Posted on 09/21/2005 8:10:54 PM PDT by Crackingham
Here's a clue. You don't supervise the president of the United States. He does not have to consult you. You were not elected to lead the country.
"I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."
You take enlightenment from the constitution of the United States, not "wherever you can get it". If you can't follow OUR constitution, get out of the Supreme Court of the United States!!
Remember Rose Bird out here in CA's Supreme Court? At least we were able to get rid of her!!! (finally!)
Remember? all too well..
Why... Thank you so much!!! (blushing)
Specifically Ruth, what rights are denied to American women?
The justice said using foreign sources does not mean giving them superior status in deciding cases. ..... "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."
And the spineless Pubbies let this socialist-internationalist waltz right through the confirmation process, 97 to 3.
CANON 5: A JUDICIAL EMPLOYEE SHOULD REFRAIN FROM
INAPPROPRIATE POLITICAL ACTIVITY
A. Partisan Political Activity. A judicial employee should
refrain from partisan political activity; should not act as
a leader or hold any office in a partisan political
organization; should not make speeches for or publicly
endorse or oppose a partisan political organization or
candidate; should not solicit funds for or contribute to a
partisan political organization, candidate, or event; should
not become a candidate for partisan political office; and
should not otherwise actively engage in partisan political
activities.
F. Conflicts of Interest.
(1) A judicial employee should avoid conflicts of
interest in the performance of official duties. A
conflict of interest arises when a judicial employee
knows that he or she (or the spouse, minor child
residing in the judicial employee's household, or other
close relative of the judicial employee) might be so
personally or financially affected by a matter that a
reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts
would question the judicial employee's ability properly
to perform official duties in an impartial manner.
Advice and consent with the current sitting justices. LMAO.
Were there no friends of the court at this once-august venue to howl and stamp feet upon hearing such blatantly impeachable actions and utterances?
HF
Ginsberg-like Clinton-spits on American Tradition. She should shut up. Justices should not be involved in politics. This woman should be impeached.
"any woman will not do," She's right...she has to have good taste in eyeglasses, know how to cackle and ride a broom.
Forget about tradition, she has no respect for the Constitution which does not require the POTUS to seek the advice or consent of anyone other than the Senate in selecting justices to the court. Nor does the Constitution require or even suggest that the POTUS must or should nominate a person who will advance the rights of women or any other group. The constitutional role of SCOTUS is to decide cases and controversies arising under the Constitution or the laws of the United States, no more, no less, without regard to personal beliefs and agendas.
This viscous woman is a communist lawyer from the Anti Christian Litigation Unit, out to destroy everything American.
OMG, I cannot WAIT until John Roberts gets there as Chief and slaps a gag order on this harpy. She had better get all her loony leftist comments out now, because a new sheriff is coming to town and he is not gonna put up with this kind of crap from his Justices. (BTW, I think that will go for Scalia as well - it is simply not fitting for Supreme Court Justices to go around giving speeches on politics and policy.)
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.