moonbattery logo

Nov 27 2012

Ruth Bader Ginsburg Calls for All Female Supreme Court

How many female justices on the Supreme Court would be enough to placate liberals? Let’s ask Ruth Bader Ginsburg:

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says there will be enough women on the Supreme Court when all nine justices are female.

“So now the perception is, yes, women are here to stay. And when I’m sometimes asked when will there be enough [women on the Supreme Court]? And I say when there are nine, people are shocked. But there’d been nine men, and nobody’s ever raised a question about that,” she said.

All nine justices being women might be enough for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, but it takes more than female gender to qualify for the most powerful court in the land. Others will shriek until all nine are black, and still others will insist that all nine publicly attest to engaging in sexual depravity.

When all nine justices are lesbian black women, Keith Ellison et al. will demand that all nine be Muslim. By then we will probably have militant little people demanding that all nine be dwarves.

One thing is clear. If Democrats continue to appoint them, eventually all nine will be clownish left-wing fanatics with nothing but contempt for the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.

A lunatic clown.

On a tip from Wiggins.

32 Responses to “Ruth Bader Ginsburg Calls for All Female Supreme Court”

  1. Sarge says:

    I’m sure she wants her seat replaced by Valarie Jarrett.

  2. Stephan The Original says:

    Only an idiot would care what sex or colour skin a Supreme Court nominee was. Apparently MLK’s words about ‘content of their character’ mean nothing to these dolts.

  3. Ghost of FA Hayek says:

    Think how many workplace discrimination cases she has ruled on over the years.

  4. AC says:

    Comrade Chairman will likely be replacing two conservative justices with his handpicked Marxist apparatchiks.

    This will complete the destruction of the Constitution.

  5. rinardman says:

    I don’t care what sex, color, religion, depravity they exhibit….as long as they obey and defend the Constitution of the United States, as it was written.

    Not some progressive rewrite of the Constitution.

  6. T says:

    As dementia sets in, what we have here is a Supreme dysfunction.

  7. -Sepp says:

    Her point is that nothing that’s liberal or leftist can EVER be liberal or, leftist enough to suit them.
    They always need the furthest extreme in order to placate themselves…for only a short period until they discover the “next worst” thing to foist upon America.

    To her and her ilk, having black or, hispanic conservatives on the SCOTUS is the same as having no neither since they don’t fit the leftist mold of how “victimized and looking for revenge” black or, hispanic should be acting like and, basing their “constitutional” decisions on.

    The makeup of the “ideal” leftist SCOTUS would be anyone except a white person or, any other person who has the ability to interpret laws based on the constitution…but instead would interpret it based on “feeeeeelings” toward leftist and other Anti-American ideals.

  8. StanInTexas says:

    What Ginsberg is saying is the epitome of Liberal diversity. It is and always has been superficial. No need for actually being qualified, all that is necessary is for the person to have the right “characteristics”.

    I wonder is Ginsberg would be happy with Sarah Palin, Condaleeza Rice, and Michelle Bachmann on the Supreme Court. After all, they are women.

  9. Robin H says:

    To truly get the best candidates, the committees should not know anything about the candidates other than their education and qualifications. They should be a number, and all questions should be blindly submitted. But that will never happen because it’s too much fun to tilt the makeup of the court to “todays” favorite.

  10. Zim says:

    The problem with this court is it does away with three branches of government. No checks and balances.

  11. Gunny G says:

    Secession is looking better and better.

  12. Jaynie59 says:

    All it took was one. There was a special on C-SPAN a couple of years ago that described how Sandra Day O’Connor started the “tradition” of having all nine justices have lunch together during the oral argument phase of cases. The Supreme Court is all about tradition. It was filmed just after Elena Kagan was appointed in 2010 and it had interviews with all the justices.

    It was pretty sickening to watch Clarence Thomas describe how much he enjoyed these luncheons. How “congenial” they were. How they all had so much respect for each other and how important it was that they get along and not let ideology get in the way of their humanity. Or some such drivel. One of the justices, I forget who, talked about how they never talk politics but about things like theater and opera.

