Posted on 02/07/2012 3:54:14 PM PST by Olog-hai
Every Supreme Court justice is required, under Article VI of the United States Constitution, to be bound by his or her oath or affirmation “to support this Constitution.” Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has just broken this commitment by insulting, in front of a foreign audience, the very document she is sworn to support.
In an interview during her visit to Cairo, which aired January 30, 2012 on Al-Hayat TV, Justice Ginsburg advised the Egyptian people to ignore the U.S. Constitution in preparing their own new constitution. It’s just too “old,” she said. Instead, Justice Ginsburg lavished praise on several post-World War II foreign documents such as the South African constitution, Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the European Convention on Human Rights.
“I might look at the constitution of South Africa,” Justice Ginsburg said. It is “a great piece of work that was done.”
“You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights,” she continued.
As for her own country’s constitution, Justice Ginsburg said she “would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a new constitution in 2012.”
Quite the contrary. Justice Ginsburg believes that contemporary foreign laws and decisions should be used by her and other Supreme Court justices in determining the meaning of provisions of our own constitution. …
(Excerpt) Read more at frontpagemag.com ...
Consider the South African constitution, which Justice Ginsburg praised as “a great piece of work” for Egyptians to learn from instead of the U.S. Constitution.And of course, the disastrous European Convention on Human Rights:
The South African constitution contains a clause protecting free expression. But unlike the right of free speech under our First Amendment, the South African constitution says that the right of free expression does not include “propaganda for war” or “advocacy of hatred that is based on race, ethnicity, gender or religion, and that constitutes incitement to cause harm.” These vague exceptions go beyond the very limited “incitement of imminent violence” exception to the First Amendment that our courts have recognized. Instead, they intrude into the very areas of potentially controversial speech that our constitution protects. Is that what Justice Ginsburg is seriously recommending? …
The European Convention on Human Rights, like the South African constitution, contains basic rights but with restrictions on the exercise of such rights even more far-reaching than South Africa’s restrictions. For example, Article 10 states that “[E]veryone has the right to freedom of expression,” but that right can be restricted for such reasons as “the protection of health or morals” and “the protection of the reputation or rights of others.” This loophole is large enough for gaggles of European Union bureaucrats to walk through. …This is the kind of totalitarian thinking in our Supreme Court nowadays, on the left.
She should be jailed for perjury. Didn’t she swear to uphold the Constitution she now denigrates?
She’s a Judge? South Africa? Wonder what she thinks of burning tires around the necks of the opposition?
Judicial bump!
Dave Barton has some WONDERFUL discussions on his website regarding the proper role of the judiciary. Here is a page on his web site with links:
Indeed she did. The violation of that oath can be construed as treason.
Her concern is that the US Constitution doesn't allow "necklacing" where you take an old automobile tire, light it afire and stick it around someones neck.
Breaks her little heart that's not in there eh.
The US Constitution is, by its very nature, inimical to most of the old “law codes” that govern much of the rest of the world. Whether a serious scholar acknowledges it or not, the words of the Constitution are firmly rooted in the belief that no man, or group of men or even a fairly large oligarchy, has the right to overrule the distinct voice of reason and a sense of justice. Most of the older codes were much more draconian in their application, and some that are widely adopted today still are.
I suspect Justice Bader Ginsburg sides with the application of draconian measures, but only if dealing with “people we don’t like”. For “people we do like”, the system of restrictions and punishments are lifted, sometimes entirely.
My “advice” to Egyptians would be to ignore Justice Ginsburg.
If this is true, the bitch should be impeached...
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Is it a Constitutional Crisis when a sitting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court goes overseas and tells another country to NOT follow the example of the United States Constitution?
How is that defending and supporting the Constitution?
Didn't she take an oath?
-PJ
Finally, it seems that Justice Ginsburg has forgotten that sharia law will remain the foundation for all Egyptian laws, including the constitution that will be prepared under the watchful eyes of the Muslim Brotherhood. Sharia law, which separates Muslim believers from nonbelievers, sanctions inferior status for women, and criminalizes blasphemy and apostasy, will trump any constitution that Justice Ginsburg recommends as a model for the Egyptians to follow. …The default is obviously to ignore a woman first, never mind an infidel second.
How could she ignore the Constitutions of the Soviet Union, Zimbabwe, and Kenya?
Why do we tolerate such people to have any place in our nation?!
It is time we purge those who do not embrace individual, God-given rights.
She hasn’t. She has just refrained from referencing them due to prevailing public opinion. When it comes to the ones she did mention, public opinion was shaped by the media, and not as many people see the present South Africa for what it is nor remember that Nelson Mandela is a terrorist unpunished.
I guess she isn’t concerned about the slaughter of the African White Farmers by the African black thugs; the rape, torture of the white women and children that has been going on ever since their New Constitution.
That video of that man being beaten and burned alive with a rubber tire around his neck was awful; the thugs thought he was gay...so much for diversity and equality and social justice eh Ginsburg?
Someone should send her that video....
No, a mere failure to adhere to the Constitution is not in itself treason, as treason is well defined:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Has she or her minions responded to this “controversy” yet?
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.