Ginsburg, Shouldn't Be In Politics, But Alas

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Annie, Mar 17, 2006.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    If only she would always be asleep:

    http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110008107#bend


     
  2. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    When the Tom DeLay's and John Cornyn's of the world threaten political retribution, or worse, against judges who don't march in lockstep with their political ideology, Justices O'Connor and Ginsburg are right to call their critics to task.

    In The Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote, "...There is no liberty , if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers'...Liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have everything to fear from its union with either of the other two." And and the independence of the judiciary is under dire threat. Especially in light of Justice Alito's little missive to James Dobson:

    <blockquote>Dear Dr. Dobson,

    This is just a short note to express my heartfelt thanks to you and the entire staff of Focus on the Family for your help and support in the past few challenging months. I would also greatly appreciate it if you would convey my appreciation to the good people from all parts of the country who wrote to tell me that they were praying for me and for my family during this period.

    As I said when I spoke at my formal investiture at the White House last week, the prayers of so many people from around the country were a palpable and powerful force. <b>As long as I serve on the Supreme Court, I will keep in mind the trust that has been placed in me.</b>

    I hope that we will have the opportunity to meet personally at some point in the future. In the meantime, my entire family and I hope that you and the Focus on the Family staff know how much we appreciate all that you have done.

    Sincerely Yours,
    Samuel Alito


    (<i>emphasis mine</i>)</blockquote>

    The only trust placed in Justice Alito is the trust that he will exercise his power in an impartial manner, rather than according to the dictates of personal or outside interests when rendering his decisions. His letter to James Dobson seems to indicate that this will not be the case. He already feels beholden to outside interests thus his impartiality is suspect, at best.

    The attacks by the more authoritarian elements of the Republican Party and control of all three branches of government by these same elements, represent a grave threat to the independence of the judiciary. In their attempts to limit court jurisdiction, appoint only party ideologues to the bench, and threaten the removal of those judges with the temerity to defy the Republican right-wing threaten the very rule of law in this country. This undermining of the rule of law is but the begining of a slide down the slippery slope towards fascism, totalitarianism and the death of the Republic.
     
  3. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Would you take away the freedom of speech from elected representatives ?
     
  4. Bullypulpit
    Offline

    Bullypulpit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2004
    Messages:
    5,849
    Thanks Received:
    378
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Columbus, OH
    Ratings:
    +379
    Would you stand up and yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater?

    When speech acts to incite actions in others that cause harm to others, it is no longer free.
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    puhleeeeesee----you know full well that's not what the supreme courts' critics are insinuating. :bsflag:
     
  6. CrimsonWhite
    Offline

    CrimsonWhite *****istrator Emeritus Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2006
    Messages:
    7,978
    Thanks Received:
    1,755
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Location:
    Guntucky
    Ratings:
    +1,757
    A liberal that is in favor of restictions on speech? Hell has truly frozen over. In this country, the burning of the one national symbol that unites us, is allowed. Cartoons that depict the sitting President being sodomized by a donkey are protected. Protesters are allowed to scream obscenities at the funerals of fallen soldiers. These things are protected under the First Amendment's clause on speech. If these actions do not cause"harm," then what do you sir define as "harm."
     

Share This Page