Posted on 04/02/2005 3:58:14 AM PST by Pharmboy
Keep up the good fight behind enemy lines--we sure need more like you...
Remember, Dr. Rice is a diplomat :)
And that stirring up for Dr. Rice while sticking up for Darth Bader is just another day at the office for ther NYT.
I suggest you read the decision in Roper v Simmons. The court referenced foreign sources only in the very end and the court noted "The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions." Far from not being able to "find another way to get there", the Court, in fact, based their opinion on U.S. sources and precedent.
And one thing that people continuously ignore is the fact that in Roper v Simmons the court was upholding the decision of the Missouri Supreme Court which found that executing somone under 18 was unconstitutional.
Blackstone is quoted to show where our laws came from. Ginsberg quotes foreigners to show where she thinks our laws should be going to.
ML/NJ
This statement alone should be enough to have her impeached. The Constitution and the Constitution ALONE is what judges are to interpret. International opiniopn has the value of a steaming dogpile. National consensus-same thing. She should be removed from the court for violating her oath of office.
Since she aint running, why do you have it on in the first place?
They ALL say they ain't running before they run...
"Judges in the United States are free to consult all manner of commentary," I don't think I will even get a Condi sticker period. Judges may be able to consult anything they want though thay have to us the U. S. Constitution and laws made by the elected legistlature. I'm going to look into Marbury vs. Madision because I understand that this is where the judges got started thinking they can make there own rules. God Bless America and all who have and will defend Her. We have to take this FIGHT on with the communist courts we have come to have.
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added....
"in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers"
It would appear that she must've skimmed over this part during law school. I wonder if we could get some attorney tyo file a class action suit against the federal judiciary for violating our rights? Is a lifelong appointment to the bench such a great idea? I never did understand the purpose or benifit of that.
I guess all in all, that the end game is like the end result in that movie, there is no possible way to win...
Playing the game the way that they think best serves themselves.
After 9 innings, it's everyone down to the pub for brewskis and laughs and pat-on-the-backs!
This Bush/Clinton lovefest makes me want to puke!
Just what does the justice think of one "internation" method of removing unpopular persons by means of high velocity...
Never mind, liberals get to pick and choose what they want to reference.
Impeach Ginsberg!
The ease of careless arrogance used by politicians and lawyers and judges, to sweep away many principles that our ancestors struggled so hard to build.
America, freedom, was not built in a day.
Bush, Rice, Ginsburg ... have no care.
Shall baseball games be decided by introducing rule books for criquet? Because they're "foreign laws and commentary that we should consider?"
Shall all wills and especially "living wills" become moot because judges ought not be hindered by the principle of "original intent?"
What is the point of paying a lawyer to write down anything, if that writing does not qualify for passing "social review" that is whatever itch is under the activist judges' collective saddles?
Now, this day, the biggest crisis in these United States, is not about life or death. The crisis is about property. The crisis is, that your right to own property is no longer. Bush, Rice, and Ginsburg have the power to defend their property, but do you?
You have no right to own property, and without that right, you have no other rights.
The principles of our law, by which we mutually are sworn to protect each others' life, liberty, and property, cannot be dissolved into anything less; instead, it can only be dissolved into nothing.
Start over.
From scratch.
The three are important because of the compact, the peace treaty we forged, the lamination of the three bound together for strength.
It is the laminated oak beam that we are charged with preserving, but so many take it for granted.
When your life is threatened, or your liberty is threatened, or your property is threatened, we are all threatened.
When illegal aliens trespass on your land, they trespass on our land.
To hear George W. Bush so grossly mistreat his neighbors in Texas, in Arizona, in New Mexico and in California, by describing his neighbors to be "vigilantes," is one of the most disgusting statements to ever come from the man.
These are people, who, I will suppose with some high probability, have sons and daughters in uniform.
The President has just called these kids parents, "vigilantes."
Bush is an idiot who has no respect for life, liberty, and property, except his own neck.
Yet people bow and scrape and fawn all over him.
He is no Reagan.
Rice lied about the aircraft threat, and she should be fired.
Then comes Ginsburg, who would consult a French Michellin map before following her duty for which she swore allegience to our Constitution.
Do you know what it is like to have your liberty taken away?
I know.
I know what it's like to not be free, and to live in fear of thought police and abusive and corrupt government officials.
I know.
Thanks, Non. I'll take a look at it, although I wasn't thinking about Roper. I just wanted to provide some information on Blackstone.
It's a great idea for the appointee, but not for the people.
What business would give someone a lifetime job, who was answerable to no one, and could change the direction of the company with impunity? No business would do that, and yet we have a judicial system that does just that.
So, you are okay with requiring a 60/40 supermajority as means of satisfying the Senate's Consitutional duty of advise and consent. Well, you think that the Senate Rule is Constitutional.
If so, I don't want to hear of peep of complaint regarding what the Senate Democrats are doing to some of GWB's nominees.
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.