Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Notorious Impact on America

Comment by Jim Campbell

January, 16, 2010

This site will never suggest ill or harm to anyone with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton who is long overdue for her trip down the long green mile.

Justice Ginsburg could be dead already, will the media tell us immediately?

 

 

Of course they would like to keep it a secret but like they are, a bunch of sharks circling  fresh chum in the ocean, they will step all over each other to be first with the story.

 

 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett will be among the President’s likely nominations.currently sits on the 7th Circuit Court of appeals.

We wish ill upon no one at this site, with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton.

Of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is still alive she won’t be for very long.

For fans of the U.S. Constitution, her passing will be a relief.

For the functionally brain dead progressive/liberals in Congress her passing will certainly give her the Hershey squirts.

And rightly so, as her replacement, will likely make Trumps other choices seem like moderates.

President Trump has yet to name his choice to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, but already the vultures are circling. 

Proponents of judicial activism — those who see the High Court as just another political branch of government, rather than a neutral arbiter of the law, are particularly focused on smearing Judge Amy Coney Barrett, whom President Trump reportedly interviewed this week.

Opponents of Judge Barrett have unfairly attempted to paint her as controversial.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Barrett graduated with highest honors from the University of Notre Dame Law School (where she was a member of the law review), clerked for judges on the D.C. Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court, practiced law with an elite law-firm, and was a highly respected professor at Notre Dame Law School before joining the bench.

The Washington Post summarizes the case for Barrett this way:

“She’s young (46), good on her feet, telegenic, unmistakably conservative and, with seven children, has the kind of family you want sitting behind you during tense confirmation hearings.”

With this kind of record, you would expect feminists to rally behind Judge Barrett. After all, this is a woman who seems, literally, to have found a way to have it all — an incredibly successful career and a large and thriving family.

And yet, the National Women’s Law Center opposed Barrett’s nomination to the Seventh Circuit, calling her a threat to “civil, constitutional and reproductive rights.”

Of course they would.

 

 

They are made up of a bunch of leftist’s who are still upset that Obama’s illegal nomination of Justice Merrick Garland  didn’t get the nod.

On July 2, NWLC  one of its members said,“Someone like Amy Coney Barrett has no place on the bench of our country’s highest court.” 

Apparently, the organization, which boasts the motto, “expanding the possibilities for women and girls since 1972,” only wants to expand opportunities for certain kinds of women and girls. Women “like Amy Coney Barrett” not included.  

So, what is it about Judge Barrett that has much of the sisterhood in a tizzy? Her religion: Judge Barrett is a devout Catholic.

At the time of Barrett’s nomination to the Seventh Circuit, Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) declared that she had a “very uncomfortable feeling” about Barrett’s faith and inappropriately questioned Barrett’s ability to serve impartially.  “The dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein famously quipped.

“And that is of concern.”

Feinstein is uncomfortable about a lot of things, particularly guns.

She has failed miserably in her capacity to uphold the U.S. Constitution on the Second Amendment.

She is a major proponent of disarming all law-abiding citizen’s never questioning how Congress would get illegal gun owners to “Turn them all in.”

While many on the left attempt to minimize Feinstein’s remarks as simply “inelegantly” put,  they nevertheless find her concerns “just.”

But it is hard to see why Barrett’s Catholicism warrants special concern.

After all, progressives have long said that “empathy” is one of the most important qualities in a judge.

Does empathy that flows from religious conviction not count? And do those “concerned” about Barrett’s religion actually believe that a president should never consider a person of faith for the federal judiciary?

Barrett has been clear that her personal views (whatever they may be) will not impact her judicial decisions.

Long before she was nominated to the bench, then-Professor Barrett wrote that litigants and the public are entitled to “impartial justice” — irrespective of a judge’s moral or religious views.

Barrett is also firmly committed to originalism and textualism — twin tenets of interpretation that constrain the ability of judges to impose their own moral values.

In truth, much of the hysteria from the left boils down to one case: Roe v. Wade.

 Progressives are concerned that Barrett might provide the fifth vote to overrule the controversial decision that created a constitutional right to abortion on demand.

But Barrett’s views on stare decisis — the idea that sometimes it is better that the law be settled than it be right — are well within the mainstream.

Barrett has expressed the widely-held view that constitutional decisions are entitled to a weaker form of stare decisis because, unlike statutory decisions, Congress cannot change a constitutional ruling.

Legal scholars of all political stripes acknowledge that a constitutional precedent is not absolute.

If it were, the Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu decisions would still be law of the land.

