The American Spectator : Justice Ginsburg Should Resign

Darin| 2.8.12 @ 6:39AM

She took an oath to "support and defend the Consitution of the United States." She lied. She is not suited to be a justice on the Supreme Court. Since Congress won't act, the remaining Justices should show they take the position seriously and demand her resignation. But it won't happen.

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.8.12 @ 10:10AM

Is it just me, or is this getting a little tiresome?
Truly, we are at a Crossroads, in our Country's Existence. We can either BELIEVE in the things our Founding Fathers put forth: The Declaration Of Independence and The United States Constitution, or we can choose to Dismiss them, as "OLD and DUSTY", or just plain: "Irrelevant". And, let me be the first to say: That Ruth Bader Ginsburg has got some nerve calling anything "Old and Dusty".

You might wanna glance in the Mirror, next time you come upon it, Sweetheart.

This is what we're up against. We have a Creature, who's Supposed to Interpret the Constitution. She just did. She has Interpreted it as something LESS than a Document in South Africa, scribbled on a Banana Leaf, by people with Elongated Necks, Carrying Spears, wearing $200 Nikes, and dragging a dead Elk behind them.

She was the Best that the LEFT had to offer? She was the Best that the RAPIST could find?

Should she be fired? Yeah. Did she not, take an OATH to Protect and Defend the Old and Dusty Constitution? If she can be Impeached? She should be Impeached. What she did, in subordinating the Greatest Governing Document in the History of Mankind, to something LESS than a bunch of Stone Carvings from the Land of the Burning Tire "Necklace", is the equivalent of the POPE suggesting to new Catholics that: "You might be better off with a Koran, instead of a BIBLE. After all, the BIBLE is way older than the Koran, and it lets you kill whomever you want, whenever you want, and you don't even need a reason. The Bible is way too restrictive for these times. I'm just saying."

She's not alone. Breyer is no fan of the Constitution. He likes to look at Foreign Law, for his "Interpretations" of OUR LAWS. (Makes sense to me.)

He wants to know what the Mountain People of PERU have to say, about Redistricting and Gerrymandering Cases. He's interested in how the people of ICELAND go about reaching conclusions abut Border Crossings, and Narcotics Cases. Only by looking all over the world, can he determine if the Laws are Valid under OUR Constitution.

The LEFT has quite a Stellar Record in their Disdain for our Founding Documents. They IGNORE what it says, and they like to Pretend that it says the things that they WANT it to say: ROE v WADE. No Christmas Decorations in the Public Square. (Even though Christmas is a NATIONAL HOLIDAY. No Ten Commandments Displays. (Even though there is one in the SUPREME COURT) No Prayers in Public Buildings. (Even though CONGRESS starts every Session with a Prayer) Or, is it every day?

We have a Democrat President who DISDAINS the Constitution as a "Document of Negative Rights". He admonishes it as "Telling us what Government CAN'T do for us, as opposed to what Government SHOULD do for the people." He thwarts it at every turn.

He's in Contempt of a Federal Court, as we speak, for his Illegal Drilling Moratorium, in Defiance of a COURT ORDER. He has made 4 Illegal Appointments in Violation of the Constitution. It is not for him to decide, whether the Senate is in Recess. It is Spelled Out in that Document. His Democrat Senate has not passed a Budget in over 1,000 Days, in Violation of the constitution. He has not Signed a Budget in all that time. And, now, he seeks to ORDER THE CHURCH to Submit to his will. HE will tell them Whom they shall employ. HE will tell them what they will provide for their employees. HIM, The Muslim Boy who is Revered by HAMAS as their "Deliverer". HIM, the follower of Atheists and Communist Scum. HIM, who has devoted his entire Adult Life to a Book - "Rules For Radicals" - containing a Dedication to LUCIFER, on it's jacket.

We are a Country divided against itself, by a Political Party that would rather be Governed by the Diktats of Men who would make of themselves GODS, then by the Wisdom of a Congregation of Minds, not seen since the Golden Age of Athens, and probably will not be seen again. Certainly, not in our Lifetimes.

The choice is ours, come November.

We can continue to be Americans?

Or we can be Fundamentally Transformed in to Something Else.

Choose.

AJ| 2.8.12 @ 11:15AM

Love your passion, TLP.

Simple question. How would the Ginsburg types have fared on Mt Carmel? They consider themselves 'prophesiers' of truth, calling down the great beltway god's fire. Elijah, call your office.

AJ| 2.8.12 @ 11:26AM

Here's hoping elections still matter and that the 79 yr old Ginzburg hangs in there for at least another yr so we don't get a younger version of her before the guard changes.

SUBVET| 2.8.12 @ 2:59PM

Let's hope "IT" doesn't steal the election......let's hope we haven't offend the Lord...maybe He will have mercy on us sinners.

TLP.....once again brother........hot straight and normal.

Alan Brooks| 2.8.12 @ 1:52PM

"You might wanna glance in the Mirror, next time you come upon it, Sweetheart."

Rush Limbaugh isn't exactly a high School freshman himself.

