Chief Justice William Rehnquist passed away at the age of 80, surrounded by his sons.
This most Honorable and Distinguished Justice will be missed. He, perhaps more than anyone was responsible for moving the court to the right.
He leaves a void that will not easily be filled.
Rest in Peace, your Honor.
Bill
"There is no recession, my friends, no downturn, no hard times. The rich are wallowing in loot-and now they wanna make sure you don't come a-lookin' for your piece of the pie"...Michael Moore
Posts: 1292 | Location: boston ma | Registered: October 27, 2002
Nobody seems to have had a problem when Clinton appointed two avowed Liberal Socialists to the court: Breyer and Ginsburg.....oh yeah.....they are "Mainstream"
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation." ~ Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
There are some of us that are glad of that, Doc. Not the good by personal freedom, the hello constitution.
Ummm ... I'm not saying I disagree, necessarily, just that I don't understand what you're saying. That an ultraconservative justice would be more or less protective of the constitution than one less conservative, or more or less in favor of personal freedom? Who's against personal freedom? In what ways have the justices appointed by Democratic presidents failed to uphold the constitution?
quote:
Nobody seems to have had a problem when Clinton appointed two avowed Liberal Socialists to the court: Breyer and Ginsburg
Avowed Liberal Socialists?? Please, you know as well as I do that it's intellectually dishonest to attach the words Liberal and Socialist together like you just did, as though they were one and the same. You can certainly make legitimate, arguable points about philosophically liberal justices without a cheap shot like that.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jack White,
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 2958 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
There are some of us that are glad of that, Doc. Not the good by personal freedom, the hello constitution.
Ummm ... I'm not saying I disagree, necessarily, just that I don't understand what you're saying. That an ultraconservative justice would be more or less protective of the constitution than one less conservative, or more or less in favor of personal freedom? Who's against personal freedom? In what ways have the justices appointed by Democratic presidents failed to uphold the constitution?
quote:
Nobody seems to have had a problem when Clinton appointed two avowed Liberal Socialists to the court: Breyer and Ginsburg
Avowed Liberal Socialists?? Please, you know as well as I do that it's intellectually dishonest to attach the words Liberal and Socialist together like you just did, as though they were one and the same. You can certainly make legitimate, arguable points about philosophically liberal justices without a cheap shot like that.
Oh, boy! Here we go again. I say we take a collection and pay Jack to let it drop right now.
Rob G
"A man falls in love with cigars the way he falls in love with a woman. He knows it immediately but explaining why he loves is not so easy to enunciate. We never really know what makes us fall in love. Should we want to? To know is to lift the veil of mystery." - Unknown
Posts: 796 | Location: New York | Registered: November 11, 2003
Oh, boy! Here we go again. I say we take a collection and pay Jack to let it drop right now
Hey, I'm not cheap, but I can be bought!
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 2958 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
Here is a good article that addresses just how "hello Constitution" the Rehnquist court was when being on the side of text got in the way of their love of separation of powers doctrine. The Rehnquist court ultimately was in favor of state's rights over constitutional text. That equals a blow against the Constitution and against individual rights. The Rehnquist court was an activist court. It was just a conservative (political sense, not judicial sense) activist court. Anyway, have a nice day.
Here is a good article that addresses just how "hello Constitution" the Rehnquist court was when being on the side of text got in the way of their love of separation of powers doctrine
It is a good article. I would only ask, as I often do, that you consider the source of what you read on the internet, and remember that the author of this particular article, The Federalist Society, is a not an unbiased observer, but a conservative/libertarian group with a definite agenda. They are, in fact, made up of the hardcore of the far right. None of this means by itself the points aren't arguable or that we shouldn't read and consider what they have to say -- of course we should. Just that we need to always keep in mind who's speaking and use our intellect to filter, if necessary.
quote:
I'm not even going to respond Jack....I'm having too nice a weekend. Hope your's is the same.
I am, thanks -- I'm glad you are too. I'm just a bit puzzled why you thought to post such a provocative statement on this forum, and then be seemingly exasperated that you got a response. That's not like you.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jack White,
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 2958 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
Originally posted by Jack White: I am, thanks -- I'm glad you are too. I'm just a bit puzzled why you thought to post such a provocative statement on this forum, and then be seemingly exasperated that you got a response. That's not like you.
OK Jack, since you insist:
Ginsberg: She is a former Attorney for the ACLU (maybe that's a clue), and she is an avid Feminist. Ruth Ginsburg made the same assumption as the rest of the feminist movement. She accepted without question the Marxist claim that women's role as mothers and wives is inherently oppressive (http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0106roberts.html). And she believed that equality of opportunity should always translate into identical social roles.
In 1977, Ginsburg wrote a report for the Commission on Civil Rights titled "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code". This report demanded 800 changes to federal laws in order to eliminate any and all distinctions between men and women.
For starters, the report claims that the Boy Scouts perpetuate stereotyped sex roles, so they must be gender-integrated or abolished. You can't help but wonder if the current Leftist hostility to the Boy Scouts stems from this recommendation.
Then we are instructed to clean up our speech: "manmade" must be changed to "artificial," "midshipman" to "midshipperson," and so forth. Why the report fails to object to such obviously sexist terms as "mother tongue," "Mother Nature," "ladybug," and "sister city," I can't possibly guess.
Later in this report is where it all comes out. There we learn of Ginsburg's grand vision to reshuffle the deck of the traditional family. She proposes to do away with the husband-as-primary-breadwinner concept:
"Congress and the President should direct their attention to the concept that pervades the Code: that the adult world is (and should be) divided into two classes — independent men, whose primary responsibility is to win bread for a family, and dependent women, whose primary responsibility is to care for children and household. This concept must be eliminated from the Code if it is to reflect the equality principle."
But we're still not done. a few pages later, Ginsburg urges us to adopt Communist-style day care services: "The increasingly common two-earner family pattern should impel development of a comprehensive program of government-supported child care."
Radicals often moderate their stance as they get older and wiser. But not Ruth Ginsburg.
On January 29, Justice Bader appeared at a lecture sponsored by the National Organization for Women Legal Defense Fund (http://www.nowldef.org). Over the years the NOW Legal Defense Fund has used the cover of gender equality to promote their agenda of destabilizing the family and promoting Marxist ideals (http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0113roberts.html). Justice Ginsburg not only appeared at the meeting, she introduced the speaker for the 4th Annual Ruth Bader Ginsburg Distinguished Lecture Series on Women and the Law.
In that appearance, Ginsburg showed that she remains ever-faithful to the Sisterhood. Plus, she fostered the perception that she lacks judicial impartiality and objectivity. As Hofstra University law professor Monroe Freedman remarked, "I think this crosses the line."
Ruth Bader Ginsburg's writings reveal the true intentions of radical feminism: achieve a gender-less society and impose totalitarian ideals on American society. And her recent appearance at a NOW conference reveals she still hews to the fem-socialist line.
Breyer: As far as Breyer goes, other than his recent wonderful statements on using "World standards to write American law" (their job is to interpret the Constitution, not write Law....or am I missing something), and his ruling on the "New" interpretation of Emminent Domain: Local governments can now take private property away from an individual for the sole purpose of generating higher tax revenue...amazing. If that's not the purest form of Socialism/Marxism, I don't know what is.
Beyond that, just go to the World Socialist website (wsws.org) or Moveon.org, or democraticunderground.com, etc and do a search on Breyer....I need go no further.
Like I said, their job is to interpret the Constitution, not legislate from the bench. The Judiciary has been going far beyond their powers for quite some time. Political persuasion and personal bias should never be an issue on the Supreme Court. unfortunately, that's not realistic.
Now I need a cigar.....
This message has been edited. Last edited by: rbihari,
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation." ~ Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
Once again, I urge you to look into the background and agenda of internet sources you quote. In this case, Ifeminism was the project of Wendy McElroy, a Canadian-born, self-described anarchist and proponent of anarcho-capitalism. Ifeminism's extremely individualistic belief is that women are not disadvantaged by a patriarchal society and therefore they vigorously oppose gender-equality and anti-discrimination legislation of any kind, including equal-pay for equal-work rules, restrictions on pornography, and sexual harassment regulations in government and the workplace. Anyone who does favor such gender-equality legislation is quickly painted with their always-ready Marxist brush, as are all women who publically disagree with them. I suppose this includes Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Being labeled as Marxist by Ifeminism.com doesn't make it so. Actually, many who are so labelled wear the title proudly, just like being on Nixon's 'Enemies List' in the '70s. And, in my view, it doesn't make it valid for you to label a Supreme Court justice a "Liberal Socialist".
quote:
As far as Breyer goes, other than his recent wonderful statements on using "World standards to write American law" (their job is to interpret the Constitution, not write Law....or am I missing something),
You know as well as I do he wasn't talking about writing law from the bench. You have your internet sources, I have mine. Here's a synopsis from American Univerity's website of the Breyer-Scalia discussion they hosted on judicial philosophy and considering world standards.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Jack White,
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 2958 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
Ok...fine. As always, you only took one small bit of information, criticized it, and ignored everything else.
Believe what you want, No one will ever convince you otherwise....and I certainly have better things to do. Have a great day.
BTW: the link to the Scalia/Breyer interview was actually pretty good, and I think it proves my position more than yours. I think Scalia made him look like a fool, but of course, you will probably see it differently.
"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by legislation." ~ Robert A. Heinlein (1907 - 1988)
Ok...fine. As always, you only took one small bit of information, criticized it, and ignored everything else.
For goodness sakes, your post was a long one. Gimme time, gimme time.
quote:
Believe what you want, No one will ever convince you otherwise
Naw, it's happened, really. Not all that often, but when you're right, you're right.
I'm gonna go smoke something, too.
Holiday weekends are too short.
'Question authority. Think for yourself. Filter out the spin. Engage elected officials critically. Make them defend what they're doing in your name. Derive the truth. Speak truth to power.'
Posts: 2958 | Location: Boston | Registered: April 16, 2005
