--------------------------
I think Ginsberg's criticism of her fellow justices is very unseemly. I can't recall a time where a sitting Supreme court justice has accused fellow Supreme court justices of ignorance. Read on:
--------------------------
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg became an even bigger hero on the left last month when she delivered a scathing dissent to the 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby, which is now exempt from providing (No, it was forced to provide) certain types of birth control to its employees based on its founder’s religious beliefs. This week, she sat down for an extended interview with Yahoo News’ Katie Couric to explain why she found the decision so damaging.
“Contraceptive protection is something that every woman must have access to in order to control her own destiny,” Ginsburg told Couric. (Really? Women can't control their own destiny without birth control? Does that mean when a person becomes a parent their rights have been violated because they have an obligation to care for their child? And since when has the concept of controlling one's destiny been a legal precept?
Further, why does she think the law should value "access," as in a method to obtain certain services or products? And how does declining to support something on moral grounds have anything to do with access? Do women who work for Hobby Lobby no longer have the ability to drive to a pharmacy and purchase birth control? Maybe they don't have a car. Wouldn't that be denying access to birth control as well?)
While she said she “respects the belief” of the Hobby Lobby owners, (Which means she doesn't.) she added, “they have no constitutional right to force that belief on the hundreds and hundreds of women who work them who don’t share that belief.” (Which means that in her view the interests of women to get birth control that is paid by their employer exceeds the interests of the employer to decline to pay for it as the owners pursue their religious convictions.
Notice that Ginsberg asserts there is no "constitutional right to force that belief," a truly ignorant statement. First, there is no such thing as a "constitutional right," because rights are not created by the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants powers or makes restrictions on anyone except government.
Second, no religious belief is being forced per se. Hobby Lobby's specific reason is that some contraceptives have the effect of being an abortifacient, and scientifically speaking, ends a genetically human life. This is not a religious belief. But since the case was argued and decided based on religious freedom, "Congress shall make no law..." is definitive. Congress made a law that not only violated the Constitution, it violated the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Third, religion isn't being imposed. Government was being imposed, and the ruling reflected the fact that government policy was forcing private entities to do things.)
“Do you believe that the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision?” Couric asked later in the interview of the men who made up the majority.
“I would have to say no,” Ginsburg replied after a pause. “But, justices continue to think, and can change. So I’m ever hopeful that if the Court has a blind spot today, its eyes can be opened tomorrow.” (So these justices are blinded by something. What would that be, Justice Ginsberg? They're not thinking, hmmm? Really? What an astounding claim! The fact that the majority is not on board with the feminist agenda is apparently sufficient cause to cast doubt on the intellectual skills of these justices.) Asked if she believes those five justices had a blind spot when it came to Hobby Lobby, Ginsburg said, “Yes.”
I think Ginsberg's criticism of her fellow justices is very unseemly. I can't recall a time where a sitting Supreme court justice has accused fellow Supreme court justices of ignorance. Read on:
--------------------------
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg became an even bigger hero on the left last month when she delivered a scathing dissent to the 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby, which is now exempt from providing (No, it was forced to provide) certain types of birth control to its employees based on its founder’s religious beliefs. This week, she sat down for an extended interview with Yahoo News’ Katie Couric to explain why she found the decision so damaging.
“Contraceptive protection is something that every woman must have access to in order to control her own destiny,” Ginsburg told Couric. (Really? Women can't control their own destiny without birth control? Does that mean when a person becomes a parent their rights have been violated because they have an obligation to care for their child? And since when has the concept of controlling one's destiny been a legal precept?
Further, why does she think the law should value "access," as in a method to obtain certain services or products? And how does declining to support something on moral grounds have anything to do with access? Do women who work for Hobby Lobby no longer have the ability to drive to a pharmacy and purchase birth control? Maybe they don't have a car. Wouldn't that be denying access to birth control as well?)
While she said she “respects the belief” of the Hobby Lobby owners, (Which means she doesn't.) she added, “they have no constitutional right to force that belief on the hundreds and hundreds of women who work them who don’t share that belief.” (Which means that in her view the interests of women to get birth control that is paid by their employer exceeds the interests of the employer to decline to pay for it as the owners pursue their religious convictions.
Notice that Ginsberg asserts there is no "constitutional right to force that belief," a truly ignorant statement. First, there is no such thing as a "constitutional right," because rights are not created by the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants powers or makes restrictions on anyone except government.
Second, no religious belief is being forced per se. Hobby Lobby's specific reason is that some contraceptives have the effect of being an abortifacient, and scientifically speaking, ends a genetically human life. This is not a religious belief. But since the case was argued and decided based on religious freedom, "Congress shall make no law..." is definitive. Congress made a law that not only violated the Constitution, it violated the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
Third, religion isn't being imposed. Government was being imposed, and the ruling reflected the fact that government policy was forcing private entities to do things.)
“Do you believe that the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision?” Couric asked later in the interview of the men who made up the majority.
“I would have to say no,” Ginsburg replied after a pause. “But, justices continue to think, and can change. So I’m ever hopeful that if the Court has a blind spot today, its eyes can be opened tomorrow.” (So these justices are blinded by something. What would that be, Justice Ginsberg? They're not thinking, hmmm? Really? What an astounding claim! The fact that the majority is not on board with the feminist agenda is apparently sufficient cause to cast doubt on the intellectual skills of these justices.) Asked if she believes those five justices had a blind spot when it came to Hobby Lobby, Ginsburg said, “Yes.”
