.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

The Asylum

Welcome to the Asylum. This is a site devoted to politics and current events in America, and around the globe. The THREE lunatics posting here are unabashed conservatives that go after the liberal lies and deceit prevalent in the debate of the day. We'd like to add that the views expressed here do not reflect the views of other inmates, nor were any inmates harmed in the creation of this site.

Location: Mesa, Arizona, United States

Who are we? We're a married couple who has a passion for politics and current events. That's what this site is about. If you read us, you know what we stand for.

Monday, April 04, 2005

A Follow-Up To Ginsberg

All right. I got handed this again. According to my partner, I wasn't hard enough on the ACLU-favored judge. So, he asked me to specifically revisit her recent comments covered by NewsMax. To state that Justice Ginsburg is a poor judge is an understatement. This woman is the epitome of judicial malfeasance that has plagued this nation long enough, and I take exception to much of what she said. So, let's go point-by-point that is really sticking in my craw.

Ginsburg said criticisms of relying too heavily on world opinion "should not lead us to abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey."

No, this is precisely why "world opinion" and their judicial decisions should have ZERO weight in our decisions. What "good thinking" is she speaking of? Would that be the thinking that juveniles who commit heinous crimes should not face an adult punishment? Does she really think that little Johnny that kills another person will be rehabilitated through probation? Life in prison? Please. He goes to jail, and he could live like a king there based on his reputation. Yes. I see her ideas regarding "punishment", which ranks up there with most of her decisions--an absolute joke.

And speaking of "foreign sources", many countries in Europe have banned firearms for their citizens. When will Justice Ginsburg, and her ilk, choose to observe that radical idea? I have news for her: You try to take the guns, and you'll see a revolution that will rival the first one. Our Founding Fathers, and the Framers, wanted to avoid any foreign entanglements. That's why we fought the Revolution to begin with. We fought to win our independence from foreign sources, Justice Ginsburg! What part of this do fools like her not get? I could care less what the laws in France are, and I don't want their screwy thinking anywhere near being observed in this nation.

"The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification."

Justice Ginsburg, let me make this perfectly clear to you, and I'll say it from the cheap seats just so you can hear us loud and clear. IT IS IMPROPER TO LOOK BEYOND OUR BORDERS! Here, let Alexander Hamilton explain this for you.

The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Anyone catch that? "Constitution" is capitalized. That is the ultimate arbiter of United States law. That is where the buck stops. If it isn't there, then whatever the appeal should be remanded back to the State of it's origin. One does not make law out of whole cloth; an action that the USSC is notorious for. This includes the case that started this whole process, Marbury v. Madison. Since that case, the courts have steadily increased their power-play. Hamilton spoke of it being the "least dangerous" of the three branches. That is no longer so, and it comes from idiots like Ginsburg that refer to foreign law, or discover law within "emanations from the penumbra".

"Judges in the United States are free to consult all manner of commentary."

I am sorry, but this is wholly incorrect, and quite reprehensible. Judges are allowed to view ALL the laws of the United States. There should NEVER be a consultation of foreign law for any decision. As has been evidenced, many nations around the world don't share our ideals. Stoning, hanging, beheading, etc, are all still acceptable forms of capital punishment in the world. Is she ready to make that decision? And our system of carrying out the death penalty is probably one of the most painless and humane methods ever created. We take more care to make their passing as painless as possible, and we give them every opportunity they can to prove their innocence. We didn't even extend that courtesy to Terri Schiavo. I'd be curious to know how Justice Ginsburg would have ruled on that case, but the USSC didn't have the backbone to take it. And as I think about, I'm glad it didn't go that far; I might be sick to my stomach.

"Although I doubt the resolutions will pass this Congress, it is disquieting that they have attracted sizable support."

Of course this is "disquieting" to her. If the resolutions that Congress are considering right now, it's another check in the system, and it prevents her and her cronies from utilizing their self-appointed oligarchical power. And it's an impediment they don't wish to truly address. And why is it that is has such support--not just from the Congress, but from the people, too? I'm guessing that everyone is pretty fed up with this garbage emanating from the judiciary. It is out of control, and it needs to be reigned in before any further damage is done to the Constitution.

And damage has been done to the Constitution. Aside from a revolution--and no I am not advocating one at this time--we will never get things set straight. So the only option is to set limits on the judiciary; ones they can't buck like they have thus far. I do agree with a possibility of limiting their tenure on the bench, provided it is set up properly. The Volokh Conspiracy blog site had an article up about a set of lawyers that had put together a piece of legislation that would limit their tenures. This was about a month or so ago, and my partner commented on it on his original blog. (http://journals.aol.com/fdrlstpprs2004/TheNewFederalistPapers/)

But the time has come to do something. Personally, I'm of the opinion that Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, Kennedy, and O' Connor have committed a level of judicial malfeasance that should hasten them to the door, but Congress doesn't seem to share that sentiment. Article III, Section 1 of the US Constitution specifically states that the judges "shall hold their offices during good Behaviour...". If what these justices, like Ginsburg, call "good Behaviour" then we have some serious problems that MUST be addressed, and the battle's about to begin for the heart and soul of the courts that our Framers put in our hands. Our complacency has led us to this road. It will be our vigilance that saves us now, and in the long run.

The Bunny ;)


Anonymous Anonymous said...


Better. MUCH BETTER. Peopl don't just need to be informed about an issue, such as the wantonly judicial ineptitude that is being exhibited. They need to be shown that incompetence, and a point-by-point refutation is the only way to show how dangerous Justice Ginsburg is to our rights.

So, bravo and kudos. You did really well.


1:28 AM  
Blogger Teaparty said...

Have you guys ever looked up the founder of the ACLU? I can't remember his name offhand, but he envisioned a staunch socialist society here.

Hey, at least they are staying "on mission."

11:40 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

weight loss product