Posted on 03/15/2006 2:17:12 PM PST by Liz
Why are these kind of statements made so often overseas . . . .?
And does she really believe that SCOTUS should consult in legal traditions foreign to Anglo-American jurisprudence?
Someone tell the court that we are a self-governing people. Their job is to resolve disputes when an injured party files a complaint or a claim for rights. We the people are not governed except by contract and our Constitution. The courts and gummint officials are also governed by contract, by the Constitution and the limits of their authority.
Because the rest of the world wears red socks, it is not a reason to declare that we should wear red socks.
The judge you clerked for was targetted because he made decisions which the loser in that actual case didn't like. No?
The article said that Ginsberg and O'Connor were being singled out, and one has to assume that it was not by unhappy litigants, but by people who don't like their decisions for other reasons.
I would venture to guess that what they both have in common, in addition to being women, is support for legalized abortion.
BTW, O'Connor's not a Democrat.
Ginsburg is right. Some of the rhetoric used against allegedly "activist judges" has been over the top.
Where have you been? O'Connor's certainly a RINO at the very least. She was a horrible justice and a lib. She deserves no respect.
Turns out they were not directly threatened at all. Typical distortion and exaggeration from the drama queens on the REAL "irrational fringe" which REALLY threatens the court. Ruth Buzzi is a far more dangerous threat to do harm against America than some wacko blogger.
O'Connor voted with Rhenquist over 80% of the time.
right on...
Who gets more death threats? Jusitce Thomas or Justice Buzzi-Ginsberg?
But that doesn't mean rational people of good faith don't have legitimate complaints about justices such as O'Connor and Ginsburg who seek to impose their personal agendas and social philosophies on everyone through the mechanism of judicial leigislation.
You can vote out leigislators who attempt to do this. All you can do in the case of a SCOTUS justice is submit to the beating.
That's about 2000 judges too many IMO.
That's about 2000 judges too many IMO.
We finally got the Sandy out. Now I can't wait until this court is Ruth-less.
Your point being?
Most cases are mundane, arcane, and noncontroversial. It's the minority of cases, those involving attempts by liberal justices to subvert society and recast it in their own image, that causes the problems. On such cases O'Connor rarely if ever sided with Rehnquist.
LOL!!! Good one, devolve.
I guess I could point to using foreign law for precidence and the taking of personal property to help your construction buds and say something about radical fringe, but I think the court should understand radical fringe without me having to spell it out for them.
No, the justices should not receive threats. No the U.S. Constitution, property rights and U.S. citizens welfare shouldn't either.
Get it, madam Ginsberg?
Property rights are as integral to this nation's soul as it gets. Some of you folks up there don't seem to be capable of grasping issues like this, although I do believe you did get this one right. Hopefully someone will correct me if I am off base with regard to that.
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.