Of course, demanding guarantees from judicial nominees that they will vote a certain way on cases that may come before them violates the principle of impartiality that is the cornerstone of an independent judiciary.

But the attacks on Barrett also reveal as utterly disingenuous the feminists’ purported goal of breaking the “glass ceiling” in order to allow more women to succeed at the very highest levels of government.

We don’t know who President Trump will select to replace Justice Kennedy. But he should not let a well-organized, well-funded and bigoted attack on a potential nominee influence his decision.

Jennifer C. Braceras is a senior fellow with Independent Women’s Forum. Since graduating from Harvard Law School in 1994, Braceras has served as a law clerk to two federal judges, practiced employment law at a major Boston law firm, and taught and conducted research on education law and federal anti-discrimination law.

Erin Hawley is a legal fellow with Independent Women’s Forum, an associate professor of law at the University of Missouri, and a former law clerk to Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

A quarter century of radicalism on the bench.

Front Page Magazine

Joseph Hippolito

The recently released film biography of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 

On The Basis of Sex, provides the latest example of pop culture’s infatuation with the leader of the court’s liberal contingent, who will turn 86 in March.

That infatuation began with the independent biopic, RBG. Ginsburg played along with her newfound hip status by distributing “Notorious RBG” T-shirts.

When Ginsburg was hospitalized after breaking three ribs during a fall in November, various celebrities took to Twitter to offer their ribs and other vital organs.

On his late-night show, Jimmy Kimmel even humorously offered to provide Ginsburg with a large plastic bubble — after proclaiming that “for obvious reasons,” she “must be protected at any cost.”

What are those “obvious reasons?”

Why, the election of President Donald Trump, of course.

But why would celebrities be so concerned with the health of an elderly, chronically ill justice whom they never met?

Simple.

Those celebrities share Ginsburg’s radical political values, which define the Left’s obsession with “social justice” and “equality” — and which she expressed more than 40 years ago in a seminal legal analysis.

As a law professor at Columbia in 1977, Ginsburg teamed with fellow feminist lawyer Brenda Feigen-Fasteau to compose Sex Bias in U.S. Code for the United States Commission on Civil Rights.

The basis for that report was a similar work the two feminists produced in 1974, The Legal Status of Women under Federal Law.

Both reports recommended changes to the federal code to eliminate possible discrimination against women.

But many recommendations had nothing to do with increasing opportunities for women.

Rather, Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau sought to dictate social conditions that would obliterate legitimate distinctions between the sexes.

The result would be a utopian egalitarianism justified by what Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau called “the equal rights principle.”

“The equal rights principle looks toward a world in which men and women function as full and equal partners, with artificial barriers removed and opportunity unaffected by a person’s gender,” their report stated.

“Preparation for such a world requires elimination of sex separation in all public institutions where education and training occur.

While the personal privacy principle permits maintenance of separate sleeping and bathing facilities, no other facilities, e.g., work, school, or cafeteria, should be maintained for one sex only.”

The key to implementing that principle involved rewriting federal code to displa

ce all gender-specific language, including pronouns, with neutered terms. Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau recommended replacing such terms as “manpower” with “human resources,” “chairman” with “chairperson” and “fraternity and sorority chapters” with “social societies,” and advocated using “he/she,” “hers/his” and “her/him” for third-person singular pronouns — even to the point of using “plural constructions” to avoid such pronouns.

“Although no substantive differential may be generated by 1 U.S.C. §1r the current drafting scheme suggests a society in which men are (and ought to be) the dominant participants,” the report said while referring to the section dealing with terminology.

“Revision of 1 U.S.C. §1 is recommended to reflect in form as well as substance the equal status of women and men before the law.

A new subsection also is proposed, 1 U.S.C. §106(c), instructing drafters to use sex-neutral terminology in all Federal legislative texts.” (parenthesis in original)

As a result, rewritten federal law could be used to abolish single-sex institutions — ranging from prisons to such youth groups as the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts.

Regarding prisons and penal facilities for juveniles, Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau wrote that inmates of both sexes should be housed in the same facility.

“Sex-segregated adult or juvenile institutions are obviously separate, and in a variety of ways, unequal,” their report stated.

“Differences in training programs, distance from cities and relatives, work-release programs, educational opportunities, security, and other conditions redound to the benefit of men in some instances and women in others.

If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.”

Such rejection extends to sexually segregated groups that “furnish educational, financial, social and other assistance to their young members,” stated the report, which specified the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Future Farmers of America, Boys’ Clubs of America, Big Brothers of America and the Naval Sea Cadet Corps.

