-
John Kerry, Secretary of Gaffes
April 25, 2013 | 9 comments
-
Rand Paul and Marco Rubio at CPAC
March 14, 2013 | 0 comments
-
SEQUESTER: The Dumbest Weight-Loss Plan Ever
March 1, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Israel’s Hard-Right Turn That Wasn’t
January 22, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Deep Space Nine, Twenty Years Later
January 3, 2013 | 23 comments
The Spectacle Blog
From the Middle East Media Research Institute, excerpts from an interview that aired Monday on Al-Hayat TV with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg:
I met with the head of the elections commission. I think that the first step has gone well, and that elections have been held for the lower house that everyone has considered to be free and fair. So that’s one milestone, and the next will be the drafting of a constitution.
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.
[…]
Let me say first that a constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom. If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference. So the spirit of liberty has to be in the population, and then the constitution - first, it should safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment, the right to speak freely, and to publish freely, without the government as a censor.
[…]
You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone one since the end of World War II. I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. 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… It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done. Much more recent than the US constitution - Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is elsewhere in the world?
Ginsburg, of course, gets one of nine votes on the functional meaning of the US Constitution. That she thinks the age of the constitution she’s charged with interpreting make it deficient relative to newer constitutions is kind of shocking, particularly in the context of her praise for the rights enshrined in the First Amendment — rights that, in practice, are protected far less robustly in South Africa or Canada or Europe than they are in the US. On the other hand, given her style of interpretation, it’s kind of not shocking at all.
(Hat-tip: Weasel Zippers)
View all comments (46) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by John Tabin
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/02/justice-ginsburg-to-egypt-dont
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Once Upon a Time in the West
- Behind a Quilt of Mist
- His Reach Exceeded His Grasp
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
BD57| 2.2.12 @ 11:12PM
No surprise, unfortunately - it's an article of faith amongst progs that our Constitution is deficient b/c it gets in the way of government doing "good things."
RJ| 2.2.12 @ 11:25PM
Ruth Ginsburg makes one good observation - If the people don't promote the values in their constitution, it doesn't matter what is written.
But by choosing the South African constitution for embracing "basic human rights" over the US Constitution, I presume she means the socialist right to make yourself dependent on (and entitled to) the work of others. It is a sad day when a member of the US Supreme Court has less regard for our own Constitution than that of a foreign country.
florin| 2.12.12 @ 8:54AM
I was pretty angry when I heard an excerpt of what Justice Ginsberg had said but there was a comment in a discussion which explained it. There was no need for a strong a civil rights expression in our Constitution as there is in the South African Constitution because we weren't experiencing major issues with Civil Rights back when the Constitution was written...
ghop| 2.2.12 @ 11:49PM
Justice Ginsburg should not be on the Supreme Court if that's how she feels about our Constitution.
Ward Bond| 2.3.12 @ 12:03AM
despicable
Occam's Tool| 2.3.12 @ 12:04AM
ghop: well, she is on the SCOTUS. And, if Obama is re-elected, she will retire at age 78 or 79, to be replaced with someone equally as bad, or worse---in her 50s.
This is why even voting for a club brain like Romney is important.
Ward Bond| 2.3.12 @ 12:32AM
Anybody needing a reason for voting for the GOP nominee even if you don't like him the best doesn't have to look any farther than the Supreme Court. 5-4 split now,barely, depending on Kennedy. I like my guns.
JimH| 2.3.12 @ 8:03AM
While conservative presidents have appointed justices who turned out liberal, I can’t think of an example of a conservative justice appointed by a liberal president. I guess the desire to use the State to ‘do good’ is too much for some.
RJ| 2.3.12 @ 12:44AM
Bingo.
A while back she mentioned that she wanted to retire in time for Obama to nominate her successor, but she may have waited too long. (SC nominations are viewed as being pretty tough this close to a presidential election.) However, we can never underestimate the disappoint potential of the GOP Senators who may quickly cave in order not to offend the liberals.
Lesser Weevil| 2.3.12 @ 12:58AM
Assuming that he won't Souter us.
Larry| 2.3.12 @ 2:32AM
Oh gosh, I'm not so sure about that. Remember who George H.W. Bush appointed? David Souter. Which is why I'm quite nervous about Romney. He is most likely to appoint a knucklehead like Souter.
Sean| 2.3.12 @ 2:59AM
People are worrying about sharia law while we got people like Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. The biggest threat to this country are people like Ginsburg and her ilk.
Kevin M| 2.3.12 @ 1:47PM
As long as we have people like Alito, Scalia, Roberts, et al. we needn't worry about sharia law. Unless, of course, you mean Christian sharia law, where the precepts of Christianity become secular law. They're all for that.
James| 2.3.12 @ 12:43AM
I hope this hag is replaced by the next conservative president.
Lesser Weevil| 2.3.12 @ 1:04AM
You can find the South African constitution here:
http://www.info.gov.za/documen...../index.htm
It is easy to see why she likes it better than ours. It celebrates "diversity" right in the preamble, freedom of speech specifically excludes "hate speech," "reproductive freedom" is guaranteed, etc., etc. It's probably just a matter of time before the Supremes start citing it to justify their lawless decisions. Say a prayer for the continued good health of Scalia and Thomas.
squalis| 2.3.12 @ 9:21AM
What about Alito & Roberts?
Lesser Weevil| 2.3.12 @ 11:52AM
Yes, certainly, and even for that ridiculous squish Kennedy.
squalis| 2.3.12 @ 10:30AM
Citations of foreign law by SCOTUS already happening: Lots on the web to confirm, but as an example, there was a wonderful debate between Scalia and Breyer on this issue in 2005. I think Scalia got the better points in. I saw it televised. It was entertaining and informative. Find the transcript here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....2357/posts
An historical perspective is here:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/pa....._id=700176
Larry| 2.3.12 @ 2:30AM
This is where Newt Gingrich's view of the judiciary is quite reasonable. If I were a Congressman or Senator right now, I would be subpoenaing her to a hearing about why she made the remarks that she did, and whether or not her remarks effectively remove her from any qualification to continue as a Supreme Court justice, because she is unwilling to defend the document in public, even as she spends time interpreting it to her convenience. Those remarks deserve impeachment on the grounds that she has violated her oath as a justice.
air jordan shoes | 2.3.12 @ 3:10AM
wow thats ok
martin j smith| 2.3.12 @ 7:51AM
I think Justice Ginsberg has no idea of what is happening in Egypt. Its about Radical Islam having zero to do with any constitution except perhaps that of the old USSR.
Ryan| 2.3.12 @ 8:00AM
Moral relativism, plain and simple. Her philosophy here points to the idea that there are no absolutes in morality, that she may actually believe something is WRONG with our Constitution.
THEADORA| 2.3.12 @ 8:05AM
What is the woman still doing on the court?
Larry Lagrone| 2.3.12 @ 8:24AM
"rights that, in practice, are protected far less robustly in Canada or Europe than they are in the US." ???????
Did you just fall off the banana boat, or do you feel that your readers have done so???
Will| 2.3.12 @ 8:26AM
The fact that any justice, conservative or liberal would entertain the brutes at all, is deeply troubling. The remarks about the age of the constituition are Obama codespeak for the "flawed document" arguement, an a red-flag indication as to just how deep the rot goes. Even the Civil War wasn't as much a threat to the Union as what we now face.
Larry Lagrone| 2.3.12 @ 8:33AM
I believe that the U.S. Constitution is a wonderful MODEL; in modern practice, it's no GUARANTEE of anything...hardly worth the paper upon which it's written. Sad :(
PattyMor| 2.3.12 @ 8:46AM
If the Egyptians wanted to follow our Constitution, which one would they follow? The one as written, or the one that has been rewritten by 100 years of liberalism?
Indy| 2.3.12 @ 8:57AM
Ginsburg praise the Arab Spring, how troubling with the power move to the Muslim Brotherhood
http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....t-tunisia/
Le Cracquere| 2.3.12 @ 9:44AM
In a way, it's hard to argue with Ginsburg. Wasn't it Adams who said that "our Constitution was designed for a religious and moral people and for no other"? Vis-à-vis Egypt, what Adams meant by "religion" is difficult to square with Islamism, and what he (and we) mean by "moral" is nearly its inverse.
