PA Bill Number: HB1472
Title: In primary and election expenses, further providing for reporting by candidate and political committees and other persons and for late contributions ...
Description: In primary and election expenses, further providing for reporting by candidate and political committees and other persons and for late contrib ...
Last Action: Referred to STATE GOVERNMENT
Last Action Date: Apr 22, 2024
Ginsburg goes full partisan :: 07/21/2016
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg soiled herself and laid bare the lunacy of those that think the Supreme Court is some kind of impartial arbiter of the law last week when she stepped into the political fray and began advocating for the Witch of Chappaqua to be elected president.
In a series of interviews, Ginsburg called Trump a “faker” with an “ego” and said “I can’t imagine what this place would be – I can imagine what the country would be – with Donald Trump as our president.” In classic Trump fashion, The Donald responded with a tweet claiming Ginsburg’s “mind is shot.”
She also delved into other political issues, attacking the Senate for not voting on Judge Merrick Garland to fill the seat of the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and she called Justice Anthony Kennedy “the great hero of this term” for voting on cases that upheld abortion rights and affirmative action.
In the past, Ginsburg has stated that foreign laws and norms should shape U.S. legal opinions. And in a 2009 interview with The New York Times, she revealed what an elitist/racist she really is when she said of abortion, “Frankly, I had thought at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.”
Ginsburg was a raving leftist/feminist/political activist when she was nominated by President Bill Clinton – upon recommendation by so-called conservative Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) [a crime for which Hatch has yet to pay] — and confirmed by the Senate 96-3. In other words, 40 Republicans approved her nomination to the court. (So much for electing conservatives to preserve the court.)
In 2012, Ginsburg went to Egypt to “listen and learn” as that country began the process of transitioning into a democracy. In a television interview while there, Ginsburg was asked if Egypt should model its constitution on those of other nations. Ginsburg recommended the Constitution of South Africa over America’s because America’s was written without women’s participation and during a time of slavery.
In 2013, Ginsburg officiated at a same-sex wedding, meaning her vote in Obergefell was broadcast in advance.
In other words, Ginsburg’s partisanship was certainly no secret to any rational observer, but it was surprising to hear a Supreme Court Justice publicly proclaiming her desire for one candidate over another.
Joseph Story, considered to be the father of American jurisprudence and author of “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” warned of justices like Ginsburg. He wrote:
“The truth is, that, even with the most secure tenure of office, during good behavior, the danger is not, that the judges will be too firm in resisting public opinion, and in defence of private rights or public liberties; but, that they will be ready to yield themselves to the passions, and politics, and prejudices of the day.
He also wrote:
“Without justice being freely, fully, and impartially administered, neither our persons, nor our rights, nor our property, can be protected. And if these, or either of them, are regulated by no certain laws, and are subject to no certain principles, and are held by no certain tenure, and are redressed, when violated, by no certain remedies, society fails of all its value; and men may as well return to a state of savage and barbarous independence.
Thomas Jefferson also warned of the danger of the court posed to liberty in several letters. Among the things he wrote were:
The Constitution . . . is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.
And:
It has long, however, been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression . . . that the germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; . . . working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.
And:
The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working under ground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our constitution from a co-ordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone.
And today’s court flies in the face of what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 18:
[T]here is not a syllable in the plan under consideration which directly empowers the national courts to construe the laws according to the spirit of the Constitution.
Yet that’s exactly what the courts today do. And that they do it under the guise of “nonpartisanship” is especially egregious because so many of the propagandized sheeple fall for it.
Congress could reign in the Supreme Court using its authority under Article III of the Constitution. But don’t expect this feckless congress to do anything but line their own pockets and those of their masters.
