Ruth Vader Ginsburg shocked many on Saturday when she reportedly criticized the Roe v. Wade decision. Not because she cares at all about protecting life. And not because she cares about adhering to the Constitution. But because she believes the decision switched the momentum from pro-aborts to pro-lifers.
It's not good enough, I guess, for abortion to be legalized as a federal right. We all have to like it. She said:
"That was my concern, that the court had given opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly... My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change."This is interesting for a number of reasons. One, it shows that she views court decisions through the prism of ideology and politics rather than adherence to our founding documents.
Two, I know reading the tea leaves on any Supreme Court decision is dangerous work but her words lead me to believe she's not going to declare gay marriage a constitutional right. Not because she doesn't believe it should happen but because she'd be afraid that it would stop the momentum of the gay rights movement.
Mind you, I'm still fairly certain the court will find DOMA unconstitutional but stop short of declaring gay "marriage" a right. Mind you, it won't be because she thinks the Constitution doesn't really say anything about gay "marriage" but because she's afraid of stopping the momentum of the gay rights movement.