“Free To Be You and Me”: Barrett Fulfills Ginsburg’s Call For Real Equality And Independence For Women

Below is my column in The Hill on the comparison of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Judge Amy Coney Barrett.  With the exception of their conclusions on the law, both women share striking similarities and Barrett represents a triumphant moment of conservative feminists in the country.  She is a brilliant jurist with a stellar background, much like the jurist she would replace.

Here is the column:

In her book, “In My Own Words,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote how feminism is a concept best captured in the song “Free to Be You and Me” by Marlo Thomas. That definition defined feminism as allowing women to decide their values without societal dictates or limits.

This view sharply contrasts with some who think feminism is adhering to liberal orthodoxy. Ginsburg never believed feminism meant removing the “feet off our necks” by her brothers just to have them replaced by the feet of her sisters. Indeed, true feminism meant allowing women the freedom of choice to find their own voices and values in society.

That is why this nomination of a Supreme Court justice is a testament not just to feminism but to Ginsburg. The women on the short list of President Trump bear striking resemblance to her in their independence and clarity of thought. Most of them, like Ginsburg, balanced family obligations with their career ascensions. The difference is these women reached different conclusions on how the law is read and applied. Many do have legitimate objections for issues like abortion as inimical to the rights of women, but these women are part of the legacy of Ginsburg and her generation in an empowerment of women to reach their own conclusions.

The nominee most like Ginsburg is Judge Amy Coney Barrett. They both finished law school at the top of their classes. Both went on to teach at leading law schools and both started their careers with an emphasis on procreational rights and constitutional interpretation. Deeply religious, both cited the role of faith in their careers and convictions.

Like Ginsburg, Barrett refused to yield to the choice of family over career. Barrett has raised seven children, including two adopted from Haiti, while rising to national recognition as a brilliant lawyer and jurist. Both women earned a reputation for civility and what Ginsburg described as showing us that “you can disagree without being disagreeable.”

Ginsburg came to the Supreme Court with a deeply rooted jurisprudence. She was one of the most consistent votes siding with liberal justices over decades of rulings. In the split votes, she was the common denominator on the left side. Barrett, a former Supreme Court clerk of Justice Antonin Scalia, holds the same profile as a jurist with a clear sense of the law and principles that have fueled her decisions. The principles are different but not the independence of thought shown by both jurists.

More than any nomination in history, this is a celebration of conservative feminism. It comes close to the day of the confirmation of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. She was selected in part because her record was a virtual blank slate, without notable remarks or opinions. Her vetting team loved the idea of an unknown nominee, a model used in future administrations. She told President Reagan that she could not even remember her stance as a legislator when it came to the repeal of abortion rights.

These women, however, have not been subtle or silent in their views. That is why this nomination is the conservative feminist movement realized. For decades, conservative women across the country have refused to accept that they have second class status in the feminist movement. The famous “Declaration of Sentiments” signed by pioneer feminists in 1848 spoke to their independence and choices as much as those on the left.

The women on the short list of Trump have distinguished themselves in claiming the mantle of that struggle for equality. They fiercely defended constitutional values. Many overcame incredible obstacles to have their voices heard. The family for Judge Barbara Lagoa fled communist Cuba with nothing a year before she was born. She graduated from Columbia Law School and became a judge on the Eleventh Circuit, all while raising her children. Judge Joan Larson is a brilliant jurist who graduated first in her class from Northwestern Law School. She became a professor at the University of Michigan after clerking on the Supreme Court.

For all his controversies, Trump has chosen remarkably strong nominees for the Supreme Court. Some critics believed he would place Judge Judy on the bench. Instead, Trump has favored highly respected conservative jurists with great records. They have not been blank slates but those with articulated principles. They have crossed the political divide when those principles demand it. This is why I testified in favor of the nomination of Neil Gorsuch, who I view as an intellectual of the first order. Both he and Brett Kavanaugh have voted against the administration.

The short list for this nomination was also impressive. These women are highly qualified jurists who have shown the courage of their convictions. They hold records that match those of Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor. They are not blank slate nominees but instead conservative women who have boldly written about their views on legal theory. Many tried to put a “foot on their necks” but none succeeded. They are what Ginsburg liked about the song by Thomas. “Every boy in this land grows to be his own man. In this land, every girl grows to be her own woman.”

Many seek to paint these jurists as ideologues because they consistently vote on the basis of the conservative stance. By this exact same measure, Ginsburg also would be the ideologue who had one of the lowest number of defections to the other side in major cases. In the confirmation hearing for Kavanaugh, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse had raised this issue, asking, “When is a pattern evidence of bias?” Whitehouse noted a voting pattern by the five conservative justices who “go raiding off together.” Whitehouse described a voting pattern of the “Roberts Five” of “Republican appointees” who “go raiding off together” and “no Democratic appointee joins them.” He simply ignored the Ginsburg Four on the other side of most of those opinions. They were not viewed as ideologues by Whitehouse because they are viewed as right. In reality, despite Whitehouse’s prediction (and those of his Democratic colleagues), both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have voted repeatedly with their more liberal colleagues in major decisions.

The nomination today is a wonderful moment for this woman selected but also a historic moment for conservative feminists. They are part of the “you” which went with the “me” in the definition that Ginsburg showed us for feminism.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley.

 

172 thoughts on ““Free To Be You and Me”: Barrett Fulfills Ginsburg’s Call For Real Equality And Independence For Women”

  1. And as for the indigenees, often called Native Americans, what representation have they on the Supreme Court? Indeed, in the so-called justice system?

    1. On reservations they have their own police and court systems. An Indian nation or reservation is recognized as a separate entity for purposes of Diversity Jurisdiction in the federal courts just as if the litigants were in separate states.

