Ginsburg a moderate?

[earl maltz]

I stand by the charge.  My evidence is that, to my knowledge, Boerne is the 
ONLY case in which Ginsburg has voted to hold that a statute exceeded the 
enumerated powers of the Constitution, and that the just happened to 
further her well-established securlarist agenda.  As we say in the Torts 
business, res ipsa loquitur.

At 10:01 AM 11/2/2005 -0800, you wrote:
>" Frankly, Boerne doesn't count because,
>given the remainder of Ginsburg's record, it is best understood as a simple
>case of intellectual dishonesty, joining a federalism-based argument to
>support her secularist agenda."
>
>I had the honor to work for RBG during her last year on the DC Cir.  I find
>her much too moderate for my political taste. You may think otherwise.
>However, I object to calling her intellectually dishonest.  Boerne (with
>which I strongly disagree) has to do with what institution has the power to
>decide -- not with secularism per se.  That should be clear since the
>doctrine Boerne created is anti-affirmative action which (according to you)
>Ginsburg supports.
>
>Malla Pollack
>Professor, American Justice School of Law
>Visiting Univ. of Idaho, College of Law
>mpollack at uidaho.edu
>208-885-2017
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu
>[mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of earl maltz
>Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 8:32 AM
>To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>Subject: Ginsburg a moderate?
>
>I must say that I find the characterization of Ginsburg as a "moderate"
>somewhat puzzling.  Here again, I'm thinking about the major constitutional
>issues that divide conservatives from liberals, both  politically and
>jurisprudentially.  The list that I came up with is (in no particular
>order), abortion, GLBT rights, race-based affrimative action, property
>rights, states rights/federal power/ the permissibility of religious
>displays and observances in public space, and government aid to religious
>schools.  Kennedy and O'Connor are characterized as moderates because each
>has provided significant support for the liberals on the Court in several
>of these areas.  I may be mistaken, but with the possible exception of
>Boerne, I can't think of a single case in which Ginsburg has abandoned
>liberal dogma in any of these area.  Frankly, Boerne doesn't count because,
>given the remainder of Ginsburg's record, it is best understood as a simple
>case of intellectual dishonesty, joining a federalism-based argument to
>support her secularist agenda.
>
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.