The Worst President in History?

Absolutely, but try and make this point hit home with our Liberal friends.

Yes I am aware. Now if imposter can prove Ginsburg is a Republican as he has claimed she is, I would begin to have even more serious doubts about imposter being in his right mind.

The
official USSC bio from the USSC website says it a bit different:

So maybe that was her job before becoming a federal judge. I don't see much difference. The important thing is her prior relationship with the ACLU, one of the most radical liberal organizations around. Certainly not in the mainstream in my opinion. Far from it.

Launching the Women's Rights Project certainly is objectionable.

Does it really?

The point is that she held prominent positions in the ACLU prior to her nomination to the Supreme Court. This is undeniable, but you are welcome to mount a challenge.

The more cogent point is that her affiliation with the ACLU not only did not evoke a Republican campaign to prevent her confirmation, it was largely ignored in the voting. I believe she received something like 90% approval.

Compare this to the experience of conservative nominees.

Look at the hay the Democrats tried to make of Alito's membership in the Concerned Alumni of Princeton.

Arguments are made that Ginsberg while General Counsel for the ACLU argued for legalized prostitution, against separate prisons for men and women, and in favor of a constitutional right to polygamy.

Whether or not these arguments can be countered, the point is that they were not raised in a concerted effort to kill her nomination, while Democrats did raise specious insinuations about Alito's membership in CAP in the hope of killing his nomination.

If Mr. Walter Hinteler would examine Judge Ginsburg's rulings since she has been on the court, he would find that she is by far the most left wing judge on the court.

The ACLU philosophy permeates her decisions:



quote

Fears Grow Over Academic Efforts to Normalize Pedophilia
By Steve Brown
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
July 10, 2003

(CNSNews.com) - Cultural experts who agree with claims that the Supreme Court may have opened the door to legalizing pedophilia in its Lawrence v. Texas decision on private homosexual behavior point to the growing movement within academia to de-stigmatize pedophilia.

Jan LaRue, chief counsel for Concerned Women for America (CWA), a Washington D.C.-based women's public policy group, noted Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the decision "has nothing to do with minors."

"We should hold (the Court) to that and anyone who tries to pervert the ruling even more than it is already by saying that it does protect pedophilia," LaRue told CNSNews.com. "However, the likes of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) and other pedophiles will certainly use it to seek legitimization for their behavior."

On its website, NAMBLA Director David Thorstad claims: "Pederasty, like homosexuality, has existed, and exists, in all societies that have ever been studied. Homoeroticism is a ubiquitous feature of human experience, as even efforts to repress it confirm. Men and youths have always been attracted to each other, and, like homosexuality in general, their love is irrepressible."

Potential trouble on the Supreme Court

However, restraining the Court may prove more difficult than expected. Responding to criticism aimed at Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) over his conclusions that the Lawrence decision could lead to legalized pedophilia and other sexual acts, the Catholic Family Association of America (CFAA) pointed to a potential pedophilia advocate on the Court itself.

"Given that homosexual advocates are in a full court press to lower the age of consent as low as it can go, and pro-pedophile sitting Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 's documented advocacy of lowering the age of consent to 12 years old, parents should be horrified that there are so few politicians, like Sen. Santorum, actually defending the family," Timothy Chichester, CFAA president, said April 23.

Chichester was referring to a paper authored by Ginsburg entitled "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," which was prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in April 1977

The allegation was further substantiated by Robert Knight, director of CWA's Culture Institute, in "Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia," an article he co-authored with the Family Research Council's Frank York.

"When U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was an attorney for the ACLU, she co-authored a report recommending that the age of consent for sexual acts be lowered to 12 years of age," the article points out.

Knight and York's footnoted documentation on this is as follows: "Sex Bias in the U.S. Code," Report for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, April 1977, p. 102, quoted in "Ruth Bader Ginsburg's Feminist World View," The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Vol. 26, No. 12, Section 1, p. 3. The paragraph (from the Ginsburg report) reads as follows: "'Eliminate the phrase "carnal knowledge of any female, not his wife, who has not attained the age of 16 years" and substitute a federal, sex-neutral definition of the offense. ... A person is guilty of an offense if he engages in a sexual act with another person. ... [and] the other person is, in fact, less than 12 years old.'"

