Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: no Live Free or Die for her! - Granite Grok

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: no Live Free or Die for her!

“When you’re part of a society, you can’t separate yourself from the obligations that citizens have”

Keep Calm and Carry on And Leave Me AloneIndependent; rugged individualism; self-responsibility.  The old maxim (quick, good, or cheap) is to pick two and call me back.  Ginsburg can’t as it is obvious, just as the Left believes, those attributes are just archaic.  Sure, they worked when our country was formed and the Constitution was written, but that’s just so old and well, people can’t make it on their own anymore without the help of others.  But the Left goes further than that – to a forced communitariansm in which the Government dragoons you into “helping” or being “charitable” towards others. Doubt me?  This is what she said concerning the Hobby Lobby decision:

“The decision that an employer could refuse to cover contraceptives meant that women would have to take care of that for themselves or the men who cared,” Ginsburg replied. “Contraceptive protection is something that every woman must have access to to control her own destiny,” she added.

What a concept, that “that women would have to take care of…themselves“! For thousands of years, that is the way it was.  But you see,

one should not be surprised by this.  Remember, a large part of the impetus behind Progressivism is that during the Industrial Revolution, life became too complicated and too hard for mere individuals.  Thus, people in Government MUST take care of them and MUST direct them to be “efficient”.  This idea has both mushroomed and jumped off the cliff into full blown Communitariansm – isolated into Democrat identity groups, they are declared to be victims and we all must treat and take care of them.  And we all know that victims are fearful, frozen from acting for themselves, and there is always somebody else around to blame – the oppressor(s).

  1. And in this case, she is fine with deciding that a “benefit” should be redefined from something that was once voluntarily offered to employees to now being government mandated.
  2. And in this case, she continues the new meme of “access” should be redefined from something that is available for some kind of payment to “others must be made to provide for me”.

In both cases, let’s treat women like mere children – they can’t fend for themselves like adults should be able to and that it is perfectly fine to steal someone else’s labor for “sex without ramifications”.  This is now called “destiny” – being at the mercy of someone else.  Used to be called by other names.  I think, like all things Leftist and Democrat spawned, a Race to the Lowest Common Denominator.  But she didn’t stop there in regurgitating the Leftist pap for those that can’t think for themselves (or on the other hand, those always looking to get another handout):

“I certainly respect the belief of the Hobby Lobby owners. On the other hand, they have no constitutional right to foist that belief on the hundreds and hundreds of women who work for them who don’t share that belief. I had never seen the free exercise of religion clause interpreted in such a way.”

We ARE in trouble as a nation when things that have been straightforward for centuries is immediately turned on its head at our highest judicial level – that a Constitutional enumerated Right to the free expression of religion (again, not created BY the Constitution but pre-existent natural right listed IN the Constitution) should now be of a lower priority than to give people stuff to have sex without consequence (er, what’s the natural right in that?).   But then again, it is about redefining the scenario and language to “protect the victim” (so-called).  Not content to review this from a top down scenario – it is GOVERNMENT that is abridging the religious beliefs of the owners (as in the Hobby Lobby Greene family) and assuming control of their company (or, at least tried to) by forcing them into an involuntary action.

There is NO shred of evidence that the Greene family told its employees “you will convert to Catholicism or be fired”.  They never said “Follow our theological precepts or be fired”.  All they wanted to do is run their company on their broad principles – and what Ginsberg believes is that Government has the right to tell the Greene’s to do what IT says to do.

But here we see Ginsburg drawing the Leftist “social contract” into her deciding what should have been based on Constitutional bases (and not the RFRA statue that actually served as the basis of the majority decision):

“When you’re part of a society, you can’t separate yourself from the obligations that citizens have”

I believe that I have an obligation to my immediate family (now reduced to my sons and my wife because of that sacred vow I made 33 years to her and to God).  None of my extended family lives in close (heck, not even in the New England area) and my brother and I were the “baby cousins” while the others were already in college, so not many bonds were ever extended to us).  I place an obligation upon myself to watch out for my friends and I take that seriously – but it is a voluntary bond in this case.

Yes, I have obligations to other citizens – don’t hurt them, don’t steal from them, pay my taxes, don’t be nuisance, follow the law.  Problem is, every time I turn around, I have another Liberal telling me I have yet another obligation that I must fulfill – over and over and over again.  Thus, more must be taken from me to satisfy their sense of obligations.

I have no voluntary choice in these obligations – they demand I follow them, especially as they move these “social contract” items into actual law.  Boy, that invisible contract must be a really doozy and a real long one.  Problem is, I’ve never seen it.  So, I don’t think that it can be said that I’ve agreed to it or signed one.  But Ginsburg certainly thinks I’m supposed to give Birth Control pills to complete strangers.

Gee, when will they agree to my version of that Social Contract.  I have a simple item to start and it would actually be real easy for them to do:

How about you just leave me alone?

Costs you nothing in time, effort, or money.  If fact, you could ignore me, that would work (and make me happy).  Simply, do nothing – and expect the same from me (until I decide to do otherwise).  Fact is, I’d appreciate it muchly.

***********************

And for grins and giggles (moans and groans?) Don’t for get this (she thinks the US Constitution is flawed and countries looking for a new one should look elsewhere) and here (in deciding Constitutional cases, judges should look at non-US law).

 

 

 

>