Talk:Ruth Bader Ginsburg

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon sociology.svg This article contains information about one or more living persons.

Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats.
Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed.
If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver


Please, people, if you are going to write such pieces, fucking spell the supreme court cases correctly!!! Why should another editor have to got to wikipedia to correct garbage typed here by a lazy, or perhaps not that bright, editor? Forgive my pissiness, but really. Some things are just too stupid for words. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:08, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

Spelling "dissent" wrong multiple times is also tiresome. What is this, the dumber version of CP? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:09, 3 September 2008 (EDT)

On the removal of criticism suggesting that Ginsburg is unprincipled[edit]

Recently I made an edit to this article arguing that Ginsburg was unprincipled for assessing Roe v. Wade not on its legal merits but on its consequences. My edit was removed by Hipocrite, who subsequently gave me a symbolic block in which he suggested that I was "pushing nutty parodist nonsense". Might I ask, was law professor Geoffrey R. Stone also engaging in parody when he wrote an article on the Huffington Post essentially expressing the same criticism as I did? To quote:

even if the Justices at the time of Roe had been able to anticipate that the decision would cause a "backlash," it is not at all clear that they should have given this much weight in deciding what the Constitution in fact means. The essential nature of constitutional rights is that they protect fundamental personal liberties even though others do not want to recognize them. In that sense, the Constitution is necessarily counter-majoritarian. If majorities could be counted upon to protect constitutional rights, we wouldn't need a Bill of Rights.

For the Supreme Court to have failed to protect what the justices themselves firmly believed to be the constitutional right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy because of a fear that recognizing that right would anger other citizens would have been a complete betrayal of their most fundamental responsibility as interpreters of the Constitution [my emphasis]. [1]

While I disagree with Stone about abortion and Roe v. Wade (I'm pro-life), he essentially agrees with my position that Judges should reach verdicts based on the interpretation of the law without taking into accounts other factors such as political reaction.

I would also like to note that the criticism of Ginsburg expressed in my edit was no different than criticism of other judges expressed in their respective articles (Antonin Scalia is a particularly good example). Therefore, I think that my edits were valid and should be restored. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Believers, like Ginsburg, that "Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable," are not hipocrites to argue that decisions by the supreme court should pay heed to the societal consequences of their actions. It is, however, hipocritcal to profess a belief in "textual originalism" or whatever bullshit the conservative wing of the supreme court believes in today and then accepting substantive due process when it suits them, so no, you don't get to have an abortion argument here. Go back to conservapedia. Hipocrite (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Seeing that certain misunderstanding have arisen between us I suspect that maybe I wasn't clear enough in my original edit. I never argued that Ginsburg is hypocritical. I'm arguing that she's unprincipled. Either Roe v. Wade is correct (I'm not planning to get into an argument about that here) and abortion laws should be struck down with prejudice or Roe was wrongly decided. In cases such as this the role of the judge is to determine whether or not a certain statue or regulation contradicts the constitution. Political consequences should not be a factor in reaching a decision. Just for clarification, when I was saying that my comments on Ginbsburg are no different than the comments on Scalia in his respective article, I was saying that both comments were critical, not that Ginsburg is hypocritical like Scalia.
"It is, however, hipocritcal to profess a belief in "textual originalism" or whatever bullshit the conservative wing of the supreme court believes in today and then accepting substantive due process when it suits them". If you'll recall my edits to your talk page I essentially agreed with most of what you're saying (except for calling originalism bullshit). You're preaching to the choir.
"you don't get to have an abortion argument here." My point was not to debate either the morality of abortion nor to discuss the merits of Roe v. Wade (me stating my views on those subjects was merely a side comment). My point was merely to defend my edits and to dispel accusation of parody. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Ginsburg disagrees, had disagreed and still disagrees with your statement of fact that "Political consequences should not be a factor in reaching a decision." I also disagree with you. So do many others. Your belief (as a non-american) that our supreme court (which you are not at all related to) should be ignorant of the world around it is not a requirement in statute or law. Hipocrite (talk) 12:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)