Justice Ginsburg to Resign?

Saying "I prefer my gardener to be Japanese" is a preference.

Saying "Non-Japanese people should not be gardeners" is clear prejudice.

You said a woman should not be in that level of authority or leadership. That's not just a simple preference for males, it's a clear prejudice against females.

 

Okay, regardless of opinions on the topic, can refrain from engaging in rumor and gossip? It damages the Christian witness (and before anyone accuses me of being aliberal, I'd be asking for the same if it were a conservative judge we were talking about). </font>[/QUOTE]That's true.

And cmg's accusation dillutes one of the clear indications we have of what Clinton's real ideology and agenda was... his judicial appointments. He appointed radical liberals at every level. I believe he knew that the long term effect would be his liberal desire though he had to compromise and behave more "moderate" during his actual administration.

 

Saying "I prefer my gardener to be Japanese" is a preference.

Saying "Non-Japanese people should not be gardeners" is clear prejudice.

You said a woman should not be in that level of authority or leadership. That's not just a simple preference for males, it's a clear prejudice against females. </font>[/QUOTE]Ok, John, then let me correct one of the statements I made and totally clarify my position. I BELIEVE that I should be led by men in government, and not women. There, now there can be no mistaking my position of gender prejudice, and there is no hint of "preference only" on my part.

 

Okay, I'll take it

 

Let's go with that.I hpe Ginsburg gets so angry she resigns in protest and that Kennedy follows suit.

 

How long can Stevens possibly last? He's 120 years old!

 

Okay, regardless of opinions on the topic, can refrain from engaging in rumor and gossip? It damages the Christian witness (and before anyone accuses me of being aliberal, I'd be asking for the same if it were a conservative judge we were talking about). </font>[/QUOTE]So Clinton is so wonderful that he did not appoint her in consideration for what she had done for the Dems.

 

The point was that just because the subject is a democrat doesn't lift the scriptural ban on rumor and gossip. The comment was made that she "must have contributed a lot of money to Clinton". That's sheer rumor and speculation, regardless of her political affiliation, and we're forbidden from engaging in rumor and gossip.

 

The point was that just because the subject is a democrat doesn't lift the scriptural ban on rumor and gossip. The comment was made that she "must have contributed a lot of money to Clinton". That's sheer rumor and speculation, regardless of her political affiliation, and we're forbidden from engaging in rumor and gossip. </font>[/QUOTE]No, it's not rumor--it's political reality. Note that Roberts worked for the GOP in the Reagan administration. The point is that Ginsburg is so wierd that giving her the so-called Jewish seat must have been connected for whatever she did for the Democrats.

 

The radical right-wing Scalia has proven that he will break with the right when the need arises. Remember, it is his vote that brought an end to the anti-flag burning law that was passed under 41.

Name one time that Darth Vader Ginsburg broke with the left, no matter how insane their position was.

As for balance, that is a liberal tactic that seeks to keep constructionalists off of the court. There is no precendent for judicial balance, there is no need for judicial balance, and it is foolish to allow the debate to be twisted in such a direction. The court is in place to make decisions based on the rule of law. They are not there to make law, so their personal views should not matter. If the court would perform as intended, they would not be at the center of national debate. A properly functioning court would be one that is seldom thought of. However, since the left continues to fail at the ballot box, they have turned to the judiciary to institute their policies. The notion of balance exists only to make this less difficult.

 

Not sure what you mean by this, but let's read what you wrote.

First of all, CMG: on the surface you appear to be anti-Semitic. Twice you made reference to her ethnic/social/religious background, and neither really offered any insight as to your point.

Secondly, I asked you who it was that recommended Justice Ginsburg to President Clinton. Did you check that?

I did, and they said you were not here.

Regards,
BiR

 

While it is true that Bush received the most votes of any candidate in history, you are seemingly forgetting that Kerry received the second-most votes.

HUH?
Roberts made it through the hearings and according to practically every news source, he will be confirmed. He certainly hasn't experience much resistance yet.

BiR

 

While it is true that Bush received the most votes of any candidate in history, you are seemingly forgetting that Kerry received the second-most votes.

BiR </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. This is why he lost. What is your point?

Joseph Botwinick

 

No she doesn't.</font>[/QUOTE]Sorry pal: yes she does.

Perhaps you can show us a law that the Court has "made." Courts don't make law, they interpret it.

You are mistaken. Scalia is just as "radical right" as Ginsburg is "radical left." That cannot be denied.

Please show me where she has written this or said this. I cannot seem to find it anywhere. After all, you did put the word create in quotes......

Ah, but first I would like to see where Ginsburg has said or written that she believes that "the court is empowered to 'create' new rights."

Regards,
BiR

 

While it is true that Bush received the most votes of any candidate in history, you are seemingly forgetting that Kerry received the second-most votes.

BiR </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. This is why he lost. What is your point?</font>[/QUOTE]My point is that the Administration was not given a "mandate" to just force through everything they want.

 

I wonder who He will appoint next?

 

I hope she will resign...that will make a real big difference in the direction of the court.

Joseph Botwinick

 

While it is true that Bush received the most votes of any candidate in history, you are seemingly forgetting that Kerry received the second-most votes.

BiR </font>[/QUOTE]Yes. This is why he lost. What is your point?</font>[/QUOTE]My point is that the Administration was not given a "mandate" to just force through everything they want. </font>[/QUOTE]Neither, then, was Bill Clinton. As a matter of fact, now that I think about it, I think Bush recieved more votes and a higher % than Clinton did. I may need to research that.

But, the reality is, that Bush recieved his mandate from the American public when he defeated Kerry last November...one of the major issues he ran on was the Supreme Court...he said he would appoint conservatives like Scalia, and the people gave him their vote to do just that. Liberals don't like that...too bad, the lost.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Clinton won both times with only a plurality of the popular vote, not a majority. Obviously, he won a majority of the electoral vote - which is what counts.