A Liberal SCOTUS Justice Doesn’t Recommend Egypt Use Our Constitution as An Example for Writing Theirs

This should be alarming to everyone.

This explains most of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s decisions/actions while sitting in the highest court in our republic. She obviously shares Obama’s views that the U.S. Constitution is “flawed”. These people take an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

So now when Egypt is preparing to write a constitution for its newly liberated country, one of our own justices tells it to not look at our document for a model. It’s just too old, or something…

This is somebody that has pretty much a lifetime position as one of the highest judges in this republic that apparently does not like, or agree with or believe in the foundation of our nation. According to her assessment the U.S. Constitution is somehow antiquated. Our Constitution is 225 years old. It is the oldest document of a nation’s people in the history of civilization. Not only has it served generations of Americans, but it was a driving force during the course of those generations to bring freedom and liberty to others around the world.

Allahpundit @ HotAir points out some problems with the constitutions Justice Ginsburg holds in higher value than ours:

Ginsburg’s fondness for South Africa’s constitution, I take it, comes from the fact that their bill of rights includes welfare-state guarantees like the right to housing and the right to health care. In an age when the western world is starting to collapse under the weight of entitlements, she seems to prefer a model that would make it even harder to reform those entitlements through normal democratic means. That’s the last thing Egypt needs given how deep its economic problems run; there’s no way the government will be able to vindicate those rights anytime soon, so why make any promises? But they will promise, no doubt, because that’s what Egyptians are expecting, and if the new regime can’t keep its promise then it’ll simply revert to Mubarak tactics to quiet popular discontent. That’s the other unspoken punchline here, of course — that culture matters at least as much as what’s in the constitution, and probably more. No doubt Coptic Christians will have the right to free speech under whatever Egypt’s new parliament comes up with, just as North Koreans constitutionally have the right to vote, but how long do you think that’ll last under a government dominated by Islamists? In fact, note that the other model she mentions here is Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which somehow failed to prevent Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant from being hassled for criticizing Islam by Canada’s Orwellian human rights Star Chamber. A constitution is as good as the political culture that surrounds it. Ginsburg would have been better off reminding Egyptian TV of that.

I am less worried about Egypt’s liberty than I am ours, right now. They are going Sharia. However, this woman is not alone in having taken an oath to uphold our Constitution, and finds it a useless nuisance. Hell, the US Congress is filled to the rafters with elected “representatives” who not only feel the same way, but legislate as such. Then there is the one sitting in the White House…

The next time somebody is sitting before a nomination hearing for a Justice position in the highest court in the land, perhaps to replace this woman, this had better be referred to, followed by a thorough grilling on the matter.

9 thoughts on “A Liberal SCOTUS Justice Doesn’t Recommend Egypt Use Our Constitution as An Example for Writing Theirs”

  1. Freedom, I think we live in very familiar times, circa 1958 Cuba. Never mind the details that don’t fit, it’s the same sham with a Venezuelan ‘Chavez’ twist. We elected our tyrant.

  2. In other words we have on the Supreme Court a person who is a communist. There is no pretty way to say this. Anyone who believes it is the right of all citizens to have the government provide its citizens housing, health care and the welfare state can only be described this way. She forgot that our government doesn’t give rights, but that according to our laws, rights come from the Almighty.

  3. I am still astonished she actually said this crap and didn’t think it would make it to the internet. I mean, I know roughly 1/2 the justices are liberal and to the left and think this, but to actually admit it publicly. The audio of Obama saying the Constitution is “fundamentally flawed” came out a couple months before the 2008 election, but the media didn’t dare play it. And McCain, the progressive ass he is, wouldn’t use it in an ad. His people also pulled back Palin in the late going so that she couldn’t freely point out these things.

    Ruthie isn’t the only Justice to pop-off like this, however. A few years ago Steven Breyer, in an open debate with Justice Scalia, insisted our court should look to foreign law/court decisions in deciding and ruling on our cases here at home. Scalia wasn’t having any of that…

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1352357/posts

    Excuse me, but they are supposed to weigh their decisions/rulings in accordance with our written laws and the US Constitution. This is one of the reasons why we have states now putting on their election ballots forbidding Sharia law/courts to be set up within their states. But the DOJ immediately comes charging in and takes them to court once the issue has passed with the voters. If you come to this country you abide by this country’s established laws and its Constitution/Bill of Rights. This is all such bullshit anymore.

    Our DOJ is completely out of control and operating so far outside the boundaries and description of its purpose. Holder and Co. have completely politicized it. It has become this administration’s Gestapo/SS (I haven’t decided which because you need to factor in Napolitano’s version of “Homeland Security”).

    If the American voters do not wake up and listen to what all these people are saying, and understand in the simplest and basic manner what we are supposed to be based on, over the next couple elections our republic is pretty much gone. I suspect I’ll be challenged on that, but think about how incredibly hard it is to counter the government over-reach now. Unless you have the means and money to take things to court you’re left to just bend over and take it. You also have the DOJ and the IRS pressuring companies behind the scenes to do as they say … or else.

    Ask Gibson Guitars.

    Then there is the unelected NLRB. Ask Boeing about them.

    In the State of the Union Obama announced the creation of (I believe) at least 3 more UNELECTED “units” to oversee stuff in this country regarding business. One will be part of Holder’s DOJ.

    And the American people just ignore it!!!!!!!!!!

    We have totally lost the fact that the government is to be run BY WE THE PEOPLE, and not the government running us.

    I don’t know who the hell will be the GOP candidate at this point, but whomever had better get a frikkin’ clue about all of this and use Obama’s audio pre-2008 about the Constitution, and couple it with everything he has done in over 3 years with excessive czars, ‘units’, and excessive and unnecessary executive orders meant only to be a dictator and render Congress useless.

    We are in trouble here…

  4. This is a Helen Thomas moment, only much worse, because it is potentially far more dangerous. This is not some washed-up old media witch, but a sitting Supreme Court justice. The fact RBG not only thinks this way but will go as far as openly admitting it is VERY disturbing. Such an astonishing statement is totally unbecoming for someone in her position for beyond obvious reasons, and the only dignified thing for her to do is to resign, though I’m hardly holding my breath. For one thing, she can count on all manner of supporters and enablers, tons of them, since her position is considerably more politically correct than that of the Thomas crone. Appalling, disgraceful and very, VERY scary.

  5. I suspect RBG has longstanding psychological issues, whereby a desire or need for approval, both frustrated and fueled by certain natural disadvantages, is channeled along the lines of ideology—not surprisingly, the fashionable “advanced” ideology of the ostensibly “best and brightest,” which can deliver a certain kind of acceptance and validation, of sorts. This would mean, of course, that she is intrinsically compromised by what is, in fact, personal weakness, which makes her unfit for her position.

Comments are closed.