Alien Justice

National Review Online ^ | 26 Apr 05

[rellimpank]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg vs. the Declaration of Independence.

By Edward Whelan

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently gave a speech defending the Supreme Court's increasing use of foreign law in support of its rulings on the meaning of the Constitution. The title of her speech — "'A decent Respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind': the Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication" — nicely encapsulates the core flaws in her position.

[rellimpank]

--grounds for judicial impeachment--!!

[trisham]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Judicial Offices

Nominated by President Carter to United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; took oath of office June 30, 1980. Nominated by President Clinton as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; took oath of office August 10, 1993.

**************

Is anyone surprised?

[SMARTY]

maybe she forgot who signs HER paycheck!

[rellimpank]

--maybe she gets one in an off-shore bank account--

[Congressman Billybob]

No federal judge, or Justice, has ever been impeached except for the commission of crimes, or drunkenness. None has ever been impeached for decisions written, regardless of how false they were to the Constitution.

So the remedy of impeachment for judges is, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, "a scare-crow." But Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor, two of the "bad guys" on the Court, are not only quite old, they are both cancer survivors. I expect both of them will be gone before the end of President Bush's second term.

So the fight now over Judges Owen and Brown for federal circuit courts are only the opening battle of a larger war. Next to come will be the replacement of Chief Justice Rehnquist probably by Justice Scalia. Then will come the appointment of a new Associate Justice to replace Scalia, and later the replacements of Justices Ginsburg and O'Connor.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Double Crossing at the Rio Grande II."

[Noachian]

--grounds for judicial impeachment--!!

Maybe, maybe not.

Ginsburg is a screwup as a justice and shouldn't be let anywhere near a judicial bench. But, all the Constitution gives us is the "good behavior" clause to get rid of her.

What's needed is a solid definition of "good behavior", and that definition should be job related because it's a judge's rulings that most effect society for good or bad. We shouldn't have to wait for judges to become a mass murderers before we can impeach them (although 40+ million unborn dead is mass murder).

The "good behavior" definition will be something I'll ask my congressmen to define for me when election time rolls around again.

[rellimpank]

I'll ask my congressmen to define for me when election time rolls around again.

Thanks for the heartiest laugh of the day--

[Noachian]

So the fight now over Judges Owen and Brown for federal circuit courts are only the opening battle of a larger war.

Can anyone guarantee that either Owens or Brown - or both - will not become activist judges ten years from now, and still keep us under the foot of judicial tyranny?

I agree that we need judges who will actually read the Constitution and apply it in their rulings. But, unless we can be sure that appointing someone to a lifetime job, with no ramifications for whatever they do, will change the activism of the Judiciary then all we're doing is perpetuating a system based on divine hope and prayer.

We need a better way to get rid of federal judges than what the Founders gave us. What the Founders did give us was a way to change things when one branch of government got out of place. All we have to do is use it.

[Noachian]

Thanks for the heartiest laugh of the day--

I know what you mean. But, he had better come up with a good answer or he'll have a room full of people wondering whether he's the best man for the job.