Posted on 05/23/2005 11:01:59 PM PDT by TheOtherOne
It was:
Jesse Helms
Bob Smith
and Nickles of OKlahoma
who voted against Ginsburg.
God bless them.
Mccain voted for Ginsberg and one if the of his arguments was that if the gop became the minority if there was no fillabuster we would feel it.
But Mccain if you voted for cloture for ruth bader ginsberg a left wing activist who cares if the gop still has the fillabuster if they were in the minority, you haven't used it in the past and won't in the future.
The Gop letting Ginsberg and Breyer through compared to the dems who fillabuster appealite court nominees is enough to make you sick.
Men(ace) in Black? SCOTUS goes Rogue...
various FR links & stories | 03-03-05 | the heavy equipment guy
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1354913/posts
Heavy thinker there, if you are a socialist p.o.s.
I for one am not a world citizen, I am an American,
How does a dumbass like this get in such a position?
"The practices of other nations, particularly other democracies, can be relevant to determining whether a practice uniform among our people is not merely an historical accident, but rather so 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty' that it occupies a place not merely in our mores but, text permitting, in our Constitution as well. See Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937) (Cardozo, J.)." -- Justice Antonin Scalia, Thompson v. Oklahoma. 487 US 815 (1988):
Well stated! I can feel the flames already ;-)
Isn't Scalia talking about English Common law?
Not specifically, no. He seems to be open to any foreign practices so long as they support the Constitution. Thompson v Oklahoma happened to be the case where the Court ruled that executing people under 16 was cruel and unusual. Scalia was writing for in dissent and was saying that quoting foreign laws and practices were fine if they upheld Constitutional principles, but he disagreed that the foreign sources quoted in this case happened to support the Constitution.
Supreme Court decisions have always reflected ideas from sources outside the Constitution where they have been considered necessary for illumination of the Justices' opinions.
For example, there are decisions that cite various State laws, State judicial opinions, rulings by governmental agencies and even less judicial opinions such as sociological, economic, psychiatric studies This isn't something new.
It is controversial if the Justices decide a case using foreign laws to override US laws and clear mandates of the Constitution.
Or Maryland.
There is no reason to cite international opinion by case if it is not authoritative. Stephens, et al, have done just that. They have cited specific case law from countries outside the USA in cases not involving treaties. The only reason to cite such a case is to cite from authority.
Having done that Stephens and his pals are indeed guilty of violating their oaths of office and should be impeached for cause.
Stevens is really deep into Mugabe isn't he.
There have been rumors, all year, that she is seriously ill. Now, those rumors seem to have quieted down.
You signed up just to say that, fool?
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.