Ginsburg – Say, this is a really activist court, huh?

posted at 5:01 pm on August 25, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

I used to start off considering an article such as this by noting that Supreme Court Justices generally don’t do many interviews, so when they do it must be something special. But we’ve been seeing more of them of late, and I’m left wondering what the driving factor was for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to sit down with the New York Times and begin dishing on her colleagues in this one. Over the course of the interview, though, she did cover two points of at least some interest. The first was a rerun of a subject we touched on here before, that being her intention to stay on the job no matter how many Democrats are trying to push her out the door while Obama can still name her replacement.

On Friday, she said repeatedly that the identity of the president who would appoint her replacement did not figure in her retirement planning.

“There will be a president after this one, and I’m hopeful that that president will be a fine president,” she said.

She says she is cancer free and back to her normal routine – with the exception of water-skiing… “those days are over” – and that as long as her health remains good she’ll be sticking around. On the one hand, this could be taken as a mark in her favor, indicating a lack of interest in partisan divides and trusting in the office, rather than the occupant, to name a qualified replacement. But she’s clearly aware of the news of the day and may think she sees the chance to have her replacement named by the wife of the guy who appointed her. We may never know.

But she also slipped in a comment which doesn’t reflect well on some of her fellow Justices.

In wide-ranging remarks in her chambers on Friday that touched on affirmative action, abortion and same-sex marriage, Justice Ginsburg said she had made a mistake in joining a 2009 opinion that laid the groundwork for the court’s decision in June effectively striking down the heart of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The recent decision, she said, was “stunning in terms of activism.” …

She was especially critical of the voting rights decision, as well as the part of the ruling upholding the health care law that nonetheless said it could not be justified under Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce.

In general, Justice Ginsburg said, “if it’s measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation, this is one of the most activist courts in history.”

I don’t think we need a secret decoder ring out of a box of Fruit Loops to translate that one. There are clearly activist judges on the court… just not her, you see. I wonder what these people talk about in chambers when nobody’s watching? I’m just picturing Scalia walking by her office door and saying, “Nice interview.” and then mumbling something else a few feet further down the hall.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

This walking corpse is worried about ‘activism’ in the court?

Does she not believe in our system of checks and balances, or does she only believe it when it suits her ideology?

Obamacare, the most constitutionally onerous law of the day still stands due to the court’s lack of activism, in fact.

Corporal Tunnel on August 25, 2013 at 5:08 PM

…she’s a sex object for liberals!

KOOLAID2 on August 25, 2013 at 5:12 PM

In general, Justice Ginsburg said, “if it’s measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation, this is one of the most activist courts in history.”

Shouldn’t the court be solely measured as to its proper reasoning and effectiveness in interpreting the U.S. (not the South African) Constitution per the original intent and meaning of the Founding Fathers?

But hey, I have no standing to argue with a Leftist Constitutional Scholar …

ShainS on August 25, 2013 at 5:13 PM

She doesn’t care, just so abortions are legal, safe, and paid for by Christians who oppose the murder of babies.

Wino on August 25, 2013 at 5:13 PM

I’m just picturing Scalia walking by her office door and saying, “Nice interview.” and then mumbling something else a few feet further down the hall.

Actually, Scalia and Ginsburg are close friends. Here’s his famous quip about the desert island.

But the more important point is that I hope ALL of the justices stay on through this presidential term.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 25, 2013 at 5:15 PM

she’s a sex object for liberals!

KOOLAID2 on August 25, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Her picture’s birth control for all.

CW on August 25, 2013 at 5:33 PM

I wish her health and a complete career and long life. This wish subject to modification at the wim of its author.

Bmore on August 25, 2013 at 5:37 PM

I don’t understand what she means. Is she unhappy that states are asking for id’s to vote? Does she think she should have voted against Obamacare being a tax? I just find this story clear as mud but am willing to take the blame.

Cindy Munford on August 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Cindy Munford on August 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM

No, you’re not to blame … I wondered the exact same thing.

ShainS on August 25, 2013 at 5:45 PM

I am incredibly disappointed that these women, like Kagan, Sotomayer, Ginsburg, Clinton, Pelosi, et al, are touted by the left continually as ‘the voice of women’. These self congratulatory, elitist, hypocritical women don’t represent me in the least.

thatsafactjack on August 25, 2013 at 5:48 PM

I don’t understand what she means. Is she unhappy that states are asking for id’s to vote? Does she think she should have voted against Obamacare being a tax? I just find this story clear as mud but am willing to take the blame.

