Mediocrity in Black: The Ruth Bader Ginsburg Story

Edward Whelan exposes the silliness and incompetence of the Clintonista Supreme Court Justice:

In attacking originalism as "frozen in time," Ginsburg slights the genius of the Framers in setting up a system in which the people, through their elected representatives and within the broad bounds established by the Constitution, adapt the laws to changing times. She claims that judges "honor the Framers' intent 'to create [sic] a more perfect Union'" when they rewrite the Constitution to comport with their own understandings of the needs of the day. But it is "We the People of the United States," not judges, to whom the Constitution looks to "form a more perfect Union."

The second basic flaw in Ginsburg's speech is signaled by her elusive subtitle. What exactly does a "comparative perspective" in constitutional adjudication mean, and what is its value? Addressing a group of international lawyers, Ginsburg resorts to kindergarten talk — "we can learn from others," "we can join hands with others," we should "share our experience" — but never even attempts to explain how a foreign court's decision on how a foreign law measures up to a foreign charter can or should have analytical value in construing our Constitution. She emphasizes that she does not regard foreign decisions as "controlling authorities." Could those foreign decisions be the tipping factor in a particular case? Ginsburg doesn't expressly say so, but she gives no reason why that couldn't happen. Nor does she offer any principle to determine what weight they should have. In short, she has no response to Scalia's criticism: "To invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, is not reasoned decisionmaking, but sophistry."

When Ginsburg's position is clear, her understanding is muddled. Ginsburg points out that the Framers understood that the United States "would be bound by 'the Law of Nations,' today called international law." But the Constitution's conferral of power on Congress "[t]o define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations" makes clear that it is up to Congress, not judges, to determine which obligations under international law should apply domestically.

Any Supreme Court Justice too stupid to understand that the Constitution of the United States is the law of the land for Americans, the highest authority short of God Himself (whoops, sorry to startle you like that, Judge Ginsburg), should be impeached forthwith.

If the British use of Continental mercenaries on our land was sufficient provocation to throw old King George out of America, one presumes that kowtowing to the laws of foreign despots ought to provoke the impeachment of those black-robed idiots so inclined.

Is it really too much to expect of our Supreme Court that it stick to interpreting the U.S. Constitution? After all, these fools seem to have a lot of difficulty reading and comprehending one plainly-written document---could they handle anything else?