Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 next last
To: Crackingham
It is unbecoming and improper for a sitting associate justice to be politicking such as this.
To: Crackingham
"I have a list of highly qualified women, but the president has not consulted me," I can't recall a member of the Court being this partisan since Justice Douglas.
3 posted on
09/21/2005 8:14:16 PM PDT by
JimSEA
To: Crackingham
It really is not her place to say who the President chooses for seat on the USSC. But I guess she is like the rest of the people around the Clinton administration and have no respect for tradition.
4 posted on
09/21/2005 8:14:43 PM PDT by
Sthitch
To: Crackingham
If it's a woman, I hope it's one that can speak in coherent sentences.
ML/NJ
5 posted on
09/21/2005 8:14:46 PM PDT by
ml/nj
To: Crackingham
""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?!?
6 posted on
09/21/2005 8:15:51 PM PDT by
KoRn
To: Crackingham
As it stands right now, there are no women on the court.
8 posted on
09/21/2005 8:17:14 PM PDT by
satchmodog9
(Murder and weather are our only news)
To: Crackingham
"I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."Ruthie, sweetie, you're a Supreme of the UNITED STATES! All the enlightenment you need is in the Constitution. If ya don't like it, resign and go for the World Court in Belgium.
To: Crackingham
"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.
10 posted on
09/21/2005 8:18:12 PM PDT by
WarPaint
(Crush Islam)
To: Crackingham
There are also some women who would not advance and defend our enemies agenda and 'rights' either, Ruthie.
What a shame , huh?
11 posted on
09/21/2005 8:18:12 PM PDT by
NormsRevenge
(Semper Fi ... "To remain silent when they should protest makes cowards of men." -- THOMAS JEFFERSON)
To: Crackingham
...who would not advance human rights or women's rights As a woman and a human, I don't think we need two sets of rights. Or is she saying women are not human?
12 posted on
09/21/2005 8:18:28 PM PDT by
msnimje
(Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
To: Crackingham
Thanx for the reminder of how out of the mainstream this woman is. The last place I expect a supreme court justice to go for insight is to another country. And to have her support that concept is a slap in the face to America.
13 posted on
09/21/2005 8:18:40 PM PDT by
FOXFANVOX
(Freedom is not free!)
To: Crackingham
"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.
14 posted on
09/21/2005 8:18:44 PM PDT by
ncountylee
(Dead terrorists smell like victory)
To: Crackingham
(s)so Ginsberg only wants woman lawyers who advocate age of consent to sex at 12.(/s)
To: Crackingham
Ruthie and the people who share her beliefs are the ones who have been destroying the culture, structure, and morality of this nation.
18 posted on
09/21/2005 8:19:50 PM PDT by
doug from upland
(Doug from Upland = mindless, uncreative dolt --- thanks to Strategerist)
To: Crackingham
Does this mean if the President nominates a big Hairy man who smokes cigars she will RESIGN???
19 posted on
09/21/2005 8:19:50 PM PDT by
msnimje
(Cogito Ergo Sum Republican)
To: Crackingham
Reading the politicing by sitting justices and the statements of the likes of Kennedy et al, makes me think what a joke Washington has become.
I am reminded of the immortal words of Thurston Howell III when he objected to a decision of the Skipper. "I'll take this to the Appellate Court, I'll take this to the Supreme Court. Why, I'll take it higher than that. I'll take it to the Newport Sound Yatch Club Rules Committee".
20 posted on
09/21/2005 8:20:09 PM PDT by
Lawgvr1955
(Never draw to an inside straight.)
To: Crackingham; Fiddlstix
"I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary."Hey GINSBURG, you stupid BITCH!!! Your JOB is to interpret laws according to the U.S. CONSTITUTION, PERIOD! That is the United States CONSTITUTION, not some fracking foreign law that supports your MARXIST position!
Its PAST time for our ELECTED so-called "representatives" to grow a pair and start IMPEACHMENT proceedings against these blacked-robed tyrants!!!!
To: Crackingham
"I will take enlightenment wherever I can get it," she said. "I don't want to stop at a national boundary." It's not her job to seek enlightenment or seek to impose her enlightenment on us or on the court. It is her job to reach decisions strictly on the Constitution. She should be impeached for her comments.
To: Crackingham
Here's to an ultraconservative W.A.S.P. being the next appointee.
25 posted on
09/21/2005 8:22:31 PM PDT by
dr_who_2
To: Crackingham
So, here's this Jezabel type person, Ginsburg, whose idea of advancing women's rights is to convince them to kill their babies and to allow the government to take their homes to give to the rich.
Quite possibly Ginsburg's appointment is one of the worst ever made.
27 posted on
09/21/2005 8:24:09 PM PDT by
muawiyah
(/ hey coach do I gotta' put in that "/sarcasm " thing again?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-91 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson