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:
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.
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
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.
When all three branches of government are out to trash the US Constitution, can America possibly survive?
So has the POTUS and virtually EVERY member of Congress; particularly Dems and RINOS. Where is the outrage against them???