Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Male justices can’t understand Hobby Lobby case because genitals

posted at 4:41 pm on July 31, 2014 by Noah Rothman

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg evolved this summer from a mere figure of authority into a liberal celebrity when she authored the dissenting opinion in the Hobby Lobby case. Ginsburg’s dissent, which has been ubiquitously dubbed “scathing” and/or “blistering” in the press, prompted the left to craft a cult of personality around her.

Liberal outlets dubbed her “Notorious R.B.G.,” whiny folk artists converted her opinion into a terrible but nevertheless widely shared song, and The New Republic laughably dubbed Ginsburg “the most popular woman on the internet.” Take that, Kate Upton.

All this hero worship was entirely unearned, but the left is eternally in search of a totem. Ginsburg revealed just how misplaced the deluge of liberal idolization was on Thursday when she let all that celebrity go to her head.

In an interview with Katie Couric, Ginsburg embraced the toxic, disrespectful, and illiberal identity politics that has so intoxicated the left when she said that the five male Justices who decided Hobby Lobby really cannot understand the law in this case because they do not possess her reproductive organs.

Ginsburg began by insisting that the decision in Hobby Lobby meant that “women would have to take care of that for themselves, or the men who cared.” Oh, the tyrannies of free will and independence.

“Contraceptive coverage is something that every woman must have access to to control her own destiny,” she added. It sure is a good thing that the decision did not limit anyone’s access to contraceptives, as evidenced by what Ginsburg had just said two seconds prior.

“All three women justices were in the minority in the Hobby Lobby decision,” Couric noted, without making mention of the fact that those women represent three of the Court’s four reliably liberal justices. “Do you believe that the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision?”

“I would have to say no,” Ginsburg replied. “I’m ever hopeful that if the Court has a blind spot today, its eyes can be opened tomorrow.”

One would have to presume by Couric’s question and Ginsburg’s subsequent answer that Justice Stephen Breyer possesses an unrivaled clarity of thought and godlike powers of empathy for the female condition.

“But you do in fact feel that these five justices have a bit of a blind spot?” Couric clarified.

“In Hobby Lobby? Yes,” Ginsburg replied.

She added that this same blind spot was evident in the Court’s 2007 decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. One has to imagine that she is suggesting here that the Court should have abandoned impartiality and issued a ruling based on emotion.

In that case, Justice Samuel Alito opined that “current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination.” Not that there had been no discrimination. In fact, the Court ruled in favor of the law at the time, which led the Congress to craft and pass a new law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, addressing the Court’s concerns.

You know? The legislative processes defined in the Constitution? Talk about a “blind spot.”

Ginsburg spent the remainder of her interview with Couric basking in the admiration of the online left and her new “notorious” status — a moniker perhaps never so well-deserved.

This was a truly insulting display of contempt for Ginsburg’s male colleagues. Her implication that their majority’s decision in Hobby Lobby, a gracious interpretation of which would lead any civil individual to concede was based on the merits of the case, is the height of condescension.

Were the roles reversed, and it was a male justice in the majority who had suggested that his female counterparts dissented in this case because they were blinded by self-interest and the peculiarities of their gender, the left would demand that justice be impeached.

That would, of course, be an absurd overreaction, but the left would at least have a case to make; the justice in that hypothetical case would be expressing desire if not an intention to betrayal of the oath of office. Ginsburg swore solemnly to “administer justice without respect to persons.” In this moment, she signaled her willingness to violate that pledge.

Arguing for what are essentially separate but equal systems of justice based on circumstances of birth is not a liberal notion. It is poisonous, and Ginsburg should be ashamed of herself for promoting it.


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

Comment pages: 1 2 3

and this is the proper application of the affordable care act? what? are you dense?
 
brushingmyhair on July 31, 2014 at 9:05 PM


how is obamacare responsible for them changing their minds? i dont think the original point makes any sense.
 
brushingmyhair on July 31, 2014 at 9:33 PM

 
But I’m guessing you believe that same Obamacare awareness IS responsible for the increased Medicaid signups among those who were already eligible prior to the law’s passage and that the Medicaid expansion had absolutely nothing to do with covering, correct?
 
Or do you think Obamacare awareness somehow works differently because it’s something you encouraged but oppose?
 
While we’re here, would you mind addressing my question regarding your stated position about the subjects (vs. lawmakers) being responsible for successful implementation of legislation? It was apparently important enough for you to add a personal attack for emphasis, so I want to be sure we’re understanding you correctly. Here it is again if you need:

You’re telling us it’s not the lawmakers’ but the subject’s responsibility to ensure legislation functions as the lawmakers intended?

rogerb on July 31, 2014 at 9:55 PM

 
And the conversation dies.
 
Again. It seems to be the nature of the breed, doesn’t it?
 
It’s always amusing
 
when our (D)s stop discussing
 
something with you
 
because they didn’t understand the topic they introduced
 
and are blindsided by any actual information on the matter
 
so that their only recourse is to abruptly stop your conversation
 
while remaining active elsewhere.
 
I’ve said it before, but I’m convinced we don’t have a single progressive poster here with more than superficial knowledge of ANY of the topics that they introduce. That’s definitely the most amazing part to me. We’ve got at least six to ten heavy lifters representing conservatism here, and it’s shocking that they don’t have at least one posting that is capable of carrying the weight for their side.
 
They’re obviously bright people, too, so it’s almost like it’s indicative of something else.

rogerb on August 1, 2014 at 7:37 AM

I’m sorry, but what would Ruth Bader Ginsburg do with an IUD? She can’t be any more authority on female reproductive parts than any male on the court – hers haven’t worked for decades. ~ RD

RumblinDurango on August 1, 2014 at 7:41 AM

Yes, because the first thing that comes to mind about controlling one’s own destiny is making someone ELSE pay for it!

Logic on August 1, 2014 at 8:18 AM

What the hell bridge does this ugly socialist troll live under?She better recuse herself from any case involving a male member of the species.

redware on August 1, 2014 at 8:27 AM

Identity politics is the left’s organizing principle. Without aggregating “victims” into distinct blocs, for whom government is the sole remedy, what would remain for the left as a political philosophy?

Barnestormer on August 1, 2014 at 9:13 AM

She will be dead soon.

Cherokee on August 1, 2014 at 9:52 AM

Demonstration #umpteen-million-and-one why universal suffrage and gender equality was a BAD IDEA. As if decades of infanticide and destruction of the marital contract weren’t enough by themselves, Ruthless has just amply demonstrated what happens when unsupervised liberal women get into positions of power: open their big gabby mouths and let the stupid fall out by the truckload.

The highest ideal for women was to be like June Cleaver not because of EVIL RITE-WING H8 but because they didn’t go out and embarrass their gender (not to mention make one wish for the Puritans to make a comeback) every other time she said something that got international press.

LawfulGood on August 1, 2014 at 10:07 AM

oh so my original point has been true all along and all this stomping of feet and huffing and puffing was all a big old fake out cause in the end one of the main points of ginsberg’s dissent was a for profit company receiving a religious exemption and maybe thats not such a great precedent has been reduced to “ladies want to take my money to pay for their slut sex.” and thats whats making you so unhappy? jeez. must suck being you.

brushingmyhair on July 31, 2014 at 7:32 PM

Buy me a pizza and a sailboat. Now.

bmmg39 on August 1, 2014 at 11:02 AM

The three female justices didn’t understand Hobby Lobby because of their genitals!
And in RBG’s case, that’s not a pretty sight.

OccamsRazor on August 1, 2014 at 11:24 AM

There you have it. One of the greatest legal minds of The Left.

FishingwFredo on August 1, 2014 at 12:26 PM

Die, you hag.

Ward Cleaver on August 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM

As a woman, I am so offended that anyone thinks I cannot manage to find and pay for my own birth control. They offend everyone, even if they (the people) don’t know they are being offended.

For example, minorities can’t manage to get a photo ID, no one can get a raise without the union negotiating for them, you shouldn’t carry a gun, you don’t know how to parent, you don’t know how to eat right, on and on…

In reality they insult the intelligence and abilities of EVERYONE!

And it only creates more helpless people dependent upon the government.

AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!

