Pro-life daily vid: Ginsburg says male justices have “blind spot”
by Hans Johnson
In an interview with Katie Couric for Yahoo! News, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was asked, “All three women justices were in the minority on the Hobby Lobby decision. Do you believe that the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision?” Ginsburg replied: “I would have to say, no. But justices continue to think and can change, so I’m ever hopeful that if the court has a blind spot today, its eyes will be open tomorrow.”
While left-leaning media applauded the Justice’s remarks, others were outraged by her thinly-veiled charge of gender bias on the Court. Here are the reactions of The Five on Fox News:
Also weighing in was the program Outnumbered and lawyer and radio host Mark Levin.
Email dailyvid@jillstanek.com with your video suggestions.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Now let’s take some time to imagine what the reaction would be if a male Justice made similar remarks about the female Justices n the Court. I think it’s safe to safe that no media outlet, regardless of political leanings, would be applauding.
Sexist remarks should never be tolerated. And she gives me the creeps.
Her legal basis? Women must have contraceptives, people must be forced to give them to them. So really, no legal basis for her decision as a judge, just a political belief in search of a legal justification. That mindset is everything that’s wrong with politics, breaking the rules to win.
Her attitude is common among women-of-a-certain-age.
I like to call it paleo-feminism.
Ginsberg and Steinem are paleofems.
Ha – of course – the video reaction is from Fox.
It’s like every time somebody needs to eat around here, we bring them to McDonalds.
I believe there are other news outlets – other places with valid opinions worth looking into and listening to. Would be great to find a news station, and if not news, a smart political site.
The problem is any sort of opinion that a person backs by using a place like Fox or MSNBC will automatically be tainted – barely worth even looking at.
This is a smart political site.
Anyhow, Ginsberg’s own words are solid news — regardless of who reports it or how her message is interpreted there.
Del – they should have you and I write up our political thoughts to these things – that would be a nice upgrade over Fox.
Or build us a little news desk – we’ll record our thoughts from there.
My serious thoughts on this? Of course the men have a blind spot to some issues women think are important. And vice versa. Just like people of different races have blind spots to issues important to other races.
But… it is not a matter of any “blind spot” that is visible only to elitist paleofems.
Remember: No employees at Hobby Lobby complained about needing insurance coverage for their abortifacient drugs. For the most part, Hobby Lobby employees share and appreciate their company’s values, and that’s why they like working there. Even more so for the employees of Conestoga Woods.
The “blind spot” belongs to the Obama Administration (and some old biddies like Ginsberg) who refuse to respect the conscience rights of business owners and employees.
That is what the majority of the Court found and fixed.
Recall that Justice Ginsburg said Roe v Wade taking care of the people we don’t want too many of. She has a blind spot to members of her own species who are not yet born.
Del –
Do you think a place of business with at-will employment and generally low paid workers is the type of place where employees are going to feel great comfort in expressing their feelings? Heck – no victims of the RvW decision have complained either – but that doesn’t mean that the court should turn a blind eye.
Yes, I’m sure you feel that the right wing is being tortured by those elitists again. That’s kind of your angle lately. The loaded language doesn’t change the fact that it was a rule that came through proper legislative channels, that continues to stand for the majority of employees out there, and was trumped by an oddball decision for a few employees.
MoJoanne –
I believe you are butchering the quote a bit. She seemed to be explaining the reasoning of a lot of people during the day – the linkage of that vote to the abortion – medicaid case a while after.
“No employees at Hobby Lobby complained about needing insurance coverage for their abortifacient drugs.” – because they need their job.
“For the most part, Hobby Lobby employees share and appreciate their company’s values, and that’s why they like working there.” – you have the empirical data for this?
Business owners and employees have conscience rights, a business does not have that capacity. If HL’s owners consider the remuneration paid by the company they own should not cover certain medications then they should also be open to accepting personal liability if someone injures themselves at a HL site.
Hobby Lobby pays its employees above minimum wage.
The specific contraceptive HHS mandate came from an unelected pro-contraceptive group with ties to the abortion industry that ignored public comments to the contrary. I hardly call that a proper legislative channel.
The First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion are not limited by use of the words persons or citizens. When the founders wanted to limit constitutional rights to flesh and blood human beings, they inserted such words into the text. Thus, the reasoning goes that these freedoms apply also to corporations.
Mojoanne, I too remember her quote, by which she did mean that too many white affluent women are getting abortions, and not enough of those OTHER people that she and Margaret Sanger didn’t want too many of.
During the media furor over the Hobby Lobby decision, the MSM was searching everywhere for Hobby Lobby employees who would complain about their “loss of benefits” or protest about the Supreme Court decision.
MSM found no one.
Liberals may theorize that HL employees were all in terror of losing their jobs.
But it was very easy to find HL employees who testified to enjoying their jobs and appreciating the Green family’s values — which include compensating their employees well and respecting Sundays off for families.
Ex-GOP says:
Del –
The loaded language doesn’t change the fact that it was a rule that came through proper legislative channels, that continues to stand for the majority of employees out there, and was trumped by an oddball decision for a few employees.
Actually, the rule was never “legislated” via “proper channels.” It was an election-year stunt, mandated by the White House. It failed to comply with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
HHS had plenty of chances to allow suitable accommodations, or create alternative ways to meet the supposed “need.” Fact is, there was never a “compelling need” for the HHS Mandate in the first place. Sandra Fluke still stands alone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/12/magazine/12ginsburg-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Ginsburg’s remarks you all are discussing are in the above link.
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
It’s easy to find that she was not giving her own position, but noting that at the time of Roe, there were groups like Zero Population Growth who did argue for legal abortion on the basis of population control. The Supreme Court never accepted any such arguments.
Thank you Doug – that’s how I read it as well.
Ex-GOP, the interviewer realized that clarification was needed, and at a later time she and Ginsburg talked about it.
Anybody that even halfway really knows Ginsburg would just laugh at whatever silly person first took the comment and tried to make something out of it. A good bit of Ginsburg’s life has been advocating for women, especially poor women.
Del –
It failed to comply, yes – but the point that still stands is that it was a part of a properly instituted law.
The ‘compelling’ need part will be an ongoing debate. Some lame-brain right wingers have said that maternal care shouldn’t be automatically covered. Some crazies would want elective plastic surgery covered. It remains an overall win for individuals that more things are required now to be covered – that’s a huge win Obama brought us all. Where the line stops will be an ongoing debate.
Doug –
Your thoughts generally come from a place of knowledge, research, and context – which is unbelievably welcome on this site.
I just hope she doesn’t croak or go completely bat crazy until Obama is gone.
If her remark wasn’t racist, she wouldn’t have referred to “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Particularly. As in, not general.
9ek, she was talking about feelings held by other people at the time.