Ginsburg, Shouldn't Be In Politics, But Alas

[Annie]

If only she would always be asleep:

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

Speaking Ruth to Power
"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg assailed the court's congressional critics in a recent speech overseas, saying their efforts 'fuel' an 'irrational fringe' that threatened her life and that of a colleague, former justice Sandra Day O'Connor," reports the Washington Post:

Addressing an audience at the Constitutional Court of South Africa on Feb. 7, the 73-year-old justice, known as one of the court's more liberal members, criticized various Republican-proposed House and Senate measures that either decry or would bar the citation of foreign law in the Supreme Court's constitutional rulings. Conservatives often see the citing of foreign laws in court rulings as an affront to American sovereignty, adding to a list of grievances they have against judges that include rulings supporting abortion rights or gay rights.

Though the proposals do not seem headed for passage, Ginsburg said, "it is disquieting that they have attracted sizeable support. And one not-so-small concern--they fuel the irrational fringe."

She then quoted from what she said was a "personal example" of this: a Feb. 28, 2005, posting in an Internet chat room that called on unnamed "commandoes" to ensure that she and O'Connor "will not live another week."

Ginsburg's counterattack on GOP critics, posted on the court's Web site in early March but little noticed until now, comes at a time when tensions are already high between the federal judiciary and the Republican-led Congress.

Isn't there something improper about a member of the Supreme Court engaging in a "counterattack on GOP critics"? And as for the death threats, National Review Online's Ed Whelan makes the right point:

It is a detestable fact of modern life that public officials face death threats. The cowards and villains who make such threats should be investigated and prosecuted. But it also should not go unremarked that Ginsburg somehow saw fit to charge that entirely responsible congressional resolutions had "fuel[ed]" the threat that she receiv

ed. Put aside the fact that Ginsburg offers not an iota of evidence to establish the linkage that she asserts. Even if one were to assume that the idiot who posted the comment on the chat site had been motivated to do so by the congressional resolutions, what fair basis is there to impute responsibility for that idiot's actions to the supporters of the resolutions? . . .

Our system properly deals with threats to public officials by investigating and prosecuting the perpetrators and by providing needed security to the officials who have been threatened. This system is, unfortunately, far from perfect. But it would not be improved by public officials' attempting to use the fact of threats against them to chill vigorous criticism of their actions. With her ACLU pedigree, Ginsburg surely ought to understand that.

It is, sadly, all too common for those on the political left to blur the categories of speech and action. Consider this Charleston (W.Va.) Gazette editorial on a similar speech by Justice O'Connor:

During her speech, O'Connor singled out former House Republican Majority Leader Tom Delay, R-Texas, who attacked state and federal judges after they did not prevent Terri Schiavo, who was brain dead for many years, from being taken off life support.

DeLay criticized "an arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary that thumbed their nose at Congress and the president." And he warned, "The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior."

Such threats, O'Connor said, "pose a direct threat to our constitutional freedom." She urged lawyers in her audience to speak up.

O'Connor also criticized Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, a strong Bush supporter who suggested two recent fatal attacks on judges in Georgia and Illinois may have been related to their judicial rulings.

The editorial (though maybe not O'Connor's speech, which we haven't seen) draws an equivalence between DeLay's metaphorical "attack"--i.e., criticism, and acts of murder. If those in positions of authority have trouble making such distinctions, our civil liberties really may be in danger.

 

[Bullypulpit]

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Would you take away the freedom of speech from elected representatives ?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Would you take away the freedom of speech from elected representatives ?

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.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

puhleeeeesee----you know full well that's not what the supreme courts' critics are insinuating.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

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.

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."