| I Thought the Supreme Court Was to Uphold the Constitution: The Federal Oath of Office requires it. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg Forgot This. Is Impeachment in order?
The President, Cabinet Members, Congressman, Federal Judges, Supreme Court Justices, and other government employees, take an oath of office and swear to uphold and protect the Constitution of the United States. Not doing so is cause for impeachment or discharge. The question arises as to how badly the oath has to be broken before impeachment, or termination of employment is pursued.
According to her own statements in a public interview, Justice Ginsberg has not followed her oath of office, choosing instead to pursue and implement her own policy by looking to and consulting international law to justify her position in Lawrence v Texas. In other words, political values, social mores, customs, and laws of foreign nations and the UN were utilized in her decision making process instead of relying on the U.S. Constitution. Was she concerned that the Constitution did not support her political agenda? The question for the Supreme Court in cases it considers is: was the Constitution followed? Did Texas violate the U.S. Constitution, not UN laws, or the laws of France, Germany, Itali, or Japan?
The issue here is not a judgment on the act of sodomy, which is personally distasteful, but has the Constitution or the United States or the Constitution of the UN been followed by Justice Ginsberg. The thought that Supreme Courts Justices are applying foreign laws to U.S. Citizens is freighting. In Lawrence v Texas, the Court ruled that Texas did not follow the U.S. Constitution, but for sure, by her own words, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg did not.
In The case, Lawrence v Texas, at issue was did the State of Texas have the right to criminalize homosexual sodomy, but not heterosexual sodomy. The case raised both substantive due process and equal protection issues. In a 5 to 4, the Court ruled that the state had no right to regulate private sexual conduct of consulting adults thus overruling their previous ruling in decision in Bowers v Hardwick. Justice O'Connor based her vote on the , and Equal Protection Clause, Justice Scalia accused the majority of "largely signing on to the so-called homosexual agenda."
It appears to me that there is a question for impeachment here?
C. DRAGO, CHAIRMAN, Lincoln Heritage Institute
If you have any q uestions contact us at lhi@wmis.net
|
