home

Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do

By Jeralyn, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Thu Sep 22, 2005 at 03:34:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg spoke out today on the potential replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. She said:

  • She'd like to see a woman nominated but not any woman would do. She said it's important for the nominee to respect human and women's rights.
  • She has a list of suitable women nominees, but President Bush hasn't asked her opinion
  • With respect to Judge John Roberts' expression of doubt on consulting foreign law, she defended the practice and said,

"I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."...When reminded that Roberts has indicated he disagrees with the practice of referring to foreign laws, Ginsburg said it appeared he "is a man who does listen and is willing to learn."

< Who Will Take the Fall With Abramoff? | Texas Courts, Lawyers and Inmates Sent Packing >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do | 35 comments (35 topical)
    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#1)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    No way will Bush consult Ginsburg on nominees. She A) thinks that a judge's job is to create policy rather than just evaluate constitutionality, and B) favors liberal policy. A) conflicts with Bush's stated standards, and B) conflicts with his actual standards.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#2)
    by ras on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    Janice Rogers Brown has such a strong record on civil rights. I'm sure Ginsburg would approve.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#3)
    by DonS on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    There are people, ostensibly in Bush's corner, going out of their ways to say Bush should cool his jets, i.e., make a reasonable appointment and even wait a while. Question: will Bush's huge ego and, defensiveness in light of, well just about everything going against him these days, encourage him taking good counsel? Or not?

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    Roy, The only standard Bush has is the one that keeps his cronies and wealthy patrons happy. He has nothing resembling a mind of his own, or a mind period for that matter. He is the least intellectually able person I can imagine being an office manager, much less the leader of the free world. He cares about his fat wallet and his tiny joint. He is a failure as a man, forget as a president. The product of a wretched, bigoted family that has used its wealth for nothing but their own aggrandizement. In short, whoever he picks will be a person who toes his line, which is a line drawn in the sand by a village idiot. To quote David Straithern from John Sayles great movie "Matewan" (about a coal strike in a West Virginia mining town in the 1920's): "I wouldn't piss on him if his heart was on fire." As for Ginsberg thinking judges are supposed to create law, well, that's such a stinking piece of empty rhetoric it's silly. ALL judges, at one time or another, have ruled in ways that, to one group or another, will appear as "making law". The right would be perfectly happy if the Supreme Court decided abortion was unconstitutional (and thus, de facto, create the law of the land.) I have lost all respect, both as a person and as a sorry excuse for a leader, for Bush. He deserves whatever horrible fate befalls him. Goodnight now.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#5)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    Roy: Can you provide one actual source, quotation or example to justify your assertion about what Justice R.B. Ginsburg believes about a judge's role? I follow the work of the Supreme Court pretty closely, am moderately familiar with her record on the D.C. Circuit before that, and was a strong admirer of her pre-judicial career as creative legal theorist and pioneer of the women's rights movement, both as a Rutgers and then a Columbia Univ. law professor and as the director of the ACLU Women's Rights Project. Nothing I think I know about her supports what you say. In fact, she has publicly expressed doubts that constitutional litigation (in which, in this regard, she was *not* involved) was the right strategy to achieve and implement the decriminalization of abortion. Her approach to women's rights has always been based on gender equality not on privacy. She did not support the reasoning of Roe v. Wade, although she absolutely supported and supports the result. Other feminists criticized her for this. Look here.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    Ginsberg said: "I don't want to stop at a national boundary." I sure wish she remembered which Constitution it was she swore to uphold and defend.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#7)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    James, You represent the kind of American those abroad detest. The kind that thinks we are the only ones capable of insight into justice or freedom or democracy. Not learning from others, simply because they are "others" is egotistical and destructive. After all, the founding fathers were products of the European enlightenment, which took at dim view of the kind of religous fundamentalism running rampant in this nation and its halls of power. Those dead Euros shouldn't have had anything to do with our sacred document, right?

