People We Don't Want Too Many Of...

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was recently interviewed by one of those thoroughly professional journalism people in regards to the circus that is Sotomayor, when she let slip a very disturbing little gem which will probably be remembered forever. In fact, it might be the only thing ever uttered by Justice Ginsburg which will be remembered at all.

Speaking on Roe v. Wade, Madam Justice told the so-called reporter who asked her about the landmark usurpation of State and Congressional authority by a renegade Court that she was under the impression that the real purpose of Roe was (paraphrasing here) "to control certain populations which we don't want too many of..."

The reporter, probably too shocked by what she'd just heard, failed to ask the logical follow-up question; "What'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?", oh sorry, I mean "Did you have a particular population in mind, Madam Justice"?

I'm only assuming that she (the reporter) was shocked. What's more likely is that her finely-honed journalistic skill set (ripping things off the Internet without confirmation or attribution, making shit up to fit your argument, making false attacks against conservatives, learning where the free coffee and donuts are) was insufficient to cope with such an earth-shattering revelation of what one of America's most powerful judges thinks about the value of human life....especially if it belongs to a person we "don't want too many of."

Since the Justice didn't elaborate, and the reporter was somehow prevented (probably by a brain tumor) from asking for clarification, let me take a stab at filling in the list of people we supposedly don't want, and which Roe was probably intended to "control" according to Madam Justice;

Blacks.
Hispanics.
The Handicapped.
The Mentally Ill.
Criminals.
Christians.
Republicans.
Rich White Heterosexual Patrician Males (specifically).
Men (in general)

For those of you who are not familiar with the Eugenics Movement which was a hallmark of Progressive thinking in this country during the early part of the last century, this is the point.
The Eugenicists held that people, like dogs, cows or racehorses, could be bred to produce superior specimens (what the Nazis would call Ubermenchen, or Supermen) who exhibit what the Eugenicists considered the finest traits of the human race. Things like intelligence, strength, athleticism, artistic sense, according to this theory, could be bred into successive generations of human beings until we were all 'perfect'.

Traits that were undesirable: propensity to disease, deformities, anti-social behavior, ignorance would be 'bred out' of the human race, by the process of sterilizing those who possessed those traits, or in the extreme, killing them. This is Darwinism taken to it's extreme. It resulted in the Lynchburg and Tuskeegee experiments in this country -- where people were forcibly sterilized, given forced abortions, and then 'hospitalized' for many years (some for the remainder of their lives) to keep them from 'polluting' the gene pool -- that's when they weren't actually experimented on by so-called scientists. In Nazi Germany, it led to the creation of special 'baby farms' where children created by the union of the men of the SS and German women willing to breed in service to the state, were raised in government-run orphanages to create the next generation of Aryan Supersoldiers for the Third Reich.

They were programs intended to perfect mankind by either removing the worst genetic material by isolation from the 'breeding stock', or surgical prevention of conception, and by only allowing those deemed best equipped to reproduce. Many of them actually handed out breeding licenses, and in some cases, arrest for a particular crime might entail an automatic sentence of sterilization, or remand to specifically be studied (read; experimented upon) by scientists.

The counterpart (and logical conclusion) to those programs was, unfortunately, the horror of the Nazi concentration and death camps, which aimed to not just annihilate the Jews as the object of Nazi obsession and hatred, but the Jews as a source of DNA which the Nazis believed 'polluted' the superior races of Europe.

Good to know that Justice Ginsburg (who I have to believe probably knows at least one Holocaust survivor) believes that American law is intended to produce genocide; under the guise of 'reproductive rights', according to her, the actual purpose of Roe was deny those same rights to those deemed unworthy by the State, or at least by a future State being run by 'Progressives'.
Nice.

Jonah Goldberg of National Review has a thing or two to say on the subject.

Update: Apparently YesWeCan's new "Science Czar" wrote a book advocating this very shit 40 years ago! Here's the dirt on the despicable John Holder, courtesy of the National Examiner.

