4 April, 2006

Birdman: Open Letter to Jew Ginsburg

Posted by alex in Jewish Tyranny at 5:45 pm | Permanent Link

An Open Letter to Ruth Bader Ginzburg on ‘External Citations’

Author’s introduction: I do not know whether Ruth Bader Ginzburg is the worst of a bad lot on the Supreme Court, inasmuch as she has such stiff competition for the position. I do know, however, that her logic, such as it is, not only seems clearly intended to undermine the US Constitution — the document which she swore to uphold in her swearing-in ceremony — but that it is an excellent example of reasoning that seems far more intended to propel her to pre-ordained conclusions than it does to reach fair and reasonable decisions that are in the interest of the American people.

Or to put it another way, she gives the appearance of yet another establishment Jew who is using her position to bring America to its knees by undermining the traditions that have made us the greatest nation in history, all in the interest of her hate-filled Shrewish brethren and sistren who wish to commit genocide on the white race and destroy its cultural legacy. Herewith is an open letter to her on the subject.

In an article entitled “Justice Ginsburg Acknowledges Death Threat Against Her” (Tony Mauro, Legal Times, March 15, 2006, found here), you note that a death threat was made against you because of your belief in the propriety of basing legal decisions on materials other than those of Constitutional or statutory law (‘law’) or case law (judges’ decisions, or ‘precedents’, which are interpretations of Constitutional or statutory law that are supposed to be binding on lower courts.) In particular, you seem to believe that it is proper for a judge to base legal decisions on such things as treaties, international law and foreign law when such things have no role in our legal system.

Now in considering the matter, the first thought which struck me is that you were indulging in what can only be called FEMALE-LIBERAL reasoning, and which in its full development would run approximately as follows:

“Hey, we’re all equal — all people, all cultures, all everything — so if the Tribal Council of the Upper Revolving Door of Boonga-Boonga-Land determines that all white men must wear their pants three inches below their anal cleft, then hey, that’s the law there, and by the Theory of Equality it should be the law here, so we will make it so. I mean, really, the thought that a bunch of mostly white guys in Congress should have the power to make our laws is, well, just not really hip, and a bit outmoded, what with our Living Constitution and all, and anyway, it is really just SOOOOOO COOL to let a bunch of negroidals get revenge on whites for all those years of oppression by making them wear their pants with their poop chutes showing, I mean, that is just the coolest thing since dry martini enemas!”

And there it is, Ruthie — the Theory of Equality believed in by every liberal, which tells us that everything is equal, that there is no difference between savagery and civilization, or between some piece of butt-wipe and our Constitution — the Constitution of a nation for which patriots pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. That’s the way liberals reason, that’s the way women reason, and I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if it were the way you reason.

But on the other hand, I don’t really think that what I outlined above was your reasoning, altho I think it was the reasoning you hoped would be picked up by the unthinking masses — mostly women and burned-out TV zombies — who don’t really reason so much as REACT — knee-jerk liberalism, you know. They know the are SUPPOSED to think everyone and everything is equal, but of course any actual THINKING would immediately dismember such a thought.

But if my analysis of your reasoning is wrong, then what, exactly, might your reasoning be? Since judges are supposed to base their decisions on both law and precedent, what this suggests is that our laws and precedents, which accumulate by the shelf-full at a rate only slightly less than the speed of the legal printing presses, are found to be deficient from time to time because they do not contain sufficient information to determine judges’ decisions in every case. This, then, means that judges have to go searching in the jungles of Africa or the mountains of Tibet or the archives of the Soviet Union to find enuf information to make their decisions, on the theory that Africa or Tibet or the Soviet Union will prove to be the source of some nugget of legal wisdom or some legal precedent which somehow gives the judges the Missing Link in the decisions which they are trying to evolve.

But does the above reasoning really make sense? If the law and the precedents don’t cover a case, does it really matter how things are done in Absurdistan? The most I think you could say in such a case is that the people in Absurdistan do things a certain way, and maybe this brings them happiness, and maybe they are like us, so maybe we will be as happy as they possibly are if we do things their way. But a decision like this rests on such assumptions as that the people of Absurdistan are like us, that the principles on which their law is based — if any — are principles which we share, and that we are correct in assuming that this has in fact been a good decision for the Absurdistanese. And for this reason, I would say that such reasoning, at best, is tenuous, particularly in comparison to the alternative, to wit, the study of the philosophers of our own civilization. I say this because a case which is not covered by law or precedent is not so much a case which lacks law and precedent as it is a case which lacks moral enlightenment: It is a case which is ripe for judges to apply what is called their ‘moral sense’ to cover what law and precedent does not. Foreign law is not morality; it is only — at best — a reflection of the morality of foreigners, which may or may not have any relation to the morality which is accepted in America. Accordingly, to seek out foreign law is to approve the grafting of alien principles onto the mighty oak of American law — a law which is unique even among other legal systems of the Western world in enshrining individual liberty and placing distinct Constitutional limits on the powers of the State.

