Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Justice Ginsburg and the Need to Oppose Radical Judicial Nominees
Red State ^ | 2/7/2012 | Daniel Horowitz

Posted on 02/08/2012 8:26:51 AM PST by IbJensen

While most of us have been caught up in the brouhaha of electoral politics, liberal activists have been working indefatigably to pack the courts – the unelected branch of government – with radical statists. We might have turned over a number of congressional seats in 2010, but Obama has successfully turned over many conservative seats in our federal court system. Since taking office, Obama has appointed 125 people to federal judgeships, including 25 to appellate courts, and 2 to the Supreme Court.

After three years, Obama’s mark on the federal courts is beginning to become quite potent. The Fourth Circuit appellate court used to be filled with a majority of strict constructionist judges. Now, following Obama’s appointment of five new radicals, the court has totally shifted. This once conservative court ruled in favor of the administration in upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare last year. Obama’s indelible stain on the judicial system will reverberate for years to come.

While Republicans have successfully blocked some of Obama’s most extreme nominees, they have voted to confirm the vast majority of them. Many Republicans have insisted for years that anyone who is “qualified” to serve as a judge deserves to be confirmed, irrespective of their judicial philosophy or ideology. This school of thought suggests that as long as the nominee has the requisite resume and is clean of ethical violations, he/she should sail through the nomination process. That is the grim consequence of elections, they contend.

Last week, in an interview with an Egyptian television station, Ruth Bader Ginsburg showed why ideology matters and why perverted judicial philosophy should indeed be a disqualifying factor for a judgeship. She told the audience –one that lives under tyranny – that the U.S. Constitution should not serve as a role model for a modern draft:

“I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution – Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”

At the time of her nomination to the Supreme Court, Ginsburg had a stellar resume and excellent ratings from the American Bar Association. With that criteria in mind, every Republican except for three; Don Nickles, Bob Smith, and Jesse Helms, voted to confirm Ginsburg, a woman who has nothing but contempt for the very document that she is charged with upholding.

Make no mistake about it; someone who believes that our constitution is outdated; someone who regards our constitution as a living and breathing document; someone who views the constitution of a violent third world country with higher reverence than the U.S. Constitution is indeed disqualified from serving on any court.

No matter what happens in November, Obama will have another year to pack the courts. At present, there are 86 vacancies on district and appellate courts, 39 of which already have pending nominees before the Senate. We must work harder to ensure that not a single person with contempt for our Constitution is confirmed by the Senate. Republicans must understand that disrespect for the Constitution is an automatic disqualification for a judicial nominee.

Perhaps, Justice Ginsburg had it right when she asserted at the end of that TV interview, “if the people don’t care, the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference.” If we continue to blithely confirm nominees who share Ginsburg’s judicial philosophy, our Constitution – which is the best in the world – certainly won’t make any difference.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: ginsburg; obozospicks; scotus; uglyleftist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last
Video at link.

Being ugly is one thing. Being a leftist destructor of America is quite another. There's something telling in Obozo's 'character' wherein he continually choses very ugly Marxist females who share his hatred for our Constitution and his desire to destroy America. Further he lards up his 850 White Hut staff with beings who are sexually confused. There are many homosexuals, trans-gendered freaks and, of course, lesbians. Obozo has a distinct affinity for the sodomists as he was trained at the feet of one old predator who plied his pupils with jars of whisky, cigarettes and drugs. Obozo's mind is out to lunch thereby the necessity for teleprompters.

This Ginsburg crow is one ugly female. Ugly in her countenance and ugly inside.

The Senate needs radical change in order that the citizenry get hope. Require majority rule, put 90 days limit on advise and consent. The goal of keeping big states from rolling small ones is dealt with by the 2 per state allocation, it doesn’t need amplified for the vanity of each senator.

Return the selection of senators to the state legislatures wherein it was until 1913. Reduce those length of terms to four years.

1 posted on 02/08/2012 8:26:56 AM PST by IbJensen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Halfassed in America.
2 posted on 02/08/2012 8:33:19 AM PST by FlingWingFlyer (So just where does the "buck stop" at the Department of "Justice"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

With that criteria in mind, every Republican except for three; Don Nickles, Bob Smith, and Jesse Helms”

Man, I do miss Jesse Helms. He is irreplaceable.


