[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
United States News 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 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. Did Ginsburg add anything new Tuesday night following the anniversary dinner for the International Womens Health Coalition? Lets 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 thats 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. Its not a what for her but a how. And Ginsburg reiterated that she had problems with the how. Filipovic writes the courts 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 its Filipovic paraphrasing Justice Ginsburg, but shouldnt 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 Blackmuns 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 Meanss technique: begin with a scholarly attempt at historical research; if it doesnt 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 womans control of her own body, her choice whether and when to reproduce, its essential to women and its most basic for womens 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 Ginsburgs hands, the decision could portend the day that companies can claim they wouldnt hire a woman without the permission of her husband or father, if thats 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 Obamas 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 employers 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? Ginsburgs 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.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest
#1. To: A K A Stone (#0)
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!
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!
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.
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 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.
Name one that was removed. President or Supreme court justice.
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|