Following the passing of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the spectacle of Republicans and conservatives in a wild stampede to give her a tongue bath was appalling. Praise from self-proclaimed guardians of Constitutional Originalism was so lavish and extravagant it amounted to nothing less than deification. Had Ginsburg not been Jewish, I half expected the Pope to announce her canonization.

Martha MacCallum breathlessly described Ginsburg like a rapturous teen at the airport awaiting the Beatles arrival in America. Her face glowed as she praised Ginsburg’s towering intellect, great legal mind, inspiration to all women, and lamented Ginsburg being irreplaceable.¹ MacCallum was far from alone slathering promiscuous adulation on this stalwart foe of the Constitution and its Judeo-Christian underpinnings. Effusive praise for Ginsburg came from Jeanna Ellis on the Tucker Carlson Show. Chyrons running under her face declared her a constitutional “authority”. An online bio states she is author of The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution: A Guide for Christians to Understand America’s Constitutional Crisis, that she is a Constitutional “Originalist”, and senior legal advisor to President Trump. Nevertheless, she declared Americans must respect Ginsburg’s service and legacy. She added Ginsburg was an inspiration to all women.² Why was she, and not Sandra Day O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court (appointed by President Reagan in 1981, 12 years before Ginsburg) an inspiration to women? How a self-proclaimed “Originalist” and author of a book on America’s Constitutional crisis can heap such praise on a chief architect of this crisis is incomprehensible. Also appearing on Tucker’s show was conservative Judge Jeanine Pirro. She praised Ginsburg’s unconstitutional ruling against the Virginia Military Institute’s establishment as an all-male military academy.³

This strange outpouring of praise and worship for Ginsburg erupted on conservative Sean Hannity’s program so I flipped over to One America News until Laura Ingraham’s Show. I should have remained with OAN. Her guests included Constitutional “scholar” John Eastman (Chapman University) who asserted Americans should thank Ginsburg for her lasting work with respect to equality and social issues (those near and dear to liberal hearts: abortion and the homosexual agenda).⁴ Republicans continued to weigh in throughout the evening. George W. Bush, Mitch McConnell, and former Congressman Jason Chaffetz were almost unrestrained in their praise for Ginsburg. A guest on one of these shows allowed that Ginsburg was up in heaven now, hanging out with former colleagues William Rehnquist, and Antonin Scalia. How fortunate I am to have a strong stomach. Appalled, I turned the television off. Conservative online groups were no better. I read in disbelief as one “conservative” after another stated we all must respect and admire Ginsburg for her work and “service” to her country. Service? Service to the ongoing campaign to destroy the U.S. Constitution? Disgusted, I logged off and retreated into the mundane world of email. There I found a message from the Trump Re-election campaign declaring Ginsburg an “amazing woman” who led “an amazing life”. I responded asking what was so amazing about a career dedicated to destroying the Constitution and liberty. I received no reply. After beholding what so many Republican “leaders” had to say, who could be faulted for believing it was Ronald Reagan who had just died?

Lavish and effusive praise by Republicans for Ginsburg begs the question, if she is “all that”, why don’t they simply nominate another radical left-wing ACLU lawyer, who also despises the Constitution, instead of casting about for a conservative replacement? If Ginsburg was so wonderful, why don’t Republicans appoint some Stepford liberal to replace her?

Callers to conservative talk radio the following day commented on this stunning spectacle of Republican praise for Ginsburg. Some allowed that perhaps they were being overly “nice” to win political points. Really. With whom? With Constitutional originalists like myself? No way. We despise treason against the Constitution. Praise for those who want to destroy Judeo-Christian values and all that people of faith hold dear is repulsive. Points with liberals? It will never happen. If you are a conservative, the Left hates you. They are waging war against you. They despise every belief, principle, and value you hold dear. The lesson people should have learned from the Bolshevik Revolution is the left is dedicated to your total destruction and subjugation. Another reason no one mentioned comes to mind. Is it possible the Republican establishment worships the same institutions and organs of government power as Democrats? Do they fear criticism of Ginsburg might undermine support and obedience among Americans to the Supreme Court? Could criticism of Ginsburg spur Americans to ask on what basis the Court wields the power of judicial review and find there is none? Moreover, if Americans discover this truth, will they then look at the other branches and ask if what they are doing is constitutional? If Americans discover what public schools do not teach, that the actions and claimed powers of the three branches does not comport with the Constitution, how will they react? Will they try to take government back from their overseers? What does Ginsburg’s record, prior to and during her tenure on the bench, reveal?

