Posted on 02/11/2012 8:31:52 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested Friday that her predecessors on the high court mistimed the milestone 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion nationwide.
"It's not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far too fast," Ginsburg told a symposium at Columbia Law School marking the 40th anniversary of her joining the faculty as its first tenure-track female professor.
At the time of Roe v. Wade, abortion was legal on request in four states, allowed under limited circumstances in about 16 others, and outlawed under nearly all circumstances in the other states, including Texas — where the Roe case originated.
Alluding to the persisting bitter debate over abortion, Ginsburg said the justices of that era could have delayed hearing any case like Roe while the state-by-state process evolved. Alternatively, she said, they could have struck down just the Texas law, which allowed abortions only to save a mother's life, without declaring a right to privacy that legalized the procedure nationwide.
"The court made a decision that made every abortion law in the country invalid, even the most liberal," Ginsburg said. "We'll never know whether I'm right or wrong ... things might have turned out differently if the court had been more restrained."
A similar dynamic is now unfolding in regard to same-sex marriage, which is legal in six states, could soon be legal in a few more, but remains outlawed in most states. Legal advocates on both sides of the issue wonder if the Supreme Court will want to have a say on the matter relatively soon, or let the state-by-state process evolve further. Ginsburg did not comment on that issue.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
She’s as evil as Blackmun.
The idea that we can kill babies at their most protected stage is a moral absurdity. And under the guise of freedom makes it even more absurd.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
"It's not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far too fast," Ginsburg told a symposium at Columbia Law School... Alluding to the persisting bitter debate over abortion, Ginsburg said the justices of that era could have delayed hearing any case like Roe while the state-by-state process evolved. Alternatively, she said, they could have struck down just the Texas law, which allowed abortions only to save a mother's life, without declaring a right to privacy that legalized the procedure nationwide.Maybe it would have been better timing under, say, the South African constitution.
What if all the Babies were Jewish Babies or Muslim Babies,
where would the Justice Ginsgerg stand then?????
Oh, yes, Justice Ginsberg, "things might have turned out differently."
Millions of souls, endowed by their Creator with life, and placed within little bodies individually designed by Him, would have been allowed their rights to that life, and the liberty to pursue happiness, according to their inherent and individual gifts and talents.
"The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them." - Thomas Jefferson
Wow. Interesting theory of jurisprudence. The interpertation of the Constitution depends on prevailing public opinion and mood.
Why doesn’t she admit that she is completely unsuited for her office and resign. As soon as we have a Republican president.
That statement is BIG. We have always been told by the SUPREMES that they are "SUPREME", in all their wisdom and judgements. She says NO we're not. Well, I'll be damned.
Proving Newt Gingrich right, and the judges need to be fired for making LAW.
Well, of course the ACLU representative on the Supreme Court does not question the legal reasoning or wisdom of Roe vs. Wade. She only questions that it was a sweeping decision, and wonders if the court should have shown restraint.
On the issue of homosexual marriage there is no question that she will vote for homosexual marriage when it reaches the Supreme Court. The only question is if she and her liberal colleagues restrict their order to just a narrow legal issue, such as Proposition 8 in Calif. ,or take it national at that time.
Would she say that that Dred Scott was correctly decided, but the timing was off. If the Court had waited until after the election of 1860, for John C. Breckinridge to be safely on his way to White House, we could have avoided the Civil War, Emancipation and all the other attendant ills?
It’s simple:
Under the penumbra doctrine (”penumbra” being the shadow of the moon that covers part of the earth during a solar eclipse)the 4th Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seisures “imputes” a right to “privacy”—and therfore allows a mother to murder her unborn child.
Blackmun also wrote that Christian doctrine historically supported abortion.
Both Ginsburg and Blackmun spin legal and logical machinations.
Would that be evidence of antisemitism?
Blackmun was quite arguably mentally ill long before he got to the Supreme Court. Nixon would have done well to have simply shot him between the eyes and hidden the body the day he interviewed him for his court appointment.
Blackmun was quite arguably mentally ill long before he got to the Supreme Court. Nixon would have done well to have simply shot him between the eyes and hidden the body the day he interviewed him for his court appointment.
“It’s not that the judgment was wrong, but it moved too far too fast,”
Presumably this low-life affirmitive action hire knows that the chief justice of that court admitted in his book that the basis of the decision WASN’T emenations and penumbras, rather it was “feeling” on the part of the court that it was right.
Incrementalism. That’s the ticket.
It WAS “wrong”!
It invented a “right to privacy” not found in the constitution, and then pretended that was sufficient basis to allow abortion.
Only in a liberal society can you graduate Law School one day and teach it the next!!
Failing health, intermittent intensive hospital stays, and advanced age of this ACLU athiest are betraying her resolve at the murder of over 40 million unborn souls, enough to make Uncle Joe, Adolph and Benito extremely proud..
It is the Sunday Morning (after Saturday’s debauchery) Sinner syndrome - Repent and you shall be saved....a special room in Hell should be reserved for this one.
Any shadow cast by an object lit by a light source that is larger than a point (and the sun is considered such, an "area" light source) has an "umbra" and a "penumbra." The "umbra" is fully shadowed, the penumbra is a region of transition from full shadow to no shadow.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
This is revealing. It sure looks like she’s seeing the crumbling cornerstone. The decision was patently bad law, never mind an exercise in raw judicial power. She’d have preferred, of course, a slow progression (operative word) with a wide base of state decisions.
"It's not that the judgment was wrong"Sixty million slaughtered babies would disagree.
Blackmun should never have passed the bar. The opening of his (majority) opinion said, essentially. This isn’t our field. We’re not doctors or theologians or ethicists, all of whom should be responsible for this decision . . . nevertheless, we’re going to decide this issue.
Thank you. That makes the “penumbra doctrine” even more absurd.
Ruth "Buzzi" Ginsberg must have missed one of her much needed naps.
Indeed. The justices fancy themselves "wordsmiths," and I suppose they have to be, in order to "baffle 'em with BS."
Ginsburg was named a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by President Jimmy Carter (1924–).
And appointed to Supreme Court Justice by Bill Clinton.
Might have known Ruth Buzzi was a campus hot-house affirmative action mutant instead of a real human being. Explains a lot.
Aside from the issue of Roe v. Wade is her complete inability to understand the role of the judiciary. A judge is supposed to make the correct ruling based on the law and the constitution. By saying a ruling should have come at a “different time” indicates she does believe the Court is a super legislature to impose the legislative will of those on the Court vs. their elected representatives and what the laws and constitution says the law is. If a bad ruling comes out of a court based on a law, then the representatives can change the law.
This is not surprising coming from a liberal jurist but it is still very unsettling to have someone sitting on the High Court who would openly say this, on top of essentially saying not too long ago she doesn’t like our constitution.
Newt is right.
The Congress can tell the Courts, by simple majority vote, that the Courts are wrong on any issue.
The Congress can then tell the Courts that they have no authority to rule on that issue—
Limiting the jurisdiction of the Courts!
I posted this same information years ago and was brutally attacked by the Lawyer wannabes. I had referred to B1-Bomber Bob making just these statements. I guess now that Newt makes them they are fact. Oh well, glad we have finally arrived at the right conclusions, now a dose of fortitude would help.
Unfortunately I have a deeply held belief that The Courts are whipping boys that let the E-Pubs hide from the evil that they really prefer.
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.
