Justice Ruth Ginsberg is the most liberal and radical member of the Supreme Court. This is a none-too-bright Justice who has no respect for the Constitution, instead she believes that the Constitution should be transformed through simply judicial fait to the create the vision of a more enlightened society that Ginsberg favors.

Ginsberg has no respect for democracy. Legislators legislate to create that more enlightened society that the public favors, if they so favor it. Not Justices who think they can transform the law to suit their ideological ends. Just a philosophy negates the whole idea of legislative law making. And just what is Ginsberg idea of a more enlightened society? Eminent domain exists in the constitution for the purpose of providing just compensation when the government takes private property for public purposes, i.e. schools, highways, hospitals.

In 2005, in Kelo v. New London; Justice Ginsberg was one of five Justices to rule that the country of New London can forcibly take private property for private use if the use would bring in more tax revenue. The constitutional clause was distorted beyond recognition for the purpose of making every single home in America vulnerable to greedy governments. This is what the despicable Ginsberg calls enlightenment. She simply does not care for the constitution, she just believes that what ever she likes should be the rule. This is Justice worthy of impeachment.

And she has no low. This was demonstrated in her recent comments regarding abortion. Ginsberg defended the “right” to abortion-on-demand on the grounds that abortion controls population growth. So does the murder of five-years-olds. Here is what Ginsberg recently said on the national legalization of abortion:

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

Who are those “populations” we do not want so much of, I wonder. Does Ginsberg think that there are too Blacks in the world?

This is the extreme feminism of Ginsberg that takes out an ethical or moral questions in the abortion debate. That abortion, the killing of an unborn child, is just a simply population growth method as akin to handing out condoms.

She then prejudiced any abortion cases that may come before the high court by dismissing pro-lifers as people “fighting a losing battle.” She has no open mind on abortion and thinks that her view should never even be debatable. And believes that people morally opposed to abortion should have to finance it through taxes as this extreme liberal, inhumane feminist believes so.

And it is not a “losing battle.” The pro-life movement has been making strides for years and the for first time a majority of Americans describe themselves as pro-life.

Those of us who are pro-life respect the life of all, including the most vulnerable, and we respect personal responsibility. And we will win.