HilliardPatriot on August 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM

Just realized that RBG is a cross between Margaret Hamilton and Roseanne Roseanadana.Did ya ever get one of those liddle biddy pieces of lint and then have a house fall on you.Begone wicked witch,begone!

redware on August 1, 2014 at 12:50 PM

rogerb on July 31, 2014 at 9:55 PM

im still waiting for you to show me where in the affordable care act it insisted that hobby lobby stop covering contraceptive medicines/devices that it previously had no problem covering.

brushingmyhair on August 1, 2014 at 1:48 PM

HilliardPatriot on August 1, 2014 at 12:31 PM

where do you get your contraception?

brushingmyhair on August 1, 2014 at 1:51 PM

rogerb on July 31, 2014 at 9:55 PM

 
im still waiting for you to show me where in the affordable care act it insisted that hobby lobby stop covering contraceptive medicines/devices that it previously had no problem covering.
 
brushingmyhair on August 1, 2014 at 1:48 PM

 
Read for comprehension.
 

how is obamacare responsible for them changing their minds? i dont think the original point makes any sense.
 
brushingmyhair on July 31, 2014 at 9:33 PM

 
But I’m guessing you believe that same Obamacare awareness IS responsible for the increased Medicaid signups among those who were already eligible prior to the law’s passage and that the Medicaid expansion had absolutely nothing to do with covering, correct?
 
Or do you think Obamacare awareness somehow works differently because it’s something you encouraged but oppose?
 
rogerb on July 31, 2014 at 9:55 PM

rogerb on August 1, 2014 at 2:05 PM

rogerb on August 1, 2014 at 2:05 PM

i cant read any comprehensible point in what you wrote. cause obamacare awareness? what?
obamacare awareness made hobby lobby stop covering things they covered before?
inflated medicaid numbers?? you still are not making any sense.

brushingmyhair on August 1, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Bless your heart.
 
Fine. I guess we’ll just have to move on to your other position about subjects (vs. lawmakers) being responsible for successful implementation of legislation? It was apparently important enough for you to add a personal attack for emphasis, so I want to be sure we’re understanding you correctly.
 
Here it is again if you need:
 

and this is the proper application of the affordable care act? what? are you dense?
 
brushingmyhair on July 31, 2014 at 9:05 PM

 
You’re telling us it’s not the lawmakers’ but the subject’s responsibility to ensure legislation functions as the lawmakers intended?

rogerb on August 1, 2014 at 2:17 PM

i cant read any comprehensible point in what you wrote. cause obamacare awareness? what?
obamacare awareness made hobby lobby stop covering things they covered before?
inflated medicaid numbers?? you still are not making any sense.
 
brushingmyhair on August 1, 2014 at 2:13 PM

 
Seriously, though, brushingmyhair, you don’t know enough about the topic to be informed about “woodwork” Medicaid signups?
 
Is that really what you were wanting to tell everyone?

rogerb on August 1, 2014 at 2:21 PM

rogerb on August 1, 2014 at 2:17 PM

so you cant ague your point about obamacare awareness being responsible for hobby lobby stopping coverage of things they covered before? you concede your “point” is non-sense. ill take your concession. i hope you learned something from it. now go ahead and make your point about legislative fucntion. im so sure its gonna be an awesome point you cant back up. but go ahead. get out. write it with your own words.

brushingmyhair on August 1, 2014 at 2:21 PM

so you cant ague your point about obamacare awareness being responsible for hobby lobby stopping coverage of things they covered before? you concede your “point” is non-sense. ill take your concession. i hope you learned something from it. now go ahead and make your point about legislative fucntion. im so sure its gonna be an awesome point you cant back up. but go ahead. get out. write it with your own words.
 
brushingmyhair on August 1, 2014 at 2:21 PM

 
I already made that point. It’s not someone else’s fault you dont’ understand the topic. Again, read for comprehension.
 

Or do you think Obamacare awareness somehow works differently because it’s something you encouraged but oppose?