Alan Brooks| 2.8.12 @ 2:30PM

Rush is no spring chicken.

Bob Grant| 2.8.12 @ 3:25PM

Uh, and your point is?

MikeG| 2.8.12 @ 4:35PM

That is Alan's point, Bob.

Mickeybutane| 2.9.12 @ 9:05AM

alan,
Stay focused brother - get off your Mom and go clean your basement, asshat.

bart simpsonson| 2.9.12 @ 10:59PM

How did Limbaugh become a part of this discussion? It is readily apparent that Ginsburg has violated her oath to uphold the Constitution and ought to be impeached forthwith...........

Teaghan| 2.8.12 @ 4:02PM

And Rush's age has what to do with this?

djriz1| 2.8.12 @ 3:03PM

And I suppose you support Robert's right wing agenda, or six years of Thomas's silence, or Scalia's anti-gay agenda. It seems that they are more detrimental to this country than someone who believes that there are more current documents to lead a nation.

Oh, and what Rapist appointed her? Don't ever remember ever being convicted ( or even tried) of rape charges?

Wisw up my friend.

Teaghan| 2.8.12 @ 4:04PM

AS for the rapist, they ignored her as they ignored Kathleen Willey. Nobody gave a damn that he denied Paula Jones her day in court either.
Talk about trailer trash.

Teaghan| 2.8.12 @ 4:05PM

And I meant the rapist was the trailer trash. I could see where that would go!

john| 2.11.12 @ 1:17PM

The name Anita Broderick and that cigar
trick guy come to mind

mzk1| 2.10.12 @ 3:58AM

Sure, why not. I love everything they do, especially Scalia.

There is something called the "statute of limitations" for rape. But if people can convict Nixon without a trial, certainly both Clintons deserve the same treatment. At least a judge actually found Clinton obstructed justice.

djriz1| 2.8.12 @ 3:03PM

And I suppose you support Robert's right wing agenda, or six years of Thomas's silence, or Scalia's anti-gay agenda. It seems that they are more detrimental to this country than someone who believes that there are more current documents to lead a nation.

Oh, and what Rapist appointed her? Don't ever remember ever being convicted ( or even tried) of rape charges?

Wisw up my friend.

Wiswom| 2.9.12 @ 3:16PM

When one has $800,000 or so to give to the one making the charge of rape the charge of rape magically does not continue through the court system.

Ah, justice.

Me? If I had $8,000,000,000,000 - ironically about half the nation's debt - I would not part with $0.08 to the one making a false charge of rape against me.

Ah, honor and principle. And wiswom of course.

Wisw Eords| 2.10.12 @ 2:09AM

A Supreme Court Justice is against what is bright, lively, cheerful, and merry with a program with a purpose?

That makes no sense.

A program with the purpose of being against behavior that is sexually deviant, perverted and degenerate, that is detrimental to those engaged in that behavior physically, spiritually, mentally, emotionally, socially and financially, that is detrimental to the basic family unit, that is detrimental to the society as a whole that makes up 'we the people', makes way more sense than that.

Are you sure you have any idea what wiszom is? You don't seem very wisw to me.

Bob Grant| 2.8.12 @ 3:24PM

Timothy,

This rant I'm in total agreement with.

Occam's Tool| 2.8.12 @ 8:00PM

She was the former head of the ACLU, TLP. Yes, she is pond scum.

joellen| 2.9.12 @ 6:32AM

Timothy - AMEN to all you said. By the way, it seems we are the only two who remember what Bill Clinton did to Juanita Brodwick (if misspelled, please excuse). I am so sick of people, i.e., Bill Oreilly giving the Rapist any crediability. Just as they do Al Sharpton, etc., etc. It truly is troublesome where we have turned. Again Tim, perfectly said - keep writing and exposing.

kate| 2.10.12 @ 3:32AM

She cannot resign until we have a President who adheres to the Constitution.

W| 2.8.12 @ 1:52PM

The Republicans who had to punish Bush41 because he raised taxes by voting for Perot, or stayed home because of their principles, gave us Bubba Clinton who appointed Ginsburg.

Now we have the same situation with so called Republicans or conservatives saying they will stay home again to prove how principled they are, and that will lead to Obama appointing more clones of Kagan and Sotomayor.

This is an excellent article that shows the difference between those who believe that we established a limited federal government to protect our God given rights and those who believe that the federal government gives us our rights and directs our lives.
And if Obama wins that is a total victory for those who believe in the nanny state. He will complete the nanny state crafted by FDR and LBJ.

TrueBlue | 2.8.12 @ 2:25PM

My opinion (please note, OPINION) is that if you stay home and don't vote, you shouldn't be complaining about ANYTHING that happens as a result. Anyone that stays home on election day deserves anything bad that happens just as much as those that voted for the creator of the problem(s).

W| 2.8.12 @ 2:38PM

Absolutely.

Al Adab| 2.8.12 @ 2:42PM

Darth Vader Ginsburg needs to stay on the bench at least until Jan 20, 2013. Then of course there is that little matter of getting past a Senate Dem filibuster, but wait, they said the GOP was wrong to do that didn't they?

