Community Blogs
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg snubs the U.S. Constitution
-
Well, when "we the people" failed to take into account all the black slaves and continued not to take them into account for almost 100 years, and required a five year civil war to establish their freedom, and almost another 100 years to enshrine it with the civil rights movement, you can see where she has a point.
But being white and never oppressed I would not expect you to see that. That's not where you live.
And she is correct, the US Constitution was and article of its times. Times have changed. New ideas have emerged on governance and equality. the US political system is currently controlled by special interests rather than "we the people" so you can say the US constitution is not really working anymore.
Not when "we the people" includes corporations that nave no heart or soul. -
And besides all that, she as being asked a question as it applies ex-jurisdictionally to the USA.
That does not mean she will not uphold what she swore to uphold: it just means that what she upholds may not be relevant in another part of th eworld for another country.
Again, more wasted bandwidth on another Republican non-topic. -
"Why shouldn't other countries emulate us???"
If they have their own unique issues, like Egypt, no they shouldnt"
"Aren't we the land of the free? the home of the brave?"
Yes. Nobody else is free. Or brave
Obviously .... not all share the disdain that Obama and the likes of Ginsberg have for their own country and the document upon which our freedoms are based. "
Im sure they call each other every morning to synchronize their ripping up ther copies of the constitutiion.
Your thinking is refreshing in its childlike simpleness. -
And where did this outrage come from?? No place other then the Official Publication of Planet Wingnuttia - http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/supreme-court-justice-u-s-constitution-inferior/.
The same "publication" that knows no boundaries in order to sell its own books.
And features such sages as Chuch Norris and Bradlee Dean. -
Re the other blog: he's fixed it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-accommodates-religious-groups-with-change-to-birth-control-rule-20120210,0,6245831.story -
jman99: Not all are dancing with joy and doing cartwheels over Obama's "compromise."
See: http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/10/politics/contraception-controversy/index.html
From the link I cite:
"But conservative Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, insisted the revised rule still violates the Constitution.
"This ObamaCare rule still tramples on Americans' First Amendment right to freedom of religion," Jordan said in a written statement. "It's a fig leaf, not a compromise. Whether they are affiliated with a church or not, employers will still be forced to pay an insurance company for coverage that includes abortion-inducing drugs."
Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, said the revised rule "simply pretends to shift costs away from religious employers, but it doesn't fix the problem and is another call for individuals and institutions to compromise on principle."
Upton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said Friday's decision guarantees congressional action on the matter.
"The Constitution does not compromise; those rights are inalienable and cannot be bartered away for political expediency and convenience," he said. "The administration has simply reaffirmed that congressional action to permanently reverse this mandate is necessary."
Obama got big-time push-back. He didn't work with Catholics or others. He heard the outcry (although knowing the way Obama operates, he probably expected it and was laughing about it). Obama went waaaaay out there, and even after getting push-back, he still gets taxpayers to fund abortions - the goal all along. Now we need to undo Obamacare before its too late. -
Now back on topic, any surprise that former Chief Counsel for the ACLU, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, sees very little redeeming qualities in the United States Constitution? The very Constitution that, as a Supreme Court Justice, she is supposed to defend?
Sorry, folks, but what Ginsberg said on Egyptian television should give everyone pause. She cannot endorse the United States Constitution as a classic example of how to build a foundation for Democracy to others? This is a perfect example of why looney lefties should not be sitting on the highest court in the land. They don't like America - they don't like the foundation upon which America was built - and they don't care who they announce it to.
Ginsberg is an embarrassement.
What is very chilling in all of this are two things:
1) The mainstream media has pretty much glossed over Ginsberg's comments.
2) Most aren't surprised in the least by such comments coming from a liberal leftie. In fact, after reading some of the comments from the usual suspects here, we get yet another dose of "America bashing" and agreements on what Ginsberg said.
From jman99: "the US Constitution was and article of its times. Times have changed."
