Video:Ruth Bader Ginsburg Argues Foreign Laws Should Have Influence On U.S Law

[Immortal Technique]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSWxpoaeIys
Airing Date April.13, 2009

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Argues Foreign Laws Should Have Influence On American Laws

[AuH20]

The conservative view of the constitution is "antiquated"? The founding fathers never expected the judicial branch, the designated guardians of the constitution, to sway so far from the original vision. Ginsburg and the rest of these activists should be dismissed immediately.

[Theocrat]

One wonders what part of U.S. Supreme Court is Ginsburg having trouble understanding. Didn't she swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America? She's just as bad as our Kenyan President...

[donnay]

The minute people relied on the SCOTUS [sic] to "interpret" the rule of law we were in BIG trouble. The SCOTUS sole purpose was for them to set the government straight and point out where they were stepping over the line.

The Constitution needs NO interpretations it is written in clear precise English that an 8 year old can understand.

[idiom]

Lol, yeah you guys, Americans have nothing to learn.

[fedup100]

Lol, yeah you guys, Americans have nothing to learn.

You said it !

[idiom]

I can't tell who is being sarcastic anymore.

[Bruno]

Lol, yeah you guys, Americans have nothing to learn.

Its not that Americans have nothing to learn. That is not the issue. The issue is that the Supreme Court of the Unites States of America is supposed to validate laws in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America - not the global view.

[Lord Xar]

Its not that Americans have nothing to learn. That is not the issue. The issue is that the Supreme Court of the Unites States of America is supposed to validate laws in accordance with the Constitution of the United States of America - not the global view.

yup.

Maybe a few emails should find their way to Ginsberg. I mean, she should be reminded what her duty is.

[fedup100]

What does one expect to get from a dual citizen as a supreme court judge? Buh bye Ruthie, hope you rot in hell you red diaper doper baby enabler.

[Lord Xar]

What does one expect to get from a dual citizen as a supreme court judge? Buh bye Ruthie, hope you rot in hell you red diaper doper baby enabler.

I am assuming her 'other' ctiizenship is to Israel.

[fedup100]

I am assuming her 'other' ctiizenship is to Israel.

You guessed it, hum wonder how you knew?

[Bruno]

You guessed it, hum wonder how you knew?

it's all the rage these days. Ask Rahm

[donnay]

it's all the rage these days. Ask Rahm

And Ex-Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.

[slothman]

The minute people relied on the SCOTUS [sic] to "interpret" the rule of law we were in BIG trouble. The SCOTUS sole purpose was for them to set the government straight and point out where they were stepping over the line.

The Constitution needs NO interpretations it is written in clear precise English that an 8 year old can understand.

2 questions:
Why did you put a '[sic]' there?
It is spelled correctly.
Or at least it is for the abbr.

Also, what would an eight-year old say about the 3 commas in the 2nd amendment?
Is the 3rd clause describing the second?
Is the 4th describing the 3rd?
Is the "right to bear arms" and "right to a militia" both protected?

[Lord Xar]

And Ex-Homeland Security Michael Chertoff.

Chertoff, you mean the dude that co-authored the Patriot Act?

Wow, I am wondering if there is a theme developing....

[Original_Intent]

I guess impeachment is too much to ask for.

Or a treason trial.

[Golding]

The conservative view of the constitution is "antiquated"? The founding fathers never expected the judicial branch, the designated guardians of the constitution, to sway so far from the original vision. Ginsburg and the rest of these activists should be dismissed immediately.Strictly speaking, the founding fathers never expected the judicial branch to be designated as guardians of the Constitution. It was a self-assigned role.

[donnay]

2 questions:
Why did you put a '[sic]' there?
It is spelled correctly.
Or at least it is for the abbr.

Also, what would an eight-year old say about the 3 commas in the 2nd amendment?
Is the 3rd clause describing the second?
Is the 4th describing the 3rd?
Is the "right to bear arms" and "right to a militia" both protected?

The [sic] is there because they are not "Supreme" the Constitution is. So many people think that the Supreme Court must interpret the Constitution. What needs to be interpreted, by the court, is whether legislation is unconstitutional--period. But that is not how it has been done. This was evident, just recently, with the Kelo Vs. New London decision. Clearly twisting the meaning of-- "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The court sided with the corporations, not the people. There was no justice for the citizens!


What is unclear about the second amendment?-- "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. " Every state's citizens, in order to protect themselves from tyranny or oppression has an unalienable right to arm themselves and that right shall not be taken away. The Second Amendment protects the citizen first and foremost. A militia isn't a right. Congress is given the authority to make sure each state is well regulated to protect themselves.

[donnay]

Chertoff, you mean the dude that co-authored the Patriot Act?

Wow, I am wondering if there is a theme developing....


Yes, that's him. He is a dual citizen with Israel and frankly, that always made me suspicious of him, head Homeland Security and having a dual citizenship seemed to be a conflict of interest. Who was he loyal to?

[dgr]

International Criminal Law under Reagan ment , that the US had jurrisdiction anywhere US citizens and interest were involved. While you weren't watching it changed under Bush with the TransAtlantic US_EU Intergration Agrement " mutual respect and cooperation to advance international criminal justice" and the Free Trade Agrements which gave the WTO jurrisdiction and made the standards of the country with the lower standars the rule not the country with the higher standards.Bush was never a conservative he was a globalizationist and he paved the way for the NWO

[angelatc]

Some libertarian leaning lawyers talking it:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2009_04_12-2009_04_18.shtml#1239605727


and about her apparent revision of some history in the same speech:

http://volokh.com/posts/1239658719.shtml

[specsaregood]

This is nothing new.

From The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution (pg. 156):


The Supreme Court's 1918 decision that federal conscription is constitutional was explicitly based on the contemporary practice in the German Empire, Austrian Empire, Russian Empire, Turkish Empire, British Empire, Japanese Empire....Do you see a theme?