Ruth Bader Ginsberg
From iGeek
The infamous RBG, single handedly dividing and polarizing us, putting her own interests/agendas above the law.
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2018-02-12 |
Examples
Here's a few of RBG's worst: either most partisan, least legally established (most activist), or just poor judgement as a human (as well as a judge) sort of things:
- 2009.07.15 Eugenics support - 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... there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”... there was some inferred support for the thinking and for abortion because of it.
- 2012.02.06 South African Constitution - While discussing Egypt's Constitution, RBG advocated using the South African Constitution as a better model than the U.S. Constitution. A cluster fuck of Social Justice that allows injustice, racism, outlaws capital punishment but not abortion, open borders, a universal healthcare. It's a great compendium of liberal causes, but lousy fucking law. Like RBG herself.
- 2018.02.12 Trump Rants - RBG showed her senility (or lack of judgement) worse than her rulings by openly making hostile statements about a Presidential candidate and her favoritism for the other. Foolish. Most intelligent and thoughtful jurists didn't opine on politics is because they lose public trust for them or the court, unless they recuse themselves. Exposing bias undermines the court.
- 2018.07.12 Kavanaugh or RBG - NYT had a snotty tone when intro'ing Brett Kavanaugh's and his record of "diversity". They mentioning the Women, and omitted the other minorities: 6 Asian Americans, 5 African American, and 2 Hispanics. They also omitted that Nefarious RBG has a far worse record for diversity.
- 2018.08.26 Forgot the 14th Amendment - Do I think it's unusual for a career jurist (such a RBG) to Forget the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, in a prepared talk? And not be able to find the document she's claimed she always has with her? A little inept. But she is an octogenarian who seems to prefer the South American Constitution to our own. But does anyone reasonable doubt that the media would been all over such a gaff, if it had been a conservative jurist: for the racist, lack of professionalism, or cries of senility?
- American Legion v. American Humanist Assn. - 1925 Bladensburg ‘Peace Cross’ can stay on public land ruling. This was a win for freedom of religion: a cross is often a secular display and even if it wasn't, respecting a religion (and a tradition) is not the same as promoting it, nor a violation of separation of Church and State. Naturally Ginsburg and Sotomayor took the progressive/anti-Liberty position.
- Nina Totenbergs RBG Hagiography - NPR's top "Journalist," wrote a book (Dinners With Ruth) proving she wasn't a journalist, by fawning over her bias/friendship with RBG. Her "friendship" and praise of Ruth Bader Ginsberg, would be an embarrassment (and fireable offense) at any credible publication -- because it shows how biased she was, and thus all stories/coverage of RBG and the court was skewed for decades.
- RIP RBG - I don't wish harm on anyone, but for jurisprudence reasons, I'm glad that RBG passed. She might have been a nice person, but there are lots of nice people that shouldn’t be on the Supreme Court. She was on the wrong side of virtually all the worst rulings during her tenure. The only thing she was right on, was that Roe v. Wade was a bad ruling.
- Ruth Bader Ginsberg/Death - The left is frustrated that RBG died so poorly timed, and that it was selfish for her to hold out and bet her legacy on Hillary winning. But that ignores the failures of her legacy as a justice. She never offered Justice, only divisive leftist activism, and was on the wrong side of most rulings (from a civil libertarian or Constitutionalist point of view).
Conclusion[edit | edit source]
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. While I don't wish harm on anyone, when she died, the Supreme Court got a lot better.
🔗 More
| |
| |
| |
