It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
That is the most stupid thing I have ever read.
Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by SaturnFX
She's a supreme court judge. She doesn't get to have an opinion. Sorry.
If she doesn't like the constitution which she's supposed to defend, well then she should be fired.
This is no ordinary person you are a talking about, she's a SCOTUS JUDGE.
Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
I just don't understand how Ginsburg has the right to tell other nations to disregard our Constitution, when she, herself has been appointed to a powerful position to uphold the U.S.Constitution. Conflict of interest comes to mind.
An impeachable offense I think...
Des
I would ask Justice Ginsburg to specifically point out the Articles in which a direct exclusion of those groups occurred. I know, we have the black-mark 3/5ths Compromise (which was amended) and other perceived exclusionary occurrences were not because of the Constitution but because of the societal norms of the day.
Not in one spot does the Constitution exclude a woman, Native American, black, green or blue person from enjoying the protections afforded from the Government or their ability to participate in self-governance (even the 3/5ths Compromise recognized for either tax-purposes or representation counts; slaves and Native Americans). That wasn't the purpose or scope of which the Constitution set out to obtain and achieve.
Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
I just don't understand how Ginsburg has the right to tell other nations to disregard our Constitution, when she, herself has been appointed to a powerful position to uphold the U.S.Constitution. Conflict of interest comes to mind.
An impeachable offense I think...
Des
Originally posted by illuminatislave
You need to get over yourself. The Constitution gives Ginsburg the right to speak her opinion, or are you anti american? Upholding that worthless document and having an opinion on it are not mutually exclusive.
The Constitution gives Ginsburg the right to speak her opinion
Originally posted by illuminatislave
Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck
I just don't understand how Ginsburg has the right to tell other nations to disregard our Constitution, when she, herself has been appointed to a powerful position to uphold the U.S.Constitution. Conflict of interest comes to mind.
An impeachable offense I think...
Des
You need to get over yourself. The Constitution gives Ginsburg the right to speak her opinion, or are you anti american? Upholding that worthless document and having an opinion on it are not mutually exclusive.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
...it should be pointed out or reminded that Justice Ginsburg did take an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution which grants her the authority to render legally binding opinions.
I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
I, XXX XXX, 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 XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.
Originally posted by SaturnFX
a SCOTUS is sworn to uphold the constitution, to rule according to its literal definition
This does not mean they cannot have an outside opinion. If they do their job, then thats all that is required.
I can be a policeman and also think off duty that some laws are stupid. So long as I do my job, then its all good.
By her talking about other nations constitutions, while being a justice for america, she actually gives her words and influence far more credibility overseas and will not be passed off as just another american propagandist with nothing of value to say.
Traitor...anyone whom suggests other countrys have good stuff to offer also = traitor?
pretty black and white (for us or for t3h turr-ists) mindset you got there...wonder who programmed you.
Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said, "For a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice to speak derisively about the Constitution she is sworn to uphold is distressing, to say the least. Justice Ginsburg's comments about our Constitution undermine the Supreme Court as an institution dedicated to the rule of law, as well as our founding document."
Originally posted by illuminatislave
Upholding that worthless document and having an opinion on it are not mutually exclusive.
But how do we define "Support and Defend"? Wouldn't that all be a manner of perspective?
Originally posted by Tworide
Originally posted by illuminatislave
Upholding that worthless document and having an opinion on it are not mutually exclusive.
That 'worthless document" as you call it allows the drivel to spill from your lips, or fingers as the case may be.
Don't like it? I'm sure we can raise the funds for a one way ticket to Iran, N. Korea, Zimbabwe, etc...
We'll take odds on how long you last trashing their founding documents.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Originally posted by Tworide
Originally posted by illuminatislave
Upholding that worthless document and having an opinion on it are not mutually exclusive.
That 'worthless document" as you call it allows the drivel to spill from your lips, or fingers as the case may be.
Don't like it? I'm sure we can raise the funds for a one way ticket to Iran, N. Korea, Zimbabwe, etc...
We'll take odds on how long you last trashing their founding documents.
I will be as pedantic and even run the risk of seeming dogmatic for as long as it takes. The Constitution for the United States of America most assuredly does not "allow" for drivel to spill from lips, nor for fingers to zip across a key board. Driveling and typing, or more generally, speech and publishing, are unalienable rights that preexist the Constitution. They are not rights granted by that Constitution, and the express language of prohibition against government in the Bill of Rights only supports what I am stating. Not to mention the Ninth Amendment.
If you genuinely believe that the Constitution "allows" you freedom, then that document is nothing more than a "worthless piece of paper". It's true and genuine value is understanding that this document, The Constitution for the United States of America is a profound indictment of government, not of the People. It is a document that seeks to restrain and prevent government from trampling upon the rights of the People.
Poor choice of words on my part. Corrected to :That 'worthless document" as you call it protects the drivel to spill from your lips, or fingers as the case may be.