Thursday, September 22, 2005

Ginsberg: Wrong on All Counts

Several people have linked to this article in which Ruth Bader Ginsberg offers advice to President Bush on his nomination for O'Connor's replacement.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience Wednesday that she doesn't like the idea of being the only female justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

I don't much like the idea of her being on the court myself, but I was always too polite to say so.

But in choosing to fill one of the two open positions on the court, "any woman will not do," she said.

There are "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights," Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association.

Doesn't she realize that advancing causes is not the role of any judge, regardless of gender? The role of a judge is to interpret the law and guard the constitutional protection of existing rights. This single sentence encapsulates the whole problem with liberal judicial theory.


Ginsburg stressed that the president should appoint a "fine jurist," adding that there are many women who fit that mold.

"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me," Ginsburg said during a brief interview Wednesday night.

No, Madame Justice, I don't suppose he has. It is the role of the Senate to provide "advice and consent" on Presidential appointments. You might have heard of this little thing called the Constitution? Check out Article II, Section 2. Just a thought.

[...]Ginsburg defended some of the justices' references to laws in other countries when making decisions, a practice strongly opposed by some U.S. legislators. The justice said using foreign sources does not mean giving them superior status in deciding cases.

"I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."

Fair enough: enlightenment is a wonderful thing. Just don't try to make foreign laws binding on American citizens.
I don't usually go in for fisking of this sort, but there were too many points in this short article which just screamed for commentary. We now return to our normal long-winded pontificating mode.

No comments: