Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”

This is an Admin / Moderator NO GO ZONE. You're on your own.

Moderator: Team

Post Reply
1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8362
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”

Post by 1989TransAm » Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:52 pm

The old hag needs to die off. She swore to uphold the Constitution when she took the job.

"Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” Posted By Roger Aliman on July 3, 2018 Conservatives are often ridiculed for criticizing activist judges who fail to respect the Constitution. We are told that it is not conservative originalists (labeled ignorant and extremist) but rather enlightened liberal judges—with their nuanced understanding of constitutional penumbras—who truly respect the spirit of the Constitution

Conservatives, however, have good reason to be skeptical of the left’s “respect’’ for the Constitution. Just last week, for example, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as model for Egypt’s new government. The problem, you see, is that the U.S. Constitution is “a rather old constitution.” Ginsburg suggested that Egyptians should look instead to the Constitution of South Africa or perhaps the European Convention on Human Rights. All these are “much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”
Ginsburg’s comments echo those by Washington University professor David Law, who published a study with Mila Versteeg on the U.S. Constitution’s declining infuence worldwide. In an interview, Law unfavorably compared the Constitution to “Windows 3.1”—outdated and unattractive in a world of sleek and sexy modern constitutions. Such obsession with the age of the Constitution is both absurd and irrelevant.

For one, the Constitution is still among the shortest and most elegantly written constitutions in the world. By contrast, South Africa’s constitution is well over 100 pages long, ×lled with tables, schedules, and such stirring passages as detailed provisions for a Financial and Fiscal Commission:
“A. National legislation referred to in subsection (1) must provide for the participation of – a. the Premiers in the compilation of a list envisaged in subsection (1) (b); and b. organized local government in the compilation of a list envisaged in subsection (1) (c).” And you thought the U.S. Constitution was hard to read. Equally ridiculous is the claim that the Constitution is too antiquated to apply to the modern world. The principles of the Constitution, although ×rst articulated centuries ago, are not tied to the material conditions of a bygone age. They rest on that most solid and enduring of all foundations: human nature.

The Constitution itself contains no policy prescriptions. Rather, it is a short, elegantly written document that create a framework for a free people to confront the political questions of their times. Of course, the real reason progressives swoon over South Africa’s constitution is that it goes far beyond merely establishing a framework for government and guarantees progressive policies—for example, by requiring legislation that prevents pollution and ecological degradation. In other words, the left’s real discontent with the U.S. Constitution is that it does not require Americans to adopt a progressive government and expansive welfare state that provides for every “right” social scientists can justify.
Americans should be very wary of those who would seek to upend the Constitution from the grounding in human nature that has allowed it to endure for more than two centuries and would transform it into an instrument devoted to policies of passing whimsy!"

http://americafans.com/index.php/justic ... stitution/

User avatar
woody b
Guru
Guru
Posts: 1380
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2013 6:58 pm

Re: Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”

Post by woody b » Sun Jul 08, 2018 8:13 pm

Justice Ginsburg took an oath swearing to uphold the Constitution. She should be removed from her position for not following her oath of office.
“I, ___ ___, 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 ___ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”
I used to be a people person, but people ruined it.

User avatar
Dave Koehler
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3662
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:19 pm
Location: Urbana, IL USA
Contact:

Re: Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”

Post by Dave Koehler » Sun Jul 08, 2018 10:12 pm

I don't like it either but upholding and recommending seem like 2 different things.
Dave Koehler - Koehler Injection
Fuel Injection - Nitrous Charger - Balancing - Nitrous Master software
http://www.koehlerinjection.com
"Never let a race car know that you are in a hurry."

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3340
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”

Post by exhaustgases » Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:06 am

If a person says that in that sort of position. Would not the oath everyone takes to protect the constitution take effect? The marines can freely do their job then.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2675
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”

Post by j-c-c » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:19 am

"The old hag needs to die off."

Taking the high road?

You know I suspect in half the countries in the world you would be in jail for making such a comment/threat?

Would you accept the same thinking about DT? [-X

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2675
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”

Post by j-c-c » Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:23 am

1989TransAm wrote:
Sun Jul 08, 2018 7:52 pm
The old hag needs to die off. She swore to uphold the Constitution when she took the job.

"Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution” Posted By Roger Aliman on July 3, 2018 Conservatives are often ridiculed for criticizing activist judges who fail to respect the Constitution. We are told that it is not conservative originalists (labeled ignorant and extremist) but rather enlightened liberal judges—with their nuanced understanding of constitutional penumbras—who truly respect the spirit of the Constitution

Conservatives, however, have good reason to be skeptical of the left’s “respect’’ for the Constitution. Just last week, for example, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told an Egyptian TV station that she would not recommend the U.S. Constitution as model for Egypt’s new government. The problem, you see, is that the U.S. Constitution is “a rather old constitution.” Ginsburg suggested that Egyptians should look instead to the Constitution of South Africa or perhaps the European Convention on Human Rights. All these are “much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”
Ginsburg’s comments echo those by Washington University professor David Law, who published a study with Mila Versteeg on the U.S. Constitution’s declining infuence worldwide. In an interview, Law unfavorably compared the Constitution to “Windows 3.1”—outdated and unattractive in a world of sleek and sexy modern constitutions. Such obsession with the age of the Constitution is both absurd and irrelevant.

For one, the Constitution is still among the shortest and most elegantly written constitutions in the world. By contrast, South Africa’s constitution is well over 100 pages long, ×lled with tables, schedules, and such stirring passages as detailed provisions for a Financial and Fiscal Commission:
“A. National legislation referred to in subsection (1) must provide for the participation of – a. the Premiers in the compilation of a list envisaged in subsection (1) (b); and b. organized local government in the compilation of a list envisaged in subsection (1) (c).” And you thought the U.S. Constitution was hard to read. Equally ridiculous is the claim that the Constitution is too antiquated to apply to the modern world. The principles of the Constitution, although ×rst articulated centuries ago, are not tied to the material conditions of a bygone age. They rest on that most solid and enduring of all foundations: human nature.

The Constitution itself contains no policy prescriptions. Rather, it is a short, elegantly written document that create a framework for a free people to confront the political questions of their times. Of course, the real reason progressives swoon over South Africa’s constitution is that it goes far beyond merely establishing a framework for government and guarantees progressive policies—for example, by requiring legislation that prevents pollution and ecological degradation. In other words, the left’s real discontent with the U.S. Constitution is that it does not require Americans to adopt a progressive government and expansive welfare state that provides for every “right” social scientists can justify.
Americans should be very wary of those who would seek to upend the Constitution from the grounding in human nature that has allowed it to endure for more than two centuries and would transform it into an instrument devoted to policies of passing whimsy!"

http://americafans.com/index.php/justic ... stitution/
BTW, interesting how "respect" in many areas is now being "qualified".

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8362
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”

Post by 1989TransAm » Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:06 pm

j-c-c wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:19 am
"The old hag needs to die off."

Taking the high road?

You know I suspect in half the countries in the world you would be in jail for making such a comment/threat?

Would you accept the same thinking about DT? [-X
Yes I am taking the high road by fully supporting the Constitution of the United States. I can understand that you being a socialist would not be in full support of the Constitution.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2675
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”

Post by j-c-c » Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:52 pm

1989TransAm wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 1:06 pm
j-c-c wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 11:19 am
"The old hag needs to die off."

Taking the high road?

You know I suspect in half the countries in the world you would be in jail for making such a comment/threat?

Would you accept the same thinking about DT? [-X
Yes I am taking the high road by fully supporting the Constitution of the United States. I can understand that you being a socialist would not be in full support of the Constitution.
Remind where it is in the constitution specifically it suggests having those you disagree with, die off, speaking of full support of the Constitution.

1989TransAm
Guru
Guru
Posts: 8362
Joined: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:43 pm
Location: Cypress, California

Re: Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”

Post by 1989TransAm » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:24 pm

Are you really that stupid?^^^^^^^^^^^^

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2675
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”

Post by j-c-c » Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:58 pm

1989TransAm wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 4:24 pm
Are you really that stupid?^^^^^^^^^^^^
Lot of effort today with witty comebacks I see. #-o

exhaustgases
Guru
Guru
Posts: 3340
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 9:03 pm

Re: Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”

Post by exhaustgases » Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:47 pm

There is an oath to protect the constitution. Since the demoncrats hate the constitution, and liberties what does that make them? Since they reside in this country that makes them domestic enemy's and enemy's of the constitution.

j-c-c
Guru
Guru
Posts: 2675
Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 9:03 pm

Re: Justice Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the U.S. Constitution”

Post by j-c-c » Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:49 pm

exhaustgases wrote:
Mon Jul 09, 2018 5:47 pm
There is an oath to protect the constitution. Since the demoncrats hate the constitution, and liberties what does that make them? Since they reside in this country that makes them domestic enemy's and enemy's of the constitution.
Makes you a bald face liar. #-o

Post Reply