Archived Posts » 60,515,685
Justice Ginsburg to Egyptians: The US Constitution isn't that great, you shouldn't emulate it
2/6/2012 8:28:26 AM
Justice Ginsburg causes storm dissing the Constitution while abroad
By Alex Pappas Published: 12:40 AM 02/06/2012
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has caused a storm of controversy by saying in a television interview that the people of Egypt should not look to the United States Constitution when drafting their own governing document because it’s too old and there are newer examples from which to draw inspiration.
"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in the interview, which aired on Jan. 30 on Al-Hayat TV.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/06/justice-ginsburg-causes-storm-dissing-the-constitution-while-abroad/#ixzz1lbm8znPw
2/6/2012 8:31:14 AM
A traitor on the Supreme Court.
That's the kind of Supreme Court justice we can expect to be appointed if Obama remains in office.
That's the kind of Supreme Court justice we can expect to be appointed if Obama remains in office.
2/6/2012 8:31:22 AM
Last I checked, freedom had same definition 224 years ago 
She should be in a home, not on the bench
She should be in a home, not on the bench
2/6/2012 8:32:22 AM
Good thing the first amendment protects her right to shit on the Constitution.
2/6/2012 8:33:41 AM
Yeah, just google gun rights in S Africa. If she doesn't like our Constitution, GTFO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2/6/2012 8:33:59 AM
Doesn't saying this violate her oath? Doesn't the oath specifically say to support and defend the Constitution? That is clearly not supporting it.
2/6/2012 8:34:17 AM
Originally Posted By Shane333:
A traitor on the Supreme Court.
A traitor on the Supreme Court.
Not a real surprise, unfortunately.
2/6/2012 8:35:04 AM
What a fucking cunt
2/6/2012 8:39:35 AM
Senile dementia or just another liberal tiger showing its true stripes???
AV1611 out.......
AV1611 out.......
2/6/2012 8:39:57 AM
Originally Posted By scottedward58:
Doesn't saying this violate her oath? Doesn't the oath specifically say to support and defend the Constitution? That is clearly not supporting it.
Doesn't saying this violate her oath? Doesn't the oath specifically say to support and defend the Constitution? That is clearly not supporting it.
The Oath for Federal Justices is different...
"I, (NAME), 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 (TITLE) under the Constitution and
laws of the United States. So help me God."
2/6/2012 8:40:04 AM
CUNT
2/6/2012 8:41:27 AM
Never it has been so easy to spot a traitor
2/6/2012 8:44:54 AM
Beat by less than 5 minutes.
2/6/2012 8:45:09 AM
Die, you ancient socialist cunt.
2/6/2012 8:46:20 AM
doesnt she have cancer? I think she will retire soon anyway.
2/6/2012 8:47:50 AM
Why did the word "cunt" flash to my mind as I read that as well?
2/6/2012 8:48:46 AM
Originally Posted By Shane333:
A traitor on the Supreme Court.
That's the kind of Supreme Court justice we can expect to be appointed if Obama remains in office.
A traitor on the Supreme Court.
That's the kind of Supreme Court justice we can expect to be appointed if Obama remains in office.
This^
BigDozer66
2/6/2012 8:49:37 AM
Originally Posted By Chapman:
Last I checked, freedom had same definition 224 years ago
She should be in an Asylum home, not on the bench
Last I checked, freedom had same definition 224 years ago
She should be in an Asylum home, not on the bench
FIFY!
BigDozer66
2/6/2012 8:50:00 AM
You know what kills me is all of these liberals think we're onto something new or in some kind of new era that will make the whole world a better place.
This cycle we're in has been repeated hundreds if not thousands of times throughout history.
This cycle we're in has been repeated hundreds if not thousands of times throughout history.
2/6/2012 8:50:28 AM
I'm inclined to agree with her. ETA: The principles in the Constitution are good, but the execution is poor from a legal perspective.
The Commerce Clause is abused. The Ninth Amendment is essentially dead. Does enumerated power mean anything at all these days?
The Constitution was probably good immediately after it was drafted when people understood that you probably didn't NEED a Bill of Rights because Congress simply didn't have the power to ban guns or regulate speech.
As time went on, the idea of "rights" got twisted. It was no longer "what is left over where the government's enumerated powers end." Instead, government power became thought of as beginning where enumerated rights end.
