It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn't use U.S. Constitution as a model

page: 1
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 09:59 AM
link   
So, I'm kind of confused here... I thought the entire job of a supreme court justice was to measure the laws against the constitution and rule their constitutionality?

uscourts.gov


The best-known power of the Supreme Court is judicial review, or the ability of the Court to declare a Legislative or Executive act in violation of the Constitution, is not found within the text of the Constitution itself. The Court established this doctrine in the case of Marbury v. Madison (1803)


Look, there are flaws in our system OBVIOUSLY, however politicisized government authority and social justice in the supreme court is unacceptable. I'm not sure when the supreme court became a left or right organization. The constitution, the amendments and bill of rights are tools to measure our laws by. They are not suppose to be liberal or conservative they are suppose to be constitutional. It's not up to the judges to decide how they feel about something.

Faux News


"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. "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, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done."


She believes we should look to the constitution of South Africa as a model for governance. Here's my personal issue.... right in the preamble of the South African constitution a stated goal is social justice.

chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/www.wipo.int...


Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights;


Here in this thread I previously layed out my own philosophy on how social justice inevitably leads to vilification of an enemy and extreme action against them. Most notably during WW2 and with the Bolshevik's in Russia. We are actually seeing this play out in real time in South Africa currently.

Land confiscation in SA


It was put forward by the radical left Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) party, whose leader Julius Malema told the country's parliament: “We must ensure that we restore the dignity of our people without compensating the criminals who stole our land.”



The ruling African National Congress (ANC) amended but supported the motion. The party has promised reforms to address the racial disparities in land ownership which persist more than two decades after the end of apartheid.

South Africa's new president, Cyril Ramaphosa, said he would speed up the transfer of land from white to black owners after his inauguration two weeks ago.


This is where social justice inevitably leads as a ruling philosophy.

SA Gun Rights Ruling


On 7 June 2018 the Constitutional Court unanimously ruled that sections 24 and 28 of the Firearms Control Act (2000), under which gun owners must renew their firearm licences on a regular basis or forfeit guns for which licences have expired to the state, are constitutional. In making its judgement, the ConCourt ruled that gun ownership is not a fundamental right under the Bill of Rights, rather it is a privilege regulated by the Firearms Control Act (FCA).


Now here is where we get to murky waters... SA has one of the highest murder rates in the world a lot of it due to social justice and the rise of the Social Justice Coalition .

We are currently on a dangerous and slippery slope in the US with the politicization of the supreme court and the current narrative of social justice permeating our culture.
edit on 7-7-2018 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-7-2018 by toysforadults because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 10:10 AM
link   
RBG has some flakey ideas.

Most of the constitutions in the world's democracies are BASED ON the US Constitution.

edit on 7-7-2018 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 10:13 AM
link   
She's increasingly politicizing her role on the SC. Probably because she knows her time is short and it would be too late to impeach her anyway.

The sooner she's out and replaced the better.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 10:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
She's increasingly politicizing her role on the SC. Probably because she knows her time is short and it would be too late to impeach her anyway.

The sooner she's out and replaced the better.


SCOTUS has been politicized, therein lies a big, BIG issue for the Republic.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 10:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
She's increasingly politicizing her role on the SC. Probably because she knows her time is short and it would be too late to impeach her anyway.

The sooner she's out and replaced the better.


I think this whole idea of having right or left judges is ridiculous overall

they are suppose to decide on weather or not it's constitutional not if it supports a political narrative



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I can't argue with that.

The media on both sides are already off the rails about the upcoming vacancy. Hopefully Trump picks an actual constitutionalist and not a hack in robes like the few have been.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 10:23 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Granny's been hitting the fermented prune juice again.

Someone needs to keep a closer eye on the poor thing.


+5 more 
posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 10:29 AM
link   
Is Ms Ginsberg aware that South Africa is changing it's Constitution to make stealing land from Whites legal? What are the necessary conditions for impeachment of a sitting Supreme Court Justice? I think she's lost her mind.

South Africa is not worthy of emulation, by anyone.
Sorry but you guys blew it.
The Rainbow Nation looks more like a box of melted crayons.
edit on 8-7-2018 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Gryphon66

I can't argue with that.

The media on both sides are already off the rails about the upcoming vacancy. Hopefully Trump picks an actual constitutionalist and not a hack in robes like the few have been.


^^^^
THIS



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 10:41 AM
link   
The old bird needs to be put out to pasture already.

Second verse, same as the first verse with the third verse saying.

Yeah.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

It is not the job of any government to force social justice. Putting such terminology in a constitution almost guarantees limitations on freedom.

One may argue that the US Constitution does not fully detail the scope of governmental affairs in the 21st century and I could accept that as a valid argument.

But our founders wrote the constitution to protect the rights of citizens of all classes against mob rule. They understood that it was much better for a government to protect the rights of individuals rather than govern their morality.

The Bill of Rights, which now includes womens rights and minority rights to participate in government and be treated as political equals is enough.

It is not the duty of any government or any man to end racism, sexism or any other social injustice that expresses itself only through speech. Guaranteeing equal rights through the law builds a government that is required to treat each individual the same.

The law should protect the rights of the individual to be and do anything they chose so long as such activities are consensual among adults. And should stand against those who would wish to silence dissension for any reason.

Our freedoms should only be limited by those freedoms that if exercised would interfere with the freedom of others. Speech should only be limited that an individual cannot verbally in a public areana call for violence against the individual. But the call for insurgency against the government as a whole should always be protected.

Only cowards are afraid of insurgency. Our founding father were not cowards. They lead one of the greatest and most just insurrections of all time. And in their declaration they called out to mankind that if any form of government would attempt to silence the people or fail to represent them, it is not just the right but the duty of the oppressed to remove such unjust government and replace it with a government that protects the rights of individual.

The rights of individuals is more important to protect than the feelings of the individual. It is not up the government to dictate what feeling people may have or express. Including social justice in the constitution is mob rule, which has no place in a free society.
edit on 7-7-2018 by Isurrender73 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 11:02 AM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy


Yeah..for far too long. She advocated lowering the age of sexual consent to age 12, in 1997. Who appointed Ginsburg?



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults


Trust.. is earned.

Trusting the Government is like trusting a dumb lying ignorant sheet.

Stay smart.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults


Trust.. is earned.

Trusting the Government is like trusting a dumb lying ignorant sheet.

Stay smart.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 11:08 AM
link   
a reply to: toysforadults

Her disdain of the US Constitution makes a lot of sense.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: toysforadults

originally posted by: watchitburn
She's increasingly politicizing her role on the SC. Probably because she knows her time is short and it would be too late to impeach her anyway.

The sooner she's out and replaced the better.


I think this whole idea of having right or left judges is ridiculous overall

they are suppose to decide on weather or not it's constitutional not if it supports a political narrative


True, and along these lines, she has just disqualified herself as a SCOTUS judge in my opinion.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: toysforadults

Her disdain of the US Constitution makes a lot of sense.


Any examples of Ginsburg's disdain of the Constitution?



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 11:25 AM
link   
This story is from 2012. Do we really have to rehash this again? We've known for years where Ms. Ginsburg stands.



posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
This story is from 2012. Do we really have to rehash this again? We've known for years where Ms. Ginsburg stands.


Yep. I hate hash.

SCOTUS doesn't need to be politicized by anyone. Period.




posted on Jul, 7 2018 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: toysforadults

Her disdain of the US Constitution makes a lot of sense.


Any examples of Ginsburg's disdain of the Constitution?

I don't know let me see.

dis·dain
consider to be unworthy of one's consideration.


"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,"


Pretty sure that's cleared up.



new topics

top topics



 
17
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join