Jul 11 2009
Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg believes in Eugenics?
I know this is political theater. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has already stepped out in support of potential Supreme Court appointee, Sonia Sotomayor. Now she makes a comment that is sure to grab the news media’s attention and to possibly take some heat of the Senate Judiciary confirmation hearing that begins Monday.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a liberal and a feminist. So, if you are a hard working male, you are in double jeapordy already. Like Sotomayor, Ginsberg considers herself an affirmitive action byproduct and has gender biased beliefs.
In an interview with the New York Times Magazine, Ginsberg made claims that Columbia University motivation to offer her tenure as a law professor was political. The majority of the interview is pretty much standard women’s lib issues and her reasoning for Sotomayor as a Supreme Court Justice.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg uses the typical liberal tactic of shadow talk when she goes on about how she thinks some people in Congress [Republicans] will criticize anyone President Obama nominated. Ginsberg claims this is due to her [Sotomayor] being a woman and the remarks about Latina women. What Ginsberg fails to understand is that Sotomayor did not just make the “remark” once…she stated it more than 5 times.
In 2001 Sotomayor said: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” That is a remark that many find offensive considering that justice is supposed to be blind and equal for all…no matter what your background experience is!
Ginsberg claimed it is “ridiculous for them to make a big deal out of that. Think of how many times you’ve said something that you didn’t get out quite right, and you would edit your statement if you could. I’m sure she meant no more than what I mean when I say: Yes, women bring a different life experience to the table.”
Ginsberg continued, “All of our differences make the conference better. That I’m a woman, that’s part of it, that I’m Jewish, that’s part of it, that I grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., and I went to summer camp in the Adirondacks, all these things are part of me.”
Again, what Justice Ginsberg fails to understand is no matter what background experiences you have, as a Supreme Court Justice you are required to base each case on law…not empathy, feelings, race, sex, gender or anything else. Maybe Ginsberg and Sotomayor should step outside the Supreme Court and look at the words written above the entrance: “Equal Justice Under Law.”
Ginsberg’s defense of Sotomayor is shocking to some but the real bombshell is what she said about Roe v. Wade. This is Ginsberg’s “wise Latina moment.” But I’m sure she will spin it in typical liberal fashion.
Ginsberg was asked “If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?”
Ginsberg answered “Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.”
The interviewer immediately asked Ginsberg “Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?”
Ginsberg’s answer was “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. 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.”
So, let me understand. Ginsberg was surprised by the 1980 ruling that forbids the use of Medicade for abortions? Medicaid is the United States health program for eligible individuals and families with low incomes and resources…aka…poor white and black people.
So when Ginsberg makes the statement “there was CONCERN ABOUT POPULATION GROWTH AND PARTICULARLY GROWTH IN POPULATIONS THAT WE DON’T WANT TO HAVE TOO MANY OF,” is she saying abortion is a eugenics tool designed to “destroy” the population that “we” dont want to have to many of?
Is Ginsberg taking pages from the playbook of Margaret Sanger? Margaret Sanger is a member of both the American Eugenics Society and the English Eugenics Society…ohhh…and she just happens to be the founder of Planned Parenthood. She is loved by the likes of Ginsberg and Hillary Clinton. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RQ6wEz4QXE)
I could go on and on about Margaret Sanger and her racist ideology. How she pushed birth control into the black community to destroy those she saw as “unfit” or as Ginsberg claims “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” This sounds more like a Nazi General than a U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
I am sure Ginsberg meant to say it differently? At least thats what the excuse will be when this comes to light. Do a little bit of research on Margaret Sanger and Eugenics. Hillary Clinton said this would be part of the new administration.
Key phrase “suppose to be” Equal Justice. This is a concept that has never been enforced or adhered to (or equality on any level).
Women will find a way to abort a child legally or otherwise and they have been doing it for years.
