Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Talks Constitution, Claims S.Afica's Constitution Better

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Tworide

 

Poor choice of words on my part. Corrected to :That 'worthless document" as you call it protects the drivel to spill from your lips, or fingers as the case may be.

And yet, you insist on calling my worthy correction pointing out that unalienable rights exist with or without any Constitution, as "drivel". Sigh.

Au contraire! No offense to you, Sir! Your posts are to the point and very refreshing. The corrections to my ineptness in expressing my point are taken to heart.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


And I agree. While many Justices' keep their political ideology close to their hearts -- and rarely give us insight to their personal views, Justice Ginsberg has in this instance, provided us a glimpse to hers. Not her voting record or opinion on cases, but her actual view upon the very document she has the power to judicial review and opinion.

Her words, I am sure championed by the Huffington Post and others give insight into her understanding of the document in which she serves to opine about. Her view that the Constitution was exclusionary towards "women, Native Americans and slaves" shows her view that she believes the document isn't Negative Law, but rather Positive Law.

This is the same argument James Madison initially made in regards to Bills of Rights. Why put into place, in a Negative Law document, items that could be seen and used as Positive Law and thus be viewed as liberties given by Government to the People. She believes that the Constitution allows us, the People the Rights enumerated and not that the Constitution does nothing for the People; except protect us from the most evil of society -- Government.

I do question the use of a sitting Justice on a diplomatic relations tour -- but who better than those who guard against the other branches and should have the best understanding to its words, meanings and intentions than a Justice? But this wouldn't be the first time that one branch of Government uses another to serve its purpose; and it won't be the last time.

Originally posted by Tworide
Greater legal minds than mine have a very negative opinion on her comments...

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."

Source

Greater...you don't have much confidence in your mental attributes then

Liberty Counsel is a non-profit public interest law firm and ministry that provides free legal assistance in defense of "Christian religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and the traditional family."[1] Liberty Counsel is headed by attorney Mathew D. Staver, who founded the legal ministry with his wife, Anita, in 1989 and currently serves as its Chairman. Anita L. Staver, his wife, serves as President of Liberty Counsel. A close partnership exists between Liberty University, which was founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, and Liberty Counsel; Staver serves as Liberty University's law school Dean.[1] In 2004, Liberty Counsel became affiliated with Liberty University/Falwell Ministries and Liberty Counsel opened an office at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

Falwell Ministries indeed. Yes, the lets create a theocracy and remove any of them liberal judges mentality..naa..your on ATS..even the most wingnut neocon on here is arguably 5 steps ahead of anyone whom would willingly affiliate with the fallwell ministries.

as far as her opinion...I was suprised to hear it. normally I accept most politicians to be complete tools and will only spout out how the USA is the bestest most greatest thing ever and everywhere else is suck on ice. nice to see some people can realize there is a whole world out there and suggest people go shopping for what fits them.

still not seeing an issue..she didn't say american constitution sucks..she actually discussed the merits of it...but hey, its not for everyone to adopt the second they remove a dictatorship...and by her saying that, she probably increased the likelyhood that they would indeed look closer at our constitution.

you wanted her to wave a flag to the egyptians and cheer USA, USA...sure, I get it...probably why your not invited to public speak to foreign nationals also.
You think the president of the US (any administration) would go to a place like say...south africa and say "wow, you don't have our constitution...therefore your constitution sucks"? would he be betraying the country if he said what they had was good...hell, even a better fit for their situation than was?

Must politicians be little more than tools?

When a person swears an oath, they swear an oath. fine...but that doesn't remove their brain. They will continue to have opinions.

Now, do yourself a favor and research other SCOTUS justices...you will find many of them hold opinions that actually go against current law. amazing, isn't it...but so long as their opinions do not effect their ruling on the legal matters at hand, then it doesn't matter.
Sadly, it does (hense why corporations are suddenly people again. go neocon corporatism!)

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Tworide
Greater legal minds than mine have a very negative opinion on her comments...

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."

Source

Liberty Counsel is a non-profit public interest law firm and ministry that provides free legal assistance in defense of "Christian religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and the traditional family."[1] Liberty Counsel is headed by attorney Mathew D. Staver, who founded the legal ministry with his wife, Anita, in 1989 and currently serves as its Chairman. Anita L. Staver, his wife, serves as President of Liberty Counsel. A close partnership exists between Liberty University, which was founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, and Liberty Counsel; Staver serves as Liberty University's law school Dean.[1] In 2004, Liberty Counsel became affiliated with Liberty University/Falwell Ministries and Liberty Counsel opened an office at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

Gotcha digging didn't it

Originally posted by Tworide


Gotcha digging didn't it

I do try to dig to figure out who is saying what overall. come to find out the guy saying coke is made from aborted fetus's works for pepsi and whatnot.

We live in an age of amazing deception, and really stupid deception at the same time.
Amazing because soo much time and effort is spent in spinning everything anyone says, and stupid because we all have the internet and the spin never truely sticks for long..these fools think its 1980 still.

Originally posted by Destinyone

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Hawking
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

I agree, she is allowed to say if she thinks another nation's constitution seems fairer or a better model in her opinion. It's freedom of speech and it's upheld by our own constitution.

You wanting to impeach her is called suppression of free speech

So...thread over then?

Only if you think your opinion is set in stone for everyone....

She has done no such thing? She speaks in her private capacity, not her official capacity.

Originally posted by Vitchilo
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

She's a supreme court judge. She doesn't get to have an opinion. Sorry.

massive facepalm...

reply to post by duality90


I was speaking of you, and your opinion...not Ginsburg. I think you misinterpreted my reply.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The importance and value of any Constitution establishing a governing body lies in its treatment of natural and unalienable rights. The South African Constitution has a Bill of Rights but unlike the language used by the Founding Fathers of the Constitution for the United States of America, the language in the South African Bill of Rights reads more as a grant of rights by government, rather than an express prohibition of government regarding certain rights.

One of the first noticeable differences between the South African and the United States Bill of Rights is that the South African version comes with a "table of non-derogable rights. Derogable, by definition, are those "rights" that may be limited under extreme circumstances.

Just looking at the South African Bill of Rights it is clear that this document allows government much more wiggle room when it comes to the abrogation and derogation of any individuals rights than does the Constitution for the United States of America.

Conflicting statements? Surely if the South African constitutions sets out rights which cannot be derogated from, then these rights are more powerfully entrenched than rights, the interpretation of which, has changed repeatedly as SCOTUS has moved along the political spectrum? I think the highly politicised court in the US does a disservice to its citizens. A judge will always be affected in some small way by his inclinations, but I must say that I find the rather blatant lines upon which the court draws itself in the US is quite peculiar.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

But how do we define "Support and Defend"? Wouldn't that all be a manner of perspective?

I don't think Justice Ginsburg's remarks are any violation of her oath, but what these remarks do is give Constitutionally minded people enough cause for alarm. She had every right to speak her mind, but now that she has, people have every right to interpret her words and pass judgment on them. Because she has so willingly dismissed the Constitution she is bound to by oath of office, future decisions that hinge upon her opinion may now become suspect.

Take the South African Constitution and its insistence that health care and access to it is a right, and then pay close attention to how Ginsburg rules in our own upcoming Supreme Court consideration of "Obamacare". It is a sound prediction that Ginsburg will rule in favor of this so called "health-care" bill that presumes health care is synonymous with insurance schemes and private companies who apparently need government to use their massive force to convince people do buy their insurance schemes.

Is she honoring her oath of office if and when she rules this way, or is she honoring her personal belief that the South African Constitution is a better document than the Constitution for the United States of America? Such a question is only fair, considering her remarks. Frankly, her best bet is to rule against the "health care" bill on Constitutional grounds, just to save the integrity of the Court. Let's see what happens.

I think it will be an interesting decision, certainly, as it is going to give more clarity to what is permissible under the commerce clause. Hopefully we see a decision based on precedent and not some peculiar argument extrapolated from obiter dicta or which ignores the actual bases and conclusion of the decision cited.

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by duality90

 

I was speaking of you, and your opinion...not Ginsburg. I think you misinterpreted my reply.

huh? That was the first message I had posted on the board haha.

reply to post by duality90

Conflicting statements? Surely if the South African constitutions sets out rights which cannot be derogated from, then these rights are more powerfully entrenched than rights, the interpretation of which, has changed repeatedly as SCOTUS has moved along the political spectrum?

The conflict comes from the South African Constitution. While they seem to avoid by language actually granting people these rights, by the time they get to that "table of non-derogable rights" clearly establishes that what rights are not on the table are "derogable". In this, it is reasonably interpreted by judges that all the rights are legal rights granted by the South African government, and what is legally granted can be legally taken away.

Unalienable is not used in regards to these rights - of course, that word is not used in the U.S. federal Constitution either - instead non-derogable is used. They have not entrenched rights, they've built in a back-door to escape the acknowledgment and respect of rights if they choose.

reply to post by duality90

I think it will be an interesting decision, certainly, as it is going to give more clarity to what is permissible under the commerce clause. Hopefully we see a decision based on precedent and not some peculiar argument extrapolated from obiter dicta or which ignores the actual bases and conclusion of the decision cited.

Prior to the New Deal era of the United States, the Commerce Clause was used to both assert Congresses authority to regulate certain business, and to limit governments power as well. When certain businesses, no matter how local, had an output that was a part of a continuous flow of commerce and involved interstate commerce, but in the early years of the New Deal, much of that early legislation found disfavor with the Supreme Court who used the Commerce Clause against them. Indeed, as recently as 1995 the Supreme Court took a restrictive view of the Commerce Clause in Lopez v. United States. That recent restriction imposed upon government notwithstanding, Congress, and by extension the Executive branch have been granted by the Supreme Court an alarming breadth of leniency in regards to that Clause.

One of the many problems with the interpretation of that Clause is that the term "commerce" is not clearly defined by Constitution, and we are forced to turn to the ordinary usage of the word "commerce" and its meaning. "Commerce" means both the activity of buying and selling, particularly on a large scale, and it also means social dealings with people. Because of this ambiguity of a word, conflict on what the meaning of the word and its intent as a Clause in the Constitution.

I am inclined to believe that Congress has been granted authority to regulate the commerce of buying and selling when it comes to interstate commerce, but does not have authority to regulate social dealings with people. Further, I think that given the express language of prohibition of government actions that the Bill of Rights exhibits, is is reasonably argued that Congress really does not have any purview over individuals engaging in any lawful business that does not involve interstate, except in those specific instances where this lawful business is inextricably connected to the flow of interstate commerce.

This has not been the Supreme Courts take on it for well over a century. What is "stare decisis" today is the product of a steady expansion of regulatory power by the federal government under the guise of the Commerce Clause. I wish I had the wherewithal to make a sound legal argument as to all the errors, mistakes of facts, and misinterpretations of law that prior Supreme Court rulings made in regard to the Commerce Clause, but at this point I am just tragically to ignorant and in short supply of the time needed to fully understand the case law involved and its legal reasoning.

I can only cross my fingers and hope for the best, but prepare for the tougher battles to come if it is the worst.

most telling is what she DOES like about the constitution."Ginsburg also noted that among her favorite parts of the Constitutions is the provision that judges’ salaries cannot be reduced, as well as a guarantee of independence to judges."

I have said for years how stupid it is that these fools are appointed for LIFE to the Supreme court..how old is she now, as in how senile is she becoming?

reply to post by Destinyone

I actually agree with her on this. Our Constitution is of course a monumental achievement that was completely revolutionary in its time. But it is also cumbersome at this point with all that has changed (and often needed to be changed). After all, it is a document that enshrines human slavery as the norm, or did until new Amendments change that.

Most more modern constitutions for democracies around the world took the U.S. Constitution as a model and a starting point, and then made alterations and clarifications that ours currently lacks. There's nothing wrong with that. I think she's both appropriately proud of the achievement the U.S. Constitution represents, but also recognizes that others have built upon it in the intervening 200 years and done some things better. But without the success of the U.S. Constitution, it's likely most, if not all of those documents would not even exist.

I also agree with the poster above who says that it would be a big mistake to try and write a new Constitution for the U.S. Things are far to politically divisive and it would be a mess. Freedoms could evaporate even while maybe some much needed changes did get done. Temporary political needs and whims would get enshrined as law for the next who knows how many years. Yes, some of the same could be said for our current constitution, but in the intervening years we've done a pretty good job of fixing many, if not most of the problems inherent in the original document. It's still not perfect, but it's pretty good and it seems to work.

Agreed..your constitution is an out of date archaic document that needs to be seriously revised. Anyone who doesn't see that need to get out of the past and move into the now.

But it would be such a good fit for egypt!
They could declare christians 3/5 of a person, and could have a constitutional alcohol ban!
Also it would ensure that the less populous areas are heard too, and not everything gets decided on the Nile banks!

Disgusting! And these leftist radicals have been embedded in govt and commerce since she was appointed.

Originally posted by kerazeesicko
Agreed..your constitution is an out of date archaic document that needs to be seriously revised. Anyone who doesn't see that need to get out of the past and move into the now.

Revisions are called Amendments and require a process of ratification. Here's the process also defined by the Constitution

Article V of the Constitution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Constitution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

www.lexisnexis.com...

If you do not like the US Constitution you are most welcome to live somewhere that has one you like. Since you are obviously not American, you really do not have much merit in comment on our Constitution.

Maybe you prefer something with Sharia Law.

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by AnIntellectualRedneck

 

I just don't understand how Ginsburg has the right to tell other nations to disregard our Constitution.

Des

Actually she does have the right, its in our Constitution. Bill of rights first Amendment.

OT: Her freedom of Speech and all that, if people don't like what she says then she'll be eaten by the game of Politics.

However I don't entirely disagree with her. If a nation is drafting their constitution then they should look everywhere and learn what really fits best for them. As long as it covers basic human rights and all that.