Justice Ginsburg and the Need to Oppose Radical Judicial Nominees

While most of us have been caught up in the brouhaha of electoral politics, liberal activists have been working indefatigably to pack the courts – the unelected branch of government – with radical statists. We might have turned over a number of congressional seats in 2010, but Obama has successfully turned over many conservative seats in our federal court system. Since taking office, Obama has appointed 125 people to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts, and 2 to the Supreme Court.

After three years, Obama’s mark on the federal courts is beginning to become quite potent. The Fourth Circuit appellate court used to be filled with a majority of strict constructionist judges. Now, following Obama’s appointment of five new radicals, the court has totally shifted. This once conservative court ruled in favor of the administration in upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare last year. Obama’s indelible stain on the judicial system will reverberate for years to come.

While Republicans have successfully blocked some of Obama’s most extreme nominees, they have voted to confirm the vast majority of them. Many Republicans have insisted for years that anyone who is “qualified” to serve as a judge deserves to be confirmed, irrespective of their judicial philosophy or ideology. This school of thought suggests that as long as the nominee has the requisite resume and is clean of ethical violations, he/she should sail through the nomination process. That is the grim consequence of elections, they contend.

Last week, in an interview with an Egyptian television station, Ruth Bader Ginsburg showed why ideology matters and why perverted judicial philosophy should indeed be a disqualifying factor for a judgeship. She told the audience –one that lives under tyranny – that the U.S. Constitution should not serve as a role model for a modern draft:

“I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”

At the time of her nomination to the Supreme Court, Ginsburg had a stellar resume and excellent ratings from the American Bar Association. With that criteria in mind, every Republican except for three; Don Nickles, Bob Smith, and Jesse Helms, voted to confirm Ginsburg, a woman who has nothing but contempt for the very document that she is charged with upholding.

Make no mistake about it; someone who believes that our constitution is outdated; someone who regards our constitution as a living and breathing document; someone who views the constitution of a violent third world country with higher reverence than the U.S. Constitution is indeed disqualified from serving on any court.

No matter what happens in November, Obama will have another year to pack the courts. At present, there are 86 vacancies on district and appellate courts, 39 of which already have pending nominees before the Senate. We must work harder to ensure that not a single person with contempt for our Constitution is confirmed by the Senate. Republicans must understand that disrespect for the Constitution is an automatic disqualification for a judicial nominee.

Perhaps, Justice Ginsburg had it right when she asserted at the end of that TV interview, “if the people don’t care, the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference.” If we continue to blithely confirm nominees who share Ginsburg’s judicial philosophy, our Constitution – which is the best in the world – certainly won’t make any difference.

In case anyone is wondering why she is recommending the South African Constitution, here is just a sampling of all of the rights that are granted to everyone and that, in many instances, must be paid for by taxpayers:

“The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

Everyone has the right to fair labour practices.

Every worker has the right:
to form and join a trade union;
to participate in the activities and programmes of a trade union; and
to strike.

Every employer has the right:
to form and join an employers’ organisation; and
to participate in the activities and programmes of an employers’ organisation.

Every trade union and every employers’ organisation has the right:
to determine its own administration, programmes and activities;
to organise; and
to form and join a federation.

Everyone has the right:
to an environment that is not harmful to their health or well-being; and
to have the environment protected, for the benefit of present and future generations, through reasonable legislative and other measures that
prevent pollution and ecological degradation;
promote conservation; and
secure ecologically sustainable development and use of natural resources while promoting justifiable economic and social development.

Everyone has the right to have access to adequate housing. The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of this right.

Everyone has the right to have access to:
health care services, including reproductive health care;
sufficient food and water; and
social security, including, if they are unable to support themselves and their dependants, appropriate social assistance.

The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights.

No one may be refused emergency medical treatment.

Every child has the right:
to a name and a nationality from birth;
to family care or parental care, or to appropriate alternative care when removed from the family environment;
to basic nutrition, shelter, basic health care services and social services;
to be protected from maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation;
to be protected from exploitative labour practices;
not to be required or permitted to perform work or provide services that
are inappropriate for a person of that child's age; or
place at risk the child's well-being, education, physical or mental health or spiritual, moral or social development;
not to be detained except as a measure of last resort, in which case, in addition to the rights a child enjoys under sections 12 and 35, the child may be detained only for the shortest appropriate period of time, and has the right to be
kept separately from detained persons over the age of 18 years; and
treated in a manner, and kept in conditions, that take account of the child's age;
to have a legal practitioner assigned to the child by the state, and at state expense, in civil proceedings affecting the child, if substantial injustice would otherwise result; and
not to be used directly in armed conflict, and to be protected in times of armed conflict.

Everyone has the right:
to a basic education, including adult basic education; and
to further education, which the state, through reasonable measures, must make progressively available and accessible.

Everyone has the right to receive education in the official language or languages of their choice in public educational institutions where that education is reasonably practicable. In order to ensure the effective access to, and implementation of, this right, the state must consider all reasonable educational alternatives, including single medium institutions, taking into account:
equity;
practicability; and
the need to redress the results of past racially discriminatory laws and practices.”

Thus, a socialist paradise.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.