Posted on 09/21/2005 8:10:54 PM PDT by Crackingham
Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an audience Wednesday that she doesn't like the idea of being the only female justice on the U.S. 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 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 position of chief justice, a role empty 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 mold.
"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me," Ginsburg said during a brief interview Wednesday night.
Ginsburg arrived in New York to attend an annual lecture named in her honor. The lecture's focus is on women and the law.
This year, Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, delivered it, while Ginsburg participated in a question-and-answer session afterward.
During the session, which was attended by hundreds of people, 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."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
And she cares?
She is a liberal witch.
I heart Ruth Buzzi.
Wow - I'm dumbfounded.
Yesterday, I heard that she said, in response to what Roberts said about not using international law, that she wants to use wisdom wherever she can get it. I was amazed in that she was really dissing the man publicly who will soon become her chief.
This is what Republicans get for being 'nice'. Would that we could have done the same to this woman that her collegues have done to ours.
This person never should have been sent to SCOTUS!
Absolutely. Let's send Chief Justice Roberts to SCOTUS with all our prayers. Our Constitution is the only thing that she was sworn to defend, to preserve and protect!!!
>>>the president should appoint a "fine jurist"
Talk about closing the gate after the horses got out. If Billy Jeff would have applied this standard, we wouldn't have to listen to this numb-skull.
Ruth doesn't know wisdom from Adam's house cat.
That's not your job, you leftist scum. I cannot believe this cochroach was able to spend her career pushing sexual deviancy upon children, forcing religion out of public life, and protecting criminals, and yet was waved through by the magic wand of Orrin Hatch and the pussies in the Senate. Ginsberg is a disgrace to the Court she sits on. I pray that Bush has the strength to put Janice Rogers-Brown on the SCOTUS to make Ginsberg's life a living hell.
Then you do not understand your function, Ruth, as it is to interpret the U.S. Constitution, NOT to apply foreign laws to U.S. cases.
You are right. Something is very wrong with the judicial branch. We are in a terrible situation in this country when 9 unelected men and women advance their own political agenda with no checks or balances by the other two branches. With those branches in Republican hands one can well understand why the Democrats fight so ferociously about Republican appointees.
And we just let it happen.
This creature is a "female"?
Well, its time we stopped letting it happen. Candidates for Senator should be asked some probing questions and held account for their answers. For example,exactly what constitutes good vs bad behavior when it comes to turning out a Federal Judge. Will you take personal action to hold Federal Judges to a known standard of judicial behavior and remove those who do not meet that standard? Will you restrict operating budgets of courts that are consistently at odds with the intent of congress and interests of the American people?
Wear your robe and be quite.
"""I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary.""
She's off the map with thinking like this. Scary isn't it?!?"
No doubt she'll quote the Koran in her next decision.
“I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it,” she said. “I don't want to stop at a national boundary.”
That statement alone should be enough for impeachment.
And enough for indictment.
Ginsberg, is living proof that the apointment of USSC judges is a flawed process. The Constitution is well written and understanding it does not require a specific sex organ. However, with dumbocraps it is all about sex and skin color.
BTT
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.