In response to:

Cleaning Up After Ruth Bader Ginsburg

evie10 Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 9:29 AM
The SC Justices are sworn in to interpret laws and declare on the constitutionality of the law in question. Justice Ginsberg is on record for declaring the US Constitution to be outdated and invalid. That declaration on her part makes her an invalid choice to sit on the highest bench in the country. Her decision of - as long as everyone has lost a constitutional right there is nothing illegal going on can be expanded to completely suspend the Constitution without the declaration of Martial law. She is very scary.
Curtis108 Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 11:04 AM
Actually, no they aren't. The Supreme Court arrogated to itself the power to rule on constitutionality.
Reginald10 Wrote: Nov 26, 2012 4:52 PM
Well, that's true; they did that some 200+ years ago. And it's clear that someone has to rule on such things, so it might as well be the Supreme Court.

Would you trust the President to void laws, that he thought were unconstitutional?
Would you trust THIS President?
(Me neither.)

Of all the sloppy and confused decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in recent years, few compare with CLS v. Martinez (2010). The decision was more than just poorly reasoned. It was also based upon willful blindness toward factual misrepresentations by the defendants in the case. Justice Ginsburg authored an opinion she knew she could arrive at only by pretending to believe facts she knew were not true.

Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, offers a good critique of the decision in his new book, Unlearning Liberty. I write about it today...