3 posted on 02/08/2012 8:34:06 AM PST by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

All but 3 republicans voted in favor of her nomination, so the republicans are just as at fault. It’s pathetic when it comes down to important decisions you can’t rely on either party. Wait, no, you can rely on them both to screw America over!


4 posted on 02/08/2012 8:35:10 AM PST by bigdirty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Any woman whose armpit hair can be styled with a curling iron should be rejected out of hand. Like ginsberg should have been in the first place.


5 posted on 02/08/2012 8:35:16 AM PST by MestaMachine (obama kills)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Any one lawyer is smarter than the rest of the world combined. You don’t even have to ask them, they automatically tell you that. One of their courses in their first year of law school is “ARROGANCE - YES WE ARE BETTER”.


6 posted on 02/08/2012 8:36:20 AM PST by blueunicorn6 ("A crack shot and a good dancer")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

This method of creating a dictatorship has been under way for some time. The radical left has been moving to get as many important decisions AWAY FROM THE VOTERS and into the “appointing hands” of the dictators and associated radicals who want to rule of America, not see it governed by and for the people.


7 posted on 02/08/2012 8:36:24 AM PST by EagleUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

“The Senate needs radical change in order that the citizenry get hope.”

Unfortunately, the radical citizenry ( about 40% or more) think that Ms. Ginzburg IS hope.

IMHO


8 posted on 02/08/2012 8:37:38 AM PST by ripley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
We need a long-term campaign for judge removal. The criterion that would make a SC or Appellate judge unfit for office, besides the ordinary criminal tests, is the content of his decisions: 1) issuing decisions not authorized under the Constitution; or 2) contravening what is written there.

This should be part and parcel of a well-publicized, consistent, across-the-board return to what is written in the USC or its amendments. This is Congress's job, it's consistent with the law, and it's essential for our survival.

9 posted on 02/08/2012 8:39:33 AM PST by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

I thought this boring old anti-American black-robed leftist moron was going to retire because of health reasons.


10 posted on 02/08/2012 8:40:56 AM PST by BigSkyFreeper (You have entered an invalid birthday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

If Ms Ginsburg made these comments during her confirmation hearings she would have been escorted out of the room in handcuffs.


11 posted on 02/08/2012 8:41:09 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer (The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen

Thank you, Ruthie, with your comments in Egypt, for reminding the entire country just how important the vote in 2012 is...
Nobama = no commie justices


12 posted on 02/08/2012 8:43:53 AM PST by matginzac
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BigSkyFreeper

She had her plumbing bored out and is good to go.

Had her oil changed at the same time.


13 posted on 02/08/2012 8:47:43 AM PST by IbJensen (Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Don’t Supreme Court Justices take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution? How can this bozo’s actions be interpreted as upholding that oath?


14 posted on 02/08/2012 8:47:46 AM PST by anoldafvet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

should have, yes.

would have... no way.

It’s funny that the GOP asserts that the president gets to pick justices regardless of ideology,

but when a conservative judge goes before the senate, the ‘rats are all about voting them down because of ideology, usually about “choice”.


15 posted on 02/08/2012 8:48:20 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: All

she is a worthless old bitch...


16 posted on 02/08/2012 8:50:43 AM PST by Maverick68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Google "supreme court oath of office"

You will find that Ruth B-G swore (or affirmed) something like this:

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."

I suggest she be impeached for false affirmation, perjury, violation of duty, ... whatever.

Ruth B-G does not deserve the high office she holds.

17 posted on 02/08/2012 8:53:30 AM PST by eCSMaster (Excommunicate evildoers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ripley

Miz Ginsburg has hope in her soul.

(Or is it the other way around?)

At any rate we should pity this pathetic creature. She always has that expression on her face that appears as though she’s sucking on alum.

When addressing a group of like-minded leftists this expression comes across as a look of concern. The audience is, of course, unaware that the ‘justice’ has a severe case of hemorrhoids.


18 posted on 02/08/2012 8:55:02 AM PST by IbJensen (Sic semper tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

"Frankly, I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

~Ruth Bader Ginsburg




Please support Free Republic
click the pic


19 posted on 02/08/2012 8:55:20 AM PST by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IbJensen
Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have been rejected
out of hand as she was the Chief Counsel for the ACLU.

The ACLU was founded by three utopian Marxists
to destroy America by twisting the Constitution.


20 posted on 02/08/2012 8:57:30 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-38 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson