Ginsberg down under

[PWK]

These people just don't get it. We are just unable to read the Constitution for what it says and draw a logical conclusion unless we are lawyers. Later she opines that some are jealous of judges since they are appointed for life. Well I imagine it ticks her off knowing that some non-lawyers actual do understand the Constitution very well and do realize she and her kind have grossly exceeded their Constitutional authority. The arrogance of these people knows no bounds.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/aponline/20010202/aponline174349_000.htm

"Ginsburg's topic was judicial independence, and she had some sharp words about House Republican Whip Tom DeLay's 1997 proposal to impeach federal judges whose rulings he believed did not follow the law.

DeLay "is not a lawyer but, I'm told, an exterminator by profession," she said. DeLay once ran an exterminating business in Texas.

"I suppose I might someday end up on his list of impeachment targets – perhaps even for reasons beyond my control," said Ginsburg, who noted she once was misquoted in a news report as saying the Constitution was outdated."

 

[Cosmoline]

I think Ginsberg crossed the line with her "exterminator" comment, but I certainly agree with the life tenure principle. After eight years of Clinton, we're stuck with a bunch of left wing appointees, but remeber==THAT SWORD CUTS BOTH WAYS. Conservative federal judges appointed by Reagan and Bush also have life tenure. GW will, no doubt, appoint his share of conservative judges. If only Bork had been confirmed, the Supreme Court's mixed record of the past twenty years would have been an awesome conservative legacy, eclipsing the Warren years. Even with today's mixed bag, there have been some excellent decisions reviving the power of the states and limiting the federal gov'ment. Eliminate life tenure and no future court will EVER be powerful enough to overturn the decisions of the liberal past. They'll have to worry about jackass Senators like Ted Kennedy calling for their impeachment. The trick isn't to eliminate life tenure or attack federal judges, but to keep electing Republican Presidents! Even now, one conservative justice is all it wlll take to swing the balance of power to the Scalia-Thomas-Rhenquist camp.

 

[Don Gwinn]

Reminds me of when Natalie Merchant gave an interview once. Now, Natalie Merchant is little miss super-hippy chick, one of the ones who just doesn't understand why all those mean old people won't just get along and love one another--which was why it was a little strange when she said of an ex-boyfriend:
"I don't know where he is, but he's probably something totally beneath me--a waiter or a mechanic or something."

Needless to say, waiters and mechanics who read the magazine were not amused.

I was unaware that "exterminator" and "idiot" were interchangeable.

 

[RickD]

Of course, the issue of who is in office, be it legislative, executive of judicial would be of passing interest if they did not wield such great (and often unconstitutional) power.

Since they are all prone to abuse their positions, we must be very deligent.

Rick

 

[RHC]

Speaking as a member of the bar: what a snotty and arrogant thing for a public servant like Ginsberg to say.

The world needs good exterminators a whole lot more than it needs another lawyer. In my county there are only 30,000 people but according to the bar association there are 38 lawyers. Just in Tulsa to my southwest there are apparently over 4,000 lawyers.

The Constitution was written to be understood by everyone, not just by lawyers.

 

[Futo Inu]

OK, Ruthie, so you don't like attacks on judges' decisions, because it violates the principle of insulation from political pressure when making important decisions, eh?

Well, I say, what comes around goes around - we wouldn't NEED to take such control measures if it weren't for the SupCt and other liberal federal judges making decisions based on political pressure and political whims which violate the constitution, and not based the law and precedent, as in Roe v. Wade and others. (FYI: I'm in favor of abortion rights personally, but Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided - the decision to outlaw or not outlaw abortions should be left to the states to decide). Not to mention the high Court's complete and utter failure to grant cert and decide a gun rights case - this is an abdication of duty, IMO, and should subject the SupCt justices to removal for this abdication. In the absence of a clear ruling, our rights have been continually violated since the Gun Control Act of 1934. Truth be told, the way to get the court to grant cert and face the Constitution is to help "convince" Ruthie and her ilk to take "early retirement" from the court.