Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Barack Obama v. the Founders ^ | 02/13/2012 | Peter Wehner

Posted on 02/14/2012 4:07:26 AM PST by drpix

Two recent interviews with two prominent liberal figures help cast some revealing light on modern liberalism’s attitude toward the Constitution.

Let’s start with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said in an interview earlier this month with Al Hayat television, “I would not look to the U.S. 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, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.”

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: constitution; enemyofthe; ginsburg; scotus
Text of the Constitutional Oath of Office for Supreme Court Justices:
"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."

Supreme Court of the United States of America - Official Website

The fastest way to deal with Obama is in November, but Ginsberg's appointment for life begs an answer to the following:

1) Did she swear to "support," "defend," and "bear true faith and allegiance to" the Constitution of South Africa?

2) Or was that an impersonator at her swearing-in?

3) Or has Ginsberg violated her Constitutional Oath of Office?

1 posted on 02/14/2012 4:07:38 AM PST by drpix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: drpix

The former general legal counsel to the American Civil Liberties Union.

2 posted on 02/14/2012 4:11:06 AM PST by laconic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: laconic

Great article. Presents the argument perfectly. Thanks for the post.

3 posted on 02/14/2012 4:22:37 AM PST by marygam ((Hurry November 2012, we might not make it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: drpix
They should BOTH be impeached for ignoring the Constitution they swore to uphold.
4 posted on 02/14/2012 4:29:12 AM PST by DeaconRed (Cold War Veteran. . . . US Army Security Agency 1964-1968)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drpix

According to the Constitution, The Congress has the power to impeach a Supreme Court Judge for treason, perjury or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

5 posted on 02/14/2012 4:33:18 AM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: drpix

We have to Impeach these black-robed pieces of SH*T.

Too bad Newt is the only one considering it.

6 posted on 02/14/2012 4:38:12 AM PST by Flintlock (Photo ID for ALL VOTING. Let our dead rest in peace.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flintlock

Vote for NEWT. He is the only one to put at their right place the shredders of the Constitution.

Newt wrote: “Once five justices decided we could not pray in schools or at graduation or could not display the Ten Commandments, we lost those rights. If five justices decide we cannot say that our nation is “under God,” then we will also lose that right.

They are not only arbitrarily rewriting the law of the land but are usurping the legitimate rights of the legislative branch to make the laws.”

Source: Rediscovering God in America, by Newt Gingrich, p.132-133 Dec 31, 2006

7 posted on 02/14/2012 4:46:38 AM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Windflier; onyx; xzins; b9; true believer forever; JediJones; Utmost Certainty; All

Protecting Life and Religious Liberty and Standing Up To Activist Judges

“There is no liberty without religious liberty” – Newt Gingrich

The revolutionary idea contained in the Declaration of Independence is that certain fundamental human rights, including the right to life, are gifts from God and cannot be given nor taken away by government. Yet, secular radicals are trying to remove “our Creator” – the source of our rights - from public life. Newt has an aggressive strategy to defend life and religious liberty in America.

Principles to protect life and religious liberty

Nominate conservative judges who are committed to upholding Constitutional limited government and understand that the role of the judges is to interpret the law, not legislate from the bench.

Combat judicial activism by utilizing checks on judicial power Constitutionally available to the elected branches of government. (Read an extended white paper on restoring the proper role of the judicial branch here.)

End taxpayer subsidies for abortion by repealing Obamacare, defunding Planned Parenthood, and reinstating the “Mexico City Policy” which banned funding to organizations that promote and/or perform abortions overseas.

Protect religious expression in the public square such as crosses, crèches and menorahs.

Protect healthcare workers right to conscience by making sure they are not forced to participate in or refer procedures such as abortion.

Protect the rights of home-schooled children by ensuring they have the same access to taxpayer funded, extra-curricular educational opportunities as any public school student.
Protect the rights of teachers to use historical examples involving religion in their classroom. Nor should they be discouraged from answering questions about religion or discussing it objectively in the classroom.

Protect the frail, infirm and the elderly from the state’s arbitrary decision to terminate life.

8 posted on 02/14/2012 4:52:14 AM PST by Marguerite (When I'm good, I am very, very good. But! When I'm bad, I'm even better)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: drpix

Just as long as Frau Mengele Ginsburg lasts just 11 more months...

9 posted on 02/14/2012 5:11:20 AM PST by DGHoodini (Iran Azadi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Voter#537
Can we impeach the state legislators of a century ago, those who ultimately ratified the 17th amendment?

Can we impeach those Senators who subordinate constitutional fealty to raw interests of one political party and will not vote to convict?

Remember Ken Starr's "Report," literally delivered to the steps of the Capitol in early September 1998? Take one example to illustrate the timing, i.e., 60 days prior to Election Day 1998. To wit: Lauch Faircloth v. his Democrat challenger, a trial lawyer named John Edwards. The latter looked good on television, and today he's about to go on trial for federal election law crimes, in particular payouts to a lover "not-his-wife."

Say what you want about Senator Faircloth, and, admittedly, one could say a lot that was not in his favor. The die was cast by Special Prosecutor Starr when he laid down that turd on the Capitol steps 13 years ago. Men and women of conscience who could not ignore perjury by a president were certain to vote to impeach, in the U.S. House, and the Senate (one third of whom would be elected or re-elected 60 days later) was already almost certain not to convict.

It is estimated that a third of women in North Carolina registered to vote as Republicans voted to elect John Edwards to the Senate. His first vote was "not-guilty" in the impeachment trial, and almost immediately afterward he spent most of his time running for president himself, and the rest, as they say, is history... in November 2000 coming within 537 votes in Florida of becoming Vice President. Today, under the aforementioned indictment and pending trial, his 2004 presidential campaign committee owes the federal government over $2 million, and it remains an active committee eight years later.

Can we impeach those eligible to vote, who by inaction or in actively carrying out their responsibilities as citizens put Clinton (who nominated Ginsburg) and Barry "Barack" Soetero in the White House?

10 posted on 02/14/2012 5:26:35 AM PST by Prospero
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: drpix
Our Founding Fathers carefully drafted the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government and to maximize the ability of every citizen to have life, liberty and be allowed their own pursuit of happiness without government interference. According to Ginsberg and Obama himself our Constitution fails to address the “right” of a government run cradle to grave social welfare state. With Obamacare’s birth control mandate now being shoved down the throats of Catholics we are seeing first hand that a government run social welfare state can quickly become a jack booted tyranny.
11 posted on 02/14/2012 6:57:03 AM PST by The Great RJ ("The problem with socialism is that pretty soon you run out of other people's money" M. Thatcher)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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
Topics · Post Article

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