Ginsburg not a fan of Heller
The paper of making up the record:
I thought Heller was a very bad decision, she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.
Should Judge Garland or another Democratic appointee join the court, Justice Ginsburg will find herself in a new position, and the thought seemed to please her.
It means that Ill be among five more often than among four, she said.
July 12th, 2016 at 12:05 pm
83 years old and feisty as all get out.
Hillary will find a good replacement for her. Wait, Hillary is a lawyer, she could appoint herself.
July 12th, 2016 at 1:28 pm
I read the dissent in Heller. Basically, the dissenters acknowledge the enumerated Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, inherent and not granted by the government, then they eviscerate that right by saying “public safety” concerns (not reality, just concerns) overrule the right’s exercise.
With such a basis for infringing rights, there are no limits on government.
July 12th, 2016 at 1:45 pm
Stalinist Ginsburg is why communism should be criminalised – and give her the electric chair.
July 12th, 2016 at 2:34 pm
Not to worry, after running her mouth publically against Trump, if he gets elected, she might as well resign from the court because she’ll have to recuse herself from every case brought against the executive branch.
And if she doesn’t, Pres Trump could impeach her for violation of the constitutional requirement that the Supreme Court justices “shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”.
Of course, if Hillary gets in, it doesn’t matter. Law, shmaw. When you don’t have rule of law, you don’t really need judges. Hell, you don’t need a Congress, either.
July 12th, 2016 at 3:51 pm
Tirno, you should stop typing before you further embarrass yourself.
The President can’t impeach anyone; only the House of Representatives can do that.
July 12th, 2016 at 4:22 pm
True, I spoke imprecisely. The president cannot impeach a supreme court justice, and the power of impeachment is solely invested in the House. He can, however, “recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient”.
And then the House gets to decide if they want to permit the precedent of a supreme court justice publicly declaring sides in the political process without consequence.
Frankly, the country could stand to break the 224 year record of not impeaching and removing a supreme court justice. Right now, there’s a popular myth that a justice serves for life once appointed, and they, particularly Ginsberg, act like it. It’d be better for the country to establish a standard to which justices will be held, a process to establish they have failed to maintain good behavior, and an example of a removed Justice to point to. Pour encourager les autres.
July 12th, 2016 at 4:25 pm
The Supreme Court does not get to amend the constitution, no matter what the Progressives may wish.
July 12th, 2016 at 4:56 pm
“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in 2012.” – Ginsburg
She clearly has about as much concern for people’s rights my dog does.
July 12th, 2016 at 5:00 pm
Lyle, I don’t think they got that memo.
The rule of law is dead.
tar feathers rails lampposts, yes, even for women.
July 12th, 2016 at 5:12 pm
With such a basis for infringing rights, there are no limits on government.
Or with such a basis for interpreting grants of power as we say in Raich (see Thomas’ excellent dissent there, too).
If “Commerce among the several states” gets successfully read to cover non-commerce inside one state, we can tell they just don’t care about either the text
or its meaning.
July 12th, 2016 at 9:13 pm
Only people have rights. The Bill of Rights DECLARES the rights of the people and RESTRICTS the government from violating or infringing them. Judges “are bound by the law” (Article VI, Section 2) and the government, President, Congress, Judges, have no rights in their employed positions, but only delegated powers without which they may LAWFULLY do NOTHING. (10th Amendment)
July 12th, 2016 at 11:23 pm
Of course, she could always croak and then it’d be 4 against 3, at least for a little while.
July 13th, 2016 at 8:52 am
Ginsburg is going to resign after the election. Obama will replace her; the Senate will confirm.
If Trump wins, we get Justice Hillary.
If Hillary wins, Obama nominates himself, Joe Biden gets to be president for a month.
July 13th, 2016 at 12:05 pm
Robert, if Buzzy croaks, the remaining three liberal justices will simply play “Weekend At Bernies” with her for as long as they can get away with it.