I said the other day that I did not usually agree with Justice Ginsberg. I still valued her contribution to the court. I’m not a lawyer. As a police officer I was concerned with search and seizure issues. I took the time to read court decisions for and against. It is quite likely I missed some of the nuances in court decisions dealing with search in seizure. But I contented myself with the belief that I understood the method to the madness.
Every once in a while a Supreme Court decision will miss the mark. Two that come to mind are Dred Scott (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), or Roe V Wade (Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Neither decision was particularly well reasoned nor have they withstood the test of time. Dred Scott is a historical anomaly. Roe fits into the category of hysterical anomaly. It is almost as if the judicial minority merely went through the motions, for the sake of form. My suspicion is that if either of those courts had a passionate advocate on the minority side, the outcome would have been different.
It could be the ultimate irony, except liberals are unable to recognize irony. Ginsberg’s greatest contribution on the Supreme Court may be that she made conservatives better. Conservatives had to work harder and frame their reasoning much tighter to carry a majority, all because of Ginsberg.
First and foremost she was a liberal political hack. Many of her convictions were a product of expediency. As an example Ginsberg was all for a President filling a court vacancy, elections be damned, when Obama was President.
I guess her apologists will say that her views evolved. That is because just prior to her death he came out against President Trump doing the same thing as Obama.
I have a suggestion for the President. Get on Twitter and tell the democrats that you have put Obama on the short list to fill Justice Ginsberg’s position. Go ahead it will only take 30-40 seconds to type. Think of the hours of fun that will follow!