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 ...
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.