In terms of CONCERN ABOUT POPULATION GROWTH AND PARTICULARLY GROWTH IN POPULATIONS THAT WE DON’T WANT TO HAVE TOO MANY OF, I’m sure that back in the day this was a thought and in fact I vaguely remember ways they attempted to institue sterilization of young black women (there was even a bill board placed on a freeway at one time encouraging sterilization of black women - memory is fuzzy right now) - I’d have to talk to some people and do some research to refresh my memory though.
Bottom line - Sotomayor knows the difference between the “LETTER” of the law and any feelings she may have inside her own body. The things she has said takes on a “different meaning” only because they emerged from the mouth of a minority - white people have and still do sprout different forms of division all the time and somehow it just seems “right” coming out of there mouths (although of late a sense of “political correctness” is suppose to “govern” speech so other ways are found to say the same ugliness).
I am not sure where you were going with this post but I think Sotomayor is a step in the direction of diversity of the Justices of the Supreme Court - a diversity that is way past due and according to “quotas” she falls into two categories, a female and a minority.
Scotty-I refuse to comment on any of your posts until you apologize to us “mentally deficient” residents here in Mass. LOL.
I have always considered Ginsberg to be a bit of a flake and thank you for confirming my suspicions. The Supreme Court is the most blatant example of political posturing in our system. However; let’s not act like it is a tool used only by the liberals. If ever there was a ruling body that needed term limits; it’s the Supreme Court. Allowing people well into their 80s to make precedent setting decisions is irresponsible at best. OK-enough pontificating!
Your article made for great reading and, as always, was very informative. Despite your blindsided shot at my neighbors; I gave you a plug in my last comment to my article on dsent. I have grown tired of these supposedly well educated and enlightened people having to clarify their original statements. In the words of my wife: “Say what you mean and mean what you say.” She’s cute!! Of course, that was never directed at me.
I agree with your suspicion that Ginsberg’s comments are a political ploy to detract attention from Sotomayor. Sotomayor has made a number of statements that seem, to me, are evidence of her INABILITY to follow the letter of the law. By introducing race; she has made herself available to more scrutinizing in her confirmation hearings. Like your good friend Barney Franks; she appears to have a tendency to speak without giving much thought to what she is about to say.
As a spokesman for the great state of Massachusetts, home of the American Revolution and numerous world championship teams, I hereby declare: Great article. Be good Scotty.
@truth2u= if she knew the letter of the law, why did she show no EMPATHY for those white firefighters? She ruled against them because of their COLOR, yet in another case where it involved black firefighters, she ruled for them BECAUSE OF THEIR COLOR?
Also, have you researched anything about her involvement with the PRLDEF (Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund)? Just to push a bit of information out there…This group claims to be a civil rights group but MOST of their actions tend to show racial motives (ala the NAACP, New Black Panther and KKK).
This same group sued and won a lawsuit (Aspira vs. New York City Board of Education) that forced city schools to “implement” bilingual education for non-English speaking students. Their every motive is race-based and they’re proud of it. Who suffers for this win? The children! Who pays for it? Yep…legal American Taxpayers!
This group is radical in many ways. In 1990, the PRLDEF (Sotomayor was a member from 1980 - 1992) defended a Puerto Rican nationalist who 36 years earlier attacked and wounded 5 lawmakers during an attack on the U.S. House of Representatives. The only reason? He was Puerto Rican!
……..”The things she has said takes on a “different meaning” only because they emerged from the mouth of a minority - white people have and still do sprout different forms of division all the time and somehow it just seems “right” coming out of there mouths”……..
So when someone is a minority, what they say has “different meaning?” This is new to me. I can usually hear a racist statement like ““I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
I have written articles on other sites about this. Its ok with some people BECAUSE it came from the mouth of a minority. It is just brushed to the side and people take it as a simple “misspoken” moment. Well she said that more than 5 times in different settings.
Let’s play PUT THE SHOE ON THE OTHER FOOT. I’m a white male and I just was nominated for a spot on the Supreme Court. While being vetted, it comes out that I was a member of WPPLDEF (White People Pride and Legal Defense and Education Fund). The WPPLDEF only fights for civil rights of white people.
