Ginsburg expresses that the US Consitution is not the final authority

[Revmitchell]

Just read this sickening article your self.


Read It Here

 

[Bro. Curtis]

I'm glad we didn't look for "wisdom" from abroad (a broad....PUN !!!! get it ? nyuk nyuk) when dealing with the Somali pirates. We shot holes in them, when it looks like few other countries will.

Go America !!!!!

 

[Magnetic Poles]

I am hopeful that when vacancies come up, President Obama will nominate jurists who are respectful of our Constitution and pass rulings accordingly.

 

[rbell]

Ginsberg is a disgrace to the court, and apparently has no respect for the foundational principles of our republic.

How she could have been nominated is beyond me.

 

[donnA]

If obama thinks the constution needs to be rewritten, then who do you think he will nominate if there are openings? (previously heavily discussed here, so don't anyone act like they've never heard it before)

 

[Revmitchell]

I am hopeful that when vacancies come up, President Obama will nominate jurists who are respectful of our Constitution and pass rulings accordingly.

This thread is about Ginsburg who believes our constitution is not the final authority. It is not about what Obama will door who he will nominate.

 

[matt wade]

This thread is about Ginsburg who believes our constitution is not the final authority. It is not about what Obama will door who he will nominate.

That's right Bro. Curtis, stop talking about pirates, and you, Donna, stop talking about who Obama will nominate!

Oh and me too. (slaps self on back of hand)

:laugh:

 

[Palatka51]

I am hopeful that when vacancies come up, President Obama will nominate jurists who are respectful of our Constitution and pass rulings accordingly.

For Christian Americans the Bible is the final authority. It is the foundation for the US Constitution. Isn't it curious that the Liberals want to diminish both as the final authorities of government and individual lives. raying:

 

[Bro. Curtis]

This thread is about Ginsburg who believes our constitution is not the final authority. It is not about what Obama will door who he will nominate.

I think MP's post was on topic, Ginsburg will most likely be replaced under O's watch.

 

[Revmitchell]

I think MP's post was on topic, Ginsburg will most likely be replaced under O's watch.

It isn't about vacancies

 

[tinytim]

For Christian Americans the Bible is the final authority. It is the foundation for the US Constitution. Isn't it curious that the Liberals want to diminish both as the final authorities of government and individual lives. raying:

Man, you beat me too it.. .

I will ONLY recognize the constitution as an authority as long as it doesn't contradict the Bible... And I have never found a place where it does.

The problem is Ginsburg and ilk think THEY are the authority.

And underlying this problem is the root of all our problems... PRIDE

People don't want to recognize that one day they will stand before God.

Can someone answer me this: Is it possible to impeach a Justice on the Supreme Court?

 

[matt wade]

Can someone answer me this: Is it possible to impeach a Justice on the Supreme Court?

Yes...it's the same impeachment process regardless if it is a President, Justice, etc.

 

[Scarlett O.]

From the article...

“If we’re relying on a decision from a German judge about what our Constitution means, no president accountable to the people appointed that judge and no Senate accountable to the people confirmed that judge,” Chief Justice Roberts said at his confirmation hearing. “And yet he’s playing a role in shaping the law that binds the people in this country."

Why can't she see this.......possibly because like so many politicians, she has forgotten how she got where she is today?

By-the-by, RM, I love your signature......it's very convicting.

 

[rbell]

Why can't she see this.......possibly because like so many politicians, she has forgotten how she got where she is today?

You sure are making a ton of assumptions here...








How do you know Ginsberg's a "she?"

 

[Bro. Curtis]

It isn't about vacancies

You should probably make a list of people you want responding to yer posts.

I agree with M.P.. When she retires, I hope a justice who values the Constitution will be put inher place. But with the treatment of the document from the last several presidents, I'm not that hopeful.

 

[Revmitchell]

You should probably make a list of people you want responding to yer posts.

What does this have to do with anything? And what does getting a new justice have to do with current justices considering foreign law?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Gee, I could swear you titled the O/P to say how justices were ignoring the constitution.

What is your problem ? The Easter Bunny skip your house ?

MP's post is right on. I know you know I wouldn't stick up for him otherwise.

 

[Revmitchell]

Gee, I could swear you titled the O/P to say how justices were ignoring the constitution.

What is your problem ? The Easter Bunny skip your house ?

MP's post is right on. I know you know I wouldn't stick up for him otherwise.

So what does ignoring the constitution have to do with Obama nominating another justice. By the way that is not the title of the thread. You cannot divorce the title of the op from the op. And the op is about considering foreign law.

 

[swaimj]

I am glad that Ginsberg made this statement. I think this statement will make it hard for Obama to name a radical judge to the supreme court. I am not aware that any senator has raised this issue with a supreme court nominee in the past. I expect that now they will. I also suspect that potential judges will have their past statements reviewed to make sure that they do not believe that international law should trump the constitution. When SC justices are reviewed by the senate after their nomination, senators are not supposed to ask how they would rule in specific cases and the nominees are not obligated to answer such questions. You'll recall that both justices Roberts and Alito refused to answer these types of questions. However senators CAN ask questions about the nominees judicial philosophy. Asking if a potential judge thinks international law or foreign laws should be a guide is a question about philosophy. Any future nominee who has argued for what Ginsberg is supporting will be kept off the court, I predict. This strengthens conservatives hands in keeping liberals off. I'm glad she opened her mouth.

 

[Revmitchell]

I am glad that Ginsberg made this statement. I think this statement will make it hard for Obama to name a radical judge to the supreme court. I am not aware that any senator has raised this issue with a supreme court nominee in the past. I expect that now they will. I also suspect that potential judges will have their past statements reviewed to make sure that they do not believe that international law should trump the constitution. When SC justices are reviewed by the senate after their nomination, senators are not supposed to ask how they would rule in specific cases and the nominees are not obligated to answer such questions. You'll recall that both justices Roberts and Alito refused to answer these types of questions. However senators CAN ask questions about the nominees judicial philosophy. Asking if a potential judge thinks international law or foreign laws should be a guide is a question about philosophy. Any future nominee who has argued for what Ginsberg is supporting will be kept off the court, I predict. This strengthens conservatives hands in keeping liberals off. I'm glad she opened her mouth.

Thanks for the on topic post.