 
Focus, please. You can do this.

rogerb on August 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM

now go ahead and make your point about legislative fucntion. im so sure its gonna be an awesome point you cant back up. but go ahead. get out. write it with your own words.
 
brushingmyhair on August 1, 2014 at 2:21 PM

 
Again, focus. We’re discussing your position:
 

its not that hobby lobby is trying to make a cheap political point by stopping coverage on things it once had no problem covering? and this is the proper application of the affordable care act? what? are you dense?
 
brushingmyhair on July 31, 2014 at 9:05 PM

 
You’re telling us it’s not the lawmakers’ but the subject’s responsibility to ensure legislation functions as the lawmakers intended?
 
rogerb on July 31, 2014 at 9:18 PM

rogerb on August 1, 2014 at 2:27 PM

rogerb on August 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM

you sure are good at carrying on a conversation. a real johnny carson. go ahead tell me about the “woodwork” medicaid signups and how that effects this topic. you know like in a conversation? the thing you moaned about earlier? remember that? you cant explain it? go figure. sigh.

brushingmyhair on August 1, 2014 at 2:29 PM

rogerb on August 1, 2014 at 2:25 PM

 
you sure are good at carrying on a conversation. a real johnny carson. go ahead tell me about the “woodwork” medicaid signups and how that effects this topic. you know like in a conversation? the thing you moaned about earlier? remember that? you cant explain it? go figure. sigh.
 
brushingmyhair on August 1, 2014 at 2:29 PM

 
Typically conversations work by one person responding to the other. You haven’t. We were having a conversation that you abruptly stopped while still replying to the others (probably after clicking on the politifact link), and you resumed posted today not conversing but merely trying to distract from the topic that you don’t understand and felt trapped by.
 
And, frankly, that you admit in that post you don’t understand. You say you support the legislation, but you truly didn’t know about how it influenced Medicaid signups, did you? That was the first time you’d heard the term “woodwork”, wasn’t it? Please go read about it and relate the influence those same mechanics can exert on family budgets or corporations.
 
I’m fine having a discussion and helping people become uninformed on the issue, but belligerence and young-earther anger and bizarre posts about “moaning” when you don’t understand why your faith is conflicting so badly with actual data isn’t beneficial to either of us.
 
We can pick the woodwork discussion back up after you’ve gotten some exposure and can keep up. Would you mind addressing your position on legislator vs. private citizens responsibility for ensuring laws work to the benefit of the legislature?
 
It was your point, so I’m hoping you at least understand it:
 

its not that hobby lobby is trying to make a cheap political point by stopping coverage on things it once had no problem covering? and this is the proper application of the affordable care act? what? are you dense?
 
brushingmyhair on July 31, 2014 at 9:05 PM

 
You’re telling us it’s not the lawmakers’ but the subject’s responsibility to ensure legislation functions as the lawmakers intended?
 
rogerb on July 31, 2014 at 9:18 PM

 
Is that really what you meant to say? It’s fine if not, and it’s as easy as saying “No, sorry, I wrote that wrong”, but your insistence on avoiding addressing it is certainly curious.
 
I’ll check back in later. I look forward to your legible response.

rogerb on August 1, 2014 at 2:57 PM

rogerb on August 1, 2014 at 2:57 PM

so the hobby lobby case wasn’t about a for profit company asking for a religious exemption to providing specific contraceptive care? it was about medicaid budgets. thats what you are stating?

and youre right if you took that statement to mean i believe the subject is blah blah blah legislation blah blah then yes i phrased that sentence poorly.

brushingmyhair on August 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM

In an interview with Katie Couric, Ginsburg … said that the five male Justices who decided Hobby Lobby really cannot understand the law in this case because they do not possess her reproductive organs.

So … this old crone has just confessed on national TV that she thinks with her p^ssy?

Not terribly bright of her to rely on such a disused organ to do her thinking.

Nomennovum on August 1, 2014 at 3:37 PM

RBG is hereby unauthorized to pronounce on any laws affecting males, unless she can produce a suitable package.

evergreen on August 1, 2014 at 8:07 PM

so the hobby lobby case wasn’t about a for profit company asking for a religious exemption to providing specific contraceptive care? it was about medicaid budgets. thats what you are stating?

 
Holy crap. You weren’t just playing dumb and trying to be cute and irritating in your earlier posts, were you? You really don’t understand this topic at all, do you?
 
