Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Justice Ginsburg On Her Retirement From Supreme Court

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Sunday, far Left, liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about her retirement and when she would like to step down from the High Court.

The 85-year-old justice made her remarks after seeing a play in New York about the late Justice Scalia titled. "The Originalist."


The not-very-conservative-at-all Guardian newspaper reported, "Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called herself a 'flaming feminist' on Sunday, and said, 'My senior colleague, Justice John Paul Stevens stepped down when he was 90, so I think I have about at least 5 more years'."

"Ginsburg was speaking a little more than a month after the announcement of the retirement of another conservative justice, Anthony Kennedy," the Guardian says, and "Trump has nominated Brett Kavanaugh to replace him, aiming to push the Court right for decades."

Ginsburg said, "My dear spouse used to say the true symbol of the U.S. is not a bald eagle---It's a pendulum."

The rest of the Guardian article finds dozens of ways to praise her for her fitness, alertness, courage to dissent against those dreaded conservatives, and her humility when people "pile on the praise" and call her "my idol."

Ginsburg said, "The genius of the Constitution is it has become more and more inclusive. Now 'we the people', embraces all the people."

Some thoughts about the Constitution, the timing of Ginsburg's retirement and the fight to kill the Kavanaugh nomination.

Why has the Constitution become "more and more inclusive?"...Supposedly.


You've heard it before but it bears repeating. The big question regarding the Constitution is whether the Constitution is a living, evolving document, as the far left secular progressives claim---Or does the Constitution mean what it says, as the originalists claim?

The late Justice Scalia was defined by his belief that the Constitution was not a living document, nor was it "evolving"---it simply meant what it said. It isn't more or less inclusive today than it was in 1787 when it was created.

He once said,
"What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become Justices of this Court, that enables them to discern that a practice which the text of the Constitution does not clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as constitutional for 200 years, is in fact unconstitutional? .. .The Court must be living in another world. Day by day, case by case, it is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize."

Judge Robert Bork, nominated by President Reagan, was denied a seat on the High Court, essentially because he was too conservative.

Bork would later choose the line, "A Constitution for a Country I do not Recognize" as the title of one of the several books he wrote.

In the minds of the liberal progressives, like Ginsburg, the Constitution is a "living" document and "evolves" as the culture changes and as progressives advance their social agenda.

The Constitution then becomes a tool that is used by judicial activists to advance a liberal, secular Progressive ideology.

Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are champions of this kind of thinking regarding our Constitution.

President Trump's first nominee, now a seated Justice, Neil Gorsuch, is a classic originalist. This struck fear in the hearts of the progressives, but he was replacing (Scalia) another originalist.

However, the Brett Kavanaugh nomination is to replace a swing vote justice and his confirmation to the Supreme Court is seen as even more consequential than Gorsuch because it will tilt the Court more toward the "Right" for a generation or more.

A third conservative originalist justice is unthinkable to the progressive Left.

Ginsburg's timeline for retirement is a political calculation, as well as a personal decision.


It's interesting that Ruth Bader Ginsburg hopes to retire in 5 more years. Certainly, her age of 85, as she said, plays into the timing of her retirement, but there's the matter of President Trump.

Another 5 years puts her safely past Trump's first term in office. She, along with other far Left progressives, believe they can undermine Trump's presidency to the point that he cannot be reelected.

These folks are the same folks who knew he couldn't be elected in the first place.

Ginsburg said Sunday night that "Courts never lead a social change. They only catch up with it."

That may be partially true, but it is certain that when far Left progressives discover hidden "Rights" in the Constitution, such as the right to redefine marriage, or the right to kill an unwanted, unborn child, a far-Left liberal Supreme Court is there to quickly "catch up" and rule with the progressives affirming their "new truth."

Millions of evangelicals voted for Trump solely on the basis of his Supreme Court nominee promises.


He has not disappointed them.

Senate Democrats have promised to fight Judge Brett Kavanaugh's Supreme Court nomination in any way possible and are wasting no time attacking his credentials.

One of the most recent attacks against the judge involves a conspiracy theory that President Trump nominated Kavanaugh in order to protect himself from the ongoing Mueller investigation.

Senator Cory Booker (D-NJ) told reporters last week, "He [Trump] chose the one person [Kavanaugh] that has written that he [Trump] should have immunity from any investigation."

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) quickly jumped on the wagon saying, "Judge Kavanaugh, if he is a justice, would be the swing vote in deciding whether he [Trump] can pardon himself---a get out of jail free pass. That's the accountability that will be lost if Kavanaugh is confirmed."

This claim originates from an article Kavanaugh wrote in the Minnesota Law Review back in 2009.

In it he discusses his experience working for independent counsel Ken Starr as he investigated then-President Bill Clinton.

After witnessing the day-to-day challenges faced by a president, it led Kavanaugh to raise some questions about investigations of a sitting president.

He wrote:
"We should not burden a sitting president with civil suits, criminal investigations, or criminal prosecutions. The president's job is difficult enough as is. And the country loses when the president's focus is distracted."

Democrats are arguing that this means that Kavanaugh will likely pardon the president in the case of an indictment.

That is preposterous because Kavanaugh was not espousing a constitutional viewpoint, he was merely pointing out a legislative fix for the problem of a sitting president---in that case, Clinton---being dragged through a serious of suits while in office. Kavanaugh went on to say the civil suits could be addressed after the president leaves office because no one is above the law.

The Senate is leaving town for their 5-week vacation, however, when they reconvene in September the attack on Kavanaugh will begin in earnest.

Justice Scalia once said,
"As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically."

He also said, "It is difficult to maintain the illusion that we are interpreting a Constitution, rather than inventing one."

Justice Scalia also said this:

"God assumed from the beginning that the wise of the world would view Christians as fools...and He has not been disappointed."

Devout Christians are destined to be regarded as fools in modern society. We are fools for Christ's sake. We must pray for courage to endure the scorn of the sophisticated world."

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Blessed.


No comments:

Post a Comment

Faith and Freedom welcomes your comment posts. Remember, keep it short, keep it on message and relevant, and identify your town.