Jonah Goldberg wonders what would’ve happened if a white (Republican) guy had said what Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said:
Here’s what Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in Sunday’s New York Times Magazine: “Frankly I had thought that at the time (Roe v. Wade) was decided,” Ginsburg told her interviewer, Emily Bazelon, “there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
The comment, which bizarrely elicited no follow-up from Bazelon or any further coverage from the New York Times — or any other major news outlet — was in the context of Medicaid funding for abortion. Ginsburg was surprised when the Supreme Court in 1980 barred taxpayer support for abortions for poor women. After all, if poverty partly described the population you had “too many of,” you would want to subsidize it in order to expedite the reduction of unwanted populations.
Left unclear is whether Ginsburg endorses the eugenic motivation she ascribed to the passage of Roe v. Wade or whether she was merely objectively describing it. One senses that if Antonin Scalia had offered such a comment, a Times interviewer would have sought more clarity, particularly on the racial characteristics of these supposedly unwanted populations…
And Ann Coulter also examines liberal racial hypocrisy:
Every time a Democrat senator has talked during the Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor this week, I felt lousy about my country. Not for the usual reasons when a Democrat talks, but because Democrats revel in telling us what a racist country this is.
Interestingly, the Democrats’ examples of ethnic prejudice did not include Clarence Thomas, whose nomination hearings began with the Democrats saying, “You may now uncuff the defendant.”
Their examples did not include Miguel Estrada, the brilliant Harvard-educated lawyer who was blocked from an appellate court judgeship by Senate Democrats expressly on the grounds that he is a Hispanic — as stated in Democratic staff memos that became public…
Indeed, Sen. Patrick Leahy lied about Estrada’s nomination, blaming it on Republicans: “He was not given a hearing when the Republicans were in charge. He was given a hearing when the Democrats were in charge.”
The Republicans were “in charge” for precisely 14 days between Estrada’s nomination on May 9, 2001, and May 24, 2001, when Sen. Jim Jeffords switched parties, giving Democrats control of the Senate. The Democrats then refused to hold a hearing on Estrada’s nomination for approximately 480 days, shortly before the 2002 election.
Even after Republicans won back a narrow majority in 2003, Estrada was blocked “by an extraordinary filibuster mounted by Senate Democrats” — as The New York Times put it.
Memos from the Democratic staff of the Judiciary Committee were later unearthed, revealing that they considered Estrada “especially dangerous” — as stated in a memo by a Sen. Dick Durbin staffer — because “he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment.”
Sandy Berger wasn’t available to steal back the memos, so Durbin ordered Capitol Police to seize the documents from Senate computer servers and lock them in a police vault.
Led by Sens. Leahy and Chuck Schumer, Democrats ferociously opposed Estrada, who would have been the first Hispanic to sit on the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. They were so determined to keep him off the Supreme Court that Leahy and Schumer introduced legislation at one point to construct a fence around Estrada’s house.
In frustration, Estrada finally withdrew his name on Sept. 5, 2003.
At the time, liberal historian David Garrow predicted that if the Democrats blocked Estrada, they would be “handing Bush a campaign issue to use in the Hispanic community.”
Alas, today Democrats can’t really place Estrada — James Carville confuses him with that other Hispanic, Alberto Gonzales. On MSNBC they laugh about his obscurity, asking if he was the cop on “CHiPs.” They also can’t recall the name “Anita Hill.” Nor can anyone remember African-American Janice Rogers Brown or what the Democrats did to her…
So when Republicans treat Sotomayor with respect and Sen. Lindsey Graham says his “hope” is that “if we ever get a conservative president and they nominate someone who has an equal passion on the other side, that we will not forget this moment,” I think it’s a lovely speech.
It might even persuade me if I were born yesterday.
But Democrats treat judicial nominations like war — while Republicans keep being gracious, hoping Democrats will learn by example.
Sen. Teddy Kennedy accused Reagan nominee Robert Bork of trying to murder women, segregate blacks, institute a police state and censor speech — everything short of driving a woman into a lake! — within an hour of Reagan’s announcing Bork’s nomination.
To defend “the right to privacy,” liberals investigated Bork’s video rentals. (Alfred Hitchcock, the Marx Brothers’ movies and “Ruthless People” — the last one supposedly a primer for dealing with the Democrats.)
Liberals unleashed scorned woman Anita Hill against Clarence Thomas in the 11th hour of his hearings to accuse him of sexual harassment — charges that were believed by no one who knew both Thomas and Hill, or by the vast majority of Americans watching the hearings.
But when the tables were turned and Bill Clinton nominated left-wing extremist/ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Republicans lavished her with praise and voted overwhelmingly to confirm her, in a 96-to-3 vote. (Poor Ruth. If Sotomayor is confirmed, Ginsburg will no longer be known as “the hot one in the robe.”)
The next Clinton nominee, Stephen Breyer, was also treated gallantly — no video rental records or perjurious testimony was adduced against him — and confirmed in an 87-to-9 vote.
As Mrs. Sam Alito can attest, the magnanimity was not returned to Bush’s Supreme Court nominees. She was driven from the hearings in tears by the Democrats’ vicious attacks on her husband’s character. The great “uniter” Barack Obama voted against both nominees.
Even Justice Ginsburg recently remarked to The New York Times that her and Justice Breyer’s hearings were “unusual” in how “civil” they were.
Hmmm, why might that be?…
And the Weekly Standard speculates on what would have happened if Sarah had made the malapropisms Sonia made:
Ed Whelan writes:
Judge Sotomayor says “eminent” when she means “imminent,” “providence” instead of “province,” “story of knowledge” instead of “store of knowledge,” and so on. Does the fact that she is a Latina immunize her from attention to that sort of (admittedly not uncommon) foible?
To answer Whelan’s question: These malapropisms would only be noteworthy and revealing if they were spoken by a certain country bumpkin Republican governor of Alaska. When a wise Latina accidentally says “vagrancies of … the moment” instead of “vagaries of … the moment” during the oral argument of the Ricci case, we’re supposed to ignore the slip-up, as the Wall Street Journal did, but make sure to inform readers that they should be impressed by the fact that “The Catholic-school-educated judge clearly knew the Latin plural of ‘forum.'”…