Wisconsin native.
"The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him."--GKC
"Liberalism is the modern and morbid habit of always sacrificing the normal to the abnormal" --G K Chesterton
"The only objective of Liberty is Life" --G K Chesterton
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Saturday, February 04, 2012
Time for Ginsburg to Go
Since this old Lefty hag doesn't like the US Constitution--which has protected her in her job for decades--perhaps she should go to South Africa or Canada to mal-practice law.
That old turd is gonna kick the bucket soon enough. Hopefully after Teh One gets voted out. It would be nice to replace her with a die hard, younger, Conservative. One who could be in office for years and years to come.
Why would anyone criticize what Ginsberg said without actually reading, studying and understanding the constitutions she is talking about. If our constitution was perfect, why have we had over 200 years of arguing what it means? Maybe these constitutions are simpler to govern and live by. Maybe the individual liberties and rights enumerated in these constitutions are wider and more delineated that ours. Maybe they say life begins at conception.
The US Constitution as originally written and passed did not include freedom of speech, religion, and press; the right to bear arms; protections against search and seizure; etc. And not all people were "whole" people.
Or are you suggesting that God only wrote the US Constitution and no others?
Well, Jim. 1. That's why they made the Amendment process, to include things like free speech and freedom OF religion. They didn't make it easy to change so it couldn't be done on a whim. 2. Read into the history and reasons behind the 3/5ths clause. It had to do with representation, not whether someone was human or not. Abolitionist didn't want the slaves counted. Now, it's possible you never knew that, or that you knew it and wanted to perpetuate the lies of race pimps and uber lefties. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. 3. It's easy to know what they intended, for the most part, because they explained it in their writings, as well as in the Federalist papers. You see, we haven't been arguing over it for 200 years. It's only been since the late 1800's that bastards have been trying to re-write it, from both the left and the far right. Hope this has helped some. As to Thomas, I don't recall him ever saying that the SCOTUS should consider International Law when hearing a case. I do believe that Ginsburg has. THAT, is a travesty, and not their job.
Billiam, learn your history. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, who eventually became the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson (states righters!), argued EXTENSIVELY over how to interpret the Constitution after its ratification in 1788. And let us not forget the Marshall Court, which for three decades after our country's inception made decisions that drew the battle lines between federalists and states' righters. So it has been 200+ years of arguments over our Constitution.
Furthermore, the Bill of Rights was only included by Federalists when states balked at the notion that their fundamental freedoms were not guaranteed. Citizens wanted a definitive assurance that their freedoms would be clearly delineated.
Now, the 3/5 clause was meant as a compromise to placate southerners who feared losing political power. Ironic that slaveowners thought blacks were property, not people...who must be counted toward the census in determining Congressional representation.
Furthermore, where in the world in the article does it state that Ginsberg advocated that justices ought to consider international law when hearing a case??? That may be YOUR inference, but not one that she clearly articulated.
Heaven help us for one of our justices to exercise her First Amendment right and offer insight to a country on how to create their own Constitution!
"That old turd is gonna kick the bucket soon enough."
Disgruntled, wishing someone dead is NOT a Christian trait. Go to church!
From what I've read about it, the southern states wanted them all counted, the abolitionists wanted none counted. The 3/5 was a compromise. The argument though, boiled down to representatives. By counting slaves as 3/5, it prevented the slaves states from having too much power, more so than the non slave states. As to the Warren court, I stand corrected in that. I've read most of the Federalist papers, and will soon start the anti-federalist. Interesting reading. As to Ginsburg, She said that a few years ago, that she felt the court could take into account the laws of other countries. Are they not to determine cases by OUR Constitution?
I'd like for anybody to cite anywhere at any time that Ginsberg has advocated deferring to international law or constitutions over the US Constitution.
I would think that any competent judge would consider how state laws are adjudicated in other states when making a decision in his own state when there is a question of interpretation of the law. Is there any jurist who has gotten to the bench without studying the Magna Carta, English Common Law, or the Bible and how they informed our founders or those who have decided cases for over 200 years? Furthermore, sometimes citing other legal codes gives a good counterpoint in legal arguments-not for what's better about them than ours, but for how ours might be better or stronger than theirs.
Jim, from 2003, http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/08/03/534/42891 and from 2009,http://www.examiner.com/scotus-in-washington-dc/supreme-court-justice-s-inconsistency-on-international-law Now, it is my understanding that the Supreme court is to decide cases based on our Constitution, and whether the case before them holds up to it, not international law. I contend, that if they should not be constrained to our document, then it is a meaningless document. If that's the case, we are in more trouble than I thought. What say you?
Kennedy is a MODERATE, i.e. the swing vote on the court. Hardly a moonbat--hilarious. Centrists are the key to everything, Dad29. Disparage them all you want.
Throw a bucket of water on the treasonous rotten broom hilda hag.
She should start melting straightaway.
"...Ginsburg also noted that among her favorite parts of the Constitutions is the provision that judges’ salaries cannot be reduced, as well as a guarantee of independence to judges..."
Slime hailing straight out of the lake of burning sulphur.
By the by, that writer needs to go back to editing school.
"parts" is plural. "is", singular. "Constitutions" should be singular.
The quoted paragraph is completely grammatically and contextually incorrect.
That old turd is gonna kick the bucket soon enough. Hopefully after Teh One gets voted out. It would be nice to replace her with a die hard, younger, Conservative. One who could be in office for years and years to come.
ReplyDeleteNot before Thomas goes.