So what, then, are we to make of your statement — quoted in the article cited above — which reads as follows:

“International and multinational charters and courts “today play a prominent part in our world,” Ginsburg said. “The U.S. judicial system will be poorer . . . if we do not both share our experience with, and learn from, legal systems with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own.” … [T]hey can add to the store of knowledge relevant to the solution of trying questions.”

In particular, can we really ‘learn’ from another legal system? This has a ring about as hollow as the one around your bathtub. What we could say, perhaps, is that we could learn from the effect of different laws on different communities, such as learning that laws against recreational drugs increase drug use, as the Dutch experience shows; or that laws against gun ownership increase crime, as the experience in Dee Cee shows; or that laws forcing integration destroy society, as the experience of the last half-century shows; but the Supremes, of whom you are a member, can’t even learn from these, so what can we expect you to learn from the Soviet Archives? The real point here, however, is that you and your comrades on the Court ought to learn to apply the Constitution as it was originally intended, as in (re the Second Amendment) “what part of ‘shall not be infringed’ don’t you understand?”, and not take legal trips into la-la land in order to practice social engineering.

But let’s face it, Ruthie — all your comments about ‘learning from other legal systems’ and the right to ‘consult’ foreign decisions is just a bunch of slippery bullshit to cover your real purpose, which is to destroy the American legal system by gutting its principles so it will fit snugly into the New World Order/Jew World Order which the international banksters and others of your ethnic brethren are busily preparing. You must destroy America, because American legal principles are what makes America the world’s greatest bastion of freedom. These principles, then, must be eliminated or nepenthinated on the basis of ‘international cooperation’ and other fuliginous nonsense so that the only real hurdle that is left to Jewish world domination will be destroyed. That is your real reasoning, Ruthie — a reasoning that needs to be exposed to the world so we may once again be reminded that Hitler just might have been right.

  1. Similar posts:

  2. 01/22/09 Nobody is Allowed to Offend a Jew 16% similar
  3. 11/21/17 It’s Always a Jew Who Uses His Money and Power to Further Big Evil 16% similar
  4. 08/04/15 Another Jew, Another Anti-Gun Law 16% similar
  5. 08/14/13 The “Greatest Generation” Doesn’t Get It: Only the Jew Won World War II 16% similar
  6. 03/31/06 Treasonous AIPAC: jew Pollard’s Handler Might Get Canadian Cabinet Post 15% similar
  7. 6 Responses to “Birdman: Open Letter to Jew Ginsburg”

    1. Fitz Says:

      I disagree with Birdman about judging based on Law and Precedents and instead think that they should be based on Law and Fact, since precedent is simply another judges opinion and judges opinions are not and should not be law since they are not the ones authorized to make law.

      This stems from the fact that lawyers become judges. Lawyers are trained to advocate a position not to find the truth or determine if the law was obeyed. They will go through an entire law library and a mountain of facts picking out all those which support the position they are paid to support while ignoring or attacking any that go against their position. This is suppose to work because there should be at least one other lawyer doing the opposite and then all this should be presented to a judge to deal with the law since they are suppose to be impartial experts in that and a jury to deal with justice since juries represent the people and therefor are both the final source of where power comes from and to bring the common sense of the people to bear on the law

      However once a lawyer becomes a judge they no longer have someone telling them what their position is so they instead substitute their own positions and then search through the law and fact to support that position. That is why Ginzburg wants to use foreign law, not to follow Boonga-Boonga-Land law but instead to find anyplace that has any law or court ruling that allows her to quote in order to make her own opinion law. Ginzburg would ignore Boonga-Boonga-Land law in a heartbeat if it said something she did not like, just like she ignores American laws.

      Laws are created to tie down those in power so they cannot act in an arbitrary way, allowing judges to pick and choose any law they want frees judges from that constraint and turns the law into arbitrary tyranny.

