Posted on 02/13/2012 9:07:35 PM PST by lex33
Oddly enough, Justice Scalia counts her as his best friend on the Court:
“I consider myself a good friend of every one of my colleagues, both past and present,” Scalia told Laura [Ingraham]. “Some more than others. My best friend on the Court is and has been for many years, Ruth Ginsburg. Her basic approach is not mine, but she’s a lovely person and a good loyal friend.”
Source
Let us hope Justice Ginsburg is still on the Court, come next January 20th.
The original (pre-14th) Constitution is itself dependent upon a spiritual premise - that of the definition of a human being as created innately free by God.
So the Constitution isn't the "start" of American legal theory - it is a derivative effect of a legal logic which stems from that original spiritual premise.
That is why the imposition of administrative law via the 14th is fundamentally indefensible, because it imposes a government-created-and-controlled "corporate existence" upon these free people, and even worse, fraudulently and brazenly declares its power to do so as derived from a document which is based on the acknowledgement of fundamental human freedom.
The 14th Amendment, and all it's associated law, is therefore an abomination to the original Constitution, and thus has no derivative validity. It is imposed by force and fraud alone, by people who are quite knowledgeable about that fact, but who are also quite content with it, and even determined to expand its application as much as possible.
That's just the flat-out truth, depressing though it may be. What's even more depressing, though, is that so few people are interested in how the whole thing works. It literally doesn't matter if the details are openly published - if they even bother to do anything, Americans just shrug and move along.
This endemic indifference to the legal mechanisms which bind us, IMHO, is the root of what is harming America - not particular political or religious differences. And though it is heavily rewarded by all the power factions, that really is not the reason it is so universally enacted. Rather, people are failing a spiritual test on their own personal decision, a turning away from what they know they should apply themselves to. And this applies to both the elite and the plebes.
It's crazy. it;s like a watching a bus full of people careening down the highway, and no one wants to drive, but rather they fight over the seating and the snacks.
/end sermon
Bump for later reading
The Supreme Court nominees - the biggest reason to oust Obama on November 6, 2012.
The Constitution is flexible and adaptive, through the Amendment process. Other than that, no it is static at any given point in time.
Moreover, it says what it means and means what it says. It drives me batty when people support the libs interpretation and have no CLUE of Jefferson’s Maxim:
“On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
oh and by the way, you can’t maintain a Constitutional Republic in the absence of an informed and moral electorate. We are seeing the proof of this in real time.
If the POTUS becomes a lame duck, congress better not even look like it is going into recess before Jan 20.
“Which is why the increasing use of the word “fair” in political discourse sets my teeth on edge. “Fair” almost never appears in contracts because it’s arbitrary and subjective. Contracts demand exact language. The use of “fair” brings with it an implication of improvisation, of making it up as we go along.”
Most excellent response to the liberal cry of fairness!
Applause !
Both Silberman and Sutton cited Scalia’s opinion in 2005 upholding strict federal regulation of marijuana in the case of Angel Raich, a Californian who used home-grown marijuana to relieve her pain. “If Congress could regulate Angel Raich when she grew marijuana on her property for self-consumption,” Sutton wrote, “it is difficult to say Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.”
http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?a=rp&m=b&postId=1165037.
Exactly
After all, Justice Ginsburg is an expert on "old and outdated".
>Scalia-—you must know the quote of all the Founding Fathers and all philosophers prior to John Austin and Bentham-—who stated that Virtue was a fundamental necessity to Freedom and a Republic. Sodomy can NOT be good-—just because a majority vote it to be so. We have our Rights from God-—not Barney Frank——His standards are at the basis of ALL OUR RIGHTS and sodomy is NOT a RIGHT. Wake up.<
Beautifully said. Kudos, Susie.
Yes, which is why Scalia will be a toss up during the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act arguments. I would not be surprised if Scalia favors the regulatory expansion of "Obamacare".
To understand why Scalia is “comforting” in expanding the Commerce Clause, research his past employment.
“If the Court had a couple more like her [Ginsberg], with Obama they would obliterate this country’s foundations.”
You’ve defined why we have to vote for whomever runs vs. Obama in November. Let the fights be in the primary, but we have to oust this guy. There will be a couple of SCOTUS openings in the coming years, and we sure as hell don’t want him filling them.
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.