Ruth Bader Ginsberg

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
InfamousRBG1.jpg
The infamous RBG. Single handedly dividing and polarizing us, and demonstrating how not to be a Supreme Court Justice. She's like the Rose Bird of the federal court, putting her own interests and political agenda above the law.

At her confirmation she swore under oath that she was neither a Democrat or Republican, so she's proven that she's also dishonest.

While I don't wish harm on anyone, when she dies, the Supreme Court will get a lot better.

Trump Rant

To show her senility (or lack of judgement) runs deeper than her rulings, she openly made hostile statements about a Presidential candidate. Foolish. Her apologists claimed those criticizing her, were attacking her free speech rights -- but that's not the case, they were attacking her judgement in not exercising her right to remain silent.

Most intelligent and thoughtful jurists didn't opine on politics is because if they do, they either need to recuse themselves a lot, or they lose the public trust on rulings on cases that have to do with politics/politicians. In RBG's case, she's long lost that trust among those paying attention, so perhaps it doesn't matter. But there's a reason that there was a precedent for most shutting up about it. So no one is saying she has to be quiet for first amendment reasons (under law), they're saying that wise jurists have always done so.

No one that I've heard or read claimed they can't have opinions. They just need the prudence to know how/when to express them (and which ones not to). Blatant one sided propaganda from a eugenicist, may cause some distrust amongst those to the right of Mrs. Marx. And if she can't show the judgement to know when to shut up (or understand how both sides might take her partisan rhetoric), what makes you think she has the judgement to be a justice?

Justices like Scalia had opinions, but most of his political ones were in the context of the law and rulings, and not his personal preference on candidates. Why? Because likely around half the population would disagree with his political assessment, so in making those comments, all he can do is reduce the confidence in the justice/courts impartiality.

Now some argue it's good that they have opinions and are free to express them... as long as they show they can still make decisions based on facts and arguments instead of partisan bias. But in Ginsburg's case, she has a history of doing neither: preferring to ignore the constitution, denigrate it (by telling Egypt they'd do better to look at South Africa's Constitution than our own for their model), or saying we should base our laws on precedents set outside our borders (ignore original intent of contract law), and so on. So this isn't a case of RBG having an informed opinion AND being a well reasoned jurist... it's about her having uninformed opinions, expressing them, and frustrating those who also dislike her mental gymnastics many rulings have to go through to come to her decisions to ignore all original intent, and invent what she needs to contort the law into what she wish it had actually said.

Examples

Eugenics

RBG2.jpg

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine: “Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe v. Wade] was decided,” Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” The comment, which bizarrely elicited no follow-up from Bazelon or any further coverage from the New York Times — or any other major news outlet — was in the context of Medicaid funding for abortion.

South African Constitution

She advocated using the South African Constitution as a better model than the U.S. Constitution, for those creating a new one in Egypt. Like these sections: Section 9 — Universal Declaration of Human Rights prohibits all discrimination "on one or more grounds, including...", but specifically lists the following grounds "race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth."

Section 8 includes the limitation "Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that the discrimination is fair."

You can't be a racist, unless you decide racism is fair. Oh, and in case you think this is purely academic, the South African Supreme Court ruled that it was OK to seize white farmers land from them, because that kind of discrimination was "fair".

Section 10 states “Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected.”

Dignity is a subjective standard, thus hard to codify into law. Are you allowed to have strip searches in prison? Mandatory showers in Jr. High School Gyms? Or lose your dignity (pride) while being arrested for a crime. Life attacks our dignity from the first times we shit ourselves as babies and our parents have to clean it up, until we do so at the end of our lives and make the nurses do it.

Section 11: the right to life, which has been held to prohibit capital punishment, but does not prohibit abortion.

Section 14 contains detailed provisions on the right to privacy. Defining the scope as follows: “Everyone has the right to privacy, which includes the right not to have the person or their home searched; their property searched; their possessions seized; or the privacy of their communications infringed.”

So no warrants or wiretaps, ever? No x-rays or strip searches while entering prison?

Section 20 states that “No citizen may be deprived of citizenship.”

Why shouldn't someone who leaves and joins a foreign army against your nation, be considered a foreign actor, and not welcome back?

Section 23: labour rights, including the right to unionise and the right to strike.

Seems a little out of place for a constitution, that is supposed to be about ideas, not implementations.

Section 27 sets out a number of rights with regard to health, including right to access to health care, including reproductive rights, the right to social security, the right to food, and the right to water. And, “The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights."

So they're enshrining Socialism and the lack of individual rights, over collective rights (which aren't rights but powers). So if you're a doctor/nurse, I can force you to offer your services to others. If a violent criminal comes over, you have to give him food, or the government has the right to take it from you and give it to him? And the State is empowered to steal whatever it wants from individuals in the name of progressive redistribution? Pretty ugly laws if you ask me.

Section 29: the right to education, including a universal right to basic education.

Again, what's "basic" education? How can you ever have a healthy school competition/system, when your services must be given for free?

Conclusion

I'm not a fan of legislation for things that we wouldn't ruin or end lives over (where laws ultimately end up). Plus, it's like a litmus test for worthiness. Ginsberg is free to show how disaqualified she is to be a rational jurist. Thus history gets to mark her, and her allies, by their actions. Suppressing that gives her future supporters more plausible deniability as to what an embarrassing polemic she's become.

References