SCJ Ginsburg/ US Constitution

[yeti76620]

 

 

OMG....  lol... rof.....  GOOD RIDDANCE!....
 
 

A Trifle Abyss

This Thread is about Two-Step's opinion that SCJ Ginsburg should step down and move to South Africa of which I'm in total agreement; additionally, she should take  all her friends with her...

[Bugscuffle]

yeti76620,
We are all aware of your opinion. I'm just waiting for one single touch of reason or support for your position. So far people have spoken in generalities and unsuported conjecture, while I have dealt in verifyable facts. It just shows that my earlier statement is/was true. Your minds are made up and no amount of truth or factual documentation will change your minds.


Just out of curiosity what the heck are you talking about when you wrote: "A Trifle Abyss". Do you even know what an abyss is?

[Leo Tanner]

Referring to this thread as a meaningless pit (if that is what you meant to say) is counter productive.  Our whole system of government is based on arguments, look at congress, that is what it is all about.  We have two sides of the isle and they duke it out just about everyday.  Can the Egyptian people do this system or just kill each other?  We have Greece, Egypt, Syria and Russia not able to settle things the way we do.  I can see both sides of the coin.  The founding fathers made a plan for this country and I have never seen evidence that they were trying to make a model for the whole world, that is why all are welcome so long as they follow the rules (like being naturalized).  Just my two cents and trying to stay on the original topic.

[Two-Step]

Two-Step,
That's quite a tome you have written and as usual with this type of ultra conservative, right wing radical rhetoric it is full of half truths and accusafions that liberals have "forced down the throats of the unsuspecting public" any number of things what you consider to be totaly abhorent. All or most certainly nearly all of the "injustices" that you cite are not law and are not even under consideration as being laws. let me be specific in just a couple so as not to be as long as you were.
1. Can't lengthen prison sentences retroactively. Have you ever heard of the priciple of law known as Ex Post Facto? It is endemic to our system of jurice prudence and was spelled out specifically:
Definition from Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary
Latin for "after the fact." Refers to laws adopted after an act is committed, making it illegal retroactively. Or, it can refer to laws that increase the penalty for a crime after it is committed. Such laws are specifically prohibited by the U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9.
2. AZ law intrudes on federal immigration policy & civil rights. The tenth Amendment is short and concise. It states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. It holds true that immigration policy and procedure is the duty of the federal government and is delegated to the federal govenment and the state cannot interfere with it. Irrespective of how xenophobic you may be, the states cannot overrule the federal government. Arizona was outside of their jurisdiction here.

 The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 
I promised to be short, so I'll just end it here. It isn't that I don't want to say more it is that It wouldn't do me any good. Your mind is made up and No amount of truth or fact will cause you to change your opinion.

Quite a tomb...
It is not a matter of what has passed into law or not, but rather the stance that she took and the statements she made concerning the US Constitution. Successful or not, she is obviously against the very mandate of the US Constitution and has repeatedly attempted to usurp it with her SCJ powers and influence.

In regards to Post Exo Facto... lets be specific
GARNER v. JONES on Mar 28, 2000
Respondent Jones escaped while serving a life sentence for murder, committed another murder, and was sentenced to a second life term. Georgia law at that time required considering inmates serving life sentences for parole after three years, but the law was later amended to eight years. The Georgia Parole Board has the discretion to shorten that interval, but declined to do so in Jones’ case, citing his multiple offenses. Jones sued, claiming that retroactive application violated the Ex Post Facto Clause [which disallows laws that are implemented retroactively].
A change in parole policy violates the Ex Post Facto Clause if it creates a “sufficient” or substantial risk that the class affected by the change will serve longer sentences as a result. The changed rule threatens to increase punishment for all life-sentenced prisoners, not just those who would have been paroled at or before the average time. Georgia has given us nothing to suggest the contrary. And statements by the Parole Board indicate that its policies were intended to increase time served in prison. There is no indication that the board adopted the new policy merely to obviate useless hearings or save administrative resources, the justification the Court accepted in the Morales case.

10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Lets be specific...
Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled."
Aside from immigration issues, one also should look at the trend to  legalize certain drugs, gay marriage, firearm laws, commerce, and national health care, at the state level. I also suggest that you check out "sanctuary" states/cities and see how they are opposing the federal government and what argument they are using to justify the state's act of ignoring federal immigration laws and resistance to assisting the US Boarder Patrol.

Being an "ultra right conservative"... lets be specific
I am a Libertarian and a Constitutionalists, plain and simple. I fully believe in "original intent" and feel that what our forefathers created is a proven and effective system which not only protects this nation from foreign enemies, but also protects the states and individual citizen from a corrupted federal government.

Being a radical...
I would not go so far as to say that I am a radical. But, don't think that I am going to bend over and "just take it" either.
I teach my son that you fight when you have to, and that I will never punish him for defending himself and that the victim is not wrong when a crime is committed against them... and no, you don't get a trophy just for showing up. These teaching are in direct conflict with what the schools are mandated to teach and practice.

I firmly believe that a criminal should be punished for the crime that they committed. I do not believe in "slapping them on the wrist". Three strikes is two strikes to many and justice should have prevailed long before then.

[Camille Eonich]

*puts moderator hat on*

Let's please keep this civil and watch the name calling.  So far you all have been pretty good with only some minor slips.

*takes moderator hat off*

I just have to say that I find it amusing that someone is being chastised for speaking their opinion on the US Constitution and that people essentially want to run her out of the country for it.  Before there was the second amendment there was the first.   


I do support your right to voice your opinion on her statements though.


It's interesting to listen to different party's interpretations of the constitution.  Standing pretty firmly in the center it's pretty obvious that both sides bend and twist it as far as they possibly can.

[Two-Step]

To be quite honest, I am rather open to the opinions of others, even if I do not necessarily agree with them, as I am a HUGE supporter of the First Amendment... and the rest of them for that matter. Like a wise man once said "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight for your right to say it".

While I do not agree with Bugscuffle and he does not agree with me, I truly do appreciate him expressing his view. I know that there are a few of us "right wing" types at this forum and I hope that we will use our appreciation and love of the US constitution to be open to his opinion and hear him out.

Yes, Ginsburg has the right to express her opinion about the US Constitution. The problem is that she is one of the most powerful individuals in the nation and has made it abundantly clear that she does not agree with the US Constitution and has both actively and publicly made attempts to usurp it through use of her judicial powers and influence... both domestically and abroad.

When it comes to this nation, we have to ask ourselves "what right would we sacrifice to make this nation better". Sadly, the answer is that we can not afford to give up any of them as each one is set in place to protect the other. The fact that we have someone with such power, who is obviously opposed to what the US Constitution is about, makes for a dangerous and volatile situation in this nation.

[Camille Eonich]

Yes, Ginsburg has the right to express her opinion about the US Constitution. The problem is that she is one of the most powerful individuals in the nation and has made it abundantly clear that she does not agree with the US Constitution and has both actively and publicly made attempts to usurp it through use of her judicial powers and influence... both domestically and abroad.

All you have to do it look over the voting record to tell where she stands on what issues.  There are several there that I don't agree with all of their interpretations of the constitution.  I do find myself agreeing with Newt in that if there is a justice whose decisions the citizens are obviously in disagreement with there should be an easier way to remove them from office.  Not an easy way but an easier way.  The checks and balances that we have in place work fairly well most of the time.


I'm glad that I just reminded myself of that since I have been stressing over the next idiot..I mean presidential election.

[yeti76620]

Happy Valentine's Day!

So Let's Get back to the Basics of LOVE!

As I see it our Founding Fathers took, back in the day, the best that they could from what they had to make a Constitution to ensure Freedom and Liberty, to give it to a Fresh NEW Land for THE PEOPLE to govern THEMSELVES toward their DREAMS without the oppression of the governments / powers of the times......

It just So Happens that an Awesome Institution is providing FREE of Charge to the PUBLIC a class on the Constitution....  It is called "The Constitution 101".  I'm acknowledging the fact that I MAY NOT know the US Constitution as well as I SHOULD; therefore, I'm brushing up on it with this class as I INVITE ya'll to do so also....

Swallow the Pride and let's find out TOGETHER toward an EVEN foundation to discuss the Judicial Bench Legislation!

Gotta Sign up THIS WEEK or ya'll miss the Start!  February 20, 2012  DO IT NOW!


https://www.hillsdaleoffer.com/civicrm/contribute/transact?reset=1&id=7

[yeti76620]

Referring to this thread as a meaningless pit (if that is what you meant to say) is counter productive.  Our whole system of government is based on arguments, look at congress, that is what it is all about.  We have two sides of the isle and they duke it out just about everyday.  Can the Egyptian people do this system or just kill each other?  We have Greece, Egypt, Syria and Russia not able to settle things the way we do.  I can see both sides of the coin.  The founding fathers made a plan for this country and I have never seen evidence that they were trying to make a model for the whole world, that is why all are welcome so long as they follow the rules (like being naturalized).  Just my two cents and trying to stay on the original topic.

Nice Try Leo but way... way ... somewhere over some rainbow.....  somewhere......

Trifle Abyss

Bantering with an Antagonist.....

It's like a child continually asking Why? after everything you say....  Wheel spinning in a bog...   

[yeti76620]

I just have to say that I find it amusing that someone is being chastised for speaking their opinion on the US Constitution and that people essentially want to run her out of the country for it.  Before there was the second amendment there was the first.   

It is the Second Amendment that keeps the First....

