Skip to comments.Justice Ginsburg to Egyptians: Look to the Constitutions of South Africa or Canada, Not to the US ..
Posted on 02/02/2012 3:30:12 PM PST by DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis
Following are excerpts from an interview with US Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, which aired on Al-Hayat TV on January 30, 2012.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg: It is a very inspiring time - that you have overthrown a dictator, and that you are striving to achieve a genuine democracy. So I think people in the United States are hoping that this transition will work, and that there will genuinely be a government of, by, and for the people.
I met with the head of the elections commission. I think that the first step has gone well, and that elections have been held for the lower house that everyone has considered to be free and fair. So that's one milestone, and the next will be the drafting of a constitution.
I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I'm operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.
Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don't care, then the best constitution in the world won't make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution - first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor.
You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US 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, had an independent judiciary... It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?
VIdeo at link
Disgusting, offensive liberal hag of a shrew. What a sack of puss-filled waste.
Guess I would feel that way too if I had my own security detail, pretty cush digs and hands down the absolute best healthcare on the planet. That all comes from Government, right?
When does the America hating rise to an Impeachable offense?
Unbelieveable. We have a supreme court justice who thinks our constituion that she is sworn to uphold is flawed. I am so disturbed by what is going on in our country. I have to admit that I’m addicted to Glenn Beck. He is downright scary with his predictions for what is coming. I’m so depressed by what has happended to our once great country.
“yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.”
Hey, bit%h, maybe that’s because it worked until socialists like you set out to destroy it.
One thing is for sure. She does not look at the US Constitution when she makes her decisions.
Such a sweet, gentle little lady. Everyone’s grandmother, right?
Ginsburg will vote in favor of Obamacare, the enabling slave act of these United States. Once this monstrosity is put into effect, our republic is over.
Ginsburg and her fellow Marxists should fear a President Newt.
So she woke up? Usually, she’s asleep.
SHe doesn’t look to our constitution when she makes rulings in our own country.
I know the lawyers will not think the actual words of the constitution mean much... but here it is any way.
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior”
I would say giving advice of foreign powers that the US has a poor out dated constitution would qualify as not being a “good Behavior”
No doubt Ruthy focused like a laser on the burning tire part!
Never did she imagine she'd be the one being necklaced ~
If she had added that her reasoning was based on the fact that the US no longer has two functioning political parties - she would be correct.
We have a Congress that no longer represents the people - it just pretends to - by offering up candidates from One Party.....Democrats and Democrats Lite.
From Madison’s journal of the Constitutional Convention it is clear our Framers thought impeachment of Presidents, Judges, and other Officers would not be infrequent.
Newt has put the blackrobes on notice that he would support legislation that prevents them from considering foreign garbage.
what the hell...impeach the *itch!
I remember a couple of years ago Bill O’Reilly was saying to Megan Kelly that Ginsburg doesn’t like the Constitution, and she was telling O’Reilly that he was wrong. O’Reilly was correct.
When I read the U.S. Constitution, I see a document that was crafted by competent adults engaged in various productive endeavors -- traders, plantation owners, land surveyors, etc.
When Ruth Bader Ginsberg suggests that this is not a good model for a constitution, what she's really saying is that a nation's constitution should be written by useless lawyers and bureaucrats.
I am highly offended by this. She should be removed NOW. Dead serious. Removed NOW.
Don’t be surprised if this worthless piece of flesh bows out in the next couple of months so the Communist in Chief can replace her in like kind. No way she makes it another 4 years with a Republican in office.
She is sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” so she should be impeached.
Agree. For some reason the firing of federal officials has gotten a bad name.
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
The overwhelming majority of democratic countries use a parliamentary system that has a separate head of state and head of government. Very few use our idea of combining the two. That would make Canada a model constitution for a country wanting a parliamentary democracy.
Our Constitution has to be interpreted in light of English constitutional and common law as it existed at the Founding. Otherwise, how do you understand the meaning of "due process of law"? But very few countries have a common law system.
We have a federal system that at least theoretically has a federal government with limited powers. Most countries are geographically smaller and want a stronger central government.
Senile bit** should be impeached.
Funny thing, she even LOOKS like a Communist.
I guess this nitwit hasn't picked up any hints as to what the real intent of, or the real spirit of the Egyptian Muslims is as indicated by the 2/3 of the vote won by the Muslim Brotherhood and the even more fundamentalist Salafist.
And this creature is on our SCOTUS.
Nothing wrong with getting sicker for 12 months.
The dodo headed Democrat voters elect the liberal politicians who put these snakes on the bench.
Very bad idea (before 2013, anyway).
Not just flawed -- but useless and hopelessly out-of-date. Not worth being used as a model.
A disturbing look into the mind of a liberal.
Remember how much good the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms did for Mark Steyn and his right of "free speech" and his publisher's "right to publish"?
The 85 essays by Madison, Hamilton and Jay, commonly known as THE FEDERALIST, were, and are, the best expositions of the principles underlying our written Constitution which, as she pointed out has lasted for over 200 years.
One would think that a United States Supreme Court Justice speaking to a group from any country in the world might point to those essays as guides to constitution writing for a people who wish to live in liberty.
“Damn old shank needs to move on to that place beside Joe in hell.”
But she needs to hang on until after the election so we have a chance ( and only a chance given the RINOs in the Senate) to get a decent, constitutionalist as our replacement Justice. This old hag came from a position of leadership at the ACLU. My guess is that she rode her broom over to the SCOTUS.
You know it will never happen, die maybe.
Justice Ginsburg visits mark Arab Spring uprisings (Egypt and Tunesia)
Hopefully, not any time soon.
Justice Scalia counts her as his best friend on the Court:
I consider myself a good friend of every one of my colleagues, both past and present, Scalia told Laura [Ingraham]. Some more than others. My best friend on the Court is and has been for many years, Ruth Ginsburg. Her basic approach is not mine, but shes a lovely person and a good loyal friend.
It's certainly true that our Constitution was designed for a federalist system of distributed powers between numerous states with their own regionally divergent concerns, not a unitary nation with a single central government where the divisions are ideological, not geographic.
Our American winner-take-all system of districts in an Egyptian context would likely result in virtually no members of the Coptic Christian minority being elected, and in many districts the most radical type of Islamic radicals would get a plurality though not always an absolute majority of the vote.
Proportional representation by political party in a parliamentary system without a strong executive works well in nations where the divisions are ideological or ethnic rather than primarily geographical, and a good case can be made that a parliamentary system of proportional representation has become the majority form of democratic governance in the world because the political fault lines in most nations are no longer based primarily on geography, though geography may be important.
There's also the issue raised by several other Freepers that the founders of the United States had centuries of common law behind them and about a century and a half of self-government as British colonies. A constitution of a nation with little experience in self-rule needs to be far more detailed because nothing can be assumed if it's not in writing.
Quite likely even having things in writing won't help if people aren't deeply committed to the rule of law. Anglo-American jurisprudence had the question of “Lex Rex” — the law is king, not the king is the law — settled by the English Civil War a century before the founding of the United States. That simply is not an unquestioned principle in the Middle East, where strongmen are the norm and laws have only the force the leaders choose to give them.
Let's grant all that. However, what Justice Ginsberg actually said was none of those things, but rather that our Constitution was outdated.
Now maybe she meant something else and was trying to imply things to avoid offending her hosts, but what she said was not good, and quite likely indicates a seriously defective view of the document she's supposed to be using as the basis of her Supreme Court decisions.
Thanks for your comments. My general rule of thumb is that if Justice Ginsburg’s name is on an opinion, it probably got the answer wrong.
Ginsburg is Ginsburg, and she ain’t no Woo Woo Ginsburg, that’s fer shore, but how is our purrfect Constitution working out when it comes to the Natural Born Citizenship requirement for the POTUS? Don’t get me started, but this forum is always full of complaints about what can only be interpreted as shortcomings of the Constitution, and how easily it is disregarded, bypassed. We could do a little better, couldn’t we?
Calls for her immediate resignation will fill the media in 5, 4, 3...
The South African constitution, promulgated by Nelson Mandela, came into effect on February 4, 1997. Unlike our outdated old relic, it is one of the most progressive constitutions in the world and basically enshrines some of the libs loftiest dream goals for America. Im sure some of Ginsbergs favorite parts include these:
* A Commission for Gender Equality is explicitly established in the constitution.
* A Broadcasting Authority is established to regulate broadcasting and to ensure fairness and a diversity of views.
* The Bill Of Rights includes the right to equality, prohibiting discrimination on the basis of many things including sexual orientation, marital status, disability, language, age, etc.
* It also includes the right to life, which has been held to prohibit capital punishment, but not prohibit abortion.
* It explicitly includes reproductive rights. Everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right to make decisions concerning reproduction.
* It permits freedom of speech and expression, but hate speech and war propaganda are explicitly excluded.
* Everyone has the right to assemble, peacefully and unarmed.
* Includes womens suffrage.
* Prohibits depriving anyone of citizenship.
* Includes the right to choose a trade, occupation or profession, though these may be regulated by law.
* Includes the right to unionize and the right to strike. Every trade union has the explicit right to engage in collective bargaining.
* Includes the right to a healthy environment and the right to have the environment protected.
* Includes the rights to food, water, health care (including reproductive health care) and social assistance, which the state must progressively realize within the limits of its resources: The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights.
* Childrens rights include the right to a name and nationality from birth, the right to family or parental care, the right to a basic standard of living, the right to be protected from maltreatment and abuse, the protection from child labor, the right not to be detained except as a last resort, the paramountcy of the best interests of the child and the right to an independent lawyer in court cases involving the child, and the prohibition of the military use of children.
* Includes a universal right to education, which the state must make progressively available and accessible.
* Includes the right to use the language of ones choice and to participate in the cultural life of ones choice.
* When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum must consider international law; and may consider foreign law.
Didn’t she take an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution?
Is this grounds for impeachment?
In the liberal worldview, both the oath and the Constitution itself are outdated and subordinate to the intellectual ability of liberal intellectuals alive and making decisions today.
There is no “contradiction” in her mind or in the minds of liberals, that she would take the oath to attain the position to subordinate the very concept she swore an oath to uphold. We’ve got Utopia to form, donchaknow?
The SCARIEST thing about this is not that this witch actually SAID it - we surmised as much before.
NO. The SCARIST thing about it is so many Americans simply don’t give a damn. Even here in this forum. This article should have generated THOUSANDS of postings.
When Americans send their elected officials the message they simply DON’T care what they do, this re-inforces their opinion that THEY know better than US and they can damn well do anything they want about THEIR country and THEIR government.
The nation and the government belongs to us. But if we haven’t got the testacles to take it back, they will run away with it.