Justice Ginsberg Way-off on Roe v. Wade

Update: Erwin Chemerinsky writes "Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg should retire from the Supreme Court after the completion of the current term in June. She turned 81 on Saturday and by all accounts she is healthy and physically and mentally able to continue. But only by resigning this summer can she ensure that a Democratic president will be able to choose a successor who shares her views and values." (LA Times)

Diane P. Wood, Margaret Raymond, and so many brilliant, young jurists are ready that Ginsberg's obviously outstanding tenure aside, not stepping down is selfish in the face of American misogyny and the brand of authoritarianism that is arising now from underground into the judiciary.
---Time for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg to get off the Court

What ahistorical spasms have taken ahold of Justice Ginsberg?

"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (1993-present) told an audience at the University of Chicago Law School on Saturday night that a lack of 'judicial restraint' in the court’s ruling on Roe v. Wade gave abortion opponents a 'clear target' that continues to fuel anti-choice activism 40 years later," notes Katie McDonough this morning in Salon.

A clear target?

Women have been the clear target of the Catholic Church hierarchy and free roaming misogyny since the inception of the United States of America.

Roe stopped the enforcement of anti-choice state laws outlawing abortion.

Salon's McDonough also references similar comments that Ginsberg made in April:

As noted by the New York Times editorial board and Yale Law School professors Linda Greenhouse and Reva Siegel, Ginsburg’s previously-asserted idea that the court got 'ahead of public opinion' on abortion and 'short-circuited' an evolving political process at the state level is deeply problematic.

If one follows Ginsberg's logic, the Court should never protect the constitutional rights of minorities in the face of majority opinion because that would make political targets of minorities by assorted majority bigots and oppressive, tyrannical law of which America has a long, shameful tradition.

Ginsberg goes on pursuing several lines of thought, all of which do not demonstrate a clear hold of any conception of the civil rights of Americans, and certainly not specifically the constitutional imperative to protect free choice, an issue that props up the GOP and Tea Party as major political forces.

Ginsberg's public forays into political strategy are ill-conceived and foolish for a sitting justice of the Court, and her constitutional jurisprudence is suspect.

Ginsberg is 80-year-old.

And she is no William O. Douglas or Robert Jackson. Ginsberg should resign at the end of term in June.

The stakes are way too high with this reckless, statist Roberts-Scalia court and the forces of authoritarianism that hold sway in the majority of states.