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

The number one reason why I am voting against Obama in November is because I don’t want another leftist Justice. I don’t completely trust Romney in appointing a Justice….but I trust him more than Obama.

terryannonline on February 3, 2012 at 6:43 PM

As Governor of MA Romney had his hands tied with Judicial nominees; they had to go thru a Board where 8 of the 9 members were Democrats.

He ended up appointing approximately 40% Democrats, 35% Independents, and 25% Republicans to judicial positions. Most of those were in lower courts dealing with crime, and he also made several appointments to the MA Land Court.

But he never got the chance to make an Appointment to the MA Supreme Court. Since the Democrat Justices on that Court can’t take their Power with them, they simply refuse to die.

Del Dolemonte on February 3, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Didn’t the founders at one time imagine that a person had to be a property owner to vote?

Yes, because they were the ones paying taxes. They didn’t have an income tax or a sales tax back then. Makes sense to me.

Mirimichi on February 3, 2012 at 6:54 PM

LOL, you had to go back almost a quarter of a century for one example and 35 years for another?

Del Dolemonte on February 3, 2012 at 6:46 PM

It doesn’t make what I said inaccurate. How come NO SCOTUS justice appointed by leftists ever drifted to the RIGHT?

But since you say I use old examples let’s look at some newer ones, in Mittens Judical Appointment Record:
Romney’s Picks By The Numbers: “Of the 36 people Romney named to be judges or clerk magistrates, 23 are either registered Democrats or unenrolled voters who have made multiple contributions to Democratic politicians or who voted in Democratic primaries, state and local records show. In all, he has nominated nine registered Republicans, 13 unenrolled voters, and 14 registered Democrats.” (Raphael Lewis, “Romney Jurist Picks Not Tilted To GOP,” The Boston Globe, 7/25/05)

During His Full Term, Romney Chose Left-Leaning Jurists At Least 50% Of The Time At Least 46 Registered Democrats Or Democrat Donors: A study of Romney’s 80 nominations to the bench shows that Romney chose at least 46 nominees who were registered Democrats or independent voters who had contributed to Democratic campaigns.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 3, 2012 at 6:54 PM

You’re supposed to interpret it and live by it, fire crotch.

BedBug on February 3, 2012 at 6:38 PM

**Shudder** Please…..some images cannot be unimagined.

csdeven on February 3, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Who appointed David Souter to the SCOTUS? Bush Sr.
Who appointed John Paul Stevens to the SCOTUS? Gerald Ford.
Raquel Pinkbullet on February 3, 2012 at 6:41 PM

GOP appointed Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. They may have some wrong picks like Souter, but you can sure Barry and the Dems historically and intentionally will put forth the most radical (AND YOUNG) leftist picks.

galtani on February 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Mirimichi on February 3, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Well, that got screwed up. I was replying to csdeven.

Mirimichi on February 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM

marijuana grown in someone’s own backyard for their own use — with conservative support

If a state makes it illegal, that’s one thing. But hard conservatives should (and do) find this repulsive. It’s the soft conservatives (social cons) that find this nanny-stating fine and dandy.

John the Libertarian on February 3, 2012 at 6:57 PM

Dr Evil on February 3, 2012 at 6:26 PM

I usually use a stick to scrape dog crap off my shoe.

csdeven on February 3, 2012 at 6:45 PM

If only it was that easy to get rid of the curse of billy jeff GRIN.

I don’t get how this woman made it through the nominating process…when her tongue darted out of her mouth, and they could see it was forked they should have passed on her.

Dr Evil on February 3, 2012 at 6:57 PM

I fear that Romney would nominate someone in the mold of Justice Kennedy….a moderate.

terryannonline on February 3, 2012 at 6:52 PM

I fear that possibility too, but with Obama…we know what he would do. Another radical liberal would be assured, and we all know the GOP would fold like a deck chair when confronted.

squint on February 3, 2012 at 6:57 PM

csdeven on February 3, 2012 at 6:47 PM

And good on ya!

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Apparently liberal presidents like Clinton and Obama have a knack for appointing Supreme Court Justices who prefer foreign laws and constitutions to those of the United States. As noted in The Obama Timeline, Obama appointee Elena Kagan dropped from the Harvard Law School’s required curriculum the study of U.S. Constitutional law. In its place Kagan, then the school’s Dean, insisted on “the study of the laws of foreign nations and international law.”