I’m sorry I’ve spoken at a level assuming you knew something about the issue more than WOOHOO FREE STUFF!!!. Imagine trying to explain how toilets worked to a child. We’re not at the “The poop goes in the water!” stage, but we’re just barely past the “No, the poop doesn’t disappear, it goes under there” point. We’ve got to get you to understand the pipes leading from all the houses before we can discuss gravity (that’s a woodwork hint) influencing the movement of the water to the plant.
 
Your obligation is to either mature in your thoughts and educate yourself to the point where we can have the discussion. However, I can understand your abrasiveness a bit better and can see where you’d be angry and frustrated while still attempting to debate it.
 
Go back and reread more slowly if you need to. Focus on awareness. Focus on understanding how the dynamics influencing additional Medicaid signups work on an identical level to anything and everything else, whether it be families finally realizing what their old deductible was, a waitress deciding between better all-day shoes and gas money when she hears her premiums are increasing, or a 50 year old single dad choosing to save less for his childrens college so that he can pay for his pregnancy coverage.
 
Awareness influences decisions.*
 

and youre right if you took that statement to mean i believe the subject is blah blah blah legislation blah blah then yes i phrased that sentence poorly.
 
brushingmyhair on August 1, 2014 at 3:18 PM

 

Thanks. I couldn’t imagine a thinking person actually believing John and Jane Doe were responsible for anything other than obeying the law, even if the writers and supporters of the law are upset when it’s discovered to be written poorly and has unintended consequences.

rogerb on August 2, 2014 at 7:49 AM

Awareness influences decisions.*

 

And that * brings us back to the crux of it all.

rogerb on August 2, 2014 at 7:50 AM

* Hobby Lobby’s motivations for their actions don’t matter one single teensy tiny itsy bitsy bit, only whether they’re abiding by the law. It doesn’t matter if they decided to drop the abortifascients after Obamacare was passed because they looked and realized they were offering them and were morally opposed, looked and realized they were offering them and thought they could save money to improve their bottom line, looked and saw they were offering them and decided they’d rather save the money to spend on building a gigantic Slinky in the atrium, or looked and saw they were offering them and decided they’d spend God knows how much money they’d normally spend lighting their cigars as they frolic in their enormous safe Scrooge McDuck style in order to take it to the Supreme Court because they are secretly in the KKK, it still all ONLY occurred because of Obamacare.
 
Read it again if you need to. It only occurred because of Obamacare. I didn’t do it. Ed and Allah didn’t do it. No (R)s did it. Matter of fact, we opposed it.
 
You, constitutional scholar president Obama, Senator Reid, and House Leader Pelosi did it, and they did it in such a way that Hobby Lobby obeyed the law. Nothing more, nothing less. You supported it, you wanted it, and y’all alone are responsible for it and the chain of events that led to what happened.
 
Congratulations again on your achievement against womens healthcare options, brushingmyhair.

rogerb on August 2, 2014 at 7:53 AM

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, fails to understand the Hobby Lobby case, because she’s a liberal, who doesn’t understand the Constitution.

kjatexas on August 2, 2014 at 9:37 AM

thats a convenient excuse. so you don’t have any point after all.

brushingmyhair on July 31, 2014 at 11:43 PM

You’ve been trying to claim that anyone who disagrees with specific insurance regulations is somehow anti-insurance. It’s idiotic, but you don’t understand why.

CO2 isnt a pollutant?

brushingmyhair on August 1, 2014 at 12:00 AM

No

cause exxon told you so?

No, it’s science, and I understand science. You don’t. You’re forced to believe anything that any activists practicing atrocious methods will claim.

corkie on August 2, 2014 at 1:04 PM

Ruth Bader-Meinhof is an embarrassment even to Team Alzheimer, aka the Supreme Court. Granted there is some tough competition from the Wise Latina et al, but this ivory tower academic needs to be put out to pasture with a rubber pencil to write opinions.

mcgilvra on August 2, 2014 at 2:46 PM

RBG and KC in the same room.

The progesterone was intoxicating.

thejackal on August 3, 2014 at 1:39 PM

Pffft. They get stupider and meaner every year. Here ya go, female jurists don’t understand basic constitutional precepts because t|ts, tiny, wrinkled, sagging as they may be.

bour3 on August 3, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3