“The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, while ostensibly providing ‘separate but equal’ benefits to both sexes, perpetuate stereotyped sex roles to the extent that they carry out congressionally-mandated purposes,” the report stated. “36 U.S.C. §23 defines the purpose of the Boy Scouts as the promotion of ‘…the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues….’

“The purpose of the Girl Scouts, on the other hand, is ‘…to promote the qualities of truth, loyalty, helpfulness, friendliness, courtesy, purity, kindness, obedience, cheerfulness, thriftiness, and kindred virtues among girls, as a preparation for their responsibilities in the home and for service to the community….’ “

The report advocated integrating the other four groups mentioned because they had no counterparts for girls and they “provide valuable training and social activity not readily obtainable elsewhere to female children and adolescents,” the report stated.

Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau’s agenda also meant fundamentally redefining roles within the family.

“Congress and the President should direct their attention to the concept that pervades the Code: that the adult world is (and should be) divided into two classes — independent men, whose primary responsibility is to win bread for a family and dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household,” the report stated. 

“This concept must be eliminated from the Code if it is to reflect the equality principle.” (parentheses in original, emphasis added)

Increasing numbers of women joining the work force also “should impel development of a comprehensive program of government-supported child care,” the report stated.

Redefining family roles and providing government-supported child care reflect Marxist ideas that Leon Trotsky reiterated in his book, The Revolution Betrayed, which criticized Stalin’s policies.

“The place of the family as a shut-in petty enterprise was to be occupied, according to the plans, by a finished system of social care and accommodation: maternity houses, crèches, kindergartens, schools, social dining rooms, social laundries, first-aid stations, hospitals, sanatoria, athletic organizations, moving-picture theaters, etc.,” Trotsky wrote.

“The complete absorption of the housekeeping functions of the family by institutions of the socialist society, uniting all generations in solidarity and mutual aid, was to bring to woman, and thereby to the loving couple, a real liberation from the thousand-year-old fetters.”

The kind of adult liberation Ginsburg and Feigen-Fasteau envisioned would increase risks for young women.

The two feminists viewed the language of the Mann Act, passed in 1910 to prohibit commercially transporting “any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose,” as insulting to women while reinforcing stereotypical views.

“The Mann Act also is offensive because of the image of women it perpetuates,” the report stated.

“It was meant to protect from ‘the villainous interstate and international traffic in women and girls,’ ‘those women and girls who, if given a fair chance, would, in all human probability, have been good wives and mothers and useful citizens.’ “

The 1977 report also stated that “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.”

That assessment provided a stark contrast with this statement from Ginsburg’s and Feigen-Fasteau’s 1974 work:

“To eradicate sex-based discrimination in the catalogue of crimes, prostitution should be de-criminalized … laws classifying or referring to prostitution or solicitation by or on behalf of a prostitute should be repealed….”

Three years before preparing Sex Bias in U.S. Code, Ginsburg implied in a speech to Phi Beta Kappa that reverse discrimination would be necessary to open professional opportunities for women in male-dominated fields.

“First, does affirmative action required by anti-discrimination laws imply reverse discrimination?” Ginsburg rhetorically asked in 1974.

“As to affirmative action, discrimination in the job market has been the traditional pattern discrimination in favor of white males, and sometimes a narrower subspecies of that broad class.

That pattern, of course, must be terminated.”

Ginsburg used what she called a “not so hypothetical” example: Female police officers who seek to become sergeants could not take the necessary examination because women have been barred from patrol duty, a necessary prerequisite.

“But when an employer traditionally has acted on the basis of a gender characteristic, by hiring only males, gender must be taken into account in order to undo what has been done,” Ginsburg said. “Otherwise, the effects of past discrimination will be perpetuated long into the future.”

President Bill Clinton appointed Ginsburg to the Supreme Court in 1993 and the Senate confirmed her, 96-3.

During her quarter century on the bench, Ginsburg made a profound impact. Most of today’s controversies concerning diversity, gender confusion and human trafficking result directly from the radical egalitarianism she espouses — and which pop culture’s elites unquestioningly embrace.

 

THE END

About JCscuba

I am firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. This site covers politics with a fiscally conservative, deplores Sharia driven Islam, and uses lots of humor to spiceup your day. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the progressive movement. Obama nearly destroyed our country economically, militarily coupled with his racism he set us further on the march to becoming a Socialist State. Now it's up to President Trump to restore America to prominence. Republicans who refuse to go along with most of his agenda RINOs must be forced to walk the plank, they are RINOs and little else. Please subscribe at the top right and pass this along to your friends, Thank's I'm J.C. and I run the circus
This entry was posted in Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Notorious Impact on America and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Notorious Impact on America

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.