Essentially, as of now, the Constitution doesn't seem clear enough.
And no, sadly, a plain meaning reading isn't good enough. People with good and bad intentions will always look for a way to get stuff done "Constitutionally."
2/6/2012 8:50:50 AM
Originally Posted By Swoosh101:
doesnt she have cancer? I think she will retire soon anyway.
doesnt she have cancer? I think she will retire soon anyway.
Then we will get someone as bad or worse and they will be there for decades.
BigDozer66
2/6/2012 8:54:44 AM
She'll probably off herself on 7 November if Obama loses, just so he can "continue the line" with another piece of shit left wing appointment.
2/6/2012 8:56:25 AM
Well now we all know where she stands on things.
2/6/2012 8:56:52 AM
Just to play devil's advocate, don't you guys think if you went back in time to 1787, you wouldn't have some advise for the founders on what to change to the constitution so 200 years later it wouldn't be so open to mis-interpritation?
I know I would advise them to add "individual right" to the 2nd amendment and to severely restrict the commerce clause and maybe put something in there about a balanced budget...
I don't think the constitution is perfect, but it was a radical document that set the groundwork for the greatest nation on Earth that has shaped history and allowed people to live their lives with the most freedom on this planet.
I know I would advise them to add "individual right" to the 2nd amendment and to severely restrict the commerce clause and maybe put something in there about a balanced budget...
I don't think the constitution is perfect, but it was a radical document that set the groundwork for the greatest nation on Earth that has shaped history and allowed people to live their lives with the most freedom on this planet.
2/6/2012 8:57:27 AM
Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
CUNT
CUNT
Some of my best friends have possessed those... Please don't sully it...
Try "skanky, herp-infested gash"... Conveys the same level of personal vitriol without denigrating my favorite snack food...
Justices serve under "good behavior". I would argue... this isn't "good behavior" by any measure.
2/6/2012 8:57:42 AM
Originally Posted By Thatdude333:
Just to play devil's advocate, don't you guys think if you went back in time to 1787, you wouldn't have some advise for the founders on what to change to the constitution so 200 years later it wouldn't be so open to mis-interpritation?
I know I would advise them to add "individual right" to the 2nd amendment and to severely restrict the commerce clause and maybe put something in there about a balanced budget...
I don't think the constitution is perfect, but it was a radical document that set the groundwork for the greatest nation on Earth that has shaped history and allowed people to live their lives with the most freedom on this planet.
Just to play devil's advocate, don't you guys think if you went back in time to 1787, you wouldn't have some advise for the founders on what to change to the constitution so 200 years later it wouldn't be so open to mis-interpritation?
I know I would advise them to add "individual right" to the 2nd amendment and to severely restrict the commerce clause and maybe put something in there about a balanced budget...
I don't think the constitution is perfect, but it was a radical document that set the groundwork for the greatest nation on Earth that has shaped history and allowed people to live their lives with the most freedom on this planet.
I doubt she's talking word for word, more like the principles behind it are out of date.
2/6/2012 8:58:11 AM
Originally Posted By ae1:
I'm inclined to agree with her. ETA: The principles in the Constitution are good, but the execution is poor from a legal perspective.
I'm inclined to agree with her. ETA: The principles in the Constitution are good, but the execution is poor from a legal perspective.
The Commerce Clause is abused. The Ninth Amendment is essentially dead. Does enumerated power mean anything at all these days?
The Constitution was probably good immediately after it was drafted when people understood that you probably didn't NEED a Bill of Rights because Congress simply didn't have the power to ban guns or regulate speech.
As time went on, the idea of "rights" got twisted. It was no longer "what is left over where the government's enumerated powers end." Instead, government power became thought of as beginning where enumerated rights end.
Essentially, as of now, the Constitution doesn't seem clear enough.
And no, sadly, a plain meaning reading isn't good enough. People with good and bad intentions will always look for a way to get stuff done "Constitutionally."
The Constitution is "unclear" precisely because of people like Ginsburg.
The meaning of the commerce clause was pretty fucking clear until FDR threatened to eliminate the court for daring to oppose his dictatorship.
2/6/2012 8:59:04 AM
well the old witch needs to hang on until January 20, 2013,,or another more liberal bastion will be appointed..
we need an ANdrew Napolatano on the supreme, hell, lets get Stossel on the bench!!1
we need an ANdrew Napolatano on the supreme, hell, lets get Stossel on the bench!!1
2/6/2012 8:59:46 AM
Originally Posted By Shane333:
A traitor on the Supreme Court.
A traitor on the Supreme Court.
Justice Vileoldfuckstainhag's reaction to your comment
2/6/2012 9:00:04 AM
Originally Posted By ae1:
I'm inclined to agree with her. ETA: The principles in the Constitution are good, but the execution is poor from a legal perspective.
I'm inclined to agree with her. ETA: The principles in the Constitution are good, but the execution is poor from a legal perspective.
The Commerce Clause is abused. The Ninth Amendment is essentially dead. Does enumerated power mean anything at all these days?
The Constitution was probably good immediately after it was drafted when people understood that you probably didn't NEED a Bill of Rights because Congress simply didn't have the power to ban guns or regulate speech.
As time went on, the idea of "rights" got twisted. It was no longer "what is left over where the government's enumerated powers end." Instead, government power became thought of as beginning where enumerated rights end.
Essentially, as of now, the Constitution doesn't seem clear enough.
And no, sadly, a plain meaning reading isn't good enough. People with good and bad intentions will always look for a way to get stuff done "Constitutionally."
The plan is a good one. Execution of said plan is something else. You can have the best system in the world, but if you don't follow it your results are not going to be favorable.
The Constitution is clear as cut crystal. All you need to do is remove all the layers of legal "paint" they have used to try and obscure that fact.
2/6/2012 9:00:05 AM
Well, she is right. There are a few issues with it that have given us long standing problems - mainly because the language has been warped by both sides of the isle.
And lets not forget great tidbits like the 3/5's compromise.
Our constitution is far, far from perfect. Take off your blinders.
And lets not forget great tidbits like the 3/5's compromise.
Our constitution is far, far from perfect. Take off your blinders.
2/6/2012 9:02:38 AM
Originally Posted By h3smith:
Well, she is right. There are a few issues with it that have given us long standing problems - mainly because the language has been warped by both sides of the isle.
And lets not forget great tidbits like the 3/5's compromise.
Our constitution is far, far from perfect. Take off your blinders.
Well, she is right. There are a few issues with it that have given us long standing problems - mainly because the language has been warped by both sides of the isle.
And lets not forget great tidbits like the 3/5's compromise.
Our constitution is far, far from perfect. Take off your blinders.
Problems with execution are not problems with the source code. Blinders are off... How about you try some reading glasses?
2/6/2012 9:02:54 AM
Originally Posted By h3smith:
Well, she is right. There are a few issues with it that have given us long standing problems - mainly because the language has been warped by both sides of the isle.
And lets not forget great tidbits like the 3/5's compromise.
Our constitution is far, far from perfect. Take off your blinders.
Well, she is right. There are a few issues with it that have given us long standing problems - mainly because the language has been warped by both sides of the isle.
And lets not forget great tidbits like the 3/5's compromise.
Our constitution is far, far from perfect. Take off your blinders.
In retrospect, the 3/5th's clause is a terrible injustice.
But that is an ahistorical analysis the "how" and "why" of it, or its eventual value in making slavery obsolete.
2/6/2012 9:03:56 AM
Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
The Constitution is "unclear" precisely because of people like Ginsburg.
The meaning of the commerce clause was pretty fucking clear until FDR threatened to eliminate the court for daring to oppose his dictatorship.
Originally Posted By ae1:
I'm inclined to agree with her. ETA: The principles in the Constitution are good, but the execution is poor from a legal perspective.
I'm inclined to agree with her. ETA: The principles in the Constitution are good, but the execution is poor from a legal perspective.
The Commerce Clause is abused. The Ninth Amendment is essentially dead. Does enumerated power mean anything at all these days?
The Constitution was probably good immediately after it was drafted when people understood that you probably didn't NEED a Bill of Rights because Congress simply didn't have the power to ban guns or regulate speech.
As time went on, the idea of "rights" got twisted. It was no longer "what is left over where the government's enumerated powers end." Instead, government power became thought of as beginning where enumerated rights end.
Essentially, as of now, the Constitution doesn't seem clear enough.
And no, sadly, a plain meaning reading isn't good enough. People with good and bad intentions will always look for a way to get stuff done "Constitutionally."
The Constitution is "unclear" precisely because of people like Ginsburg.
The meaning of the commerce clause was pretty fucking clear until FDR threatened to eliminate the court for daring to oppose his dictatorship.
Like I said.
ETA: People like Ginsburg and FDR will always exist.
2/6/2012 9:04:07 AM
Originally Posted By h3smith:
Well, she is right. There are a few issues with it that have given us long standing problems - mainly because the language has been warped by both sides of the isle.
And lets not forget great tidbits like the 3/5's compromise.
Our constitution is far, far from perfect. Take off your blinders.
Well, she is right. There are a few issues with it that have given us long standing problems - mainly because the language has been warped by both sides of the isle.
And lets not forget great tidbits like the 3/5's compromise.
Our constitution is far, far from perfect. Take off your blinders.
THe 3/5's compromise was what did slavery in, as did advances in the free market made mechanization cheaper than forced labor (hello free market?), and the natural yearning for people to be free (hello liberty?). The Constitution enabled those advances.
2/6/2012 9:05:23 AM
Sounds like something the stupid bitch would say.
2/6/2012 9:08:45 AM
Originally Posted By Thatdude333:
Just to play devil's advocate, don't you guys think if you went back in time to 1787, you wouldn't have some advise for the founders on what to change to the constitution so 200 years later it wouldn't be so open to mis-interpritation?
Just to play devil's advocate, don't you guys think if you went back in time to 1787, you wouldn't have some advise for the founders on what to change to the constitution so 200 years later it wouldn't be so open to mis-interpritation?
It does not matter what is written, what matters is how the judges choose to "interpret". The courts are packed with liberal activist judges that will always interpret what they want to get social and political change.
2/6/2012 9:09:21 AM
Originally Posted By Chapman:
Last I checked, freedom had same definition 224 years ago
She should be in a home, not on the bench
Last I checked, freedom had same definition 224 years ago
She should be in a home, not on the bench
This
2/6/2012 9:12:34 AM
Originally Posted By Chapman:
Last I checked, freedom had same definition 224 years ago
She should be in a home, not on the bench
Last I checked, freedom had same definition 224 years ago
She should be in a home, not on the bench
Where did you check?
2/6/2012 9:14:46 AM
Originally Posted By ae1:
The meaning of the commerce clause was pretty fucking clear until FDR threatened to eliminate the court for daring to oppose his dictatorship.[/div]
Like I said. [div]
[/div][div]ETA: People like Ginsburg and FDR will always exist.[/div][/div]
The meaning of the commerce clause was pretty fucking clear until FDR threatened to eliminate the court for daring to oppose his dictatorship.[/div]
Like I said. [div]
[/div][div]ETA: People like Ginsburg and FDR will always exist.[/div][/div]
Yes, they will...which is why no constitution or system of law is ever safe. There's no construct of language capable of utterly defeating the attempts of people who seek to redefine the meanings of words to permit them to do whatever they want to do.
Having a good constitution, however, at least slows them down.
2/6/2012 9:15:02 AM
BTW, this bit of news is demonstrative of the fact that elections have consequences.
Too many conservatives and moderates voted for Ross Perot, thus getting Bill Clinton elected president. Then Bill Clinton appointed that communist subversive to the supreme court.
Remember in November, vote Republican so that Obama is gone.
Too many conservatives and moderates voted for Ross Perot, thus getting Bill Clinton elected president. Then Bill Clinton appointed that communist subversive to the supreme court.
Remember in November, vote Republican so that Obama is gone.
2/6/2012 9:18:36 AM
I'm not surprised at the heartburn here.
On the other hand, I've seen plenty of people on this site advocate changing things in the Constitution - particularly clarifying the 2nd Amendment.
I don't think her statement is necessarily wrong. Let's be honest, the US Constitution is not something that would work in Egypt or any other Arab/Muslim nation.
On the other hand, I've seen plenty of people on this site advocate changing things in the Constitution - particularly clarifying the 2nd Amendment.
I don't think her statement is necessarily wrong. Let's be honest, the US Constitution is not something that would work in Egypt or any other Arab/Muslim nation.
2/6/2012 9:18:40 AM
What a surprise.
2/6/2012 9:20:38 AM
Originally Posted By Sixgun_Symphony:
BTW, this bit of news is demonstrative of the fact that elections have consequences.
Too many conservatives and moderates voted for Ross Perot, thus getting Bill Clinton elected president. Then Bill Clinton appointed that communist subversive to the supreme court.
Remember in November, vote Republican so that Obama is gone.
BTW, this bit of news is demonstrative of the fact that elections have consequences.
Too many conservatives and moderates voted for Ross Perot, thus getting Bill Clinton elected president. Then Bill Clinton appointed that communist subversive to the supreme court.
Remember in November, vote Republican so that Obama is gone.
Only problem is, there won't be a true Republican/Conservative on the ticket if Mittens wins, so? you do realize that Mittens, even if the planets were aligned properly, and rainbows had pots of gold at the ends of them, and Unicorms roamed the earth, bringing smiles to everyone who saw them, won't nominate a true conservative as SCOTUS nominee, he'll be Bush 41 (best case scenario) and that didn't workout the way Papa Bush thought, and remember, the Senate in Dem control will NOT confirm a pick that we would prefer, so it's not all rosy if Romney manages to win, he's a loser and the country will be in the same position we are now, and remember that it's the GOP's fault, not anyone elses!
2/6/2012 9:22:06 AM
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:
I don't think her statement is necessarily wrong. Let's be honest, the US Constitution is not something that would work in Egypt or any other Arab/Muslim nation.
I don't think her statement is necessarily wrong. Let's be honest, the US Constitution is not something that would work in Egypt or any other Arab/Muslim nation.
Yeah, they aren't big on the concept of free speech, freedom of religion, innocence until guilt is proven, equal rights, etc.
Somehow I doubt that the root of her statements was a recognition that their societies were too reprobate to function with a system similar to ours, though.
2/6/2012 9:23:47 AM
Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
Yeah, they aren't big on the concept of free speech, freedom of religion, innocence until guilt is proven, equal rights, etc.
Somehow I doubt that the root of her statements was a recognition that their societies were too reprobate to function with a system similar to ours, though.
Originally Posted By Shenanigunz:
I don't think her statement is necessarily wrong. Let's be honest, the US Constitution is not something that would work in Egypt or any other Arab/Muslim nation.
I don't think her statement is necessarily wrong. Let's be honest, the US Constitution is not something that would work in Egypt or any other Arab/Muslim nation.
Yeah, they aren't big on the concept of free speech, freedom of religion, innocence until guilt is proven, equal rights, etc.
Somehow I doubt that the root of her statements was a recognition that their societies were too reprobate to function with a system similar to ours, though.
I don't doubt that one bit.
2/6/2012 9:25:04 AM
I know someone who helped draft founding documents for some of the places in Eastern Europe. She is a very liberal Democrat. These people prefer to look at parliamentary systems. It is a shame.
2/6/2012 9:29:49 AM
And that's why the USSC should not be a lifetime appointment
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
2/6/2012 9:30:45 AM
Originally Posted By IronMedic:
And that's why the USSC should not be a lifetime appointment
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
And that's why the USSC should not be a lifetime appointment
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Yeah let me know how well that works out if Thomas or Scalia were forced to retire during an Obama administration. 2/6/2012 9:32:23 AM
Originally Posted By raven:
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/06/justice-ginsburg-causes-storm-dissing-the-constitution-while-abroad/#ixzz1lbm8znPw
Justice Ginsburg causes storm dissing the Constitution while abroad
By Alex Pappas Published: 12:40 AM 02/06/2012
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has caused a storm of controversy by saying in a television interview that the people of Egypt should not look to the United States Constitution when drafting their own governing document because it’s too old and there are newer examples from which to draw inspiration.
"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in the interview, which aired on Jan. 30 on Al-Hayat TV.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/06/justice-ginsburg-causes-storm-dissing-the-constitution-while-abroad/#ixzz1lbm8znPw
i can only imagine what la raza'z very own Sonia Sotomayor and that fat carpet muncher Kagan think. If the first kenyan gets 4 more years and anymore picks we're fucked.
2/6/2012 9:33:08 AM
Originally Posted By peekay:
Die, you ancient socialist cunt.
Die, you ancient socialist cunt.
Not until after 20 January, 2013, please.
