Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Hospitalization Matters
A Changing Supreme Court.
Fox reported on the hospital stay for the Supreme Court Justice. Ginsburg was released on Wednesday after her treatment. The time in the hospital was undoubtedly important for the three-time cancer survivor. The hospital prepared special protection for the Justice. At 87, the health concerns are paramount for her. That being said, the underlying concern for Ginsburg's health goes well beyond just herself.
The former ACLU attorney, Justice Ginsburg recently won $1 million dollars from what many consider a communist Chinese front organization, the Berggruen Institute.
"The institute is a pro-China think tank that unashamedly supports China’s invasive social credit system, which allows that country’s communist regime to exert even more control over its citizens’ lives."
The left is worried and the right seems thrilled. The right has long complained that Ginsburg secretly has a goal of setting up a socialist system. Other complaints about her include allegations that she supports the abolition of private property rights. Also, many scholars are starting to warn of the coming race laws that classify white people as "privileged," making them ineligible for "slavery" reparations and other skin color based hiring preferences. Obviously, Justice Ginsburg would likely be a rubber stamp for this matter. So the left would be severely curtailed with the loss of such a great advocate for what conservatives call "reverse discrimination" under the guise of "social justice."
Why else is Ginsburg so crucial to worldwide communism and abolition of individual rights? For one, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her own words, does not really like the US Constitution. True, she took an oath to support this document in the highest regard. But the Constitution upholds "individual rights," and many of its signers warned future generations against pure "democracy," which allows the majority to decide the fates of the minority.
Supreme Court Justices are supposed to protect our Constitution from being eroded with bogus legal decisions, or by politicians who pass laws harming the rights of others based upon pop culture. Most of all, they are supposed to place a check on totalitarian decisions that would curtail things like a citizen's rights to self-defense, life, and other liberty. These are the goals that lead to and maintain individual happiness. However, if Justice Ginsburg had her own way, she would prefer a system of government such as they have in South Africa, one of the most dangerous countries on earth. (See Al-Hayat TV, January 30, 2012).
“I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution — Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights.”
Historians and political experts would counter that South Africa is not a free country, and that white South Africans are regularly discriminated against, robbed, raped and killed with little to zero police protections. As a matter of fact, South Africa is recognized as the rape capital of the world. Also, modern South Africa is a socialist country founded by ANC communist, Nelson Mandela. So it's not free by western standards, and its economy is in ruins like most other socialist countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, for example.
Next, Canada’s “Charter of Rights and Freedoms” does not protect what conservatives and our founding fathers called "basic God-granted" rights under the law. And these are the rights enshrined in our Constitution as "unalienable." (Source). Last, even the most moderate politicians in the U.S. recognize The European Convention on Human Rights as farcical.
There is concern among many on the political left that if Ginsburg perishes before Donald Trump's term is over, she will be replaced with a justice who embraces the U.S. Constitution. That would not be too hard to do but for the democrat controlled House of Representatives. So for now, the former ACLU attorney will likely not be replaced, even if she passes away.
The Tilting SCOTUS?
No one knows what is going to happen in November. Furthermore, no one knows if there will be any changes to the Supreme Court before January 20th. Whether Trump or Biden wins in November, there will be a fight over a Justice next year. This also makes the role of the Senate especially more important. Why?
The Senate's role is for advice and consent on the President's judicial nominees. With Republicans holding the Senate, this looms large on the next confirmation battle. This is something to consider for the next potential Supreme Court nominations. Consider the ages of some of the justices.
- John Roberts: 65.
- Clarence Thomas 72
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg 87
- Stephen Breyer 81
- Sonia Sotomayor 66
- Elena Kagan 60
- Neil Gorsuch 52
- Brett Kavanaugh 55
The balance of the court rests on the tenure of each of these justices. With three justices above the age of 70, the next President will likely name two of the group's successors. Which President and which Justices have yet to be determined. The important cases of the next four years will come before the new Supreme Court, whether Ginsburg decides to retire. Issues of taxes, Chinese communist influence, activist judges, U.S. college professors and politicians, immigration, the Second Amendment, and more will likely be at the forefront of the next Court's agenda.