AR15.Com Archives
 Justice Ginsburg to Egyptians: The US Constitution isn't that great, you shouldn't emulate it
raven  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:28:26 AM EST

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
Paid Advertisement
--
Shane333  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:31:14 AM EST
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.
Chapman  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:31:22 AM EST
Last I checked, freedom had same definition 224 years ago

She should be in a home, not on the bench
MarkNH  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:32:22 AM EST
Good thing the first amendment protects her right to shit on the Constitution.
bigborehound  [Member]
2/6/2012 3:33:41 AM EST
Yeah, just google gun rights in S Africa. If she doesn't like our Constitution, GTFO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
scottedward58  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:33:59 AM EST
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.
wmounts  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:34:17 AM EST

Originally Posted By Shane333:
A traitor on the Supreme Court.


Not a real surprise, unfortunately.
monkeymagic  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:35:04 AM EST
What a fucking cunt
AV1611  [Member]
2/6/2012 3:39:35 AM EST
Senile dementia or just another liberal tiger showing its true stripes???

AV1611 out.......
RevDeadCorpse  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:39:57 AM EST

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.

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."
VTHOKIESHOOTER  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:40:04 AM EST
CUNT
Shung  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:41:27 AM EST
Never it has been so easy to spot a traitor
kpel308  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:44:54 AM EST
Beat by less than 5 minutes.
peekay  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:45:09 AM EST
Die, you ancient socialist cunt.
Swoosh101  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:46:20 AM EST
doesnt she have cancer? I think she will retire soon anyway.
batmanacw  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:47:50 AM EST
Why did the word "cunt" flash to my mind as I read that as well?
BigDozer66  [Life Member]
2/6/2012 3:48:46 AM EST
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.


This^

BigDozer66
BigDozer66  [Life Member]
2/6/2012 3:49:37 AM EST
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


FIFY!

BigDozer66
stangboy555  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:50:00 AM EST
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.
ae1  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:50:28 AM EST
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."
BigDozer66  [Life Member]
2/6/2012 3:50:50 AM EST
Originally Posted By Swoosh101:
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

kpel308  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:54:44 AM EST
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.
M4-AK  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:56:25 AM EST
Well now we all know where she stands on things.
Thatdude333  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:56:52 AM EST
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.
RevDeadCorpse  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:57:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
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.
stangboy555  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:57:42 AM EST

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.

I doubt she's talking word for word, more like the principles behind it are out of date.
John_Wayne777  [Moderator]
2/6/2012 3:58:11 AM EST
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.

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.
douglasmorris99  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:59:04 AM EST
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
WGPKlaus  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 3:59:46 AM EST
Originally Posted By Shane333:
A traitor on the Supreme Court.



Justice Vileoldfuckstainhag's reaction to your comment

RevDeadCorpse  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:00:04 AM EST

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.

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.
h3smith  [Member]
2/6/2012 4:00:05 AM EST
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.
RevDeadCorpse  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:02:38 AM EST

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.

Problems with execution are not problems with the source code. Blinders are off... How about you try some reading glasses?

Screechjet1  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:02:54 AM EST
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.


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.
ae1  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:03:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
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.

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.
VTHOKIESHOOTER  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:04:07 AM EST

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.

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.
dbd870  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:05:23 AM EST
Sounds like something the stupid bitch would say.
Sixgun_Symphony  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:08:45 AM EST
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?



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.
reelserious  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:09:21 AM EST
Originally Posted By Chapman:
Last I checked, freedom had same definition 224 years ago

She should be in a home, not on the bench





This
ae1  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:12:34 AM EST

Originally Posted By Chapman:
Last I checked, freedom had same definition 224 years ago

She should be in a home, not on the bench

Where did you check?

John_Wayne777  [Moderator]
2/6/2012 4:14:46 AM EST
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]


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.
Sixgun_Symphony  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:15:02 AM EST
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.
Shenanigunz  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:18:36 AM EST
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.
doubleclaw  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:18:40 AM EST
What a surprise.
WGPKlaus  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:20:38 AM EST
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.


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!
John_Wayne777  [Moderator]
2/6/2012 4:22:06 AM EST
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.


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.
Shenanigunz  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:23:47 AM EST
Originally Posted By John_Wayne777:
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.


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.
cornholio123  [Member]
2/6/2012 4:25:04 AM EST
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.
IronMedic  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:29:49 AM EST
And that's why the USSC should not be a lifetime appointment


Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
VTHOKIESHOOTER  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:30:45 AM EST

Originally Posted By IronMedic:
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.
bruzz123  [Member]
2/6/2012 4:32:23 AM EST
Originally Posted By raven:

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.
1911SFOREVER  [Team Member]
2/6/2012 4:33:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By peekay:
Die, you ancient socialist cunt.

Not until after 20 January, 2013, please.

Paid Advertisement
--