In 1980, President Carter appointed Ginsburg to the D.C. Circuit Appeals Court. President Clinton then elevated her to the Supreme Court in 1993. Prior to these appointments, Ginsburg was a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union. She rejected the notion rights come from G-d, rejected the principles of federalism and limited government, the Tenth Amendment sovereignty of states in their political spheres, and she rejected traditional Western Judeo-Christian values. Throughout her lifetime, her views never moderated.

From the start, America’s lawgivers grounded cultural, social, familial, and legal distinctions between the sexes (men and women for liberals) in the Law of G-d. Because Ginsburg despised a world based on a patriarchal G-d, her agenda was to remake America into a nation sterilized of sex distinctions. With government force, she sought to dismantle all single-sex institutions, organizations, and clubs including the military, prisons, fraternities, the Boy Scouts, private colleges, and so forth. She even pushed to abolish Mother’s and Father’s Day holidays but that was not enough. Ginsburg opposed laws against bigamy and polygamy because statutory regulation criminalizes these behaviors based on the sex of those involved. Naturally, her radical views applied to prohibitions against prostitution and same-sex “marriage” (sic) which she sought to overturn. To the delight of pervo child molesters, sodomites running down little Cub Scouts, and sex-slave traffickers, Ginsburg pushed to reduce “the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are less than 12 years”. She even argued for overturning the Mann Act which criminalized the “interstate trafficking of women and girls” for the purposes of engaging in sex acts because it violated the “privacy rights” of those involved.⁵ The authors of the Mann act sought not only to stop the transportation of women, especially young girls, across state lines for prostitution, but also to put a dent in the kidnapping of young girls for such purposes.

It should come, as no surprise Ginsburg abhorred the traditional family in which the man went to work and mom stayed at home to raise the kids. In order to undermine the role of husbands, as a step toward dismantling the Judeo-Christian family, Ginsburg pushed government [taxpayer] supported daycare for unwed mothers. She did not stop there. In her brave new world, not only would women be subject to the military draft but would be billeted with men and sent with them into combat. Ginsburg pushed affirmative action hiring and promotion rules for the military, police and fire departments, public education, and private businesses. Facing federal scrutiny if failing to meet affirmative action “targets”, companies, and organizations calculated the minimum number (quota) of minorities they needed to hire and promote to avoid government sanctions. This led to qualified candidates being passed over, by the less competent, in order to satisfy quotas, especially within police departments. I saw this first hand.⁶ Nevertheless, this was still not enough. Robespierre Ginsburg pushed to create federal commissioners who would ride through the bowels of government offices in search of people and publications using “sexist” words and expressions. They would scrub these offending words from documents and the mouths of employees. Transgressors would be re-educated. Next, they would fan out across the nation, storming businesses, schools, churches, and maybe homes in search of banned “sexist” terms. Offensive words included, woman, women, she, her, man, men, he, him, and many more. They would root out any word based on a person’s sex (gender refers to the femininity or masculinity of nouns) like noxious weeds and burn them so that no memory of their existence remained. Ginsburg’s Commissars of conformity began to realign pay scales associated with genitalia, for example, librarians versus those operating jackhammers to “equalize” them. Angry liberal feminist harridans, their hair pulled back into severe buns call this “comparable worth”, equal pay for unequal work. They scoured all publications for the slightest reference to an individual’s sex and removed them. Anyone who has read 1984 understands control of what people read and know is central to Orwell’s novel. Ginsburg also supported abortion on demand, for any reason, throughout each trimester paid for by taxpayers including those opposed to child murder based on religious objections.⁷