Cindy Munford on August 25, 2013 at 5:38 PM

I think this old bitty is just sure that states are readying legislation to deny the vote to blacks and other minorities with this summer’s ruling. She’s that dim.

As far as her ObamaCare comments, the fact that you can’t invoke mandates under the commerce clause (in essence, you can only invoke them by declaring them as taxes) causes her much angst. Doesn’t give Lord Government enough control.

Bitter Clinger on August 25, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Restraint of Congressional power == activism.

Beating the states ever lower into their hole =/= activism.

Axeman on August 25, 2013 at 5:59 PM

Saying that Congress cannot compel activity in order to regulate it is court ACTIVISM!!!

Saying that poor widdle owd Congress has any limitations on their ability to compel actions so that they can regulate them, well that’s just mean, man.

Axeman on August 25, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Activism is thinking that the commerce clause allows all laws.

unclesmrgol on August 25, 2013 at 6:04 PM

…if it’s measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation…

Yeah, except that this is not what judicial activism means. The American left is Orwells living nightmare.

Valkyriepundit on August 25, 2013 at 6:10 PM

In general, Justice Ginsburg said, “if it’s measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation, this is one of the most activist courts in history.”

Obamacare still being in force despite its clear unconstitutionality proves this wrong.

besser tot als rot on August 25, 2013 at 6:12 PM

Does she not believe in our system of checks and balances, or does she only believe it when it suits her ideologyiocy?

Corporal Tunnel on August 25, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Sadly .. yes !

cableguy615 on August 25, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Justice Ginsburg is the same as any other liberal, if they agree with the decision, it’s based on the law, if they disagree, it’s an activist judge to made it.

bflat879 on August 25, 2013 at 6:14 PM

I am incredibly disappointed that these women, like Kagan, Sotomayer, Ginsburg, Clinton, Pelosi, et al, are touted by the left continually as ‘the voice of women’. These self congratulatory, elitist, hypocritical women don’t represent me in the least.

thatsafactjack on August 25, 2013 at 5:48 PM

I know, ain’t it nauseating?
I find them to be an embarrassment to our gender- (understatement)
Now Cynthia McKinney..she makes me proud. ;)

bazil9 on August 25, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Yeah, except that this is not what judicial activism means. The American left is Orwells living nightmare.

Valkyriepundit on August 25, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Agreed. It is replacing a judge’s policy preference for the law. But, even by her own standard, she is, as in most things (except that Roe was an awful decision), wrong.

besser tot als rot on August 25, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Justice Ginsburg is the same as any other liberal, if they agree with the decision, it’s based on the law, if they disagree, it’s an activist judge to made it.

bflat879 on August 25, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Not really. They interpret laws as living, so it’s always based on their preferences and never based on the law.

besser tot als rot on August 25, 2013 at 6:20 PM

…she’s a sex object for liberals!

KOOLAID2 on August 25, 2013 at 5:12 PM

Thanks very much. You owe me a new monitor.

oldleprechaun on August 25, 2013 at 6:28 PM

..says the most activist one of all

TX-96 on August 25, 2013 at 6:33 PM

Justice Ginsburg is the same as any other liberal, if they agree with the decision, it’s based on the law, if they disagree, it’s an activist judge to made it.
bflat879 on August 25, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Sorry there, bflat, but if you’ll be honest with yourself then your description fits the whole way around, not just liberals. If conservatives agree with a decision then it’s deemed to be based on law, if they don’t then it’s judicial activism.

Hypocrisy is all around.

Furthermore, the fact that you only mention one sides sins in regards to this topic and don’t even mention the other side, as if they are guilt free of it and above that fray only exposes your own hypocrisy.

Genuine on August 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Sorry there, bflat, but if you’ll be honest with yourself then your description fits the whole way around, not just liberals. If conservatives agree with a decision then it’s deemed to be based on law, if they don’t then it’s judicial activism.

Hypocrisy is all around.

Furthermore, the fact that you only mention one sides sins in regards to this topic and don’t even mention the other side, as if they are guilt free of it and above that fray only exposes your own hypocrisy.

Genuine on August 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Before you babble about hypocrisy and how all are guilty of the same sin, you should come up with a few examples.

Valkyriepundit on August 25, 2013 at 6:51 PM

It’s all relative, of course a corpse would think breathing and walking is too activist.

