Women In Black

We all have heard of the Men in Black, so how about let’s look at the Women in Black. No, I don’t mean alien invaders who show up after a close encounter of the something kind, or spy types, I mean women lawyers who wear the black robes of a jurist.

Let’s look at the ladies of the Supreme Court.

First, there is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that diminutive creature with the perpetual sneer that poses as a smile, I guess that is what it is supposed to be. In 2006, then 72 year old Justice Ginsburg apparently took her job so seriously that she fell asleep at the bench. According to Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank:

"At first, she appeared to be reading something in her lap. But after a while, it became clear: Ginsburg was napping on the bench. By Bloomberg News's reckoning – not denied by a court spokeswoman – Ginsburg's snooze lasted a quarter of an hour.

"It's lucky for Ginsburg that the Supreme Court
has so far refused to allow television in the courtroom, for her visit to the land of nod would have found its way onto late-night shows."

Yeah, not to mention you-tube.

This week in an interview with Emily Bazelon for the New York Times Magazine scheduled to appear on Sunday, July 12th, titled “The Place of Women on the Court” Justice Ginsburg stated the following:

JUSTICE GINSBURG: “Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=4)

She really said that – this Jewish woman! Was it a Freudian slip? A truth telling about the real agenda of the genocide-lovers let slip by a person, a woman, a mother, a jurist who has the power to eradicate classes of human beings by the stroke of her pen? Who comprises those populations that we don't want too many of? Those of us who pay attention know the origins of the abortion and euthanasia agenda, and we know the history of Hitler’s Final Solution and Margaret Sanger’s affinity for eugenics. But we also know that Ruth Bader Ginsburg is former general counsel of the ACLU and activist for abortion and knows no compassion for the most innocent and vulnerable of our society. I wonder how she would rule if Josef Mengele stood before her?

Now, we are facing another woman nominated for the highest court of the land – Sonia Sotomayor. A woman and mother, and one more pro-abortion Catholic. Sotomayor served as a governing board member of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF) from 1980 to 1992. This group published briefs in prominent abortion related court cases. In fact, in 1988, they called upon the Supreme Court in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services to read the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) into the U.S. Constitution protecting abortion as a fundamental right.

Further, Sotomayor has been overturned in 6 out of 7 cases heard by the Supreme Court, the court to which she aspires: Ricci v. DeStefano, Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, Knight vs. Commissioner, Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., Tasini vs. New York Times, et al. An excellent summary of these overturned cases and the one case which was upheld can be found at: http://oneconservativevoice.blogspot.com/2009/05/sotomayor-cases-reviewed-by-supreme.html

She has another case pending review before the high court: Maloney v. Cuomo which has strong implications for our 2nd amendment rights. And then there’s those embarrassing statements about the courts being the place for making policy (what about the legislative branch of government?), and the wise “Latina” possessing wisdom superior to a white man simply because of her life experiences (say what?). She still hasn't told us how this allegedly wise Latina compares to a Latino (male), white female, black male or female, Asian, Pacific Islander, mixed race person, etc. Perhaps Judge Sotomayor, who appears to rule based on race and ethnicity, missed that law school class on the concept that Justice is Blind.

If these female jurists are the best legal minds that the Democrats can produce we surely have all the information we need to oppose the appointment of another embarrassing, moral and mental midget to the Supreme Court, whatever the gender, or ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious or non-religious affiliation, and all the other meaningless traits that obscure the apparent lack of proper judicial temperament and intellect.

For more information on Sotomayor visit http://www.Sotomayor411.com

© Missouri Musings – All Rights Reserved