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 In an interview, Law unfavorably compared the Constitution to “Windows 3.1”—outdated and unattractive in a world of sleek and sexy modern constitutions.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!
#1: BorisY To: IbJensen (#0)
Lard everyThing
Pigs
Love
boris
BorisY posted on 2018-07-08 17:00:52 Reply Private Reply
#2: CZ82 To: IbJensen (#0)
I pity the people of New Zealand.
Do Ginsberg and Law actually think others actually give a rats ass about their silly opinions on our Constitution?
CZ82 posted on 2018-07-08 17:11:56 Reply Private Reply
#3: misterwhite To: IbJensen (#0)
Not as old as Ginsburg.
But that aside, the U.S. Constitution may be amended to bring it "up to date" -- if that's what the people want.
misterwhite posted on 2018-07-08 18:07:16 Reply Private Reply
#4: Liberator To: IbJensen, sneakypete, CZ82, A K A Stone, Tooconservative, nolu chan (#0)
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!"
Liberator posted on 2018-07-08 18:37:23 Reply Private Reply
#5: Liberator To: misterwhite (#3)
Uh, I don't think it's a matter of "if that's what the people want"; But even if it were, WHICH "people" count? The ones polled? Social media big mouths? Those the MSM "counts"? OR...A simple majority head-count?
If this nation insists on enabling the virtual suiciding of ALL of us (pretty close as it is to emulating the EU), or because the brainwashed 50.1% declare itself a "consensus" (as Congress nods in agreement), then it's way past time to start taking out the treasonous trash.
Liberator posted on 2018-07-08 18:46:28 Reply Private Reply
#6: Tooconservative To: IbJensen, CZ82, misterwhite, Liberator (#0)
Even though this article was just published recently, it sounded awfully familiar to me. So I searched a little.
DailyCaller, 2012:
Justice Ginsburg causes storm dissing the Constitution while abroad
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has caused a storm of controversy by saying in a television interview that the people of Egypt should not look to the United States Constitution when drafting their own governing document because it’s too old and there are newer examples from which to draw inspiration.2/6/2012
“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in the interview, which aired on Jan. 30 on Al-Hayat TV.
Her comments have stunned writers across the conservative blogosphere, though many major media outlets have not given much attention to it.
In the interview, she argued that the United States has the “oldest written constitution still in force in the world,” so instead “you should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II.”
“I might look at the constitution of South Africa,” Ginsburg said. “That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary.”
Ginsburg, appointed to the Supreme Court by former President Bill Clinton, said South Africa’s constitution is “a great piece of work that was done” and cited other documents outside America’s constitution that Egyptians should read.
“Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution, Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” Ginsburg said. “It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights.”
“Yes,” she concluded, “why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”
Someone is recycling Ginsberg's old punchlines. Breyer made some similar remarks overseas around the same time as I recall.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-07-08 18:47:38 Reply Private Reply
#7: CZ82 To: Tooconservative (#6)
You have to wonder if she knew how much taxpayer money the Obozo administration was spending on rigging that election.
CZ82 posted on 2018-07-08 19:38:45 Reply Private Reply
#8: Tooconservative To: CZ82 (#7)
Tooconservative posted on 2018-07-09 00:06:56 Reply Private Reply
#9: Hank Rearden To: IbJensen (#0)
About as soon as John McStain?
Hank Rearden posted on 2018-07-09 01:40:18 Reply Private Reply
#10: misterwhite To: Tooconservative (#6)
Good find. I wonder why the author didn't cite his 6-year-old source?
misterwhite posted on 2018-07-09 07:58:24 Reply Private Reply
#11: Tooconservative To: misterwhite (#10)
Tooconservative posted on 2018-07-09 08:04:50 Reply Private Reply
#12: Justified To: Liberator (#4)
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
Justified posted on 2018-07-09 09:29:39 Reply Private Reply
#13: Liberator To: Justified (#12)
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.
Liberator posted on 2018-07-09 11:45:48 Reply Private Reply
#14: Liberator To: Tooconservative (#6)
Better late than never to EXPOSE THESE ENEMIES.
Someone HAD to recycle it because the Dem-0bama-Globalist MSM buried it back in 2012.
Liberator posted on 2018-07-09 11:55:53 Reply Private Reply
#15: Liberator To: CZ82 (#7)
Absolutely.
They tried rigging that election AFTER ousting Mubarak and threatening his life...and outright assassinating Khaddfi in broad daylight. That Morsi won and resisted Deep State threats and assets was a miracle.
Of course NO investigation into that entire "Arab Spring" Deep State-op will ever be conducted.
Liberator posted on 2018-07-09 11:58:45 Reply Private Reply
#16: Tooconservative To: Liberator (#14)
It's still #FakeNews, by definition.
No reason why we should welcome it. We get plenty from CNN and the rest of the libmedia.
This is just lazy content farming. Clickbait.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-07-09 12:21:05 Reply Private Reply
#17: Liberator To: Tooconservative (#16)
Liberator posted on 2018-07-09 12:23:48 Reply Private Reply
#18: Tooconservative To: Liberator (#17)
That makes it #FakeNews.
Tooconservative posted on 2018-07-09 12:43:07 Reply Private Reply
#19: Justified 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.
Justified posted on 2018-07-09 12:58:19 Reply Private Reply
#20: nolu chan To: Justified, Liberator (#12)
Justice Elena Kagan was confirmed on August 5, 2010 by a vote of 63–37.
Prior to that she served as Deputy Assistant to President Clinton for Deomestic Policy (1997-2000); Dean, Harvard Law School (July 1, 2003 – March 19, 2009); and Solicitor General (March 19, 2009 – May 17, 2010).
Her judicial experience was zilch.
nolu chan posted on 2018-07-09 15:05:04 Reply Private Reply
#21: Justified To: nolu chan (#20)
Here is something I just read on wiki about Kagan. Which frankly surprised me!
"As of June 8th, 2018, during the 2017-2018 term, Kagan has voted 94.12% in agreement with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, as well as 97.06% agreement with Justice Stephen Breyer. She agreed with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy 73.53% of the time, with Justice Neil Gorsuch 69.7% of the time, with Justice Clarence Thomas 61.76% of the time, and with Samuel Alito 58.82% of the time. [99] "
I would never have thought she would have voted that many times with conservatives and liberals at the same time. Which makes me think the numbers have been fudged.
Justified posted on 2018-07-09 15:17:33 Reply Private Reply
#22: CZ82 To: Justified (#21)
You mean like Hilliarys poll numbers back in 2016?
CZ82 posted on 2018-07-09 17:17:55 Reply Private Reply
#23: CZ82 To: Liberator (#15)
If they do it would surprise me, they wouldn't want you to know they spent $200M on the Egyptian election.
CZ82 posted on 2018-07-09 17:20:09 Reply Private Reply
#24: GrandIsland To: IbJensen (#0)
Now I hope daily, that the bitch dies.
GrandIsland posted on 2018-07-09 20:29:48 Reply Private Reply