Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Wednesday night defended Associate Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch as "very decent" and "very smart" individuals after one of her former law clerks suggested that new nominees lack personal decency.
Ginsburg's comments turned heads on social media, given the contentious and bitterly personal confirmation hearings last year that Kavanaugh said "destroyed" his family.
At an hourlong question-and-answer session, Duke Law professor Neil Siegel lamented that "nominees for the Supreme Court are not chosen primarily anymore for independence, legal ability, personal decency, and I wonder if that’s a loss for all of us."
Ginsburg shot back, "My two newest colleagues are very decent, very smart individuals."
She has also recently criticized the popular Progressive idea of expanding the SCOTUS. She apparently doesn't understand that it's all about power.
"A stopped clock is right twice a day."
ReplyDeleteGod bless her.
ReplyDeleteSo there.
I actually agree with her sometimes. She wrote an opinion in which, while agreeing with Scalia's conclusion, she warned that Scalia's expansion of 1001 to include lying to FBI agents would lead to widespread abuse and urged Congress to amend the law. Congress didn't, and we've seen the results--most recently in the Flynn case.
ReplyDeleteRBG's close friendship with Scalia demonstrates she's "old school," that people can disagree without it being, or making it personal. (And defying feminism's mantra, "the personal is political.")
ReplyDeleteBut you're right, she doesn't appear to see power as the be-all and end-all of the law and politics--again, old school.
From the Best Of RBG files, 2009:
DeleteHere’s what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine: “Frankly I had thought that at the time [Roe v. Wade] was decided,” Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
The comment, which bizarrely elicited no follow-up from Bazelon or any further coverage from the New York Times — or any other major news outlet — was in the context of Medicaid funding for abortion. Ginsburg was surprised when the Supreme Court in 1980 barred taxpayer support for abortions for poor women. After all, if poverty partly described the population you had “too many of,” you would want to subsidize it in order to expedite the reduction of unwanted populations.
Democrats genuinely believe in their plantation mentality. They're better people than others and they deserve to rule.
DeleteAnd they don't get why you don't get that.
DeleteWorse really. They think we're ingrates for no appreciating the gift they bestow upon us of correcting our stupidity.
Delete