Posted on 06/22/2015 12:17:58 PM PDT by Borges
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia seem unlikely friends.
Though both grew up in New York City and graduated from Ivy League law schools, Scalia went on to become a lawyer in the Nixon administration and a founder of the conservative Federalist Society, and Ginsburg led the women's rights project at the American Civil Liberties Union.
He's brash and burly and believes in strict adherence to the Constitution's original text. She's soft-spoken and slight and believes in a "living Constitution" that can change with the times. On controversial cases, they are often the most likely of any pairing of the nine Supreme Court justices to disagree.
Despite their standing as the intellectual lions of the left and right, Ginsburg and Scalia have forged an uncommon bond on a court where close friendships outside of chambers are rare.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
(believes in a “living Constitution” that can change with the times. )
No. Scalia believes the Constitution can be changed using the specified mechanism, that would require the People of the United States and their lawmakers making the decision, Ruth believes it can be changed by the Supreme Court Justices’ decisions, even though she and all the Justices have vowed to protect the Constitution. It’s pretty obvious from this who is going outside the power specified for the Supreme Court.
I wouldn't describe her that way.
“living Constitution” that can change with the times.
They’re called “ammendments” you hideous witch.
they forgot...
1) she’s evil, he’s not.
2) she’s wrong all the time, he’s not.
3) she’s evil, he’s not.
4) she’s on the court because of affirmative action, he’s not.
5) she’s evil, he’s not.
just as a reminder why 1), 3), and 5) show up on my list:
It’s an important point that they are both from NYC and from the approximate same era.
The entire court is now like that.
Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, Alito and Scalia are all from the same tri-state area in and around NYC. Breyer, Thomas, Roberts and Kennedy are from other parts of the country but none of them from the interior except that Roberts moved to Indiana during high school.
This means the Court has the outlook of the bi-coastal urban liberals ONLY.
Don’t even want to talk about the fact that none of them are Protestant. That would have appalled the Founders. But, let’s just work on what we can for the moment.
The Justices should each come from a Federal District Court region. That way they would at least be representative of legal norms in their respective areas.
And we wouldn’t be wondering why 2 members of the court can engage in biased behavior so outrageous that were they on a lower court they would not have any say in being recused: it would be near automatic.
First Amendment...Second Amendment...Fifth Amendment...Fourteenth Amendment...they can *all* be changed or even eliminated.
But,OTOH,phrases like "shall not be infringed" can only mean one thing to anyone with a 2nd grader's command of the English language."Interpreting" such phrases is where "living document" ends.
No bias there.
Very Good.
Who cares if they are Protestant and who knows or cares what the founders would have thought about it?
If should matter to pretty much everyone. Protestants started the country, were the solid majority up until just a few years ago, and the basis for the Constitution and common law are the result of Protestant initiatives under the Reformation.
Are you really here to tell me that Freedom of Religion - i.e., no established State religion - is the result of a Papal Bull?
Sorry, but a court is not a computer. They don’t simply process information, establish links, and promulgate a conclusion based on mechanistic interactions. Principals and history, personal experience comes to bear. Why would the citizenry want to be judged by people who don’t have a common bond with them?
So that’s why you should care. A lot.
So it’s your opinion that it matters that justices aren’t of your religion?
Form a Protestant Supreme Court to take care of your desires.
We can call it The Protestant Sharia Supreme Court.
Thomas Jefferson had warned us in general about misguided judges like Justice Ginsburg.
“Our Constitution . . . intending to establish three departments, co-ordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given—according to this opinion to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of others; and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. . . . The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please [emphasis added].” (Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Sept. 6, 1819)
In fact, Constitution-respecting justices have warned against interpolating the Constitution.
“3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” —United States v. Sprague, 1931.
The bottom line is that Justice Ginsburg probably wouldn’t have been approved by the Senate if the 17th Amendment had never been ratified imo.
The 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and with all due respect to Justice Ginsburg, amateur justices like Justice Ginsburg along with it.
LOL
Is that you Abbie? Thought you and Jerry hit the road a long time ago...
Guess you didn't like the first 220 years of the Supreme Court of the United States? Too WASPy?
Worked fine for us. We been here all along.
Current court is so skewed, so out of line with the Americans, it might as well be called an Occupation Tribunal, dictating social policy.
Just guessing that might have something to do with its makeup. Maybe just a teensy weensy bit...
PS
Isn’t it interesting that the same logic was not applied to the demands to have the first Catholic, the first woman, the first Jewish, the first Black Justice?
Those were all seen as legitimate demands of “underrepresented populaces” to have “representation” on the Court.
Now I make the identical complaint about the founding stock of this nation and...you call me a Jihadist.
Too funny for words. Ever look in the mirror?
Yup.
Of the 56 signers of the Declaration, one was Catholic, two were Quakers, and the rest various forms of Protestant.
IIRC.
How fabulous in all of human history that we were born the descendants of the founding people of this country?
I wake up in the night and look at the Pacific, out my bedroom window, 3000 miles west of where my ancestors landed in wooden boats three hundred years ago...and I simply am stunned.
In all of human history, to be so...blessed. So lucky. The day we were born we won life’s lottery.
We coulda been slaves in Egypt, pulling a giant stone.
Or just mud hut dwellers, doomed to a life of disease and early death.
Instead, because of them, we are here.
I’m always absolutely and serenly stunned by that reality.
Yes.
“A republic, if you can keep it!”
Benjamin Franklin
Trouble is no one knows the difference anymore...
The average guy on the street thinks we live in a Democracy. I keep telling them no its an Oligarchy. :=)
It’s hard to change a republic into a tyranny.
It’s easy for a democracy... just give the people benefits and privileges and they’ll suck em down and ask for more!
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.