Vanguard News Network

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.