In a Few Words, Why RBG Was a "bad" Justice

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
9,457
Reaction score
3,625
Points
360
Location
Pittsburgh
When I was studying ConLaw in Law School, we had many discussions about the Warren Court and subsequent Leftist versions of the USSC, and how they were "shaping" the Constitution into a new form that the Founders had never imagined. The common joke was that, the longer a Supreme Court decision was (number of pages), the more likely it was total bullshit.

The obligation of the justices is to look at the case - the facts, the law and the Constitution - and determine whether the law was correctly applied, and whether the law, as applied by the trial court, was Constitutional. That's it, nothing complicated.

There were many, many times when the justices with integrity were compelled by their duty on the court to come to a conclusion that they personally found repugnant. For example, someone was legally and constitutionally convicted of a crime that they considered stupid. But they humbly set their own personal opinions and feelings aside, occasionally remarking in their written opinions that the legislature ought to reconsider the law in question and change it, because in this case it had brought about an odious result.

But for justices like RBG, this internal struggle never happened. She decided in advance which side she wanted to win - usually some oppressed individual who had got caught with his pants down, then she crafted an opinion that appeared to justify the result. She never wrote an opinion that contradicted her personal social or political philosophy. This is why the bullshit opinions were so long. They had to take the law and twist it around to mean something that the legislators who wrote it never intended. And of course they shamelessly twisted the Constitution itself in exactly the same way, finding, for example, a "Constitutional right" to marry someone of the same gender, a "Constitutional right" to get an abortion, and so on.

Consider that there is not a single Federal law on the books that authorizes the form of racial discrimination that has come to be called, "affirmative action," in all of its forms and guises. IT IS ALL COURT-CREATED "LAW."

In fact, much, if not most, of the Leftist trend in American governance has been brought about by judges and justices like RBG, who ignore the law if it doesn't suit their personal predilections, and write opinions and make findings that contradict both the letter and the spirit of the laws, thus rendering the Legislators - the peoples' representatives - impotent in setting social and economic policy.

RBG was a lot of good things, but she was a BAD justice on the Supreme Court. If all goes as planned, her death may be her greatest contribution to American jurisprudence. Ironic, isn't it?
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
83,836
Reaction score
22,392
Points
2,220
pro pedophile, pro child butcher.
 
OP
DGS49

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
9,457
Reaction score
3,625
Points
360
Location
Pittsburgh
One thing I forgot to mention...the reason why she is known for her "great" dissents is because she was usually on the wrong side of the issue.
 

JGalt

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
30,800
Reaction score
12,713
Points
1,620
Location
SW Wisconsin
When I was studying ConLaw in Law School, we had many discussions about the Warren Court and subsequent Leftist versions of the USSC, and how they were "shaping" the Constitution into a new form that the Founders had never imagined. The common joke was that, the longer a Supreme Court decision was (number of pages), the more likely it was total bullshit.

The obligation of the justices is to look at the case - the facts, the law and the Constitution - and determine whether the law was correctly applied, and whether the law, as applied by the trial court, was Constitutional. That's it, nothing complicated.

There were many, many times when the justices with integrity were compelled by their duty on the court to come to a conclusion that they personally found repugnant. For example, someone was legally and constitutionally convicted of a crime that they considered stupid. But they humbly set their own personal opinions and feelings aside, occasionally remarking in their written opinions that the legislature ought to reconsider the law in question and change it, because in this case it had brought about an odious result.

But for justices like RBG, this internal struggle never happened. She decided in advance which side she wanted to win - usually some oppressed individual who had got caught with his pants down, then she crafted an opinion that appeared to justify the result. She never wrote an opinion that contradicted her personal social or political philosophy. This is why the bullshit opinions were so long. They had to take the law and twist it around to mean something that the legislators who wrote it never intended. And of course they shamelessly twisted the Constitution itself in exactly the same way, finding, for example, a "Constitutional right" to marry someone of the same gender, a "Constitutional right" to get an abortion, and so on.

Consider that there is not a single Federal law on the books that authorizes the form of racial discrimination that has come to be called, "affirmative action," in all of its forms and guises. IT IS ALL COURT-CREATED "LAW."

In fact, much, if not most, of the Leftist trend in American governance has been brought about by judges and justices like RBG, who ignore the law if it doesn't suit their personal predilections, and write opinions and make findings that contradict both the letter and the spirit of the laws, thus rendering the Legislators - the peoples' representatives - impotent in setting social and economic policy.

RBG was a lot of good things, but she was a BAD justice on the Supreme Court. If all goes as planned, her death may be her greatest contribution to American jurisprudence. Ironic, isn't it?
Go to the second section of this page, under "Views." She had some really horrible ideas...