And GeorgdubyBush: "Of course it's flawed. If it was indeed a perfect document it wouldn't have required repairing (amending) twenty six times."
So if the libs want to applaud and cheer Ginsberg, go ahead. Maybe ring some cowbells, sing songs, and play bongos ala the Capitol kooks in Madison. The rest of us will continue to put up a fight against liberalism before our country is totally destroyed from within. -
GDB: What lefties have a problem with women killing their babies? After all, lefties are all for "women's rights" (although if a baby that is aborted is female, what about "womens rights" then?) They deem such under the term: pro-choice (sounds really nice, supportive, and friendly - when in reality we should call it what it is: pro-abortion.)
-
"Maybe ring some cowbells"
More cowbell. Always more cowbell. -
Yup ring those bells:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kebhBIoTb50 -
jmann...your anti-American rhetoric, that has been going on for years at this blog site, doesn't' surprise me one bit. You can't see or understand the magnitude of what the ultra liberal Ginsberg said nor how wrong she is. That's because you, like Ginsy and Obama, don't respect our country or our Constitution like most Americans do. I'm not saying what you posted is all wrong. History knows only one side: the truth. And history has shown the world that even with our flaws, America is still the best, bravest, and freest country on earth. Two hundred years ago and for 200 more. That's the point of what is in this blog. Not some liberal hardballer's ideology about America and our Constitution.
-
How can pointing out American history possibly be anti American?
I don't think you understand Egypt at all and you have no clue what so ever as to why transplanting a document as flawed as the American constitution would would not work for that country? Are you going to sell a man a pig when he really wants and needs a cow?
Answer this: If Israel is America's best friend and largest benefactor of American aid, why did Israels constitution not based on the US Constitution?
http://www.jcpa.org/dje/articles/const-intro-93.htm
Really Hayett you and Hemmer are so far out of you depth here in you partisan right wing life raft on the ocean of international affairs, trying to figure out which one of you should be holding the anvil, it is not even funny.
No it is funny, I stand corrected. -
jman your point is a little weird. In your eyes two people can only be friends if their
insides come from the same parents. They are their own country. So are we , but
for some reason you want us to be like another country. Why ? As for trying to make
other countries like ours . Why not ? As Hemmer has pointed out we are the gold
standard !! -
"In your eyes two people can only be friends if their
insides come from the same parents. "
No, that's Hemmer's point. -
Oh my goodness. Jman99 takes the liberal first place with "transplanting a document as flawed as the American constitution." As FLAWED??? I disagree. The founders of the constitution were extremely insightful and created a document that is the very foundation of our country.
Sure, we have "amendments" - but I don't think amendments were "repairs" as GDB said. I think amendments are more updates to deal with the realities of situations that were not present or understood two hundred-plus years ago. For all of its so-called "flaws" the Constitution allows our country the freedoms and the checks and balances (so despised by Obama) that we need.
And GBD: This blog is not about the Wisconsin state budget and if it is balanced or not. I think many need to reserve their rush to judgement on whether or not first of all this is true and secondly, what Scott Walker will do to address it. Imagine if Doyle was still Governor - the shell game/pyramid scheme would still be continuing, and taxpayers would be funding 100% of public union employee benefits (as well as providing for their own personal health care/savings for the future (since very few in the private sector even HAVE pensions or retirement bennies).
Funny how a real barrage of non-stop anti-Walker stories are being printed in the Urinal/Sentinel thesedays. The "unbiased" journalists (I use that term very loosely) cannot stop with the anti-Walker stories. 24-7. Expect them to keep it up, especially with a possible recall election on the horizon. And isn't it interesting how low Kathleen Falk will go to become beholden to do the unions's bidding? Why does the word "disgusting" always come to mind when I think about liberals and how they are behaving in our state??? -
"The founders of the constitution were extremely insightful and created a document that is the very foundation of our country. "
Yes, but Egypt is not a mix of colonial Europeans looking to get away from a parliamentary form of government run by a monarch. They are one of the oldest civilizations on the face of the earth. Every Egyptian has more political history in there genes than any American could ever hope to have. Heck even Christ took his first steps there.
Gosh, you really are from Wisconsin. -
jman99: Isn't it a bit ironic that so many middle eastern countries - that have existed long before the United States, are still stuck in the stone age? Look at Iraq or Iran - or even Egypt. Mud houses. Lack of plumbing. Lack of electricity. Real, true poverty (unlike the United States, where even the poor have cell phones, cars, designer clothes, and hi-def televisions.)
My goodness, look at the "palatial" estate that Osama Bin Laden was hiding in when he was killed. Third world country. No advances or progress of which to speak. Compare such to the United States - the leader in progress and cutting edge technology. We don't have the health issues nor severe poverty found in places like Iraq, Egypt, or Africa or many other places around the globe. The United States, up until Obama became president, prided itself upon it's accomplishments and contributions to the world. We WERE the shining city upon the hill. Yet, Obama wants us more to be like other countries. Take us down a notch or two, because, well, because it just isn'[t fair!!!! WHY?
Why shouldn't we strive to be the best - as we have been in the past? If we continue to strive to be mediocre, we will all be in the same miserable boat. And that is what Obama and the socialists want. Everyone equally miserable with the government in charge of every aspect of our lives. Obamacare IS the tipping point. And sentiments like Ginsbergs only add to the trashing of the United States. -
Before you criticize Justice Ginsberg's comments, have you actually read the South African Constitution? It draws very heavily on the US model, but upgrades it into the 20th century. Our Constitution requires a great deal of interpretation, because it is written in such ambiguous and general language. We still are having discussions/debates over what the official language should be. The South African Constitution lists the official languages. The justice's comment indicate that rather than being against the US Constitution, as you intimate, she has continued to study the underlying reasons for producing a Constitution that addresses, definitely, the issues need to be addressed.
-
"We don't have the health issues nor severe poverty found in places like Iraq..."
Well lets be truthful here we bombed the crap out of their infrastructure and our goal was to "send them back to the stone age"
Like I said, the best of Conservative comedy lives here.
"Look at Iraq or Iran - or even Egypt. Mud houses. Lack of plumbing. Lack of electricity." I see you have not vacation in the deep of the Ozarks either. or for that matter on a lot of Indian reservations.
Real poverty? Poverty is relative, not absolute. Compare to HRH Liz, you are a beggar in rags. But I digress. Materialism is not a measure of wealth, and the lack of material things is not a measure of poverty. Both are measures of consumption and nothing else. What has driven the USA for the past five decades is consumption. Right now the population is aging and the baby-boom that fueled that consumption is doing what old people do: they consume less and spend less, so what America needs is for A) and influx of young people who will fuel consumption so that the level of economic activity increases or, B) have American business get off its soft back side and start selling a new set of consumer goods to the rest of the world while paying sufficient wages and taxes to support all of the people in the USA. (American business is loathed to do this).
I've yet to see any evidence that you excel at anything Hemmer, other than belly aching over non issues. If you and Hayett are a finest example of the population of the "shining City on the Hill" we are all in deep do-do. I see no world class stuff from either of you.
What new goods have you two developed over the past year? What countries have you marketed them to to capture foreign exchange? -
Your correct Ref, but only for now. The beauty of our constitution is it's reliance on
wisdom, faith in the human spirit, ideals that are timeless but open to interpretation
on a continuous basis.
Ginsberg is the type of justice that goes right to surrender instead of digging
intellectually deeper and composing a compelling argument that persuades. She is
the laziest member on the court.
We encourage your comments but will strive to remove discussion that contains personal attacks, racial slurs, profanity or other inappropriate material as outlined in our guidelines. We post-moderate comments on most content, but may choose to pre-moderate some comments so please be patient if you don't see yours appear right way. We also ask for your help by reporting comments you think are inappropriate.
