A case for removal

Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.
She added that the failure to engage foreign decisions had resulted in diminished influence for the United States Supreme Court.


Read the article

This woman should be removed fromt he court immediately. By the way she isn't the first, Sandra Day O'Connor made the same statement sometime ago.

Cato

I don't believe we should base our cases on what foreign courts do but I have no problem with a judge reading a decision by another court and considering it so long has the decision the judge reaches is in line with the United States Constitution.

I have no problem with the Justices looking at what other courts in other nations have said. However, notice that Ginsberg admits to citing what those courts have ruled. NOtice further in her statement that she says our failure to engage foreign decisions have deminished the US Supreme Court's influence. That is liberal humanistic mumbo Jumbo for one world government.

She is not fit to serve ont he court, just of Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't. She should be removed, immediately by congress.

She is not fit to serve on the court, just of Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't. She should be removed, immediately by congress.

There's just too many of them uppity women in government. Kick 'em all back into into the kitchen, and into the laundry room, and into the nursery- so they'll "know their place".

Ziggy,

Now THAT is a red herring!

You know well that the problem Cato has (and I share) with Ginsburg and O'Connor is that they respect foreign rulings. You of all people, regularly claiming how wonderful our Constitution is, should shudder at the idea of using non-American (and therefore completely seperated from the American vote or the Founders) sources to govern American life.

Mike, you are just wasting your words on that Zekyll and Zyde.

ZiggyllZyde only gets irate and pissed when George Bush defames the Constitution.

.

ziggy wrote:

She is not fit to serve on the court, just of Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't. She should be removed, immediately by congress.

There's just too many of them uppity women in government. Kick 'em all back into into the kitchen, and into the laundry room, and into the nursery- so they'll "know their place".

I don't care if she's male, female, or a tranvestite. What I care about is a Supreme Court Justice, no matter their sex, that is influanced by foreign rulings. I would think you would be also.

This woman agrees with Cato that Ginsberg has no business on the Supreme Court. Her gender has zilch to do with it.

ziggy wrote:

She is not fit to serve on the court, just of Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't. She should be removed, immediately by congress.

There's just too many of them uppity women in government. Kick 'em all back into into the kitchen, and into the laundry room, and into the nursery- so they'll "know their place".

Seems to me that you know what Cato meant from his post so why would you attempt to make it sexist?

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

She is not fit to serve on the court, just of Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't. She should be removed, immediately by congress.

There's just too many of them uppity women in government. Kick 'em all back into into the kitchen, and into the laundry room, and into the nursery- so they'll "know their place".

Seems to me that you know what Cato meant from his post so why would you attempt to make it sexist?

Because that is the only people like Ziggy can argue. They lack a valid point so they attack on a personal basis.

SheikBen wrote:Ziggy,

Now THAT is a red herring!

Well, Cato admits that he is a bigot. I was just spoofing on that for sarcastic effect.

You know well that the problem Cato has (and I share) with Ginsburg and O'Connor is that they respect foreign rulings. You of all people, regularly claiming how wonderful our Constitution is, should shudder at the idea of using non-American (and therefore completely seperated from the American vote or the Founders) sources to govern American life.

I don't think we can fairly view the American Constitution in a vacuum of what the rest of the world has done is the realm of jurispudence. We are not an island in a world devoid of legal history. Indeed, it was in the context of English and world history that the Founders devised the U.S. Constitution.

What is important is that the Supreme Court ultimately rule consistent with the U.S. Constitution. The road it takes- whether just the DC beltway or the roads of legal wranglings around the world- is not a important as the rulings it eventually issues.

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

She is not fit to serve on the court, just of Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't. She should be removed, immediately by congress.

There's just too many of them uppity women in government. Kick 'em all back into into the kitchen, and into the laundry room, and into the nursery- so they'll "know their place".

Seems to me that you know what Cato meant from his post so why would you attempt to make it sexist?

Because that is the only people like Ziggy can argue. They lack a valid point so they attack on a personal basis.

Who was I attacking?

Where is your sense of humor?

There was nothing to insinuate it was a joke and you didn't answer the question.

So you either were joking and owe Cato an apology for being vague or you owe Cato an apology for being assuming he is a sexist, which to my knowledge he’s never admitted to being.

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

Aaron wrote:

ziggy wrote:

She is not fit to serve on the court, just of Sandra Day O'Connor wasn't. She should be removed, immediately by congress.

There's just too many of them uppity women in government. Kick 'em all back into into the kitchen, and into the laundry room, and into the nursery- so they'll "know their place".

Seems to me that you know what Cato meant from his post so why would you attempt to make it sexist?

Because that is the only people like Ziggy can argue. They lack a valid point so they attack on a personal basis.

Who was I attacking?

Where is your sense of humor?

This admitted "bigot" paid enough in income tax this year to send one of my kids to college for a year, including room and board. This admitted "bigot" has had most of the freedoms he once enoyed removed. The admitted bigot, as you refer to me, is tired of working and then giving a good portion to parasites who won't work or parasites who have clout with the leaches in Washington and Charleston. This admitted bigot is tired of being told by others what he can and can't do with the very things he and his wife have spent thier lives working for. He is also tire of being belittled for his views and beliefs by people that have not moral value or depth of charactor, like you

I have no sence of humor anymore.

One last thing Ziggy, if loving liberty means I'm a bigot, I gladly wear the title. However, if it is the best you can offer as far as discussion goes, then you are as pathetic excuse for a man as exists.

I have no sence of humor anymore.

That is sad, very sad indeed.