Kirsters Baish| The Democrats who are guilty of grandstanding had ought to be ashamed of themselves… even far-left Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has called them out. National Review reported that Ginsburg made an appearance at George Washington University Law School in Washington, D.C. this past Wednesday, during which she slammed the way Democrats set up intentional roadblocks in order to delay the confirmation of President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.
During her speech, Justice Ginsburg spoke on the clear differences between her hearings and the hearings for Kavanaugh.
“The way it was, was right. The way it is, is wrong,” Ginsburg said to the audience, which prompted them to break out in applause.
“The atmosphere in ’93 was truly bipartisan. The vote on my confirmation was 96 to 3, even though I had spent about 10 years of my life litigating cases under the auspices of the ACLU and I was on the ACLU board,” she went on.
She also explained Justice Antonin Scalia had been confirmed by a 98-0 vote in the Senate. Scalia is considered a very conservative Judge.
“Think of Justice Scalia, who’s certainly a known character in, what was it? 1986,” Ginsburg stated, as reported by The Washington Times. “The vote was unanimous, every Democrat and every Republican voted for him. That’s the way it should be, instead of what it’s become, which is a highly partisan show. The Republicans move in lockstep, so do the Democrats. I wish I could wave a magic wand and have it go back to the way it was.”
Conservative Tribune writes:
It’s possible to read those comments and even leave aside the fact that Ginsburg has herself been part of the problem by deciding to break the nonpartisan nature of the court by commenting negatively on Donald Trump’s presidential run, but that seems absolutely quaint compared to what we saw last week from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It was kind of difficult to figure out which Democrat came out looking worse: Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey or Sen. Kamala Harris of California. Both were clearly positioning for 2020 presidential runs and both came out looking much worse in the process.
Senator Booker’s ridiculous “Spartacus moment,” during which he raucously claimed that he would declassify documents having to do with Brett Kavanaugh’s work with the Bush administration. The problem was that the documents had already been declassified.
“We cleared the documents last night shortly after Senator Booker’s staff asked us to,” Bill Burck, a presidential records representative for George W. Bush, stated in response. “We were surprised to learn about Senator Booker’s histrionics this morning because we had already told him he could use the documents publicly. In fact, we have said yes to every request made by the Senate Democrats to make documents public.”
Senator Kamala Harris attempted to tie Kavanaugh to a conversation that was had with a law firm with connections to Trump. She couldn’t produce an actual source however. Then she tweeted out doctored footage of Kavanaugh in an attempt to make it seem as though he had backed limiting birth control.
Kavanaugh chooses his words very carefully, and this is a dog whistle for going after birth control. He was nominated for the purpose of taking away a woman’s constitutionally protected right to make her own health care decisions. Make no mistake – this is about punishing women. pic.twitter.com/zkBjXzIvQI
— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) September 7, 2018
He was actually describing a plaintiff’s view on the issue. Harris ended up having to correct herself.
Here is Kavanaugh's full answer. There's no question that he uncritically used the term "abortion-inducing drugs," which is a dog whistle term used by extreme anti-choice groups to describe birth control. pic.twitter.com/PMbZzu8DqD
— Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) September 8, 2018
Conservative Tribune writes:
Kavanaugh is an eminently qualified jurist and his confirmation hearings — when they focused on judicial philosophy and temperament and not on what we now like to euphemistically refer to as “partisan bickering” — proved that. He’s also well within the mainstream of judicial philosophy.
And yet, his ascension to the Supreme Court will likely happen on a party-line vote, which is sad. Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg — who likely won’t agree with him on many controversial decisions — laments that it will happen that way.