    I caught a rerun of the special a couple of weeks before the Obamacare decision was handed down and I knew it was lost. Conservatives cannot respect liberals without caving to their veiw points. It can’t be done. Everytime I read a conservative blogger talk about how many liberal friends he has I want to puke.

    There is no hope for this country. Women have completely succeeded in the total emasculation of men and there’s no way to reverse it. It’s too late. Men are simply incapable of standing up to a single woman.

  13. Doug says:

    Can you imagine this on the Supreme Court?

    Don’t answer that.

  14. modd kenwood says:

    I propose the flag of The United States have it’s 50 stars removed and replaced with images of 50 slices of burnt toast

  15. Lindon says:

    What is it with Marxist Jews anyway? I’ve never understood their destructive impulses. Let them try Israel for a while. If that’s not Marxist enough, North Koreas may be more their cup of tea. Useful idiots all.

  16. katzkiner says:

    Sounds like White males are going to need to establish a White Zone for all us White male REFUGEES. How does it feel to be hated, to be faded, to telling only lies. The lie is that this is okay and we should not be incredibly angry.

  17. Jimbo says:

    If that’s what Ginsberg wants – ‘she’ will have to step down.

  18. bobdog says:

    Thought you were going to have a good day, dincha? Well, let me help you with that.

    All snarkiness aside, consider that two and probably three Supremes are going to retire during Obama’s second term. The Supreme Court is one of the last remaining obstacles to a completely transformed America, and I’ll bet your grandchildren will not be happy about how it turns out.

  19. bluffcreek1967 says:

    Ginsburg’s wish demonstrates once again that for most feminists, it’s not about bring equal with men, but in totally displacing them. They think the world will be better without the leadership and influence of men – unless they’re feminized or gay men.

    However, if one is so inclined to think that the world will improve and be at peace without the presence of men, consider what it would really be like if women were to rule it completely. You know all those bitter, self-involved women at your workplace who never seem to be able to get along with each other? That’s what it would be like – except it would be on a grand, world-wide scale! This doesn’t mean men are without their faults, but women have a propensity toward pettiness, cattiness, and they are emotionally swayed rather easily. The world, in fact, would be crazier than it already is. Consider what sort of disasterous decisions would be made by the likes of Ginsburg, Sotomeyer, Kagan, and other feminized leftists?!

  20. Bo-Jangles says:

    Ginsberg, an “ultra, ultra-leftist” Jew from Brooklyn, NY, apparently believes that it’s not only Jews who are God’s “chosen people”, but Leftists as well.

    If the American people were in their right mind, which they clearly are not, right after repealing the civil rights act of 1964, they would then take a “very serious” look at the law giving women the vote. We are living in a time when votes are more dangerous than guns.

  21. Spider says:

    Well said bluffcreek 1967. Your comment reminds us of the fact that no matter how bad things get, they can always get worse.

  22. IslandLifer says:

    I would rather trust 9 HAL 9000’s.

  23. Ruth Buzzy Ginbottle says:

    C an’t
    U nderstand
    N ormal
    T hinking

  24. whotothewhat says:

    Shes just hoping to someday live out a childhood dream of having a slumber party. Along with requisite activities of truth or dare talking about boys, and the half naked pillow fights followed by some awkward experimentation.

  25. Ummah Gummah says:


    There should be an age limit for judges.. this Ginsburg character seems to be more than a little long in the tooth..


  26. Ummah Gummah says:

    IslandLifer says:
    November 27, 2012 at 11:00 am
    I would rather trust 9 HAL 9000′s.

    Careful what you wish for. Those HALs could well be bought and programmed by SCYTL.


  27. Bob Roberts says:

    Ginsberg is a walking, talking example of what’s wrong with curing cancer.

  28. grayjohn says:

    If Ms. Ginsberg contracted every STD known to man, would she be a Social Justice?

  29. Sam Adams says:

    An old female sexist isn’t very attractive, is she?

  30. Beforethestorm says:

    I always feel like apologizing to everybody for being female because of her and other womyn. I think this person and others like her actually belong to some weird third sex.

  31. Beforethestorm says:

    I’d go with you, as would every other normal (that is to say, not insane) woman.

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy