Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg to Egypt, “Don’t Model Your Constitution After the Outdated US Constitution”

by lewwaters

I find it absolutely appalling that such a person as Ruth Bader Ginsberg remains sitting on the Supreme Court with her obvious disdain for our constitution. In a recent televised Alhayat TV interview in Egypt, on their writing of a new constitution, she clearly says, “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.”

Full length Egyptian interview here

Labeling the United States Constitution as “rather old,” she seems to feel our constitution is the “oldest written constitution still in force around the world,” as if it was outdated and restricting what she would like to see done in the country.

Her recommendation of Egypt should model their constitution after South Africa’s new constitution is frightening as South Africa is the number one nation for murders by firearms and Justice Ginsberg is a strong advocate for gun control.

In spite of efforts begun in 2004 to regulate guns, South Africa retains a very high murder rate.

She expresses hopes that there “genuinely will be a government of, by and for the people” in Egypt. Yet, we read of recent Islamic gains in the elections there are imposing Sharia Law largely acknowledged as degrading and demeaning to women and her embracing of the South African constitution over that of the United States is perplexing as South African Women are still having to struggle for gender equality under what Justice Ginsberg believes to be a “model constitution” in force now for over 15 years.

It should be remembered that Justice Ginsberg, prior to being nominated to the Supreme Court by President Clinton in 1993 was an advocate for gender equality and actually praised the U.S. Constitution saying, “we were just tremendously fortunate in the U.S. that the men that met in Philadelphia were very wise. But it’s true that they were lacking one thing, that is there were no women as part of the Constitutional Convention, but there were women around who sparked the idea.”

But now, she advocates for a system degrading to women in Egypt and recommends following the constitution of the country with the highest firearms murder rate in the world?

She says people must be yearning for liberty and freedom, but isn’t that exactly what the US Constitution was patterned after and gave unprecedented freedom and liberty to the people, never before seen in the history of the world?

Yet she now says that notion is too old and not up to date compared to other countries that still do not have the freedoms and liberties Americans enjoy?

It is very troubling that a United States Supreme Court Justice holds such views on our constitution and remains sitting on the bench.

14 Responses to “Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg to Egypt, “Don’t Model Your Constitution After the Outdated US Constitution””

  1. What an evil, old piece of shit.

    Like

  2. As is often said the Communist, Marxist and all around bad guys and women will and are going to destroy us from within unless we get them out of their “Cushioned Seats of Auhority”. She is just one of the more outspoken evil leaders of the Anti-American Pack that has invaded not only nations Capitol but legislators at all levels of Government. . If I really wrote what I thought about her and them, you would have to burn the paper before reading.

    It is imperative that we start by voting them and their leader ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ out of office. Giving him and them another 4 years to appoint more anti-America justices or make more unconstitutional rules and regulations will surely spell doom for us, our kids, grandkids and greatgrandkids.

    And so it goes,

    Larry Patella

    Like

  3. I’m happy to pay for her one-way plane ticket to South Africa. This is incredibly sad; for, if she truly feels this way we cannot entrust her to uphold the laws and principles our Constitution sets forth.

    Like

  4. Even though I almost never agreed with Ginsburg on anything, I agree with her on this. The U.S. Constitution was the 1st, and it was flawed. (Blacks equivalent to 2/3rds of a White; women can’t vote; Vice President is 2nd place winner; Senators not selected democratically; etc.) Even in the beginning, the Amendments were a sign of this. (They were added to “fix” it.) Over the years it’s gotten better, and sometimes worse (prohibition).

    But, hey, I’m still a believer. Our republican form might be a bit dated, and economics, science, and law have certainly advanced beyond what John Lock (the philosopher who’s ideas were incorporated into the Constitution) was thinking, but mostly the new Amendments have kept up until now.

    I’d still die for our Constitution.

    Like

  5. Article 3; Section 1, of the U.S. Constitution provides that judges of the Supreme Court and of the inferior courts shall hold their offices during “good behaviour.”.

    She has failed the good behaviour standard and ought to be impeached. I won’t try to hold my breath until it happens.

    Like

  6. Oh my god. What does it say when a supreme court judge doesn’t support our nations constitution. No and No again. Any, elected, appointed person who openly suggests our countries constitution is obsolete, bad or outdated should be run out of office. Our constitution is the model for which other countries citiizens only wish they had. Our countries constitution protects its rights of citizens first. It puts the elite elected appointed ones on the back burner where they belong. My god what a nut case in Ginsberg….go somewhere else where you can live such a grand lifestyle on the backs of its citizens. Wow. And these people are making decisions affecting everyone, life and death, monetarily. If you hate America so bad go somewhere else and lets see how well you do there with your freedom of speech. Freedom of religion. Let me know how it works out for ya.

