I have discussed in two recent posts (here and here) the disturbing consequences of taking the abstract principles of "autonomy" and "reproductive freedom" to certain logical conclusions. It turns out that some of my theoretical musings that I intended to be shocking (such as advocating for legalized prostitution and wondering why children can't consent to sex) were previously advocated by now Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. You can read all about it at NROs Bench Memos. Here are some samples of things Ginsburg advocated in 1974:
“Prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.”
A statutory restriction on political rights of bigamists “is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships.”
“The Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts, while ostensibly providing ‘separate but equal’ benefits to both sexes, perpetuate stereotyped sex roles to the extent that they carry out congressionally-mandated purposes.”
Other nuggets abound. For example, Ginsburg recommended that the age of consent for purposes of statutory rape be lowered from 16 to 12.
Is there anything advocated by John Roberts, to say nothing of the most extreme Bush judicial nominee, that compares with these far out arguments by Ginsburg? Yet, as Prof. Blanchard notes, Ginsburg's nomination to the Supreme Court was supported by the Senate on a 96-3 vote. If Republicans can support this woman, why can't Democrats like Harry Reid support John Roberts, who has been called by the dean of Washington reporters, David Broder, "so obviously -- ridiculously -- well-equipped to lead government's third branch that it is hard to imagine how any Democrats can justify a vote against his confirmation"?
Recent Comments