Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Worth Taking Note

[sportage]

From Huffington Post article

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/22/ruth-bader-ginsburg-racial-discrimination_n_5699275.html

US Supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg hits right on target pointing out how the SCOTUS has changed. And how this is not the court it was originally intended.

But instead of upholding the court's history as a powerful stalwart against racial discrimination, the Roberts court's recent decisions upholding affirmative action bans and restricting voting rights have not "helped" the country advance, Ginsburg explained.

Yeah, while we can all argue and disagree on the various high court decisions and rulings, Ginsburg is making a good point.
And a very disturbing point at that.

Justice Ginsburg is basically saying the high court existence is solely to protect rights and further the rights of America citizens. To better the nation as a whole.
And in doing so never ruling by ideology or politics.
Once ideology comes into play, we not only unravel the entire purpose of having a high court, we also unraveling the fabric of America itself.

Just as the constitution demands separation between church and state, the high court should follow the separation between political ideology and law.

It would be as if this high court erased and removed entire sections of the US Constitution.
Without the US Constitution, the heart and soul of America, what do we have left?
Certainly nothing close to an America.
A country? Well maybe. But an America? No.

For the high court to use political ideology to decide and rule their decisions, they not only dismantle the US Constitution, but the ideals that founded America as a nation.

Sure, there are people that love some of the courts decisions, and those that can not believe some of the decisions. But... has the high court remained true to the concept of America as it were intended and founded on? The reason we broke away from British rule, created our constitution, and elected our very first president and congress?

Or, is our high court of today too easy and willing to sell out constitutional morals in exchange for a simple political ideology "win" against the other team?
That being republican against democrat.
Liberal against conservative?.

If the court has lost this idea of freedom and equality for all, then why does it exist?
Why bother?
And more so, why pretend?
And as for the people, just who now are we?
Who have we become?
Just another whore of a nation selling to the highest bidder?
Certainly nothing close to the original ideals with creating America.

America the physical land, that, was discovered.
But America the nation? That, was created.
That did not exist on its own.
And it could dissolve itself from within.

If people wonder whether or not the founding fathers might be turning over in their grave with what the SCOTUS has become, the answer is not maybe but an absolute yes.
If we could ask, has the high court remained true to the founding fathers ideals with creating America in the first place?
We should know their answer would be an unanimous loud deafening no.

"What's amazing is how things have changed," Ginsburg said

If the high court, the highest court in the land, has become nothing more than a political street whore, what is the point?
And what becomes of the people?
The people that once looked to that high court seeking true and equal justice?
One side wins, one side loses.

What justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is saying is, if the highest court in the land has lost its creditability with the people, there are no winners, only losers.
And can America continue as founded under the founding fathers constitution, or have we in all practicality ceased to exist as a free and just nation?
If equality, liberty and justice for all no longer applies, instead replaced by the whore of ideology and only desire to win the game, what is our point of existence?
Why bother?
And more so, why even pretend?

 

[nehalem256]

If the court has lost this idea of freedom and equality for all, then why does it exist?

How will the country ever survive without the freedom to get special admissions treatment based on race ?:hmm:

What justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is saying is, if the highest court in the land has lost its creditability with the people, there are no winners, only losers.

Didn't Ginsburg sign a dissent that only made sense if assumed Asian people don't exist?:hmm:

 

[Jhhnn]

How will the country ever survive without the freedom to get special admissions treatment based on race ?:hmm:

It survived the first 175 years based on that, with white people getting special treatment. For the first 125 years or so, that would have been white men, obviously.

 

[nehalem256]

It survived the first 175 years based on that, with white people getting special treatment. For the first 125 years or so, that would have been white men, obviously.

So you are arguing its discrimination to not allow discrimination?

 

[Riparian]

The Supreme Court has always been political because the Supreme Court is just another branch of government formed from another group of people, no more, no less. Most of the cases that reach the Supreme Court do not have a clear cut answer one way or the other or they would likely not have made it there in the first place.