Flange on August 25, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Now all we need is a Republican president to be able to name SCOTUS replacements.

Stoic Patriot on August 25, 2013 at 7:11 PM

Communist.

Senator McCarthy was right.

Dr. ZhivBlago on August 25, 2013 at 7:46 PM

Unrelated: I hear OJ is holding seminars to discuss the rise in domestic violence.

crrr6 on August 25, 2013 at 7:53 PM

Justice Ginsburg is the same as any other liberal, if they agree with the decision, it’s based on the law, if they disagree, it’s an activist judge to made it.

bflat879 on August 25, 2013 at 6:14 PM
.

Sorry there, bflat’, but if you’ll be honest with yourself then your description fits the whole way around, not just liberals. If conservatives agree with a decision then it’s deemed to be based on law, if they don’t then it’s judicial activism.

Hypocrisy is all around.

Furthermore, the fact that you only mention one sides sins in regards to this topic and don’t even mention the other side, as if they are guilt free of it and above that fray only exposes your own hypocrisy.

Genuine on August 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM

.
Before you babble about hypocrisy and how all are guilty of the same sin, you should come up with a few examples.

Valkyriepundit on August 25, 2013 at 6:51 PM

.
What Valkyriepundit said.

I went googling for examples, and there were some decisions by Republican appointed Justices that are “activist”, but it appears to me those decisions went the ‘progressive/liberal’ way.

listens2glenn on August 25, 2013 at 8:17 PM

…she’s a sex object for liberals!

KOOLAID2 on August 25, 2013 at 5:12 PM

.
Thanks very much. You owe me a new monitor.

oldleprechaun
on August 25, 2013 at 6:28 PM

.
Fortunately, my mouth was empty when I read that … but the mental image is going to linger: (

listens2glenn on August 25, 2013 at 8:20 PM

Furthermore, the fact that you only mention one sides sins in regards to this topic and don’t even mention the other side, as if they are guilt free of it and above that fray only exposes your own hypocrisy.

Genuine on August 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM

So where does Ginsburg make mention of a problem on the other side? Isn’t your problem with bflat the same as their problem with Ginsburg?

“Hypocrisy” is Alinskyan noise. I’ll just stick to how you don’t make your points too good.

Axeman on August 25, 2013 at 8:36 PM

Actually, Scalia and Ginsburg are close friends. Here’s his famous quip about the desert island.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 25, 2013 at 5:15 PM

Who wrote this crap?

But legal experts say she’s more likely to find a home at the Supreme Court’s moderate middle.

A radically innovative lawyer who became a cautious, centrist judge, Ginsburg’s judicial philosophy seems to match that of Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony M. Kennedy and David H. Souter.

… who would later find it “activist” to say that Congress cannot create activity to regulate it.

Axeman on August 25, 2013 at 8:41 PM

I see I’m not the only one who thinks she reminds them of a walking cadaver.

Cleombrotus on August 25, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Actually, Scalia and Ginsburg are close friends. Here’s his famous quip about the desert island.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on August 25, 2013 at 5:15 PM

And then there is this.

Valkyriepundit on August 25, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Sorry there, bflat, but if you’ll be honest with yourself then your description fits the whole way around, not just liberals. If conservatives agree with a decision then it’s deemed to be based on law, if they don’t then it’s judicial activism.

Hypocrisy is all around.

Furthermore, the fact that you only mention one sides sins in regards to this topic and don’t even mention the other side, as if they are guilt free of it and above that fray only exposes your own hypocrisy.

Genuine on August 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM

Before you babble about hypocrisy and how all are guilty of the same sin, you should come up with a few examples.

Valkyriepundit on August 25, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Here, borrow one of my many sundials!

Fake’s problem is that even though that claim might be somewhat true, we never hear about those claims because the Democrats control the Mass Media.

Here are a few examples I can relate right off the top of my head. All from the 2000 attempt in Florida by the Democrats to Steal the election for Al Gore.

1. We barely heard about the many decisions against Gore in Florida handed down by individual Federal Judges appointed by Democrats (see “Judge Terry Lewis”)

2. Likewise we barely heard that the “thugs” who tried to shut down an illegal backroom Democrat “recount” of votes were actually nerds wearing pocket protectors.

3. Absolutely no complaints when the All-Democrat Floriduh Supreme Court inserted itself into the case without being asked to do so by either side. More about them later.

