Today in Supreme Court History: March 15, 1933

3/15/1933: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's birthday.

Comments

[Dan Schiavetta]

Boadicea, replaced by Offred.

[DaivdBehar]

This question is in the tradition in this series of mocking appearance, beards, eyebrows of judges.

Why is it that woke people all have such ugly faces? Seriously, turn to MSNBC, it is the channel of the hideously ugly. Their faces are visual pollution and highly offensive to the eye. It is as if woke is the revenge of the ugly against a nation that mistreated them so badly.

[DaivdBehar]

Ginsburg could have moonlighted for the Ugly Model Agency. Looks like the source of everyone on MSNBC.

https://www.ugly.org/2016/

[Queen Amalthea]

Behind many an activist is a narcissist.

[Dan Schiavetta]

That's a bit harsh. If she had lasted four more months . . .

[Dilan Esper]

It also assumes that the only thing SCOTUS does of any importance is decide a handful of cases that political hobbyists and Extremely Online types care about.

In fact, Justice Ginsburg's experience and knowledge was enormously valuable to the entire court in a range of cases.

[DaivdBehar]

Dillan, not a rhetorical question. Did her experience ever bring Ginsburg to counsel the other Justices against bigger government, against Democrat oppression, against increasing dependency?

[DaivdBehar]

Activist, narcissist, feminist. Sure. Pure evil, Mao class mass murderer.

[DaivdBehar]

Add, racist. Had 20 million black babies eradicated.

[Frank Drackman]

more like 60 million, if you figure it's been 3 generations ending up in the suction canister, and 1/2 of those were XX's, who would have born an average of 3.3 Chill'un per XX (minus the negligible 1000 or so deaths during childbirth) yay Choice!

[DaivdBehar]

Good point.

[Bob from Ohio]

Second worst thing that happened on the Ides of March

[Dan Schiavetta]

We have the usual sharp distinction between liberal and conservative commenters here, in the areas of maturity and humanity.

[DaivdBehar]

Is pointing to the killing of 60 million black babies immature to you?

[Krychek_2]

And do you think her votes on abortion would have been any different if all abortions were on white fetuses? If someone is pro-choice, then they're pro-choice, regardless of the races involved. You only say "black babies" because you think it's a gotcha. It's not.

[DaivdBehar]

So megadeaths of black babies is a mere gotcha to you?

[Krychek_2]

I don't agree that they're babies; not everyone agrees with your superstition that personhood begins at conception. Be that as it may, Ginsburg did not vote the way she did because the fetuses involved were black; she voted the way she did because she was pro-choice. She would have voted pro-choice even if every aborted fetus were white. Your attempts to make it about race are totally misplaced.

[Frank Drackman]

you're right, only endangered species like Sea Turtles are protected pre-birth (protected? it's a felony to disturb their eggs!)
"In 1998, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Keel with one count of attempting to transport loggerhead sea turtle eggs, in violation of 16 U.S.C. § § 3372(a)(1), (a)(4), and 3373(d)(1)(B). Keel pled guilty to this offense
pursuant to a plea agreement. At Keel’s sentencing in 1999, the district court departed upward from the Sentencing Guidelines and sentenced Keel to 60 months imprisonment, the statutory maximum pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 3373(d)(1)(B), because this was a Class D felony. See 18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(4).

[Krychek_2]

The reason sea turtles are protected is that they are endangered. With 8 billion or so people on the planet, we are not.

[Frank Drackman]

how many sea turtles are there?

[Krychek_2]

Few enough that the scientists responsible have determined that they are endangered. Do you have an argument that they were misclassified as endangered?

[Frank Drackman]

since there's at least 10 million (Sea Turtles are notoriously undercounted in the Census) I'd say they're doing pretty well. Better than the Injuns's and nobody says they're "Endangered" (even Poke-a-Hontas won't go that far)

[Krychek_2]

Citation?

[Frank Drackman]

https://oliveridleyproject.org/ufaqs/how-many-sea-turtles-are-left#:~:text=Recent%20estimates%20show%20us%20that,only%2057%2C000%20individuals%20left%20worldwide.

my bad, only 6.5 Million

Frank "It's Turtles all the way down"

[Frank Drackman]

and I know you don't care about Homo Sapiens, (species-ist much)
but the Native Amuricans are doing pretty well,
Here's your Citation..
The American Indian and Alaska Native population, alone and in combination, increased from 5.2 million in 2010 to 9.7 million in 2020, a 86.5 percent increase. (https://indiancountrytoday.com/news/2020-census-native-population-increased-by-86-5-percent)

*they left out Poke-a-hontas or it would have been 9,700,000 and 1/1024th

[Krychek_2]

First of all, I should not have allowed myself to be drawn into a discussion of sea turtles because it's just a distraction. You're basically just changing the subject from whether abortion is properly characterized as racist. (Answer: It isn't.)

But now that I'm in it, that there are 6.5 million sea turtles does not, by itself, tell us if sea turtles are endangered. First, there are many different species of sea turtles, and different species face different risks. Second, a quick google search reveals that the passenger pigeon population went from 136 million in 1871 to zero on 1914: https://www.birdwatchingdaily.com/news/conservation/from-billions-to-none-a-passenger-pigeon-timeline/

Bottom line, you're talking out of your butt.

[Frank Drackman]

does anybody care they never got to see a Passenger Pigeon? and do we really need Yellowjackets, Fire ants, and Rattlesnakes?

and your woke crowd calls everything that "Disproportionately affects Minorities" "Raceist" from Obesity to abstract reasoning...
so a practice that terminates Embryo's of Color disproportionately to the General Embryo population is.....

[Bob from Ohio]

"superstition that personhood "

Its science that it is a human at conception.

[Krychek_2]

Then why do most scientists in the relevant disciplines disagree with you?

[Frank Drackman]

what would the "relevant dis-see-pleens(love the German pronunciation)" be? Embryologists?

[Bob from Ohio]

"why do most scientists in the relevant disciplines disagree with you?"

They disagree that a human embryo is human? You'll need to prove that.

[Krychek_2]

I didn’t say human. I said person. All those cells you killed last time you scratched your nose were human, but they weren’t persons.

[Don Nico]

But your cells are not human beings.
A fetus is.
And that does not say that it is a legal person.

[Don Nico]

K_2,
No one disagrees actually that it is human. The species is immediately determinable genetically.
The disagreement is whether that that being is a legal person.
You should know better

[Krychek_2]

And what did I say that's contrary to that?

[M L]

"not everyone agrees with your superstition that personhood begins at conception"

Personhood does not begin at conception. That is what SCOTUS dictated in Roe v Wade, rightly or wrongly. How do you not know this?

[Krychek_2]

If you’re talking to me, you just attributed to me the polar opposite of what I actually said.

[Don Nico]

ML,
" your superstition that " = rhetorical sophistry
You tell me at what point the fetus becomes a legal person, and we'll all know that is your superstition.

[Bob from Ohio]

"do you think her votes on abortion would have been any different if all abortions were on white fetuses?"

Yes.

She said in 2009 that Roe was about "growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

[Krychek_2]

Do you have a citation? I'll be very surprised if she actually said that.

[Frank Drackman]

you and your "Citations" I've got one for you, "Deez" ibid

[Krychek_2]

Frank, be a dear and sit quietly; I’m talking to the grown ups.

[Bob from Ohio]

Just put the excerpt into google. Plenty of cites.

[Cal Cetín]

"Some social media users have seized on a quote excerpted from a decade-old interview" etc.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ruth-bader-ginsburg-and-roe-v-wade/

In short, sure she said it but it was *totally* taken out of context.

[Cal Cetín]

The interviewer, Emily Bazelon, later fell on her sword. It was her fault for not asking Ginsburg more questions to extricate the Justice from the awkwardness of her remark:

"I didn’t ask the follow up question that would have given Ginsburg the chance to clarify what she meant—to explain who was concerned about population growth at the time, and in what context. Because I didn’t do that, some conservatives pounced."

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/10/ruth-bader-ginsburg-clears-up-her-views-on-abortion-population-control-and-roe-v-wade.html

[Krychek_2]

As I read it she was talking about the views of other people, not her own.

[Cal Cetín]

Other people who, by a happy chance, were her firm allies in the cause of legalizing abortion.

"I asked if she was talking about general concern in the society, as opposed to her own concern or the concern of the feminist legal community. Ginsburg said yes"

She believed that "society" wanted population control through abortion, and she knowingly lent assistance to "society's" objectives - which she totally didn't share!

[Cal Cetín]

More from Bazelon:

'Justice Ginsburg herself has never made a population control argument for abortion. These were two different rationales promoted by two different movements. Justice Ginsburg touched on this today as well. She said that in the 1970s, when the ACLU women’s rights project sought funding from the Rockefeller Foundation—one of the groups worrying about overpopulation—the foundation “was not interested in the women’s rights business.”'

Did she know the Rockefeller Foundation was eugenicist when she asked them for money?

Of course she did.

[Krychek_2]

Cal, every movement includes a certain number of crazies and deplorables. Tell me your religious views and I’ll find someone with those same views who said or did something awful. You can’t judge a movement by the worst of its adherents.

Abortion is either good policy or bad policy on its own merits.

[Cal Cetín]

Did you miss the part where she tried to get money from a population-control organization?

[Cal Cetín]

"We have nothing to do with the Ku Klux Klan - I should know because they turned down my request for financial assistance."

[Krychek_2]

You're not seriously comparing population control organizations with the Ku Klux Klan? I myself believe that the world is grossly overpopulated but that doesn't make me a racist. That's pretty silly even for you.

[Cal Cetín]

Do you want to use abortion to limit "growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of"? That, in any event, is what Ginsburg attributed to elements in "society" including, apparently, the Rockefeller Foundation.

[Cal Cetín]

I am interested in your numbering the Rockefeller Foundation among the "crazies." Ginsburg may have figured that they might be crazy, but at least they were crazy rich.

[Krychek_2]

Cal, that harks back to what I said earlier about every movement has its crazies, and even normally sane people occasionally go off the deep end. If you're going to judge every movement by whether you can find cranks in it, then pretty much every movement will fail that test.

I support abortion rights because I don't think she should be required to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want, period, full stop. And I'm fine with the fact that one of the collateral benefits of abortion is that a planet that is badly overburdened with far too many people over its carrying capacity doesn't have an additional 60 million people, but my support for abortion is independent of demographic concerns. I suspect that's where most abortion rights supporters are. So, actually, "every" human population is a population I'd like to see reduced.

Now, can you find actual racists who are pro-choice because they want black fetuses to be aborted? Of course. Does the rest of the abortion rights movement occasionally made common cause with them because we're on the same side of that issue? Of course. *Should* the rest of the anti-abortion movement make common cause with them because we're on the same side of that issue? That's a harder question, but if your premise is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and that in politics you take whatever support you can get, well, that's politics.

[Cal Cetín]

"Does the rest of the abortion rights movement occasionally made common cause with them because we're on the same side of that issue? Of course. *Should* the rest of the anti-abortion movement make common cause with them because we're on the same side of that issue? That's a harder question, but if your premise is that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, and that in politics you take whatever support you can get, well, that's politics."

Even with all the spinning by Ginsburg's supporters, it hasn't been established that there was a clear line of demarcation between her outfit and the people she asked for money.

And who was "we" in the "growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."?

[Cal Cetín]

"If you're going to judge every movement by whether you can find cranks in it"

The Rockefeller Foundation are cranks now?

Ginsburg had no scruples about seeking their help, but they had scruples about helping her. Does that make her crankier than them?

[Don Nico]

"but it was *totally* taken out of context."
I have also used that excuse about being quoted on the front page of the NYT.
No one actually believes that, but usually they will cut you some slack

[Cal Cetín]

Hurrah, her legal personhood began on this day!

[Frank Drackman]

Colon Kaepernick's "taking a knee" on this one