Skip to main content
Report this ad

See also:

Gender politics and its distorted world view

Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images

It has to be in order to have a liberal/progressive/socialist-lite mindset a person would need to possess a misunderstanding on all things government. For instance, how does the Supreme Court work? What is its function?

Katie Couric has an interview in Yahoo News with Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the oldest member of the court and possibly the world, pertaining to the recent Hobby Lobby ruling. Implicit in the discussion is the notion that the court makes decisions based on their personal judgments; what's fair and what isn't:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, fresh off a bruising loss in the Hobby Lobby birth control case last month, told Yahoo Global News Anchor Katie Couric in an exclusive interview that she believes the male Supreme Court justices who voted against her have a "blind spot" when it comes to women.

"Do you believe that the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision?" Couric asked Ginsburg of the 5-4 Hobby Lobby ruling, which cleared the way for employers to deny insurance coverage of contraceptives to female workers on religious grounds.

The misunderstanding here is compounded. For one is the function of the court and in another the case of Hobby Lobby. Hobby Lobby is a closely held corporations that sued the government over an Obamacare mandate that forced them to provide abortifacts to their employees through their health care plan.

Arguments before the court delved into the nature of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and how it may apply to Hobby Lobby's claim and within the law whether or not there was a "least restrictive" alternative for the government to achieve its objective under Obamacare. What the case was not about is what's best for women's health and making a decision from that starting point. This would be beyond the scope of the court. It isn't their job to decide fairness, but to make decisions on laws, how they are written, intent, and how they may affect the rights of citizens.

But from the Couric interview gender fairness, this is all that matters. Couric asks if the "male" justices "truly" understood the "ramifications" of their decision as though being male or female is the guiding factor when it comes to deciding cases. Their view of the law, by implication, is distorting by virtue of their gender. The women had it right and the men had it wrong.

And this is nonsense. But it's what passes for "news". Nothing in the interview delves into the complicated arguments that went into deciding the case. For all anyone with no knowledge of the case, reading the Couric interview or listening to other mainstream news sources, it was all about men versus the poor hapless women and their "health choices" being "denied" by a"corporation" because the court decided that "corporations" are people and can now "impose" their religious beliefs on their employees and the male judges agreed.

There is a telling feature to all this. If in Ginsberg/Couric's world view where men justices base their decisions based on their gender, shouldn't that also mean that a female justice rendering decisions based on their gender be equally egregious?

In a far more ridiculous moment in the interview, Ginsberg is optimistic:

But justices continue to think and can change," she added, hopefully. "They have wives. They have daughters. By the way, I think daughters can change the perception of their fathers.

Come on dad "least restrictive"?? If you don't rule for the women side I'm going upstairs into my room and never speak to you again!

What kind of a world do liberals think we live in?


Report this ad