    2. alex Says:

      Judges are only going to obey the law if they’re internally disposed to, out of understanding of their job, and respect for their authority, and desire to serve as true steward. Without those, they’re going to do what they like, or what benefits themselves, and will have to be pressured externally either through physical force or media/legislature pressure. Today the media/congress/judiciary are on the same side, so there’s virtually no pressure preventing judges from simply imposing their judeo-leftist will.

    3. Carpenter Says:

      Lawyers are trained to advocate a position not to find the truth or determine if the law was obeyed. They will go through an entire law library and a mountain of facts picking out all those which support the position they are paid to support while ignoring or attacking any that go against their position.

      That’s because it’s not their job to present all sides of the argument, just as it is not the job of the stenographer or the guards. They present what one side says and what supports it, the opposing attorney presents what the other side says and what supports it, and the judge or a jury, depending, determines which is right. Like you say in the rest of your paragraph. So I don’t understand why you formulate the lawyer’s task in the most negative way possible?

      Now, it is true that the biggest problem is that there’s no control of judges. That’s why we have courts for appeals. But then one court still has to be on top. Who controls the controller? An age-old question, and the Founders thought they had an answer with the system of checks and balances, the three arms of government surveying and balancing each other. Alas … it seems the Supreme Court got a little more say in matters than what they should have.

      In the end, fact is you’ll never have a perfect system. Someone will always be less controlled than we might wish. The best we can do is make sure they’re at least not our racial enemies.

      This down-to-earth attittude toward government, which we find in WN circles, makes us the most realistic-minded ideology of them all, I would say. No utopian visions for us, no hopes of changing human nature.

    4. apollonian Says:

      Birdman’s Cogency Well Exposes Judaic Conspiracy
      (Apollonian, 5 Apr 06)

      Yes mighty Birdman (theBirdman.org) just points out obvious: it’s absolutely suicidal for gentiles (actually “Sadducean” traitors) to place Jews as judges for gentiles: it constitutes mere death sentence. But the Fed counterfeiting scam (Federal Reserve Bank) finances EVERYTHING including the buying of justice and the insane declarations of Talmudic madmen and -women like Ginsberg.

      For Jews are insanely determinied subjectivists in accord w. Talmud–against Western rule-of-law, fostering only fraud, conspiracy, and Orwellian “perpetual war.”

      CONCLUSION: Thus the Spenglerian historical cycle reduces itself evermore, a necessary process. A fully rational system is founded in Aristotelian objectivity–which automatically precludes possibility of Jews as citizens, not to mention JUDGES. Honest elections and death to the Fed. Apollonian

    5. Harry Tuttle Says:

      There is no system of government, no matter how elegantly designed or straightforward or ironclad, that cannot be twisted by a joo in ten minutes into utter crap. It’s their gift. It’s why they exist, to obscure, confuse, incite chaos, introduce anarchy, disrupt and destroy.

      If joos knew anything about designing and running a civilization, wouldn’t they all be living in Israel instead of here? Every joo knows yahood central is a shitty little third world country with a plastering of ZOGBux frosting on the outside smelling sugary-sickly. That’s why they live here in the majority instead of there.

    6. Fitz Says:

      “���Like you say in the rest of your paragraph. So I don’t understand why you formulate the lawyer’s task in the most negative way possible?��’

      You need to reread what I wrote, I was not being negative about lawyers only about lawyers who become judges and still act like lawyers. My point being is that all the training and experience a lawyer gets has to do with being a lawyer, not with being a judge. The two jobs as we both agree have totally different standards of behavior so why would you want people who are trained and have for example 20 or more years experience as an advocate suddenly changed into someone who is suppose to impartially apply the law. A lawyers job is clear and needed in a legal system, I just don’t want the same standards applied to judges since they have a different job and different standards.

      You sound like you are may have some experience with the legal system, so what do you think of judges who go through a law library worth of books and a mountain of facts picking out those that support their position and ignoring those which don’t? Isn’t that what Ruth Bader Ginzburg does when she quotes or ignores Boonga-Boonga-Land or American law when it suites her purpose and is this not the job of an lawyer rather then a judge?

      So I am just saying that the lawyer and the judge have different jobs and standards and we need to separate them and at the very least we need to inform and train judges who were lawyers and enforce on them that their opinion is not the law, but instead the law is the law.