Some Thoughts on Sotomayor...

The dog and pony show which is a Senate Confirmation Hearing on Judge Sonia Sotomator began in earnest yesterday. They shouldn't bother, as her appointment is foregone conclusion in the sense that democrats (small 'd' intentional) have the votes to confirm her in any case. The only obstacle to confirmation now is if it was found that she had done something really heinous, like ruled that people have the right to BBQ puppies in public in full "Village People" get-up with fireworks shooting out of their asses, in front of a gas station.

The abortion questions 'conservatives' (small 'c' intentional) will probably ask are moot; the Supreme Court usurped the power of both Congress and the states when it ruled in Roe v. Wade, and since the results of that power grab have been a postive boon for both parties, don't expect the question to actually be resolved in these hearings (although the Senators will kick it about to buff up their own street cred to their constituencies). Besides, we all know that there is now too much invested in the decision for anyone to actually talk seriously about the Supreme Court reversing itself; it will never happen. The Court will not reverse it's decision and pop the bubble of infallibility and reverence with which the institution is held by the legal profession (itself a den of whores), and neither party will submit to the Federalist soultion --putting the abortion question to a straight up-and-down vote in state legislatures -- because both sides manipulate the question for political gain (and money, as well as organized voting blocs) as it suits their purposes. And they do it too damned well.

Instead, I would concentrate on scoring a rhetorical point which might have an effect on the voting public despite her confirmation. It's that "Wise Latina" comment.

Her apologists have pooh-poohed it as an off-the-cuff remark which may represent a personal belief, but which does not translate to a 'core judicial philosophy', but I say 'bullshit'. She's on reconrd as having said it something like five, seven or 3thirty-one times, depending on who you believe. Anyone who says such things repeatedly (especially in prepared speeches!) doesn't do so because it's a random thought; they say it because they either truly believe it, or it's the sort of 'apply anywhere bullshit' which all politicians (and judges, unfortunately, are politicians, too) carelessly fling around to sport their political bona-fides.

In which case, Sonia Sotomayor is either under the impression that it is a true statement, which makes it a racist statement. Or, she's a liar who will say whatever is required of her depending on her audience, possessed of a stockpile of well-turned-politically-correct pablum to throw at them when required.

I'm not certain which it is. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt here, conditioning that benefit with the personal impression that she seems to be both an opportnist who has learned to use her gender and heritage for her personal advantage, and that's she's probably dumber than dogshit, but very well-rehearsed in the ways of political crapspeak. I'm certain that outside the political and legal realms, she probably makes a mean arroz con pollo and is probably a very pleasant woman (I do have to give her credit for having a wonderful smile, which conveys friendliness and warmth, like grandma used to).

That having been said, I'm not certain she's really a good choice, but perhaps merely the least-worse.

If It Quacks Like a Duck...

Does anyone still assume that President Obambi wants to fix the economy? There's a stimulus bill which has stimulated nothing. The takeover of the the banks which are still not lending. Taking over GM to ensure that the Autoworkers (those warriors of capitalism!) get their welfare-disguised-as-paycheck. Then heturns his attention to health care 'reform', which will not generate amny revenue, and looks as if it will require more borrowing, and Cap-and-Trade, which will burden American business with higher energy costs and leave them vulnerable to foreign competition.

They still have done nothing to shore up the dollar, and forget anything approaching budget cuts. Don't forget 23 new 'czars' with attendant, and overlapping, federal bureaucracies attached.
This guiy is not about to fix anything; his modus operandi is about making people ever-more dependant upon the government.

Even democrats (small 'd' intentional) know that if you wish to stimulate economic growth, you take the decisions about money out of the hands of the Congresscritters, and slash taxes across the board and let the people decide how to invest the savings, cutting out several layers of government red tape.

See you all in the government cheese line! Hopenchange, indeed...