SwiftVets.com

Tanya · Senior Chief Petty Officer Joined: 13 Aug 2004 Posts: 570

By Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.com
Sunday, April 3, 2005

"Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said Friday that as a justice she considers foreign laws – not just U.S. laws and its Constitution - in forming her legal opinions.

Ginsburg said criticisms of relying too heavily on world opinion "should not lead us to abandon the effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey."

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/4/3/82551.shtml

GM Strong · Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:15 pm Post subject:

I hope Sharia has no part in it. This woman and Kennedy do not belong on this court. Their oath is to upholding the Constitution of this country, not whatever others they deem appropriate.
_________________
8th Army Korea 68-69

Navy_Navy_Navy · Admin Joined: 07 May 2004 Posts: 5777

WTFO ????

What if a tenet of French or Polish or Russian or Chinese law seems to have more merit to one or more of our Justices of SCOTUS than our own Constitution?

I guess I've been asleep:

tony54 · Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:44 pm Post subject:

The question is why do we have a constitution in the first place?
It was "in order to form a more perfect union".
The founding fathers were fed up with rules and laws of the rest of the world and their opinions.
They wanted to create a union unaffected and un-influenced by the rest of the world!
And now the Supreme Justices assigned the duty of interpreting that very document want to be influenced by the French, Cubans, Chinese and Muslims?
They need to learn to read and interpret.
There is only one document that pertains to them, the Constitution of the USA. Its all written in English, and even a foreign born Italian with only a high school diploma like me can understand it.
We also need to make a rule like the Cardinals in the Vatican:
No one on the Supreme court over 80 years old.

DADESID · Seaman Joined: 07 Jul 2004 Posts: 157

This is an egregious usurpation of the popular sovereignty that countless or our forefathers DIED to guarantee to this country.

Nothing in ANYTHING duly established and ordained by "We the People" grants this kind of tyrannical authority to these usurpers of popular sovereignty.

This attitude by the judiciary can only be characterized as "Judicial Caesarism".

Are we headed toward the same destruction and dismantling of our Republic as occured with the Roman Republic... a destruction deliberately caused by a handful of robed "Caesars" like Julius, Augustus, and Tiberius?

I hope not. But such speculation is difficult to avoid given the enormous admission by Ginsburg.

Navy_Navy_Navy · Admin Joined: 07 May 2004 Posts: 5777

It's even worse than you think - this is Sandra Day O'Connor who made this admission first and she's supposedly "conservative."

Shocked

_________________
~ Echo Juliet ~
Altering course to starboard - On Fire, Keep Clear
Navy woman, Navy wife, Navy mother

DLI78 · PO3 Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 273

GREETINGS PEOPLE OF THE PLANET EARTH:

WE of the planet Conehead are glad you have come to understand that you need to take guidance from us. We will send an envoy to your planet to instruct the Supemes (haven't heard any hits from them in 40 years). We hope you still make that wonderful bubblegum.

Do not worry, do not think. We will do that for you.

Is Dianna Ross still "hot" on your planet?

OW! Spousal unit: Do not hit my cone with that frying pan again! I am not attracted to Earthlings. Even really hot sensuos Earthlings with the voices of angels. OWWWWW!
_________________
DLI 78
Army Linguist
1978-1986

tony54 · Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:45 am Post subject:

LewWaters · Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:04 pm Post subject:

Maybe they need some reminders of just what it was they swore to defend and uphold?

Seems to me I heard on either Rush or Hannity a week or so ago, that Scalia was quoted as saying words to the effect of "the court is slowly rewriting a new constitution for a country he doesn't recognize."

I haven't found the exact quote yet, but when I do, I'll post it.
_________________
Clark County Conservative

tony54 · Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:14 pm Post subject:

Here is my opinion of the court as of late:
They don't even try to interpret the CONSTITUTION,
Most of them think they ARE the CONSTITUTION.
And that's not good!

Tanya · Senior Chief Petty Officer Joined: 13 Aug 2004 Posts: 570

Scroll down to Recent Programs and click on:

A&C: Justice Antonin Scalia on Constitutional Interpretation (03/19/2005)
CSpan

Edit to convert long link

kate · Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:10 pm Post subject:

Sen John Cornyn
On the Senate floor April 4, 2005
He is the Senator that introduced the resolution slapping the courts' hands, that Ginsberg blasted

Full transcript http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1377067/posts?page=39#39
very long transcript, couple snips~

BuffaloJack · Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 4:26 pm Post subject:

It would appear that taking anything into account except our own U.S. Constitution means that the justice involved would be violating their oath of office (a verbal and binding contract), that they should be removed from office and replaced by someone who will actually honor an oath.
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71)

Schadow · Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:37 pm Post subject:

Has anyone the noticed the strange inverse parallel between the Supreme Court and the Catholic Church? (Disclaimer: I am not Catholic.)

While some members of the Supremes find it perfectly logical to examine the laws of foreign countries for guidance on interpreting our Constitution, the hiererarchy of the Catholic Church maintains a strict-constructionist view of their doctrine and has for centuries. A sort of "What would Peter do" template applied to challenges from current culture.

If priesthood is for men, only; if birth control and abortion are banned, etc., etc., that's the way it is. An unshakeable steadfastness to their faith and doctrine in spite of continued intense pressure to 'reform'.

As I say, I'm not Catholic and may disagree with some tenets of that church, but you have to admit that the Vatican is the boss and that's that. With various ups and downs, they have survived for some 2000 years.

Our Supreme Court should take some lessons from that and get about the business of supporting OUR Constitution, not that of various governments around the world.

Schadow
_________________
Capt, 8th U.S. Army, Korea '53 - '54

tony54 · Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:49 pm Post subject:

They wouldn't enforce the basic "right to life liberty and persuit of happiness" for an American citizen about to be killed by the state.
But they legislated that a criminal under the age of 18 cannot be executed for the crime he committed.
I don't think they know the limits of their jurisdiction!