An Obvious Bias...
As many of our readers know we pay attention to the Supreme Court. Many people trust and welcome our input on these matters. But in an address before the New York Bar Association, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg went beyond what is professionally acceptable. She injected herself into the process of choosing the next nominee to replace outgoing justice, Sandra Day O’Connor.
NEW YORK -
Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience Wednesday that she doesn't like the idea of being the only female justice on the Supreme Court. But in choosing to fill one of the two open positions on the court, "any woman will not do," she said.
There are "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights," Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association.
The retirement of Ginsburg's colleague Sandra Day O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor has fueled speculation about whether President Bush will nominate a woman to her position.
Federal Judge John G. Roberts originally was Bush's nominee for O'Connor's seat but now is facing a Senate vote on the job of chief justice, a position left vacant after the death of William H. Rehnquist.
Ginsburg stressed that the president should appoint a "fine jurist," adding that there are many women who fit that description.
"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me," she added during a brief interview Wednesday night.
And the president should not be consulting with her. It is not her job to offer candidates to the president. Her job, as a sitting justice on the United States Supreme Court, is to interpret the law. This was something explicitly explained by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #78. By making this statement, she is promoting the idea of making the next nominee a person of politics rather than of legal qualifications.
Soon-to-be Chief Justice John Roberts was grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and they tried to nail down his opinions on decisions already made by the court, despite his continued statements that he would uphold precedents set. The senators were moving in this direction out of pure, petty partisanship. They did not pay much attention to his qualifications, but rather demanded to know his personal opinions on things such as abortion, privacy, property rights, and interstate commerce. The problem is that a jurist’s personal beliefs are irrelevant. This is a problem that Justice Ginsburg has suffered from for a good, long time.
She has a list. A short-list, if you will. Well, whoopty-do. So do we, but ours is one based on the qualifications of the jurist. Neither Marcie or I are looking for activists. We are looking for jurists that will interpret the Constitution as it was meant to be interpreted. Justice Ginsburg, I’m sure, is looking for a fellow activist. As a former lead counsel for the ACLU, she sought activist judges on behalf of the ACLU so the agenda they were driving was rammed through the courts.
But, Justice Ginsburg didn’t stop with her ideas regarding her choice of the next Supreme Court justice. No, she included her views on a topic that is contentious, at best. Should the practice she endorses become "tradition" for the court, it could be disastrous.
During the session, which was attended by hundreds, Ginsburg defended some of the justices' references to laws in other countries when making decisions, a practice strongly opposed by some U.S. legislators. The justice said using foreign sources does not mean giving them superior status in deciding cases.
"I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."
When reminded that Roberts has indicated he disagrees with the practice of referring to foreign laws, Ginsburg said it appeared he "is a man who does listen and is willing to learn."
She doesn’t want to stop at just US law? OK, I want this woman off the bench, and I want it right now. The guys over at ConfirmThem state that this is a mistake by a justice. Both her comments regarding her list of nominees, and her implications that we should be looking more closely at foreign law. They do not want her impeached. I do. Article III specifically states that justices will hold their positions while serving "in good Behaviour." By deferring to foreign law, Justice Ginsburg is not acting in that said behavior. The laws of the land are ours. We don’t abide by English, French, or even Ugandan law. We abide by US law, and the Constitution is the highest authority of US law. Jurists are to interpret the law—our law—and not include foreign law.
And I’m offended at the insinuation that Judge Roberts might be willing to see things her way. That he would be willing to "learn" how to use foreign law. Judge Roberts, when asked about this unorthodox and—in my opinion—illegal practice by other judges, Judge Roberts rebuffed the idea. He stated that he answered to the laws of the land and the Constitution, and he emphasized that he had never considered using foreign law. He would not use foreign law because it has no basis, no merit under our system of jurisprudence. Had it been so, we never would have thrown off British rule, or we would have adapted the English form of courts and justice for America. We didn’t do that. We made our own, which is—again, in my opinion—the best in the world.
Personally, I can’t wait until Ginsburg is finally gone from the bench. She has been a disastrous judge in terms of the proper interpretation of the Constitution. She’s been the darling of the Left as she continues to push their agenda in her decisions, and her outspoken comments. I respect those on the Supreme Court for their accomplishments in life. But, my respect ends there. I’m not a lawyer, yet, but I can read, understand, and interpret the Constitution far better than Justice Ginsburg and her fellow activist cronies on the high court.
Publius II
As many of our readers know we pay attention to the Supreme Court. Many people trust and welcome our input on these matters. But in an address before the New York Bar Association, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg went beyond what is professionally acceptable. She injected herself into the process of choosing the next nominee to replace outgoing justice, Sandra Day O’Connor.
NEW YORK -
Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience Wednesday that she doesn't like the idea of being the only female justice on the Supreme Court. But in choosing to fill one of the two open positions on the court, "any woman will not do," she said.
There are "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights," Ginsburg told those gathered at the New York City Bar Association.
The retirement of Ginsburg's colleague Sandra Day O'Connor Sandra Day O'Connor has fueled speculation about whether President Bush will nominate a woman to her position.
Federal Judge John G. Roberts originally was Bush's nominee for O'Connor's seat but now is facing a Senate vote on the job of chief justice, a position left vacant after the death of William H. Rehnquist.
Ginsburg stressed that the president should appoint a "fine jurist," adding that there are many women who fit that description.
"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me," she added during a brief interview Wednesday night.
And the president should not be consulting with her. It is not her job to offer candidates to the president. Her job, as a sitting justice on the United States Supreme Court, is to interpret the law. This was something explicitly explained by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist #78. By making this statement, she is promoting the idea of making the next nominee a person of politics rather than of legal qualifications.
Soon-to-be Chief Justice John Roberts was grilled by the Senate Judiciary Committee, and they tried to nail down his opinions on decisions already made by the court, despite his continued statements that he would uphold precedents set. The senators were moving in this direction out of pure, petty partisanship. They did not pay much attention to his qualifications, but rather demanded to know his personal opinions on things such as abortion, privacy, property rights, and interstate commerce. The problem is that a jurist’s personal beliefs are irrelevant. This is a problem that Justice Ginsburg has suffered from for a good, long time.
She has a list. A short-list, if you will. Well, whoopty-do. So do we, but ours is one based on the qualifications of the jurist. Neither Marcie or I are looking for activists. We are looking for jurists that will interpret the Constitution as it was meant to be interpreted. Justice Ginsburg, I’m sure, is looking for a fellow activist. As a former lead counsel for the ACLU, she sought activist judges on behalf of the ACLU so the agenda they were driving was rammed through the courts.
But, Justice Ginsburg didn’t stop with her ideas regarding her choice of the next Supreme Court justice. No, she included her views on a topic that is contentious, at best. Should the practice she endorses become "tradition" for the court, it could be disastrous.
During the session, which was attended by hundreds, Ginsburg defended some of the justices' references to laws in other countries when making decisions, a practice strongly opposed by some U.S. legislators. The justice said using foreign sources does not mean giving them superior status in deciding cases.
"I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."
When reminded that Roberts has indicated he disagrees with the practice of referring to foreign laws, Ginsburg said it appeared he "is a man who does listen and is willing to learn."
She doesn’t want to stop at just US law? OK, I want this woman off the bench, and I want it right now. The guys over at ConfirmThem state that this is a mistake by a justice. Both her comments regarding her list of nominees, and her implications that we should be looking more closely at foreign law. They do not want her impeached. I do. Article III specifically states that justices will hold their positions while serving "in good Behaviour." By deferring to foreign law, Justice Ginsburg is not acting in that said behavior. The laws of the land are ours. We don’t abide by English, French, or even Ugandan law. We abide by US law, and the Constitution is the highest authority of US law. Jurists are to interpret the law—our law—and not include foreign law.
And I’m offended at the insinuation that Judge Roberts might be willing to see things her way. That he would be willing to "learn" how to use foreign law. Judge Roberts, when asked about this unorthodox and—in my opinion—illegal practice by other judges, Judge Roberts rebuffed the idea. He stated that he answered to the laws of the land and the Constitution, and he emphasized that he had never considered using foreign law. He would not use foreign law because it has no basis, no merit under our system of jurisprudence. Had it been so, we never would have thrown off British rule, or we would have adapted the English form of courts and justice for America. We didn’t do that. We made our own, which is—again, in my opinion—the best in the world.
Personally, I can’t wait until Ginsburg is finally gone from the bench. She has been a disastrous judge in terms of the proper interpretation of the Constitution. She’s been the darling of the Left as she continues to push their agenda in her decisions, and her outspoken comments. I respect those on the Supreme Court for their accomplishments in life. But, my respect ends there. I’m not a lawyer, yet, but I can read, understand, and interpret the Constitution far better than Justice Ginsburg and her fellow activist cronies on the high court.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:19 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home