A Revolution was fought to tear this Country AWAY from all that woman is proposing and like all those who agree with her really need to go to those places that they "Idealize" and leave THIS Country as it was fought for....Don't let the boarder hit ya in the arse....  Remember When:


"America... Love it or LEAVE it"

One Nation Under GOD...  This Land was NOT ment to be ALL things To the WHOLE World!

[Camille Eonich]

It is the Second Amendment that keeps the First....

A Revolution was fought to tear this Country AWAY from all that woman is proposing and like all those who agree with her really need to go to those places that they "Idealize" and leave THIS Country as it was fought for....Don't let the boarder hit ya in the arse....  Remember When:


"America... Love it or LEAVE it"

One Nation Under GOD...  This Land was NOT ment to be ALL things To the WHOLE World!

Don't let the door hit you in the arse because you are talking about taking away her FIRST amendment rights.  Something else the people who fought the revolutionary war violently believed.  My ancestors gave their blood for that right and just because you don't agree with what she is saying you want to take away her right to say it.

Unbelievable.

[Two-Step]

Don't let the door hit you in the arse because you are talking about taking away her FIRST amendment rights.  Something else the people who fought the revolutionary war violently believed.  My ancestors gave their blood for that right and just because you don't agree with what she is saying you want to take away her right to say it.

Unbelievable.

According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
Oath of Office for Federal Officials:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

The Senators and Representatives, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.

The oath she took pretty much speaks for it's self. Yes, she does have the right of free speech but I feel that she does not have the right to interpret and alter the Constitution in a manner that suits her personal agenda and "current trends of the moment".

My example of "personal belief vs execution of duties": A police officer (for this example, a white officer) is sworn to uphold the law. In spite of any personal racial feeling he or she may have, they must still protect Hispanics and blacks from white criminals. A police office does not (should not) allow his or her personal racial feelings to interfere with the coarse of duties. The very same applies to a Supreme Court Justice... maybe more so since they are the "highest power" in the nation.

FYI Factoid:
Samuel Chase (17th April 1741 – June 19, 1811) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and earlier was a signatory to the United States Declaration of Independence as a representative of Maryland. Early in life, Chase was a "firebrand" states-righter and revolutionary. His political views changed over his lifetime and in the last decades of his career he became well-known as a staunch Federalist, and was impeached for allegedly letting his partisan leanings affect his court decisions.

All impeachments of federal judges since Chase have been based on allegations of legal or ethical misconduct, not on judicial performance.

[yeti76620]

Don't let the door hit you in the arse because you are talking about taking away her FIRST amendment rights.  Something else the people who fought the revolutionary war violently believed.  My ancestors gave their blood for that right and just because you don't agree with what she is saying you want to take away her right to say it.

Unbelievable.

Another soul trapped inside a box.......  


How would your ancestors feel about those speeches / rulings  being shoved down their throats or whatever that woman was saying PERIOD??   Never said she couldn't say it  {You DID}...  just keep it in her OWN house and out of mine or go somewhere that there is an agreement as she can be ogled in awe....


 OR  how would those Ancestors feel about their kids turkey and cheese sandwich confiscated because it was not nutritious enough with out a veggie then fed "chicken nuggets" ; additionally, be charged for the LUNCH!  I've no doubt how Ginsburg would rule here.

First Amendment DOES NOT exempt Ginsburg the ridicule of ANY opposition thus brings us to the REAL REASON for the First Amendment.....  Dirty, Nasty, Rotten, Mean-Spirited, Foul, expression of opposition in print and/or speech!

Calling my comment "Unbelievable" is insinuating or implying that MY Free Speech rights are NOT extended to ME?  I would think that your Ancestors would put a boot in YOUR arse by your own argument...  That boarder is extended to you too Chief Deputy Marshal Moderator Lady like the Russian boarder where thought control is alive and well and you can call other's Free Speech opposition Unbelievable plus you get to shoot them too!!


" ....Other then that Mrs. Lincoln how was the play?"

How Do Ya Like Me NOW?

Two Step's post here Yesterday is right ON TARGET!.........  Bull's Eye....

[Camille Eonich]

Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that one does not actually have.[1] Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.[1]

Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice those virtues that one preaches. Samuel Johnson made this point when he wrote about the misuse of the charge of "hypocrisy" in Rambler No. 14:

    Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions, without having yet obtained the victory, as a man may be confident of the advantages of a voyage, or a journey, without having courage or industry to undertake it, and may honestly recommend to others, those attempts which he neglects himself.[2]

Thus, an alcoholic's advocating temperance, for example, would not be considered an act of hypocrisy as long as the alcoholic made no pretense of constant sobriety.

[yeti76620]

OK??............. Chief Deputy Marshal Moderator Lady,

This mystery quote is?? ?? ??   Pertains to SBJ Ginsburg - US Constitution how?? ?? ??

Maybe ya want to re-do it to be clearer 'cause I'm curious....  Out of that purple box all scrunched up would be a good start...