SCOTUS Justice Ginsburg Calls U.S. Constitution a Bad Example

Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg,_SCOTUS_photo_portrait

SCOTUS Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Washington, DC – In a recent interview with Egyptian television, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg insulted the U.S. Constitution and advised Egypt to look somewhere else when drafting its own constitution. Justice Ginsburg was asked to give insight on this crucial topic for the post-Mubarak government but focused more on liberal human rights, rather than traditional American freedom.

When describing the nature of a constitution, Justice Ginsburg did appropriately recognize the importance of a constitution and the duty of the citizens to defend it. Justice Ginsburg did not, unfortunately, take her own advice. She undermined insight of its crafters and stated, “I would not look to the US Constitution if I were drafting a Constitution in the year 2012.” Instead, Justice Ginsburg referred to the constitutions of more supposedly progressive countries, like South Africa, Canada, and the European Convention on Human Rights. She stated, “I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution.” This directly refutes the U.S. Constitution’s relevance today.

For a United States Supreme Court Justice, entrusted with the duty to interpret the Constitution, this type of statement is unacceptable. Justice Ginsburg failed to respect the authority of the document that it is her duty to protect. When given the opportunity to promote American liberty abroad, Justice Ginsburg did just the opposite and pointed Egypt in the direction of progressivism and the liberal agenda.

Mathew Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, said, “For a sitting U.S. Supreme Court Justice to speak derisively about the Constitution she is sworn to uphold is distressing, to say the least. Justice Ginsburg’s comments about our Constitution undermine the Supreme Court as an institution dedicated to the rule of law, as well as our founding document.”

About these ads

29 thoughts on “SCOTUS Justice Ginsburg Calls U.S. Constitution a Bad Example

  1. You messed up in this article big time. The Supreme Court is not “entrusted to interpret the Constitution” any more than you and I are. Nobody should “interpret” the Constitution. Read it for what it says, and that is what it means. Period.

    • No mistakes in the article. Rather, you appear to have mistaken the definition of “interpret” as it applies in this application.

      For example, if you are entrusted with interpreting English to French, this does not mean that you are charged with changing the meaning of that which is being translated, your duty is to literally interpret and relate, not manipulate or discard as does an activists with devious motivations.

    • @Natelusk…what the left has taken to doing is finding penumbra’s within the Constitution…the SCOTUS IS in FACT called upon to decide based on the Constitution what is Constitutional and what is not in re: to legislation however, they are not authorized to legislate from the bench i.e.Roe v. Wade…the problem comes from their personal political agenda’s that encourages them to legislate from the bench to further that agenda, usually based on a statist/leftist worldview…I would have as big a problem with it going the other way, since their job as the judiciary is NOT to legislate but interpret or divine the constitutionality of a particular matter or law brought before them…just my humble opinion…

  2. Pingback: SCOTUS Justice Ginsburg Calls U.S. Constitution a Bad Example - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  3. It is kind of screwed up. The Fourteenth Amendment takes away all social duty … all of it. We really have no obligation to anyone or anything. Liberty has a sweet sound to it, but you can’t run a country without some degree of social obligation. And, I’m as American as they come.

    • Da, I mean no disrespect, but I can not clearly discern your intent from your comment.

      Are you speaking to the issue of citizen participation in goverenance (if so, kudos), or advocating a nanny state?

      • I’m not for the nanny state by any means. I just think “individualism” is only half the picture. One has to realize our constitution comes out of the reformation and the movement away from the family and society being one to each being society.

        It is like both sides of the moral coin. One is individual rights, and the other duty under the law. We’re (and the rest of the world) is so caught up in the individualism of our “rights” we’re on the verge of a new era of repression and despotism in the name of equality. In the same way the populace was shammed by “divine right” of the nobility, we’re about to be shammed by the rule of the “rights” of the individual. In the name of liberty, we’re about to be waylayed.

        • Dan-admittedly, I am now even less able to discern your intent.

          You now state that you do not favor a nanny state, and now seem to (incorrectly) suggest that the Reformation (as if from a subjective interpretation and perspective) was an exclusive or singular influence upon the founders and subsequently the constitution, which it was not.

          The Reformation was certainly a significant influence, but by no means paramount or exclusive. Such is proven as these realities are well documented in the writings and works of and about the founders and their contemporaries and also those who influenced them.

          In fact, their sociopolitical philosophical influences were multiple, often shared, and also individually varied and included Voltaire, Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Hobbes, and others, and the founders and those who influenced them each with their historical and philosophical influences, all often as influenced by Biblical and Classical Greek Philosophers, among the mix, and also including numerous historical periods.

          Do you now suggest that we actually should be obedient subjects of a king, dictator, an exclusive religion?

          Beyond this and from a faith perspective, it is vitally important to understand also that God did not create one collective and nebulous mass of flesh, He created and continually creates, and endows with Free Will and certain unalienable rights, world unique individuals.

    • Define “social obligation”? Is the government master of, or soveriegn over the People? In whom resides definitive secular authority? Is it within the individual or some capricious and nebulous abstract you call “society”.

      You see Da “social obligation” performes one function and beyond that function all else beciomes merely an academic exercise. The first function of “social obligation” is to make slaves and masters. Once I hold greater authority over the body of another than they hold themeselves, it’s only a single academic exercise to genocide, torture chambers, ethnic cleansing, honor killings, police state, and the slow decline into the barbarism to which we, once the light of Liberty for the world, have degenerated.

      To leave you with food for thought, when I asked if it were the individual or government who is soveriegn, here’s a hint… did governement make man or did man make government?

      • I would argue a man and a woman made government. If it weren’t for the family, we would have no government. I respect the work of Hobbes and Locke surely. But, what the individual does is detract from the family. Government rose out of tribes, clans, and the nobility. These were the families. Granted these types of governments were archaic and not very sophisticated, but they had obligations to one another. Our Constitution demands NO obligations to ANYONE … such is the extremist nature our the 14th Reconstruction amendment. 150 years ago,and throughout the women’s lib and civil rights movements, it served it’s purpose. It is about to dissolve our any semblance of a society in the name of “liberty” –

        • Dan, with the exception of your correct assertion that people created government (logically, because people preexisted any form of earthly government), and not contrary to anything Arch stated, your findings are your unique perspectives derived of subjective influences.

          The balance of your argument is self-defeating because, as recorded history from our beginnings as a Constitutional Republic (1787) to the horrible mess we now find ourselves clearly illustrates, the almost immediate and subsequent progressive governmental co-opting of individual rights and destructions of liberties proves that our current perils are in fact caused by these and not, as you suggest, a precursor to any dissolution of society.

          In sum, it is illogical to deny that it is ongoing governmental violations and abuses of the painstakingly created and ingenious constitution that are the causes of the problems, and that the constitution is not the cause. To propose otherwise is to deny factual verifiable, recorded history.

        • I think history teaches us one often overlooked but glaringly obvious lesson,

          “Governments rise and fall, but The People remain”.

          Why has civilization progressed from hunter gatherer clans to the complex modern societies we see today? Was this civilizing effect due to the myriad transient forms of government that foisted themselves upon civilization? Or perhaps, there is something greater that we have left unnoted, perhaps the bonds between a man and woman and their children supersedes anything which can be dictated by law. Liberty does not mean disregard for all else but self, it means the freedom to choose that which is most important in ones life. I think you will find that as in the past when allowed the Natural Rights of man, we will choose our families, our children, our grandchildren over some “society building” exercise like building pyramids or wars on terrorism.

        • @Dan, I disagree…God created and instituted government…via laws…the Civil Rights movement came out of need for the Constitution to be lived UP to…”All men are created equal” is not a platitude or fancy catch phrase, it was God inspired..because God did create all men equal…When the Israelites begged for a king like the pagans around them, God told them they would be sorry…He had already created the archetype for Republicanism through the Judges that were an idea born from Moses father-in-law Jethro (God inspired) and utilized until the Israelite begged and received their king…Saul…we know how that ended…it was a long line of messes from start to finish…God had given them a representative type government and they chose slavery instead…huh…sounds like America…

  4. No “ONE” document can encompass all the rights people should have, it’s taken hundreds of years to get to the US Constitution and we are adding to it all the time with “Amendments” to improve it.

    So they shouldn’t just us our Constitution, they should look to all forms of “Republics” and “Democracies” and make the choices they see are best for them from the examples.

    • Robert, the point here is that Ginsburg is a SCOTUS Associate Justice, sworn to the Constitution of the United States. Whatever Egypt does is their business.

      Members of the SCOTUS must swear two oaths before being seated:

      The Constitutional Oath (required of all federal officials-except POTUS, that is a seperate oath) in accord with Article VI which states “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.”)

      “I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

      Also, In accord with Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

      “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.”

      On occasion, the two oaths have been combined and administered together, as such:

      “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; and that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

      As you can see, nowhere within these oaths does it state “I will pick and choose or wholly disregard the Counstitution and laws of the United States- Ginsburgs sworn duty is to the United States and the Constitution and laws thereof.

    • I disagree, Robert, the Framers did an outstranding job of defining all the Natural Rights of man. This Constitution wasn’t something a handful of men threw together over a couple weeks or months based upon what worked best for them, as they would have you believe. That’s how they write laws and treaties today.

      Rather, the Constitution is the culmination of all we had learned about mankind, about ourselves, our strengths our weaknesses, and 3,500 years of human civilization prior to its crafting. I invite you to do more research into the matter because you seem like a sharp guy. I’m confident that when you come to understand what power, what eloquence, and the breathtaking brilliance those 4,543 words we call the Constitution of the United States enshrine.

      May I suggest you take a look at http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods70.html

      • That was an advertisement for propaganda, no historical facts.
        You are stating “Amendments” and not the actual Constitution.
        As Americans, we tend to think everything we do is the very BEST and can’t be improved upon, but that is sheer arrogance… as more facts become clear over time and more rights are demand and given to ppl around the world the less perfect the original documents become.

        • Robert: “as more rights are demanded and given to people”?

          Since we factually know that human beings preceeded and subsequently create(d) earthly governments, it is then wholly illogical to assume that something later created possess anything not allowed or granted to it by it’s creator(s) who possess these. Equally illogical is an assumption that a creation can grant these to it’s/their creator.

          Hence, people do not beg of governments for their rights, we already possess these. Rights are God given, natural, and individually endowed, intrinsic from creation. Logically, governments can not and do not grant rights.

          These truths are acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence and volumes of written works by and of the founders and framers.

          Subsequently, the founders painstakingly created our historically unique constitution, created to protect our God given and natural rights from governmental abuses.

          You may find great enlightnment in researching “positive and negative rights”, and “positive and negative liberties”.

  5. Pingback: News, What News? « A Simple, Village Undertaker

  6. I’ve always thought she was progressive. It comes as no surprise she would publicly state something like this. I, personally, feel that we should get back to the Constitution instead of straying further from it.

    • I actually think there was no one better to say what she did, where she did, at the time she did. This is not to say I think there is anything ingratiating about the S. African Constitution … it might as well be one of those copywrited and patented stars you buy for your nephew — pretty and whatnot, but you know you could have done better, you just didn’t know what else to do, and you wanted to be “original” …

      She said what she said in a religiously conservative area where she knew her words would create more thought than action …

      • Dan,

        While you are entitled to your opinion, you are nonetheless mistaken because you are here ignoring fundamental and pertinent facts.

        Ginsburg is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, and has accepted this honor and also the prerequisite oaths and their requirments, to which she agreed and has solemnly sworn to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

        Deriding that which she is voluntarily sworn to and then is required to support and defend is tanatamount to treason. There are no gray areas here.

  7. Ideas like freedom of speech, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to defend oneself , the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury… Yeah she’s right the Constitution is old… And the harsh truth is we left it behind long ago. Hardly a generation had passed after the Patriots who secured these Rights for us at the cost of their blood, and already those truths the Declaration proclaim to be “SELF EVIDENT” were already becoming obfuscated, abridged, or outright abrogated.

    While I really enjoy the intelectual exercise of forums like sodahead, and the contention of the political culture here in the modern America, I am a student of history and I recognize with with great trepidation that to restore those our natural and legitimate rights, we’re going to have to go and take them back. It’s the only way.

    As for this, petty bureaucrat… Ginsburg… whatever… she’ll be one of the first up against the wall when we renew the tree of liberty.

  8. Pingback: Ginsburg Insults US Constitution | Right On News

  9. “For a United States Supreme Court Justice, entrusted with the duty to interpret the Constitution, this type of statement is unacceptable. Justice Ginsburg failed to respect the authority of the document that it is her duty to protect. When given the opportunity to promote American liberty abroad, Justice Ginsburg did just the opposite and pointed Egypt in the direction of progressivism and the liberal agenda.”
    When I heard this on Andrew Breitbart I could not believe my ears! Learning from the mistakes of our past is one thing, but she overstepped a lot more than just a mistake or 2.

What are your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s