4. The first SCOTUS ruling against Gore in that case went against him 9-0. That was not one of the two final SCOTUS rulings, but one associated with the Palm Beach ballots. Again, since this ruling was barely “reported”, it too never happened.

5. The 8 (All-Democrat) Activist Justices on the Florida Supreme Court then “ruled” for Gore. SCOTUS spanked and then sent them back to retool it. Or restool it, in their case.

6. SCOTUS then ruled against Gore, 7-2 and 5-4. But only the 5-4 decision ever happened…because the 7-2 decision would not reflect a “bitterly divided Supreme Court”, which is near and dear to The Dividers.

7. CBC and many others petition the Electoral College to ignore the SCOTUS rulings, because Gore was above the law.

Discuss!

Del Dolemonte on August 25, 2013 at 8:59 PM

Del Dolemonte on August 25, 2013 at 8:59 PM

.
Those are cases where the Court found “in favor of the Republicans”, but I see those decisions as upholding the proper interpretation of the intent of the writers of the voting laws.

Genuine would probably take issue with me over that, but … “oh well”.

listens2glenn on August 25, 2013 at 10:32 PM

I see I’m not the only one who thinks she reminds them of a walking cadaver.

Cleombrotus on August 25, 2013 at 8:46 PM

.
So did Helen Thomas. She was officially pronounced “dead” just over a month ago (July 20, 2013), but didn’t she really look dead before that?

She also had that “grating” voice.

listens2glenn on August 25, 2013 at 10:40 PM

Say, this is a really activist court, huh?

Did the ACLU actually give JustUs Buzzy permission to say that?

viking01 on August 25, 2013 at 11:02 PM

Her picture’s birth control for all.

CW on August 25, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Every business entity and organization should be required to give out a copy to every employee who demands one.

/crickets chirping

Shy Guy on August 25, 2013 at 11:10 PM

Genuine on August 25, 2013 at 6:46 PM

One side explicitly bases decisions on what the text of a law says and what the drafters of the law meant. The other side bases it on how they think it has evolved (it’s living). So no. Both sides are not the same, moby.

besser tot als rot on August 25, 2013 at 11:26 PM

One phrase caught my attention:
“There will be a president after this one, and I’m hopeful that that president will be a fine president,” she said.

“that that” so is she implying that O is not a fine president??????

MN J on August 26, 2013 at 12:45 AM

So if Congress passes really bad or over correcting laws the SC shouldn’t find that the laws or parts of these laws are unconstitutional? The SC should do their job as required by that Constitution and not worry whether the lsm or which ever party is in power at the time will consider them as ‘activist’. Seems Ms. G has accepted the label as affixed and used.

Kissmygrits on August 26, 2013 at 9:53 AM

I don’t think we need a secret decoder ring out of a box of Fruit Loops to translate that one. There are clearly activist judges on the court… just not her, you see. I wonder what these people talk about in chambers when nobody’s watching? I’m just picturing Scalia walking by her office door and saying, “Nice interview.” and then mumbling something else a few feet further down the hall.

Interestingly, my understanding is that the Scalias and the Ginsburgs are friends who get together a lot.

Monkeytoe on August 26, 2013 at 10:05 AM

In general, Justice Ginsburg said, “if it’s measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation, this is one of the most activist courts in history.”

Somehow, i doubt she includes overturning Prop 9 in CA as one of those “activist” decisions.

the left and the right have different definitions of activism on the Court.

On the left, activism means decisions they don’t agree with.

On the right, activism means inventing new rights in the Constitution and/or re-interpreting the Constitution away from its original meaning.

So, on the left, any decision that does not find that the commerce clause gives congress absolute authority to do anything (i.e., negating the rest of the constitution) is “activist”, while finding a “right” to abortion in the constitution is not activist.

Overturning a law that deprives people of the right to bear arms is “activist”, finding that the right to bear arms was meant only to apply to the states, and not to individuals, is not activist.

Holding that a group of individuals have the same speech rights as an individual is “activist”, finding that groups’ speech can be censored by the gov’t is not activist.

Ergo (outside of abortion) if a decision expands gov’t power, it is not activist to the left. If it reins in gov’t power it is activist on the left.

Monkeytoe on August 26, 2013 at 10:11 AM

Just another old geezer liberal exhibiting her dementia.

stukinIL4now on August 26, 2013 at 1:48 PM