Interview with Ruth Bader Ginsberg

[Disir]

She is sharp as a tack.

 

[Sunni Man]

I really wish the old commie jewess would either retire or croak in the near future. ....

 

[saveliberty]

About as useful as a tack too.

 

[Borillar]

About as useful as a tack too.

Tacks are very useful. Hope she outlives all the RW fascists on the USSC.

 

[Disir]

I really wish the old commie jewess would either retire or croak in the near future. ....

Oh, I bet. You and the majority of Democrats. They just want her to stick around until they can get a Democrat in for pres. They don't care one wit about her opinions. She handled those questions like it was nothing.

 

[saveliberty]

About as useful as a tack too.

Tacks are very useful. Hope she outlives all the RW fascists on the USSC.

When was the last time you used a tack? Pin the tail on the donkey?

 

[Disir]

About as useful as a tack too.

Tacks are very useful. Hope she outlives all the RW fascists on the USSC.

When was the last time you used a tack? Pin the tail on the donkey?

Why is it that you don't like her? Is it because she is considered liberal? Is there a specific case involved?

 

[saveliberty]

About as useful as a tack too.

Tacks are very useful. Hope she outlives all the RW fascists on the USSC.

When was the last time you used a tack? Pin the tail on the donkey?

Why is it that you don't like her? Is it because she is considered liberal? Is there a specific case involved?

She is an activist justice, so by definition she fails to do her primary job, which is defending the Constitution.

 

[Disir]

About as useful as a tack too.

Tacks are very useful. Hope she outlives all the RW fascists on the USSC.

When was the last time you used a tack? Pin the tail on the donkey?

Why is it that you don't like her? Is it because she is considered liberal? Is there a specific case involved?

She is an activist justice, so by definition she fails to do her primary job, which is defending the Constitution.

What case?

 

[Disir]

I am not picking on you, Save. I am trying to see where you are coming from.

 

[eflatminor]

Whatever her mental acuity, I stand against her constant attempts to subvert the plain meaning of the Constitution.

 

[Disir]

Whatever her mental acuity, I stand against her constant attempts to subvert the plain meaning of the Constitution.

What cases?

 

[saveliberty]

I am not picking on you, Save. I am trying to see where you are coming from.

Thank you for engaging in a thoughtful discussion Disir. I do not feel attacked.

RBG's Heller comments are also quite revealing. They confirm that the Court's most prominent and committed liberal activist does not believe that the Constitution's plain language (reinforced by a clear historical record of original intent) protects the individual right to own a firearm. This same woman recent joined a majority opinion that determined that the so-called "right" to abortion -- which appears nowhere in the Constitution -- is so inviolable that regulating the practice based on commonly-accepted sanitary and health protocols is unconstitutional. It's almost as if the Ginsburg wing of the judiciary views itself as a super-legislature, imbued with he power to contort our founding document to permit or prohibit virtually anything, depending on its members' increasingly-undisguised worldview.

This Supreme Court Justice is Under Fire for Controversial Trump Comments

Justice Ginsburg claimed in an interview with the New York Times published Friday that the Roberts Courts is “one of the most activist courts in history,” as “measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation.” Justice Ginsburg isn’t breaking ground here so much as repeating a political talking point that has become conventional wisdom among liberals.

I take issue with her definition of judicial activism, which can’t be boiled down to overturning legislation, but instead happens when judges employ novel and expansive readings of the law to reach a preferred policy outcome. But even under the liberal redefinition of judicial activism, Justice Ginsburg’s claim is still misleading. Jonathan Adler reviewed the evidence for this charge last year, and concluded it is a myth: “If by ‘judicial activism’ one means a willingness to overturn precedents and invalidate federal laws, the Roberts Court is the least activist court of the post-war period.”

Justice Ginsburg and 'Judicial Activism' - Judicial Crisis Network

As with her use of the Constitution, she simply redefines that which she dislikes.

 

[saveliberty]

From what should be a leading advocate of the Constitution:

The problem, you see, is that the U.S. Constitution is “a rather old constitution.” Ginsburg suggested that Egyptians should look instead to the Constitution of South Africa or perhaps the European Convention on Human Rights. All these are “much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”

Ginsburg’s comments echo those by Washington University professor David Law, who published a study with Mila Versteeg on the U.S. Constitution’s declining influence worldwide. In an interview, Law unfavorably compared the Constitution to “Windows 3.1”—outdated and unattractive in a world of sleek and sexy modern constitutions. Such obsession with the age of the Constitution is both absurd and irrelevant.

For one, the Constitution is still among the shortest and most elegantly written constitutions in the world. By contrast, South Africa’s constitution is well over 100 pages long, filled with tables, schedules, and such stirring passages as detailed provisions for a Financial and Fiscal Commission: “A. National legislation referred to in subsection (1) must provide for the participation of – a. the Premiers in the compilation of a list envisaged in subsection (1) (b); and b. organized local government in the compilation of a list envisaged in subsection (1) (c).” And you thought the U.S. Constitution was hard to read.

Equally ridiculous is the claim that the Constitution is too antiquated to apply to the modern world. The principles of the Constitution, although first articulated centuries ago, are not tied to the material conditions of a bygone age. They rest on that most solid and enduring of all foundations: human nature. The Constitution itself contains no policy prescriptions. Rather, it is a short, elegantly written document that create a framework for a free people to confront the political questions of their times.

Of course, the real reason progressives swoon over South Africa’s constitution is that it goes far beyond merely establishing a framework for government and guarantees progressive policies—for example, by requiring legislation that prevents pollution and ecological degradation. In other words, the left’s real discontent with the U.S. Constitution is that it does not require Americans to adopt a progressive government and expansive welfare state that provides for every “right” social scientists can justify.

Justice Ginsburg: "I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution"

 

[eflatminor]

Whatever her mental acuity, I stand against her constant attempts to subvert the plain meaning of the Constitution.

What cases?

I don't think I'm qualified to cite specific cases. I'm not a lawyer nor a student of the court.

That said, surely you wouldn't classify her as an originalist, as one might think of Thomas, for example. She has written many opinions attempting to make the case that Constitution’s text and history point in a progressive direction.

I stand against that direction. I believe the words of the law of the land should mean exactly what they say, not what she thinks they ought to mean. Stated differently, her opinions have sought to allow government to expand it's powers whereas I believe the court is there to ensure the government remains firmly within the enumerated granted to it.

I'm sure there are cases in which she ruled as would an originalist. I'm talking about her tendency to rule in favor of progressive expansion of government. I've certainly read her described as the most progressive justice, but hey, if I'm wrong about her, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Disir]

I am not picking on you, Save. I am trying to see where you are coming from.

Thank you for engaging in a thoughtful discussion Disir. I do not feel attacked.

RBG's Heller comments are also quite revealing. They confirm that the Court's most prominent and committed liberal activist does not believe that the Constitution's plain language (reinforced by a clear historical record of original intent) protects the individual right to own a firearm. This same woman recent joined a majority opinion that determined that the so-called "right" to abortion -- which appears nowhere in the Constitution -- is so inviolable that regulating the practice based on commonly-accepted sanitary and health protocols is unconstitutional. It's almost as if the Ginsburg wing of the judiciary views itself as a super-legislature, imbued with he power to contort our founding document to permit or prohibit virtually anything, depending on its members' increasingly-undisguised worldview.

This Supreme Court Justice is Under Fire for Controversial Trump Comments

Justice Ginsburg claimed in an interview with the New York Times published Friday that the Roberts Courts is “one of the most activist courts in history,” as “measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation.” Justice Ginsburg isn’t breaking ground here so much as repeating a political talking point that has become conventional wisdom among liberals.

I take issue with her definition of judicial activism, which can’t be boiled down to overturning legislation, but instead happens when judges employ novel and expansive readings of the law to reach a preferred policy outcome. But even under the liberal redefinition of judicial activism, Justice Ginsburg’s claim is still misleading. Jonathan Adler reviewed the evidence for this charge last year, and concluded it is a myth: “If by ‘judicial activism’ one means a willingness to overturn precedents and invalidate federal laws, the Roberts Court is the least activist court of the post-war period.”

Justice Ginsburg and 'Judicial Activism' - Judicial Crisis Network

As with her use of the Constitution, she simply redefines that which she dislikes.

This is as close you can get to what Ginsberg actually said in the "interview" :
In general, Justice Ginsburg said, “if it’s measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation, this is one of the most activist courts in history.”

And yet, this is a function of the Supreme Court. In the opinion you will usually find a remedy to the situation. When you are looking at a specific law that is being challenged as unconstitutional and the Court says.......that law is unconstitutional here, here and here and this is what you have to do to make it constitutional......then Congress either has to rewrite the law to move forward or drop it all together.

Here is the "interview": Court Is ‘One of Most Activist,’ Ginsburg Says, Vowing to Stay



The other part I can't address at this second because I have to take off. I will address it when I get back.

 

[saveliberty]

This is as close you can get to what Ginsberg actually said in the "interview" :
In general, Justice Ginsburg said, “if it’s measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation, this is one of the most activist courts in history.”

And yet, this is a function of the Supreme Court. In the opinion you will usually find a remedy to the situation. When you are looking at a specific law that is being challenged as unconstitutional and the Court says.......that law is unconstitutional here, here and here and this is what you have to do to make it constitutional......then Congress either has to rewrite the law to move forward or drop it all together.

Here is the "interview": Court Is ‘One of Most Activist,’ Ginsburg Says, Vowing to Stay



The other part I can't address at this second because I have to take off. I will address it when I get back.