What forms the bases for judicial opinions? Hopefully Supreme Court Justices will understand some basic legal principles, like stare decisis, but ultimately, Justices are just people like you and me and will have their judicial opinions affected by their personal opinions. Here is what Jefferson had to say about this issue after Marbury v. Madison:

You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vvVVhCadyK4C&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[Jaskalas]

Ginsburg is just mad she can no longer discriminate with affirmative action.

She longs for the good old times when we judged people based on the color of their skin.

 

[nehalem256]

The Supreme Court has always been political because the Supreme Court is just another branch of government formed from another group of people, no more, no less. Most of the cases that reach the Supreme Court do not have a clear cut answer one way or the other or they would likely not have made it there in the first place.

What forms the bases for judicial opinions? Hopefully Supreme Court Justices will understand some basic legal principles, like stare decisis, but ultimately, Justices are just people like you and me and will have their judicial opinions affected by their personal opinions. Here is what Jefferson had to say about this issue after Marbury v. Madison:

http://books.google.com/books?id=vvVVhCadyK4C&pg=PA178#v=onepage&q&f=false

You know whats really funny? The fact that a liberal court justice would agree that personal experience does impact rulings

Sotomayor now famously said, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1910403,00.html

 

[PokerGuy]

Hilarious to see a liberal activist idiot justice argue that the court is too ideological and political.

Justice Ginsburg is basically saying the high court existence is solely to protect rights and further the rights of America citizens.

Since when is that what the court is supposed to do? The court is supposed to interpret the law and determining if laws are constitutional or not. The exact goal you say she's stating ("further the rights of American citizens") is ideological activism. The court should not be seeking to further any social goals, it should be interpreting the law within the framework of the constitution.

Sotomayor is a good example of the exact changes ginsburg is whining about. Her racist statement that a wise latina would come to better conclusions than a white male is a good example.

 

[Atreus21]

To better the nation as a whole. And in doing so never ruling by ideology or politics.

Once ideology comes into play, we not only unravel the entire purpose of having a high court, we also unraveling the fabric of America itself.

Uh, good luck with "bettering the nation as a whole" without an ideology. Every approach to politics, law, justice, and morals begins with some ideology. Trying to claim that ideology is the real enemy is hypocritical and silly.

 

[Anarchist420]

The Supreme Court has always been political because the Supreme Court is just another branch of government formed from another group of people, no more, no less. Most of the cases that reach the Supreme Court do not have a clear cut answer one way or the other or they would likely not have made it there in the first place. What forms the bases for judicial opinions? Hopefully Supreme Court Justices will understand some basic legal principles, like stare decisis, but ultimately, Justices are just people like you and me and will have their judicial opinions affected by their personal opinions. Here is what Jefferson had to say about this issue after Marbury v. Madison:

I agree with Jefferson. He was quite prophetic and the standing judiciary was put into place to make sure that Hamilton's ideology would dominate for as long as the Constitution exists. It is obvious because there was no other point in the supreme court at first if the first president got to appoint all the justices and if those justices were all on the bench for life.

Since when is that what the court is supposed to do? The court is supposed to interpret the law and determining if laws are constitutional or not. The exact goal you say she's stating ("further the rights of American citizens") is ideological activism. The court should not be seeking to further any social goals, it should be interpreting the law within the framework of the constitution.

The Constitution is mostly ambiguous and the Supreme Court is activist by the Framers' design if it has more than one person and if those people have 2 choices (i.e., rule either against the confederalism or for it).

 

[MongGrel]

Hilarious to see a liberal activist idiot justice argue that the court is too ideological and political.

Since when is that what the court is supposed to do? The court is supposed to interpret the law and determining if laws are constitutional or not. The exact goal you say she's stating ("further the rights of American citizens") is ideological activism. The court should not be seeking to further any social goals, it should be interpreting the law within the framework of the constitution.

Sotomayor is a good example of the exact changes ginsburg is whining about. Her racist statement that a wise latina would come to better conclusions than a white male is a good example.

+1

But of course there is ideology involved based on their past decisions when they are being vetted for the appointments to begin with.

 

[BoberFett]

Sportage makes Moonbeam looks positively sane.

 

[Double Trouble]

Coming from Ginsburg, that's flat out bullshit.

 

[MagickMan]

Something has to balance the POTUS, who believes that he's a fucking Roman emperor, ruling by executive order.