We fight for “quotas” because around 70% of the U.S. is white. We sue the NBA because we want it to represent our countries population. We want in, not because of our skills and training. We won’t in because of our skin color! (doesn’t that scenerio sound familiar?)
Then it is discovered that I made a statement like “I would believe, that as a wise White Man, who has lived a full and rich life, more often than not, I would reach a better decesion than a [insert race here] who has not live my kind of life.”
You know exactly what would happen. I would immediately be forced to decline the appointment because my racist ideology is wrong. The same is true for Sotomayor. Putting one group or race of people above others is racism…not matter the color of your skin!!!
I’m tired of giving minorities, like Sotomayor, a “pass” for their racist statements and actions. If it fits one, it fits all. I call them as I see them. That “differnt meaning” doesn’t fly with most.
The “population control” is a scary statement. I did a dissertation in college about Eugenics. Margaret Sanger, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Hillary Clinton and Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, are believers in riding the “unfit” through abortions. I am currently trying to locate this dissertation for a future article…it is scary!!!!
@Dean, Massachusetts is one of my favorite states to visit. I’m a huge fan of history…so Massachusetts is always high on the list
Sotomayor is a racial nut. She has shown, time and time again, that she only sees the color of skin instead of the content of character. Some give her a pass for making racist statements like the one that has her in hot water now.
I could let it slide (highly doubtful) if she only said it once…but more than 5 times at different venues…NOPE!
Not only that, she is also a 2nd Amendment hater. She has had so many cases overturned by SCOTUS is another concern. Her thinkings about states rights is another issue of concern.
I have never trusted anyone who smiles as much as Sotomayor does. It usually means you are hiding something…LOL.
Obama’s Science Czar believes in Eugenics and Population Control…scary ideas: http://zombietime.com/john_holdren/
I’ll watch the confirmation hearings and see what comes up about her past because I’m sure if it’s any dirt out there Republicans are busting at the seams to bring it to light during these hearings. Asked and Answered I can read between the lines through body language and answers - I’ll see for myself - if it does not bore me too much
In terms of your hypothetical - as old as some of the Judges are, I’m sure your hypothetical is closer to truth than you realize.
In terms of other things you have said the world is just now starting to turn around and now that the shoe is, more often, on the other foot white folks are beginning to see what it truly feels like and they can not stand the pressure - and they whine and they file racial discrimination law suites - just think how you would feel if this had been your life for 40 or 50 (all the years you have spent on earth) years of being on this earth. Ugly is Ugly anyway you look at it but time is relevant to the experience and that’s the thing that white folks just refuse to look at.
I’m not mad - it is what it is and I have survived all the ugliness and I am still strong and confident but I am so very very tired of it all.
Well considering that I wasn’t around for slavery or civil rights, I have never had any part of holding anyone back or denying anyone their civil rights. Just as those who didn’t experience it claiming they are affected.
Since you have experience it, it would seem you would be just as mad. I’ve experience it myself…had the highest test score and oral exam. What happened? They gave it to someone based on skin color instead of skills.
What happened back then was wrong and it is wrong now. Doesn’t matter what skin color the person has…PERIOD. I just find it shocking that those individuals who know what it feels like tend to set back and say “now you know how it feels.”
Some forget that a majority of white folk faught and died for your rights and not all were involved in slavery, discrimination or civil rights violations.
What happened to judging someone by their merit. I recall civil rights pioneers telling people to not judge a group by their color or by a few bad apples.
That is what is happening right now. Groups are being put above others. In Sotomayor’s opinion, people of her background and experiences are better. She said it…not me.
I know that I stand up for EVERYONE. Color means nothing. This is what people like Sotomayor need to understand. We are living in today’s time…not the past. People grow and realize past wrongs. Some cling to the past and use it as a crutch in life.
If it was wrong then, it is wrong now. Justice should be equal but folks like Sotomayor see only color and immediately justice is blinded in her eyes.