Watch as the Supreme Court justice TOTALLY DESTROYS the rule of law.
Since there was no bride to be the “belle” at the ritzy D.C. wedding of Shakespeare Theater Company artistic director Michael Kahn and Manhattan architect Charles Mitchem this weekend, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who officiated, was happy to play the part. And she did so with panache, says Maureen Dowd:
The most glittering moment for the crowd came during the ceremony. With a sly look and special emphasis on the word “Constitution,” Justice Ginsburg said that she was pronouncing the two men married by the powers vested in her by the Constitution of the United States. . . . The guests began applauding loudly.
For a sitting Supreme Court justice facing a case on precisely this divisive issue, her remark seems — let’s put it mildly — injudicious. But Ruth Bader Ginsburg is not just some Supreme Court Justice. She is “Notorious R.B.G.”
The coinage, a mash-up of Ginsburg and murdered rapper The Notorious B.I.G. (a.k.a. Biggie Smalls), was the brainchild of then–NYU law student Shana Khiznik in 2013, shortly after Justice Ginsburg issued much-feted dissents in Fisher v. University of Texas, an affirmative-action case, and Shelby County v. Holder, a case dealing with the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Since then she has become an Internet sensation: ubiquitous meme, Halloween costume for infants, arm tat, the likeliest candidate on the Supreme Court to be made into an ice-cream flavor. In February, U.S. News & World Report recalled how Ginsburg drank before the 2015 State of the Union (!), once rode an elephant (!!), and another time went parasailing (!!@#$%!!!) — all dredged up “just in case you need more reasons to love Notorious RBG.”
I’m good, thanks.
Cults are a fixture of American political life — the current president, recall, framed himself with a mock Greek temple in 2008 — but outside the halls of law schools, cults of personality have tended not to form around Supreme Court justices. The arrangement of the judicial system is supposed to favor impartiality, which is a virtue that does not lend itself to popular acclaim. Few people actually want objectivity in a judge; they want a judge who will side with them.
Which is why Ginsburg has occasioned such celebration. This weekend was not the first time Ginsburg has spoken less than discreetly about a hot-button issue. When she criticized Roe v. Wade at the University of Chicago in 2013, it was not because of anything the decision had or had not done; it was because it “stimulated the mobilization of a right-to-life movement and an attendant reaction in Congress and state legislatures.” “It seemed to stop the momentum” toward the reduction of abortion restrictions, she lamented.
SOURCE: National Review – Ian Tuttle