Time for a change at the Supremely Ignorant.....
QuoteOn Sunday afternoon, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an outspoken supporter of same-sex marriage, used the occasion of presiding over a same-sex wedding ceremony to cite the Constitution as the source of her power to wed the two men.
Gushing that she pronounced Michael Kahn, the artistic director of the Shakespeare Theater Company in Washington, and Charles Mitchem, who works at an architecture firm in New York, to be married, Ginsburg added that she did so with the powers vested in her by the nation's Constitution, according to Maureen Dowd of the New York Times.
The event was held at Anderson House, once the headquarters in Washington of the Society of the Cincinnati, a club consisting of descendants of the French and American soldiers who fought in the Revolutionary War.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/18/ruth-bader-ginsburg-invokes-constitution-while-performing-same-sex-marriage/
Can you spell "Recuse"?
I wouldn't count on that solar. Yes she SHOULD but like a typical liberal she won't, because for a liberal, anything they do is A OK.
Quote from: quiller on May 19, 2015, 07:01:53 AM
Time for a change at the Supremely Ignorant.....
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/18/ruth-bader-ginsburg-invokes-constitution-while-performing-same-sex-marriage/
Hell has had to enlarge itself for scum like these.
I can spell "Recuse" but apparently Ms. Ginsburg can't. Has anyone else noticed her resemblance to the Tsaernaev mother? Paint her green and she'd fit into the Wizard of Oz just fine.
Quote from: Charliemyboy on May 19, 2015, 07:48:13 AM
I can spell "Recuse" but apparently Ms. Ginsburg can't. Has anyone else noticed her resemblance to the Tsaernaev mother? Paint her green and she'd fit into the Wizard of Oz just fine.
Margaret Hamilton was much prettier!
Quote from: quiller on May 19, 2015, 08:23:54 AM
Margaret Hamilton was much prettier!
Sad... but so true! :lol:
I hope Ginsberg lasts just long enough to attend the next inauguration!!
Quote from: kroz on May 19, 2015, 02:04:27 PM
Sad... but so true! :lol:
I hope Ginsberg lasts just long enough to attend the next inauguration!!
One wonders why she, and Breyer, have not announced their retirement. Could it be, while they are liberals, they see Obama as a real enemy of the USA. Imagine a conservative POTUS having the opportunity to name replacements for those two. Now that the GOP controls the senate no Obama appointment should be approved.
Quote from: supsalemgr on May 19, 2015, 02:25:59 PM
One wonders why she, and Breyer, have not announced their retirement. Could it be, while they are liberals, they see Obama as a real enemy of the USA. Imagine a conservative POTUS having the opportunity to name replacements for those two. Now that the GOP controls the senate no Obama appointment should be approved.
Ah-so, it is very understandable!!! They are doing what all liberals instinctively do. They are selfishly looking only at their own personal interests. Nothing is of higher importance than "self".
And they don't expect to ever die. :laugh:
You folks may get tired of hearing from this point of view, The Doctrine of Original Intent.
I can't help it. It's a compulsion.
Constitution, Original Intent and the Supreme Court
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/constitution-original-intent-and-the-supreme-court/blog-307453/
(Posted 04/25/10)
What is "original intent"? The concept of original intent is rooted in the basis of contract law and the common law used in the framing of the Constitution, in this context. All instruments and documents are to be interpreted on the basis of an agreement of terms by the parties involved.
Tho only legitimate interpretation of the Constitution is the basis of the agreements made between the people of the several States and the Union at the time the Constitution and amendments thereto was ratified. The idea of a "living" (changing) interpretation has no basis in law or the long-settled rule of contracts.
The Supreme Court should first look to the writings, memoranda, letters, etc. and the records of the debate in the Contstitutional Convention and to the debates concerning amendments of those who ratified them for guidance as to original intent, not to some change, other than the amendments, desired by the legislative or executive branch.
The Framers and Ratifiers did not intend the Supreme Court to be the final authority on matters of constitutional issues. The doctrine of original intent holds that the legislature, not the Supreme Court, is the preminant branch and the judiciary was intended to be the weakest branch. The Founders never intended that the judiciary become the final authority on constitutional issues and, in fact, feared that the judiciary would become despotic and usurp the powers of the States. This was the intent and origin of the system of checks and balances written into the Constitution.
Quote from: red_dirt on May 19, 2015, 02:53:16 PM
You folks may get tired of hearing from this point of view, The Doctrine of Original Intent.
I can't help it. It's a compulsion.
Constitution, Original Intent and the Supreme Court
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/constitution-original-intent-and-the-supreme-court/blog-307453/
(Posted 04/25/10)
What is "original intent"? The concept of original intent is rooted in the basis of contract law and the common law used in the framing of the Constitution, in this context. All instruments and documents are to be interpreted on the basis of an agreement of terms by the parties involved.
Tho only legitimate interpretation of the Constitution is the basis of the agreements made between the people of the several States and the Union at the time the Constitution and amendments thereto was ratified. The idea of a "living" (changing) interpretation has no basis in law or the long-settled rule of contracts.
The Supreme Court should first look to the writings, memoranda, letters, etc. and the records of the debate in the Contstitutional Convention and to the debates concerning amendments of those who ratified them for guidance as to original intent, not to some change, other than the amendments, desired by the legislative or executive branch.
The Framers and Ratifiers did not intend the Supreme Court to be the final authority on matters of constitutional issues. The doctrine of original intent holds that the legislature, not the Supreme Court, is the preminant branch and the judiciary was intended to be the weakest branch. The Founders never intended that the judiciary become the final authority on constitutional issues and, in fact, feared that the judiciary would become despotic and usurp the powers of the States. This was the intent and origin of the system of checks and balances written into the Constitution.
Thanks for the reminder, red_dirt.
It is jarring to see how far afield we have meandered.... :rolleyes:
She obviously is suffering from alzheimers.....she sounds mentally incompetant....she should be removed and in a nursing home
Quote from: quiller on May 19, 2015, 08:23:54 AM
Margaret Hamilton was much prettier!
Hell this was, and that's not saying much...(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.abcnews.com%2Fimages%2FPolitics%2FAP_helen_thomas_jt_130720_16x9_992.jpg&hash=9ea769afd136b4b3d7dd6e27f4f87caaeb3c382b)
Speaking of unattractive women, Hillary Clinton is frightening when she bugs her eyes out.