You fell for her definition of an activist court? She redefines it in order to avoid her consistent and actual use of activism. Further, scholars have shown her statement to be wrong, even in the context she uses.

 

[Coyote]

I really wish the old commie jewess would either retire or croak in the near future. ....

Oh, I bet. You and the majority of Democrats. They just want her to stick around until they can get a Democrat in for pres. They don't care one wit about her opinions. She handled those questions like it was nothing.

I really like her. She's a tough old bird and sharp!

 

[Disir]

I am not picking on you, Save. I am trying to see where you are coming from.

Thank you for engaging in a thoughtful discussion Disir. I do not feel attacked.

RBG's Heller comments are also quite revealing. They confirm that the Court's most prominent and committed liberal activist does not believe that the Constitution's plain language (reinforced by a clear historical record of original intent) protects the individual right to own a firearm. This same woman recent joined a majority opinion that determined that the so-called "right" to abortion -- which appears nowhere in the Constitution -- is so inviolable that regulating the practice based on commonly-accepted sanitary and health protocols is unconstitutional. It's almost as if the Ginsburg wing of the judiciary views itself as a super-legislature, imbued with he power to contort our founding document to permit or prohibit virtually anything, depending on its members' increasingly-undisguised worldview.

This Supreme Court Justice is Under Fire for Controversial Trump Comments

Justice Ginsburg claimed in an interview with the New York Times published Friday that the Roberts Courts is “one of the most activist courts in history,” as “measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation.” Justice Ginsburg isn’t breaking ground here so much as repeating a political talking point that has become conventional wisdom among liberals.

I take issue with her definition of judicial activism, which can’t be boiled down to overturning legislation, but instead happens when judges employ novel and expansive readings of the law to reach a preferred policy outcome. But even under the liberal redefinition of judicial activism, Justice Ginsburg’s claim is still misleading. Jonathan Adler reviewed the evidence for this charge last year, and concluded it is a myth: “If by ‘judicial activism’ one means a willingness to overturn precedents and invalidate federal laws, the Roberts Court is the least activist court of the post-war period.”

Justice Ginsburg and 'Judicial Activism' - Judicial Crisis Network

As with her use of the Constitution, she simply redefines that which she dislikes.

This is as close you can get to what Ginsberg actually said in the "interview" :
In general, Justice Ginsburg said, “if it’s measured in terms of readiness to overturn legislation, this is one of the most activist courts in history.”

And yet, this is a function of the Supreme Court. In the opinion you will usually find a remedy to the situation. When you are looking at a specific law that is being challenged as unconstitutional and the Court says.......that law is unconstitutional here, here and here and this is what you have to do to make it constitutional......then Congress either has to rewrite the law to move forward or drop it all together.

Here is the "interview": Court Is ‘One of Most Activist,’ Ginsburg Says, Vowing to Stay



The other part I can't address at this second because I have to take off. I will address it when I get back.

You fell for her definition of an activist court? She redefines it in order to avoid her consistent and actual use of activism. Further, scholars have shown her statement to be wrong, even in the context she uses.

What consistent and actual use of activism?

It is all constitutional. John Roberts is not an originalist. Originalism is one theory. Scalia wasn't even a 100% originalist. And scholars disagree with any number of opinions or views expressed by the SC.

And that's ok.

First of all, judicial activism is a pejorative term and it is thrown out there when there is disagreement with the way the court ruled in any particular case. Which is why you find the sentences "if it is measured". Scalia considered the court to show judicial activism when they identified rights not spelled out. Now, if you ask anyone at the Townhall and, if you can manage to get someone who is not actively engaged in campaigning at the Judicial Crisis Network to hand out a straight answer of which court demonstrated the most "judicial activism", and both will say..........the Warren Court. As will "liberal" pundits.
Why? Ironically, they will give two responses. One---if it is measured by the number of laws deemed unconstitutional and sent back and two-identifying rights not spelled out. If there is an ounce of integrity in either of those organizations they will admit judicial activism is a pejorative term thrown out by disagreement with a decision. As will "liberal" pundits.

The Townhall and JCN aren't going to push it too far because without that incorporation doctrine the second amendment has no weight. It took two cases for incorporation of the second amendment: Heller and McDonald.

I like Scalia's opinion in Heller. There are quite a few elements of Stevens' dissent I agree with as well. Will Ginsberg ever have the opportunity to redo it? Never. Is it ok that she disagrees with it? Yep.

There were no less than 12 times the Supreme Court unanimously drop kicked Obama's attempts at expansion. That indicates Ginsburg absolutely disagreed.

 

[saveliberty]

ju·di·cial ac·tiv·ism
NOUN

1. the doctrine that the judicial branch, especially the federal courts, may interpret the Constitution by deviating from legal precedent as a means of effecting legal and social change

In short, using personal or politicals views to effect legal change, not based strictly on the Constitution.