Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg and the cerebrally inept U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, who needed to be coached by Liberal judges in front of the bench on how to plead for the Obama’s Affordable Care Act, took part in an examination of arias for legal precedent at the American Bar Association’s annual meeting in Chicago.
Predicatably, Verilli’s contribution was little noted and soon forgotten; but just as predictably, Ginsberg seized the opportunity to enunciate her totalitarian statist ideology.
After listening to excerpts of several live performances, Ginsberg cited Mozart’s “The Magic Flute” and the sterilization of the opera over time to purge content deemed to be sexist or racist, Ginsberg maintained she is “certainly an originalist”, but that opera like society should grow with society. She made no mention of whether the society should grow with the politicians and judges in charge of that society. However perverting the composer’s original work to reflect the opinion of a judge or a court is implied as being necessary to reflect the ideology being imposed upon society. She vaguely maintained that there is original intent, but apparently judges are better at determining how the law and hence society should evolve and it is necessary to pervert original intent to accomplish ideological purity as society evolves, opera and the law must “grow with society”.
To avoid sounding like a Marxist Revolutionary, she gave some credit to our founders; ‘the founders of our country were great men with a vision… They were held back from realizing their ideas by the times in which they lived. (Ginsberg is not held back by any restraints) But I think their notion was that society would evolve and the meaning of some of the grand clauses in the Constitution… would grow with society, so that the Constitution would always be in tune with the society that law is meant to serve.”
Unfortunately, Ginsberg’s law is meant to define a society and an ideology.
She went on to cite Benjamin Britten’s tragic opera “Billy Budd” the story of a young sailor accused of striking down a man who falsely accused him of inciting a mutiny. He was hanged after suitable soul searching and ambiguity by the captain. The story is an adaption of Herman Melville’s novella and the story has parallels to the George Zimmerman case.
Ginsberg, when asked if there was a way the young man’s life might have been spared, said “Well, I think there was a way the captain could have saved him. He didn’t have to impanel the court martial on a ship. He could have kept Billy and could have had the trial occur on British soil, but there was this tremendous fear of mutiny.”
Herein lies the core fear of all statists, the fear of the common man rising up to resist tyranny. Ginsberg realizes that our population will only take the imposition of tyranny in small doses; otherwise, the tyrannical statists will be deposed through mutiny”. The reason the story has been so popular is the tragedy must transpire to insure a rule of law that has become tyranny and tyranny must be preserved at all costs. Thus the ambiguity of preserving the rule of law has seared itself across the public’s consciousness forever. The fear of Captain Veer in the novella and of every totalitarian statist is exemplified by the injustice of the book, but while most feel compassion for a man who fights for his honor, the statist fears the loss of power and control. Yet we the people are expected to accept tyrannical rule, for to doubt or cross this law of tyranny will result in being hanged by the neck until dead. To Ms Ginsberg, injustice is justified to preserve the rule of tyranny.