Posted on 09/21/2020 5:09:27 AM PDT by MtnClimber
I always felt a sense of dread when I had to read one of Justice Ginsburg’s decisions as part of my legal research. Her writing was turgid and convoluted. The worst thing about her decisions, though, was how she misused case authority to create new principles out of whole cloth. Nothing shows that more than in her determination to bypass our American Constitution and law and look to foreign constitutions, laws, and customs.
Ginsburg did not much like our Constitution, and she wasn’t shy about showing it. In 2012, Ginsburg showed up in Egypt, offering some “helpful” advice to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt as it was contemplating the Egyptian Constitution of 2012:
“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. “I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.”
In July 2010, Ginsburg spoke at the International Academy of Comparative Law at American University. Her thesis was that the Court should be free to look to foreign law and even blogs for authority when deciding cases involving issues confined with America's borders, such as homosexual relations and the death penalty.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
South Africa;s constitution was written by the communist ANC so I am not surprised Ginsberg liked it.
She was a successful political activist.
She was a horrible judge.
Well said. She started out with her conclusion and then did some proof texting to make it look legitimate.
But she was no legal scholar and as the author points out, didn’t really care about the Constitution anyway.
In other words we should be able to ‘Look To’ anything that will give us authority to do whatever we want.
Wow, what an article.
I love the part where the author suggests that Ginsburg kept a “clubby” social relationship with the other judges so they wouldn’t tell how she lied.
What an awful person.
And all weekend I got to hear lying praise.
We should remember the times she sided with pro-lifers, for example, in NOW v. Scheidler and McCullen vs. Coakley.
It’s all spelled out in the constitution. Your job, Justice, if you decide to accept it, is to determine if the question at hand coincides with the constitution or violates it. No politics should enter into it. But it does. And the preponderance of violators are those left wing appointed justices.
Ginsburg was a communist who pretended to interpret the law to suit her goals and foster her aims. The left won’t appreciate what she’s done for them. They’re only interested in who follows.
All I see on major media is how pioneering RBG was for the liberals. She was a horrible justice. Maybe God will show mercy on our country and oversee rhe overturning of Roe V Wade. It’s time for our country to repent.
How can these people (Read: Judges) “swear to defend” our Constitution, “so help me God”, and then ignore that oath. They cannot have any conscious at all.
Pure evil.
Ginsburg was loyal to the state.
Our constitution was written and exists to protect us from the state.
Nuff said.
An avowed Leftist is intellectually dishonest, by their political nature. David Horowitz has explained how his escape from Marxism began with his own identification of the intellectual dishonesty he had expounded, as a Marxist.
Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Conner said much of the same. These leftist activists believe they are a final power to establish law as they will, rather than be a judge who examines whether a case is aligned with the existing written law.
Good riddance to bad rubbish. No offense to bad rubbish.
I’m so glad we are rid of this communist!!!
The same can be said of any leftist. In order to maintain their P.C. positions, they have to be intellectually dishonest.
Example: In the name of combating racism, we have Black History Month, but dare not have a corresponding White History Month. Either both are racist, or neither are racist, but intellectually you cannot declare one racist and one not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.