Buzzy Ginsburg vs. Founding Fathers

In an effort to prove that she is truly the weakest link on the Supreme Court, Ruth "Buzzy" Ginsburg gave a speech earlier this month about defending the use of foreign law in Supreme Court decisions. As National Review points out, her thinking is both flawed, incoherent and contradictory.

First, she attacks the use of originalism (interpreting the Constitution as written) used by Scalia, Rehnquist and Thomas by pointing to the Dred Scott decision. That's a little bit like saying that all women are ugly because, well... just take a look at Hillary or Barbara Boxer. She also fails to mention that the dissent in Dred Scott was also written by originalists.

Ginsburg then claims that the Founding Fathers set up a system whereby the people, through its elected representatives, can adapt the laws to changing times. From there she states that it's important that the "judges honor the Framers' intent" to "form a more perfect Union." I think she forgot the purpose of the legislative branch - or maybe she's just confusing it with the judiciary.

Finally, Ginsburg cites two of her opinions in Michigan racial profiling cases that mention United Nations Conventions, one of which was ratified by the U.S. and one that was not ratified. As the National Review points out, she draws no distinction between a treaty ratified by the U.S. vs. one that is unratified. So not only can foreign law help decide U.S. cases, but even proposed laws are important.

Although she is up against some tough competition from Stevens, Breyer and Souter, Buzzy still holds the throne as the weakest link on the Court.