It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Scalia: The Soviet Union’s Constitution Was ‘Much Better Than Ours’

page: 1

log in


posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:42 PM
This in addition to another SCOTUS judge statement...
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Talks Constitution, Claims S.Afica's Constitution Better

Seems to me like it's a pattern. 2 SCOTUS judges bad mouthing the constitution in such a short period of time? Pattern.

Scalia: The Soviet Union’s Constitution Was ‘Much Better Than Ours’

During a recent Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said that U.S. Constitution is vastly inferior to that of one of our long defunct enemies:

The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it literally. It was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press, big deal! The guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press of street demonstrations and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account.

Please. The constitution doesn't guarantee squats... the constitution states what the government can do, nothing else. The bill of rights states what humans were born with... rights given by their creator. It only states a fact.

Scalia doesn't know this apparently. Or maybe he's just making the point that doesn't matter what the constitution says as long as the government doesn't give a flying turtle about it... Soviet Union/US government... same trashing of their respective constitutions.
edit on 12-2-2012 by Vitchilo because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:47 PM
Scalia has come a long way from the days of supporting freedom of speech in the Larry Flynt era to this. Another reason why they shouldn't even be scotus judges for a few years, let alone life.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:51 PM



posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:55 PM
I once sat down with and had a rather long personal discussion with Justice Scalia (I was a West Point cadet at the time). It was fascinating, and whatever else we may think of the man, I came away impressed and convinced of his argument. The conversation we had dealt with Roe v. Wade and the activist court. Scalia presented the case that it was wrong of the court to rule at all on the issue of abortion as being intrinsically covered by the articles of the Constitution (as was done citing the privacy clause...a woman's body is her private concern and beyond government interference). He explained to me, however, that the Constitution had clear guidelines for how this process was to work, and that if the majority of people wanted Constitutional guarantees as related to the issue of abortion they were simply to appeal to their representatives in legislature who would then legislate the issue into law or even amendment.

I just remember him saying, "Lee, I've read the Constitution. Hell, I've read it more than once, and no where in there does it say that a woman's right to abort her unborn fetus shall not be infringed upon." Interesting guy...

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 10:59 PM
Ruth Bader Ginsburg saying it in the manner in which She did is bad enough.

Now we see Scalia saying these borderline traitorous remarks to a Senate Judiciary Committee !!!!

WHO do they think they are talking to anyway ??

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:02 PM
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003

Well, it does closely resemble the enemies of the Red Army during WWII.

If not for their efforts, we'd all be goose-stepping to a man with a terrible mustache.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:03 PM
Calm down. This says it better than I can:

“The bill of rights of the former ‘evil empire,’ the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours,’’ Antonin Scalia told a congressional panel last October. “I mean it literally: It was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press. Big deal. They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of street demonstrations and protests, and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account. Whoa, that is wonderful stuff!’’

Why no outrage? Because Scalia went on to make the point that the Soviet constitution was nothing but “words on paper,’’ a fig leaf for tyranny. By contrast, America’s constitutional system — with its careful separation of powers and government institutions checking and balancing each other — has proved a bulwark against tyranny. Only someone brazenly yanking Scalia’s words out of context could have accused him of revering the Kremlin’s Potemkin constitution more than the one drafted in Philadelphia in 1787….

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:08 PM
reply to post by The Sword

Stalin is overrated too much and made a propaganda punchbag because he stood up to the Rothschilds and Rockefellers and gave them the middle finger . Main mass murderer was Trotsky and this is proven by soviet archives and was a wall street agent..

Obama is america's Trotsky.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:11 PM
reply to post by ludwigvonmises003

Not even close.

Keep dreaming.

Obama isn't perfect but he certainly isn't no #ing Trotsky!

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:12 PM
reply to post by The Sword

What is NDAA2012??

Don't worry ,comrade obama will care for you in FEMA camps with bullets and knives 24/7. Solyent Green anyone

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:14 PM
Regardless of which side of the political spectrum these judges hover, they are all - every single one of them - products of the priest class lawyer sect and the are the fully ordained Arch Bishops of this sect. Their problem with the Bill of Rights is that it doesn't function they way they think it should function. No matter how hard a Justice attempts to construe an Amendment from the Bill of Rights as being a grant of right, these Justices are bound by the actual language of the Amendment itself, and every instance that language is language of prohibition. The Bill of Rights are not a grant of rights, they are a set of prohibitions against government denying them any authority to violate the rights of people.

When viewed correctly, the Bill of Rights is a tight leash upon the beast of government. For ambitious gluttonous beasts this leash is too restrictive, and frankly the beast would like to do away with the leash all together. Why view the Bill of Rights correctly when government can just assert that rights are only those things that government allows?

This has always been the real problem government bureaucrats have had with the Bill of Rights.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:16 PM
I'm not going to resort to more off-topic comments.

Regardless, I'm not surprised that some have blown this story out of proportion.
edit on 12-2-2012 by The Sword because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:18 PM
reply to post by The Sword

I am more than 37. And if you can't see what the republithugs and the demonrats are doing,I am sorry your life will end in a FEMA camp mass grave

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:29 PM
wow, Ginsberg and Scalia ??
the first was no surprise but this is somewhat shocking indeed.
IMHO, these two are perfect examples of why "term limits" should apply to the Supreme Justices. especially when the appointed no longer value that with which they've been entrusted to uphold, ie: the Constitution of the United States

i am surprised that neither seem to understand that government does not, can not and should not "grant rights" to the people. it is not in the scope of governmental authority and it's about time the entirety of the SC reflects it.

posted on Feb, 12 2012 @ 11:57 PM
reply to post by Vitchilo

There really wasn't anything wrong with the Soviet Constitution .. it was a very well written document and provided liberty to the people, much based on the USA's Constitution. The problem was that the Soviets never had the American attitude of "well if the Constitution doesn't say it specifically it's unconstitutional". The Soviets never referenced or considered the Constitution when making policy, and the masses never put much emphasis on it..

The American Constitution is dated.. there are numerous flaws. The biggest flaw imo is the lack of definition for the Government and it's role in our lives .. and the structure of the Justice branch of Government. For instance why not term limits for all politicians? And placing a specific number of justices on the Supreme Court? And defining the specific outline of State sovereignty? There are soooo many things that could be changed to make it better. Sadly.. todays breed of politicians prohibit it. I believe there will never be another Constitution, and eventually we will go the way of the Soviets and just disregard it entirely. Hell, can you imagine what the country would be like if there were not groups raising issue with every infraction?

Imagine as well if todays politicians wrote a new constitution? It'd 10,000 pages and require several bindings!

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 12:20 AM
reply to post by Rockpuck

The constitution of the founding fathers was the BEST.THE BEST.

top topics


log in