Omit Andrea Widburg of the American Thinker from the list of people paying tribute to the late U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Unlike me, the usual leftists who loved her too much (as well as a few Republicans who ought to know better) think that the best encomium for Ginsburg is that she “fought” for “justice and equality.” …
… That praise — that she “fought” for “justice and equality” — sums up everything that was wrong with Ginsburg for it describes a political activist, not a judge. The Supreme Court is supposed to consist of nine people who try, apolitically, to ensure that the United States is run along constitutional lines.
Ginsburg, though, had little love for the Constitution. She was quite open about that in 2012 when she offered some “helpful” advice to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as it was contemplating the Egyptian Constitution of 2012:
“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. “I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.”
The South African Constitution does not promote a small government for free people who possess inherent rights that must be free from political interference. Instead, it’s a micromanaging monstrosity that identifies “rights” (some copied from us), that are, in fact, privileges subject to the political winds. …
… Ginsburg was also an awful judge. A good Supreme Court opinion, like a solid house, is built on a constitutional foundation, with the materials coming from clear and strong precedent and law. Ginsburg’s opinions, especially when she was pushing political ends, were composed of random bits and pieces of law that could be cobbled together to make a rough shack.
