She's not stupid, she's a liberal

From USA Today (don't blame me I'm traveling and the hotel gave me a free copy, it's the only reason I heard of this story).

Ginsburg: Court needs another woman
WASHINGTON — Three years after Justice Sandra Day O'Connor left the Supreme Court, the impact of having only one woman on the nation's highest bench has become particularly clear to that woman — Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Her status as the court's lone woman was especially poignant during a recent case involving a 13-year-old girl who had been strip-searched by Arizona school officials looking for drugs. During oral arguments, some other justices minimized the girl's lasting humiliation, but Ginsburg stood out in her concern for the teenager.
"They have never been a 13-year-old girl," she told USA TODAY later when asked about her colleagues' comments during the arguments. "It's a very sensitive age for a girl. I didn't think that my colleagues, some of them, quite understood."
As Justice David Souter prepares to retire at the end of the term this summer, the significance of Ginsburg's position as the nine-member court's only woman has become a point of broad discussion. President Obama is under pressure from groups such as the National Women's Law Center to nominate another woman.
In interviews with USA TODAY before Souter's retirement announcement Friday, Ginsburg said the court needs another woman. "Women belong in all places where decisions are being made. I don't say (the split) should be 50-50," Ginsburg said. "It could be 60% men, 40% women, or the other way around. It shouldn't be that women are the exception." (continued)

I am not surprised Ginsburg doesn't get it... as a matter of fact from her it is rather expected.
Not only does she miss the point about why a woman is "needed" on the SCOTUS, she uses the most irrational argument it almost makes a case why women should not be on the Supreme Court.

The members of the Supreme Court of the United States are charged with determining the constitutionality of laws and judicial decisions. They are supposed to hear evidence and make decisions free of preconceptions and prejudice. In this capacity a woman's point of view is irrelevant, it is not about points of view; it is about the law.

And the argument she chose to use as the bellwether about why having another woman on the court, because men cannot empathize with a 13 year old girl, as he has not been one, is not only irrelevant, it perhaps is a great reason why women should not be on the SCOTUS. The justices should not sympathize or empathize with the petitioners but rather determine the merits of the case based on FACTS.

I know it is hard. I remember when I was 13. Lets just say it was not a good year. And I wasn't strip searched.

However, the fact that the petitioner was 13 is irrelevant to the case. That ANY student of ANY age or EITHER gender was strip searched for such as spurious reason as suspected for giving aspirin to a classmate should be the issue. The case could have been an indictment of brainless "zero tolerance" policies implemented because school administrators are lazy, instead, to Ginsburg, the case centered around the emotions of a 13 year old girl and lack of empathy from her bench mates.

It is bad enough that the SCOTUS frequently makes law. That this law could be based on empathising with a 13 year old girl's emotional state and not the constitution is frightening.