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    Dadler, I represent the idea that we are a nation of laws, not men. You want a system where the Supreme Court can declare the law to be whatever they want, w/o regard to the actual laws of this nation? You'll want that exactly as long a court consisting of people on your side of the argument exists - and then you'll hate it. I don't want it with a court full of people I agree with. I want the court to rule on the body of US and common law, and on the existing Constitution. Anything else ends up being tyranny - and whether that tyranny comes from the "best intentions" or not stops mattering after a very short period of time. You want inspiration from other bodies of law to be enacted? Fine - do it the legal way - get Congress to pass laws, and the President to sign them. Don't ask for a select 9 to become our lords and masters.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#9)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    James (is it Roburtsen?): Justice Ginsburg (whose name you can't be bothered to spell correctly) made the "national boundary" remark in the context of commenting on where a judge might look for "wisdom" in considering a difficult legal problem. For example (the example in which this has actually become a controversy recently), in considering whether it is a form of "cruel and unusual punishment" to execute someone for a murder s/he committed prior to turning 18 years old, should a Justice consider whether other nations in the world allow the practice, and if so, which ones? Or is it so clear to you that in selecting the word "unusual" in drafting what we now call the Eighth Amendment, Madison meant "unusual in 18th century America," rather than "unusual in the United States as it may exist in the future [i.e., when 'our posterity' will be trying to decide what this provision allows]" or "unusual in practice" or "unusual in state law" or "unusual among civilized people" or what? Maybe, since the phrase was a direct quote from the English Bill of Rights of 1689, you are suggesting that no punishment can today be called "cruel" or considered "unusual" unless it was viewed as such in England in 1689. Wait, no, that would be looking beyond our borders!

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#10)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    Peter G. Very elegant rebuttal.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#11)
    by Peter G on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    aw, shucks.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#12)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    she's trying so hard to be non-partisan, it's nearly painful to watch. she also contradicted herself in the same paragraph:
    I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."...
    When reminded that Roberts has indicated he disagrees with the practice of referring to foreign laws, Ginsburg said it appeared he "is a man who does listen and is willing to learn."
    he disagrees with the practice of referring to foreign laws, but at the same time is a man who does listen and is willing to learn. the two are mutually exclusive. were he a man who actually does listen and is willing to learn, than he wouldn't have a problem with taking a peek at how other countries approach similar issues. judge roberts is a stealth bork, distorting totally the meaning of the term "original intent" to mean whatever he wants it to mean, when it's convenient for him. i don't trust the man as far as i can throw him, and i'm feeling mighty weak today. i could be completely wrong about the guy, it's a risk i'm willing to take.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#13)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    it's a risk i'm willing to take.
    What are you risking?

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#14)
    by jimcee on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    What part of 'shut-up' does Justice Ginsberg not understand? The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a political but an executive appointment. Allow those that won the popular election to choose the Supremes... What part of democracy is lost on Justice Ginsberg or the Dems for that matter? Win the presidental election and you get to choose your guys, otherwise, go bugger until you can come up with a candidate that can win. It is odd how democracy works but it seems to all work out in the end. If you choose to be a fringe oriented screaming banchee, from either side of the aisle, then you are tone-deaf or too young to have half a brain. Since Roberts is a shoe-in, I find it interesting to watch the how the Dems are re-aligning, presenting an amicible face and are just waiting to pounce on the next SC nominee. Should be fun. Although it is rather sad to see generally smart people make fools of themselves in public to suck up to thier perceived constituency but I guess we'll all get used to it soon enough. Politics rules whether anyone likes it or not. Win politically and you will get your way...sort of...but it won't be what you intended..ad infinitum....

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#15)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    What part of 'shut-up' does Justice Ginsberg not understand?
    Uhhh, the same part your ex-wife didn't understand!?
    The Supreme Court is not supposed to be a political but an executive appointment.
    uhhhh, WRONG!!!. The judicial branch is EQUAL to the exec and legislative branches. Jeebus, don't any of these rethug commenters ever read the constitution!?

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#17)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    Roberts is in, Chief Justice, period (.) I find this whole process less than amusing...No matter who Bush nominates (or anything his adminstration does), Dems will call him an idiot who doesn't have the intelligence to tie his shoes, right? I mean, he only got a 2.35 at Yale -- what a moron. If I were a Democrat frothing at the mouth to gain political power and possibly run this country, I would work at facilitating the nomination of a presidential candidate with wit and intellect who appeals to more of the nation than just college/law school professors, residents of San Francisco, and rich Hollywood types with no concept of reality as these demographic groups ARE NOT representative of mainstream America, much like the majority of individuals posting on this page (my evidence for that assertion is Bush - 8 years in the White House, along with a Republican control of Congress). Oh yea, and if the Democratic party wants to do Repubs any more favors, keep alienating all people who might embrace Christian morals or beliefs. This tactic of pushing away anyone that has (sooo uncool) morals never ceases to amaze me. Once the Democratic party screws its head on and produces a strong presidential candidate, then you can nominate Moore, Soros, or Celine Dion for the SC and when they don't answer questions about issues the SC may face in the future, you can use the same defenses the Repubs are using in defense of Roberts. Funny? Stupid? Cyclical? Hypocritical? All of the above -- that is the beauty of politics. There is no right or wrong, only money, clout, and influence. The most laughable aspect of Bush criticism is that, during an unpopular war and controversial tax breaks, the apparent "golden boy" of the dems, Kerry, couldn't get into the Big House (the white one for all you michigan fans). Why? Because people who walk the central political line who were looking for a reason not to vote for Bush sure as hell weren't going to vote for John "I have no agenda besides saying everything Bush has ever done or will do is stupid and I would (monday morning quarterback) do things differently, just like most people on this blog, yet I have no substantive agenda changes of my own that affect key issues facing this country" Kerry.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#18)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    Oh yea, and if the Democratic party wants to do Repubs any more favors, keep alienating all people who might embrace Christian morals or beliefs. This tactic of pushing away anyone that has (sooo uncool) morals never ceases to amaze me.
    Please explain how Bush has shown any morals (Christian or otherwise) in his entire life. Also explain how that paragon of morality, Bill Clinton did so well among the electorate. Your blathering really runs out of steam when confronted with reality.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#19)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    Ernesto - you decided to pick out the "dems of late consistently alienate those embracing christian values" to conclude my opinion constituted blathering? I stand by what I said, 1,000%. I will not insult you as that would put me in the same category as you and your leaning-so-far-to-the-left-you-might-come-out on-the-right buddies. As to Mr. Razorback, I don't recall him ever denegrating those with Christian morals (or any morals) so as to alienate that voting demographic, unlike Mr. "the GOP is a white christian party" Democratic Party Chairman.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    OK...so pay lip service to the fundies and all will be well. Gotchya. I think a more effective solution is to go back to the populist roots that established the Democratic majority for several decades, before the DLC destroyed it by selling out the core constituency and running to the globalist corporate teat.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#21)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#22)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    Solution: 100 percent publically financed campaigns. Or violent revolution...whichever is quicker.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#23)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    Our founding documents also promise to preserve our rights as "englishmen". Magna Carta is therefore one of our founding documents. So much for "no foreign law"

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    Roger - I note you used "documents" instead of "constitution." I think we understand the difference.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#25)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    Mussolini made the trains run on time. I heard that one for years without any apologies by his admirers that his methods would, of course, be unconstitutional. I understood that the law and order types admired that kind of enlightenment from a foreign source.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    char-Since when has separation of powers been a commie idea. You seem to think that we should have a monarchy here starring the Chimp King. Why don't you go to Saudi Arabia, actually Jordan would be more suitable for you. There your ideas will be well received and you will get to live out your regal fantasy. Here is some info on the constitution for you, it is dumbed down enough for even you to understand as written to educate children about the way America's government works. from kids vermont:
    The United States Constitution is deliberately inefficient. The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as Checks and Balances.
    Ever wonder why the wingnuts never mention the constitution while dems think it should be taught in elementary school?

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#28)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    What are you risking?
    that by not confirming him, we lose the most learned, enlightened jurist of the ages. in my profession, we refer to it as "audit risk".

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#29)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    Charley: There was some discussion about the court getting inspiration from abroad. I heard the Mussolini thing many times and corporatism does seem to be gaining ground. cpinva:
    in my profession, we refer to it as "audit risk"
    That's funny, in my profession, we call it the "long-arm-of-the-law-up-our-uteri-risk."

