“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”
Those are the words of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, United States Supreme Court Justice. Ginsburg didn’t stop there either.
“You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II.”
“I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary.”
Here are a few other words once spoken by Ginsburg which damn well should be noted.
“I, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, do solemnly swear 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.”
She has quite a unique way of supporting and defending our Constitution, doesn’t she?
Ginsburg made her comments in Egypt when asked in an interview whether she would or would not recommend using our Constitution as a guide in drafting a new constitution for Egypt.
In a nutshell…Nope.
It isn’t new enough for Ginsburg.
Never mind that our Constitution is the longest continually used constitution in the world today. She doesn’t favor the very Constitution she swore to uphold and defend.
This is no great surprise as Ginsburg has, in the past, admitted to using international law to render her decisions here in OUR country.
It seems, if Ginsburg can’t find a way to get what she wants through our Constitution, she’s happy to look elsewhere to find it. Of course that means, if US law says no, and Who-Gives-a-Crapistan law says yes…and Ginsburg is wanting a yes, She’s apt to cite the law from Who-Gives-a-Crapistan as justification for her decision.
Well…Isn’t that just special???
The constitution of South Africa? Really? That one was ratified in 1996. It’s certainly stood the test of time, hasn’t it? What about Canada’s constitution? That one dates all the way back to 1982 which clearly means it’s well weathered.
The problem is…Dobby’s mother just can’t bring herself to trust a document that’s as old as she is apparently.
Ginsburg went on to ask, “Why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?”
Why not indeed?
Perhaps because OUR Constitution is the most tried and true constitution in the world today? Is that a good reason? How about because people from around the world come to the United States looking for…what was it again…Oh yes…Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, a place where all men are created equal because the Constitution which has been our guide for 224 years protects them.
If there’s something in somebody’s constitution allowing a government mandate to purchase certain goods or services, like, oh I don’t know…Healthcare…rest assured, Ginsburg will turn all the European nation’s constitutions inside out to find it before this coming March.
Certainly somebody’s constitution somewhere has to say that a natural born citizen is one to whom birth was given and leaves it at that.
After the new constitution smell has worn off the constitutions of other nations and when those documents celebrate their 224th birthdays, we’ll see how they’re doing and if even one of them is still in effect, then and only then, could you make a direct comparison.
Of course the argument would be that by then, our will be over 400 years old and that would be a valid point but for the ongoing actions of liberals and this administration to run it through the shredder.
While we, in this country, are outraged by her comments, imagine how pleased the Muslim Brotherhood was to hear that a woman who could be covered head to toe with a burqa fashioned from a dinner napkin doesn’t think a constitution granting the people liberty, freedom of religion and relegates to the people, power over the government, is something by which they should model THEIR constitution.
There’s something about that oath. Something that just doesn’t ring true. If indeed Ginsburg doesn’t think our Constitution is a proper model for others, she must feel that oath isn’t up to snuff either.
This episode provides a rare glimpse inside the liberal mind and how they perceive the things conservatives hold sacred. Ginsburg would not be alone in this as one could easily suspect Obama of rowing the same boat. It’s a boat one could ski behind when you think of the number of liberal members of Congress with THEIR oars also in the water.
It’s that oath.
“I, (Insert name), do solemnly swear 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.”
Where conservatives see, “…I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States…”
Liberals see…“…I will pretend to support the Constitution of the United States…”
The really perplexing part of this is that Ginsburg already has the gig. It’s a lifetime appointment. She doesn’t HAVE to hightail it to countries run by our enemies like so many similar liberal cowards to trash OUR country and OUR Constitution.
But she did just that anyway.
While voters try to determine which GOP candidate is best suited to fix the economy, one of the least talked about key aspects of this election is greatly overlooked.
The next President will most likely appoint at least 1 Supreme Court Justice; and because it IS a lifetime appointment, the decisions that Justice will make will endure long past the economic fix.
According to reports, “Most of Governor Romney’s judicial appointees were not conservative. The Boston Globe’s July 2005 “review … of Romney’s judicial picks detected no philosophical or partisan pattern.” He “passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced [as of July 2005], instead tapping registered Democrats or independents including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights.”
As Obamacare heads for the Supreme Court in a matter of a couple months, we must, as concerned voters, look at Romneycare and Romney’s judicial appointments as being every bit as important as the economy as we approach upcoming primaries. If as a conservative, you are disgusted by Ginsburg’s comments, be sure you don’t advocate as your nominee, a candidate who would appoint another Ginsburg to the Supreme Court bench or any other federal court bench.
While the candidates and voters alike argue over who is the most conservative, consider this: Of the 4 still in the race, only Romney has a record which includes judicial appointments and when the question arises in debates or on the campaign trail, has Romney ever once pointed to his record of judicial nominations or appointments as an indicator of his conservatism?
In what should be the CLEAREST indicator of conservatism, Romney never goes there and it’s easy to suspect there is a valid reason he doesn’t.
After listening to Ginsburg’s atrocious comments on Egyptian soil last week, we clearly don’t need the one we have currently and we certainly don’t want another Ginsburg appointed down the road.