Ruth Vader Ginsburg shocked many on Saturday when she reportedly criticized the Roe v. Wade decision. Not because she cares at all about protecting life. And not because she cares about adhering to the Constitution. But because she believes the decision switched the momentum from pro-aborts to pro-lifers.
It’s not good enough, I guess, for abortion to be legalized as a federal right. We all have to like it. She said:
“That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly… My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change.”
This is interesting for a number of reasons. One, it shows that she views court decisions through the prism of ideology and politics rather than adherence to our founding documents.
Two, I know reading the tea leaves on any Supreme Court decision is dangerous work but her words lead me to believe she’s not going to declare gay marriage a constitutional right. Not because she doesn’t believe it should happen but because she’d be afraid that it would stop the momentum of the gay rights movement.
Mind you, I’m still fairly certain the court will find DOMA unconstitutional but stop short of declaring gay “marriage” a right. Mind you, it won’t be because she thinks the Constitution doesn’t really say anything about gay “marriage” but because she’s afraid of stopping the momentum of the gay rights movement.
May 12, 2013 at 7:26 pm
Who can fathom this archaic nonsense?
Ginsberg and the rest of her "psuedo" intellectual ilk, are (finally) now getting tripped up and caught up in the idiocy of their arguments. They now have completely "boxed" themselves in!
There are so many platform plot twists, turns double speak and double talk. The backward forward, turn left to turn right, moving up to go down, progressive thinking diatribe!
Absolutely fascinated, watching her continue to defend and pedal pure "cr@p"!
This is what I call "real entertainment"!!!
May 12, 2013 at 7:37 pm
…correction.
…Ginsb"u"rg!…;)
…gotta' love her!
May 12, 2013 at 11:09 pm
Although the pro-life movement is more publicly exposed because of Roe, she's full of it: pro-aborts knew that CA and NY were in serious contention for seeing their (at the time) most- liberal-in-the-nation abortion laws completely reversed in 1973, after seeing a surprise campaign lead by people like Dr and Mrs Wilke in Michigan and other states during the '72 election.
May 13, 2013 at 1:19 am
The Court in Roe was to give the unborn the benefit of a doubt, a reasonable doubt, before supporting the execution of the sovereign person in the womb without finding of capital one homicide guilt. The Rule of Law has been and is being ignored by the very Justices who must deliver the virtue of Justice. The Court gave custody of the newly begotten human being to someone who intended to murder him. “Is it a person?” Potter Stewart asked Sarah Weddington in Roe v. Wade. Weddington told the court to prove that the unborn is a person. Weddington told the court to prove a self-evident truth, that all men are created equal. Weddington demanded that she and the unborn are not equal. The burden of proof that the unborn is a person, or not a person, as Weddington argued, was upon Weddington. The Court in Roe was to give the unborn the benefit of a doubt, a reasonable doubt, before supporting the execution of the sovereign person in the womb without finding of capital one homicide guilt. The Rule of Law has been ignored. Justice delayed is Justice denied.
Ginsburg, as attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, wrote in her book that all fourteen year old girls have informed sexual consent, therefore, are emancipated to be abuse by lecherous old men and then be aborted.
At 12:00 midnight on Christmas Eve one year, in the legislature, the state of New Jersey made fourteen years of age the age of informed sexual consent, for girls but not for boys. Equal Justice for all? Right? Then the people found out. So, I believe the age of informed sexual consent for girls in NJ is sixteen.
May 13, 2013 at 2:39 pm
Shut it, Mary.
May 14, 2013 at 2:08 am
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, one time head attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union is advocating replacing the Constitution for The United States of America and using international law, specifically The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations which states:
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations specifies that all human beings are BORN free and equal in dignity and rights. It does not specify from whom rights are obtained.
What the UD of HR is saying is that unless an individual can produce a vital statistic of citizenship or a certificate of citizenship, the human being in existence in the womb has no acknowledgeable or recognizable civil or human rights for which the United Nations will vouch for, or be responsible for or have cause to defend. The UD of HR is derelict in omitting the truth of the creation of the United Nations by the nations, created by man, created by God. Without an acknowledgement of God, a person does not exist unless he has citizenship papers. With God, a person exists without citizenship papers.
The UD of HR does not claim creation of or endowment of human rights. The UD of HR claims jurisdiction over human rights and thusly jurisdiction over God.
Saint Thomas Aquinas said that the human being was an individual substance of a rational nature. Homo-Sapiens. Aquinas also said that human existence was the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights. Citizenship is the only good a nation can bestow or endow on an individual person.
To amend the Constitution for the United States of America requires three-fourths of the states to ratify the amendment. To replace our Constitution with atheistic international law is treason.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg advocates giving fourteen year old girls informed sexual consent.
May 14, 2013 at 2:14 am
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations which states:
Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and CONSCIENCE and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.("Shut it, Mary" @ 9:39 AM is not brotherhood and inconsistent with international law)
If Americans go with international law, will we be able to opt out of the HHS Mandate with our freedom of conscience?
May 14, 2013 at 4:00 am
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s efforts and intent to impose international law on the United States of America through Judicial fiat is treason in that it cripples and emasculates United States’ sovereignty, the sovereignty given over to our nation by the sovereign persons who constitute our country. Sovereignty is like virginity or pregnancy, one is or one is not. A person, a country is sovereign or that person and country is not sovereign. There is no such thing as partial sovereignty, or half of a freedom. One is free or one is not free. It is like saying Dred Scott is three quarters of a person. The crime with denying to America its own Constitution and America’s own sovereignty as a nation is that it permeates the citizenship of all persons and dilutes and erases the sovereignty of the person, created equal, but now subservient to international law that the sovereignty of the person who is a citizen did not constitute.
May 14, 2013 at 8:16 pm
Thank You, Mary!
We are fortunate to have you and the other peers, like you!
In faith:
Continuing to be "clever as serpents" yet "gentle a doves"!
From an admirer!….;)
May 15, 2013 at 3:50 am
Mary, go munch some vagina.
May 15, 2013 at 4:03 am
Mary De Voe, please see a psychiatrist. You are quite literally crazy.