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#30)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    That's funny, in my profession, we call it the "long-arm-of-the-law-up-our-uteri-risk."
    kind of takes the idea of "kinky sex" to a whole new level. not that there's anything wrong with that! lol

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#31)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:15 PM EST
    I find it amusing that so many males - who have absolutely nothing to lose with the likes of Janice Rogers Brown (or John Roberts for that matter) as a Supreme Court justice have any comment. Remember - this is administration that thinks women's rights are not that important when it comes to nation building. And ras...what does the U.S. Supreme Court have to do with you or any other Canadian citizen? I mean really?

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#32)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:15 PM EST
    wow kitt, that's got to be one of the more arrogant comments on this thread, not to mention (but i will anyway), ignorant. i've grown rather fond of the bill of rights, in spite of efforts being made to rape and pillage it. not just for myself mind you, but for my wife, daughter & son as well, i'd like to see those rights continue to be the glue holding this country together. for that reason alone, i'll take a pass on mr. roberts & ms. brown, neither of whom, in spite of their credentials, seem able to provide either constitutionally or intellectually valid underpinnings for some of their more egregious opinings. that judge roberts wasn't capable of actually answering half the questions asked of him by the judiciary committee pretty much sealed the deal for me. let me rephrase that: not wasn't capable, but chose not to, tells me all i need to know about him. he comes across as weasly. i don't want a weasle on the SC, we already have enough of those in the WH & Congress.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#33)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:15 PM EST
    I'm glad you reminded me of the won't-be-allowed-to-have-kinky-sex risk. But they'll carve out an exception for republican congressmen and preachers.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#34)
    by Kitt on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:15 PM EST
    Truth be told, I don't remember for sure my point at the time of my post. One point is Judge Ginsberg stated: 'Not any woman would do.' So that certainly eliminates Janice Rogers Brown AND most likely, any woman candidate put forth by the Bush administration. As Judge Ginsburg aptly put it: "Some women who might be appointed (who) would not advance human rights or women's rights." As Joe Biden told Judge Roberts last week, the American people deserve to know what kind of man he is and what kind of judge he will be. My gut level tells me Judge Roberts won't advance much other than this administration's adgenda. Being cagey doesn't prove any thing in my book. So you're clever enough to be cagey; big deal, so am I. So are alot of people. As for arrogance & ignorance, our own James Robertson does a pretty good job insinuating Judge Ginsberg's ignorance of which constitution she's 'under.' If an adult, James doesn't understand the benefit of other sources of enlightment... "The justice said using foreign sources does not mean giving them superior status in deciding cases" or that perusing them means they will serve as a model.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#35)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:16 PM EST
    It is the height of arrogance to presume that foreign law cannot INFORM a USSC justice. Remember, no one is stating that foreign law would be CONTROLLING, as it could not be. Any reasonable person would want to have as much input from comparative sources as possible before proceeding with an interpretation of law that is to effect 300 million people. Given John Roberts' literary flair, one would expect that he would be intellectually impelled to seek out foreign law comparable to the law he is supposed to interpret. Or perhaps he fears that doing so would give undue weight to those responsible for translating the language in which the foreign law was drafted. I'm amazed that NONE of the senators even picked up on this not-so-subtle nuance.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#36)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:17 PM EST
    Kitt - you might take the time to read the oath that Supreme Court Justices (and Presidents, and military members) take. It has something to do with upholding the Constitution. To be blunt, foreign law simply has no part in that. And for the wit who brought up the Magna Carta (et. al.) - Common law descends from our original roots as an English colony. It branched off in 1776, but - further back than that - it goes through old English court decisions.

    Re: Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do (none / 0) (#37)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:04:17 PM EST
    James, So, as you say, English common law still apllies in the US. Jim, I say "documents" because I include the Declaration of Independance, written over ten years before the Constitution. If you remember, the constitution was our second try, after the Articles failed us. Magna Carta actually is also one of our "founding documents" since it was adopted before the Constituion, and was kept even after that.

    Justice Ginsburg: Not Any Woman Will Do | 35 comments (35 topical)