by Jack
There are a lot of liberals wailing and morning over the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but don’t get me wrong, that’s okay. It’s their choice, but was she really all that deserving, was she really a champion for women’s rights?
She did help win this for women, meaning she cast 1 of the 5 votes in favor of equal opportunity: They are now admitted at previously all male military academies, like Virginia Military (VMI) Institute or West Point. On the flip side VMI, et al had to lower their physical standards to accommodate the weaker sex. Can’t understand how this makes for better war fighters, but, well, women are included for better or worse. This and one other case was essentially the extent of what she did for women.
She dissented in Bush V. Gore, but a majority put George W. in the White House. Remember Florida and the hanging chads? Yep, she cast that nay vote for Gore. Bad decision.
Here’s one I like… 1997, United States v. O’Hagan, in which she wrote that “a person who trades in securities for personal profit, using confidential information misappropriated in breach of a fiduciary duty to the source of the information” can be found guilty of violating Securities and Exchange Commission rules. A reasonable decision even though Martha Stewart didn’t like it, but it has nothing to do with women’s rights, so no points.
Bet you didn’t know that RBG was part of the reason the crazy people are on the street today? She was one of the 5 justices that ruled in the infamous 1999 Olmstead v. L.C. decision, in which she said states under the Americans for Disabilities Act “are required to place persons with mental disabilities in community settings rather than in institutions when the State’s treatment professionals have determined that community placement is appropriate, the transfer from institutional care to a less restrictive setting is not opposed by the affected individual, and the placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account the resources available to the State and the needs of others with mental disabilities.” No points scored for feminist here.
In 2007 Gonzales v. Carhart this SC vote went against partial birth birth abortions (thankfully) and Ginzburg was in the minority. Clearly this was a setback for feminist who would like to abort babies that could be born viable. Can’t really give her any feminist points for losing this big case, can we?
Also in 2007 RBG was a dissenting vote when the majority dismissed an equal pay case in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 550 U.S. 618 (2007). This was an employment discrimination decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.[1] Employers cannot be sued under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 over race or gender pay discrimination if the claims are based on decisions made by the employer 180 days ago or more. Justice Alito held for the five-justice majority that each paycheck received did not constitute a discrete discriminatory act, even if was affected by a prior decision outside the time limit. Ledbetter’s claim of the “paycheck accrual rule” was rejected. The decision did not prevent plaintiffs from suing under other laws, like the Equal Pay Act, which has a three-year deadline for most sex discrimination claims, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire Rubber Co. U.S.C. 1981, which has a four-year deadline for suing over race discrimination at retirement. However, her performance evaluations showed she was doing less work than her male counterparts and thus received slightly less pay.
She was also one of the votes in Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015, that made same sex marriage legal in all 50 states. Once again 0 points for the liberal feminists. But, she certainly scored points with the democrats! “RBG was a positive vote in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, 2016. This struck down a Texas law that required doctors performing abortions in their office to have admitting privileges at the local hospital that meet certain surgical standards. It was argued this was an unnecessary requirement that made it more difficult for women to get an abortion. We can give RBG a break even score here. Some won and some lost.
RBG strongly advocated that, non-citizens aka aliens, should not get a fast track treatment for deportation. Her vote was popular among illegal aliens and aliens that did illegal things, but as for the general population of citizens, eh, they would have preferred we kept the fast track solution. Again, no women’s rights points on this one either.
In the final analysis RBG didn’t really do much for the nation, but she helped the democrats out here and there. So there’s her big track record. Did she change the lives of women everywhere….nah, that’s just a bunch of democrat baloney.
“But, Justice Ginsburg explains, “When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function, its function is to enable the young nation to have people who will fight for it to have weapons that those soldiers will own. So I view the Second Amendment as rooted in the time totally allied to the need to support a militia. So…the Second Amendment is outdated in the sense that its function has become obsolete.”
As for the Heller case, decided by the Court in 2008, Justice Ginsburg says, “If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only—and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.”
Pure and utter claptrap. From here–
https://www.captainsjournal.com/2020/09/18/ruth-bader-ginsburg-is-dead/
Justice Ginsburg was first and foremost for Justice Ginsburg. Let us count our blessings for that. What if she had retired, and let Fearless Reader appoint a successor?
Re: “What if she had retired, and let Fearless Reader appoint a successor?”
Pie Guevara is an unregistered trademark of David Walton. So there! 😀
I agree, RBG was not really the hero people are trying to make her out to be. However, she is a hero in the sense that she was nominated and served on the Supreme Court. That is quite an accomplishment.
Pie Guevara is an unregistered trademark of David Walton. So there! 😀
Pie, you’re right to be on the Supreme Court is indeed quite an accomplishment and I should have given her credit for that. However her rulings as a SC Justice were, in my opinion, mediocre and not very in line with the Constitution. She spent a lot of time in the minority.
Aside from us on these boards discussing the fate of the appointment to the SCOTUS, consider how busy the liberals running the house and their mouths will be for the next few months.
Clearly the main time consuming topic (behind private doors) will be in the best political interest for liberal Dem’s to block the next appointment for now.
What we will witness will be a political self serving concentration of political party needs.
Forget what of the needs of the public are right now, especially those suffering financially more than most due to Covid -19. That subject in the “House” will be shelved for a time, they will be to busy working the Senate members over to stop McConnell.
My opinion is the public best forget about any more stimulus relief for the time being, that doesn’t suit the needs of the elected for now.
Hopefully your freezer is well stocked with Ice Cream.
Harold, thanks for your great comments, but I’m curious to know what do you think will happen if the “mob” really does attack the Senate or the White House because Trump suggests an appointment to the SC? I know the possibilities of what “could” happen are endless, but I just wonder what your best guess is? If anyone else wants to weigh in on this please do.
If you’ve ever been in the halls of Clowngress, any mob attack could be stopped at various checkpoints, but only if the Security people are allowed to use something other than playing patty-cake.
Security is gonna be tight for any hearings, but the real terrorists will be the Demwits on the Judiciary Committee lead by Harpy Harris who will continue to cover herself in vitriol as she did during the Kavanaugh hearings.
I question the story that RBG’s deathbed wish was to have her seat filled in January. No written or recorded proof of this statement and WAY too “convenient.” RBG knew the law and was smarter than to make such a statement.
Sounds more like a DNC/Demwit talking point . . . . . . .
J.S. I question it too. Who on their death bed is thinking about politics? Doesn’t sound believable to me. People think about family and where they are going, politics isn’t even close. But, lets just say what she was alleged to have said was true, that doesn’t overrule the U.S. Constitution.