Hand a nation full of Muslim Brotherhood politicians and voters the U.S. Constitution, and their country will be a hellhole ... even if they follow it to the letter.
shipley130| 2.3.12 @ 12:58PM
Egypt isn't a new nation. It's still the same old crap.
Kevin M| 2.3.12 @ 1:54PM
I think Ginsburg's point is that the U.S. Constitution, as written in 1787, is not the same constitution even America today would adopt. That's hardly heresy. The original document endorsed human slavery, for instance. Women were not guaranteed the right to vote until 1920 and even now it's perfectly legal to discriminate against them in certain areas.
Our constitution is magnificent, but it's not perfect. (Aren't the religious right always the ones who remind us that nothing made of man is perfect, only works of God?) And just because she recognizes this doesn't mean she's incapable of ruling according to what the constitution says. Plenty of judges - liberal and conservative alike - disagree with laws they nonetheless enforce.
ayrnieu| 2.3.12 @ 2:28PM
No, I think her point is all about 'human rights', which stand opposed to any coherent and just system of rights that might enjoy. I found the South African constition: 'human rights' are second, 'equality' is first absurd non-right, which just Affirmative Action with a contradicted equal protection clause. Property rights - an actual right, and one that obviates or contradicts any human right - are also represented, and although there is a real concern in the text that the government might completely expropriate a certain portion of the population, the government is still allowed this if it can call you a racist and toss you some 'compensation'.
ayrnieu| 2.3.12 @ 2:30PM
... it's amazing what typing on a tablet can do to your grammar.
Hesiod| 2.3.12 @ 3:33PM
You, of course, are wholly ignoring the troubled history of South Africa when denigrating the equality clauses of their constitution. In any case, libertarians -- and their dimwitted property righte fetish -- are pretty mush adolescent idiots whose ideas can never and have never worked on a large scale in any human civilization ever conceived or that ever will be conceived.
Race Bannon| 2.5.12 @ 2:10PM
the US Constitution never encouraged slavery
RJ| 2.3.12 @ 2:28PM
I don't think that is what we find objectionable. Ginsburg's comments even made reference to amendments to the Constitution, so she was speaking about more than the original Constitution.
Part of what she said was:
"...if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. 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..."
The key to her comment is that the South African constitution is superior to the US Constitution because it embraces "basic human rights" in a superior fashion. [And let's not forget we fought a war and passed the 13th Amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision.] It is a certainty that the "rights" she is speaking of are the "positive rights" (which do not exist in nature, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) which require the property of others. Such "rights" represent the demand to have your fellow citizens work on your behalf.
Hesiod| 2.3.12 @ 3:25PM
You know, the South African constitution is available online. So, instead of just assuming what she meant, and what it says, you could actually look it up.
http://www.info.gov.za/documen.....6cons2.htm
Jeff Johnson| 2.3.12 @ 6:15PM
Hesiod,
That would be engaging with reality and using an open mind. What were you thinking?
Every conservative is well trained and knows exactly how they are supposed to respond to news like this. Don't go messing with the script the FNC/RNC propaganda bureau has worked so hard to inculcate into the minds of American conservatives.
The US Constitution was apparently handed down by Jesus and the only text that has ever been more sacred and more perfect is the Bible. Except of course allowing for the amendments the Tea Party want to add and the amendments they want to repeal.
The amendment process was not added by the Founding Fathers because they had the wisdom to envision that over the centuries new knowledge and ideas might come to light and that future generations might have ways to improve upon it. It was added so that religious conservatives might have the option of using the Constitution to punish the enemies of God.
You had better bone up on the etiquette that must be observed at all times when entering the conservative bubble of epistemic closure.
Koozebane| 2.5.12 @ 2:29PM
Careful, Jeff. Your political bigotry is showing.
You may want to discuss the article instead of your embarrassingly uncomplicated views of those around you.
The original constitution does more for personal freedom with less government intervention than any other document ever written.
