|
|
|
Impeach Ruth Bader Ginzberg who is violating the same laws which would get a citizen without a "title of nobility" thrown off the job Opinion| Survey: Lies or Opinions?| Justice Ginzberg's Background| Syllabus| UVa Speech| Biography| Ginzberg & Gays| Picture| VMI Forum| Dissenting Opinion| Excerpts from Dissenting
Opinion| Guestbook| Phyllis
Schaffley on VMI Northwestern
University judicial ethics specialist Steven Lubet: "The statute is pretty
clear," Mr. Lubet said after Insight sent him lists of Mr. Ginsburg's holdings and
cases involving those companies. "At least in some of these cases, it appears that
Justice Ginsburg
Anita K. Blair,
Independent Women's Forum: "Would a 'truly equal option' for boys, as the Post
suggests, cure New York's constitutional problem? Well, what real-world school board
would vote to subsidize a program that teaches boys 'self-esteem' and limits their
athletics and sports programs to those enjoyed by the girls across the street? Yet, if
educators fashioned a parallel program aimed at boys' needs and tried to exclude girls,
they would flunk skeptical scrutiny, which disallows any justification based on
'generalizations' about either sex." Hooray for Justice Scalia: "Today, however, change is forced upon Virginia, and reversion to single sex education is prohibited nationwide, not by democratic processes but by order of this Court. Even while bemoaning the sorry, bygone days of "fixed notions" concerning women's education, see ante, at 18-19, and n. 10, 20-21, 25-27, the Court favors current notions so fixedly that it is willing to write them into the Constitution of the United States by application of custom built 'tests.' This is not the interpretation of a Constitution, but the creation of one."
Educating
Our Children The US ranks at the BOTTOM in math and language education and
at the TOP in education spending, thanks mainly to such Supreme Court rulings. Profile of Ruth
Bader Ginzberg The editorial simply focuses on the
continued "nanying" of VMI by Judith Keith, the
self-appointed VMI-overwatch poster girl of the Justice Department. In the wake of the
Supreme Court decision, Keith has bombarded VMI with imperious requests for information
which descend to the nth degree of trivia. Per the American Civil Rights
Review: With this reasoning (regarding her ruling on confiscation laws) we would still
have slavery, police-beating confessions and many other rights violations. Justices
Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsberg in their concurring opinions also wrote baffling
opinions. Thomas reasoned that "the federal Constitution does not prohibit everything
that is intensely undesirable." Ginsberg said the court was not supporting "an
experiment to punish innocent third parties." If this decision does not punish
innocent third parties, what does? ROLL CALL, GUYS! Wake up. She rules in favor of gays , who represent maybe 1% of the population, and against VMI, adversely affecting ALL Americans. Hello.
She also praised Scalia's dissenting opinion. ''There's nothing as effective in sharpening a majority opinion as a good defense. I went through nine drafts. . . . My original opinion was good, quite good, but much better with Justice Scalia's dissent.''
Robert H. Bork says: ... "That was the reason for the Equal Rights Amendment, which provided that it should be primarily the function of the judiciary to define and enforce equality between the sexes. The amendment, we were assured, did not mean that no distinctions whatever may be made between men and women, that women must, for instance, be conscripted for combat duty or that unisex bathrooms are required. Yet it was proposed that the Supreme Court rather than Congress or the state legislatures make the necessarily detailed and sensitive political choices to write a gender code for the nation. In that sense, the amendment represented less a revolution in sexual equality than a revolution in our attitudes about constitutional methods of government." |
|
Modified Tuesday, August 26, 2008 Copyright @ 2007 by Fathers' Manifesto & Christian Party |