Scooping the "Old Man"…

So, the truth is laid bare thank to Justice Ginsburg. She is an ACLU’s lawyer’s wet dream. Is there anyway we can get this b***h off the bench? Because with her intelligence when it comes to the law, once instituted, one can only conclude that she really is nothing more than an 800 lb. gorilla standing in the middle of the room that needs to be dealt with.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Friday that as a justice she considers foreign laws – not just U.S. laws and its Constitution - in forming her legal opinions.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."

"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," Ginsburg added in remarks to the members of the 99 year-old American Society of International Law in Washington, D.C.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice introduced Justice Ginsburg at the event, describing Justice Ginsberg as "a great and good friend," noting also that they also happened to be neighbors.

Ginsburg's pronouncements fly in the face of fellow Justice Antonin Scalia's recent dissent in a juvenile death penalty case where he said that "like-minded foreigners" should not be given a role in helping interpret the Constitution.

Many foreign nations have outlawed the practice of the death penalty and the practice of applying such a punishment to juveniles.
"Judges in the United States are free to consult all manner of commentary," Ginsburg argued to her audience, citing examples when the logic of foreign courts had been applied to help untangle legal questions domestically, and of legislatures and courts abroad adopting U.S. law.

But some House Republicans seem to be leaning to Scalia's purist notion, recently introducing resolutions declaring that the "meaning of the Constitution of the United States should not be based on judgments, laws or pronouncements of foreign institutions unless such foreign judgments, laws or pronouncements inform an understanding of the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States."

In her address, Justice Ginsberg noted, "Although I doubt the resolutions will pass this Congress, it is disquieting that they have attracted sizable support."

Ginsburg, a Democrat appointed by Bill Clinton, is not alone in her view that the Court should consider foreign laws in forming American court opinions.

In 2003, Republican Justice Sandra Day O'Connor openly stated that the court should look abroad for judicial guidance.

Sandra Day O'Connor "The impressions we create in this world are important, and they can leave their mark," O'Connor said in a speech.
She indicated that the U.S. is not respected abroad "when it comes to the impression created by the treatment of foreign and international law and the United States court, the jury is still out."

O'Connor indicated she and the High Court had been influenced in recent rulings.

She cited foreign laws as having helped the Court rule that executing mentally retarded individuals as illegal.

O'Connor also said the Court relied on European Court decisions when it struck down Texas's law outlawing sodomy or sex between adults of the same gender.

Justice Scalia, who dissented from OI'Connor's view, wrote: "The court's discussion of these foreign views (ignoring, of course, the many countries that have retained criminal prohibitions on sodomy) is ... meaningless dicta. Dangerous dicta, however, since this court ... should not impose foreign moods, fads, or fashions on Americans," he said, quoting the 2002 Foster v. Florida case.

For Justice Ginsburg—and mind you I’m no lawyer, nor do I profess to be—but the interjection of foreign law into our court system, into the besic tenets and precedents of law, is beyond improper; worse, it’s impeachable. When the Framers established the Constitution, and wrote about their views on it within the Federalist Papers, it was made plainly clear what judges were to take inot account when it came to rendering a decision. Foreign law wasn’t cited. It wasn’t necessary then, and it’s not necessary now. To inject the concept into a court decision—especially one as high as the Supreme Court—is an act of judicial malfeasance.

Worse yet, we watch as the current Secretary of State—a woman I admire—introduces Justice Ginsburg as "a great and good friend", which just irritates the Hell out of me. Ginsburg is an ACLU shill that is content with continuing to usurp power from the States, the federal government, and the people—as a whole—to continue pushing an agenda that, on a daily basis, continues to destroy the Constitution and the nation I love so much.

Ginsburg, and her ilk—Breyer, Kennedy, O’ Connor, and Souter—can go. They do not represent what America holds onto in terms of rights believed under the Constitution. And it goes beyond what WE want or believe. It goes to what is guaranteed. The Constitution not only protects our rights, but it forbids the interjection of foreign influence into our lives. That’s inherent. Why else would so much emphasis be put on being a citizen.

Our Constitution is "fundamental law". Alexander Hamilton wrote that in Federalist #78. It was correct then, and it is now. And this is a primary reason why we, as a nation, need to be awake when this fight arrives at our doorstep. We can ill afford another Ginsburg on the bench. We need more people that respect the law, as it was established in 1781. And no, I’m not talking about returning to a day and age of slavery. ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. This is an inherent right, as established by God, and handed down to man. That is what "unalienable" means. It cannot be violated. Did we have a rough time in our history abolishing those injustices? You bet. But it was over a number of reasons I choose not to go into right now.

The emphasis is on a Supreme Court justice opting for international law over US law, and that’s reprehensible. And it’s an idea that should be condemned by every common-sense thinking man or woman in the US. International law has done enough damage in the US. Look at what the revocation of the juvenile death penalty has done thus far. Two incidents since the USSC struck it down where juvenile offenders probably would have faced such a penalty; all of it on the heels of their "wise" decision; a decision that was dissented by justices O’ Connor (Surprise, surprise), Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. They saw the danger set then.

And now it’s set. And Ginsburg is probably patting herself on the back over her endorsement of this, and her votes in favor of it. Personally, I’d rather stick her in the back with a knife…"Do unto others" and all…
And no. I’m not advocating that action. But it’s nice to dream.

;)