Separated Parenting Access & Resource Center
crazy gamesriddles and jokesfunny picturesdeath psychic!mad triviafunny & odd!pregnancy testshape testwin custodyrecipes

Author Topic: Bias in the U.S. Supreme Court  (Read 1207 times)


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 969
  • Karma: 0
    • View Profile
    • http://www.deltabravo.net
Bias in the U.S. Supreme Court
« on: Mar 17, 2004, 04:27:43 PM »
Radical Feminists on the U.S. Supreme Court

March 17, 2004
by Carey Roberts

Just five short days after President Bill Clinton’s nomination, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been confirmed by the Senate and sworn in as Justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. That was during the Dog Days of August 1993. Obviously, the Clinton Administration wanted to fast-track the process so no one would have time to ask any embarrassing questions.
Because of her low-key manner, people believed Ginsburg was a moderate. But if the Senate had bothered to look into Ginsburg’s background, they would have been troubled, indeed.

Ruth Ginsburg received her law degree from Columbia Law School. In 1971 she established the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. Throughout the 1970s Ginsburg acquired a first-hand knowledge of the workings of the Supreme Court as she argued six cases – all feminist issues – to the Justices.

Ruth Ginsburg made the same assumption as the rest of the feminist movement. She accepted without question the Marxist claim that women’s role as mothers and wives is inherently oppressive. And she believed that equality of opportunity should always translate into identical social roles.

In 1977, Ginsburg wrote a report for the Commission on Civil Rights titled “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code”. This report demanded 800 changes to federal laws in order to eliminate any and all distinctions between men and women.

For starters, the report claims that the Boy Scouts perpetuate stereotyped sex roles, so they must be gender-integrated or abolished. You can’t help but wonder if the current Leftist hostility to the Boy Scouts stems from this recommendation.

Then we are instructed to clean up our speech: "manmade" must be changed to "artificial," "midshipman" to "midshipperson," and so forth. Why the report fails to object to such obviously sexist terms as “mother tongue,” “Mother Nature,” “ladybug,” and “sister city,” I can’t possibly guess.

But page 206 of this report is where it all comes out. There we learn of Ginsburg’s grand vision to reshuffle the deck of the traditional family. She proposes to do away with the husband-as-primary-breadwinner concept:

"Congress and the President should direct their attention to the concept that pervades the Code: that the adult world is (and should be) divided into two classes--independent men, whose primary responsibility is to win bread for a family, and dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household. This concept must be eliminated from the Code if it is to reflect the equality principle."

But we’re still not done. On page 214 Ginsburg urges us to adopt Communist-style day care services: "The increasingly common two-earner family pattern should impel development of a comprehensive program of government-supported child care."

Radicals often moderate their stance as they get older and wiser. But not Ruth Ginsburg.

On January 29, Justice Bader appeared at a lecture sponsored by the National Organization for Women Legal Defense Fund. Over the years the NOW Legal Defense Fund has used the cover of gender equality to promote their agenda of destabilizing the family and promoting Marxist ideals. Justice Ginsburg not only appeared at the meeting, she introduced the speaker for the 4th Annual Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series on Women and the Law.

In that appearance, Ginsburg showed that she remains ever-faithful to the Sisterhood. Plus, she fostered the perception that she lacks judicial impartiality and objectivity. As Hofstra University law professor Monroe Freedman remarked, “I think this crosses the line.”

Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s writings reveal the true intentions of radical feminism: achieve a gender-less society and impose totalitarian ideals on American society. And her recent appearance at a NOW conference reveals she still hews to the fem-socialist line.

Justice Ginsburg is now 70 years old, and may step down from the bench in a few years. But for now, radical feminists can rest assured that they have a friend in very high places.

Carey Roberts


Copyright © SPARC - A Parenting Advocacy Group
Use of this website does not constitute a client/attorney relationship and this site does not provide legal advice.
If you need legal assistance for divorce, child custody, or child support issues, seek advice from a divorce lawyer.