He didn't donate
Click the Pic
Sign up to donate monthly
A sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 02/06/2012 5:02:55 AM PST by IbJensen
One member of the U.S. Supreme Court, whose members are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, says she would look elsewhere – Canada, South Africa and Europe – should she be tasked with writing a constitution now.
The stunning statements come from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
She was being interviewed by Al Hayat in Egypt, which is trying to develop a government after citizens deposed longtime dictator President Hosni Mubarack last year.
Egypt is facing major obstacles to a democratic form of government as the Muslim Brotherhood as a political party has been assembling a majority in the country. Among its goals is a Muslim caliphate worldwide.
She was asked: “Would your honor’s advice be to get a part of other countries’ constitutions as a model, or should we develop our own draft?
Her response:
“You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. 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, had an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Said oath means nothing to a committed leftist, because,
in their world view, the requirement for such an oath was written in the past at the same time as the Constitution,
and is therefore just as worthless and invalid as the document.
I’m guessing those newer constitutions don’t include that bothersome second amendment
"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."
She should be removed under the "good behavior" clause. Which, her actions plainly are not.
this is old news... but I have always wondered why the house has not moved to impeach her for violating the oath of office.... spineless people that refuse to do their jobs...wonder why??
The Commerce Clause is too liberal, giving us everything from Obamacare to criminalizing whole milk dairy farmers who sell their milk to willing consumers.
The Supreme Court has too much power to dictate Federal & State policy. Education is an example.
Congress has too much freedom to legislate on any subject it wishes w/o regard to the Constitution, & its ability to spend money it doesn't have on anything it desires is absurd.
And just reviewing the Bill of rights, it is apparent that they are insufficient to safeguard our rights. Our gun, religious, property, & due process rights are long gone, as are most of the others.
Our founding fathers did the best job they could. But it was not near perfect. They knew that, & included an amendment process. There may be elements of other governments that are more just than ours. It would be arrogant & foolish to ignore positive, moral, successful laws & policies of other countries.
Any country that jails for life or executes corrupt politicians & bureaucrats has at least one better law than the USA. Any country that executes pedophiles has a better law. Any country that allows a citizen to defend himself, his family, & property by ANY MEANS & FORCE NECESSARY against unlawful theft, damage, or attack has a better law.
The Commerce Clause works jsut fine until a judge redefines it to mean anything they want it to mean via “penumbras and emanations”.
The SCOTUS has all the power it needs, it has TAKEN more for itself than is its due. Further, in some regards it blatantly refuses to do its duty for political purposes. Life appointment was supposed to have dissuaded that.
Art 1 Sec 8 is specific enough for Congress. Problem again is that they no longer stay within the limits of Art 1 Sec 8 and We the People have done nothing to correct this behavior. Nothing effective at least...
The BoR is a “starter set” of Rights. If we fail to use them, and defend them to the death, then it is little wonder that they are so easily taken from us.
And there are not other Countries with better Castle doctrine laws than some of our States have. Nor are there any other Countries that execute more criminals... At least, not those that aren’t also executing folks for a whole host of other reasons we do not want to emulate...
Perfect? No. However, most of it’s “flaws” are in execution of it’s principles and not in the principles themselves.
The members of Congress appear to be complicit in this dishonor of the Constitution as many of them have shredded or used it for toilet paper.
People of the Right keep talking about sending Congress a message: I say they wouldn’t pay any attention unless they were forceably removed then tarred and feathered.
How any of these newer elected ‘conservatives’ (little c) can allow interviews like this and beliefs like this to exist in a member of the Supreme Court is beyond staggering. The bird-faced and bird-brained Ginsberg must be removed from the bench!
We have. they know they can safely ignore us as the worst we can do is TRY to oust them. If they control most of the election process, this threat doesn't mean much.
Until, and unless, this becomes a bit more... personal, this isn't going to change either.
Brought to you at the suggestion of the great Orin Hatch.
I have long contended that the cowards actually agree with those clowns, it just gives them cover to let the court take the blame for the illegal stuff they impose on us.
They use the Court as a whipping boy.
well, you get credit for getting it half right... the court is not the whipping boy, the court holds the whip... WE are the whipping boys, and the winner is socialism / communism.... and they (politicians) are all in...
YOU ARE INCORRECT. Supreme Court Justices have to take TWO oaths or a combined oath before they assume their duties. Educate yourself at:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/about/oath/textoftheoathsofoffice2009.aspx
Actually, the Commerce Clause is not so broad. The Supreme Court, under threat of "packing" from FDR, simply changed their interpretation of what the words should mean. The document itself is properly written. It is weak men who have tainted its greatness.
The Supreme Court has too much power to dictate Federal & State policy. Education is an example.
Same issue. The Supremes have allowed themselves to become legislators, in direct violation of the Founding principles. The Legislative branch is unfortunately also abandoning its duties by not fighting back against these usurpations.
Congress has too much freedom to legislate on any subject it wishes w/o regard to the Constitution, & its ability to spend money it doesn't have on anything it desires is absurd.
"General Welfare" never was intended to mean "giving money to the poor. "General" meant the same for all, and "Welfare" meant promoting things like the interstate highway system, that helps the country and the economy to fare well.
And just reviewing the Bill of rights, it is apparent that they are insufficient to safeguard our rights. Our gun, religious, property, & due process rights are long gone, as are most of the others.
Tough to say that ignored or changed aspects of the document are proof that the document is flawed.
I stand corrected. I did a google search on “judicial oath” and the one I found is the one I posted from a .gov site.
Is there anyway to drag her out of there and kick her to the curb. Didn’t Kennedy make a statement a few years ago that he consults international law?
Given how I look, I usually don’t make fun of peoples’ appearance, but can’t resist this one.
I don’t know if RBG is traveling, but she has signed on for summer stock playing the Margaret Hamilton roles in the Wizard of Oz.
“”I don’t know if RBG is traveling, but she has signed on for summer stock playing the Margaret Hamilton roles in the Wizard of Oz.””
Come on now! There would be so many liberal/progressive females lined up for that role, they’d never be able to make a choice!
Isn’t it strange that we think nothing of sending our “women?” to Middle Eastern countries to tell them how they should run their governments??? Do they ever speak out on the nonexistent rights of women there? Nah! Wouldn’t dare....
It’s as tho’ they are totally ignorant of what goes on in those countries and perhaps they are or just plain blind and stupid!
The courts have absolutely assumed superior status, and Congress even though they could put a stop to it, refuse to do so.
whip·ping boy
Noun:
A person who is blamed or punished for the faults or incompetence of others.
wellllll........ if this definition is right, then I have been my wifes whoppin boy for decades.... :)
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.