In 1996, Ginsburg voted with the majority (Scalia dissented) to strike down the elite Virginia Military Institute’s male only admission policy. Not only did this comport with Ginsburg’s fanatical drive to destroy any organization based on sex, she also saw VMI’s policy as a roadblock to female advancement in the military. Does the federal government have the right to interfere in the education policies of the States? We shall look at that soon. In 2000, Ginsburg again voted with the majority in Friends of the Earth (sic) v. Laidlaw Environmental Services. Ginsburg ruled individuals have a right to sue companies for pollution even if the claimants can prove no harm and the company is out of business.⁸ This is akin to a patient suing a doctor following surgery even though they can demonstrate no harm. Had Ginsburg’s opinion been that of the majority instead of the minority in Bush v. Gore (2000), Democrats would have succeeded in stealing another presidential election [John F. Kennedy, 1960] and Gore would have been president. In Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), Ginsburg sided with the minority arguing against any limits on late term (including live birth) abortions. She again sided with the liberals in Shelby County v. Holder (2013), wanting the Supreme Court to control, supervise, and set election policies and practices for Southern States, forever. Does the Supreme Court have such authority? In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), Ginsburg again sided with the radical liberal minority seeking to force Christian owned companies to provide abortion coverage in employee medical plans even though this violated their deeply held Christian beliefs.⁹ Ginsburg argued the government’s “need” to reorder the nature of society superseded anyone’s First Amendment religious rights. Ginsburg voted with the majority, (5-4) in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) legalizing same-sex “marriage” (sic). Torturing history and the Constitution, the majority claimed the 14^th Amendment, ratified to insure Constitutional rights applied to former slaves, actually meant homosexuals, and lesbians could “marry” each other, respectively.¹⁰ Alito, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, writing for the dissent, correctly noted the Constitution delegates no authority to the federal government, and therefore the courts, over marriage. Under the Tenth Amendment, what constitutes marriage is a state issue. Therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to rule one way or the other.

If Ginsburg had no respect for religious freedom, and the Tenth Amendment, let alone human life, what then was her view on the right of self-defense? In Heller v. D.C. (2008), she and the liberals wrote the Constitution does not guarantee an individual right to keep and bear arms. There is only a collective, not an individual right. A person may exercise this collective “right” only while serving in the military or a State National (sic) Guard. She also agreed with Justice Breyer that no one had the right, under any circumstance, to maintain a loaded weapon in their home. Nor did anyone have a right of self-defense.¹¹ Through a 5-4 vote, had Ginsburg and the other Knives in Black Satin been the majority, they would have eviscerated and ultimately abolished the Second Amendment. Once a government hostile to the bill of rights is in power, they will extinguish your right to keep and bear arms. They would ban the manufacture, importation, and sale of firearms in the United States followed by banning the production and sale of ammunition. If you do not have a right to own firearms, you have no need for ammunition. Next, they would close gun stores and ranges. You do not need a place to buy and or practice with what you may not own. Denials to the contrary, confiscation of all firearms in private hands has always been the left’s end game. England, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada testify to this fact. As for burying and hiding firearms, what is the point? By then it is too late. You will never be able to keep and bear them again. Ever. Republicans and conservatives lavishing praise on Ginsburg mentioned none of this. Nor did anyone ask if the Court has the right of judicial review in the first place.

Each State sent delegates to what became the Constitutional Convention meeting in Philadelphia (1787). Jealous of their fresh won independence from Britain (1783), the Founding Fathers were not about to surrender sovereignty to a new never before tried form of government. Proposals made by delegates to subordinate state executives, legislatures, and courts to federal counterparts were voted down by the majority each time. This is even more remarkable considering many opposed to scrapping the Articles of Confederation refused to attend the Convention.¹² The Constitution’s drafters created the U.S. Supreme Court as the final court of appeal with respect to federal law, disputes between state governments, and between people of different states in some cases. They did not delegate to it any authority to make, modify, or alter law, amend the Constitution in any way, create, or abolish rights. So-called “Federalists” (more accurately, “nationalists”), saw creating for the court a power of judicial review over state laws as a means to erode and ultimately annihilate Tenth Amendment state sovereignty.¹³ Those mislabeled “anti-federalists” by “federalists” opposed them every step of the way.

