RBG Watch – M.I.A.

AMERICAN THINKER notes the following in their larger article:

The last time she was seen was on December 6, 2018, when she heard arguments in person at the Court.  Since then, she underwent surgery on December 21 of last year after two cancerous growths from her left lung were discovered and removed.

[….]

Adding even more fuel to the speculation, Fox & Friends “accidentally” showed a memorial graphic that claimed that Ginsburg is dead.  The show apologized shortly after and blamed it on a “control room error,” but it’s worth noting that the graphic even being made and loaded is a disturbing, macabre preparation.

She was scheduled to attend a function called “An Evening with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg” in Los Angeles on Tuesday evening at the Skirball Cultural Center, but the event was “regrettably canceled” because she is still recuperating from her recent surgery.  A second engagement on February 6 with her and philanthropist David Rubenstein in New York City was also canceled….

Another site notes she will not be at the February 5th State of the Union Speech.

I want to make a couple points. FIRST, if this was being done for or by a conservative Justice, all hell would break loose. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, NYT, Chicago Tribune, L.A. Times, BBC, etc, etc, etc — would be running round the clock “watches” and demanding a replacement. Yes, the MSM would be demanding a replacement. Why? They are essentially Democrats.

SECOND, remember CNN and other news outlets with a “1st Lady Watch” I think a Justice hearing cases is a bit more important to the American Body Politic, where is Brian Seltzer’s running tally?

Maybe the folks at CNN think Trump is so horrible, he murdered her? So, I made my own “Calendar Watch” for RBG. The GREEN check-mark was the last time she was in Court listening to arguments. The BLACK check-mark was the date of her operation. The RED check-marks are days she has not been seen. As of today, she has missed Court for 59-days.


Some Humor


The Way It Was – Ruth Bader Ginsburg

WEASEL HAT-TIP

GOP WAR ROOM:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticizes how Judge Brett Kavanaugh was treated during his SCOTUS confirmation hearings. Discussing the modern Supreme Court confirmation process, Ginsburg called the hearings a “highly partisan show” and “wrong” while speaking at the George Washington University Law School on 9/12/18. Be sure to like, subscribe, and comment below to share your thoughts on the video.

The National Anthem Protests — Do Facts Matter? (Larry Elder)

Larry Elder’s EXCELLENT article, via LARRYELDER.COM:

Where was the angry left when Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called the national anthem protests “dumb and disrespectful”?

Let’s focus on the “dumb” part.

NFL player Colin Kaepernick, who started the protests, did so over the supposed widespread instances of police brutality against blacks. Kaepernick said, “I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. … There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.” According to the Centers for Disease Control, since 1968 police killings of blacks have declined nearly 75 percent. According to The Washington Post, almost 500 whites were killed by cops in 2015, an average of more than one a day. Two hundred fifty-nine blacks were killed by the police. Most suspects killed by police had a weapon.

Now for some perspective.

Do you know anyone who has been struck by lightning? Neither do most people. Yet each year an average of about 300 Americans are killed or injured by lightning. That’s approximately 40 more than the number of blacks killed by the police in 2015. Is there an “epidemic” of Americans being struck and injured by lightning? We don’t know the number of black men injured by lightning every year, but let’s assume the number is 7 percent of the total people struck by lightning, mirroring the percentage of the black male population in America. That brings the average number of black men injured by lightning to about 21.

Out of the 965 people killed by the police in 2015 (as of Dec. 24), the Post reported (on Dec. 26) that “less than 4 percent” involved an unarmed black man and a white cop, the fact pattern most commonly referred to by anti-police activists like Black Lives Matter. Last year, The Washington Post put the number of unarmed black men killed by the police at 17, less than the number of blacks likely struck by lightning. Twenty-two unarmed whites were killed by the police. Any death that results from police misconduct is one death too many, but the point is that police killing of a suspect is rare, no matter the race of the suspect or the cop. And a police shooting of an unarmed black male is still more rare.

But blacks are routinely and disproportionately being stopped, pulled over and/or arrested due to police misconduct, right?

No, not according to numerous studies, many by the government. Take traffic stops. In 2013, the National Institute of Justice, the research and evaluation agency of the Department of Justice, published a study of whether the police, as a result of racial bias, stop blacks more than other drivers. The conclusion? Any racial disparity in traffic stops is due to “differences in offending” in addition to “differences in exposure to the police” and “differences in driving patterns.”

According to Philippe Lemoine, writing in National Review, a white person is, on average, more likely to have interactions with the police in any year than a black person, 20.7 percent vs. 17.5 percent. It is true that a black person is more likely to have multiple contacts with the police. But according to the data, multiple contacts with the police are rare, as well. Lemoine writes that 1.2 percent of white men have more than three contacts with the police in a year versus 1.5 percent of black men.

But what about the experience of a black person with the police versus that of a white person? The DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics regularly studies this, too. Every year, the BJS surveys a representative sample of 70,000 people. Among the questions, the survey asks whether respondents had contact with the police in the last 12 months. If the answer is “yes,” the survey asks a number of follow-up questions, including about use of force.

Let’s concentrate on cases involving use of force.

Lemoine writes: “Only 0.6 percent of black men experience physical force by the police in any given year, while approximately 0.2 percent of white men do. … Moreover, keep in mind that these tallies of police violence include violence that is legally justified.” And keep in mind the much higher levels of crime by mostly black males. It is estimated that half of all homicides are committed by, and mostly against, black males.

In 1995, the federal government looked at 42,500 defendants in the nation’s 75 largest counties. A government statistician, Patrick A. Langan, found “no evidence that, in the places where blacks in the United States have most of their contacts with the justice system, that system treats them more harshly than whites.” So much for the so-called “institutional racism” in the criminal justice system.

Recently, in Illinois, in a kids’ 8-and-under football league, the entire team, which appeared to be all black, including the coach, took a knee during the national anthem. Asked why, one third-grade player parroted Kaepernick, saying, according to the coach, “Because black people are getting killed, and nobody’s going to jail.”

Facts don’t matter. The coach, presented with a teachable moment, fumbled it away.

Pedophilia

(I am changing some of my “Pages” to “Posts,” so some of this info is older to my site)

Pedophilia ‘rights’ next civil rights battle

…In 2003, a group of mental health professionals formed B4U-Act to begin a slow but inexorable push to redefine pedophilia as a sexual orientation in the same way homosexuality was in the 1970s.

The organization calls pedophiles “minor attracted people,” and the website states its purpose is to “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma, and fear.”

B4U-Act later held a symposium in which a new definition of pedophilia was proposed for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

In 2010, two psychologists in Canada made national news when they declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality.

Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

He went on to say: “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied: “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

Dr. Vernon Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem, saying pedophiles’ sexual interests cause them to prefer children, and “there is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

In July 2010, Harvard Health Publications declared: “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”

If the APA would declare pedophilia a sexual orientation on a par with homosexuality, it would have huge ramifications for existing anti-discrimination laws….

In 1977, Ruth Bader Ginsberg wrote “Sex Bias in the U.S. Code” for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. In it, Ginsberg advocated lowering the age of consent from 16 to 12. She writes:

  • “Eliminate the phrase “carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years” and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. … A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. … [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.” (SavageSchlafly; Schlafly; CNS-NewsMore)

She was an attorney for the ACLU at the time and later appointed to the Supreme Court by President Bill Clinton. She remains on the Supreme Court today.

MORE…

Ruth Bader Ginsburg co-authored the book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code in 1977 with a feminist, Brenda Feigen-Fasteau, for which they were paid with federal funds under Contract No. CR3AK010. The 230-page book was published by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. It was written to identify the federal laws that allegedly discriminate on account of sex and to promote ratification of the then-pending federal Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), for which Ginsburg was a fervent advocate. Here are some of Ginsburg’s liberal recommendations set forth in her book Sex Bias in the U.S. Code.