Free men know the recipe for freedom. And free men well always know that there is no substitute for the unyielding controls placed upon the powers of government.
"It was added so that religious conservatives might have the option of using the Constitution to punish the enemies of God."
How striking that today the constitution is being boldly disparaged so that idealistic elites "might have the option" of controlling those who are inconvenient to the failed and bankrupt social memes to which utopian egoists bitterly cling.
RJ| 2.6.12 @ 1:36AM
You are jumping to conclusions, Hesiod. Once you read both constitutions, you still must try to reason what it was that made her prefer the South African constitution regarding basic human rights. The letter of the present day US Constitution does well on the protection of what are called "negative rights" wherein the government is restricted from taking certain actions, so I strongly doubt that is what she was focusing on. Based on her years on the bench, the most likely answer is that her preference is based on the promotion of "positive rights" which are dependent upon taking from some and giving to others. That philosophy however, opens the door to greater corruption, because who wins the game of taking from the public treasury?; Clearly not the weak and vulnerable.
Hesiod| 2.3.12 @ 3:20PM
Nice obfuscation. YOu managed to attack Justice Ginsberg for suggestion that some more recent constitutions could be better models than ours by claiming (without any evidence, mind you) that IN PRACTICE the rights are less protected in those countries. Well, that wasn't the subject of her comments. It wasn't enforcement and active protection of rights. It was how a constitution is drafted and worded.
joetote | 2.5.12 @ 11:15AM
Once again, open disdain for our Constitution and this from a Justice of the Supreme Court! And do not think for one moment that this President, most on the left and more than a few on the right do not agree with this! They are in fact marching lockstep with her in their open disdain for our founding principles. And it is “We the People” that pay the price for their and for that matter our own follies!
Now, its time for a Moron Alert! Our Constitution is the law of this land! It is not something to be ignored or trampled on as many feel. it is not there for a Supreme Court justice to openly dismiss! It is not there for a President to ignore and in effect say it does not apply to him as this bozo in office does every day! And it is certainly not a document that anyone in this country, in power or not has the right to dismiss as Justice Ginsburg does in her statements. It is the Law of the Land!
How dare her! Who in the hell does she think she is to ignore the document and the laws of this land, something she as well as every office holder in D.C (and don't even get me started on the corrupt lost cause that runs the Justice Department or his boss for that matter) are sworn to uphold?! And where is the outcry from the co-opted media. Good God! How can so many people have their heads so far up you know where and ignore the obvious?
JeffT| 2.6.12 @ 6:34PM
Ginsberg has no business suggesting anything to the Egyptians, one way or the other. But if she were proud of her country, she would suggest the framework of our Constitution. The idea of limited government is what drove the Founders. Historically, they were charged with keeping government OUT of our lives, not creating a documane to expand the role of a central government.
eyeonthelaw | 2.6.12 @ 8:14PM
Are you comfortable with Ms. Ginsburg being on the US Supreme Court or should she be removed? Please vote at http://eyeonthelaw.blogspot.com/
hook| 2.11.12 @ 9:22PM
Ginsberg is frightening and I suspect she reflects the views of the Obama administration.
Reginald Periwinkle| 4.18.12 @ 1:22PM
I don't think that Tabin's point about the first amendment supports his argument. When he says that first amendment-like rights are "in practice" less robustly protected in Canada, that has to do with the way their courts have interpreted their constitution; it has nothing to do with its drafting.
In fact, the wording of Canada's equivalent of the first amendment (section 2 of their Charter) is pretty much a paraphrase of the first amendment.
It makes sense for countries just writing their constitutions to look at newer constitutions, because newer constitutions have been written based on the lessons learned from US jurisprudence. There is nothing wrong with that; if anything it is something to be proud of, that other countries look at US jurisprudence as well as the Constitution.
For instance, the Canadian Charter is clearer on the protection of women's rights. The US constitution has been interpreted as giving women equal rights but it took some time to get there. So why write a constitution that is not clear about women's rights? Why not clearly incorporate the wisdom of US jurisprudence.
Tabin has completely misinterpreted Ginsburg's comments as some kind of attack on the US constitution.