Ruth Bader Ginsburg's writings show her to be a radical, doctrinaire
feminist, far out of the mainstream. She shares the
chip-on-the-shoulder, radical feminist view that American women have
endured centuries of oppression and mistreatment from men. That's why,
in her legal writings, she self-identifies with feminist Sarah Grimke's
statement, "All I ask of our brethren is that they take their feet off
our necks," and with feminist Simone de Beauvoir's put-down of women as
"the second sex." (De Beauvoir's most famous guote is, "Marriage is an
obscene bourgeois institution.") A typical feminist. Ruth Bader Ginsbura
wants affirmative action quota hiring for career women but at the same
time wants to wipe out the special rights that state laws traditionally
gave to wives.
In a speech published by the Phi Beta Kappa Kev Reporter in 1974, Ginsburg called for affirmative action hiring quotas for career women, using the police as an example in point. She said, "Affirmative action is called for in this situation." On the other hand, she considered it a setback for "women's rights" when the Supreme Court, in Kahn v. Shevin (1974), upheld a Florida property tax exemption for widows. Ginsburg disdains what she calls "traditional sex roles" and demands strict gender neutrality (except, of course, for quota hiring of career women). Ginsburg's real claim to her status as the premier feminist lawyer is her success in winning the 1973 Supreme Court case Frontiero v. Richardson, which she unabashedly praised as an "activist" decision. She obviously shares the view of Justice William Brennan's opinion that American men, "in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage," and that "throughout much of the 19th century the position of women in our society was, in many respects, comparable to that of blacks under the pre-Civil War slave codes." Anyone who thinks that American women in the 19th century were treated like slaves, and in the 20th century were kept in a "cage," has a world view that is downright dangerous to have on the U.S. Supreme Court.
She's another Brennan, and no conservative should vote to confirm her. Of course, Ginsburg passed President Clinton's selfproclaimed litmus test for appointment to the Supreme Court — she is "pro-choice." But that's not all; she wants to write taxpayer funding of abortions into the U.S. Constitution, something that 72% of Americans oppose and even the pro-abortion, pro-Roe v. Wade Supreme Court refused to do. It has been considered settled law since the Supreme Court decisions in a trilogy of cases in 1977 fBeal v. Doe. Maher v. Roe, and Poelker v. Doe) that the Constitution does not compel states to pay for abortions. These cases were followed by the 1980 Supreme Court decision of Harris v. McRae upholding the Hyde Amendment's ban on spending federal taxpayers' money for abortions. The Court ruled that "it simply does not follow that a woman's freedom of choice [to have an abortion] carries with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices."
Ginsburg has planted herself firmly in opposition to this settled law. In a 1980 book entitled Constitutional Government in America. Judge Ginsburg wrote a chapter endorsing taxpayer funding of abortions as a constitutional right and condemning the high Court's rulings. "This was the year the women lost," Ginsburg wrote in her analysis of the 1977 cases. "Most unsettling of the losses are the decisions on access by the poor to elective abortions." Criticizing the 6-to-3 majority in the funding cases, Ginsburg asserted that "restrictions on public funding and access to public hospitals for poor women" were a retreat from Roe v. Wade, as well as a "stunning curtailment" of women's rights.
Here are some of the extremist feminist concepts from the Ginsburg book, Sex Bias in the U.S. Code:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG/pdf/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG-2-4-3-12.pdf
In a speech published by the Phi Beta Kappa Kev Reporter in 1974, Ginsburg called for affirmative action hiring quotas for career women, using the police as an example in point. She said, "Affirmative action is called for in this situation." On the other hand, she considered it a setback for "women's rights" when the Supreme Court, in Kahn v. Shevin (1974), upheld a Florida property tax exemption for widows. Ginsburg disdains what she calls "traditional sex roles" and demands strict gender neutrality (except, of course, for quota hiring of career women). Ginsburg's real claim to her status as the premier feminist lawyer is her success in winning the 1973 Supreme Court case Frontiero v. Richardson, which she unabashedly praised as an "activist" decision. She obviously shares the view of Justice William Brennan's opinion that American men, "in practical effect, put women, not on a pedestal, but in a cage," and that "throughout much of the 19th century the position of women in our society was, in many respects, comparable to that of blacks under the pre-Civil War slave codes." Anyone who thinks that American women in the 19th century were treated like slaves, and in the 20th century were kept in a "cage," has a world view that is downright dangerous to have on the U.S. Supreme Court.
She's another Brennan, and no conservative should vote to confirm her. Of course, Ginsburg passed President Clinton's selfproclaimed litmus test for appointment to the Supreme Court — she is "pro-choice." But that's not all; she wants to write taxpayer funding of abortions into the U.S. Constitution, something that 72% of Americans oppose and even the pro-abortion, pro-Roe v. Wade Supreme Court refused to do. It has been considered settled law since the Supreme Court decisions in a trilogy of cases in 1977 fBeal v. Doe. Maher v. Roe, and Poelker v. Doe) that the Constitution does not compel states to pay for abortions. These cases were followed by the 1980 Supreme Court decision of Harris v. McRae upholding the Hyde Amendment's ban on spending federal taxpayers' money for abortions. The Court ruled that "it simply does not follow that a woman's freedom of choice [to have an abortion] carries with it a constitutional entitlement to the financial resources to avail herself of the full range of protected choices."
Ginsburg has planted herself firmly in opposition to this settled law. In a 1980 book entitled Constitutional Government in America. Judge Ginsburg wrote a chapter endorsing taxpayer funding of abortions as a constitutional right and condemning the high Court's rulings. "This was the year the women lost," Ginsburg wrote in her analysis of the 1977 cases. "Most unsettling of the losses are the decisions on access by the poor to elective abortions." Criticizing the 6-to-3 majority in the funding cases, Ginsburg asserted that "restrictions on public funding and access to public hospitals for poor women" were a retreat from Roe v. Wade, as well as a "stunning curtailment" of women's rights.
Here are some of the extremist feminist concepts from the Ginsburg book, Sex Bias in the U.S. Code:
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG/pdf/GPO-CHRG-GINSBURG-2-4-3-12.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment