Posted on 09/21/2005 8:10:54 PM PDT by Crackingham
Talk about taking a personal ideology to the bench! Holy Cow, if this statement is not grounds for impeachment something is wrong. Nothing wrong with her saying it; just a major problem with a SCOTUS Justice saying it. Judiciary committee should call her in to explain exactly what this means in terms of the cases that come before the SCOTUS. If they involve "women's" rights, clearly she should recuse herself at a minimum.
I agree this woman is a nut-case. Shame on the Rep. Senators who voted for her.
Hopefully her health is as bad as they say, but with her views I see her pulling a Rehnquist.
""There are "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights,"
It is not a judge's job to advance rights. This remark should disqualify her immediately."
___________________________________
Agreed!
She is not only a "nut case", she is a dangerous "nut case!!" Any fool that looks at other nation's laws for application to the US Constitution is a serious threat to the well being of every American citizen! This loon scares the crap out of me.
Give Justice Buzzi a few drinks ...
Just heard Rush dscribing her nonsense.
If I parse that sentence correctly, it says that there isn't a woman who can do the job.
How sexist can you get?
Shalom.
(Now ducking cream pies being flung at me by feminists ... )
Don't hold you breath, sweetheart.
Ruthie, you apparently do not know that, as an SC justice, your job is to handle cases based upon the constitution, not based upon your desire to advance some cause.
We want a female on the SC who will do her job, not advance her causes.
Ruthie, you apparently do not know that, as an SC justice, your job is to handle cases based upon the constitution, not based upon your desire to advance some cause.
We want a female on the SC who will do her job, not advance her causes.
No kidding. It's appalling actually. It's hard to believe this isn't against judicial ethics.
that reminds me of something, maybe someone will be nice enough to explain this to me...
if lib/dem/socialists think that land/ wealth, etc should be taken from the rich and distributed to the poor, how does that work with emminent domain, where they take from the poor to give to the rich?
Maybe yes, maybe no. After all Scalia and Ginsburg are two best friends on the Court (and so where f.ex. Justices Black and Harlan)
She can always resign. No one is forcing her to be the lone "woman" on the court.
You'll have to check with Robert Mugabe on that one. He's one of the foreign legal sources several of the Justices seem to prefer.
Good comeback. I'm sorry Ruth, this is coming as a surprise to you? Don't know your Constitution then, eh? My copy says the SENATE shall advise and consent, not already-sitting justices. BA-ROTH-ER!!! Dingbat Alert.
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.