This Page

has been moved to new address

Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Egypt: DON'T Use Our Constitution As An Example

Sorry for inconvenience...

Redirection provided by Blogger to WordPress Migration Service
Bloviating Zeppelin: Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Egypt: DON'T Use Our Constitution As An Example

Bloviating Zeppelin

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Saturday, February 04, 2012

Ruth Bader Ginsburg to Egypt: DON'T Use Our Constitution As An Example

Just when you thought you've heard or read the most frightening things. . .

. . .up steps the former General Counsel for the ACLU and now SCOTUS jurist, Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- sworn to uphold the US Constitution -- telling another country, Egypt, that she doesn't believe in the US Constitution.

Asked by the interviewer if she thought Egypt should use the Constitutions of other countries as a model, Ginsburg said Egyptians should be “aided by all Constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II.”

I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the Constitution of South Africa,” says Ginsburg, whom President Clinton nominated to the court in 1993. “That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary. … It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”

People tend to characterize the US Constitution in an incorrect fashion. As I wrote here, back in May of 2010, our Constitution addresses positive as well as negative rights.

And that's what Leftists don't care about.


Our current Constitution frames much of what we value in terms of what we cannot do.

- The government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures

- It cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment

And therefore, the individual has a right to NOT be subject to various items, and so forth.

By our current Constitution, it does NOT "guarantee" so-called "rights" to such things as housing, clothing, food, jobs -- rights that place upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.


Leftists wish to enable a solid "privileges or immunities clause" which becomes open-ended and -- therefore -- susceptible to specific 'interpretation" by such pre-chosen federal judges!

The clear and sad bottom line is this -- but, in truth, considering the individual, none of us should be shocked -- RBG doesn't believe in nor advocates the Constitution that she has foresworn to uphold. Because it's old. It's staid. It's not a proverbial "Living Document." And it doesn't take into account the laws of other nations.

I'd care to remind you that it was, again, Ruth Bader Ginsburg who, in 2009, said that justices should take foreign laws into account when making their SCOTUS decisions.

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says it’s ok for U.S. judges to use foreign law for guidance in their own decisions.

The courts four conservative members – Chief Justice John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas – oppose the use of foreign law in constitutional cases.

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Ginsburg said Friday in a symposium honoring her at Ohio State University, The New York Times reports.

Ginsburg says she’s fine with the idea that a U.S. court shouldn’t consider itself bound by the precedent established in international law.

But she’s also fine with the idea that a U.S. court can be influenced by strong reasoning from overseas.

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she says.

The Supreme Court’s reluctance to take into account foreign law has caused its global influence to wane, Ginsburg argues.

Frankly, I must admit, I couldn't care less about how our Supreme Court is viewed globally. I only want SCOTUS to utilize domestic precedence in their considerations.

I suppose that either makes me a zealot or a terrorist. Take your pick. Damn me for believing that our Supreme Court should take only our national laws into consideration in terms of its rulings.

Imagine purple Leftist skies. Imagine Whirled Peas. Now imagine the United States unconstrained by its ancient and outdated document created by elderly white boys.



Blogger Bushwack said...

She brings up a good point though. Think about it. How hard would it be for US to write a constitution NOW? And knowing that our words 200 years from now would be challenged based on the language at the time....

Just think about the 2nd amendment. IF we had to rewrite that as to prevent challenges to what we intend. How would it sound?

"A well regulated militia and/or individual, being necessary to the security of a free person, state, or nation, the right of the people to keep and bear Firearms for defensive or offensive defense of self, property, state or nation Shall not in any instance by state or federal government be inviolate."

in 200 years our words would meet a court who would find fault with the syntax....

Sat Feb 04, 03:32:00 AM PST  
Blogger Old NFO said...

Now that is scary... And if I remember correctly, wasn't the SA Constitution based on among others, OURS???

Sat Feb 04, 07:20:00 AM PST  
Blogger Well Seasoned Fool said...

This happens when "desires" become "rights" in the minds of folks. As an example, "The government should ban guns because guns make me feel uncomfortable. I have a RIGHT to feel safe and secure". No, that is your desire and, really, you are not so important your desires trump all other people in your community.

Sat Feb 04, 08:02:00 AM PST  
Blogger Catherine Moore-Barry said...

So much of the clarity that is offered by the true scholars of the Constitution comes from communications exchanged by the Founders, such as the Federalist Papers and other letters and articles from that time frame. What I find abhorrent is the fact so many of the members of the SCOTUS seem to be ignorant of these documents that support so many of the points in the Constitution. Jus Sayin. Bushwack is right, right now, the Constitution, if it were created now, wouldn't be the same document.

Sat Feb 04, 01:14:00 PM PST  
Blogger Leticia said...

This is a perfect example of rogue judges and political figures that completely disregard the constitution and tend to interpret it how they choose to or ignore completely as she has.

This is very troublesome. I am concerned.

Sat Feb 04, 01:56:00 PM PST  
Blogger Ron Russell said...

Great piece BZ. Ruth Ginsburg likes the SA constitution---doesn't it forbid the private ownership of firearms--just asking!
We all know that if the progressive members of the SCOTUS had their way, they would scrape the document and start over. They are exactly the opposite of strict constructionist---the are de-constructionist!

Sat Feb 04, 02:38:00 PM PST  
Blogger Always On Watch said...

Ginsburg has always been a one worlder. I would expect nothing less from her.

If Obama gets the chance, he'll appoint more like Ginsburg to the Supreme Court. Yet another reason to make sure that Obama doesn't get elected in 2012!

Sun Feb 05, 07:50:00 AM PST  
Blogger Bloviating Zeppelin said...

And the major point is:

As AOW indicates, RBG is THE prototypical SCOTUS jurist. He'd populate the court with her many times over if he could.

And then the Constitution would be a little-referenced document. Trust me, there are many in this nation thinking that would be the BEST idea extant.


Sun Feb 05, 11:31:00 AM PST  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home