Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, probably the most overreaching and worst Supreme Court Justice in the history of the United States as far a upholding the Constitution goes, said that if Donald Trump wins the presidential election, she’ll consider moving. In an interview with The New York Times published Sunday, the Supreme Court justice, whose peers traditionally avoid political topics like the plague, said her husband, who died in 2010, would have said, “Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand.”
“I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president,” she said. “For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”
As The Hill adds, Ginsburg, 83, said she will not leave her job “as long as I can do it full steam.” But she mentioned that that Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer are no longer young, alluding to the effect the presidential election will have on the court.
As the NYT adds, her colleagues have said nothing in public about the presidential campaign or about Mr. Obama’s stalled nomination of Judge Merrick B. Garland to the Supreme Court. But Justice Ginsburg doesn’t mind jumping into politics even when her job is supposed to depend on her being non political. She even offered an unequivocal endorsement of Judge Garland to fill the vacancy left by the death of Antonin Scalia.
“I think he is about as well qualified as any nominee to this court,” she said. “Super bright and very nice, very easy to deal with. And super prepared. He would be a great colleague.”
When asked about Obama filling the vacancy, she didn’t mind jumping into that political question either. “There’s nothing in the Constitution that says the president stops being president in his last year.”
This is the same Ginsburg who called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to persons who are “less than 12 years old.” She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate slave sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered legal “within the zone of privacy.”
Ginsberg stated in a 2009 interview with the New York Times that she thought the 1973 Roe v. Wade case which legalized abortion concerned the elimination of undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it “populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Many have interpreted this as an endorsement of abortion as a method of population control and/or eugenics.
So I say, Why wait? move early!!! Beat the rush!!! You miserable old bat.