ReplyDeleteWhy would anyone criticize what Ginsberg said without actually reading, studying and understanding the constitutions she is talking about. If our constitution was perfect, why have we had over 200 years of arguing what it means? Maybe these constitutions are simpler to govern and live by. Maybe the individual liberties and rights enumerated in these constitutions are wider and more delineated that ours. Maybe they say life begins at conception.
The US Constitution as originally written and passed did not include freedom of speech, religion, and press; the right to bear arms; protections against search and seizure; etc. And not all people were "whole" people.
Or are you suggesting that God only wrote the US Constitution and no others?
Well, Jim. 1. That's why they made the Amendment process, to include things like free speech and freedom OF religion. They didn't make it easy to change so it couldn't be done on a whim. 2. Read into the history and reasons behind the 3/5ths clause. It had to do with representation, not whether someone was human or not. Abolitionist didn't want the slaves counted. Now, it's possible you never knew that, or that you knew it and wanted to perpetuate the lies of race pimps and uber lefties. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. 3. It's easy to know what they intended, for the most part, because they explained it in their writings, as well as in the Federalist papers. You see, we haven't been arguing over it for 200 years. It's only been since the late 1800's that bastards have been trying to re-write it, from both the left and the far right. Hope this has helped some. As to Thomas, I don't recall him ever saying that the SCOTUS should consider International Law when hearing a case. I do believe that Ginsburg has. THAT, is a travesty, and not their job.
ReplyDeleteBilliam, learn your history. The Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, who eventually became the Democratic-Republicans led by Thomas Jefferson (states righters!), argued EXTENSIVELY over how to interpret the Constitution after its ratification in 1788. And let us not forget the Marshall Court, which for three decades after our country's inception made decisions that drew the battle lines between federalists and states' righters. So it has been 200+ years of arguments over our Constitution.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the Bill of Rights was only included by Federalists when states balked at the notion that their fundamental freedoms were not guaranteed. Citizens wanted a definitive assurance that their freedoms would be clearly delineated.
Now, the 3/5 clause was meant as a compromise to placate southerners who feared losing political power. Ironic that slaveowners thought blacks were property, not people...who must be counted toward the census in determining Congressional representation.
Furthermore, where in the world in the article does it state that Ginsberg advocated that justices ought to consider international law when hearing a case??? That may be YOUR inference, but not one that she clearly articulated.
Heaven help us for one of our justices to exercise her First Amendment right and offer insight to a country on how to create their own Constitution!
"That old turd is gonna kick the bucket soon enough."
Disgruntled, wishing someone dead is NOT a Christian trait. Go to church!
From what I've read about it, the southern states wanted them all counted, the abolitionists wanted none counted. The 3/5 was a compromise. The argument though, boiled down to representatives. By counting slaves as 3/5, it prevented the slaves states from having too much power, more so than the non slave states. As to the Warren court, I stand corrected in that. I've read most of the Federalist papers, and will soon start the anti-federalist. Interesting reading. As to Ginsburg, She said that a few years ago, that she felt the court could take into account the laws of other countries. Are they not to determine cases by OUR Constitution?
ReplyDeleteI'd like for anybody to cite anywhere at any time that Ginsberg has advocated deferring to international law or constitutions over the US Constitution.
ReplyDeleteI would think that any competent judge would consider how state laws are adjudicated in other states when making a decision in his own state when there is a question of interpretation of the law. Is there any jurist who has gotten to the bench without studying the Magna Carta, English Common Law, or the Bible and how they informed our founders or those who have decided cases for over 200 years? Furthermore, sometimes citing other legal codes gives a good counterpoint in legal arguments-not for what's better about them than ours, but for how ours might be better or stronger than theirs.
Jim, from 2003, http://www.talkleft.com/story/2003/08/03/534/42891 and from 2009,http://www.examiner.com/scotus-in-washington-dc/supreme-court-justice-s-inconsistency-on-international-law
ReplyDeleteNow, it is my understanding that the Supreme court is to decide cases based on our Constitution, and whether the case before them holds up to it, not international law. I contend, that if they should not be constrained to our document, then it is a meaningless document. If that's the case, we are in more trouble than I thought. What say you?
Billiam--Excellent sources! Although, as Dad29 says, read for meaning! DEFERRING to international law is different than CONSIDERING international law.
ReplyDeleteSome of our justices ACKNOWLEDGE the role that international law plays, and will increasingly play, in the constitutional jurisprudence of nations.
"The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions.:
Justice Kennedy, Roper v. Simmons, 2005
Yeah, Kennedy, that liberal moonbat! Your answer is right on, Anon.
ReplyDeleteActually, Kennedy is a moonbat.
ReplyDeleteSee his ravings in Lawrence v Texas.
Even more wacked-out than Roe's majority.
Kennedy is a MODERATE, i.e. the swing vote on the court. Hardly a moonbat--hilarious. Centrists are the key to everything, Dad29. Disparage them all you want.
ReplyDeleteSee his ravings in Lawrence v Texas.
ReplyDeleteI read it. Ravings? No. Now the Scalia/Thomas dissent is another matter.
Throw a bucket of water on the treasonous rotten broom hilda hag.
ReplyDeleteShe should start melting straightaway.
"...Ginsburg also noted that among her favorite parts of the Constitutions is the provision that judges’ salaries cannot be reduced, as well as a guarantee of independence to judges..."
Slime hailing straight out of the lake of burning sulphur.
By the by, that writer needs to go back to editing school.
"parts" is plural.
"is", singular.
"Constitutions" should be singular.
The quoted paragraph is completely grammatically and contextually incorrect.
Scalia was right.
ReplyDeleteKennedy is still living in the 1960's--which is the kindest thing one can say about him.
You've got the wrong Kennedy, Dad29!
ReplyDelete