Justice Ginsburg would put a dress on the Lone Ranger

Posted: Aug 18, 2003 12:00 AM

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently joined U.S. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, anti-Pledge-of-Allegiance Judge Stephen Reinhardt and other like-minded liberals and feminists to launch a new organization called the American Constitution Society.

Its mission is to challenge The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies, which promotes the nomination of judges who believe in the U.S. Constitution and in the U.S. system of federalism.

The left doesn't believe the Constitution should be the bench mark of court decisions or that we should abide by the requirement that "all legislative powers" belong to Congress. Liberals believe new rights should be invented and public policies dictated by supposedly more enlightened judges.

At any rate, it is easier to get life-tenured judges than democratically elected legislatures to adopt leftist policies. That is the undercurrent driving the Democrats' filibuster against President Bush's judicial nominees.

Ginsburg's writing and speaking style is usually somewhere between convoluted and obscure, but she delighted the new group with a noteworthy triple-entendre. Referring to Supreme Court decisions, she urged us to get rid of "the Lone Ranger mentality."

First, this was clearly a cut at the president because he is closely associated with the word ranger. He once was a part owner of Major League Baseball's Texas Rangers and his top-of-the-line fund-raisers are affectionately called rangers.

Second, Ginsburg's remark was a not-so-subtle sneer at the president's foreign policy, which has been impudently criticized by snooty Europeans for its unilateralism and "cowboy" approach. Ginsburg bragged that the Supreme Court is "becoming more open to international law perspectives," looking to United Nations treaties and foreign courts for guidance in deciding gay rights, death penalty and affirmative action cases.

Third, Ginsburg's comment was indelibly characteristic of the biased language of radical feminists who hate everything masculine. The Lone Ranger and the Texas Rangers, God bless them, are very masculine.

Because of her low-key manner, many people fail to realize what an extreme feminist Ginsburg is, but she laid it all out before she ascended to the Supreme Court in her book "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code." It was filled with radical feminist demands, such as assigning women to military combat duty, affirmative action for women in the armed services, federal financing of comprehensive day care and the sex integration of the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts.

The real purpose of the new American Constitution Society is to recruit candidates for the federal judiciary who will continue the current Supreme Court's custom of deciding cases on the basis of the justices' own policy preferences rather than by referring to the Constitution. In this year's shocking decisions, the high court abandoned all pretense of basing rulings on what the Constitution allows or forbids.

Some liberals openly preach the "evolution" of the Constitution, or assert that judges are merely translating obsolete language into a "living" Constitution. Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe is more blunt. He calls it the "free-form method."

This spring, the Supreme Court dealt devastating blows to long-standing U.S. laws and beliefs about morals and about a just society. The high court did this without advancing any argument that reasonably relates to the Constitution. The court struck down our right to legislate against immoral actions (Lawrence v. Texas), and the high court exalted diversity as a new rule that trumps non-discrimination on account of race (Grutter v. Bollinger).

No constitutional argument justifies those two decisions that create new rights of sodomy and reverse racial discrimination. They evolved out of the social preferences of the shifting majorities of justices and their pandering to the liberal elite.

Ginsburg's tour de force to aid the feminist campaign against everything masculine was her sudden discovery in 1996 of a new right for women to enroll in the Virginia Military Institute. Nobody else had detected that right in the Constitution for 157 years.

Ginsburg has long been on record as wanting cases to be decided on her version of what she calls "the equality principle," rather than on the Constitution. Her "equality" notions include the right to abortion at taxpayer expense, which the Supreme Court rejected in 1980, and a mindless gender neutrality that would include eliminating the concept of "breadwinning husband" and "dependent, homemaking wife."

Ginsburg's influence is clearly seen in another 2003 decision that shocked observers, Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs. The court's tirade against stereotypes (a word used 19 times) that supposedly "forced women to continue to assume the role of primary family care giver" was based on feminist fantasies about a gender-neutral society, not on the Constitution.

When will the American people call a halt to the tyranny of the imperial judiciary and restore "all legislative powers" to the legislatures? Will that happen if some court presumes to invent a new right of same-sex marriage?