THE FEMALE sex is in deep mourning. Or so we are told.
The murderous old hag and shriveled prune, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, supposedly the epitome of what women aspire to be, has died after years of appearing on death’s door. She was 87.
The Supreme Court is a decadent institution with a mission for inverting the natural order of the world with desiccated abstractions. Supreme Court justices are the high priests of the American, Masonic civil religion. Their job is to wipe out the sacred and leave ordinary people to deal with the messy ramifications of their legal jousting and the sheer ugliness of it all. They often favor big business over the little guy. They do this in rulings from their pompously pillared temple in Washington, D.C. Ginsburg stands out for her role as non-stop activist on the dark-robed Bench of Beezlebub.
“When I’m sometimes asked ‘When will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court]?’ and I say ‘When there are nine,’ people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that.”
Her idea of equality was often not very equal.
“Women will have achieved true equality when men share with them the responsibility of bringing up the next generation,” she said.
She denied any natural basis for longstanding sex roles and therefore denied that equality is a very complicated matter. After all men supporting women with their lifelong wage labor was indeed taking “responsibility of bringing up the next generation.”
In Gonzales v. Carhart, Ginsburg vehemently opposed a ban on “partial-birth abortion,” saying of the practice “this way of protecting women recalls ancient notions about women’s place in society and under the constitution ideas that have long since been discredited.”
It also recalls ancient notions of murder.
She absolutely loved it when men and women committed themselves to lifelong sterility. Men “marrying” men and women “marrying women,” was one of her primary causes and all of the anti-justices, she was the most activist on the issue. Her role was decisive in many court decisions.
“When oral argument for Obergefell v. Hodges were heard in the Supreme Court, the attorney for the state of Michigan argued that marriage was defined as one man and one woman and had been for thousands of years. Ginsburg replied:
“We have changed our idea about marriage is the point that I made earlier. Marriage today is not what it was under the common law tradition, under the civil law tradition. Marriage was a relationship of a dominant male to a subordinate female.”
She was a master at distorting the truth with these flat-out false assertions. Male privileges in law and custom were often meant to make up for the many privileges of women, such as the right to almost every dollar men made in work digging ditches, fixing plumbing and building highways, to mention a few of the menial occupations of men.
She made the world safer for women in combat. In United States v. Virginia, 1996, she “wrote the majority opinion that would serve as a milestone moment for women’s rights and university admission policies. The case challenged a policy by the Virginia Military Institute that barred women from being admitted to the institution. Although the state of Virginia said it would create a separate educational program for women for the military institute, Ginsberg questioned its merits, writing that ‘Women seeking and fit for a VMI-quality education cannot be offered anything less, under the Commonwealth’s obligation to afford them genuinely equal protection.’ (Source)
She thus prepared the way for removal of the men-only draft.
Ginsburg, we are told again and again, was razor-sharp brilliant.
When in Obergefell, one attorney argued that marriage was fundamentally about procreation. Ginsburg responded:
“Suppose a couple, a 70-year-old couple, comes in and they want to get married? You don’t have to ask them any questions, you know they are not going to have any children.”
She wasn’t smart enough to know that it is the cultural institution of marriage that is fundamentally about procreation? Elderly couples don’t threaten that. Men “marrying” men do.
I think she was smart enough to know that. This wasn’t brilliance so much as manipulation.
She worked to make both men and woman as materialistic, divided and non-procreative as possible, which suits the needs of … powerful people. It is best to think of her as a warrior. She only lacked a spear, a breastplate and visible bloodstains. She battled to undermine the greatest power women had, as makers of home and culture, and the immense privileges civilization had granted them. One cannot help but feel in reviewing her legacy that she was motivated by jealousy. She would never have made a contented or beauteous domestic matriarch and the Christian world had produced so many beautiful examples of the type.
Has God found our legal celebrity to be as witty and wise as the media is telling us she was?
Let’s just say, she fought for rights for everybody — except for Him.
Even a smart judge is not always wise.A World Without Ruth — The Thinking Housewife
Finally, She’s Gone + More — PA Pundits – International
A message from a rarity; a Conservative Hollywood Writer ~ . By Burt Prelutsky ~ . There were definitely some of us — most of us? — who began to think that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was immortal. Time and again, she appeared to be a goner. They’d whisk her off to the hospital, but back […]Finally, She’s Gone + More — PA Pundits – International