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

DGS49

Diamond Member
Apr 12, 2012
15,663
13,012
2,415
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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".
 
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.
 
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.

.
 
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.
 
Wrong. Conservative justices defer to the judgment of the Legislatures (the peoples' representatives). Liberal justices substitute their own judgment.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top