Aug. 20, 2003
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently joined Hillary
Clinton, Janet Reno, anti-Pledge-of-Allegiance Judge Stephen Reinhardt,
and other like-mined liberals and feminists to launch a new
organization called the American Constitution Society. Its mission is
to challenge the Federalist Society, which promotes the nomination of
judges who believe in the U.S. Constitution and in America's unique
system of federalism.
The left doesn't believe that the Constitution should be the
benchmark of court decisions or that we should abide by the its
requirement that "all legislative powers" belong to the Congress.
Liberals believe that new rights should be invented and public policies
dictated by supposedly more enlightened judges.
At any rate, it's easier to get life-tenured judges than
democratically-elected legislatures to adopt leftist policies. That's
the undercurrent driving the Democrats' filibuster against President
Bush's judicial nominees.
Ginsburg's writing and speaking style is usually somewhere between
convoluted and obscure, but she delighted the new group with a
noteworthy triple entendre. Referring to Supreme Court decisions, she
urged us to get rid of "the Lone Ranger mentality."
First, this was clearly a cut at Bush because he is closely
associated with the word ranger. His baseball club was the Texas
Rangers, and his top-of-the-line fundraisers are affectionately called
Second, Ginsburg's remark was a not-so-subtle sneer at President
Bush's foreign policy, which has been impudently criticized by the
snooty Europeans for its "unilaterialism" and "cowboy" approach.
Ginsburg bragged that the Supreme Court is "becoming more open to
international law perspectives," looking to United Nations treaties and
foreign courts for guidance in deciding gay rights, death penalty and
affirmative action cases.
Third, Ginsburg's comment was indelibly characteristic of the
biased lingo of the radical feminists who hate everything masculine.
The Lone Ranger and the Texas Rangers, God bless 'em, are very
Because of her low-key manner, many people don't realize what a
feminist extremist she is, but she laid it all out before she ascended
to the Court in a book called "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code." It was
filled with a lot of radical feminist demands, such as assigning women
to military combat duty, affirmative action for women in the armed
services, federal financing of comprehensive daycare, and the sex
integration of the Boy and Girl Scouts.
The real purpose of the new American Constitution Society is to
recruit candidates for the federal judiciary who will continue the
current Supreme Court's custom of deciding cases on the basis of the
justices' own policy preferences rather than by referring to the U.S.
Constitution. In this year's shocking decisions, the Court abandoned
all pretense of basing rulings on what the U.S. Constitution allows or
Some liberals openly preach the "evolution" of the Constitution,
or assert that judges are merely translating obsolete language into a
"living" Constitution. Liberal Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe is
more blunt: he calls it the "free-form method."
This spring, the Supreme Court dealt devastating blows to
longstanding American laws and beliefs about morals and about a just
society, and did this without advancing any argument that reasonably
relates to the U.S. Constitution. The Court struck down our right to
legislate against immoral actions (Lawrence v. Texas), and the Court
exalted "diversity" as a new rule that trumps nondiscrimination on
account of race (Grutter v. Bollinger).
No constitutional argument justifies those two decisions that
create new rights of sodomy and reverse racial discrimination. They
evolved out of the social preferences of the shifting majorities of
justices and their pandering to the liberal elites.
Ginsburg's tour de force to aid the feminists' campaign against
everything masculine was her sudden discovery in 1996 of a new right
for women to enroll in Virginia Military Institute. Nobody else had
detected that right in the Constitution for 157 years.
Ginsburg has long been on record as wanting cases to be decided on
her version of what she calls "the equality principle" (rather than on
the Constitution). Her "equality" notions include the right to
abortion at taxpayers' expense (which the Supreme Court rejected in
1980), and a mindless gender neutrality that would include eliminating
the concept of "breadwinning husband" and "dependent, homemaking wife."
The influence of Ruth Bader Ginsburg is clearly seen in another
2003 decision that shocked observers, Nevada Dept. of Human Resources
v. Hibbs. The court's tirade against "stereotypes" (a word used 19
times) which supposedly "forced women to continue to assume the role of
primary family caregiver" was based on feminist fantasies about a
gender-neutral society, not on the U.S. Constitution.
When will the American people call a halt to the tyranny of the
Imperial Judiciary and restore "all legislative powers" to the
legislatures? Will that happen if some court presumes to invent a new
right of same-sex marriage?