I can't stand Hatch, but to give the devil his due, if Wikipedia is to be believed-

Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg (born March 15, 1933) is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Ginsburg was appointed by Democratic President Bill Clinton with the support of Republican Senator Orrin Hatch. Ginsburg took the oath of office August 10, 1993.

It's "hard to say" because looking backwards to rehash the past is not a natural GOP instinct. That is a democrat instinct. Republicans look forward to the future.

"Republicans look forward to the future."

Al, that would be "Republicans choose to IGNORE the past" as if it never happened.

This is especially true for things they've done that donn't look good in retrospect, like: Pushing through the Medicare Part D and insisting that the pharms get reimbursed at full retail, not supervising banks and letting them run wild, not controlling spending and running up massive deficits, etc.

Republicans trash the place and then say, "Who, us? We're only looking forward".

Leadership means being right before everyone catches up with you. That's also what it means to be an "activist judge" -- where, according to Hatch, leadership is not welcome.

One can just as easily speculate that most of the GOPers would vote against the First, Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution. Indeed, when Cornyn first won election to the Senate, he had a list of at least six amendments that he wanted to propose.

"Republicans look forward to the future."

Sure because the term conservative means looking forward and the term progressive mean holding on to the past. Idiot.

Thank you, ScottW714. To me, being a conservative is trying to conserve the the laws Progressives pass. Once they get used to it and realize it is good for America, they then want to "conserve" them. Conservatives are ALWAYS 10 steps and 30 years behind.

It cracks me up when hypocritical Republicans go around labeling liberal justices as "activist" judges. No Supreme Court was more activist than this one thanks to right-wing ideologues Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas.

But Hatch wouldn't ever get the chance to filibuster a Thurgood Marshall, because Hatch and his GOP pals have so poisoned the process that a Thurgood Marshall would never get nominated in the first place. Nowadays, if you accidentally wrote something vaguely liberal in a college paper, like, say, that drowning puppies is cruel, you will be considered unacceptably "out of the main stream."

Meanwhile, of course, Hatch et al. gladly support the radical theories and reinterpretations of the current activists on the Court, since right-wing activism is A-OK.

A better question would be, "Would Democrats vote for Justice Roberts, knowing what they know today?"

anon, although hatch may have voted for ginsberg in 1993, the question is whether he would in 2010. and the answer is almost certainly no.

hatch is not a very intelligent person, but he does know which way the (republican) winds blow.

Would Hatch have voted for Abraham Lincoln?

It is to laugh. Instead, Hatch would have made excused for John Wilkes Booth.

Howard, no one (certainly not me) doubts what you say is true about Hatch in general and in particular that he would not vote for Justice Ginsberg today. I can't stand the SOB.

However, the question was "Would they have voted to confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was approved on a 96 to 3 vote in 1993?"

The question was posed in past tense, not present tense.

I have said for a while that the current crop of Republicans want to repeal the progressive era... if you ask them about elements... like child labor laws... they will back off. But, the practical effect is to return us to the moral and regulatory env of the late 19th century without the manners or style or compassion.

How many unemployeed people has Kyl fed lately?

Watching these ignorant unreconstructed southern traitors - like Jeff Sessions - going after Thurgood Marshall was enough to make this veteran of the civil rights movement want to "consult my Second Amendment remedies." These people are the exact same Enemy that Marshall fought all his life.

Hatch obviously hasn't shed any of the beliefs he gained growing up in the white supremacist Mormon Church.

That the Confederate parasite in American politics has taken over the party that originated to oppose the slaveocracy and all their works is one of the great political ironies of American history.

Marshall was a strong liberal judicial voice akin to Brennan ... many Dems didn't vote for Alito; it would be perfectly normal than for Republicans to not vote for a Marshall. When he was up for nomination, his record focused on civil rights. But, opposition to him as a justice in no way is limited to that.

Isn't Republican Jeff Sessions the KKK loving apologist?

At least Byrd had the good sense to repudiate his racist past and repeatedly act on behalf of expanding civil rights.

As for Reagan?

Would modern-day Republicans have voted for an addled Hollywood/salesman who was too-weak-to-serve in the military?

Well...

The modern-day Republicans are getting their collective tails yanked by a cultish drug-addled 'rodeo clown' who regularly cites an even crazier cultish fanatic who stood with those that claimed that Republican Dwight Eisenhower was a communist (see, Beck's adoration of Cleon Skousen).

Sooo... it's hard to tell what the easily conned right-wing would or wouldn't do if they had a compelling enough authoritarian leader in charge, even if that authoritarian leader was a drug-addled rodeo clown who rewrites history in ways that make the script of "Lost" seem sensible.