Thank God there is an op-ed commentary that isn't afraid to say it like it is. Justice Ginsburg is a national disgrace and should not only be impeached but she should have never been confirmed in the first place.

No one, and I mean no one who works or has previously worked for the ACLU should ever be confirmed to a federal court, especially the Supreme Court.

And while were at it, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter should have never sat on the Supreme Court.

Any foreign court's reasoning will not, for obvious reasons, be based on the United States Constitution. Nor will it be based on US case law. Therefore whatever "wisdom" the foreign judge may have used in his "reasoning" is irrelevant in US courts.

I think she would respond that when teasing out those penumbras, it can be very useful to consult the imaginations of her simpatico international brethren.

Any foreign court's reasoning will not, for obvious reasons, be based on the United States Constitution.

Therefore making it easier to reach a predetermined outcome more palatable to her liberal leanings. Just a 'nuanced' way of saying 'screw the law'.

And here's the real trick behind the reasoning of these internationalists:

"Foreign Legal Decisions" allows the internationalists to cherry-pick choose the decisions they want to apply. No US person voted for those decisions to be applied to the US, either directly or through representative government. This moron wants to apply whatever she thinks is best for you, regardless of whether it is in the Constitution or has been passed by Congress as law.

Ok, everyone take a deep breath. She gets impeached successfully and who appoints her successor? And how liberal are they likely to be?

Burn it at the stake.

"Ok, everyone take a deep breath. She gets impeached successfully and who appoints her successor? And how liberal are they likely to be?"

You've made a good point, Epador. And considering Obama's past statements in regard to the Constitution, I think we know the answer to that question. I'm just waiting for when Ginsburg thinks is the most prudent time to announce her retirement without doing it too close to Obama's inauguration. She has a legacy she will want to protect and tarnishing it by being too obvious in waiting just until a liberal President can appoint her replacement is likely an important factor. I could be wrong, but I suspect she's timing it.

Impeachment on what grounds? As nearly as I can tell, her chief offense is disagreeing with you on the law.

Speaking of respect for the Constitution, since when did saying something,( in a speech, not a legal opinion,) that YOU disagree with, constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors?"

Calm down and take a breath indeed.

Correct as usual, Baron.

The U.S. of A. can't learn a thing from the legal opinions those damm foriegners. We should disallow any opinions based on foreign laws. Let's start with those Israeli laws, the Ten Commandments.

TIME TO IMPEACH BARACK OBMAM and TED KENNEDY

So am I assuming correctly that Canadian law should have as much weight as Yemeni law, or is this just pick and choose the foreign legal decisions you like and ignore the ones you don't?

Wow, nice overreaction to a non-issue. Judges use all kinds of external sources of wisdom for their rulings. None of it is binding on the SCOTUS, but it helps to avoid reinventing the wheel. I'd be more pissed if she was referring to the Bible for her opinions.

Scalia even states that foreign law has its uses in SCOTUS decision-making, though he's not a fan of its use in most circumstances:
http://www.joink.com/homes/users/ninoville/aei2-21-06.asp

Why wouldn't we look at the results of adopting a law in a country where they've already tried it? Or look at the legal system upon which ours is based for another's opinion? Why operate in a vacuum?

Justices cite anything and everything in their opinions, and lawyers are quite aware of what is binding and what is dicta (i.e., non-binding fluff). This is only offensive to the lay person who reads the above tabloid-esque portrayal of the issue.

Oh, and to joh -
Yes, that's exactly what it is, take the good ideas from wherever and leave the rest. Their law means nothing here, but good reasoning is universal.

Guys, I am not for stringing her up on her opinion that she stated out of the courtroom. HOWEVER, it shows a distinctly disturbing trend that our justices today are weighing in case law based on foreign rulings. This country was founded based upon principles and beliefs unique in the entire world! We are a soveriegn nation! That is something to be proud of! We don't need to apologize for being America, and we don't need to cowtow to the rets of the world. WE have been the beacon of hope to the world, and to become more like the rest of the world continues to dim that light! We don't need the legal precendent of Europe to slowly leak into our judicial system. These judges need to interpret the US Constition and arbitrate cases between the citizens and the States. That their jobs, not to be a bully pulpit. They are part of the checks and balances set forth to prevent 1 party from destroying the greatest government ever established. The justices cannot do that which was intended in the Constituion by basing legal precedent on foreign law! End of Story.
GOD BLESS AMERICA! PRAY FOR YOUR COUNTRY and FLY YOUR FLAG!