Ginsburg called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (101) She called for the sex-integration of Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts because they “perpetuate stereotyped sex roles.” (145) She insisted on sex-integrating “college fraternity and sorority chapters” and replacing them with “college social societies.” (169) She even cast Constitutional doubt on the legality of “Mother’s Day and Father’s Day as separate holidays.” (146)

Ginsburg called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to persons who are “less than 12 years old.” (102) She asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (195) She objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (97) Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (98)

Ginsburg said that the concept of husband-breadwinner and wife-homemaker “must be eliminated from the code if it is to reflect the equality principle,” (206) and she called for “a comprehensive program of government supported child care.” (214) She demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating that “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (218)

An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel), even though most of these words with the -man suffix date back to Middle English in which it meant “human” and not specifically “male”. (15-16) She even wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the Memory Hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (52-53)

(CONSERVAPEDIA)

1993 “Homosexual” Platform

  • The implementation of homosexual, bi-sexual, and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.
  • The lowering of the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.
  • The legalization of homosexual marriage. Custody, adoption, and foster care rights for homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.
  • The redefinition of marriage to include the full diversity of all family structures.
  • The access to all programs of the Boys Scouts of America.
  • Affirmative action for homosexuals.
  • The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health care plan.

1972 “Homosexual” Platform

  • Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons, equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.
  • Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.
  • Enactment of legislation prohibiting insurance companies and any other state-regulated enterprises from discriminating because of sexual orientation, in insurance and in bonding or any other prerequisite to employment or control of one’s personal demesne.
  • Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.
  • Repeal of all state laws prohibiting transvestism and cross-dressing.
  • Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.
  • Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

Okay, we know this was a fast transition for polygamy, as I showed and Gateway Pundit showed:

The Politico reported:

Welcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family…

And one of the leading leftist lawyers who has already won some acceptance in law for polygamy has said this of last weeks same-sex marriage ruling:

Could Friday’s Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage across the country make polygamous marriage a legal reality nationwide in the near future?

Jonathan Turley, the attorney who won the polygamy marriage case in Utah for Kody Brown and his four “Sister Wives” thinks the majority opinion “resonates” with the arguments he made to the Utah Supreme Court to decriminalize polygamous consensual relationships.

“The cases are actually different in that the Brown case is about the criminalization while today’s case was about recognition.  We have not argued for recognition of plural marriages. Indeed, the Browns have never asked for multiple marriage licenses,” Turley said in an e-mail statement to The Daily Caller.

“Like many plural families, they have one state license for one marriage but chose to live as a plural family with “spiritual marriages.” In that sense, our case is more like Lawrence v. Texas that was handed down ten years ago.”

Turley explained, “Having said that, much of the language of the majority clearly resonates with our arguments against the criminalization of private consensual relations.  It also speaks to the stigma that is borne by families in being excluded in society.  That is an even greater danger when your entire family is declared a criminal enterprise merely because the parents chose to cohabitate as a plural family.”…

But we already have another player in the mix that supports the VERY slippery slope argument.

Excerpted from the Northern Colorado Gazette via ALLEN WEST:

Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits.

[….]

“Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

B4U-Act calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”

In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”

Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”
Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”

Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.”…

…more…

Don’t Let The Door Hit You On the Ass On the Way Out!

FIRSTLY, why do they say they will move to Canada or Europe? If they so dislike Trump’s position on immigration… move to MEXICO and put your money where your mouth is! The two places to go to match these celebrities and media acolytes are at BREITBART and TOWNHALL:

celebs-big-2

Roe v. Wade Is Bad Law ~ Per Liberal Scholars

The following is from LIFE SITE NEWS site:

Roe v. Wade — which ruled that the U.S. Constitution effectively mandates a nationwide policy of abortion on demand — is one of the most widely criticized Supreme Court decisions in America history.

As Villanova law professor Joseph W. Dellapenna writes,

  • “The opinion [in Roe] is replete with irrelevancies, non-sequiturs, and unsubstantiated assertions. The Court decides matters it disavows any intention of deciding—thereby avoiding any need to defend its conclusion. In the process the opinion simply fails to convince.”

