Archive for judicial philosophy

Judicial Philosophy vs. Politics

Posted in uncategorized with tags , , , , , , on December 23, 2019 by andelino

Even though the President of the United States is supposed to “appoint” Supreme Court Justices based on their “judicial philosophy and not their politics”, President Bill Clinton “admitted” that he chose Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg due to her “steadfast” commitment to upholding “abortion.”

Speaking at Georgetown University Law School, the former president said that protecting “Roe v. Wade” played a significant role in his selection of “Ginsburg” to the Supreme Court.

https://abcn.ws/2PtGHRb

“There is one thing that we did discuss, and I feel I should tell you, because it will illustrate why I thought I should appoint her. Abortion was a big issue in 1992 — the right to choose, I was one of the first pro-choice Democrats to run since Roe v. Wade, who actually benefited from Roe v. Wade. Now, she didn’t have to say anything about this. She knew this perfectly well that I was under a lot of pressure to make sure I appointed someone who is Simon-pure, which I had said was important,” Clinton said, as reported by ABC News.

No president has ever “admitted” to asking a potential Supreme Court nominee on how they would “rule on an issue” like abortion. In fact, when Justice Gorsuch was asked about such a meeting during his confirmation process, he said that would have walked out the door if President Trump pressed him to “overturn” Roe v. Wade.

Former President Clinton said he “inquired” with Ginsburg about the issue of “abortion” and admitted that his pick was “clearly pro-choice” after nominating her.

“I asked her the question and she talked about it just as if it was any other issue, no effect, this is what I think, this is why I think it. And she made a heck of a case,” Clinton said.

Bill Clinton’s frank admission about how he “selected” Ginsburg suggests she may have “lied” during the U.S. Senate confirmation hearing when she said it was “inappropriate for anyone to ask how a judicial nominee would rule on a specific case.”

“It is inappropriate, in my judgment, to seek from any nominee for judicial office assurance on how that individual would rule in a future case. That judgment was shared by those involved in the process of selecting me. No such person discussed with me any specific case, legal issue or question in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as seeking any express or implied assurances concerning my position on such case, issue, or question,” Ginsburg said.

Ginsburg’s “pro-abortion” record on the Supreme Court is well-documented and often goes beyond “legal” jurisprudence and into “ideological” statements about “sexism and gender politics,” such as when she accused her male peers of “sexism” in the Hobby Lobby ruling.

“Do you believe that the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision?” Katie Couric asked Ginsburg in light of the ruling.

“I would have to say no,” she replied. “But justices continue to think and can change. I am ever hopeful that if the court has a blind spot today, its eyes will be open tomorrow.”

 More proof that “judicial philosophy and politics” go hand in hand despite what they “preach and want you to believe.”

If you wait long enough the “truth” eventually will set you free.

%d bloggers like this: