SAY WHAT?

At the outset of this article I will state that Ruth Bader Ginsburg should have never been confirmed to the United States Supreme Court. She was confirmed 97-3 in spite of her wacko ideas about issues from sex to the Constitution. Bill Clinton nominated her and all heard the statements about her being a brilliant jurist. She is brilliant if following the ACLU dogmas and anti-Constitutional rulings are used for the criteria for determining brilliance.

She was one of the lead attorneys for the ACLU and founded the ACLU Women's Rights Project in 1972. Read some of her ideas and you can’t help but wonder if she lives on the same planet given the things she advocates. She sees nothing wrong with under age sex, bigamy, prostitution, and a host of other far out ideas. (Url http://www.nationalreview.com/whelan/whelan200507260753.asp) The ideas she expressed at various times fit the ACLU’s anything goes agenda that runs counter to the morality practiced by the founders and early citizens. It is interesting to note that the cases the ACLU takes are the ones that won’t have any deleterious affect on the agenda they carry forth in opposition of morality and decency.

Ginsburg voted to destroy the sodomy laws of Texas in Lawrence v. Texas. Guess who hailed the ruling. Give yourself an A+++ if you said ACLU.  She voted to deny states the right to execute juvenile killers and was one of the five justices that looked to foreign law to make the ruling. (Justices, in some of their most hotly contested rulings, have looked overseas. Last year, for example, justices barred the executions of juvenile killers on a 5-4 vote. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said then that "it is proper that we acknowledge the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty.")

 In dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said the states should set the policy for capital punishment, not "the subjective views of five members of this court and like-minded foreigners." She was miffed that the unconstitutional usurpation by the Florida Supreme Court of election laws in Florida in 2000 was challenged. She said, “Don’t we always defer to the state court?” No “Ruth”, not when that court is wrong. Your job is to correct unconstitutional rulings.

Justice Ginsburg is upset because the perusing of foreign law to decide cases has been challenged. She said of those who don’t like the use: "Critics in Congress and in the media misperceive how and why U.S. courts refer to foreign and international court decisions." She said the foreign decisions were for guidance only. Say what? Guidance? What is the difference between guidance and use for all practical purposes? Why even look at foreign law at all unless there is an intent to shape rulings acceptable to the “oh so enlightened” foreign jurists?

The prevailing attitude of Ginsburg is one of superiority of the judiciary over other segments of government. She exemplifies the liberal intelligentsia that thinks they are a cut above others when it comes to understanding the issues of morality, ethics, and governing principles. She rules consistently for the liberal side of the coin which only serves to diminish the freedom and liberty of this nation.

Perhaps the best indictment of Ginsburg was the day she fell asleep while listening to a case. The liberals gave an excuse for her going to sleep, saying the case was boring. Boring? She is paid to listen to the arguments, not sleep though them.  Based on her rulings, she has slept through many arguments, turning a deaf ear to the requirements of the Constitution and her duties to uphold its provisions. She is the typical liberal of the type that ignores the truth and makes rulings to shape the nation according to her notions instead as the founders intended.

In Sorting It Out, it will be a great day for the United States when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg can sleep somewhere besides the chambers of the Supreme Court. When she wakes up from her nap she won’t be able to do us any more damage at that point.

© 03-22-2006 DEC

                        URL for excerpts cited in articlehttp://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/15/D8GC8IRO4.html