Sometimes I Don??¢â???¬â???¢t ??¢â???¬????Enjoy Being a Girl??¢â???¬â???¢

Men and women are as equally capable of genius as they are at uttering babble. Case closed.

But there are times when a woman says something that makes me chuck the brand-new hairdo and eyelashes all in a curl for overalls and a fake beard.

Lately, there’s been a rash of female balderdash coming from women who sound like they’re thinking with their ovaries. And for post-menopausal women, that’s especially fruitless. What else can we conclude when every other sentence is peppered with “concern” for “reproductive rights”? Enough already.

Take for example a speech by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the New York Bar Association, September 21. Ginsburg said she wants another woman on the Court but “any woman will not do.” It seems female jurists are equal but some are more equal than others. There are some women “who would not advance women’s rights or human rights,” according to Ginsburg.

Translation—men have human rights, women get those, and then something called “women’s rights.” You don’t have to be a world-class cryptographer to bust that code.

Let’s hear it for women jurists who would not “advance” rights because they know it’s not in the job description. They understand that “Equal Justice Under Law” isn’t synchronized by an abortion meter.

“I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me,” Ginsburg said.

I think she’s probably outside his cell phone range or maybe he’s just used up all of his allotted minutes.

Ginsburg also commented about concerns over the consideration of international law that she and others on the Court have favored. “I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it. I don’t want to stop at a national boundary.”

I’d like to shine my little light on this. I think we have to require that somebody at the swearing in has to check to see if the oath-taker’s fingers are crossed. Maybe we need to add a line from the marriage oath. Do you promise to forsake all others and cling to the text of the U.S. Constitution?

The justice also told her listeners, “She doesn’t like being the only woman on the U.S. Supreme Court.”

Resignation comes to mind.

Nothing here is intended as a personal attack. My sense of Justice Ginsburg is that she’s a nice lady and certainly intelligent. But there’s an agenda coming through here that’s far afield for a judge.

Next up. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

O’Connor spoke to 125 law students at Arizona State University on September 19. When asked about her “sense” of the [Judge John Roberts] hearing and whether he had been “evasive” when compared to her hearing, she said, “I didn’t know when I was confirmed how I would decide issues.”

And a lot of us don’t know how she decided after reading her opinions. Truth be told, we aren’t convinced she knew either.

O’Connor also took the opportunity to “explain” her position on the “hot button” issue of international law. “Be assured that we don’t think these citations (of other countries’ practices) are an authority for the United States to follow.”

Sure. That’s why they kill a tree and waste time telling us about these non-authorities.

Then there was her jibe at the Court’s conflicting rulings in two Ten Commandments cases last term. “We didn’t do too well in articulating a clear path.” She called them “fuzzy jurisprudence.”

For sure. How could they think of mucking up her bright-line count-the-reindeer-Santa-Claus-candy-cane rule?

Even if another woman is confirmed to the Supreme Court, it’s talk like this that will ignite a gazillion man march on Washington to blockade the Court’s doors and keep her from taking the seat. They’ll call it the “Prof. Henry Higgins March.” Signs will proclaim: “Women are irrational, that’s all there is to that! Their heads are full of cotton, hay and rags!”

Note to justices. Please stop talking about “advancing women’s rights.” You’re killing us.

Then there’s Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who’s forever reminding us that she’s “deeply disturbed.”

Here’s a thought. Forget reproduction for five minutes.

To no one’s surprise, she voted “No” on Judge John Roberts after telling us: “I think that there is no question that he has many stellar qualities, certainly a brilliant legal mind and a love and abiding respect for the law. And I think a sense for its scope and complexity as well.”

Other than missing the “not just any woman” ovaries, I’m guessing he’d be a shoe-in