GET VISIBLE! Advertise Here. Find Out More


Qualifications For 'Kiki' Ginsburg

By Jim Kirwan


State of the Union of 2015

Our Model “Justice” passes out

Early life and education

Born in Brooklyn, New York City, Ruth Joan Bader is the second daughter of Nathan and Celia (née Amster) Bader, Russian-Jewish immigrants, who lived in the Flatbush neighborhood.[3] The Baders' older daughter, Marylin, died at age 6 when Ruth was still young.[4][5] The family nicknamed Ruth "Kiki".[6] They belonged to the East Midwood Jewish Center. At age thirteen, Ruth acted as the "camp rabbi" at a Jewish summer program at Camp Che-Na-Wah in Minerva, New York.[6]

Her mother took an active role in her education, taking her to the library often.[6] Celia had been a good student in her youth, graduating from high school at age 15, yet could not further her own education because her family chose to send her brother to college instead. Celia wanted to see her daughter get more of an education, which she thought would allow Bader to become a high school history teacher.[7] Bader attended James Madison High School, whose law program later dedicated a courtroom in her honor. Her mother struggled with cancer throughout Bader's high school years and died the day before her graduation.[6]

Bader attended Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, where she was a member of Alpha Epsilon Phi.[8] While at Cornell she met Martin D. Ginsburg at age 17.[7] She graduated from Cornell with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government on June 23, 1954.[8] Bader married Martin Ginsburg a month after her graduation from Cornell, and followed her new husband to Fort Sill, Oklahoma where he was stationed as an ROTC Officer in the Army Reserve called up for active duty.[9][10][7] At age 21, she worked for the Social Security office in Oklahoma where she was demoted after becoming pregnant with her first child.[5] She gave birth to a daughter in 1955.[5]

In fall 1956, she enrolled at Harvard Law School, where she was one of nine women in a class of about 500.[11][12] The Dean of Harvard Law reportedly asked the female law students, including Ginsburg, “How do you justify taking a spot from a qualified man?”[7] When her husband took a job in New York City, she transferred to Columbia Law School and became the first woman to be on two major law reviews, the Harvard Law Review and the Columbia Law Review. In 1959 she earned her Bachelor of Laws at Columbia and tied for first in her class”

Early career

At the start of her legal career, Ginsburg faced difficulty finding employment being a wife and mother of a five-year old daughter.[14] In 1960, despite a strong recommendation from a dean of Harvard Law School, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter turned down Ginsburg for a clerkship position because of her gender.[15][16][a] Later that year, Ginsburg began a clerkship for Judge Edmund L. Palmieri of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.[5]

From 1961 to 1963, she was a research associate and then associate director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure, learning Swedish to co-author a book with Anders Bruzelius on civil procedure in Sweden.[17][18] Ginsburg conducted extensive research for her book at Lund University in Sweden.[19]

She was a professor of law, mainly Civil Procedure, at Rutgers from 1963

to 1972, receiving tenure from the school in 1969.[20][21] In 1970 she co-founded the Women's Rights Law Reporter, the first law journal in the U.S. to focus exclusively on women's rights.[22] Ginsburg volunteered to write the brief for Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), wherein the Supreme Court Court extended the protections of the Equal Protection Clause to women for the first time.[21][23]

From 1972 until 1980, she taught at Columbia, where she became the first tenured woman and co-authored the first law school casebook on sex discrimination.[21] In 1972, Ginsburg co-founded the Women's Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and, in 1973, she became the ACLU's General Counsel.[24] As the chief litigator for the Women's Rights Project, she briefed and argued several landmark cases in front of the Supreme Court. Having previously argued Reed v. Reed, she took on cases like Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) and Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975), which supported the ultimate development and application of the intermediate scrutiny Equal Protection standard of review for legal classifications based on sex.[25] She attained a reputation as a skilled oral advocate and her work directly led to the end of gender discrimination in many areas of the law.[26] In 1977, she became a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University.

Her last case as a lawyer before the Court was 1978's Duren v. Missouri, which challenged the validity of voluntary jury duty for women. In Ginsburg's view, women's participation in a government service as vital as jury duty should not be optional. At the end of Ginsburg's oral presentation, then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist asked Ginsburg, "You won't settle for putting Susan B. Anthony on the new dollar, then?"[27] Ginsburg said she considered responding "We won't settle for tokens," but instead opted not to answer the question.[27]

From the same link above as the first quote:




Contrast this pathetic and inexperienced life of Kiki with the what the idea for a Supreme Court Justice was, when the founder's thought about it, while they were 'creating the Court”.

Amid their rumblings I seem to remember that the founders were thinking that the court would be reserved for unusially successful individuals. It was thought that a slot on the court was to be offered to those exceptionally well qualified people who had been successful in business and were knowledgable about life and everything that went with that. “Being on the Supreme Court” was not something that was thought about like an ordinary “job” which is apparently why Ginsburg was even considered for the job.

Ironically no mention of having to even have a law degree, was a part of the 'qualifictions' and that's still true today.

But in Ginsburg's case “she transferred to Columbia Law School and became the first woman to be on two major law reviews, the Harvard Law Review and the Columbia Law Review. In 1959 she earned her Bachelor of Laws at Columbia and tied for first in her class” - which while exemplury as part of a formal education, there is no mention of life-expierence. In fact it appears that the woman never worked a day in her life.

Far from being experienced or knowledgable about business, life, the arts or much of anything else, she appears to have carved out a very narrow space where she could flourish as “a woman' in a time where there were indeed very few 'recognized women' anywhere in this society. That could have worked for her, but alass that turned out not to be the case either.

The other aspect of “being on the court” that KiKi failed to understand was even the appearance of a conflict of interest in the cases she might well be involved in ­ such as her comments yesterday about Donald Trump, that reflects her absolute & total opposition to anything and everything “trump-like” - and this goes beyond TRUMP. It allows her to cherry-pick the cases and decisions made, based on prejudice.

To be fair: Ginsburg was one of the four justices that dissented in the Supreme Court Decision in the Bush vs. Gore decision”


The Court ruled 5­4 that no constitutionally valid recount could be completed by a December 12 "safe harbor" deadline. The Court asserted that "the Supreme Court of Florida has said that the legislature intended the State's electors to 'participat[e] fully in the federal electoral process,' as provided in 3 U.S.C. § 5." The Court therefore effectively ended the proposed recount, because "the Florida Legislature intended to obtain the safe-harbor benefits of 3 U.S.C. §5."

Four justices (Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter and Breyer) dissented as to stopping the recount. Two of those four dissenters (Justices Breyer and Souter) acknowledged that the counting up until December 9 had not conformed with Equal Protection requirements. However, Souter and Breyer favored remanding the case back to the Florida Supreme Court for the purpose of crafting specific guidelines for how to count disputed ballots, in contrast to the majority's decision to halt the recount altogether.[36] The actual counting had ended with the December 9 injunction issued by the same five-justice majority, three days before any deadline.[23]

The dissenting opinions strongly criticized the five justice majority for involving the Court in state-level affairs.”

(k ­ this is where federal law was broken in that U.S. Presidential Election laws were broken, because this happened and the Congress was by-passed, the courts both federal & State were guilty of illegal interferance in a US presidential Election)

Justice Stevens' dissent (joined by Justices Breyer and Ginsburg) concluded as follows:[37]

What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land.
It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.”
k ­ What is clear is that the entire track record of the Supreme Court from the time they decided to give corporations the right to live-forever, and then they moved on to grant corporations' the same rights as human beings, with none of the responsibilities: That Crime Against Humanity then emboldened the private corporations to become nation states as they are now claiming under TPP ad nauseum.
Against that backdrop, the various rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court have proven their inability to protect America or American citizens from the crimes of the one-percenters worldwide. And in that continuing failure Ruth Badar Ginsberg has hardly distinguished herself as an outstanding jurist ­ at least not in the minds of the many...


Donate to Support Free & Honest Journalism At   Subscribe To RenseRadio! Enormous Online Archives, MP3s, Streaming Audio Files,  Highest Quality Live Programs