Justice Ginsburg to Egyptian TV: You probably don’t want to use our Constitution as a model

posted at 6:05 pm on February 3, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via MEMRI TV, skip ahead to 9:28. I’m actually sort of charmed that a left-wing jurist thinks it matters much what’s written in a nation’s constitution. Our Supreme Court managed to tease a right to abortion out of a clause governing legal procedure, didn’t it? Seventy years earlier, a right-wing Court teased a right of contract out of the same provision. If you can do that, there ain’t much you can’t do. In fact, we’re on the cusp right now of Congress being granted a new power to force Americans to buy certain products; the clause responsible for that, which deals with regulating commerce between states, was somehow used a few years ago to reach marijuana grown in someone’s own backyard for their own use — with conservative support, do note. A smart, aggressive judge can make a document say nearly anything. The constitution sets certain goalposts, granted, but there’s a lottttt of space between them for a skilled kicker to aim.

Ginsburg’s fondness for South Africa’s constitution, I take it, comes from the fact that their bill of rights includes welfare-state guarantees like the right to housing and the right to health care. In an age when the western world is starting to collapse under the weight of entitlements, she seems to prefer a model that would make it even harder to reform those entitlements through normal democratic means. That’s the last thing Egypt needs given how deep its economic problems run; there’s no way the government will be able to vindicate those rights anytime soon, so why make any promises? But they will promise, no doubt, because that’s what Egyptians are expecting, and if the new regime can’t keep its promise then it’ll simply revert to Mubarak tactics to quiet popular discontent. That’s the other unspoken punchline here, of course — that culture matters at least as much as what’s in the constitution, and probably more. No doubt Coptic Christians will have the right to free speech under whatever Egypt’s new parliament comes up with, just as North Koreans constitutionally have the right to vote, but how long do you think that’ll last under a government dominated by Islamists? In fact, note that the other model she mentions here is Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which somehow failed to prevent Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant from being hassled for criticizing Islam by Canada’s Orwellian human rights Star Chamber. A constitution is as good as the political culture that surrounds it. Ginsburg would have been better off reminding Egyptian TV of that.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

There’s something diabolically perverse about a secular American Jew counseling Arabic Muslims to avoid any similarities in their constitution with ours.

Is this a woman of vast intellectual and legal capacities? Or is she simply insane?

Cleombrotus on February 4, 2012 at 1:00 AM

Diabolically perverse and proudly Liberal Justice Ginsberg counsels religious Arabic Muslims on a new Sharia constitution for America Egypt. What could possibly go wrong?

As to your question: “Is Justice Ginsburg simply insane?” I’ve been slowly coming around to the idea that Liberalism in an older person is a sign of mental disorder. In short, you betcha.

Gladtobehere on February 4, 2012 at 8:28 AM

Unfit for the job.

Wade on February 4, 2012 at 9:24 AM

You people are so brilliant, do any of you even read our history? Does the Japanese constitution look like ours? Well we wrote that one for them and they are a parliamentary system. THINGS CHANGE, TIME PASSES. When I was a child I was taught that we had a living constitution, one that changed over time, to adjust for changes in the social fabric of our culture, now people quote the damn thing forgetting the 220 years of case law and adjustments we’ve made. Do we really want to go back to slavery? Do we want to go back to not electing out senators? To only white male property owners voting? Come on people stop trying to beautify the past and start realizing that it’s 2012 not 1786

Zekecorlain on February 4, 2012 at 9:43 AM

“When I was a child I was taught that we had a living constitution, one that changed over time, to adjust for changes in the social fabric of our culture, now people quote the damn thing forgetting the 220 years of case law and adjustments we’ve made. Do we really want to go back to slavery? Do we want to go back to not electing out senators? To only white male property owners voting? Come on people stop trying to beautify the past and start realizing that it’s 2012 not 1786″

Zekecorlain on February 4, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Gosh Zeke, your teacher must have been so busy gushing over the ‘living constitution’ – which liberals love because it allows a single judge somewhere to change its meaning – that s/he forgot to mention the amendment process, which allows changes after due deliberation by the people, thereby incorporating 220 of case law and adjustments.
But then, you ARE so much more brilliant than the rest of us.

wright on February 4, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Some will call me anti-Semitic. Ginsburg is a typical Communist/Marxist Jew. She is in a long line who dominate the US. Look at the US Senate. Shumer, Sanders, Lautenberg, Feinstein, Boxer, etc. They all believe in killing the unborn but are appalled by the Holocaust. This type of thinking is pervasive in the Jewish Community. Have you ever watched Bill Maher? He can say and do what he wants and is rarely condemned by the MSM. Even though they have a Communist/Marxist belief system – it doesn’t apply to them – only to you.

kozmo on February 4, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Everyone knew I’m sure when Clinton appointed her that she was a leftwing dingbat. Hopefully though, ZERO is not in position to replace her under a second term. Her disdain for the US constitution should be reason enough for people to discount her ability to interpret the constitution. She obviously is in disagreement with it as a whole, so in my view, is unfit for the position.

TX-96 on February 4, 2012 at 12:04 PM

kozmo on February 4, 2012 at 10:14 AM

There is something unusual in the secular Jewish mentality which is undeniably over represented in those forces and influences that have historically been instrumental in undermining the Judeo-Christian foundations of our laws, customs, and mores.

The phenomenon is so obvious that even an Orthodox rabbi by the name of Daniel Lapin has taken to writing and speaking out against it.

No, you’re not necessarily anti-semitic but anti-Semites will use this as a cover for their prejudices.

Cleombrotus on February 4, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Scary this is on the bench…

apocalypse on February 4, 2012 at 1:57 PM

kozmo on February 4, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Very well said! And as a Catholic with Jewish heritage, as well, it is not anti-Semitic to recognixe fact and speak about same!

tomshup on February 4, 2012 at 2:05 PM

A slight change of direction

Regards from Jerusalem

Shy Guy on February 4, 2012 at 2:07 PM

The fact that members of the supreme court have no respect for the constitution they are supposed to serve is no surprise. One only has to look at their judgments to see they don’t. It is just one more reason why we are screwed and our government sucks.

woodNfish on February 4, 2012 at 4:29 PM

the clause responsible for that, which deals with regulating commerce between states, was somehow used a few years ago to reach marijuana grown in someone’s own backyard for their own use — with conservative support, do note

I would be tempted to suggest that you confuse the word, Republican with the word, conservative. They are not, I repeat, not interchangable.

Don L on February 4, 2012 at 5:19 PM

“When I was a child I was taught that we had a living constitution, one that changed over time, to adjust for changes in the social fabric of our culture, now people quote the damn thing forgetting the 220 years of case law and adjustments we’ve made. Do we really want to go back to slavery? Do we want to go back to not electing out senators? To only white male property owners voting? Come on people stop trying to beautify the past and start realizing that it’s 2012 not 1786″

Zekecorlain on February 4, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Gosh Zeke, your teacher must have been so busy gushing over the ‘living constitution’ – which liberals love because it allows a single judge somewhere to change its meaning – that s/he forgot to mention the amendment process, which allows changes after due deliberation by the people, thereby incorporating 220 of case law and adjustments.
But then, you ARE so much more brilliant than the rest of us.

wright on February 4, 2012 at 9:59 AM

I think that case law is the problem: Roe (emanations from penumbras) really, we can’t be either that stupid or illiterate to buy that crapola.Maybe Kelo? Dred Scott? Or in the ever fluid words of Arlen Spector; star decisis baby….

Don L on February 4, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Via MEMRI TV, skip ahead to 9:28. I’m actually sort of charmed

See the above quote from Allahpundit for an example of “inciting for the enemy”.

An enemy of Liberty says something that is absolutely beyond Contempt – and needs to be responded to with Outrage.

Allahpundit’s response is to throw a wet blanket over any outrage, by framing the Contempt for Liberty as if it were “cute” or “kinda of a joke” and juxtaposting it with a response that implys acceptance or general agreement – or “snark” at the worst.

This is how he keeps hope alive in the hearts of the Enemies of Liberty – he makes opposition and outrage to their contempt an irrelevancy and frames their insanity in the appearance of “reasonableness”.

williamg on February 4, 2012 at 5:57 PM

When I was a child I was taught that we had a living constitution

Zekecorlain on February 4, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Then you were either taught wrong or taught by a liberal who’s intentionally brainwashing his students with bogus ideas. While it’s true that the Constitution is applied to new technology and such, it is most definitely NOT a living Constitution. That is a liberal idea that is being promoted for political reasons.

The biggest problem with a living Constitution is who decides what the new interpretation is. That’s the biggest danger. Liberals are the ones who want to change definitions. So if anyone agrees to changing the interpretation, then you’ve effectively lost any guarantees in the constitution because someone else can alter the definition of those guarantees so that they mean something completely different than its original intent. It’d be like when you see small children play cards where they make up the rules as they go. That’s a dangerous game when played on the Constitution.

MrX on February 4, 2012 at 7:27 PM

She already doesn’t look to our Constitution in 2012. She didn’t in 2011, 2010…

unclesmrgol on February 4, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Why the picture of Larry King?

ironked on February 5, 2012 at 8:29 AM

I noticed how she omitted freedom of religion from our first amendment. Maybe she was just being cautious, without it though, the Copts and Jews remaining in Egypt should flee before the Islamic state is fully implemented.

Bush dropped the ball in Iraq by allowing Islam to be the State religion instead of insisting upon freedom of religion. I think we will soon regret setting up another Islamic democracy.

jpmn on February 5, 2012 at 8:53 AM

She also mentioned liberty and freedom several times. But in her Marxist world only a hand full of people can determine what they are. To her, responsibility would never be a word in “Her” constitution. That is a word liberals never use. I guess she can’t figure out that with our “Old” Constitution we have been able to maintain the freest nation in the world and to keep more people in the world free from tyranny. But hey, South Africa? Yeah they are the ones to look up to alright. How is their justice system working out? I hope this is a motivation for you PROUD people who will not vote for the Republican choice unless it is your choice to realize that we have to get rid of the Marxist in the WH and replace him with anybody!

inspectorudy on February 5, 2012 at 9:25 AM

If anyone ever had doubts that she was busy undermining our own Constitution every day in every way; this should eviserate those doubts permanently.

BMF on February 6, 2012 at 6:19 AM

When I was a child I was taught that we had a living constitution, one that changed over time, to adjust for changes in the social fabric of our culture, now people quote the damn thing forgetting the 220 years of case law and adjustments we’ve made. Do we really want to go back to slavery? Do we want to go back to not electing out senators? To only white male property owners voting? Come on people stop trying to beautify the past and start realizing that it’s 2012 not 1786

Zekecorlain on February 4, 2012 at 9:43 AM

Zeke, your teacher was a dope – and a bit of a bigot.

1. The Constitution did not enshrine slavery. The Northerners did not want slaves counted as citizens because the slave population would give the South control of the Congress and the Electoral College, but the slaves would be unrepresented. The South wanted them counted for the same reason. The final three-fifths compromise referred to all other persons, not slaves specifically. The Founders knew they had kicked the can down the road, but had faith that it would be fixed.

2. I sometimes wonder about the wisdom of electing senators. They wind up being such dorks – does it much matter how they get there?

3. White male property owners having sole voting rights was never the case. In fact, women were able to vote and quite a few did until a scandal in New Jersey in 1807 in which the womens vote was corruptly manipulated to the point that boys dressed as women were voting. After that, legislatures across the new country took the vote away from women. Not fair, but not an issue with the drafting of the Constitution.

Basic problem with living constitution folks – they think they’re as smart as the Founders. That’s arrogant. In arrogance there is disaster.

Cricket624 on February 6, 2012 at 11:20 AM

Zekecorlain said:

“Do we really want to go back to slavery?”

-Please refer to Constitutional Amendment 13.

“Do we want to go back to not electing out senators?”

-Please refer to Constitutional Amendment 17.

“Come on people stop trying to beautify the past and start realizing that it’s 2012 not 1786″

-Uh…does that mean that individual liberty is no longer our primary focus? If you or other neocons/liberals want to change the Constitution feel free to do it the way the Constitution says to do it via the Amendment process.

MoreLiberty on February 6, 2012 at 12:14 PM

This dumb ass jewish hag can stick the constitution up her rear. Maybe she’ll lose that constepated look from her face.

rjulio on February 6, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3