    Like

  7. A very good comment from Victoria Taft’s blog on this same subject, from “Mike.”

    Mike Feb 5, 2012 09:59 PM

    Hi guys,

    I took a look at the South African Constitution. A few points of note:

    “May God protect the people” She must have missed that part.

    “Every citizen has the right to leave the Republic”.

    “Property may be expropriated…for a public purpose or in the interest of the people”

    No trial by a jury of your peers.

    There is no direct election of the President, it is done by the members of the National Assembly. The President of the Constitutional Court decides who is eligible to be elected and the timing of elections.

    A president may be removed from office in a “vote of no confidence” by a majority of the national assembly.

    Their constitution recognizes 11 official languages and guarantees equity for all….”within available means”.

    One feature I am intrigued by is that a bill passed by the national assembly can be referred to the constitutional court by the president for a ruling on its constitutionality prior to the president signing it.

    I’m not sure why Justice Ginsburg is so enamored with the South African constitution unless it empowers or gives “positive rights” to government. The US constitution is unique in the world limits government, not citizens. In her model, the government can impose its will of the wishes of the citizenry..those pesky voters.

    I don’t what values of a 21st Century democracy unknown is talking about, but I doubt there is little that the rest of the world can teach us about this….oh yeah, free stuff.

    The South African constitution allows courts to consider foreign law, not so sure that’s such a great idea. For you pro abortion people, abortion is only legal in only 8, yes that’s right 8, countries. You saw the UN vote regarding Syria last week, is that how you want as a model. The UN declaration of Human Rights has all the same blather about rights and equity, but they are only words on paper unless those ideas are inculcated in the culture,like us. I don’t see the UN helping Syrians all that much.

    Perhaps you guys can tell me what foreign laws you might want to adopt from somewhere else? Sweden censors foreign movies for violence and monitors communcications ala the patriot act.

    Our constitution is a product of our history, culture, and ideals….the grass always looks greener somewhere else until its your property is expropriated…for someone else’s public interest. Egypt, South Africa, Libya, et all are free to determine their own destinies and formulate their own governments as they see fit. Without a history of respect for individual liberty, our system is not for them anyway.

    He took the time that even I didn’t to compare constitutions and I fail to see what Justice Ginsburg could possibly find superior in theirs, given ours grants unprecedented liberties to the people, not the government. No, it wasn’t perfect and many were considered not worthy of it in the beginning, but we were given a means by which to correct any shortcomings that has worked well.

    We cannot tolerate those in authority who only consider the very basis of our freedom and liberty when it suits them to deny us other liberties granted under the constitution.

    Like

  8. Don’t confuse differing political philosophies with a document. The U.S. Constitution makes “liberty” the primary goal, where liberty is defined as the rights of the individual over the rights of the group unless due process of law. Other cultures are socialist, where the rights of the group outweigh the wants of individuals. If you’re a “liberty” person, those other documents may seem inadequate.

    Where Ginsburg is wrong is that there aren’t any other “liberty” constitutions out there to copy from – only “social” ones.

    Like

  9. Additionally, it was only chance that America ended up with a “liberty” constitution. That would not have been possible if Blacks and women were able to vote at the time. Liberty, personal empowerment, is MUCH better for the advantaged. Which is good for me and you but not so appealing to a slave, either in chains or in the kitchen.

    Like

  10. Martin, that is a statement that none of us can make accurately. Attitudes were far different back then and many founders (not enough) argued against the institution of slavery.

    Forgotten in today’s revisionist history is that Blacks also owned slaves and even later, fought on the side of the confederacy.

    We cannot assign our thoughts and views of today to those of people nearly 300 years ago.

    Like

  11. Lew, wow, you’re sounding like a Liberal! That’s what I say to Constitutionalists.

    I LOVE the fact that America has a “liberty” constitution – it’s sure been good to me, and the world would be a boring place if everyone thought the same way. I’m just saying we were and are very lucky. There won’t be anymore modern day “liberty” constitutions.

    Like

  12. Martin, are you so sure that isn’t another one of our points that Liberal Democrats highjacked? 😉

    And I agree, there will never be another constitution that grants so much freedom and liberty to the people.

    I believe that is one of the major reasons we need to protect ours from activist judges.

    Like

Trackbacks

%d bloggers like this: