A Decent Respect for the Opinions of [Human]kind

Supreme Court Archives ^ | 2/7/06 | Ruth Bader Ginsburg

[bondjamesbond]

For Discussion. This is the speech by Ginsburg that everybody has been referring to for the last couple of days.

Note that the title block on the HTML is as follows: Advocating the Elimination of Gender-Based Discrimination, Univeristy of Cape Town, South Africa

[PeteB570]

I think that when you boil it down to a few words its

"Judges should not have to follow the law but can wander anywhere they want to find opinions they need to support their feelings"

How did I do?

[bondjamesbond]

In the value I place on comparative dialogue - on sharing with and learning from others - I draw on counsel from the founders of the United States. The drafters and signers of the Declaration of Independence cared about the opinions of other peoples; they placed before the world the reasons why the States, joining together to become the United States of America, were impelled to separate from Great Britain. The Declarants stated their reasons out of "a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind." They set out in the Declaration a long list of grievances, in order to submit the "Facts" - the "long Train of [the British Crown's] Abuses" - to the scrutiny of "a candid World."

This was, of course, the Declaration of Independence. And while the Declaration is an important founding document and indicative of the thinking of the Founders, it is not a Constitution. It does not even begin to talk about the organization, limits or structure of government.

It is, in fact, a declaration to the English Crown and the World at large of Independence. As such, it is obviously concerned with foreign opinion, because foreign opinion is exactly what it was written to influence. Note further that the intent of the Declaration of Independence is to influence foreign opinion, not to be influenced by it.

For Ginsburg to cite the Declaration of Independence as a justification for foreign sources of law is just plain silly.

[dhuffman@awod.com]

Hmmm, that is awfully long to inspire this simple retort (contra response); opinions are like ani in that we all have 'em and they all stink. The only value in an opinion is in the effort but in its provenance and exposition and she forgot.

[bondjamesbond]

How did I do?

Pretty good. But I think it would be more interesting to pick this mess of a speech apart like a Christmas turkey on the 26th of December, to see where this Associate Justice is coming from and where she is going.

[cvq3842]

Barf-o-rama!

Mark Levin eviscerated this fool Wednesday night on his radio show.

Thanks for posting - we must know our enemy.

[bondjamesbond]

Hmmm, that is awfully long to inspire this simple retort (contra response);

Indeed. I would hope we might have an intelligent layman's discussion of this speech over the next few days. The foreign sources argument is laid out in some detail here by the chief advocate. It cries out to be refuted. We would be doing a service to our nation if we did so.

[FreedomPoster]

Hopefully she is going to the mountains, or wherever, for retirement. Soon.

[Preachin']

She must be replaced with a conservative.

[ConsentofGoverned]

Ginsburg's tome should be listed under crimes against humanity, for being forced to read this trash is pure torture. Where is Amnesty international??
This hag's mind is full of delusional powers and penumbra's -
She is truly stalin's niece.

[JCEccles]

I can better your summary by eighteen words:

"It's good to be king."

For a liberal like Ginsburg, it just doesn't get any better than to be given life tenure on a throne and a book filled with blank checks (the Constitution) to use to impose on the peasants whatever arbitrary and rootless liberal fashion appeals to you at the moment.

Ginsburg is honest to this degree: she and her fellow liberals don't consider all international and foreign laws binding and authoritative. Just those pieces and parts they cherry pick to suit their taste.

[Jeff Head]

Ginsburg, how about an absolute respect and reverence for the CONSTITUTION of the UNited STates. That is what you took an oath to uphold and defend...and what you MUST base your judicial decision process on.

IMHO, all of this blather is nothing more than the clear indication that you do not honor that oath and your rationalizations for not doing so.

[bondjamesbond]

The U.S. Supreme Court, early on, expressed a complementary view: The judicial power of the United States, the Court said in 1816, includes cases "in the correct adjudication of which foreign nations are deeply interested . . . [and] in which the principles of the law and comity of nations often form an essential inquiry." "Far from [exhibiting hostility] to foreign countries' views and laws," Professor Vicki Jackson of the Georgetown University law faculty recently reminded us: "[T]he founding generation showed concern for how adjudication in our courts would affect other countries' regard for the United States."

Note here how the statement of the 1816 court and the recent commentary of Professor Vicki Jackson have absolutely nothing to do with one another.

The 1816 court was referring to "the correct adjudication of which foreign nations are deeply interested . . . [and] in which the principles of the law and comity of nations often form an essential inquiry." This plainly refers to cases where foreign nations have an interest, and a deep one at that. The court often rules on matters that effect international relations and the interests of other nations, and must adjuticate correctly for that reason.

Professor Jackson's quote, on the other hand, deals with how adjudication in our courts would effect the "regard" of other nations for the United States, as opposed to their deep interests.

So, while the 1816 court was concerned with direct substantive effects on the deep interests of other nations, Professor Jackson seems to be concerned with how they "regard" us, which is to say, how they feel about us. One simply has nothing to do with the other.

I might also editorialize that the confusion with actual effect and feelings reflects the general sloppiness of thought in modern liberal politics.

[cvq3842]

EXCELLENT POINT!!!

And she's not even consistent on her own terms. The present US abortion laws are among the most permissive in the world. Anyone remember her citing foreign law when this issue comes up?

And no, no one should threaten a judge. I wish her a long and happy retirement, starting soon! But her equating ANY criticism with death threats is an insult of the highest order. If you want respect, earn it by doing your job. Bork, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and many filibustered Bush nominees were sitting judges and endured vicious criticism without a peep from this hypocrite. Cry me a river.

[bondjamesbond]

Mark Levin eviscerated this fool Wednesday night on his radio show

But Mark Levin, the Great One though he may be, is limited by the medium of radio. I think a forum like this is a far better place to pick apart Ginsburgs faulty arguments. And as "Show Prep for Show Prep for the Rest of the Mainstream Media", we can show the way.

[cvq3842]

PS This "don't dare criticize me, ignorant peasant" attitude really steams me.

Just like those leftists who call Bush a fascist and a war criminal during a time of war, and then get so offended when we question their patriotism.

Disgusting, but not surprising.

[cvq3842]

Agreed!!! Thanks again for posting. I've already added my two cents. This should be a great thread.

[bondjamesbond]

Ginsburg's tome should be listed under crimes against humanity, for being forced to read this trash is pure torture.

But somebody's gotta do it. You can be pretty certain her audience was tuned out after the first two minutes. Such drivel, spouted by an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, must be challenged.

[bondjamesbond]

Hopefully she is going to the mountains, or wherever, for retirement. Soon.

Failing that, she could be exposed as an intellectual fraud, thus tainting her arguments. That way she can serve as a useful weathervane than can always be counted on to be pointing in the wrong direction.

If she isn't going to retire, it is enough to have her on the losing side, consistently, for the rest of her tenure.

[Issaquahking]

From the U.S. Constitution...



ARTICLE III
Judicial Branch
Section 1.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.
Section 2.
Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; 10--between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.


Is there a doctor in the house? The judge is suffering from dementia...