Even many scholars sympathetic to the results of Roe have issued harsh criticisms of its legal reasoning. In the Yale Law Journal, eminent legal scholar John Hart Ely, a supporter of legal abortion, complained that Roe is “bad constitutional law, or rather … it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” He wrote:

  • “What is unusual about Roe is that the liberty involved is accorded … a protection more stringent, I think it is fair to say, than that the present Court accords the freedom of the press explicitly guaranteed by the First Amendment. What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-a-vis the interests that legislatively prevailed over it. And that, I believe … is a charge that can responsibly be leveled at no other decision of the past twenty years. At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.”

Below are criticisms of Roe from other supporters of legal abortion.

  • “One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” — Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard law professor
  • “As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose. … Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the … years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.” — Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun
  • “The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations. … Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution.” — Archibald Cox, Harvard law professor, former U.S. Solicitor General
  • “[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. This is not surprising. As a constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.” — Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania law professor
  • “Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the Court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.” — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
  • “In the Court’s first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.” — Cass Sunstein, University of Chicago law professor
  • “Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy). … [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present [in Roe].” — Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor
  • “[O]verturning [Roe] would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary. … Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself.” — Jeffrey Rosen, legal commentator, George Washington University law professor
  • “Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.” — William Saletan, Slate columnist, writing in Legal Affairs
  • “In the years since the decision an enormous body of academic literature has tried to put the right to an abortion on firmer legal ground. But thousands of pages of scholarship notwithstanding, the right to abortion remains constitutionally shaky. … [Roe] is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.” — Benjamin Wittes, Brookings Institution fellow
  • “Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching.” — Michael Kinsley, columnist, writing in the Washington Post.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Praises Islamo-Fascism and Helps Crush the Spirit of True Freedom and Feminism

“This is the most wonderful time in which to live and be among the young people who are helping your country and bringing about change during this exceptional transitional period to a real democratic state,” Ginsburg said, according to the U.S. Embassy in Cairo. “Think of the people who lived before you and did not have this opportunity because they lived under a dictatorial regime.”

Two things to note that have already happened before Justice Ginsburg’s praises:

…In a matter of months, Egypt’s ultra-conservative Salafists have beaten a path from marginalised religious sect to major political force…

We meet the president of the Salafist Al Nour party as he leads prayers at a mosque in Alexandria. “Before the revolution prayers were on more general subjects…now we are freer and we can be more frank,” Emad Abdul Ghafour tells us.

Like fellow members, he’s brimming with confidence. They’ve just scored 24% of the vote in Egypt’s landmark elections, making them the second biggest bloc in parliament. Not bad for a political party founded just nine months ago.

Hosni Mubarak’s departure in February 2011 has seen Egypt’s Salafists emerge from the shadows. Before, they operated in the half-light, in little mosques like these, the former leader’s security services – wary of Islamists – never far away.

Now, they can openly advocate their agenda. Their ideal society is that of the first Muslims, one based on a strict adherence to the Koran and Sharia law.

What is striking among the party’s leaders and supporters is the belief that this model will soon become reality. They’re buoyed by election results which have seen Egyptians vote overwhelmingly for Islam – the Salafists coming in second only to the Muslim Brotherhood.

…read more…

The second is that the most popular movement in Egypt — the Muslim Brotherhood — is on the same page with the second most popular movement:

Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis agree that Sharia should be imposed on Egypt

Whatever their disagreements may be about how Sharia should be implemented, if the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafis do succeed in imposing Sharia upon Egypt, we will see restrictions on the freedom of speech, the freedom of conscience, and the rights of women and non-Muslims. Wherever and whenever Sharia has been implemented, this has been the case. Yet in the U.S., we are forced to believe on pain of “Islamophobia” charges that Sharia is so multiform as to have no particular content and is fully compatible with Constitutionally protected freedoms — and on the basis of these false claims, anti-Sharia legislation is struck down.

…read more…