Friday, February 3, 2012

Ruth Bader Ginsberg Again Shows Her Colors

Very little time tonight-

US Supreme Court Justice [sic] Ruth Bader Ginsberg, not content to have earlier commented that she supports the use of decisions foreign courts of Law when considering cases in and applying only to the US, has again indicated that our Constitution is essentially out-of-date.

Below is a piece on her shameless position on illegally bringing in examples of foreign law when considering cases in her own nation:

"Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court delivered an address to The American Society of International Law earlier this month, and it shows just how she, and some of her colleagues, are now willing to use selected foreign court decisions and laws in determining deciding issues of constitutional interpretation in the U.S. She said, “Before taking up the diversity of opinions on this matter, I will state and endeavor to explain my view, which is simply this: If U. S. experience and decisions can be instructive to systems that have more recently instituted or invigorated judicial review for constitutionality, so we can learn from others now engaged in measuring ordinary laws and executive actions against charters securing basic rights.” Her wording is both instructive and scary. She argues that the U.S. Supreme Court, assigned the task of interpreting the U.S. Constitution, should take into account the decisions and interpretations of foreign courts “engaged in measuring ordinary laws and executive actions against charters securing basic rights.” Her language means that she will give deference to courts in liberal Europe, where “the measuring [of] ordinary laws” has been influenced by treaties, charters, and cultural factors that have nothing to do with the U.S. Constitution. Just consider her argument that, since judges can consult any authorities they may choose, they can consult foreign courts. In her words: “If we can consult those writings, why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights?” We are in big, big trouble. A good response to Justice Ginsburg’s speech is offered by M. Edward Whelan III of the Ethics and Public Policy Center."


And here is a video in which, while speaking on her recommendations to Egypt as that Nation is involved in drawing their own Constitution, (I can't wait to see how that turns out) she repeatedly makes mention of how old our Constitution is. Note that she is not, like many actual Americans would, citing this fact to draw attention to its attributes. She is not proudly noting that ours is the oldest currently operating document of such nature in existence; no, she is using this fact to indicate that it is not in keeping with the times. In other words, it is outdated, behind the times on human rights, and, this is the really live one - does not provide for a truly independent judiciary.
Video Clip below:

I have no understanding of how this person can remain in her position. How can the admission of using foreign Laws to apply to US decisions not be grounds for an attempt to impeach? A typical Leftist, she is frustrated by the restrictions that our document places on those in power. Our Supreme Court has been the greatest instrument in the systematic destruction of what made this nation. The really sick part is that, while our Supreme Court is shockingly independent, a fact that has created all sorts of problems of legislating from the bench, Ginsberg is clearly not satiated by this freedom and wants more. More of what? The court has been wrecking our freedoms, defending the continued encroachments of government into our lives*, and restricting the expansions of freedoms only when they corrupt the youth and the family. While we remain silent when Muslim men kill their daughters for the high crime of using nail polish, our Supreme Court refuses to support parental notifications when our daughters seek to get an abortion.

I still am in shock that the court, at this stage, was able to pull itself together to twice rule on the meaning of the second amendment without screwing that up. The Left howled about that those decisions. The problem for them was that the evidence supporting the actual meaning of the right to possess arms was so overwhelming that the court really had no choice. Not that Ginsberg helped on that ruling though - she dissented of course. Well you know, it is an old document.

I have to go. Please read and watch what is on the links. She is an awful person.


This case effectively destroyed the right of private property. Not only can towns seize property to sell to other private interests, thereby avoiding the usual reasons for Eminent Domain seizures such as schools, roads, etc., but the towns do not even need to cite any compelling proofs that they are desperate for new revenue to, say, avoid bankruptcy. All they need to claim is that they can make more money by taking the property away from the citizen to sell to someone else.

This ruling cleared the way for the application of UN Agenda 21 and made the job of Obama's White House Rural Council much easier. See the recent post.

No comments:

Post a Comment