The title of this post refers to the opinion of a defender of baby killing regarding the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg. I think it's pretty clear that what makes her "one of the greatest justices of the last 100 years" to those who believe Ginsburg actually is one is her pro-choice position, framed as "women's rights".
But aside from that heinous position, can Ginsburg really be counted among that group? "One of the greatest"? Before any such title can be bestowed, it would help to review the purpose of a Supreme Court justice. From Wisegeek: "A Supreme Court Justice is a judge employed to decipher laws and ensure
that the United States remains a land guided and governed by its most
important body of law—the Constitution." That's as decent a description as any can be and more than good enough here.
Of course, in order to fulfill that obligation, a justice must have a good understanding of what the Constitution was created to do...what it means...why it exists. Ginsburg was one of those goofy "living document" people, who felt the Constitution means whatever one needs it to mean. This position allows a justice to legislate by forcing meaning into the Constitution that produces a desired result an activist justice favors.
Ginsburg's low opinion of the Constitution is well documented. She disabused Egypt of any thought of looking to it for ideas for how to craft their own, suggesting S. Africa's constitution is a better guide. What could be more absurd? This piece from Cato back in 1993...
https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ginsburgs-troubling-constitution
...provides a more detailed look at her bad judgement, and thus her failure to do her job as it should be done. Right from the start, her view of what a justice is meant to do should have disqualified her from the bench in the first place. It is NOT the role of a justice to legislate...AT ALL! Yet her belief that a justice does have such a role is why she was nominated by Bill Clinton and why lefties today revere her as "one of the greatest justices of the last 100 years". The irony is that why lefties believe her to be one is why she is one of worst of all time.
9 comments:
Apparently there's been some change in the new Blogger that confounded my attempt to use hyperlinks. I wonder what's up with that? Experimentation will ensue.
She should have made her last wish to repent and trust in Jesus rather than to pretend that she had any say over her successor. She was a Molech-worshiping ghoul to the end.
Neil,
I've heard someone's (or read someone's) response to referring to abortion supporters as Molech worshipers, and it wasn't necessarily concurring. Such was considered lying or something, because they aren't actually worshiping Molech. Unfortunately, they worship sexual intercourse and will sacrifice their children in order to do it without consequences. That's just as bad, if not worse than worshiping an ancient pagan god.
It was my response, and I stand by it. But, sin is still sin, and abortion is still murder of the most innocent of human beings for the sake of convenience.
What petty, small, evil-minded men you all are. Shame on you. Repent.
Neil, one day you will have to face the Lord God and pay for your crimes. Shame on you. Shame on you. All of you. What is wrong with you?
Art, Glenn, Neil, Stan, etc,
I've just been accused of being "hyper-emotional", a bully, and other things, would you guys agree with those characterizations?
Thanks.
Totally serious, I respect you guys and if I'm crossing a line I'd appreciate your feedback.
Accused of being hyper-emotional by “that guy.”
I wouldn’t worry about his opinions. He seems to live for conflict and controversy.
True, Perri. But in all honesty, I enjoy good debate myself. As to opinions, I regard them all equally valid by any means. I do insist they are supported by something akin to facts, logic, evidence, etc. Hard to get from "that guy".
I'm not necessarily worried, as much as I feel like it's good to check every once and a while.
Post a Comment