Supreme Court Justice Deserves The Boot

August 6, 2003

A startling admission was made recently by Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.   Speaking to a liberal lawyers group calling themselves the American Constitution Society, Ginsburg admitted that justices referred to the findings of foreign courts in their own rulings.   This astonishing affirmation went largely unnoticed by the standard guardians of good government in the media.   Such an acknowledgement should send chills down the spine of any concerned American but it caused nary a ripple in the placid pond of judicial activism.

 

You see, this has come to be the expected norm.   It's the direction in which we've been heading since at least Everson v. Board of Education in 1947 in which Justice Hugo Black introduced Jefferson's so-called “separation of church and state” as legitimate constitutional doctrine.   Subsequent courts have based their opinions, not on the Constitution as is required of them, but on legal precedence, which matters not one iota.  

 

I suppose it was only a matter of time before justices moved beyond their incremental distancing from the Constitution to seeking advice and consent outside, even, the United States of America.   But this time Ginsburg has gone too far.

 

Contrary to popular belief, Supreme Court justices are not necessarily locked in for life.   The Constitution states that they are to serve ‘during good behavior.'   Clearly, looking beyond the United States Constitution is a breach of that clause.   Certainly citing foreign courts as your motivation in Supreme Court rulings is cause for removal.

 

“Our island or lone ranger mentality is beginning to change,” she told the group.   Justices “are becoming more open to comparative and international law perspectives,” she added.   Specifically, Ginsburg cited an international treaty in her June vote to uphold quotas in college admissions.   She went on to say, “While you are the American Constitution Society, your perspective on constitutional law should encompass the world.”   What?   Her job is to read the Constitution and apply it to cases that come before her court.   Nothing more, nothing less.   Ginsburg has taken judicial activism to the next level, a very dangerous level in which the basic principles of constitutional law are cast aside in favor of the latest whim from some socialist utopia or third world kangaroo court.

 

We put up with a lot of nonsense in this country but this is something we cannot leave unattended.   Justice Ginsburg is a direct threat to our basic rights under the Constitution and she must be removed posthaste.  

 

Ironically, there has been a movement afoot for several years to remove the justices who voted to overrule the idiotic Florida Supreme Court when they tried every way possible to hand the 2000 presidential election to Al Gore.   In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court was forced to intercede in a federal matter – not a state matter – regarding the selection of president of the United States.   Something called the Democratic State Central Committee (sounds rather Soviet, doesn't it?) filed suit, to no avail.

 

More recently, the Constitution Party called for the impeachment of the six justices voting to overturn the Texas sodomy law, claiming it was a violation of a state's right to decide such matters.   Although there's ambiguity in that case, the Constitution Party is certainly much closer to the truth than Democratic State Central Committee.   It would be nice if all parties purported to be interested in upholding the Constitution converged on Justice Ginsburg and ran her out of town on a rail.   Perhaps that would send a clear signal to all present and future Supreme Court justices that America will not tolerate judicial activism.   Ruth Bader Ginsburg would be a great place to start.