LEFT WING LOONS
See other LEFT WING LOONS Articles
Title: Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”
Source:
American Fans
URL Source: http://americafans.com/index.php/ju ... -look-to-the-u-s-constitution/
Published: Jul 8, 2018
Author: Roger Altman
Post Date: 2018-07-08 16:01:30 by IbJensen
Keywords: None
Views: 1821
Comments: 24
Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”. Conservatives are often ridiculed for criticizing activist judges who fail to respect the Constitution. We are told that it is not conservative originalists (labeled ignorant and extremist) but rather enlightened liberal judges—with their nuanced understanding of constitutional penumbras—who truly respect the spirit of the Constitution Conservatives, however, have good reason to be skeptical of the left’s “respect’’ for the Constitution. Just last week, for example, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as model for Egypt’s new government. The problem, you see, is that the U.S. Constitution is “a rather old constitution.” Ginsburg suggested that Egyptians should look instead to the Constitution of South Africa or perhaps the European Convention on Human Rights. All these are “much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.” Ginsburg’s comments echo those by Washington University professor David Law, who published a study with Mila Versteeg on the U.S. Constitution’s declining infuence worldwide. In an interview, Law unfavorably compared the Constitution to “Windows 3.1”—outdated and unattractive in a world of sleek and sexy modern constitutions. Such obsession with the age of the Constitution is both absurd and irrelevant. For one, the Constitution is still among the shortest and most elegantly written constitutions in the world. By contrast, South Africa’s constitution is well over 100 pages long, ×lled with tables, schedules, and such stirring passages as detailed provisions for a Financial and Fiscal Commission: “A. National legislation referred to in subsection (1) must provide for the participation of – a. the Premiers in the compilation of a list envisaged in subsection (1) (b); and b. organized local government in the compilation of a list envisaged in subsection (1) (c).” And you thought the U.S. Constitution was hard to read. Equally ridiculous is the claim that the Constitution is too antiquated to apply to the modern world. The principles of the Constitution, although ×rst articulated centuries ago, are not tied to the material conditions of a bygone age. They rest on that most solid and enduring of all foundations: human nature. The Constitution itself contains no policy prescriptions. Rather, it is a short, elegantly written document that create a framework for a free people to confront the political questions of their times. Of course, the real reason progressives swoon over South Africa’s constitution is that it goes far beyond merely establishing a framework for government and guarantees progressive policies—for example, by requiring legislation that prevents pollution and ecological degradation. In other words, the left’s real discontent with the U.S. Constitution is that it does not require Americans to adopt a progressive government and expansive welfare state that provides for every “right” social scientists can justify. Americans should be very wary of those who would seek to upend the Constitution from the grounding in human nature that has allowed it to endure for more than two centuries and would transform it into an instrument devoted to policies of passing whimsy!
Poster Comment: Washington University professor David Law, who published a study with Mila Versteeg on the U.S. Constitution’s declining inference worldwide. The Constitution has no relevance whatsoever in respect to the world! It is applicable wholly to this still free nation! Ginsberg is a disgusting and exceedingly homely old crone who should have retired decades ago. This wicked witch sleeps most of the time and the rest is spent planning her retirement in New Zealand!
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
#4. To: IbJensen, sneakypete, CZ82, A K A Stone, Tooconservative, nolu chan (#0)
Why should anyone think she'd actually respect the US Constitutional? Bader-Ginsburg HATES the US Constitution and the USA. Like most ACLU-types and Democrats, aka Leftists. Before SOMEHOW slithering her way into USCON, her career was based on a taking a sledgehammer to IT AND THE MEN AND NATION SHE STILL HATES. Despite flashing her ACLU-thug creds (look 'em up), can you believe the rot that is the Republican Party Establishment-Wing actually confirmed Bader-Ginsburg by a 96 to 3 vote back in 1993? Proving their back-stabbing is no fluke, the GOP also went easy on and approved Comrade 0bama's Constitution-hating Stalinists to SCOTUS. Now that Trump wants to appoint ACTUAL Constitutionalists, the Dem-Commie Party predictably want to nix them. Why? Simply JUST for spite and hate of jurists who respect the intent and letter of US CONSTITUTION ITSELF. ***AS AN ASIDE*** Ok, so we ALL know Ruth Bader Witchburg is bone-ugly IN & OUT; A hypocrite who if she could would outlaw the US Constitution as "Sexist". But wanna get your mind blown? THIS IS THE DEVIL-WOMAN once upon a time (apparently before her demon possession and selling her soul). She was actually quite pretty before her permanent scowl of hate: I can imagine the idiot-chamber at FR: "NOT GUILTY!"
Your are right how pitiful are the GOP for allowing such shit be nominated! I would say the worst 3 justices of my life have been Kagan, Soymayor and Ruth. Look at what the happen the last 5. GOP basically gives in and the demoncrap fight to the death. This is why we like Trump so much. He fights for America! ----------------------------------------------------------------- Gorsuch's nomination to the Supreme Court by a 54–45 vote, with three Democrats joining all the Republicans the Senate confirmed Alito to the Supreme Court by a vote of 58–42,[56] with four Democratic senators voting for confirmation and one Republican and an Independent voting against Kagan full Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote of 63–37.[87] The voting was largely on party lines, with five Republicans (Richard Lugar, Judd Gregg, Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, and Olympia Snowe) supporting her and one Democrat (Ben Nelson) opposing. The Senate's two independents voted in favor of confirmation. With complete Democratic support, and support from 25 Republican senators including Judiciary chair Orrin Hatch,[107] Sotomayor was confirmed on October 2, 1998, by a 67–29 vote. Thomas was confirmed by a 52–48 vote on October 15, 1991, the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century.[77] The final floor vote was: 41 Republicans and 11 Democrats voted to confirm while 46 Democrats and two Republicans voted to reject the nomination
Yup. And what's conspicuous is that the GOP went EASY on all three obvious EXTREMIST-MARXISTS. Those votes you cited bear that out. I'd like to know why the GOP NEVER fights extremist DEM nominees? And why the GOP must be the party to submit the "Moderates"? This is why we like Trump so much. He fights for America! EXACTLY. (It blows my mind that supposed intelligent people either don't get it or actually join the Marxists-Globalists in undermining him. These "Reps" are despicable sell-outs.
#19. To: Liberator (#13)
I think I was listening to Victor Hanson who said the GOP would rather lose gracefully than to fight to win. Romney and McCrazy proving his case.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#12. To: Liberator (#4)
the Republican Party Establishment-Wing actually confirmed Bader-Ginsburg by a 96 to 3 vote back in 1993? Proving their back-stabbing is no fluke, the GOP also went easy on and approved Comrade 0bama's Constitution-hating Stalinists to SCOTUS.
#13. To: Justified (#12)
Your are right how pitiful are the GOP for allowing such shit be nominated! I would say the worst 3 justices of my life have been Kagan, Soymayor and Ruth.
Replies to Comment # 13. I'd like to know why the GOP NEVER fights extremist DEM nominees? And why the GOP must be the party to submit the "Moderates"?
End Trace Mode for Comment # 13.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]