Robert Alt, senior legal fellow and deputy director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, told CNSNews.com that Kagan “…instituted three new courses to the required curriculum and, in so doing, got rid of a requirement to take constitutional law. …Currently, at Harvard, constitutional law is not required for first-year law students, or even for graduation.”

Kagan explained her change in a 2006 university document: “From the beginning of law school, students should learn to locate what they are learning about public and private law in the United States within the context of a larger universe—global networks of economic regulation and private ordering, public systems created through multilateral relations among states, and different and widely varying legal cultures and systems. Accordingly, the Law School will develop three foundation courses, each of which represents a door into the global sphere that students will use as context for U.S. law.” (One might argue that the new courses were valid and valuable, they should have been in addition to, not instead of, the study of U.S. Constitutional law. Perhaps Kagan, looking ahead to the future, wanted as few people as possible to learn about Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.)

Colony14 on February 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

Isn’t it nice that she can sit there…

… and say such a thing, while our military cemetaries are filled with those who died defending our Constitution?

Seven Percent Solution on February 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Needs repeating..:)

Dire Straits on February 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

How come NO SCOTUS justice appointed by leftists ever drifted to the RIGHT?

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 3, 2012 at 6:54 PM

That’s true, and you want to give them more picks.

galtani on February 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

GOP appointed Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts. They may have some wrong picks like Souter, but you can sure Barry and the Dems historically and intentionally will put forth the most radical (AND YOUNG) leftist picks.

galtani on February 3, 2012 at 6:56 PM

Except Romney is not even a Republican.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 3, 2012 at 6:59 PM

So long as Sharia is the bench mark in the last paragraph, Egyptians can have any kind of constitution they want. They could take on the American constitution in it’s entirety as long as they tack on the 72nd amendment dealing with Sharias sensitivities and requirements.

BL@KBIRD on February 3, 2012 at 6:59 PM

Wow. I had no idea South Africa’s constitution was so socialist.

terryannonline on February 3, 2012 at 6:59 PM

KingGold on February 3, 2012 at 6:09 PM

I whole heartedly agree.

Whoever we replace Obama with won’t get it done though. I realize I am cynical going into my 11th presidential election but I see no way to 60 votes in the senate to get this done.

The d’rat senators will filibuster and the press will vilify and the progressives will take to the streets threatening to burn the cities down if we try to replace a progressive judge with a conservative. Getting a conservative jurist in place of Gingsburg would be seen my the progressive as the beginning of a sea change in the court since Kennedy and Scalia might also retire in the same time frame.

chemman on February 3, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Isn’t it nice that she can sit there…

… and say such a thing, while our military cemetaries are filled with those who died defending our Constitution?

Seven Percent Solution on February 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Probably would have gone with a different word than nice. But, this is a family friendly site.

Bmore on February 3, 2012 at 7:02 PM

terryannonline on February 3, 2012 at 6:52 PM

You do realize that Romney has Bork advising him, right?

This has been noted in quite a few blogs and news outlets. I doubt that he will be giving us a liberal judge.

You know who Bork is, right???

uhangtight on February 3, 2012 at 7:02 PM

Seven Percent Solution on February 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM

Plus I ain’t getting banned for her sorry a$$.

Bmore on February 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Liberal” and “progressive” are two of the noblest and most important words in the English dictionary. They describe essential qualities of the American mind and essential values in American politics in a country born in reaction against oligarchy and concentrated autocracy. They sum up in a nutshell what this country is all about. A liberal is someone who seeks ordered liberty through politics—namely, the reconciliation of humanity’s need for governance with its drive for freedom in such a way as to give us all the order we need (but no more) with as much liberty as possible. In this sense, liberty isn’t divided or divisible into freedoms of speech, religion, economic activity or personal conduct: Genuine liberals care about all of the above and seek a society in which individuals enjoy increasing liberty in each of these dimensions while continuing to cultivate the virtues and the institutions that give us the order without which there can be no freedom.

But today the words liberal and progressive have been hijacked and turned into their opposites: A “liberal” today is somebody who defends the 20th-century blue social model; a “progressive” is now somebody who thinks history has gone wrong and that we must restore the Iron Triangle of yesteryear to make things better. Most of what passes for liberal and progressive politics these days is a conservative reaction against economic and social changes the Left doesn’t like. The people who call themselves liberal in the United States today are fighting rearguard actions to save old policies and established institutions that once served noble purposes but that now need fundamental reform (and in some cases abolition), lest they thwart the very purposes for which they were created.

Long, but very good read. Every leftie is lost.

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 7:03 PM

As Governor of MA Romney had his hands tied with Judicial nominees; they had to go thru a Board where 8 of the 9 members were Democrats.

He ended up appointing approximately 40% Democrats, 35% Independents, and 25% Republicans to judicial positions. Most of those were in lower courts dealing with crime, and he also made several appointments to the MA Land Court.

But he never got the chance to make an Appointment to the MA Supreme Court. Since the Democrat Justices on that Court can’t take their Power with them, they simply refuse to die.

Del Dolemonte on February 3, 2012 at 6:54 PM

You Mittbots are embarrassing yourselves.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 3, 2012 at 7:04 PM

That’s true, and you want to give them more picks.

galtani on February 3, 2012 at 6:58 PM

From American Spectator:

Almost two years after energy from the Tea Party swept Republicans back into congressional power, a politician who embodies the antithesis of that spirit stands on the verge of victory. This is regress, not progress, and the GOP will pay a severe price for the Faustian bargain of “electability” that it entails.

A party that chooses power over principle will lose both.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM

How come NO SCOTUS justice appointed by leftists ever drifted to the RIGHT?

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 3, 2012 at 6:54 PM

In Washington DC, the leftward way is the path of least resistance.

squint on February 3, 2012 at 7:06 PM

Many so-called non-lefties don’t care about true liberalism either.

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Glad to see the Coptics getting a mention in a HA piece, even if it’s a brief one. Most righties, while practically hysterical over the perceived but yet-unmanifested threats to Israel, are oblivious to the fact that Christians are being imprisoned, tortured and killed in the wake of the Arab Spring. This could be the end of Christianity in the Middle East. Where it started.

exlibris on February 3, 2012 at 7:08 PM

I just watched the whole 18 minutes. It’s flabbergasting that Ginsburg says not to look to the US Constitution for guidance in forming an Egyptian constitution. Not only that but she puts it down, mentioning slavery and the lower status of women. In passing she mentioned the Equal Protection clause and some freedoms as good things. But again … not to be factored in the thinking behind an Egyptian Constitution? She just doesn’t care for it. She said to look at constitutions formed after WWII. And South Africa … now THERE’S a constitution!

Paul-Cincy on February 3, 2012 at 7:08 PM

Read and weep.

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 7:08 PM

She’s difficult to look at. And her views are equally repulsive.

sbvft contributor on February 3, 2012 at 7:09 PM

Sorry, wrong link, though good read too.

Here is the intended

Read and weep

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 7:10 PM

Egypt should keep her.

Burqa ready moron.

profitsbeard on February 3, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Sorry, wrong link, though good read too.

Here is the intended

Read and weep

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 7:10 PM

You should be banned for off-topic spamming.

Paul-Cincy on February 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM

Paul-Cincy on February 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM

You s/b banned for incomprehension.

Sue me.

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 7:13 PM

I know this isn’t going to be politically correct but….

This woman preaches evil.

She is a RABID Darwinist Progressive.

She’s Margaret Sanger on the High Court. In addition, if she doesn’t believe in our Constitution then like she get get the _____ out of the U.S. of A.

God have mercy on her soul.

PappyD61 on February 3, 2012 at 7:13 PM

Some righties are as crazy as the lefties when it comes to bannings. Voltaire weeps in his grave.

What a poor lot you are.

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 7:14 PM

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 7:14 PM

I agree..:)

Dire Straits on February 3, 2012 at 7:17 PM

if she doesn’t believe in our Constitution then like she get get the _____ out of the U.S. of A.

PappyD61 on February 3, 2012 at 7:13 PM

One would think a belief in the Constitution as written would be a prerequisite to becoming a jurist.

squint on February 3, 2012 at 7:20 PM

In case some don’t understand the reference to RUTH BUZZI.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_FM-RvLONU

Comedienne from the 1960′s from a show called “Laugh-In”. There is also a PBS interview with JoAnne Worley and Ruth (not the Justice) that’s great. Both very funny ladies.

PappyD61 on February 3, 2012 at 7:21 PM

Keep in mind that Egypt is not allowing Sec. La Hood’s son, and other American citizens to leave. Today two 60+ years old American tourists/women, with their guide, were captured in the Sinai, by the wild ones, the Arab Spring is an eternal winter, and the witch speack like this…in Egypt.

…and ‘righties’ on this blog speak of bannings.

What a surreal world it is.

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 7:22 PM

Paul-Cincy on February 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM

You s/b banned for incomprehension.

Sue me.

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 7:13 PM

You spam. How about posting related to the topic. Or not posting at all.

Paul-Cincy on February 3, 2012 at 7:25 PM

It has been decades since I have seen… in substance and in appearance…a PRUNE…on a screen.

KOOLAID2 on February 3, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Paul-Cincy on February 3, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Are you sure you want to go to the place you are going??

Dire Straits on February 3, 2012 at 7:34 PM

A group of history’s wisest men gave us the United States Constitution. They bestowed upon us a gift which allowed this country and its people to rise above all others including dozens of civilizations who had centuries of head start.

I find it hilarious when modern day academics and pundits delude themselves into thinking they are smarter than the founding fathers.

I doubt Ms. Ginsburg and her ilk will see the comedy in it, though.

MessesWithTexas on February 3, 2012 at 7:35 PM

Paul-Cincy on February 3, 2012 at 7:12 PM

You s/b banned for incomprehension.

Sue me.

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 7:13 PM
You spam. How about posting related to the topic. Or not posting at all.

Paul-Cincy on February 3, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Wow! 2 people I like are chewing on each other!
It’s not bad enough our candidates are cannibals…even in-house we are starting to chomp on each other. There’s plenty of lamb-like liberals to feast on here, for the whole village! T a k e
it e a s y!
Is there a full moon?

KOOLAID2 on February 3, 2012 at 7:35 PM

You spam. How about posting related to the topic. Or not posting at all.

Paul-Cincy on February 3, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Alternatively, you could just skip those posts you don’t want to read. You could even avoid all posts by Schadenfreude altogether. It’s a slippery slope, after all. One might argue that you are co-opting this thread in order to fixate on procedure and terms of use…

cynccook on February 3, 2012 at 7:36 PM

cynccook on February 3, 2012 at 7:36 PM

I missed the QOTD thread last night and I wanted to let you know ..My heart goes out to your Sis-in-law and your family..God Bless you all..:)

Dire Straits on February 3, 2012 at 7:39 PM

I missed the QOTD thread last night and I wanted to let you know ..My heart goes out to your Sis-in-law and your family..God Bless you all..:)

Dire Straits on February 3, 2012 at 7:39 PM

Thanks, Dire. It was such a shock. We knew she didn’t have a whole lot of time left, but we didn’t expect it to be this sudden. I spoke to her oncologist on the phone and he thinks that it was probably a pulmonary embolism. They had just done a procedure in the hospital to remove fluid from her chest. I’m glad for her. I’m glad that the cancer didn’t get the chance to kill her. This way was very fast. But we’ll miss her. She was truly a wonderful person and I don’t say that about a lot of people.

cynccook on February 3, 2012 at 7:44 PM

cynccook on February 3, 2012 at 7:44 PM

The world will be a lot lesser place without her..

PS..God Bless your family..:)

Dire Straits on February 3, 2012 at 7:51 PM

I could live with that.

Didn’t the founders at one time imagine that a person had to be a property owner to vote?

csdeven on February 3, 2012 at 6:50 PM

IT was onlt white, male, property owners. So I would go that far. 15th amendment is as far back as I’d go, but veterans only is prefereable to that.

Theworldisnotenough on February 3, 2012 at 7:53 PM

… and say such a thing, while our military cemetaries are filled with those who died defending our Constitution?

Seven Percent Solution on February 3, 2012 at 6:33 PM

that was up until the WW2…after that the US didn’t fight wars to ‘defend the US Constitution’…

jimver on February 3, 2012 at 7:54 PM

You spam. How about posting related to the topic. Or not posting at all.

Paul-Cincy on February 3, 2012 at 7:25 PM

How about eating your spam, and overlooking my posts. I will decide what I post. I’m a free individual, and proud of it. If you’d read, you’d know that things are on topic. I know when it’s ok to go off, and when I do, I say so, mostly. If I forget, I don’t worry about it because I read the rules a long time ago.

Cheers!

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Is there a full moon?

KOOLAID2 on February 3, 2012 at 7:35 PM

No, but the demons are out. Cheers!

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 7:59 PM

cynccook on February 3, 2012 at 7:44 PM

My heartfelt condolences on your loss. Big hugs. xxxxxxx

Bmore on February 3, 2012 at 8:01 PM

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 7:57 PM

Hear!..Hear!..:)

Dire Straits on February 3, 2012 at 8:01 PM

cynccook on February 3, 2012 at 7:44 PM

My condolences to you and family, cynccook.

Schadenfreude on February 3, 2012 at 8:01 PM

AS I said somewhere else

Positive Liberty – the medicine from doctors of despotism.

“This time it’ll be different, trust us”

John Kettlewell on February 3, 2012 at 8:12 PM

Would this not make a delicious Ad for the eventual Republican nominee.Saying do you want 4 more years of Obama putting judges like this on the Supreme Court.

logman1 on February 3, 2012 at 8:18 PM

Thanks everyone for the kind words. I really appreciate them.

cynccook on February 3, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Of course, the Newt Gingrich supporters don’t care if Obama is reelected and we are given several more Supreme Court Justices like this woman.

bluegill on February 3, 2012 at 8:21 PM

bluegill on February 3, 2012 at 8:21 PM

Hush or I’ll start using the gig on you.

Bmore on February 3, 2012 at 8:24 PM

GAAAAAAWWWWWDDDDD I hate liberals.

clippermiami on February 3, 2012 at 8:29 PM

Ginsburg is as batty as you can get. A true loon.

pat on February 3, 2012 at 8:30 PM

I am sick and tired of these people going overseas and bagging on America.

Obama/Biden
Carter
Depp
Penn (he does it domestically too)
Gore
Ginsburg

This could be a contest.

the_souse on February 3, 2012 at 8:34 PM

This old bag is full of feces.

Unbelievable!

ORrighty on February 3, 2012 at 8:38 PM

No doubt Ginsberg could do a better job. Making sure there were a lot of penumbras included.

This is what happens when you believe your “smarter” than everyone else around you.

GarandFan on February 3, 2012 at 8:38 PM

Other than the slavery 3/5 compromise unpleasantness and the ways we screwed it up with silly amendments like the 17th, I kind of think someone sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution would at least point to a better model somewhere in the world before trashing what most Americans feel is a divinely inspired document.

borntoraisehogs on February 3, 2012 at 8:44 PM

She’ll retire if a Republican is elected so that Zero has just enough time to recess appoint someone before his successor’s inauguration.

Nutstuyu on February 3, 2012 at 6:31 PM

Is that possible by law? (Not that the law nor the Constitution matters to Obama?Holder.)

jazzuscounty on February 3, 2012 at 6:53 PM

Nutstuyu said it first. The gutless repugnicans will be afraid to use every tool available to them to stop these appointments. Any Senator not mounting a filibuster, a real one, constant debate, shouild be primaried. Any Senator join a “gang of some number” for reach arounds to the dark side should be hunted down and given the time honored tar and feathers beauty treatment.

borntoraisehogs on February 3, 2012 at 8:55 PM

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

Say what???????

coldwarrior on February 3, 2012 at 9:00 PM

OK OK! Look at the picture of Ginsburg!
Now look below at Harry Reid!

Brother & Sister?…and lobotomy4life’s parents?

KOOLAID2 on February 3, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Ruth, please stop whoring the Constitution out to every stray Muslim who asks a question about it. What are you, better than the Constitution?

If you think that Law’s a joke, then I think you must be a joke, too. What, you sit and interpret and ponder over a law that you don’t respect? Now, I see it, all those God-awful, perverted, wicked decisions you’ve made over the years–you made them because you thought the Constitution was a joke! You thought your decisions were jokes! You thought you could get away with it!

But alas, you know there is such a thing as a wicked judge. And God knows that the only thing the Judiciary’s ever had is Confidence. The President has the Arms, the Congress has the Purse. And you, all that you have you and your ilk have been steadily chewing away at for fifty years.

So choke on it, you crazy witch. Maybe they’d understand you better in a country like Egypt.

Herald of Woe on February 3, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Who appointed David Souter to the SCOTUS? Bush Sr.
Who appointed John Paul Stevens to the SCOTUS? Gerald Ford

If Republicans had appointed right we would have a 7-2 advantage.

Raquel Pinkbullet on February 3, 2012 at 6:41 PM

We have a winner. The level of incompetence that Republican Party has displayed for decades is breath taking.

All the more reason to believe we live in a one party state.

Reagan was an inconsequential bump in the road towards our inevitable progressive utopian dictatorship.

rickyricardo on February 3, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Hey, you think she’s scary? Just wait till Obamao chooses her replacement!

minnesoter on February 3, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Hey, you think she’s scary? Just wait till Obamao chooses her replacement!

minnesoter on February 3, 2012 at 9:28 PM

it will probably be a younger version of this, it can’t get any worse than this by any stretch of the imagination…Ginsburg checked every single liberal cause/obsession/derangement issue off her list…

jimver on February 3, 2012 at 9:33 PM

‘younger version of her’ that is…

jimver on February 3, 2012 at 9:33 PM

I am ashamed .

Lucano on February 3, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Why is this woman on the United States of America’s Supreme Court? If Justice Ginsberg feels our Constitution inept then by definition how can she uphold its laws? She can’t, again by definition. Technology has shown us that we citizen tax payers have hired complete idiots the last 40 years. From Guam capsizing to this most exemplary insult from a Supreme Court Justice aimed directly at the finest country with the finest system in the world and history. As I get older I’m not sure if I’m more acute to it or its actually getting as bad as it looks regardless I’m done with it.

Tangerinesong on February 3, 2012 at 10:15 PM

A constitution is as good as the political culture that surrounds it. Ginsburg would have been better off reminding Egyptian TV of that.

So Judeo-Christian values do matter! Interesting that this comes from an atheist like Allapundit.

milemarker2020 on February 3, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Tangerinesong on February 3, 2012 at 10:15 PM

What you said. Seems this should be grounds for impeachment. She is sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution of the US, not to tear it down.

AZfederalist on February 3, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Thank you Orin Hatch.

aloysiusmiller on February 3, 2012 at 11:04 PM

Does this troll even know that Egypt will adopt Sharia Law? Does she even know what that is???

wirebitersmith on February 4, 2012 at 12:23 AM

You know if Obama loses, she’ll retire.

Speakup on February 4, 2012 at 12:35 AM

I haven’t listened to this and won’t; I don’t care to give Ginsburg my time. But I assume she’s referring primarily to the Bill of Rights. As Justice Scalia, via HA, has pointed out, other countries have more comprehensive BORs than we do, but any two-bit banana republic can have a terrific BOR. That doesn’t mean it will actually be enforced as law. The beauty of our Constitution is the separation of powers and co-equal branches of government, which prevents one body from running rough-shod over another and further assures that the enumerated rights will not be infringed. I would like to think Ginsburg actually understands this, but remain doubtful.

Erich66 on February 4, 2012 at 12:43 AM

You do realize that Romney has Bork advising him, right?

This has been noted in quite a few blogs and news outlets. I doubt that he will be giving us a liberal judge.

You know who Bork is, right???

uhangtight

I didn’t realize Bork was on the ballot.

You do realize that Romney has Norm Coleman advising him, right? You know who Coleman is, right? He’s the guy who said recently that Romney won’t be repealing Obamacare.

A party that chooses power over principle will lose both.

Raquel Pinkbullet

A party that allows Obama to get re-elected won’t have to worry about either for a long, long time. Electing one of our guys at least gives us a shot to make things better. Not a guarantee, but a shot. With Obama, we do get a guarantee….and not a good one.

xblade on February 4, 2012 at 12:49 AM

This one should be flogged until it’s a pile of bloody pieces, and then flogged some more.

No nation can afford to have its top judicial minds disliking its constitution. This, right here, is how the death stroke is administered.

J.E. Dyer on February 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM

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

No nation can afford to have its top judicial minds disliking its constitution. This, right here, is how the death stroke is administered.

J.E. Dyer on February 4, 2012 at 12:59 AM

Either that, or the signs of a society already in its death throes. For what other kind would tolerate such seditious reasonings from its highest officials?

Cleombrotus on February 4, 2012 at 1:04 AM

Cleombrotus on February 4, 2012 at 1:04 AM

It did occur to me, however, that Ginsburg had in mind the John Adams quote:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

J.E. Dyer on February 4, 2012 at 1:14 AM

J.E. Dyer on February 4, 2012 at 1:14 AM

What would have given you THAT impression?

Cleombrotus on February 4, 2012 at 1:35 AM

You do realize that Romney has Bork advising him, right?

This has been noted in quite a few blogs and news outlets. I doubt that he will be giving us a liberal judge.

You know who Bork is, right???

Yes, I know who he is, a well paid employee of Romney.

Look, you’re getting ahead of yourself. Romney will not beat Obama, so don’t waste your time with predictions.

M_J_S on February 4, 2012 at 2:17 AM

Imagine that?:

Justice Gingburg:
I can’t speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I’m operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.

The oldest Supreme is an ageist.

Justice Gingburg:
… grand general ideas that become more effective over the course of … more than two sometimes-turbulent centuries,

And yet, AND YET, she nimbly fails to make the connection.

Justice Gingburg:
… we are still forming the more perfect union … when the Constitution was new in the 1780s, we still had slavery in the U.S.

During her 13-year tenure on the D.C. Circuit, Ginsburg made 57 hires for law clerk, intern, and secretary positions, none of those hired had been African-Americans.

This really is just so much wasted words since constitutions are merely words on paper, flowery than most, but still words.

Sailfish on February 4, 2012 at 2:28 AM

To her, the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” which means it can mean whatever you want it to mean and NOT what it specifically says. To liberals like her, it is literally of as little value as toilet paper. To her, the foundation and structure our Founders established with the Constitution are not the law of the land but an obstruction to be circumvented where ever and whenever possible. That she would even suggest let alone straight up say our Constitution shouldn’t be used to establish a govt is telling of how she applies her judicial powers here in the States. Also, she commends Egypt for its revolution…. which has now elected the terror sponsoring Muslim Brotherhood as its primary governing representatives.

Yakko77 on February 4, 2012 at 2:45 AM

lorien would hit it…

/

Seven Percent Solution on February 4, 2012 at 2:56 AM

If they want to learn about the constitution, they should interview Scalia.

netster007x on February 4, 2012 at 5:41 AM

Never forget that it was the Congressional RINOS like Orren Hatch that let Ginsberg on the Court. Even though they knew she was head counsel for the ACLU before that.

Next go around when tis witch either retires or keels over (probably the latter) we are going to have to flood the halls of Congress to keep from getting another one of her.

Spots the Dog on February 4, 2012 at 6:26 AM

Next go around when this witch either retires or keels over (probably the latter) we are going to have to flood disinfect the halls of Congress to keep from getting another one of her.

Spots the Dog on February 4, 2012 at 6:26 AM

I submit that Kagan is another one of her.

DevilsPrinciple on February 4, 2012 at 7:00 AM

Next go around when tis witch either retires or keels over (probably the latter) we are going to have to flood the halls of Congress to keep from getting another one of her.

Spots the Dog on February 4, 2012 at 6:26 AM

With pitchforks and torches.

Seriously.

Actually, it’s way past time that we’ve done THAT, and not just about Ginsburg.

Cleombrotus on February 4, 2012 at 7:02 AM

Ginsburg, Obama, Krugman, Geitner, Kagan: smart power.

These and a couple hundred or so others are the best and the brightest and the cream of the crop. They went to our best schools and learned all that was important to learn.

Stop picking on them, please. They have a job to do. They’re doing their best to bring us heaven on earth, so why are you disrespecting them?

s

Burke on February 4, 2012 at 8:09 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3