2014-09-11 20:00:25 by A K A Stone
Keywords: None
Views: 2151
Comments: 7

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.

ruthbaderginsburgDid Ginsburg add anything new Tuesday night following the anniversary dinner for the International Women’s Health Coalition? Let’s see.

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.

Click here to sign up for daily pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

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. (1 image)

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)

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.

That's the absurdity of Progressives for you, thoughts of sheer fallacy.

A person that votes for Leftards, RightTards, or Faux Conservatives is like a chicken that votes for Col Sanders!

CZ82  posted on  2014-09-13   7:07:55 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#2. To: A K A Stone (#0)

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.

Ruthy if you were a moral person you would know better. The majority of the public weren't/aren't going to respond "positively" to that decision, your self appointed lordship!

A person that votes for Leftards, RightTards, or Faux Conservatives is like a chicken that votes for Col Sanders!

CZ82  posted on  2014-09-13   7:13:12 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#3. To: CZ82 (#1)

I just hope she lives until Obama is gone.

A K A Stone  posted on  2014-09-13   8:41:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#4. To: A K A Stone (#3)

I just hope she lives until Obama is gone.

Why, do you think he will appoint a bigger POS?

A vote for Leftardism is a vote for Leftardism, one vote doesn't hold more weight than another.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2014-09-13   10:15:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#5. To: CZ82 (#4)

Why, do you think he will appoint a bigger POS?

A vote for Leftardism is a vote for Leftardism, one vote doesn't hold more weight than another.

Not so much a bigger POS as much as a younger one that will be there for a long time.

A K A Stone  posted on  2014-09-13   22:10:19 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#6. To: A K A Stone (#5)

Not so much a bigger POS as much as a younger one that will be there for a long time.

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached, convicted and removed from office for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors in the same way as the President may be removed.

“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end.”

CZ82  posted on  2014-09-17   16:34:56 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


#7. To: CZ82 (#6)

A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached, convicted and removed from office for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors in the same way as the President may be removed.

Name one that was removed. President or Supreme court justice.

A K A Stone  posted on  2014-09-18   0:17:15 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com