What Are The Odds . . .| 2.8.12 @ 5:47PM

September 17, 2012:

"Let Me be perfectly clear, make no mistake about it, every day I have been President I have not rested as I have preserved the Constitution, I have not rested as I have protected the Constitution, and I have not rested as I have defended the Constitution", said Obama in a speech today experts have already acknowledged has lowered the globe's sea levels three inches.

The speech has been such an oratory work of art the world's most unenlightened news source, Fox News, has only been able to offer in rebuttal that "Obama in his 8 minute speech used the pronoun "I" 347 times, the pronoun "Me" 112 times, and the adjective "My" 113 times."

The purpose of the speech has been overshadowed by the magnificence of Obama's performance. With polls of the potential upcoming presidential election showing Santorum leading Obama by a slight 64% to 4% edge, with 32% replying "none of your business", Obama stated he took action for the purpose of cooperating in a bipartisan manner in announcing a procedural judicial recess appointment to a federal court. This procedural executive policy decision has rankled the unenlightened segment of the population, highlighting the critical importance of the future pending procedural executive policy decisions to be announced in the next 6 weeks.

In a related note, it was announced today a procedural recess appointment was made today as a procedural fail-safe measure replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg with Roberto Californicus Vile on the Supreme Court. It was stressed this procedural action has nothing whatsoever to do with the potential upcoming presidential election, that is hanging precariously by a thread due to the opinions of the unenlightened segment of the population.

Experts acknowledge that the procedural moves today have fundamentally transformationally secured liberty forever.

mzk1| 2.10.12 @ 4:02AM

Beautiful.

SUBVET| 2.8.12 @ 3:02PM

Don't vote.........they should run your a*s out of the country.

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 3:50AM

She does support and defend it, but she didn't swear TO LIE ABOUT IT!!! it is a quaint, antiquated, baling wired, bubble gummed, duct taped relic that no longer functions for the present age. For Christ's SAKE, Negros are still 3/5ths of a person on the FRONT page (with a little addendum retracton in the classified section near the oil company ads).

She is RIGHT about the newer documents being better blueprints for even newer Constitutions.

If OURConstitution works so well, WHY is Roe V Wade and Citizens United decisions based on it so hottly unsatisfactory? Because the document is flawed in it's function. It fails in 2 ways.

1) 99% of the 4 million citizens in 1787 could NOT read , write or do arithmetic. TODAY, 5th graders know more and function better than most Mayors and state legislators of 1800. 90% of americans are functionally literate and more than half can balance a checkbook. Which is more than I can say for CONGRESS, either professionally or personally!

2) The green beret of 1787 was a man who could load a musket in a minute. The WAS no concept of drones, stealth bombers, covert black ops or lobbiests, insider trading, pork, or SwiftBoat propaganda! The Constitution makes not thought for the concepts wer are dealing with today, which is why depriving lovers of their right to free speech is a conflict with those who only know THREE WORDS... "The Bible says..."

The founding father's had enough integrity and respect for the government they had founded to respect the decisions of those they elected t o govern. They WROTE in the DOCUMENT that sedition and treason were NOT to be tolerated.
John Boehner's behavior would have had him not just censured, but jailed and perhaps even hanged. The Wilson "Liar" idiot, would have been dragged out of the State of the Union speech by the sergeant-at-arms by his heels.

She was being forthright and honest (something you twerps in AmSpec could learn to do) when she mentioned that human rights are a lot more universal than they were 230 odd years ago.

Tony| 2.9.12 @ 10:40AM

Absolute arrant nonsense.

It was concluded circa 1800 that literacy in New York was identical with the entire adult population; everyone was literate. Exactly what were they reading? Public broadsides and other products of the press -- like the Federalist Papers (which now tax the intelligence of college students); Scripture, and learned homilies on Scripture; books of essays or poetry; much would depend on what a family had money to purchase. If one actually examines the correspondence the people wrote, one finds eloquence and intelligence, and expressions that are steeped in a common fund of knowledge and literary references.

As for their not knowing arithmetic -- this is simply staggering. It's our kids who don't any longer understand what numbers are, and who can't figure out what 12 is 48 percent of, or even to know what the question means. People in 1800 who had to buy and sell (that means everyone) had plenty of complicated calculations to perform. Mental arithmetic of a very complex order was a prized subject in school ...

So you do not know what you are talking about. The men who wrote our constitution were drawing upon historical knowledge spanning more than two thousand years: they had Polybius in mind (who's Polybius, you ask), Thucydides, Plato, the Magna Carta, etc., etc. William Bradford in Plymouth quite pointedly criticizes Plato when he determines that the joint-stock company the Pilgrims were members of would not imply community of property.

Learn some history.

Mary Jo| 2.9.12 @ 2:22PM

Well said. I "joke" that most of the graduates of high school these days cannot tell you what year the War of 1812 was fought. Sad, but true.

Tim the Enchanter| 2.10.12 @ 11:02AM

Mary Jo- or what the color of George Washington's brown horse was.

O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.9.12 @ 3:56PM

Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization

In our quest to eliminate cross-species molestation, research has found certain tendencies of molesters who sodomize the ovine species regardless of gender or age.

These molesters who sodomize the ovine species regardless of gender or age tend to make statements such as:

"I am a 1%er, in Mensa."
(fckewe 1.16.12 @ 2:00pm)

"Babies cry, laugh, eat and poop and breath. If it is NOT doing those acts, it is just a scab, a snot bubble" (fckewe 1.19.12 @ 12:46pm)

"you're MOM teach you that?" (fckewe 1.20.12 @ 12:16pm)

"You take 2 Viagarrrrrrrrra to day?" (fckewe 2.7.12 @ 3:06am)

"in the eraly church was VERY Markist" (fckewe 2.8.12 @ 1:07am)

"IfOURConstitution works so well, WHY is Roe V Wade and Citizens United decisions based on it so hottly unsatisfactory ?"
(fckewe 2.9.12 @ 3:50AM)

It is recommended all species be aware that sodomizing molesters of sheep exist, that it is unknown whether other species are in danger of sodomizing molesters, and that you're best option is to be aware that your in danger to day, and any day, no matter how eraly in the day, of Markist snot bubble scabs who will hottly breath on you while sodomizing you, out of their self perceived intellectual superiority, if they have the chance to do so.

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 8:49PM

you remember My questions, but can only cut an paste. Do you get on the short bus all by yourself little man?

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 8:48PM

First of all, in My point #1, I admit to being slightly wrong. Would you happen to be man enough to admit if YOU were wrong on this issue, HERE, in print? Let's see if you are as much of an respectable and honest man as I am!

You are disgustingly uneducated. 90% of the population was not just rural, but wilderness. The bartered, paper money did not exist save in the cities and most families did not even HAVE a bible to record births, deaths and marriages.

School was for the 'Gentlemen's" sons. Free public schools wasn't even a CONCEPT in 1800! The keeping of credits and debits, clerking, was a skilled trade, not a common everyday occurence. MOST people NEVER had to buy and sell, because a whole life was commonly lived on the frontier, hunting and farming were groceries, most people never traveled past their own property, let alone into the next county.

I know most of your history education is from Little House on the Prairie and reruns of Bonanza, but all that was a Century AFTER the Constitution was written.

Would you believe a Founding Father? "John Quincy Adams said in the early 1800's that the illiteracy rate was only 4/10th of 1 percent.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What.....n_the_1800's#ixzz1lwIfCDup

I like My apologies in complete sentences Tony.

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 8:52PM

I OVER stated the literate population by 125%. My bad. I am not gonna wait for it, because I know EXACTLY what kind of rhetoric swilling, party dogma claiming, Faux News educated slice of ... you are. Prove Me wrong with that admission of ignorance.

O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.9.12 @ 9:37PM

Even sheep know Wikipedia is not a credible source.

"My high school aged children have been warned by their teachers that using Wikipedia for references in reports will result in a failing grade."
(commentator in American Spectator 7.11.11 @ 4:18pm)

It is recommended all species be aware that sodomizing molesters of sheep exist, that it is probable other species are in danger of sodomizing molesters, and that you're best option is to be aware that your in danger to day, and any day, no matter how eraly in the day, of Markist snot bubble scabs who will hottly breath on you while sodomizing you, out of their self perceived intellectual superiority gained from referencing Wikipedia, if they have a chance to do so.

Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization

Tim the Enchanter| 2.10.12 @ 11:00AM

Tony: 25

Joe| 2.9.12 @ 4:32PM

You obviously have no knowledge of the constitution if you think the 3/5 Compromise has anything to do with the standing of blacks in society. When the Constitution was being drafted there was debate over whether or not blacks should be counted in the census for determining the number of Representatives in the House that the slave states would get. The slave owners wanted them to be counted as full persons while the abolitionists didn't want the slaves to be counted as persons at all! The only way to get the slave states to sign on to the Constitution was to grant the slaves some sort of status so they granted them 3/5 status ONLY for representation purposes. Blacks couldn't vote in slave states, so it didn't affect them because it was the slave owners who got their 3/5 vote. In free states where blacks were allowed to vote, they got a full vote equal to any white man.

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 9:00PM

you are correct. Which is exactly why the document STATES negros are 3/5ths of a person. That concept, amended in a later amendment after the Civil war, did NOT delete the ERROR from the front page.

http://thestrategicretreat.com/the-35ths-fallacy/

The taxable value of a person... don't even THINK you have a chance to win this argument with Me sir.

mzk1| 2.10.12 @ 4:09AM

"They WROTE in the DOCUMENT that sedition and treason were NOT to be tolerated."

Where? And what the HELL does the rest of it mean? Are you aware at all of the history of Congress? Talk about uneducated!

I think you want a tootalitarian dictatorship where people like you can kill anyone who disagrees with him.

Which is why the "old" contitution is so important.

ScipioAfricanis| 2.10.12 @ 11:52PM

I think your on the wrong site. Shouldn't you be@ www.IhateAmerica.com? Whom would you have write the 'New Constitution". The sitting Congress? Maybe input from all the PINKO groups, that you, based upon you moronic rhetoric, support. If you think the Constitution is going to change anytime soon because some PINKO/Marxist Supreme Court Justice, who should have been forced into retirement years ago, waxes moronically about other Constitutions, your sadly mistaken
Maybe we should wait and see what the staying power of these other documents are before we trumpet their superiority! Your comment on Boehner and the only person with a set, Mr. Wilson is alarming. Since when is calling POTUS a liar sedition or treason? When W was president I remember Mr. Maddow, Olberman calling him worse things. It would be interesting to see those 2 knuckleheads dragged out of the studio by their heels.
In summary, It's obvious that your unhappy that things aren't going your way and you feel the need to insult people in order to feel superior. There are many of your type who sit in front of keyboard and spew profane and bigoted remarks. Sad really! There is medication for that and I recommend you seek counseling in concert with the medication.

old white guy| 2.9.12 @ 2:47PM

making the comment about the canadian constitution shows she if demented and unable to think rationally. canadians lost freedom under the constitution of lawyers , by lawyers and for lawyers. canada under the b.n.a act had far more freedom than that granted by the lawyers who wrote the current constitution. ginsberg is not up on the history of the countries she talks about.

ModerateConservative| 2.9.12 @ 7:14PM

I love posts like this. You have no idea what you are talking about, yet it fails to prevent you from slurring an eminent jurist (which any reasonable person must concede, regardless of one's political stripe).

The BNA Act did not contain more freedom than the current Charter. The original BNA Act didn't even have a bill of rights. That didn't come around in Canada until 1960, when it was created under separate legislation, and even then the 1960 legislation was considerably expanded upon and improved by the current Charter.

If you want to comment on the legal history of Canada, I suggest that you may want to inform yourself first before impugning others.

kate| 2.9.12 @ 10:13PM

I love posts like yours moderate/?
An eminent jurist. An eminent jurist.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Did she endorse eugenics?
Do you, a moderate, know what eugenics is about?
Hey Moderate (holier than thou) make up your mind. Do some research.

ModerateConservative| 2.10.12 @ 9:49AM

Did she endorse eugenics?

Uh, no.

I suggest that you may want to broaden your sources of news and opinion beyond partisan publications.

Limiting yourself to the echo chamber is not a conservative approach.

kate| 2.10.12 @ 1:00PM

Read her comments on eugenics and then you decide.
Liberal enough publication for you?

http://www.usnews.com/news/blo.....t-eugenics

mzk1| 2.10.12 @ 4:11AM

I recall when I was young (60's, 70') that the PM at one point suspended the Bill or Rights. Is this still possible?

aarroozz| 2.9.12 @ 6:13PM

She has proven she lacks the qualification to be a U.S. Supreme Court justice but given Obama's track record he will most certainly select another activist for her replacement that has even less respect for our people or our laws.

kate| 2.9.12 @ 9:43PM

Oh my God. If I can understand the Constitution and this demented little woman can't, what have we come to?
I'm just an American and not even a lawyer and I can read and understand the words, the history and the change that this document brought to the world.
These are scary times.
Did she study history in school?
Good Lord.
What is going on?

kate| 2.9.12 @ 9:45PM

Oh, that is the problem. She went to school. Ha.

kate| 2.9.12 @ 10:50PM

Forgot that she is sick. Wish well for her personally, but I hope she doesn't resign during Mr. Obama's presidency.
Really.
REALLY?
She is supposed to uphold our Constitution and this is a mess.
Me thinks he actually agrees with her.

Clint| 2.8.12 @ 6:48AM

Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg May Be A Deconstructionist Commie, But The Left Craves Her, As One Of Their Hot Supreme Lib Broad Cougars.

oldfart| 2.8.12 @ 6:49AM

Why is she any different than Obama, Reed, Pelosi et.al.?
To them the oath is a necessary, but meaningless jesture, that is required for them to exercise their will over the will of the people.

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 3:53AM

Please tell This One HOW exactly is john Boehner's obstuctionism 'defending and supporting' the Constitution? When the Constitution directs him to initate spending bills and pass laws FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PEOPLE HE REPRESENTS?????

How is DELIBERATELY FAILING to do so NOT treason?

buckeyeman| 2.9.12 @ 11:45AM

You should refrain from taking more than one psychotropic medication at a time.

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 9:02PM

Sorry you are neither capable nor qualified to ANSWER the Questions. When you are man enough for that, I will respond.

Joe| 2.9.12 @ 5:14PM

The Constitution says no such thing.

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 9:11PM

"Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives" John Boehner, as speaker of the House choses which bills come up for a vote. It is HIS sole discretion I refer to. I don't have a copy of the HOUSE Rules on My desk, but you can Google them if you wish to become further embarrassed.

mzk1| 2.10.12 @ 4:14AM

It doesn't say he has to pass any. This is the main power of ANY Parliament. You obviously know zero history. And you accuse others of being uneducated.

What about the absolute refusal of the Dems to pass a budget?

fckewe| 2.12.12 @ 10:14AM

Then what is the pint of doing the other part of his job, initiating legislation and bringing it to a vote?

mzk1| 2.10.12 @ 4:15AM

Are you aware that the constitution defines treason?

Brian Mc| 2.8.12 @ 6:54AM

Hey, Ruth! Tell us what you really think. Things that spring from the liberal mind can be funny, scary and sometimes, as in this case, a bit portentous. And I couldn't help but notice that William failed to mention "Greek Exceptionalism" there, at the end.

Mike Hawk.| 2.8.12 @ 7:01AM

Unfortunately about 3 other Justices agree with her. That is why a Conservative Senate and POTUS are so necessary in this election year.

VonMisesJr| 2.8.12 @ 7:38AM

Correct, Mike. But the real lesson learned should be that it is the Constitution of the People that we need to abide by, not Supreme Court Rulings, if in fact they are unconstitutional.
First we must demand the SCOTUS repeal ObamaCare. If not, then we should defeat it at the ballot box. And if all else fails, we are back to Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience." When jailed for not paying his taxes, he asked "what's for dinner?"

Mike Hawk| 2.8.12 @ 8:14AM

Scotus cannot repeal Obamacare. It can declare it unconstitutional, but it is not supposed to be a political entity subject to influence. Correct, the justices should rule on the law, not make it. The problem is politically motivated activist Liberals who do not believe in the Constitution, but want to get around it.

John Navratil| 2.8.12 @ 9:47AM

I'm a COTUS who will vote against this POTUS, FLOTUS and VPOTUS (he would appoint another liberal to the SCOTUS), and who has TOTOOOTUS (tired of the overuse of OTUS ;)

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 3:55AM

Not to mention you won't need Affordable Care in Prison, but you might write home for a tube of KY.

Von Mises Jr.| 2.9.12 @ 8:26AM

fckuresef, liberals are the one's that are fighting for gay marriage. I don't even cheat on my wife with other women. I wouldn't know, but how does it feel in the can? (I mean prison)

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 9:15PM

Good for you, bad for her. You might learn how to please her in bed, even if only by accident. She told Me she was afraid to try anything I taught her because your ego is so fragile and your temper so brutal. I told her , "It'll just be OUR little secret."

It's not like the movies, but no one who jumpsout of planes for the Army has much to worry about. Unless they are as flat footed ignorant and mouthy as YOU seen to be.

mzk1| 2.10.12 @ 4:17AM

You capitalize the personal pronoun. So in addition to sole power of life and death, you also want the Senate to declare you divine?

fckewe| 2.12.12 @ 10:15AM

Boehner would have to initiate the bill in the house because divinity in America is a fiscal circumstance.

Teaghan| 2.8.12 @ 7:05AM

Can someone please call the Times and let that idiot know that the Constitution has some paragraphs after it with roman numerals attached to each one called AMENDMENTS!!!!!
It's happening folks and obama told us flat out he would fundamentally change America and he's doing it. You know weather he looses or wins in Nov. Ginsburg will retire and he'll put another under 50 justice in her seat.
I would like to hear the entire interview with Ginsburg.

Moe Blotz| 2.8.12 @ 8:11AM

So full of her own importance, Justice Ginsburg will not retire. Most likely she will die first.

TrueBlue | 2.8.12 @ 2:27PM

True, she sure won't even consider retiring if a Republican gets into office.

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 3:56AM

she's WAY too smart for that!

Joe| 2.9.12 @ 5:17PM

Or dying. She'll have herself zombified (or did she do that already?) before allowing herself to be declared dead under a Republican president.

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 9:15PM

Good for HER!

kate| 2.10.12 @ 2:13AM

Yee haw!!!

Indy| 2.8.12 @ 8:29AM

You can find the video of the interview at this link

http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....t-tunisia/

Obama wants Ginsburg to retire so he can replace her, there has been pressure from the left. It will be interesting to see if she continues to resist retiring,

I disagree with her but I am amazed at how well she is battling pancreatic cancer. I hope she stays on and Obama loses in November, I do not want him to replace her.

Bob K.| 2.8.12 @ 1:04PM

That sounds like the best plan since impeachment of her appears not to have been considered by the author.

Mike Hawk| 2.8.12 @ 2:46PM

Impeachment is not possible with a Demcorat Senate, a Marxist Alinskyite POTUS and and jelly spined Republican leadership.

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 3:58AM

Who is Saul Alinsky? you don't mean the guy from New jersey? OH the guy who tried to expatriate jews before they got cooked in the gas chambers and ovens. yeah... GOTTA hate a bastard like THAT! (if you wanna hold onto your KKK card and keep your member discount on white sheets)

Joe| 2.9.12 @ 5:20PM

You prove your ignorance with every post you make. Saul Alinsky had nothing to do with Jews in the gas chambers. You are thinking of Oskar Schindler. Saul Alinsky wrote the book "Rules for Radicals" that tells how to bring down America from within.

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 9:16PM

But WHAT did he DO in the 30's during the German madness before invading Poland?

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 9:24PM

you are right about Europe, but wrong about the book. it is Karl Rove's blueprint for SwiftBoating. Ask him if he ever studied it next you meet him in the Men's room at Reagan Airport.

Jim Yardley | 2.8.12 @ 7:21AM

While it might be emotionally fulfilling to have Justice Ginsburg resign immediately, I would suggest that we all shut up about it, and let it lie. If she resigns now, Obama would get to appoint a replacement who would be a carbon copy of Ginsberg ideologically, but a LOT younger and the impact would then last a LOT longer. All in all, I think we can all put up with Ginsberg until January 2013 and then let a conservative nominate the next Supreme Court justice.

HH| 2.8.12 @ 11:53PM

I agree. Let her stay hydrated on her own saliva for now. (Sort of the Sen. Robert Byrd, Dem. W. Va. way of living)

Then let's pray like crazy for her demise starting approx. January 24, 2013.

Frankly conservatives need to be very proactive here. There needs to be a cadre of 18-20 likely Ginsburg replacements ready to go. Solid conservatives with, can one dream it? a genuine Christian faith set of life principals and background.

ModerateConservative| 2.9.12 @ 7:18PM

People who pray for the demise of others like this ... well, you are simply beneath contempt as a person, regardless of your political affiliation.

How were you brought up?

ModerateConservative| 2.9.12 @ 7:21PM

To add to the above, that is to say nothing of the idea that you would pray for someone's demise while referencing "a genuine Christian faith set of life principals and background".

What on earth would you know of such principles (not "principals", BTW)?

kate| 2.9.12 @ 11:05PM

I thought "moderates" weren't quite sure what principles were...(btw...we all learned in elementary school that princiPAL is your PAL) (respect your principal). Principle is different concept.
Good one Moderate without a true conviction. One point for you.

Kenny| 2.8.12 @ 7:24AM

Oh course this old socialist hag should resign. But either waty, she'll soon begone which is one reason why the presidential race in 2012 is so important.

Whoever the GOP nominee is, he MUST be supported to the hilt.

martin j smith| 2.8.12 @ 7:28AM

Well I think each SCOTUS "Justice" should be asked if they support our Constitution yes or no.
And those who say NO should go and those who say yes and then make testimony against the Constitution should also go.

POST American| 2.8.12 @ 7:31AM

--Call it
-----the Globalist-RED China handover
and TREASON OP -----judicial front.

Yes, one and all should be clamoring for
this treasonous jerk's removal ---at all
costs. YES. YES.

Likewise anyone else in such exalted ranks
who DARES apostasize from the very soul
of this republic.

YES

THANK YOU for this piece.

TruSkeptik| 2.8.12 @ 7:32AM

I find it frustrating to read articles by so-called conservative writers when all they offer is hand wringing. Oh my, what is one to do? Perhaps we can defeat the left with logical argument, persuasive peans, or even nauseating repetitions of good, sound conservative "values". Is it somehow politically incorrect to confront these scoundrels directly rather than intellectually? It is painfully obvious that the America of conservative ideals does not currently exist and, given the currect direction of our country, most certainly will not exist in any imaginable future. The Left is going to take from us everything we intellectually hold dear unless people of thought become people of action. Some things are worth fighting for and even dying for. I am waiting to see just how committed the conservative movement really is. Do we actually believe what we say and are we willing to take action to defend our principals, our lives and our dreams? It must start somewhere and hand wringing just isn't going to get it done.

Nancy in NC| 2.8.12 @ 8:04AM

So what do you suggest? In all that rant I fail to see exactly what action you suggest.

I am doing my part. I'm involved with local politics, I am active in my local tea party, and I vote. If anyone has any ideas on what we can do other than being a martyr, I'm open to hearing all about it.

Bob K.| 2.8.12 @ 1:09PM

I do write my congressman and senators. But Mr. Tucker and his editors have a much bigger "megaphone," so to speak, than you or I do and have chosen not to call for her impeachment. Perhaps it is her illness? In any case, it is far better treatment than a conservative justice could expect from the liberal press on a similar issue.

Art| 2.8.12 @ 7:35AM

First, let me make it clear that I am considered a very conservative person by any one's definition, especially when it gets to the Constitution. However, I think Mr. Tucker has it all wrong. Justice Ginsburg would not write a Constitution today that looks like ours because she recognizes the limits it sets out on Judges. I assume, she'd much prefer one that is more expansive in spelling out rights--whereas our Consitution is limited. So Judges spend their time "finding" rights that aren't spelled out in accordance with their views of those rights that the 9th Amendment says were retained but not enumerated. Secondly, Mr. Tucker says that nowhere in the Constitution is there permission for a mandate like Obamacare. While, I agree with that, five Justices might just find that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution permits what Congress did.

ModerateConservative| 2.9.12 @ 7:25PM

That may be the case, although in fairness it would be quite impossible to ever exhaustively enumerate ALL rights in any constutution. A constitution always needs a failsafe "including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing" type of provision due to the inability to develop a fully comprehensive list, particularly if one assumes that the rights listed in a constitution are merely the recognition of inherent rights.

kate| 2.9.12 @ 11:10PM

ModeratCconservative
You make me laugh.
What does moderate conservative mean anyway?
To me it says.... "I have good values, really I do, but I don't want to fight, because I am better than all of you."
The truth is that you don't know what to believe and the above post is baloney.

Thane Kerner| 2.8.12 @ 7:35AM

I wholeheartedly agree with this analysis of the nature of rights, and it is thus depressing that some of our so-called "conservative" brethren support (or would like to institute) state control over social contracts such as marriage. The state has no constitutional authority to define or enforce a definition of marriage; we undermine a traditionalist reading of the Constitution by trying to insinuate "traditionalist" laws beneath it.

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 4:05AM

I agree with both Art and Thane. Read My post above. I thnk the answer is less legislature, more binding resolutions on the ballot. PUT Roe V Wade up on the Ballot. PUT Citizens United on the ballot. Let the PEOPLE affected by law decide in a straight up and down vote.

Then Congress can go about the business of administering the PEOPLE's will as REPRESENTATIVES.

ModerateConservative| 2.9.12 @ 7:31PM

Well, in that case and assuming you actually believe this, then the fact is that you are really not for rights at all. By eschewing rights and simply referring everything to "the people" by way of voting, one allows the tyranny of the majority to overrule the rights of their fellow citizens.

The very purpose of enshrining rights in a constating document of a country (or other political unit, whatever it may be) is to ensure that there are certain rights which cannot be taken away by anyone - not the state, and certainly not their fellow citizens.

I do find it interesting how some US citizens who believe themselves to be patriotic lovers of their country and everything it stands for actually find the very essence of their country and the principles under which it was organized to be so very distasteful.

Strange.

fckewe| 2.9.12 @ 9:40PM

You only thought 1/4 of the way though a concept. But thank you. By defering to the people to CHOOSE the Nation's stand on a "RIGHT" as the Red Party seems to call it, of an unborn (and therefore not a Citizen) fetus, we can clear up the confusion that has hamper legislation and elections for 4 decades.

In Oklahoma, a state Senator introduced a bill to declare ANY misuse of sperm a CRIME!. She also points out that any an all reproductive bills, laws, or "rights" as presented against women are exclusionary to a class of persons, those persons with penises, MEN.

What you are espousing, although I don't think you realize it MC, is the TYRANNY of FEW over the Majority, the number of which we will NEVER know for sure, until a census (VOTE) is counted and the REAL beliefs of This Nation.

The addition of MONEY into the assault on the CONSTITUTIONALLY resultant legality of Roe v Wade makes the many in much more peril by the even fewer few. No mater how much propaganda BOTH sides throw into this debate, Everyone has forgotten that in 1972, the Constitution worked through the Supreme Court to uphold law.

Until another law supercedes Roe v Wade, it is the law in America. Like it, Hate it, try and change it... Good luck with that, it doesn't matter as it is THE LAW. There ARE no questions of rights here. THEY are defined BY the law.

NOW do you see the wisdom of at least having the PEOPLE make a choice as to the definitions used in the debate, if not on the issue?

O.F. A.N. A.S.S.| 2.11.12 @ 2:08PM

Even sheep know the founding fathers held democracy in contempt because democracy is just another form of tyranny.

Even sheep know the author of the Constitution James Madison stated:

"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death"

Even sheep know the author of the Constitution James Madison stated:

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents"

It is recommended all species be aware that sodomizing molesters of sheep exist, that it is probable other species are in danger of sodomizing molesters, that you're best option is to be aware that your in danger to day, and any day, no matter how eraly in the day, of Markist snot bubble scabs who will hottly breath on you're neck while your being sodomized, and that sodomizing molesters molest and sodomize out of there self perceived intellectual superiority they believe was acheived threw there referencing wikipedia, about.com, abc, cbs, and nbc.

Ovines For
A Nation
Absent Species Sodomization

Bob K.| 2.8.12 @ 7:56AM

Mr. Tucker,
Why are you telling us she should resign? Stop lecturing!

Show some damned initiative and go to your publishers and editors and tell them to get on the Republican's asses (or is that Republican asses?) in Congress and start an action to impeach her!

The Founding Fathers were also writers like you are but unlike you and your colleagues they were leaders too!

Nancy in NC| 2.8.12 @ 8:07AM

Does Mr. Tucker have some kind of inside line to Congress? Write your own letter and call your elected leaders. You're an American too, and your voice is just as important as Mr. Tuckers.

tsd| 2.8.12 @ 8:07AM

Liberals hate our constitution.... it does not contain enough ambiguity for they're emotions to rule the day. If she does not support the constitution (her only job as a justice) she must go!

POST American| 2.8.12 @ 8:11AM

--In this, the undeniable 11th hour
of the Globalist RED China handover
and TREASON OP --------------------
it's TRENDY to be TRAITOROUS.

AGAIN, let's get this jerk ---OFF our court.

Can we find the self-respect at least for this?

Timothy L. Pennell| 2.8.12 @ 8:11AM