Ginsburg Strikes Again!

[Flanders]

I would not want to be hanging upside down until this happens:

“It is now her duty to recuse herself from cases involving same-sex marriage.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Violates Judicial Code of Conduct
By Liberty Counsel September 18, 2014

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Violates Judicial Code of Conduct​

Remember what Ginsburg thinks of the US Constitution:

​

 

[Vigilante]

 

[DGS49]

Nah. This is like saying a SC justice can't rule on anything s/he has advocated in the past, which is basically bullshit.

And as for her comments on the U.S. Constitution, she is right. In fact, if the Emperor of the U.S. ever decided that we should write a new one it would look nothing like what we have now because it is outdated, incomplete, and largely irrelevant.

Which is, ironically, why Ginsburg completely ignores the written constitution in every opinion she writes.

 

[Flanders]

Nah. This is like saying a SC justice can't rule on anything s/he has advocated in the past, which is basically bullshit.

And as for her comments on the U.S. Constitution, she is right. In fact, if the Emperor of the U.S. ever decided that we should write a new one it would look nothing like what we have now because it is outdated, incomplete, and largely irrelevant.

Which is, ironically, why Ginsburg completely ignores the written constitution in every opinion she writes.

To DGS49: So long as she is a judge she is required to put her personal political agenda aside. When she was up for confirmation she should have told the Senate what she thought about the Constitution. She did not for obvious reasons. Better still, if she thinks the US Constitution is so terrible she and her kind should get elected to Congress and amend it. The machinery is there:

Article V​

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
​

Incidentally, why do liberals scream the loudest about the beauty of representative democracy then turn around and hand all of that authority to people like Ginsburg whose decisions represent her beliefs and nothing more? Answer: Dirty little priests like Ginsburg cannot legislate their morality so they use the court to impose their personal morality on everyone.

 

[DGS49]

You are preaching to the choir, Flanders. But you and I both know that there are ONLY two reasons why she was nominated and confirmed to the USSC: (1) The President SUPPORTED her personal agenda (as former Chief Counsel for the ACLU), and (2) she was a woman.

Progressives see the U.S. Constitution as a mine field that they can gaily dance around, by developing creative arguments that render it meaningless.

 

[Flanders]

You are preaching to the choir, Flanders. But you and I both know that there are ONLY two reasons why she was nominated and confirmed to the USSC: (1) The President SUPPORTED her personal agenda (as former Chief Counsel for the ACLU), and (2) she was a woman.

Progressives see the U.S. Constitution as a mine field that they can gaily dance around, by developing creative arguments that render it meaningless.

To DGS49: I’m having trouble relating this response to the things you said in #3 permalink.

 

[DGS49]

I think she is a horrible SC justice but (a) the idea that any justice must disqualify himself if he has taken a public position on an issue is unworkable. Only Republican nominees are held to this standard. Everyone knows that the Dem nominees are all whores and it would be impossible to hide it. (b) There are certainly better documents to start with than the U.S. constitution when considering a NEW constitution for a newly-formed government. A parliamentary system seems to be favored generally in the "civilized" world.

Parenthetically, I think the U.S. constitution AS WRITTEN (not as currently interpreted) would have been a perfect document for the re-formulated Iraq. It calls for generally independent states with a great deal of individual power and autonomy, and a federal government with limited powers such as, printing money, running the post office, patent office, handling immigration, and so forth. Too bad I didn't get a vote on this (in Iraq).

 

[Flanders]

(b) There are certainly better documents to start with than the U.S. constitution when considering a NEW constitution for a newly-formed government.

To DGS49: I cannot agree with any part of that. New constitutions are always designed for parasites; i.e., a bunch of human Rights that have to be paid for with tax dollars as opposed to the Rights in our original Bill of Rights. Ginsburg said as much in the video in the OP, and Taqiyya the Liar calls the Rights that made America great “Negative Rights.”

​

 

[Flanders]

Ginsburg should be unfrocked and declared an Apocalypse:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, having decided for some inexplicable reason to do a long interview with a fashion magazine (maybe it is her celebrated collection of lace collars), reaffirmed the most important things we know about her: her partisanship, her elevation of politics over law, and her desire to see as many poor children killed as is feasibly possible.

XXXXX​

This is not her first time weighing in on the question of what by any intellectually honest standard must be described as eugenics. In an earlier interview, she described the Roe v. Wade decision as being intended to control population growth, “particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”

September 24, 2014 1:00 PM
‘We Only Whisper It’
Justice Ginsburg sings another verse of “Kill the Poor.”
By Kevin D. Williamson

We Only Whisper It National Review Online​

 

[mamooth]

Given that Ginsburg was pointing out the hypocrisy of only pushing birth control on poor people, your sheer dishonesty here is the only remarkable thing.

But then, it's all part of your "The ends always justify the means for my own side!" relative morality. If the big lie pushes the cause of TheParty, you auto-define the big lie as good and holy.