PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg To The Egyptians.....



MMC
02-08-2012, 02:10 PM
As Egyptian officials prepare to send to trial 19 American democracy and rights workers, Supreme Court (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/supreme-court.htm#r_src=ramp) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg.htm#r_src=ramp) visited Cairo last week where she suggested Egyptian revolutionaries not use the U.S. Constitution as a model in the post-Arab Spring.

"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vzog2QWiVaA) last Wednesday. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa (http://www.foxnews.com/topics/south-africa.htm#r_src=ramp). 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."

She then pointed not only to South Africa's constitution, but to Canada's 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights.

"Why not take advantage of what is else there in the world? I'm a very strong believer in listening and learning from others," Ginsburg added.

Indeed, Ginsburg's comments are not foreign to her overall philosophy. The justice has previously stated that she weighs foreign law as well as U.S. law when forming a legal opinion.

"The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification," Ginsburg told an audience at the American Society of International Law in April 2005.....snip~

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/06/ginsburg-to-egyptians-wouldnt-use-us-constitution-as-model/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep30D2z1px8

What the hell? Clinton picked this bag of Wind didn't he? How can we leave someone like this on the Supreme Court. She looks to Foreign law? WTF is that all about. D will love the part about South Africa. Still why is she even traveling anywheres out the Country and trying to get involved in Egyptian Politics? this is absolutely ridiculous. Now SC Judges going overseas to speak to people. Catch them some of that New Democracy that they so Advocate for. :angry:

Mister D
02-08-2012, 02:18 PM
Yeah, I'm sure the Egyptians will be sure to appreciate the advice of an American Jew. :rollseyes:

MMC
02-08-2012, 02:24 PM
I am sure the MB will want to learn all they can. Can't we come up with anything to remove these people from their cozy little spots.

Conley
02-08-2012, 02:24 PM
Well maybe the Egyptians will throw her in jail too. It seems to be open season on Americans over there.

Chris
02-08-2012, 02:25 PM
Posted that on another forum, FFA (http://w11.zetaboards.com/The_FreeForAll/index/), where it was pointed out that she swore an oath to support and defend the US Constitution and that this rejection is impeachable.

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

MMC
02-08-2012, 02:27 PM
If she thinks South Africa is so great.....why don't she take her azz there to live and save us the time and effort to get her removed from office.

MMC
02-08-2012, 02:29 PM
Post that on another forum, FFA (http://w11.zetaboards.com/The_FreeForAll/index/), where it was pointed out that she swore an oath to support and defend the US Constitution and that this rejection is impeachable.

I, (name), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

I do believe you are right there Chris. One would think she could be impeached!

Chris
02-08-2012, 07:15 PM
21

Conley
02-08-2012, 07:31 PM
:rofl:

wingrider
02-09-2012, 12:16 AM
I love the caption Chris..

is A the correct answer? LOL

MMC
02-09-2012, 07:28 AM
Ginsburg, whose job on the Supreme Court is to uphold the U.S. Constitution, has a curious but sadly widespread disdain for that document. A recent New York Times article suggested (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/us/we-the-people-loses-appeal-with-people-around-the-world.html?_r=2&partner=MYWAY&ei=5065) the American Constitution is losing its allure around the world. The main reason is it does not guarantee the right to, among other things, food, health care and education.

In other words, Ginsberg and others on the left feel the Constitution is slanted too much toward preventing the government from doing things -- like putting people in jail without due process -- and not toward requiring the government to do things -- like providing people with a whole array of social services that liberals believe it should.

Of course the right to food, health care and education has to be paid for, meaning people will be deprived of their property for that purpose.

Liberals complain the U.S. Constitution is hard to amend, which is why they like to rely on creative interpretations of a document they regard as "living." Sadly, it is even more difficult to impeach a sitting Supreme Court justice such as Ginsburg, even one who has so flagrantly trashed the Constitution that she is sworn to protect and defend.

http://news.yahoo.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-trashes-constitution-she-impeached-232200921.html
<<<<< More Here!

This is not from a Newsource and is a commentary on Ginsburg. But this piece is so Dead-On, and it does bring up that fact of how difficult it is to Impeach a SC Judge. Why is this so? Why can we not use Social Media Services to take people Like Ginsburg down. (Politicans, and Celbs included) Should people be all on the News media to make impeachment at the very least possible.

Bring forth the charges and see if Ginsburg folds to the pressure of the Media, the American People, and More importantly the American Will.

MMC
02-09-2012, 03:00 PM
Liberals complain the U.S. Constitution is hard to amend, which is why they like to rely on creative interpretations of a document they regard as "living." Sadly, it is even more difficult to impeach a sitting Supreme Court justice such as Ginsburg, even one who has so flagrantly trashed the Constitution that she is sworn to protect and defend.....snip~

Again.....why is it so difficult to Impeach a SC Judge?

CoLibertarian
02-10-2012, 08:55 PM
I think Ginsberg was absolutely correct (although not for the reasons she thinks). I feel our constitution has been so abused that it no longer represents what it once did. If I were to make a new constitution, I would use the old one as a guide, but obviously it does not limit the powers of government nearly enough.

CoLibertarian
02-10-2012, 08:57 PM
Liberals are not the only ones that like to use creative interpretations of the Constitution. Who was it that pushed the Patriot Act again?

Mister D
02-10-2012, 09:00 PM
I'm heading to bed soon but I want to say thanks for stopping in, CoLib. :smiley:

Conley
02-10-2012, 09:01 PM
I think Ginsberg was absolutely correct (although not for the reasons she thinks). I feel our constitution has been so abused that it no longer represents what it once did. If I were to make a new constitution, I would use the old one as a guide, but obviously it does not limit the powers of government nearly enough.

Good to see you Az! (as I once knew you :grin:)

I hear what you're saying. The Constitution, much like the Bible has been twisted many times in an effort to support whatever the speaker's agenda is. I don't know that the old one didn't limit the powers of government enough, I would say that later generations just ignored what always used to be fairly obvious.

Conley
02-10-2012, 09:01 PM
I'm heading to bed soon but I want to say thanks for stopping in, CoLib. :smiley:

What kind of sadsack goes to bed at 10 on a Friday night? :grin:

Mister D
02-10-2012, 09:03 PM
What kind of sadsack goes to bed at 10 on a Friday night? :grin:

The kind that goes to happy hour. :wink:

Conley
02-10-2012, 09:05 PM
If a few beers at 5pm are enough to knock you out then I feel badly for you son.



(hat tip to Grumpy)

CoLibertarian
02-10-2012, 09:06 PM
No worries D,

We will see how long I last. I am in a political mood lately because of various reasons so your invite hit me at a good time. Nice to hear from you (and see so many of the others) BTW.

Mister D
02-10-2012, 09:07 PM
All this criticism is making me sleepy, Conley. :undecided:

Mister D
02-10-2012, 09:09 PM
No worries D,

We will see how long I last. I am in a political mood lately because of various reasons so your invite hit me at a good time. Nice to hear from you (and see so many of the others) BTW.

Very happy to hear from you! I remember that you are a cyclical kind of member. JUst remember us when you are in the mood to discuss politics etc.

Peter1469
02-11-2012, 03:24 PM
I of course would not look at the common view of our Constitution today, and I when I refer to the Constitution, I am not referring to that; I am referring to what our Founders gave us- the philosophy of a federal government with limited and enumerated powers- and those limited powers are split between 3 co-equal branches.

CoLibertarian
02-11-2012, 09:13 PM
I of course would not look at the common view of our Constitution today, and I when I refer to the Constitution, I am not referring to that; I am referring to what our Founders gave us- the philosophy of a federal government with limited and enumerated powers- and those limited powers are split between 3 co-equal branches.

I am not a fan of democracy, but I do not know of a better system. The idea of a representative democracy is flawed though in my mind as it too easily leads to the betrayal of those that elect, for the wishes of those that help get elected.