Skip to comments.Judicial Tyranny - Impeach Justice Ginsburg
Posted on 02/06/2012 9:19:43 AM PST by setourchildrenfree
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's interview to an Egyptian televison network the other day gave us a rare insight into why America is has so quickly gone down the road of self-destruction - judicial tyranny, plain and simple.
(Excerpt) Read more at setourchildrenfree.com ...
How could this be allowed to happen in America? Because judges like Ruth Bader Ginsburg don't believe in the concepts of self-government and natural law embedded in the Constitution that our Founding Fathers gave us. They ignore the supreme law of the land, and in those cases where they do cite it, it is for the purpose of using it against us contrary to its original intent. In her interview she displays her disdain for the Constitution of the United States which she was sworn to uphold, but has done everything in her power to dismantle. Add to this her ignorance that the Egyptian uprising had anything to do with freedom, and will likely result in Shariah law that will brutally subjugate women and Christians. For these reasons she should be impeached. This is the proper remedy for those who would violate their oath to support and defend the Constitution, and Americans should have been in the streets demanding this remedy from the very first court case in which judges departed from this standard. We didn't initiate the moral and spiritual decay that brought this nation to the brink the past five decades, but we have allowed it to happen by our inaction. One reason is that Americans have been rightly frustrated by what they feel is a helplessness to do anything about a government over which they have no control. We need to get over the feeling of helplessness. We are a self-governing nation of the people, by the people, and for the people, and all government exists by our consent. Now is the time to reclaim it or lose it. We must demand that those we have elected, or will elect, and their appointees, be faithful to their oath of office, and if not, then they must be removed. Pick up the phone, send an e-mail, get involved in your local tea party, and stop being intimidated by the socialist media. I'm amazed at how many times our elected officials respond to a genuine public outcry. We are the majority. It is our nation, our tax dollars, our children's future.
Do I expect the House to draw up articles of impeachment against Justice Ginsburg? Not anymore than I would expect the Senate to filibuster any such future nominee to the Court. While Democrats have long forsaken the Constitutional restraints upon our government, Republicans have been complicit in allowing it to happen. This is why we must demand loud and clear that our elected officials refuse to appoint such activists to the courts, and hold them accountable if they don't. Make it the number one issue in each election. After all, we didn't bring this nation to the brink, for the most part, by acts of state and federal legislatures. We got this way because of irrational and unjust judicial tyranny. Demand an end to it, and don't be silenced.
I agree with you 100%, and have been saying the same thing for decades now... I have discovered that both democrats and republicans want the same thing... larger government and the power that goes with it at all costs. The only way to get this done, unfortunately, is with another political party....there are those that say we can overtake the republican party and right the listing ship... well, this election cycle is proving that this line of thinking is at best fantasy, at worst being complicit in the destruction of our way of life... If we need to take over another established party, the closest thing is the libertarian party.... the nut job libertarians are in the minority there ( much like conservatives are the minority in the republican party )..... I for one will no longer support those that wish to tear down the consitution, and my way of life.
I heard this on Michael Savage the other day. She was saying that Egypt should use South Africa’s constitution instead of the United States’.
A thoughtful, timely and cogent piece. Nice work and thanks for sharing.
I heard the audio today.
Are any of the leftist freaks saying “she was taken out of context”?
Listen, for this is the truth!
Even worse, she talked about how the U.S. Constitution is old, fully implying that it is outdated by more recent constitutions that include "social justice."
Wait until obama is gone. He would just replace her with someone worse and with longer life expectancy.
It will be a long time before we are freed from the clutches of Ruth Baader-Meinhoff and the rest of the Black-Robed Priests.
Write in Palin and prepare for war.
Interesting, is it not, that these libs are as ugly on the outside as they are on the inside?
Unless, you’re rich enough to get an overhaul once a month. (Listing, Nancy B*tcchosi?)
Nice work, setourchildrenfree. Very well stated.
To line their pockets at the expense of others.
That was the first corner of her trip up Hussein's colon. The second what when she said the US Constitution was outdated.
Justice Ginsburg betrays a fundamental ignorance of the primary function of our Constitution in that her remarks demonstrate she does not acknowledge our Constitution circumscribes the powers of government rather than limiting the rights of its citizens.
We must think she knows better.
Welcome to Free Republic.
Ginzburg probably imagines she’s given the Egyptian hunta permission to kill the LaHood kid.
Justice Ginsburg is not responsible for the decline in American jurisprudence; she is just the most visible manifestation in recent history.
