The following is a guest post by Joseph Hall.
***
The Supreme Court’s Constitution Defectors
The US Supreme Court is considered to be a bastion of freedom by overseeing the equitable dispensing of opinions in critical matters of law. Also known as the court of last resort, the Supreme Court seeks to determine the original intent of the framers of the constitution and interpret the law accordingly. With these lofty rules in mind, it is proper to ask, what do the justices believe about the governing document for which they represent?
Recently, Justice Ruth Ginsberg visited Egypt and asked that they disregard the US Constitution as a reference for their new constitution. In a recent article by FoxNews, “Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn’t use U.S. Constitution as a model,” the following was discussed:
“But asked about models for the Egyptian people, Ginsburg said Egyptians “should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II.”
She then pointed not only to South Africa’s constitution, but to Canada’s 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights.
“Why not take advantage of what is else there in the world? I’m a very strong believer in listening and learning from others,” Ginsburg added.
Indeed, Ginsburg’s comments are not foreign to her overall philosophy. The justice has previously stated that she weighs foreign law as well as U.S. law when forming a legal opinion.”
Ginsberg suggested that they seek guidance from the South African constitution as well as other countries constitution as well. She also consults foreign laws when deciding matter before the court. The complete absurdity of such a comment from a sitting Supreme Court Justice is hard to fathom. In the corporate world, it would be like the CEO of GM telling its dealers and potential customers to buy a Ford. In the real world, this pronouncement would get the GM boss fired.
However, Ginsberg, who was the former counsel for the ACLU, glibly spews her contempt for the US constitution and finds relief in the South African constitution. The good thing about Ginsberg is everyone knows her prejudices and is rarely surprised by her dissenting opinions in major cases. While predictability is an attribute to be commended, Ginsberg is now sending a strong message that she can predictably undermine the constitution. As a former woman’s council, Ginsberg seems to have a surprising view on the underlying purpose of aborting as a method of reducing the number of “undesirables” within the population.
See: “Whiff of Eugenics: Ginsburg Tells NYT Roe Was About ‘Populations That We Don’t Want …. Too Many Of’
In addition to Ginsberg, there are two other possible candidates for the “defector” role: Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, who have demonstrated their penchant to ignore the US Constitution in favor of personal points-of-view.
Justice Kagan is a strong supporter for amending the US Constitution to allow for Islamic Shariah Law!
See article at Bigpeace.com, “Elena Kagan’s Work to Make Constitutions More Shariah-Compliant”
Justice Sotomayor sees the Supreme Court, not as the court of last resort, but would love to transform the court into a world class policy board. She is opposed to the constitution as written.
Watch “Judge Sonia Sotomayor: Court is Where Policy is Made”
Submitted by: Joseph Hall, Daymar Institute, Healthcare, Law, General Studies
Tags: constitution, courts, defector, Elena Kagan, Ruth Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor
What do we expect from progressive commies like Ginsburg? They’ve been waging a silent coup for a hundred years on this country and now that they’re in power they feel very comfortable exposing themselves for who they are. As it’s said, elections have consequences.
The impeachment of a SCOTUS justice could be in our near future with the right people in office. Vote accordingly.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
“Whiff of Eugenics: Ginsburg Tells NYT Roe Was About ‘Populations That We Don’t Want …. Too Many Of’. TRUE=PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS.
I wish I didn’t read quite so much, I would not have such an understanding of history and would not be quite so terrified.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Is there anyway to remove people from the Supreme Court? Seriously, if the job of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution and to make sure laws comply with IT and NOT ANYTHING ELSE, then why do the people tolerate people like, Ginsburg, Kagen, and Sotomayor? I also just realized these were all women . . . so thank you to all the conservative women out there, you are few, but you are the best!!!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Congress can hold impeachment hearings on Supreme Court Justices. These three represent a danger to the face of the court going forward!
We need to maintain a strong Republican presence in congress to be effective in countering the subversive ideas being touted on the court!
Clinton was impeached by the US House but the Senate refused to oust him since they were primarily Democrats.
The house tries the accused, the senate provides the final punishment, so we need both parts of congress to be strong Republican to effectively keep the court in check!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
did anyone have any doubt that these creeps would do this once they were safely on the court – did other lib jerks back in the sixties, no, they press ahead with their totalitarian agenda, and we end up paying the consequences. If the country is center-right, then please explain how these a**holes end up on the court ?
Like or Dislike:
2 
0