Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The left is worried about Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The left is worried about Ruth Bader Ginsburg

…and you should be, too

One of the most interesting developments in the recent media spin cycle is the renewed fascination—on both the left and the right—with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Ginsburg has been in the national spotlight since her appointment in 1993; her tenure on the Court has afforded her the opportunity to become one of the most influential figureheads in the fight for gender equality and expanded “reproductive rights.” Influential, and polarizing. We can’t stop talking about her, whether it be about her opinions, her tendency to snooze during the State of the Union, or—most importantly, in some circles—her eventual retirement.

In a recent interview with MSNBC, Irin Camron wasted no time in coaxing Ginsburg into answering the one question liberals can’t help but flogging every time they get near a member of the Court—how long does Ginsburg plan on sticking around?

They’re worried, of course, because timing is key when it comes to Supreme Court appointments. Right now the left’s worst nightmare is that the next retirement will coincide with a Republican presidency. Ginsburg’s history of health problems—colorectal cancer in 1999, and a tumor in her pancreas in 2009—has become a real hobgoblin for SCOTUS watchers, who understand the difference one seat can make when major issues such as gay marriage, abortion, or election law are on the line.

Talking heads have picked up on the tension. Check out Maddow’s heightened level of concern (via MRC):

Of course, the left wants to keep Ginsburg around for as long as possible, without risking a Republican appointment in the event 2016 doesn’t go well for Democrats. She’s a gender fighter, she’s vehemently pro-choice, and she’s nearly as outspoken as her fellow Justice and unlikely friend Antonin Scalia. In the MSNBC interview, she wastes no time getting down to the business of promoting progressive policies:

CARMON: When you were fighting for women’s rights in the ‘70s, what did you think 2015 would look like? What’s the unfinished business that we have, when it comes to gender equality?

GINSBURG: Our goal in the ‘70s was to end the closed door era. There were so many things that were off limits to women, policing, firefighting, mining, piloting planes. All those barriers are gone. And the stereotypical view of people of a world divided between home and child caring women and men as breadwinners, men representing the family outside the home, those stereotypes are gone. So we speak of parent — rather than mother and wage earner rather than male breadwinner. That job was an important first step. What’s left, what’s still with us and harder to deal with is what I call unconscious bias.

CARMON: You’ve been a champion of reproductive freedom. How does it feel when you look across the country and you see states passing restrictions that make it inaccessible if not technically illegal?

GINSBURG: Inaccessible to poor women. It’s not true that it’s inaccessible to women of means. And that’s — that’s the crying shame. We will never see a day when women of means are not able to get a safe abortion in this country. There are states — take the worst case. Suppose Roe v. Wade is overruled. There will still be a number of states that will not go back to old ways. Well, now there’s lots of legislative activity, right? And it’s mostly in the direction of shutting down clinics, creating new barriers–

GINSBURG: Yes. But —

CARMON: — in front of women.

GINSBURG: Who does that — who does that hurt? It hurts women who lack the means to go someplace else. The situation with abortion right now — all the restrictions, they operate against the woman who doesn’t have freedom to move, to go where she is able to get safely what she wants.

She goes on to predict that the Court won’t overturn Roe v. Wade (I don’t think they will, either—they worked too hard in Casey to not do just that), but puts the emphasis on dedication to precedent rather than on agenda-flogging. She also took a shot at the legislative branch, saying that “at the moment, our Congress is not functioning very well.” (Are you going to argue with her? I’m not.)

Ginsburg is a liberal, and unabashedly so—but I want her to stick around for as long as possible. She said that Congress isn’t functioning very well, and that’s true; but right now, neither is the country as a whole. A shakeup in the Court right now wouldn’t just mean a more liberal (and embarrassingly less capable, if Obama’s track record holds up) Justice—it would guarantee a fundamental and possibly permanent transformation in the way the American public views the role and purpose of the Court.

We’re rapidly transforming into an activist nation. Everything is an Issue©, right down to the skin color of whatever pop star is topping the charts. Another Obama appointment will only help solidify this growing idea that the Court exists at the mercy of public opinion.

Here’s hoping that we see at least two or three more years of the Notorious RBG and her infuriatingly progressive opinions.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Ruth Buzzy (a little Rush lingo there) is like so many liberals. Insufferably arrogant, she believes that the world can’t get along without her.

Like others, I want her to stick around until at least, lets say, the Summer of 2016. “But Obama will still be president and can nominate her replacement; what about that?” The Constitution does allow him to nominate, but any appointment can only occur with the advice/consent of the Senate; in this case the GOP Senate. Replacement hearings can easily be strung out past the November 2016 election. At that point, the new non-Hillary president is entitled to make his own nomination.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to fscarn. | February 17, 2015 at 7:12 pm

    I wouldn’t trust this senate to not just go ahead and confirm whatever libtard obola chose. January 2017 would be a better time for the justice to meet her maker, since we all have to sometime.

“Inaccessible to poor women. It’s not true that it’s inaccessible to women of means. And that’s — that’s the crying shame.”

