Ms. Ginsburg’s position regarding the U.S. Constitution is well chronicled; in summary she posits the U.S. Constitution as grossly inadequate in depth and scope and far too deferential with respect to “sovereign rights” of the Individual (vis a vis the “Bill of Rights”). As to the communion of States the 10th Amendment is a far too restrictive covenant for a Justice who consistently articulates a view decidedly more meddlesome, liberal intimating an expansive domain where governance may more freely roam.
Oddly enough, being that these two deferential points are foundational elements of representative government, that this should be the personal compass of an Individual, a Senior Justice, whose range of influence is as penetrating as it is unchecked. To grasp how far left or right of purpose and intention the Court has floundered one need only observe the frequency of occasions were the Courts Opinions side in one direction or another and how predictably they occur with a uniform bias.
Routinely, Justices consistently and similarly align their positions in a predictable block which is not at all dissimilar to that of the other two branches of government and their “party line” mode. Now then, with the aforementioned in mind, I am drawn to the following question: If the underlying construct/order upon which the Government, and by extension The Law, is prescribed being none other than the U.S. Constitution, how then is it possible that such division should occur in a manner so routine? After all are they (the Justices) not referring to the same document?
I understand that there will be those who will say something along that lines that people are different and are prone to interpretations unique to their own personal compass, but we’re not talking about the human potential for abstracts and situational relevance, we’re talking about equity, universal applicability of the rule-of-law and certainly not the fluid construct of transient thought. This issue, precisely because of the concept of “equality”, must then also require the component of uniformity in application; should it not? Do you really want political duality to be part of the decision filter? If you do, then you must uniformly expect erratic division to be a regular factor.
Ms. Ginsburg has every right to have or even maintain politically-enriched positions however, given that she holds a position where allegiance to the U.S. Constitution (and not her abstract opinions) is a necessity, the expressions and actions of one Justice Ginsburg should be confined to only those which do not express or imply any reverence toward or in opposition to any issue that might intimate that her allegiance to the Constitutional order is nothing short of absolute.
Justice Ginsburg routinely opines in a manner articulating an irreverent view of this Nation’s Legal/Governmental structure which is, without question, a contributing factor in Courts divided view of its purpose and appropriate role as the living voice and protector of the U.S. Constitution. At the very minimum Chief Justice Roberts should issue a public admonition of Justice Ginsburg’s undignified conduct.
Curtis C. Greco, Founder