Much as I am usually very happy to be a woman, and much as I generally like most people, both women and men, the three
female Justices of the the Supreme Court have made me very embarrassed to be a woman this week.
The whole point of women’s lib during the 1960/70’s when I grew up was to illustrate that women can be as intelligent, accomplished, and logical as men were reputed to be. Margaret Thatcher was one example of such a competent woman.
What Have Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg Done?
This week the three American
women Supreme Court Justices, who supposedly represent America’s intellectual cream of the crop, have embarrassed all of us with their nonsensical and unprofessional behavior.
They have joined other progressive politicians in a publicly supporting a political agenda, demanding that everyone in America pay for their birth control.
The three Justices have issued a searing dissent over a new contraceptive case (Wheaton College v. Burwell), in which they position themselves in opposition to the rest of the Supreme Court (comprised of men), thus implying that the Supreme Court does not treat women fairly and that these three
ladies women represent the “oppressed” women of the United States. Such an implication is unprofessional hogwash, unsuitable to a Supreme Court Justice, and to a woman.
Why is This SO Embarrassing?
- These 3 progressive Justices do NOT represent all women. 50% or more of women are conservative, pro-life and pro-religion. At least half of all women in the United States oppose the progressive political agenda, so the 3 Justices have no valid claim on representing women. When the claim to represent women, their claims are inaccurate.
- These 3 biased Justices misrepresent justice, since they are siding against religious freedom, against the First Amendment, and against the 80% of Americans who are religious. A biased Judge is not a competent Judge and should be impeached.
- These 3 Justices are illogical, since they are prioritizing a cheap non-essential such as birth control ($15 to $50 per month) over essentials such as food, shelter and clothing ($1,300+ per month) , essential needs which are not provided free of charge to American citizens. Don’t the 3 Justices realize that all American citizens are obliged to work to provide their own essential needs, unless they are physically or psychologically impaired?
Are the Justice trying to imply that all women are physically or psychologically impaired?
Or that nobody is obliged to work?
How can individuals incapable of logic to this degree serve on the Supreme Court?
- The 3 Justices insult all women, implying that women are not capable of responsible sexual behavior without help from the government. Women who are capable of responsible behavior in every other sphere of life, in professional life, in care of children, in sitting on the Supreme Court, are not capable of managing their sexual activity without help from the government? The Justices are painting quite the unflattering and primitive picture of the American woman today- irresponsible, promiscuous, and helpless in managing her own life.
- The 3 Justices seem to be confused on the definition of a right, if they do not realize that the Constitution cannot guarantee any rights to material needs without specifying whose duty it is to pay for this “right.”
How can one able citizen be required to pay for the needs of another able citizen?
Which citizens must pay for how many other citizens?
How can anything be decided by a Supreme Court that does not understand the difference between rights and needs?
Such irrational behavior on the part of the 3 female Justices is an embarrassment to us all, but particularly to women.
Instead of being a credit to women as Margaret Thatcher was, they have promoted the old terrible stereotype- the illogical, unreasonable, demanding, nagging woman.
Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ruth Ginsberg have let all women down.
Not surprising, then, to see this pubic reaction to the 3 Justice’s published dissent: