Reader Mail

Unanimous Verdict

Ruth Bader Ginsburg will need a court-appointed lawyer. Plus much more.

9.27.05

Send to Kindle

WITH BATED BREATH
Re: The New AmSpecBlog:

Can hardly wait.
-- Annette Cwik

TOSS HER
Re: Jed Babbin's J'Recuse:

Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, and Yes.

Finally, someone has said what I have been thinking all along: Judge Ginsburg should be impeached and removed from office.

Ginsburg is an ideologue, not a judge. The contrast between her views and Judge Roberts' could not be clearer. We do not need judges to "advance" "women's rights" or "human rights." It is very simple, uphold the Constitution or get out. Quoting foreign law, especially, should qualify for immediate removal for any U.S. judge.

In every case brought before the Supreme Court, but especially those regarding abortion, property rights, affirmative action and the commerce clause, among others, attorneys should demand that Ginsburg recuse herself.

I demand her immediate impeachment for violating her oath of office.
-- Don Hinds
Bethesda, Maryland

I wonder whether then-Boy President Clinton consulted with Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, or Thomas before nominating Ruth Bader Ginsburg to her throne... excuse me, seat on the Supreme Court. I wonder whether Justice Ginsburg thinks he did. Or does she think that enough of us are sufficiently stupid to believe that he did? (It seems to me that the left is coming more and more to depend on, to paraphrase Lincoln, fooling enough of the people enough of the time, but I digress.)

If Justice Ginsburg would be in violation of Title 28 Section 455 of the USC by failing to recuse herself from cases about which she has freely announced her prejudice, could she not then be charged with said violation, tried, presumably convicted, and then impeached and removed for that high crime and misdemeanor? If not, then what good is Title 28 Section 455 anyway? Are there any other U.S. laws containing the modality "shall" that are mere suggestions? Do you suppose that Justice Ginsburg has a list of these "suggestions of Congress" that she might be willing to share with the rest of us? So much of modern jurisprudence requires skill in the interpretation of auguries that such a list would be very helpful to the layman or potential felon....
-- Stephen Foulard
Houston, Texas

Justice Ginsburg's desire that the president consider a woman, not just any woman mind you, only one with her ideological perspective, further demonstrates the Left's obsession with preserving the turf they absconded with through their manipulation of the judiciary. Her remark that "some women who might be appointed who would not advance human rights or women's rights" somehow escaped the notice of the leftist goon squads assigned to ferret out suspected ideologues among SCOTUS nominees, and demonstrates how bereft of principle these self-appointed media watchdogs really are. Why can't they just be honest and say that they don't mind having an ideologue on the Court as long it is one in lock-step agreement with them?

This lunacy will continue until our elected representatives demonstrate they understand the proper role of the judiciary and take steps to appoint judges who respect the Constitution as written. Mr. Babbin cited Joe Biden's "job interview" statement as an example of one Senator who doesn't; however, no one can top House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi's moronic press remarks in response to the recent Kelo Supreme Court ruling on governmental property seizures: "It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision." She should have quit while she had an ounce of credibility left, but she trudged on: "Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression."

So, Nancy Pelosi thinks that a Supreme Court decision is almost the same as a decree from God Himself? This woman has no grasp at all on the way our republic is supposed to work. She desperately needs an elementary class in Civics -- oh, sorry, I forgot we don't teach that anymore in our indoctrination centers, I mean public schools. The fact that a person as ignorant as she appears to be holds such a powerful position of leadership in the Democratic Party makes my skin crawl. I wonder how many more politicians there are out there who think the same way. No wonder the judiciary has been allowed to run roughshod over our Constitution and trample our personal liberties.
-- Rick Arand

I remember hearing that phrase "I will take enlightenment wherever I can find it" on the news several days ago. I am glad that you highlighted it.

I have never heard a more frightening statement about or from the Court. Justices are sworn to take enlightenment from the Constitution. In fact, it is assumed that when they are confirmed, they already have taken enlightenment from the Constitution.

I take your point on recusal, but I would think that statement, freely and publicly made, would be grounds for removal from the Court. This is the same type of thinking -- social engineering -- that led the Germans astray in the 1930s. In their case, they were going to maintain the purity of the race. Why was that idea -- eugenics was held in high regard in many fashionable circles -- not applied in American courts? The Germans, after all, had claim to being the most intellectually advanced society in the world.

It was not applied because the Constitution forbade it. It is the bulwark of free people and was intentionally designed to be very difficult, but not impossible, to change. If Justice Ginsburg has found that she does not believe in the Constitution, her duty is to resign, not to lecture and certainly not to judge.
-- Greg Richards

Yeah, Ginsburg will recuse herself, all right. And right after that, the water will turn to wine, and Kerry will release ALL his records.
-- Mike Webster
Dallas, Texas

Nice article. Just one thing. I think it should be "je me recuse." Just like to get these things right.
-- Phil Di Valerio

So, exactly how do we, the American People, go about impeaching Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Surely, no jurist has ever deserved to be removed more than she. She is, without a reasonable doubt, a grave danger to the United States. Let's get the ball rolling.
-- Art Drexler

Jed Babbin is right about Ginsburg. Furthermore, the ACLU is a former client, and she must recuse herself from all cases in which they are a party.

Since she has not done so, she should be impeached.
-- C. Baker

FIRING ON THEIR OWN
Re: J. Peter Freire's Morons on Message:

Mr. Freire's article was so rich with description that it made me want to been in D.C. to have seen the Circus Absurdis this past weekend. Had I not been preparing for Hurricane Rita, I might have gone to see it. Still, I had the privilege to see the Sheehan Circus Absurdis outside Crawford. Of course, it wasn't well attended, as the liberal press would have the public to believe. I only saw about 20 cars in the ditch parked outside her Soros Show Tent. And the tent was properly placed in the middle of a cow pasture.

Like the pasture on our cattle ranch, I noted with great amusement, that there was cow manure everywhere in that pasture. I thought it rather symbolic you know. At least at our ranch we know to wipe our feet before we come into the house! Ms. Sheehan is busy tracking that manure all over America.

Texas used to be a Democratic state. I was raised in Lyndon Johnson's home town of Johnson City, Texas. Now, the Democratic Party is a virtual pariah. Even yellow dog Democrats in East Texas (a description of this political creature another day), won't ADMIT to anyone they are still a Democrat. They wait for the anonymity of the voting booth. And any candidate that runs as a Democrat here no longer even stands a chance at winning local office, because the national Democratic Party looks so foolish.

I hope they keep on showing up places looking foolish. Those of us with loved ones serving in the military trying to defeat a real enemy would like that just fine!
-- Beverly Gunn
Texas Rancher

I once saw a documentary on the demolition of a building in close proximity to adjacent structures. I marveled at the talent it must take to place the explosives so strategically that when the plunger is pushed the building implodes in a perfect meltdown, leaving everything else intact.

I thought this orchestration was a skill un-duplicable by any other until this weekend, when rank amateurs, Cindy Sheehan, Charlie Ramble -- er, Rangel, Hillary Clinton, et al., succeeded in virtually the same thing. If you discount the fact the missed their target, George Bush, fire-bombing their own party instead.

Mrs. Clinton gave as good an impersonation of Aimee Semple McPherson as I have heard since Faye Emerson chewed up the scenery in that role. Once more trotting out her good Methodist upbringing and how it taught her to be kind to her inferiors (where does she find them?). And ol' Charlie, Rangeling on in his gravelly voice. I am never sure what he is saying except for the familiar riff about being drafted because of his skin color.

Don't stop thinkin' about tomorrow. 2008 is closer than we think. Meanwhile the Democrat Circular Firing Squad is a beautiful thing to see.
-- Diane Smith
South San Francisco, California

LIBERTY OR REGULATION
Re: "Taking One's Medicine" letters in Reader Mail's Anger Management and David Holman's Unsafe in Any Dose:

I thank you for your prompt response to my letter. You did astutely point out that the principles I put forth in my argument would necessitate the abolishment of the FDA and the elimination of every governmental regulation restricting individual behavior (that is, behavior that does not directly harm anyone other that one's self). This is correct.

I believe that relations between individuals should consist exclusively of voluntary exchange and be devoid of any use of force. The only justifiable use of force is in defense against an aggressor, who has already rendered himself void of moral consideration by committing acts of force. Governmental interference in free exchange is therefore immoral.

I believe that individuals acting in their own self interest will make intelligent decisions when properly informed. No other person (nor government), however, has the responsibility to provide to that information. In a free society, though, people acting in their own self-interest will have the incentive to provide information, for a price. If we were to abolish the FDA, there would be a demand for some way for consumers to inform themselves. As I stated in my previous letter, this demand would be filled by corporations that would essentially take over the role of testing and certifying drugs. These corporations would have access to the same technology and professional skills as the current FDA. The only difference is that, unlike the FDA, these corporations would not be able to compel consumers to follow their advice, but would rather leave in the individual consumer's hands. Furthermore, there is another professional who, even in our current society, we pay to keep us advised on how to best maintain our health: our doctor. Our personal medical doctors would have the most incentive to keep themselves well inform about which drugs are the most effective, which have harmful side-effects, and which sellers have the best anti-counterfeit measures in place. I believe that a free market for pharmaceuticals would not only be morally superior to our current system (based on compulsory controls), it would also provide for the safe and healthy lives of all people.

My argument is made in the terms of pure unalloyed human liberty. Your argument, on the other hand, is not made in terms of objective principles, but rather advocates a forfeiture of our personal liberty for the benefit of our health. First of all, I do not see a conflict between liberty and well-being; one is a necessary prerequisite for the other. Second, I see your position as untenable. Let us take it to its logical conclusion: the government will guarantee our health at the expense of our freedom to lead our lives the way we see fit. In this world, the government would have to regulate what we eat, where we live, the medical procedures that we undertake, and any other action that might be detrimental to our health. Even then, we'd still be dead in the end.

Now, I'd venture to guess that you're not advocating that extreme situation. A balance must be struck, compromises must be made. Who, though, should make them? In our democratic country, we give that power to the people as a whole, or rather to a simple majority of the people (represented through the legislature). Does this really make sense? Does it make sense to have millions of people responsible for making blanket decisions regarding everyone's personal health? It does not. We should leave these important choices regarding personal health to each person. If a person has the choice of taking an untested drug that has the chance to cure an otherwise fatal condition, shouldn't that difficult choice be left to the individual, as opposed to 51% of Americans?

Mr. Holman, I believe that your argument is a distortion of the classic line by one of our greatest patriots: "Give me liberty /and/ give me death." You argue that, if people are free to make their own choices, they will be fooled by counterfeiters. They will have no way to protect or inform themselves, and will be helpless victims to the worst of humanity. Given liberty, they will inevitable perish. I advocate the opposite, and original, wording of the quotation, which presents an optimistic view of the human spirit, holding that liberty will ultimately bring out the best of humanity. The freedom to choose can only affirm and protect human life. Give me liberty or give me death!
-- Scott Bennett
Granville, Ohio

LOVELY AS RITA
Re: Reid Collins's Stop Already:

You're on the mark. I'm a healthy 82 and recall Rita Hayworth to have been a most beautiful person. My late wife of 38 years, with deep red hair and beautiful blue eyes, could have been her movie stand-in. Thanks for the memories, Reid Collins.
-- Raymond Barton
Fort Worth, Texas

Like this Article

Print this Article

Print Article