It began with the liberal justices appointed by Roosevelt and others that approved school busing, abolished prayer in school, and more. Ginsburg wasn't on the Supreme Court when the worst travesty, Roe v Wade, was ruled upon in 1973. Seven justices voted that because of the "penumbras and emanations" in the Constitution, there was an implied right to privacy, and therefore abortion as a Constitutional right. These are well-known justices: Burger, Brenna, Stewart, and Douglas.
Impeaching Ginsburg is not an option; the trial in a GOP Senate would be so intensely political that no good could come out of it. However, a campaign in the media, that her opinions violate her oath to "uphold the Constitution of the United States" might be enough to force her to crawl back into her cave and stop being so visibly leftist.
Ginsburg is of that generation of secular Jewish Americans who feels that the purpose of the judiciary is the romantic application of common sense to the interpretation of the law. That is why they have no compunction legislating from the bench. Sure, they took that dumb oath to "uphold the Constitution" but after all, the oath is just routine, right? Also, Ginsburg's generation of secular Jews was raised in the socialist and communist milieu of New York City in the 1930s, where leftist notions were discussed over the dinner table with parents who emigrated from Russia and Germany, the intellectual source of socialism and communism.
Don't get me wrong -- I can't stand Ginburg's opinions. But impeachment would be a very, very bad decision unless there is a national consensus, not just a Republican consensus, that she has to go. And such a consensus would only happen if there was a national crisis that resulted from one of her decisions.
That senile old biddy belongs in a mental institution.
The scenerio has been with us for decades. This won't be settled anytime soon & if it is it will be a civil war. Commies don't back off of their ideology. Muzzzies don't back down. Only passive taxpaying conservative whites, who must (assume) be brainwashed that allow their freedoms to disappear on a daily basis.
I just pray that Ruth lives 15 minutes past Newt’s inaugeration.
Again, she is a cancer survivor ~ so far ~ but the question really is will she live long enough to allow us to fill her seat on the bench, or will Obama get another shot at putting in a younger (if not healthier) doppelganger for this old'gal.
I think I'd rather have Newt filling these seats.
What else would you expect from a jackass?
These freaks hold our Country in contempt.
I for one will no longer support those that wish to tear down the consitution, and my way of life. (joe fonebone)
Some of our present justices actually are of a mind to set the thought back to that declared by our Founding Fathers. But in order to do that, we have to go back more than 100 years. My thought is that our predicament was imposed on us by three Chief justices, all "progressive," and all appointed by Republican Presidents. They were:
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. <-- (T. R. Roosevelt, 1902)
Charles Evans Hughes, Sr. <-- (Taft, 1910; Hoover, 1930)
Earl Warren <-- (Eisenhower, 1953)
Holmes espoused a form of moral skepticism and opposed the doctrine of natural law, marking a significant shift in American jurisprudence, from natural law to case law. (cribbed from Wiki)
Hughes carried Holmes' shift farther, perticularly by announcing firmly, "...the Constitution is what we say it is ..." -- thereby making the Supreme Court a tribunal -- a hotbed of activism, an atmosphere of essentially making the Constitution a lump of clay, rather than a rock of certainty.
Warren, of a very liberal background, was nominated by Ike to please liberals. The liberalizations under Warren are too numerous to count here, but included getting prayer out of schools and making abortion on demand lawful. Later on in Warren's appointment, Ike said that was "the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made."
So, I think you will find Ginzburg would fit right in with those earlier Republican-chosen Justices. Thank God for Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Scalia -- ones that may get honesty back into play. However, please note that there does not seem to be a seat in this group who for a Justice of the applied religious doctrine of our Founders. That phase of American history is gone. Don't be hoping that will ever come back. Also, you might want to be learning some Spanish. A little Yiddish wouldn't hurt either.
Reigned or rained?
What's most amusing is that if the Supreme Court said the same thing today we could slap them down with felony charges.
There are two laws -- which I find surprisingly applicable to many tyrannical moves by the government:
US CODE, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 241 Conspiracy against rightsIf two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
US CODE, TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, § 242 Deprivation of rights under color of lawWhoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
You see, the Constitution does not allow for the Judiciary to alter it, and indeed has its own procedures for altering itself, to subject the People to the notion that the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says that it is is to deprive the People of the security of having the Constitution alterable in only the prescribed ways. Therefore it is a violation of §242 -- but, get this, for a judgement of the Supreme Court to have any effect it must be decided by a majority (and there's never been fewer than three Justices) therefore it must also qualify for §241's conspiracy.
Sometimes I wish I was a "high-powered lawyer" because that there, well it's quite easy.