Not only does Mr Obama require a TelePrompter to spit out this drivel, but his drivel never changes. Rentoon, rentoon, rentoon:
BZ
More of the Same
Author Archives: BZ
Read This:
Super Bowl Sunday: 21 to 17, New York Giants WIN
New England Patriots or New York Giants?
BZ
P.S.
How about this urban myth:
Flushing the toilet at halftime is perfectly fine. There’s an urban legend that our nation’s sewer system is put on the brink of collapse during halftime of the Super Bowl, since so many people will be flushing at the same time. It’s not. Who better to debunk this myth than the fine people at Roto-Rooter? They say it’s fine ‒ municipal sewer systems are built to handle anything you can throw at them. Flush freely.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Egypt: DON’T Use Our Constitution As An Example
Just when you thought you’ve heard or read the most frightening things. . .
. . .up steps the former General Counsel for the ACLU and now SCOTUS jurist, Ruth Bader Ginsburg — sworn to uphold the US Constitution — telling another country, Egypt, that she doesn’t believe in the US Constitution.
Asked by the interviewer if she thought Egypt should use the Constitutions of other countries as a model, Ginsburg said Egyptians should be “aided by all Constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II.”
“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa,” says Ginsburg, whom President Clinton nominated to the court in 1993. “That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. … It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”
People tend to characterize the US Constitution in an incorrect fashion. As I wrote here, back in May of 2010, our Constitution addresses positive as well as negative rights.
And that’s what Leftists don’t care about.
Again, as I wrote back in 2010:
POSITIVE vs NEGATIVE RIGHTS:Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.– The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures– It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishmentAnd therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various items, and so forth.By our current Constitution, it does NOT “guarantee” so-called “rights” to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs — rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.Let me make this abundantly clear: “RIGHTS THAT PLACE UPON THE STATE TO OBTAIN THE RESOURCES FROM OTHER CITIZENS TO PAY FOR THEM.”Leftists wish to enable a solid “privileges or immunities clause” which becomes open-ended and — therefore — susceptible to specific ‘interpretation” by such pre-chosen federal judges!
The clear and sad bottom line is this — but, in truth, considering the individual, none of us should be shocked — RBG doesn’t believe in nor advocates the Constitution that she has foresworn to uphold. Because it’s old. It’s staid. It’s not a proverbial “Living Document.” And it doesn’t take into account the laws of other nations.
I’d care to remind you that it was, again, Ruth Bader Ginsburg who, in 2009, said that justices should take foreign laws into account when making their SCOTUS decisions.
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says it’s ok for U.S. judges to use foreign law for guidance in their own decisions.
The courts four conservative members – Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – oppose the use of foreign law in constitutional cases.
“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Ginsburg said Friday in a symposium honoring her at Ohio State University, The New York Times reports.
Ginsburg says she’s fine with the idea that a U.S. court shouldn’t consider itself bound by the precedent established in international law.
But she’s also fine with the idea that a U.S. court can be influenced by strong reasoning from overseas.
“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she says.
The Supreme Court’s reluctance to take into account foreign law has caused its global influence to wane, Ginsburg argues.
Frankly, I must admit, I couldn’t care less about how our Supreme Court is viewed globally. I only want SCOTUS to utilize domestic precedence in their considerations.
I suppose that either makes me a zealot or a terrorist. Take your pick. Damn me for believing that our Supreme Court should take only our national laws into consideration in terms of its rulings.
Imagine purple Leftist skies. Imagine Whirled Peas. Now imagine the United States unconstrained by its ancient and outdated document created by elderly white boys.
BZ