Yes, Ruthie wants to make sure that those inner-city poor women (wink, wink) are able to get their abortions easily, and decrease the surplus population. Just like her ideological predecessor Margaret Sanger, Ruthie doesn’t want any inconveniences put in the way of “poor” women who are helping rid society of its “undesirable” populations.

    jayjerome66 in reply to Observer. | February 17, 2015 at 7:07 pm

    And I’m sure you’re willing to adopt and/or support multiple babies born to inner city poor minority unmarried women who chose not to abort, because you have great love and compassion for people of all colors (double wink). It’s good to know good-hearted non-biased pro-lifers like you will help foot the bill that way, so society doesn’t have to pay additional billions in welfare tax money to support future gangbangers and drive-by shooters and more generations of single teenage baby mommas. (Infinite winks).

      scfanjl in reply to jayjerome66. | February 17, 2015 at 7:14 pm

      Not sure what your winks mean, but we did adopt one of those poor black babies whose mother thankfully chose not to abort her. Some don’t like that we did – us being white and all – but it isn’t Republicans.

        jayjerome66 in reply to scfanjl. | February 17, 2015 at 7:42 pm

        A commendable choice for you. I’m sure your child is loved and cared for.

        But you’re the exception to the rule: there are 124,000 orphans in the US; nearly half a million children in foster care; about 15 million being raised by single mothers. You need to get on the phone and tell your friends to follow your example, because the minority birth rate certainly isn’t going to drop if abortion is outlawed.

          Henry Hawkins in reply to jayjerome66. | February 17, 2015 at 8:15 pm

          Two of my six children are adopted minorities, so yeah, go f**k your moral high horse preening.

          Besides, it is not pro-life supporters who are responsible for the care and upbringing of children – it’s the responsibility of the parents’. Duh.

          How ugly is an ideology that declares minority parents incapable of raising their children, yet capable of the decision to kill them off instead.

          You are one confused, sick f**k.

          “because the minority birth rate certainly isn’t going to drop if abortion is outlawed.”

          It will drop when we quit paying women to have babies out of wedlock. Period, minority or not.

          So, JJ, why do you want to see the minority birth rate drop? Racist.

          SmokeVanThorn in reply to jayjerome66. | February 17, 2015 at 10:25 pm

          In other words, jay the racist wants to make sure that non-whites can keep killing their babies.

          It’s times like this that I really hate the Left for having so overused and thus watered down the meaning of the word “racist”. Because now there’s no suitable term with the kind of bite “racism” once had left in our vocabulary to condemn people like this Jay creature with.

          I don’t know, my sister-in-law and her husband are spending a small fortune to adopt a baby from outside the US because it is damn near impossible to do an adoption in the US, regardless of race.

          But yeah, go ahead, make sure to play the race card and call us racist.

          Milhouse in reply to jayjerome66. | February 20, 2015 at 4:51 pm

          scfanjl is very far from the minority. There are plenty of people looking to adopt healthy newborns of any race. There are no healthy newborns in the USA, of any race, who need adoptive parents and can’t find any. And racism of the sort you allege is far more common among Democrats and pro-abortionists than among Republicans and pro-lifers.

      Observer in reply to jayjerome66. | February 17, 2015 at 7:26 pm

      Another Sanger disciple chimes in.
      Thanks for proving my point.

      tphillip in reply to jayjerome66. | February 18, 2015 at 6:23 am

      How many have you adopted?

I worry that this Senate would give a Republican President more trouble over a modestly right wing appointment than it would give Obama over another drooling liberal attack dog.

Let me say, I’ve always been worried about her, from the day she was appointed.

Justice Ginsburg is not going to retire. She will not go quietly into the night. She’s too arrogant that the World needs her to stand for the “righteous” acts of “protecting women’s rights.”

She’s going to die on the Bench.

She’s just a drunk…

“Those stereotypes are gone.” Yes, the intact family is gone, children in day care, divorces rampant, children raised without their fathers, with Mom’s boyfriends instead.

Her great, grand, glorious world. She’s sick.

But of course, she IS married, and she would never live without the stereotypes, because, guess what? They WORK!

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to Karen Sacandy. | February 19, 2015 at 12:18 pm

    She was married. Her husband died in 2010.

    Sandra Day O’Connor also was married. He got Alzheimer’s and eventually died.

    Despite terminal cancer, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist planned in 2005 to leave only in 2006. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor confided her plan to retire that year as well, to care for her husband, who suffered from Alzheimer’s Disease. Rehnquist reportedly insisted that O’Connor retire in 2005, so that the Court would not have two vacancies at once. After O’Connor had announced her plans to leave, Rehnquist died. Shortly afterwards, John O’Connor had to enter full-time care, making O’Connor’s plans to care for him moot; he died in 2009. O’Connor, still active and outspoken, may regret her decision.

You know, the White House is not functioning very well either.

If Obama and Rachel Maddow feel that strongly about it he can sic the IRS on her and pressure her to quit so he can nominate Wise Black Latina Lesbian Muslim in a Wheelchair 2.0 right now. He’ll never have a better shot than he does today.

PersonFromPorlock | February 18, 2015 at 1:08 pm

Possibly a dumb question, but would leaving a seat on the Court unfilled be all that bad? Would leaving all of them unfilled for the next two years be all that bad?

Given the slow progress of any case through the federal court system, and the small number of cases the Court decides in any year, how much real harm would a two year’s hiatus do?

A Supreme Court Justice going on a talk show?
And then Criticizing Congress?
And going activist?
Of the three, it is difficult to pick the worst, but she did all three!
I am uncertain just how to react to all this.
She should keep her opinions…lol… somewhere else