Convention delegate Edmund Randolph of Virginia proposed creating a national judiciary with authority to veto the laws and rulings made by State legislatures and courts, respectively. This would be similar to the English Parliamentary system Alexander Hamilton and his supporters cherished. The majority of delegates voted down Randolph’s proposal. Charles Pinckney, South Carolina, and Gouveneur Morris, Pennsylvania, followed up with similar proposals and delegates rejected them as well. Randolph did not give up and attempted to convince delegates to accept a revised version of his proposal but it too was defeated.¹⁴ The States never gave to the federal Court, the power of judicial review. Proponents of ratification promised delegates to each state convention the court would never exercise such power.¹⁵

It was Chief Justice John Marshall, an ardent nationalist and opponent of state sovereignty, appointed by President John Adams, who got the ball rolling. He simply invented for the Supreme Court a power of judicial review. He began by seizing cases beyond the purview of the court. It did not matter how it ruled, only that the court ruled in order to create precedent. Beginning with Marbury v. Madison, 1803, each case was a step toward establishing by the court, through practice and custom, the power of judicial review. This was unconstitutional because the Founders did not delegate but denied this power to the Court. Federal branches may exercise only delegated powers. Second, it constituted a violation of Article V reserving to the states sole authority to amend the Constitution. Third, and finally, it constituted a violation of the Tenth Amendment reserving all powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the states. Hence, sovereign State powers and functions falling within its political sphere are outside the jurisdiction and purview of federal courts. Marshall wanted to destroy those reserved powers by denaturing the Tenth Amendment. He referred to Thomas Jefferson and the Republican Party as “absolute terrorists”. Marshall ran full steam ahead, working with other nationalists, to transform the federal into a national system of government with the states as mere corporations of the general government.¹⁶

Although Jefferson and subsequent presidents rejected the notion the Supreme Court possessed the power of judicial review, in time future presidents and political parties came to see this as a tool to enhance executive power and overcome state resistance to their agendas.¹⁷ Chief among the Constitution destroying culprits was Franklin Roosevelt.¹⁸ Over time, Americans stopped questioning the Court’s claim to the power of judicial review. They assumed the court must have this power because, after all, they exercised it. This is known as “circulus in probando”, circular reasoning. Because the court exercises judicial review, it must have the power to do so. However, they are wrong. Granted, in post-Constitutional and post-literate America, its citizens are ignorant of what powers States delegated to the federal government and too lazy to care. In addition, profligate federal largesse to States led them to prostitute their Tenth Amendment protection against unconstitutional judicial review. Even if the Supreme Court had this power, it would only apply to the enumerated powers in Article I, Section 8. The Founders created a limited government whose powers are few and clearly defined. The Constitution prohibits the exercise of any power not specifically delegated to the federal government in the enumerated powers.¹⁹ Americans appear unaware of this. Great Scott, did they go to public schools?

The States delegated to the federal government eighteen powers in Article I, Section 8. An examination reveals most have to do with foreign relations and war. There is no mention of education, marriage, abortion, firearms, the make-up of the military, clubs, colleges, organizations, the freedom of association, and so forth based on sex or any other criteria.²⁰ Silence in any area means, the federal government has no authority to legislate and the Supreme Court review in those areas. None. Every ruling by the Supreme Court that disregards the Tenth Amendment and the States’ reserved powers does violence to the Constitution and any safeguard with respect to the Bill of Rights. It destroys federalism, the rule of law, and creates a chaotic free-for-all scramble by various factions to gain control of it by any means possible. Now Republicans from Senator Mitch McConnell on down are stressing the need to replace Ginsburg with a jurist who will protect the Constitution. Really? When the Senate was considering the nomination of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the following Republican Senators voted yea:

Bond MO, Danforth MO, Hatfield OR, Pressler SD,

Brown CO, Dole KS Hutchinson TX, Roth DE,

Burns MT, Domenici NM, Kassebaum KS, Simpson WY,

Chafee RI, Durenberger MN, Lott MS, Specter PA,

Coats IN, Faircloth MN, Lugar IN, Stevens AK,

Cochran MS, Gorton WA, Mack FL, Thurmond SC,

Cohen ME, Gramm TX, McCain AZ, Wallop WY,

Coverdell GA, Grassley IA, McConnell KY, Warner VA.

Craig ID, Gregg NH, Murkowski AK,

D’Amato NY, Hatch UT, Packwood OR,

Nay: only the following three Republicans stood up for the Constitution:

Helms NC, Nickles OK, Smith NH.

Living in Missouri, I wrote Republican Senator Bond asking why he voted to confirm Ginsburg. He explained it was Senatorial “courtesy” not to oppose Court nominations of presidents regardless of party. I wrote back asking, what about courtesy to the rule of law, to the Constitution, and to the American people? He did not respond. Americans elect Senators to protect the Constitution, and they, in turn, stab them in the back in the name of logrolling. What a disgrace. We must hold them to account for their perfidy.