Ruth Bader Ginsburg - Conservapedia
 

norwegen

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
8,271
Reaction score
2,859
Points
350
Location
Ormond Beach, FL
Judicial power of the United States extends to all cases of law and equity arising under the Constitution, so the Constitution says. Moonbats are forever altering the Constitution, and therefore are activists, and therefore make poor jurists.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
212,287
Reaction score
38,269
Points
2,190
The Constitution is intentionally vague, leaving it to subsequent generations to interpret how it will apply.
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
212,287
Reaction score
38,269
Points
2,190
The Constitution is intentionally vague, leaving it to subsequent generations to interpret how it will apply.
Oh, yesseree Bob. Yer so right, Zeke. The Constitution don't mean nuttin. Why, there aint no point in havin' a constitution 'tall.
If you have ever read it, you would see how vague it is


Everything in it has been interpreted by the courts at some point. Otherwise, it is unenforceable
 

AZrailwhale

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
570
Reaction score
542
Points
483
Location
Arizona
The Constitution is intentionally vague, leaving it to subsequent generations to interpret how it will apply.
The Constitution is only vague if you can't read and understand plain English. I uses phrases like "shall not be infringed" "shall not be established" "all rights no specifically granted to the Federal Government are retained by the people or several states".
 

JGalt

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2011
Messages
30,800
Reaction score
12,713
Points
1,620
Location
SW Wisconsin
The Constitution is intentionally vague, leaving it to subsequent generations to interpret how it will apply.
Oh, yesseree Bob. Yer so right, Zeke. The Constitution don't mean nuttin. Why, there aint no point in havin' a constitution 'tall.
If you have ever read it, you would see how vague it is


Everything in it has been interpreted by the courts at some point. Otherwise, it is unenforceable
Only "vague" to those who don't understand the concepts of individual liberties and God-given rights. But then it's easy to can understand how you on the left have a problem comprehending those simple ideas.
 

OKTexas

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
49,904
Reaction score
9,194
Points
2,070
Location
Near Magnolia, TX
When I was studying ConLaw in Law School, we had many discussions about the Warren Court and subsequent Leftist versions of the USSC, and how they were "shaping" the Constitution into a new form that the Founders had never imagined. The common joke was that, the longer a Supreme Court decision was (number of pages), the more likely it was total bullshit.

The obligation of the justices is to look at the case - the facts, the law and the Constitution - and determine whether the law was correctly applied, and whether the law, as applied by the trial court, was Constitutional. That's it, nothing complicated.

There were many, many times when the justices with integrity were compelled by their duty on the court to come to a conclusion that they personally found repugnant. For example, someone was legally and constitutionally convicted of a crime that they considered stupid. But they humbly set their own personal opinions and feelings aside, occasionally remarking in their written opinions that the legislature ought to reconsider the law in question and change it, because in this case it had brought about an odious result.

But for justices like RBG, this internal struggle never happened. She decided in advance which side she wanted to win - usually some oppressed individual who had got caught with his pants down, then she crafted an opinion that appeared to justify the result. She never wrote an opinion that contradicted her personal social or political philosophy. This is why the bullshit opinions were so long. They had to take the law and twist it around to mean something that the legislators who wrote it never intended. And of course they shamelessly twisted the Constitution itself in exactly the same way, finding, for example, a "Constitutional right" to marry someone of the same gender, a "Constitutional right" to get an abortion, and so on.

Consider that there is not a single Federal law on the books that authorizes the form of racial discrimination that has come to be called, "affirmative action," in all of its forms and guises. IT IS ALL COURT-CREATED "LAW."

In fact, much, if not most, of the Leftist trend in American governance has been brought about by judges and justices like RBG, who ignore the law if it doesn't suit their personal predilections, and write opinions and make findings that contradict both the letter and the spirit of the laws, thus rendering the Legislators - the peoples' representatives - impotent in setting social and economic policy.

RBG was a lot of good things, but she was a BAD justice on the Supreme Court. If all goes as planned, her death may be her greatest contribution to American jurisprudence. Ironic, isn't it?

I saw an analysis say it best last night. RGB had no judicial philosophy, she tried to push the country to meet her vision through judicial decisions. That's not the purpose of the court. Of course it our fault for allowing the court to assume so much power.

.
 

Lysistrata

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2017
Messages
14,130
Reaction score
3,585
Points
290
RGB had no judicial philosophy, she tried to push the country to meet her vision through judicial decisions. That's not the purpose of the court. Of course it our fault for allowing the court to assume so much power.
Everyone on the court tries to push the country to meet their visions though judicial decisions. Why else would anyone speak of "conservative judges," "liberal judges," and "activist judges"? Potential nominees listed by trump are not a diverse group in terms of political and social thought, so the list must have been compiled with expected outcomes in mind.

I read the transcript of oral argument in the case of Whole Women's Health v. Hellerstedt, a challenge to a Texas law imposing safety requirements on abortion providers. I noticed that the justices considered "conservative" asked only procedural questions of the Texas solicitor general, and not one asked him a single question regarding the substance of the law, which is what I expect a justice to do. It came out that abortions were considered safer than colonoscopies, which were not subject to the same "safety" requirements, and the solicitor general even said that women who lived a great distance from the only clinic in compliance should go to New Mexico for their abortions.
 
OP
DGS49

DGS49

Platinum Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2012
Messages
9,457
Reaction score
3,625
Points
360
Location
Pittsburgh
Wrong. Conservative justices defer to the judgment of the Legislatures (the peoples' representatives). Liberal justices substitute their own judgment.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top