I wonder what you, as a lawyer, think of Ruth Bader Ginsberg as a Supreme Court justice.
As we touched on in a previous topic, I (as a non-lawyer) see her as a USSC justice who is a partisan and a liberal activist on the Court, rather than a justice who rules based on legal precedent and preservation of the true intent of the Constitution.
A few examples I can think of offhand.
1) Ginsberg ruled on gay marriage a few years ago, and it turned out that just a few weeks before the ruling, Ginsberg had conducted the ceremony at a gay wedding! Manifesting a certain bias in her ruling, where she should have recused herself.
and
2) Where some African country was forming a new government, she said that forming a nation's constitution now, she wouldn't use the U.S. Constitution as a model for forming a new government. Which was quite alarming to me, since it is her job to judge laws that conform to that U.S. Constitution, that she seemed to have an ironic contempt and disregard for!
Her and Sotomayor are the two weak links on the Court, that seem (my opinion) the most prone to rule on their own biases and personal liberal advocacy, rather than the Constitutionality of the law.
I see her as very intelligent, quite collegial, but extremely partisan.
And if she passes away while a republican is president, you're going to see liberals driving their kids out to the desert for mass murder suicides.