LaRue said pedophiles may co-opt language used in the Lawrence decision regarding homosexuals; that laws against their behavior are a discriminatory attempt to harm them as a persecuted minority. And they will be supported, she claimed, by academia.

End of quote

There are few things happening on this planet more laughable and ludicrous than American conservatives spewing indignation at American liberals!

You phonies are a hoot!

It's hilarious, I agree, Frank, but it's also pathetic. These repugs will resort to outright lies and huge distortions to try to support their untenable positions. Simpletons who won't or can't find the truth by themselves are the most dangerous of people.



The rest of the article blows these con artists right out of the water.

My vote for the worst U.S. President in history is based on actions he took and their effects in history.

Woodrow Wilson got us into a bloody war in which we had no interest whatever, no reason to prefer one side to the other, and did so with no appropriate preconditions from our new Allies, requuirement that they disclose secret prior agreements omn the war to us, and very little thought as to what were his goals.

He allowed himself to be duped into putting a large army (1,000,000) in Europe, and closed his eyes as Britain and France used the slack thus provided to put over 650,000 in the Mideast and Mesopotamia to complete their campaign to overthrow the ottoman Empire - a state with which we had no quarrel at all, and whose demise unleashed problems we are still dealing with.

He excited the hopes and illusions of people throughout the world on issues on which he did not have the power to deliver, and in which in many cases he actually conspired to deny. "A war to end Wars"; National self-government for peoples everywhere; and, of course his famous Fourteen Points & the league of Nations.

He lost sight of all this during the negotiaons for the ensuing peacre in Paris, and himseld assented to numerous and rather flagrant violations of the very prionciples he so loudly articulated. Moreover he was a party to the trasnsformation of an Armistice with Germany into a surrender involving an acceptance of guilt for the war - a misdeed that set the stage for WWII.

He lost the confidence of the U.S. Congress, in part, due to his self-absorbtion and rather dictatorial actions. As a related matter, he was unable to either get support for the League of Nations he so desperately wanted, or to arrest the growing disgust of the American people with the whole sorry show in Paris and Versailles - all of which led to the pervasive isolationism of the ensuing decades.

Worst president? I would vote for Andrew Jackson.

Not a bad choice at all! He would be my second choice.

Only the relative scale of their misdeeds separates Jackson from Wilson I also think Wilson a bit worse because he was such a pretentious poser, and assumed such a mantle of high-minded virtue. Jackson, on the other hand, did not pretent to be what he wasn't . In the actions against the Seminoles and Cherokees, and in his many political feuds he made no attempt to mask his murderous intent, or his greed, avarice, and vindictiveness.

I would give Jackson a few points for doing a good job against the Brits at New Orleans though.

I put the trio of Jackson, Bush and Hoover at the piacle.

What if the question were: Who was (is) the dumbest president in history???

Actually, my vote here for the worst president ever goes to Dick Cheney.

Well, you pinned Bush down with that one.

Yeah, and Cheney is still in power after all them screw-ups. Puppets are easy to manage, because they got no brains. Moron is one step up.

It seems you guys forget the fact that Roberts was listed as a member of the Federalist Society Leadership Council. Yet he became Chief Justice. Oh, the irony indeed.

It is inconcievable that the Head Attorney for the ACLU, Ruth Bader Ginsburg ever be considered a "centrist". I guess you could consider her a centrist if you put the "Nation" magazine at the center, but otherwise she is far far left. She states that we should pay close attention to what other nations are doing legislatively and juridically. She apparently does not know that we have the best judicial system in the world and need no lessons from French, English or Germany Socialists and, certainly none from the Islamo Fascists whose idea of justice is to behead someone.

Judge Ginsburg has opted for the RIGHT of same-sex sodomy. If that makes her a centrist, I would not want to see some one on the left---Necrophilia maybe?

When, all of a sudden, your "facts" are swept awy in an avalanche of truth, you head off on a tangent worthy of that old ex-Marine, what's his face, the one who couldn't keep anything straight in the PBS thread, Nimrod or Fastrod or something.

What is it about old conservative buggers that they have such an aversion to the truth?