Ruth Bader Ginsburg   Current Rating: (3.10)     # of Ratings: 10       Click HERE to share your opinion See More The People Who Are Screwing Up America

1. LanceRoxas (26) , on 8/1/2005 12:43:00 PM, said:      Planet the reason you don't understand the Kelo decision as being liberal is because you're a political naif ignorant of the philosophy. I suggest you read Dworkin or Rawls- you and all these other libs who found the ruling perplexing- and you'll understand why liberals are wont to do away with the takings provision of the 5th Amendment. These jurists aren't stupid nor are they ignorant of their actions. It is specifically because Ginsburg is a LIBERAL that she sided with the liberal block on the court in favor of trashing the intent of the amendment. This is purely ideological- just like the canard of Roe and the ridiculous rulings in Lawrence, Griswold, Roper to name a few. If you believe-as you do and most liberals do- that liberty is a preexisting human right protected by social contracts derived from an empiricist notion that freedom is that of choice or the ability to choose- and human rights are defined priori to the existance of government- then the government must provide such rights (or goods) to its citizens as a matter of obligation. (Rawls referred to this as the veil or ignorance.) Therefore one's property is not truly his if it's necessary to meet those priori standards. The government meets it obligations by assuming title to the goods, prioritizing its obligations (Rawls referred to the a lexigraphical) to groups that lack the natural capacities of others and then redistributing them to meet the human rights of all its citizens. Theoretically all citizens would be on an equal playing field; equal in their ability to choose whatever ends they may seek. This ruling was not a favorable ruling for corporations but one that furthered the court's liberal agenda- dissolves democracy and our constitutional order. Ginsburg is just helping to lead the charge.   (3 people found this comment helpful, 3 did not)

2. PlanetaryGear (28) , on 7/28/2005 3:55:00 AM, said:      Her stance in the recent Kelo vs. New London case is a classic example of how certain social issues (gay marriage, abortion, etc.) has been used as a smokescreen to hide the real agenda of the courts. They are nothing but the legal arm for corporate America to do as they please and run roughshod over our rights to our personal property. Her and 4 other justices ruled it constitutional to allow private corporations to vicariously condemn your property and take it over through the whim of local governments. You call that being Liberal? Not by my definition ...   (6 people found this comment helpful, 6 did not)

3. Eschew Obfuscation (36) , on 7/25/2005 9:48:00 PM, said:       By far, the most unqualified person in 30 years to serve on the Supreme Court. Democrats today filibuster a nominee whom they are somehow able to characterize as out of the mainstream of American ideology. Clinton enjoyed almost no dissent for this left-wing nut to be approved, even though the republican party enjoyed a small majority in the Senate during her confirmation. Today a minority of democrats filibuster judicial appointments even as their agenda has been resoundingly rejected by the American people, election after election. Prediction: Senate Republicans will be forced (by media shaming) to utilize the nuclear option in order to get one of GWB's appointments out of the Judicary Committee and onto the Supreme Court.   (1 people found this comment helpful, 3 did not)

Browse reviews of next item: Ted Kennedy