Leftists screaming and crying is hardly new. They’ve been doing it more-or-less non-stop for the last four years. Occasionally, they even set aside special occasions to get together for a communal hissy-fit, like their un-ironically named “Scream Helplessly at the Sky” (yes, they actually did exactly that).
Otherwise, it’s been 48 solid months of non-stop screaming, wailing, tantrum-throwing, howling and sobbing.
But this week, the din ratcheted up a few decibels, with the news that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had finally stopped even pretending to be alive. Lefty types, who’d all but nailed the old bat to her perch, lost their collective shit (again). Because now the Bad Orange Man, fascist that he is, will follow due Constitutional procedure and appoint a new Justice to the Court.
Of course, what’s really grinding the screeching, screaming leftists’ gears is that Trump has an historic opportunity to change the balance of the Court by replacing a far-left judicial activist with a – gasp! – conservative who follows the Constitution as it’s written, not as leftists would prefer it to be ‘interpreted’.
Naturally, the left-media have been overflowing with fatuous encomiums for their erstwhile ‘progressive icon’.
But what sort of ‘progressive’ ideas did Ginsburg really espouse?
Some might seem fairly prosaic, such as legalising prostitution, but it’s Ginsburg’s legal arguments, rather than the conclusion, which bear scrutiny. On what legal basis did Ginsburg conclude that federal laws against prostitution “are subject to several constitutional…objections”? Ginsburg cited only three constitutional cases: Griswold v. Connecticut, Eisenstadt v. Baird and Roe v. Wade. The first two concerned contraception; the last, abortion. None of which had any noticeable bearing on prostitution.
Ginsburg was making a threadbare constitutional argument to support what was merely her personal opinion. Whether or not one shares that opinion, this was judicial activism at its worst.
But some of Ginsburg’s other stated opinions would be distinctly alarming to anyone who isn’t already careening down the rainbow slippery-slope to state-sanctioned hedonism.
Protecting bigamy, for instance. While that would no doubt play well in Utah and Dearborn, the rest of America would no doubt raise an eyebrow at the idea. Yet again, Ginsburg invoked the weakest imaginable constitutional argument: once again citing Griswold and Eisenstadt. But Griswold, for instance, explicitly refers to the marital relationship as “bilateral loyalty”.
On other opinions, though, Ginsburg not only has no constitutional argument to make, but is clearly on the extreme of left-wing opinion. Abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day, or banning Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts as “perpetuating sex roles”.
Co-ed prisons. Ginsburg claimed that “single-sex institutions should be rejected” because they failed to prepare inmates for return to the community. For someone who hung their lace collar on “women’s rights”, Ginsburg curiously ignored what anyone with a single toe in the real world could tell exactly would be the fate of women in a mixed-sex prison. Maybe she should have consulted the women raped by “transgender” prisoners transferred to women’s prisons?
But even an idea as plainly batty as mixed-sex prisons pales besides one of Ginsburg’s most alarming hobby horses: reducing the age of sexual consent to 12.
“Fact-checkers” have been working overtime in recent days to try and refute this inconvenient factoid, but their arguments are even thinner than Ginsburg’s “constitutional” arguments for prostitution and bigamy. “Ginsburg never said ‘the age of consent must be lowered to 12 years old’” shrieked the left’s Confirmation Bias Machines. But the fact is that Ginsburg did author the report, “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code”, which recommended “removing the phrase ‘carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years’” and replacing it with “a Federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense patterned after S. 1400 section 1633”.
What does S.1400 (a proposed Senate bill in 1973) have to say about “carnal knowledge”? “A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person…[and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.” The only differences Ginsburg suggested from S.1400 was to make the law “sex-neutral”.
In other words, Ginsburg indeed recommended changes to federal law that would have reduced the age of consent for statutory rape from 16 to 12.
Aside from such alarming views, Ginsburg was a rampant hypocrite. While she argued that employers should be subjected to court-ordered racial quotas in their workforce, she hardly practised what she preached. At the time of her Supreme Court nomination, Ginsberg had operated an office in a majority black city without ever employing a single black person among her more than 50 hires.
“Progressive” extremist and hypocrite: no wonder Ginsburg was revered by the American left.
If you enjoyed this BFD article please consider sharing it with your friends.