        1. David, the answer was with respect to Indian legal systems on Indian land. Appeals can ultimately reach the Supreme Court. Representation on the court should be based on competency rather than race. It is odd that the hustlers who want race-based court representation are the same who claim race is a social construct with no basis in biology. I do wish they would make up their minds.

          Indian tribes have won quite a lot in the Federal courts, by the way.

          I am reading THE WEIRDEST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD now and find it remarkable. You mentioned it in a previous post.

          1. Young, yes, recently the federal courts have been better at upholding treaty rights. Who has been representing the tribes?

            1. I haven’t followed it closely enough to know who has served as counsel in that litigation. I should imagine the field has become specialized to a significant degree. I wouldn’t do it without investing a great deal of research into the existing law. Some tribes can certainly afford capable legal teams. When I was in Santa Barbara I was told each tribal member associated with the local casino got $45,000 a month. Adds up after awhile.

    2. To reiterate, Indians are not native, having come from Asia, and they most certainly were not and are not Americans, having been the mortal enemies of Americans. When you have a chance, ask an Indian how he refers to himself. His answer will be Sioux, Crow, Apache, etc.

      Oh, and indigenous? Read up. Indians didn’t originate on this continent or occur naturally on this continent.
      _____________________________________________________________________________________

      Oxford Dictionary

      Indigenous

      – originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.
      _________________________________________________

      You repeat your errors and fabrications.

      Were you a hatter, because you sure are mad!!!

    3. The aboriginal population is about 0.7% of the total and 3/4 of them do not live on the Rez. They’re not notable for high human capital either. Why would you expect them to be on an appellate court with nine members?

      1. Perhaps I might qualify. That is approximately my ratio of Indian to European genes.

        Racial apportionment of Court appointments is just another step toward destruction of this country.

  2. Turley is a child of privilege, so it wouldn’t dawn on him that Coney Barrett has advantages growing up that Bader Ginsburg could never have imagined. Barrett’s father was an attorney for Shell Oil. She attended private schools in an upscale suburb. Ginsburg’s father was an immigrant who worked in the fur trade. Ruth attended public school in Brooklyn. Her mother began working in a garment factory at age 15, to help pay for a brother’s schooling, then died of cancer the day before Ruth graduated high school. Ruth had a child before entering law school. She cared for an infant and husband with cancer, yet managed to place first in her law school class. Cony Barrett, during an interview stated that her husband’s widowed aunt has lived with them since the birth of her first child, that her husband does the cooking, and that her career would not have been possible without their help. So yes, they both have had impressive careers, but Ruth overcame tremendous obstacles not faced by Barrett, due to different economic and family circumstances, and of course, being born in an age where blatant employment discrimination against women was legal.

    1. Turley is a child of privilege,

      He isn’t. His father was an architect who was the son of a factory worker. He wasn’t some wire-pulling English lord. (Alexandra Ocasio Cortez papa was also an architect, just not as accomplished).

      so it wouldn’t dawn on him that Coney Barrett has advantages growing up that Bader Ginsburg could never have imagined.

      Just about anyone born in 1972 would have had a more affluent existence than someone born in 1933. And you’re not in a position to condescend to Prof. Turley or anyone else.

      Barrett’s father was an attorney for Shell Oil. She attended private schools in an upscale suburb.

      So what?

      Ginsburg’s father was an immigrant who worked in the fur trade. Ruth attended public school in Brooklyn. Her mother began working in a garment factory at age 15, to help pay for a brother’s schooling, then died of cancer the day before Ruth graduated high school.

      Her father had a small business. IOW, he was above the median in the society in which he lived. (My father died before I completed high school, which was never a matter of interest to anyone I ever worked with or for).

      Ruth had a child before entering law school. She cared for an infant and husband with cancer, yet managed to place first in her law school class. Cony Barrett, during an interview stated that her husband’s widowed aunt has lived with them since the birth of her first child, that her husband does the cooking, and that her career would not have been possible without their help. So yes, they both have had impressive careers, but Ruth overcame tremendous obstacles not faced by Barrett, due to different economic and family circumstances, and of course, being born in an age where blatant employment discrimination against women was legal.

      They weren’t tremendous obstacles, merely obstacles. Her husband had testicular cancer, which (then as now) is seldom fatal or debilitating.

      None of this, of course, is relevant to any issue at hand.

      1. Well, I suppose it’s all relative, but Turley’s father was a college educated professional and Turley went to private schools. That’s privilege. Nobody said he was a member of the Royal Family. But certainly privileged enough to be blind to the different social and economic circumstances of Ginsburg and Coney. To someone like me, whose father was working class when work was available, I can see distinct differences in the accomplishments of Ginsburg, even though I don’t agree with her judicial philosophy. To suggest that the two are equal in what they overcame is about as ridiculous as suggesting that affirmative action baby Clarence Thomas faced the same obstacles as Thurgood Marshall, which is patently absurd.

        1. Well, I suppose it’s all relative, but Turley’s father was a college educated professional and Turley went to private schools. That’s privilege.

          No, that’s not. Privilege means ‘private law’. There’s no indication the elder Mr. Turley had any undue influence over anyone. He doesn’t acquire it because your jealous of the silverware his wife has.

          But certainly privileged enough to be blind to the different social and economic circumstances of Ginsburg and Coney. To someone like me, whose father was working class when work was available,

          There is no indication he is unaware of anything. You’ve elected to display your social resentments and be a twit. Most people are wage earners and unless you’re a Depression baby or lived in a community where the 1970s industrial shakeout was important, this ‘when work was available’ bitc! is just a pose.

          To suggest that the two are equal in what they overcame is about as ridiculous as suggesting that affirmative action baby Clarence Thomas faced the same obstacles as Thurgood Marshall, which is patently absurd.

          He never suggested anything of the sort. You’re pretending that to strike this pose.

          Clarence Thomas filled out his college applications at the end of 1965; racial preference schemes were not a thing at that time. He entered law school in 1970, when they were quite novel. Since he graduated in the middle of his class at Yale, you know that any mulligans he was given were of no practical significance. Turley never brought up Thomas or Marshall. You did in your attitudinizing exercises. While we’re at it, Marshall freely admitted he was an indifferent student and nearly tossed out of the state college he attended in Pennsylvania. And, we know he was toward the end of his career a triumph of the taxidermist’s art, because he admitted that too. (“I told my clerks that if I die, just prop me up and keep on voting me”).

    1. Bug, in light of the obvious fact that you are the archetype of someone who would be a member of the Thought Police, that’s very ironic.

  3. Here is what seems blatantly obvious to me. If you are trying to create a better society, and you have a pet theory that is supposed to do that, but your theory results in that society not being able to reproduce itself, then doesn’t that mean your theory sucks??? And that your theory is garbage???

    That to me is feminism and abortion – two things that result in America having to import baby makers from countries where the poor benighted natives have sex the old fashioned way and make babies.

    You can blather on and on about fairness and equality for women but isn’t is like Justice Jackson (?) said after having been a judge at the Nuremburg trials – the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

    The simple fact of life is that it takes about 2.2 children per woman for a nation to replenish itself with people. If babies are being aborted in the millions, then that number goes up. If women and men are queering up and not having heterosexual sex, then the number goes up.

    Then, I think you have a “quality” issue of the offspring. We are an advanced technological society. We have a greater need for a well-behaved child, who does his homework, and can do math and program computers, and be taught to run a nuclear power plant then we do for children who grow up to be stoners, addicted video-game players dwelling in mommy’s basement, and/or illiterate thugs and savages.

    Which means to me that we are even further behind the 8 Ball than we know.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

      1. Thank you Olaf! Let’s consider a scenario. An asteroid, about 2 miles wide is headed for Earth. It will be here in 8 years. The Earth will probably survive but it will still be a mess if it hits. There is a chance that it can be diverted and there is a chance that we can launch several Earth arks to head for Mars long enough for the asteroid to hit, and then come back to Earth and restart life.

        The Leaders of Earth decide to pursue both options.

        As far as building the equipment to divert the asteroid or blast it into zillions of smaller people, of what use will your typical thuggish black American be? Their reading and writing skills are minimal, and they tend toward being slow and stoned? But what use will they be?

        As far as the Earth arks, can you see any reason to take any residents of Inner City Baltimore, Chicago, or Detroit on the journey? If so, please explain how and why Pooky, Ray-Ray, and Shemeeka can contribute either value in a scientific sense, or a skills sense.

        Thank you!

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

          1. Thank you for admitting that there is no reason to include the Ghettoites. What that means is that they are pretty much useless. And if they are useless then, they are useless now, and even worse than useless. They are a large part of why Americans can not have nice things. They fill up our prisons. They require tons of social services. It is a waste of tax dollars attempting to educate about half or more of their children. They destroy our inner cities and frankly, if they disappeared in a Reverse Rapture, most Americans, white, black, Asian and Hispanic would be dancing in the streets. I know I would.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

        1. Appropriate discretion is not a new concept:
          ___________________________________

          Earlier Resettlement Plans

          The view that America’s apparently intractable racial problem should be solved by removing Blacks from this country and resettling them elsewhere — “colonization” or “repatriation” — was not a new one. As early as 1714 a New Jersey man proposed sending Blacks to Africa. In 1777 a Virginia legislature committee, headed by future President Thomas Jefferson (himself a major slave owner), proposed a plan of gradual emancipation and resettlement of the state’s slaves. In 1815, an enterprising free Black from Massachusetts named Paul Cuffe transported, at his own expense, 38 free blacks to West Africa. His undertaking showed that at least some free Blacks were eager to resettle in a country of their own, and suggested what might be possible with public and even government support.7

          In December 1816, a group of distinguished Americans met in Washington, DC, to establish an organization to promote the cause of Black resettlement. The “American Colonization Society” soon won backing from some of the young nation’s most prominent citizens. Henry Clay, Francis Scott Key, John Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, Millard Fillmore, John Marshall, Roger B. Taney, Andrew Jackson, Daniel Webster, Stephen A. Douglas, and Abraham Lincoln were members. Clay presided at the group’s first meeting.8

          Measures to resettle Blacks in Africa were soon undertaken. Society member Charles Fenton Mercer played an important role in getting Congress to pass the Anti-Slave Trading Act of March 1819, which appropriated $100,000 to transport Blacks to Africa. In enforcing the Act, Mercer suggested to President James Monroe that if Blacks were simply returned to the coast of Africa and released, they would probably be re-enslaved, and possibly some returned to the United States. Accordingly, and in cooperation with the Society, Monroe sent agents to acquire territory on Africa’s West coast — a step that led to the founding of the country now known as Liberia. Its capital city was named Monrovia in honor of the American President.9

          With crucial Society backing, Black settlers began arriving from the United States in 1822. While only free Blacks were at first brought over, after 1827, slaves were freed expressly for the purpose of transporting them to Liberia. In 1847, Black settlers declared Liberia an independent republic, with an American-style flag and constitution.10

          By 1832 the legislatures of more than a dozen states (at that time there were only 24), had given official approval to the Society, including at least three slave-holding states.11 Indiana’s legislature, for example, passed the following joint resolution on January 16, 1850:12

          Be it resolved by the General Assembly of the State of Indiana: That our Senators and Representatives in Congress be, and they are hereby requested, in the name of the State of Indiana, to call for a change of national policy on the subject of the African Slave Trade, and that they require a settlement of the coast of Africa with colored men from the United States, and procure such changes in our relations with England as will permit us to transport colored men from this country to Africa, with whom to effect said settlement.

          In January 1858, Missouri Congressman Francis P. Blair, Jr., introduced a resolution in the House of Representatives to set up a committee

          to inquire into the expediency of providing for the acquisition of territory either in the Central or South American states, to be colonized with [black] persons from the United States who are now free, or who may hereafter become free, and who may be willing to settle in such territory as a dependency of the United States, with ample guarantees of their personal and political rights.

          Blair, quoting Thomas Jefferson, stated that Blacks could never be accepted as the equals of Whites, and, consequently, urged support for a dual policy of emancipation and deportation, similar to Spain’s expulsion of the Moors. Blair went on to argue that the territory acquired for the purpose would also serve as a bulwark against any further encroachment by England in the Central and South American regions.13

          – Robert Morgan

    1. I believe a lot a women would have children (or more children) if they had reliable, responsible husbands who could and would support their wives and children. You can’t expect women to place themselves and potential offspring in the extremely vulnerable position of having dependent children without any help. We have too many infantile, narcissistic males who are unwilling to should responsibility and abandon their families for a new sex partner or simply because the situation got a bit boring or difficult so he runs home to mama. I’ve worked with women who are raising kids on their own and it’s not reasonable to expect many women to want to do that.

    2. Squeaky is our very own Irma Grese!

      She was known as the “butcher of Belsen” or the “beast of Belsen”.

      Your rhetoric is reminiscent of her’s at Nuremberg.

      It’s chilling.

  4. Trump has appointed at least 53 Appellate Court Justices and 3 Supreme Court Justices.

    Zero African-Americans. One Hispanic. Very few women.

    But go to the RNC convention and you see a large percentage of the non-Trump family people trotted out for speaking roles are African-American. You see Trump holding “Blacks for Trump:” and “Hispanics for Trump” events.

    But when push comes to shove – in appointing people to actually have real power in this country, he just never turns to African-Americans.

    And with women – how many people do you see in the Trump administration with any real power? Sure – he likes women to lie for him in staffing his press office, but when the cameras are off it is all white men behind the closed doors making the decisions.

    1. Probably Trump is more concerned with competence than ‘diversity’.

      He is a builder and businessman who has to get tangible things done rather than a politician who thinks checkmarks on paper are accomplishments.

      1. He is a politician right now. As for a businessman, according to his tax returns all his businesses lose money, so maybe he is not the best judge of hiring people to help him get things done in business.

      2. He isn’t a good businessman. 6 bankruptcies. He’s done worse with his inheritance than if he’d just put the $ in a market fund. If analyses are right, he owes over $1B and has hundreds of $millions in debt coming due. He was saved by a reality TV show where he only looked competent because of editing. He only cares about what’ll help save his ass.

        1. He’s done worse with his inheritance than if he’d just put the $ in a market fund. I

          This contention has been discredited multiple times. Scott Sumner tried to push the idea, but it fails when you actually look at how wealthy people came by their money. The number of people who are passive investors in index funds among the Forbes 400 sum to zero. Trump was one of a halfdozen real estate developers who remained on the list consistently over a period of 35 years. And when you’ve learned what ‘equity capital’ is, you get back to us.

          1. He came by his wealth through inheritance.

            It’s irrelevant how many people in the Forbes 400 are passive investors in index funds. The question is whether it’s true that Trump has done worse with his inheritance than if he’d just put the $ in a market fund. There are multiple analyses, here’s one: https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2016/03/03/has-donald-trump-underperformed-in-the-real-estate-business/#fdd91764bfd0
            Here’s another: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/donald-trump-could-have-been-five-times-richer-2017-04-06

        2. LOL Bill more laughs, thanks. some of the best businessmen in history had BKs too.

          BK is a statutory right and businessmen are not any more shy about exercising their rights than section 8 housing applicants are and why should they be?

          everybody doing business has to reckon with possible BK by debtors, banks have a thing they call “collateral” to handle that

          I have seen some incredible moves pulled in BK and seen some heavy businessmen get the laws disregarded by BK trustees too

          generally this topic is like taxes– the people who pontificate about it are often, clearly, less qualified opinions

    2. Where have you been hiding?

      You are the Hollywood Communist Party Political Officer who assures that 12% of the population is “product placed” in 100% of the scenes on TV and in movies, aren’t you?

      Next thing you know, after America is subsumed by China, the Chinese Communist Party will “product place” Chinese actors on American TV and in American movies.

      Americans simply cannot be allowed to enjoy TV and movies cast with Americans and nothing but Americans.

      That would violate the Communist Manifesto, right, comrade?

      Oh, wait. I forgot.

      Every person in the world is an American-in-waiting…

      waiting for their “free stuff” confiscated from Americans.

  5. “‘Free To Be You and Me’: Barrett Fulfills Ginsburg’s Call For Real Equality And Independence For Women”

    – Professor Turley
    ______________

    “Fake News”

    “Real equality and independence for women” is, in fact, constituted by false, unreal and unconstitutional affirmative action and biased and subjective laws, which contradict nature and rationality, which inequitably favor women and which promote sin – Thou Shalt Not Covet.

    The communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) have illicitly tilted the playing field toward women to provide an unmerited, false and fabricated advantage and favor.

    Women, “minorities,” tribes, nations, races, etc. have been “equal” on earth’s playing field for 200,000 years.

    When the winners who succeeded, flew to and landed on the moon, women caterwauled for artificial, synthetic and unconstitutional affirmative action, welfare, food stamps, WIC, TANF, Medicaid, etc., and artificial and subjective affirmative action and favor in criminal and family law.

    Funfact: Female bears give birth (~2 a year/20 years) and pragmatically nurture cubs. They don’t hysterically and incoherently demand of God or nature what the male bear has.

    Ginsburg didn’t “call for real equality and independence for women,” because real equality and independence for women is not possible and because real equality and independence for women resulted in their natural ancillary position after many multiple millennia.

    In Ginsburg’s real world, women will become men, there will be insufficient procreation, Americans will vanish and America will be subsumed. Look around you. It’s happening, Sweetheart. America’s population is imported because American women bear too few children.

    Cold hard truth: Real equality among men and women is an oxymoronic contradiction in terms.

    Men persist and women replace men who persist.

    The “wealthy few” cannot persist without legions of the “poor” to serve them. The Walton family has 220,000 “poor.” Jeff Bezos has 798,000 poor.

    For nations, it’s grow or die.

    What Ginsburg called for was an unnatural, counterfeit and unconstitutional confiscation, redistribution of the capacity, acumen, superiority, success and wealth of men and the death of a nation.

    Communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) may succeed in breaking in and stealing other people’s money, competence and success, but that which those criminals steal is distinctly not “real.”

    When women seriously and actually call for real equality and independence, they may obtain it immediately by leveling the playing field, eliminating unconstitutional affirmative action, welfare, food stamps, WIC, TANF, Medicaid and the remainder of their “real” female entitlements package, etc., and repealing all the unconstitutional criminal and family laws which falsely and artificiality favor them.

    Real equality and independence – an hysterical and incoherent pipe dream.

    1. I want to know ALL of your dating secrets, George. I’m sure you have to beat all of those ladies off with a stick!

      1. “It’s the law, stupid.”

        – James Carville (paraphrased)
        _________________________

        You may want communism in America, but you can’t have it!

        Karl Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto 59 years after the adoption of the Constitution because none of the principles of the Communist Manifesto were in the Constitution. Had the principles of the Communist Manifesto been in the Constitution, Karl Marx would have had no reason to write the Communist Manifesto. The principles of the Communist Manifesto were not in the Constitution then and the principles of the Communist Manifesto are not in the Constitution now.

        NO Central Planning
        NO Control of the Means of Production (regulation)
        NO Redistribution of Wealth
        NO Social Engineering

        According to your perception, nay, misperception, men and women must come to some other type of accommodation. Affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, rent control, social services, forced busing, minimum wage, utility subsidies, WIC, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc., are all unconstitutional. Laws that make men guilty upon false accusation are biased and corrupt.

        Americans obtain success the old-fashioned way.

        They EARN it…

        all by themselves on a level playing field; no assistance; no favor.

  6. Jonathan: It’s an insult to the memory of Justice Ginsburg to compare her to Judge Barrett. They don’t share anything in common in terms of life experience or their judicial philosophies. Judge Barrett wouldn’t even be considered for a position on the Supreme Court had it not been for Ginsburg’s pioneering work on behalf of women’s rights. When Ginsburg entered Harvard Law School in 1956, she was just one of only nine women in a class of 500 men. Barrett wasn’t born until 16 years later. It wasn’t until 1972 that Notre Dame Law School, Barrett’s alma mater, began admitting female students–due in part to Ginsburg’s efforts. After Roe v. Wade and Griswold v, Connecticut were decided women for the first time gained power of their reproductive lives, their education and economic futures. Barrett was one of them and a beneficiary of Ginsburg’s work.

    Now Barrett would close the doors to women’s opportunities and rights that Ginsburg championed. Barrett has stated her opposition to abortion and would overturn Roe v. Wade. If given the opportunity, She would turn back the clock on women’s rights. She is the antithesis of what Ginsburg stood for. If Barrett is a “triumphant conservative feminist”, as you claim, then Hitler was also a “feminist” because he called for German women to bear a lot of children to serve the Reich! He would applaud Barrett for having so many children. It’s a complete distortion and laughable to claim Barrett is a “feminist”!

    1. Here is the fool Dennis bringing long dead Hitler into a conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with him. Do fools like you ever tire of that schtick, Dennis?

  7. Turley, if you were within striking distance, I would literally slap you in the face, not just for your intellectual dishonesty, but for contriving a way to favorably compare with RBG someone chosen for the SCOTUS specifically because SHE IS THE POLAR OPPOSITE of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Coney-Barrett’s name doesn’t belong in the same breath as that of Justice Ginsberg. The difference isn’t only in their “legal opinions”.

    Tell us, Turley, did Coney-Barrett graduate first in her law school class, like Ginsberg, but couldn’t get a job with any law firm because of her gender? Hell to the no. RBG’s experiences paved the way for women like Coney-Barrett to be employable after law school.

    And where the hell do you get off trying to discuss what “feminism” means? There is no such thing as “conservative feminism”. This is a fiction dreamed up in a pathetic effort to to put a positive spin on women who are the exact opposite of feminists, and who are, in effect, misogynists. They are not offended by abortion bans because they agree that the government should have a voice in personal reproductive decisions, and that this right supercedes that of the woman to control her own destiny. This view is contrary to the majority of people, including women, and a substantial number of Catholic women. Here’s a clue Jonny: a woman who doesn’t even have the right to choose whether to terminate a first-trimester pregnancy because the government has a greater voice than she does in this decision is a victim of misogyny. The stupid laws requiring waiting periods and things like non-medically-indicated multiple invasive pelvic exams, ultrasounds and laws requiring women to be shown illustrations of stages of fetal development, in addition to trying to induce feelings of guilt, assume women: 1. haven’t thought about the implications of an abortion, and that this is a snap decision. Studies show that this decision is usually well thought-out. 2. don’t really understand what they’re doing, so they need Big Brother to spell it out for them, showing them illustrations because they are too dumb to understand what pregnancy means. The waiting periods and government-mandated multiple pelvic exams are a deterrent–not for any medical purpose–but to humiliate and denigrate women to take away their right to choose. And, you believe someone like Coney–Barrett, who supports these things, is on a par with Ruth Bader Ginsburg? You are an intellectual liar, in addition to being a Trump syncophant. I hope some woman walks up to you and slaps you in the face. You have it coming.

    1. uh Did Natch just say she wanted to assault the blog host?

      It’s not my blog but by golly if somebody said they wanted to assault me on my little turf, then they would get the boot

    2. “Turley, if you were within striking distance, I would literally slap you in the face”

      You just crossed the Rubicon, Natacha.

      I was wondering how long it would take before you finally allowed your inner fascist to come out on here.

  8. “Barrett represents a triumphant moment of conservative feminists in the country. She is a brilliant jurist with a stellar background, much like the jurist she would replace. (…) The nomination today is a wonderful moment for this woman selected but also a historic moment for conservative feminists. ”
    *******************
    Look, none of us save maybe JT knows her personally. She might be wonderful or she might be a shrew. She has all the superficial earmarks of competency and decency. Compared to grandma who outstayed her competency, she’s a redwood log against a toothpick. What matter is she’s the President’s choice. Being woman is okay but hardly qualifying for anything save child bearing.

    We need to get off this first whatever self-congratulatory tangent. Cleopatra ran an empire so did Queen Victoria, Gaohou and Maria Theresa. A successful woman is hardly unusual. Some women do fine as leaders; some don’t. It’s character that matters as Heraclitus said eons ago “Character is destiny.” Not a word in that little shard of wisdom about gender.

  9. The feminism routine is old news. It goes without saying, and perhaps saying it too much diminishes the result, that both Ginsberg, Kagan, Sotomayer, and Barrett have overcome centuries of oppression. The US is the last bastion of male chauvinism in the Western World and even it has come almost to a point of resolution. To truly understand how conservative and backward America is when it comes to the sexes being equal reflect a moment on the female leaders who have lead European nations and occupied the highest levels of governance and then compare this with America. Today’s President put forth his bimbo daughter as an example of a female VP. She was, however, intelligent enough to dissuade him from following through. Just when America couldn’t be a greater laughing stock of the world, Trump ventured to make America a ridiculous laughing stock. A female President in the White House for several terms would be the apex of resolving this nonsense.

    The bottom line about Barrett is not her Catholicism or her conservatism. It goes without saying that Barrett’s Catholicism or dogma influences her conservatism which will influence her judgement making on the Supreme Court. To say otherwise is naive and illustrates a partisan bent. Every Justice of the Supreme Court leans one way or the other. Every American leans one way or the other. The issue at hand here is that conservatives represent less than the majority of Americans and fewer by a substantial number liberals. America is the country it is today because of liberal thinking. The vast majority of Americans realize that America has progressed. The vast majority of Americans would venture to keep progressing rather than return to the past and its bias, bigotry, racism, and other inequalities. Yet the Supreme Court will soon represent the minority in a 6-3 standing. Scalia, Thomas, and other conservatives argued 180 degree in the opposite direction from their liberal colleagues. The rulings were influenced by the majority of justices that represented the minority of Americans.

    There are solutions to this mistake. The court can be reduced in influence by ruling only on secondary issues and leaving the primary issues up to the legislative branches for the ‘last word’. Or, if the Supreme Court is to be allowed to continue in its undemocratic condition and able to potentially overturn the will of the majority of Americans then the number of justices should be increased until the make up of the court represents the make up of Americans. Right now it does not. Soon it will be even more inequitable. To argue that the justices are there uniquely to safeguard the Constitution is an oft used distraction from the reality of the situation. 6 conservative justices will not represent America democratically. However, 6 progressive justices would. The proper make up would be 5-4 progressive to regressive.

    1. So….in your mind and opinion….as you clearly lean Left….those that hold your values are right and anyone that holds a different view are wrong…..did I get that right?

      You argue it is only the “Liberal” and “Progressive” among this Nation’s population over the centuries is what lead us forward to where we are today….did I get that right?

      If you believe that….you surely have not studied American History.

      More importantly…..you are a victim of your own ignorance and bias.

      Our system of government is designed to protect the minority from mob rule by a majority and provides the minority the ability to challenge the course the majority would wish to take the Nation.

      What you fear is plain…..a Supreme Court having justices that do not ascribe to your way of thinking and thus perhaps the Court will not always find in favor of your agenda.

      Back in the 1970’s, Professor Saul Brenner at UNC-Charlotte taught a course called “Judicial Behavior (a study of voting records of Supreme Court Justices), in which he demonstrated that no Justice has been a consistent vote when considered for a Left/Right bias.

      The Justices might lean different directions but they also vote different directions.

      What I drew from that course was we need Justices that are true to the Constitution and Legal Precedent deciding cases.

      We may not agree with all of the decisions….and that is not surprising as we all lean one way or the other and view those Supreme Court Decision through that prism of ours.

      The latest nominee meets my requirement and I agree with Professor Turley in his explanation of the situation.

    2. “The US is the last bastion of male chauvinism in the Western World and even it has come almost to a point of resolution. To truly understand how conservative and backward America is when it comes to the sexes being equal reflect a moment on the female leaders who have lead European nations and occupied the highest levels of governance and then compare this with America.”

      ha what a joke. really? isaac is a feminist now, lol

      Frau Merkel has misgoverned Germany for years now, don’t get me started. With leaders like that who throw the gates open to teeming hordes of refugees looking to live off the German taxpayer as they do great harm and mischief to society, Germany might profit from a man in charge

  10. Yes, she is qualified, but also an ideologue. Barrett is going to spend the next 30 years undoing women’s rights. But that is the point of the nomination.

    1. And you would be so foolish as to attempt to assert that RGB was not as equally an ideologue? Your problem is one that the right faced when the progressive ideologue RBG was placed upon and injected her personal visions onto what should have been a blind interpretation of the constitution.

      DEAL WITH IT.

      1. There is no such thing as “blind interpretation of the constitution”, all the justices just vote how they want. But I would much rather have a justice who’s personal views are equality and freedom then religious and authoritarianism.

    2. Like what? In order for that sacred cow Roe to be overturned, a case with the possibility of such a result would have to make it to the Supreme Court for review. Do you have any idea how few cases are granted a writ of certiorari? The same is true for any other “right.” Or, if you don’t think so, explain exactly how you think it’s going to happen.

      1. This one puzzles me, too. Are people like Molly really professing such ignorance that they think one person will enter the court and undo anything whatsoever? Other have to vote too, genius. Oh, forgive me. I actually *took* a civics class. We know the POTUS is hyperbolic, we know how the system actually works, and we are not flipping out due to the fact that we know these things. Get meds, Molly. They help a lot of people.

    3. “Barrett is going to spend the next 30 years undoing women’s rights.”

      Only in your mind.

      Which is clearly evidenced by the fact that you failed to present any evidence of your claim. Which is a trait that many women share with you, Molly.

    4. It’s both puzzling and disturbing that so many modern day liberals encompass ‘women’s rights’ solely under the flag of ‘abortion’ in totality, never mentioning ‘human rights’ or the fact that the nominee is altogether a human, a woman, and has had a successful life and career. Calling it idiocy would be too kind; it is in fact delusion. Seek help. Seriously.

  11. It’s hard not to laugh till I drop! Barrett is typical of a lot of reactionary fundamentalists. She happily took all the benefits and advantages that the dirty liberals helped fashioned and protect and then turns around and says this is fine for me but not for you! I’m special. Give it a rest Professor. Your unlimited support for all things Trump are showing up big time.

    She doesn’t believe that we should all be free to be ourselves. They only selves that we are free to be are those selves of which she approves. If her view of the world was in place when she was poised to enter law school, she wouldn’t have been allowed to enter. As to SCOTUS, based on her views, she wouldn’t have gotten in the door except to clean or serve tea.

    She has made it clear what she is, we really do need to believe her.

    1. i gather that you can not or will not grasp the beauty of our CONSTITUTIONAL system of 3 part goverment and would legislate from the bench when the will of the majority is not in line with progressive ideology?

    2. She happily took all the benefits and advantages that the dirty liberals helped fashioned and protect

      There isn’t one thing she ‘happily took’ that was fashioned or protected by liberals. She’s nearly 40 years younger than was Ginsburg. Her life differs in three details: she has a larger number of children, judges were less resistant to hiring her for clerkships, and she found a law firm willing to hire her (though her time in private practice was brief – three years). There were lady lawyers earning a living in my home town when Ginsburg was admitted to the bar, but so doing for Ginsburg would have required she do something she didn’t wish to: be an ordinary lawyer practicing solo or in a small firm.

    3. My, my, misogyny lives. As does religious bigotry. What would you say if she were an Orthodox Jew? How do you explain her academic accomplishments? That any number of Democrats voted for her appointment to the federal bench?

  12. I will raise a glass to the nomination of Ms. Barrett – her credentials are amazing! I hope that the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee will be more civil than they were during the hearings held for Justice Bret Kavanaugh. This is an important moment in our nation’s history. 🇺🇸

  13. in the 70s feminists basically told us that women could and should be “Super Moms”, have a career, have babies, have opinions of their own…do it all. However, you could only have the same opinions they had. If you didn’t believe in abortion or wanted to be married and a homemaker you were somehow not really a woman, you were deficient. Now you have a woman who has her own opinions, has a successful career, has a family, in other words is a “Super Mom” and the feminists say she can’t be a good mother if she has a career and can’t be a “feminist” if she has opinions counter to their own. What hypocrisy!

    1. You are correct about that, Karen Ann! The avowed feminists of the 1970s were doctrinaire. I do think that those views still exist, but I also think that they are much less prevalent today. I purchased the Marlo Thomas album for my young daughter in the early 1970s. I think that it is an apt comparison for the point that Professor Turley wishes to make.

  14. Deeply religious, both cited the role of faith in their careers and convictions.

    Barrett’s practice of orthodox Roman Catholicism is in stark contrast to Ginsburg’s rejection of Orthodox Judaism. That the Democrats are intent on crucifying the former while canonizing the latter are no coincidence. That you fail to notice the difference is predictable.

    Barrett lives her Catholicism; her Faith has guided her marriage, parenting methods, her legal career. You and Ginsburg chose the easier path.

    https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-bader-ginsburg-had-an-intimate-yet-ambivalent-relationship-with-judaism-and-israel-1.9169497
    While Ginsburg may have had an ambivalent relationship with organized religion, she was a proud cultural Jew.

    Ginsburg recalled that, as a girl, she was “jealous” of a male cousin who had a Bar Mitzvah when “there was no Bat Mitzvah back then,” noting that her colleague on the Supreme Court, Elena Kagan, was the first girl to have a Bat Mitzvah in her Manhattan synagogue.

    And that, Jonathan, was Ginsburg’s one and only religion.

  15. “Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote how feminism is a concept best captured in the song “Free to Be You and Me” by Marlo Thomas. That definition defined feminism as allowing women to decide their values without societal dictates or limits.”

    And that is exactly what screwed America over. Because when people do whatever they want, chaos results. That is why Moses went up there on Mt. Sinai and came down with the 10 Commandments. (I think Moses wrote them, myself.) That is why Hammurabi had a code, and why America has laws. If people could do whatever they wanted, there would not be limits on how many deer a hunter could kill in a year. There would be no building codes, speed limits, and we would look like Mogadishu.

    A society needs to set its values, and while those values may change over time, that time should be relatively wrong. Right now, Antifa members and SJWs and BLMers are deciding their “own values” and they are tearing down statues and tearing down cities. JT belongs to that generation of youth who thought, after a couple of college courses, that they had the answers to everything – to all the problems of the Human Condition. As a result of their hubris and childishness, they have pretty much set America down the road to Hell. Smoke dope if you want to! Kill your baby if you want to! Have as much sex with as many people as possible if you want to! Pop out babies out of wedlock if you want to.

    Even if Trump wins, the country can not be saved without a major change in the form of government. We will have to have a king, or a dictator or a tyrant to take out the garbage and set things right. Or Yellowstone can cook off, or an asteroid hit us. Maybe a prolonged depression with actual starving will do it.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Because when people do whatever they want, chaos results.

      Bingo

      Pride, Sloth, Gluttony, Wrath, Greed, Envy, Lust….its all about appetites

        1. Pride, maybe. Sloth, Gluttony, Wrath, Greed, Envy and Lust? Hardly. And, as for the last, he has repented his transgressions publicly, and not repeated them as far as is known, which is the Lord’s prescription for getting straight with Him. Which is all that matters.

          1. Yup. Not liking someone’s personality and not judging them by their actions in the world is a piss poor excuse to reject a person. Party of tolerance, my behind. I would like to see judges in the court that actually honor the Constitution, thanks, whatever the stripe. I’m actually sort of grateful that the people throwing a hissy fit are showing their blatant prejudices in public when they’ve been behind closed doors previously. Reasoned, logical debate seldom if ever comes across as petty hate, and petty hate is all we are seeing from the left in the 21st century.

          2. Sloth, such as spending hours a day watching TV and the many reports that he lacks the attention span to even read the PDBs.
            Gluttony, illustrated by his obesity.
            Wrath, demonstrated by his frequent lashing out at people.
            Greed, shown by refusing to put his business into a trust and the weekly trips that let him spend taxpayer money at his properties.
            Envy, demonstrated by his endless denigration of Obama, even to the point of making an ad with a fake Obama being fired.
            Lust, demonstrated by his repeatedly cheating on his wives, the many allegations of sexual harassment, his bragging about kissing women without waiting and grabbing them by the p^ssy.

            1. “Lust, demonstrated by his repeatedly cheating on his wives”

              Let me know when he gets busted getting BJ’s from Interns under his desk in the Oval Office.

              Do you understand why Epstein had a large painting of Bubba wearing a dress prominently displayed in his mansion in NYC?

    2. That definition defined feminism as allowing women to decide their values without societal dictates or limits.”

      Again, our brilliant law faculty come up with inanities like this. We all live in a matrix of ‘societal dictates and limits’. Some are legal-formal, some are cultural. That’s perfectly necessary for any sort of common life. We cannot all be cogitating over the moral life as if we were Thos. Aquinas. Morals are communicated to the person through culture.

      Ginsburg’s big objection was to the common assumption that professional women were celibates. Her other objection was that established law firms would not hire her, so she was left with the option of abandoning law practice, founding her own firm, or locating a small firm that was not inhibited about hiring women. She chose option A and worked for publishing houses, law schools, and shizzy NGOs before she landed a judgeship. Sandra Day O’Connor was a government lawyer before going into politics. (Her third objection was that professional women such as herself had to work within the constraints imposed by child-bearing and child-rearing).

      1. I hope Ginsburg was nicer to the help.

        https://www.amazon.com/That-Girl-Phil-Insider-Household/dp/0312051697

        A friend of ours happened to cross paths with Marlo Thomas on a street in Manhattan ca. 1979. She watched her from a discreet distance for several blocks. She said it was the damndest thing. MT had this factotum with her who would follow along and pay for things from street vendors. She lifts it and he steps up and pays for it.

  16. Ginsburg never believed feminism meant removing the “feet off our necks” by her brothers just to have them replaced by the feet of her sisters.

    By all appearances, it meant legal harassment of the institutions she thought were not giving her her due in 1959 (as well as providing legal permissions for women to kill their unborn children.).

    What you’re forgetting is what actually existing feminism means: the habit of looking at human relations with the assumption that women have options, and men have obligations; the open mouth saying “I want”; the neuralgic reaction to the idea that a woman might be held accountable for something and the scrounging for some explanation (no matter how specious) to off-load blame on the nearest man; the notion that men are defective and should be punished for not behaving like women. What Joan Didion said in 1971 remains true: feminism is very appealing to women who are resistant to the constraints of adult life.

    We keep hearing that she was a paladin of ‘women’s rights’. The problem with that is that the problems in living women faced in 1948 (when Ginsburg was getting to the age to be working and scoping out young men) had little to do with a dearth of entitlements enforceable in law. Women’s rights as conceived of by Ginsburg (and her ilk) consisted of giving women the franchise to do vicious things that no one should be permitted to do (abortion, expressive divorce), the franchise to harass people for exercising their freedom of contract in ways of which Ginsburg disapproved (the entire body of employment discrimination law); witless contrivances to insert women into essentially masculine institutions, so that having more women around trumped the fulfillment of the institution’s foundational mission (see colliding Navy ships). Ginsburg’s legal-formal thrusts were complemented with cultural initiatives which sought to redistribute status among women (from housewives to professional women; from modest women to drunken sluts). The social costs of some of the latter were then off-loaded on men through contrivances like campus star chambers.

Leave a Reply