Speaking of Justice Ginsburg, Slate journalist Emily Bazelon recently sat down with the associate justice for a puffery interview, which appeared in the The New York Times.

The reporter didn?t lob softballs to Ginsburg; she teed up the ball and helped the associate justice swing. Instead of discussing Ginsburg?s jurisprudence or asking any question that strayed too far from “Explain why you’re so great,” Bazelon opted to re-fight the feminist war by using an assortment of gender-charged questions focusing on those chauvinist pigs who want Sotomayor to be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen rather than on the Supreme Court.

The interview shows that even though liberals opine about getting beyond gender, they themselves can’t and don?t. They can’t because class division is their bread-and-butter political tactic; they don’t for the same reason.

That holds true for race, too. For supposedly wanting a color-blind society, liberalism obsesses over the Latino/white/black divide, bringing it up at every turn. A Supreme Court justice is not merely a justice. She is a female justice, or he is a black justice; never, simply, a justice who should apply the law regardless of sex or race.

One section of the interview that?s generated some interest deals with Medicaid funding for abortion and allowing poor woman access to the procedure. Ginsburg said:

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. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn?t really want them. But when the court decided McRae [which prohibited Medicaid funding for abortions], the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong. [Emphasis mine].

That?s a remarkable, and chilling, observation. As Hot Air points out, it appears that either Ginsburg ?had few problems with government pushing a eugenics program? or that Ginsburg was ?willing to shrug off the eugenics in order to support Roe.?

Either way, the remark alludes to the eugenics foundation of the abortion rights movement, typified by Planned Parenthood?s founder, Margaret Sanger.

Oh, and that comment Sotomayor made about a Latina woman making better court decisions than a white man? No biggie to Ginsburg:

I thought it was ridiculous for them to make a big deal out of that.

It would be too tough a question for the NYT to ask, but I wonder if Justice Ginsburg would say the same about a white man who bragged about his superior life experience. We already know the answer.