- Rain: "Hold my umbrella" - Benghazi: "Stand Down" (105)
- Does the truth matter anymore? (265)
- "My kind of town, Chicago is" (262)
- Two words we must not utter: radical Islam!!! (314)
- Boston Massacre (279)
- What's missing? (308)
- Just in time for Easter... (232)
- The definition of "fair" according to Obama (127)
- Why I Do Not Like The Obamas (207)
- Just a few observations... (311)
- More It's Hemmer Time posts
Politics
On August 10, 1993, President Bill Clinton's appointee Ruth Bader Ginsberg took the following oath prior to serving on the United States Supreme Court:
"I, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as Supreme Court Justice under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." (Title 28, Chapter 1, Part 453 of the United States Code)
With this in mind, Justice Ginsberg was recently in Egypt, where she appeared on Egyptian television station Al Hayat. Given all the turmoil and unrest in Egypt, which has seen the Islamist group the Muslim Brotherhood, come to power, Ginsberg offered up some shocking and disheartening advice to the country which is in the process of developing its own constitution.
Specifically, Justice Ginsberg offered up these words of wisdom:
"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. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done."
Now, keep in mind that Ginsburg did not entirely bash the U.S. Constitution - the very document that is the foundation upon what our great nation was built. She did send a few compliments towards her own country's constitution, saying "we have the oldest written constitution force still in the world, and it starts out with three words - "we the people." Ginsberg added that the "separation of powers" and the concept of "checks and balances" were good aspects of the document, as well as the fact that the salaries of the independent judiciary cannot be diminished if it rules that a law enacted by Congress is deemed unconstitutional.
After her brief mention of what Ginsberg saw as the few highlights of the United States Constitution, she went on to suggest what Egypt should consider when drafting it's own. Of course she discouraged looking to the United States Constitution as a guide. Instead, aside from the previously referenced Constitution of South Africa, Ginsberg also mentioned the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the European Convention on Human Rights.
Here is Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg on Al Hayat:
Ginsberg is well-known for her ultra-liberal stance on issues, and her anti-American/anti-U.S. Constitution observations mimic those of President Barack Obama. Both seem to think the United States and its own constitution, are flawed. They both agree that we must look to other countries and try to emulate them, as well as encourage other countries to do the same. WHY?
Remember how the left always wants to make the U.S. Constitution a "living document" - meaning they want to change it to fit their own agenda. All of a sudden, with Obama in power, and ultra-leftie Ginsberg out in Egypt backslapping the very Constitution upon what our freedoms and rights are founded upon, the U.S. Constitution just isn't good enough. We need to emulate other countries!
(Several questions need to be asked here: Why shouldn't other countries emulate us??? Aren't we the land of the free? the home of the brave? Obviously, with a severe illegal immigration problem that the United States has been dealing with for decades, not all share the disdain that Obama and the likes of Ginsberg have for their own country and the document upon which our freedoms are based. Are Americans fleeing the country in droves to escape our way of life? Do Americans really want to rip up the Constitution and have a do-over?)
And since when has the Constitution of the United States been considered to be "a document frozen in time" as Ginsberg stated? President Obama has often mentioned how the Constitution is a real "roadblock" to him being able to enact everything he wants to do (thank God for that!!!).
In conclusion, something is really wrong and should not sit well with the American people when we have a Supreme Court justice traveling to Egypt and telling the Egyptian people - don't look to the U.S. Constitution - the document representing the supreme law of the United States - for guidance when you are developing your own constitution. It just isn't good enough. South Africa's is better. Canada's is better. The European version is better. What is truly disturbing is that these sentiments are being expressed by a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice.
Maybe when Obama stops campaigning long enough to travel overseas, he can now echo Ginsberg's sentiments and, aside from apologizing for our country, start criticizing the U.S. Constitution, too.
Wouldn't surprise me in the least.