‘Flaming Feminist Litigator’ Ginsburg to remain on Supreme Court This is a good time to go over, again, what’s wrong with the Supreme Court.

Home  »  Abortion  »  ‘Flaming Feminist Litigator’ Ginsburg to remain on Supreme Court
Print This Post Print This Post
Jan 29, 2018 No Comments ›› admin

by Lynn Woolley

At 84 years old, you’d think Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Bill Clinton appointee, would be ready for a nice retirement.

But not with Donald Trump in the Oval Office.

Instead, she’s doubling down on her liberal agenda, packing her schedule, and making it known that she can wait it out until President Trump is gone. If she’s like most left-wingers, she hopes he resigns or gets impeached and removed. Failing that, she can hope that he loses a reelection bid.

Then, with a Democrat in place she could safely resign. 

In this Sept. 20, 2017, photo, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reacts to applause as she is introduced at the Georgetown University Law Center campus in Washington. (Carolyn Kaster / AP)

This is a good time to go over, again, what’s wrong with the Supreme Court. There are three main problems. First, there is no diversity since most justices come out of Ivy League law schools.

Second, too many justices serve too long. Third, and most important, the Court is too politicized and pays too little attention to the law.

We won’t be rid of Ginsburg for a while unless God steps in.

I have no doubt that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a left-wing true believer. That is her prerogative. But judges, like journalists, should be able to compartmentalize and put side their personal beliefs. There are only three things a Supreme Court justice should consider when deciding a case. Here they are – in order:

• What does the Constitution say?
• What is the applicable law?
• What is the legal precedent?

That’s it. That’s what the court should consider. Here are a few things a justice should not consider:

• What are my feelings?
• How does this mesh with my personal politics?
• Can this case advance the cause of (fill in the blank) liberalism, conservatism, feminism, abortion, global warming, immigration and so on?
• What do foreign courts say?

This is why it’s time for Ginsburg and at least three other members of the High Court to change their ways.

They won’t, of course – because left-wingers are natural-born activists.

The Associated Press story about Ginsburg’s decision to stay active carries this old self description from Ginsburg:

“…a flaming feminist litigator…”

She is flaming all right and she may be a feminist—but she is no longer a litigator. She is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court – charged with upholding the Constitution and the law.

Roe v. Wade is always a case in point. The High Court found a “right to privacy” in the Constitution (that isn’t in there) that somehow made abortion legal. Even though that was an activist court, we’ve never gotten it overturned.

In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court, going against the Constitution, declared segregated schools lawful. Thankfully, Plessy was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education.

The Supreme Court can, and does, get things wrong – typically when the justices act as politicians rather than objective judges of the law.

Regarding the Supreme Court, diversity might be a strength.

Take it as fact that most colleges and universities are liberal. Then it stands to reason that most law schools are as well – and those in the snooty Ivy League are among the most left leaning. But look at how many of our 9 serving justices went to Ivy League law schools:

• Chief Justice John Roberts: Harvard Law School
• Anthony M. Kennedy: Harvard Law School
• Clarence Thomas: Yale Law School
• Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Harvard Law School & Columbia Law School
• Stephen G. Breyer: Harvard Law School
• Samuel A. Alito, Jr.: Yale Law School
• Sonia Sotomayor: Yale Law School
• Elena Kagan: Harvard Law School
• Neil M. Gorsuch: Harvard Law School

Note that, of just 9 justices, 5 obtained their law degrees from Harvard, and one other attended that law school before moving to another Ivy League campus. Yale comes in second at 3 justices. Columbia has just one.

Lino Graglia

Columbia might have had another graduate on the Court – but the ascension of Professor Lino Graglia at the University of Texas was halted when he made a comment deemed too racial in nature.

That kept Graglia off the 5th Circuit Court – and doomed his chances to ever become an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

As good a reputation as it has, there is no UT Law grad on the High Court. None from SMU, none from Baylor – and none outside the Ivy League.

It would be interesting to see a study of what is taught at Harvard and Yale.

Considering the constant 5 to 4 decisions based on party lines, I’m thinking that an Ivy League law degree isn’t much to recommend justices. And I mean from either side of the political aisle.

lynn@BeLogical.com

Tagged with: , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

%d bloggers like this: