« Follow-up Narcisse | Main | Weekly Poll »

Monday, March 20, 2006

It's official...

Ruth...Ruth Jester Bader Ginsberg is out of her mind.

Comments

I figured this out about two years ago. I direct you to an excerpt I wrote in Spring 2004:

Critique of Ginsburg’s Concurring Opinion (In Grutter v. Bollinger)

Justice Ginsburg stated that the majority opinion was in accord with international law. She emphasized that international law promotes measures that ensure the development and protection of certain racial groups in order to guarantee to those groups the full enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms. While this may be commendable, the Supreme Court of the United States should not be concerned with the tenets of international law. The Court should be interested only in what the Constitution requires and allows. The role of the Court is to interpret the Constitution and not to ensure that the United States is in accord with international law. The Court must bear in mind that not all systems of government have the type of protections that are found in the United States. The Equal Protection clause protects individuals. This protection may not exist in other countries and may be a legitimate reason for the United States to follow a path that differs from that of the rest of the international community.

Ginsburg stated that she hoped that an admissions program that considers race would not be necessary in 25 years. This statement was in response to O’Connor’s assertion that she expected that the use of preferences will no longer be necessary 25 years from now. The language Justice Ginsburg used implies that she does not consider O’Connor’s statement to be a solid time limit. She seems to suggest that a time limit is not necessary. She seems to suggest that racial preferences are allowable as long as the Court, or perhaps society, deems them to be necessary. Ginsburg failed to recognize that strict scrutiny will not tolerate a racial classification to exist without a set time limit. A hope that a racial preference will no longer be necessary in 25 years is hardly a constitutionally mandated time limit.

Dude, you can't quote yourself...WTF???!

Post a comment

This weblog only allows comments from registered users. To comment, please Sign In.

Recent Comments

Archives


Syndicate


Disclaimer:
These posts are not legal advice. This is a personal site. As such, views expressed should not be attributed to any law firm. The views of one author do not necessarily represent the views of the others. Copyright 2005-2007.