Supreme Court justice: U.S. Constitution inferior

[007]

This FILTHY, SLIMY, POS LIBERAL BITCH should be IMPEACHED....


Supreme Court justice: U.S. Constitution inferior


One member of the U.S. Supreme Court, whose members are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, says she would look elsewhere – Canada, South Africa and Europe – should she be tasked with writing a constitution now.

The stunning statements come from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

She was being interviewed by Al Hayat in Egypt, which is trying to develop a government after citizens deposed longtime dictator President Hosni Mubarack last year.

Egypt is facing major obstacles to a democratic form of government as the Muslim Brotherhood as a political party has been assembling a majority in the country. Among its goals is a Muslim caliphate worldwide.

She was asked: “Would your honor’s advice be to get a part or other countries’ constitutions as a model, or should we develop our own draft?

Her response:

“You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.

Supreme Court justice: U.S. Constitution inferior

 

[Mr. H.]

By now I assume you recognize me as a fairly conservative minded person, but even I can't fault Ruthy for her comment. She didn't use the term "inferior", the author did.

She does offer this: "a constitution will mean nothing unless the people it serves and protects desire liberty and freedom.

“If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference..."

 

[Katzndogz]

John Adams said that the Constitution was written for a moral and religous people. It is wholly inadequate for any other. As we become amoral and non-religious, the Constitution is less and less adquate for our needs.

The Constitution is inapplicable to a people who wish to be governed by a dictator.

 

[007]

By now I assume you recognize me as a fairly conservative minded person, but even I can't fault Ruthy for her comment. She didn't use the term "inferior", the author did.

She does offer this: "a constitution will mean nothing unless the people it serves and protects desire liberty and freedom.

“If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference..."

I won't defend the title, I didn't write it. But my problem with her is it's her job to uphold OUR constitution, so if she thinks it's not as good as other constitutions, which I would term "inferior," then she has no business as a Supreme Court Justice sworn to uphold it. I think it clearly indicates that she has problems with it, which in turn would influence her decision making by way of bias when she rules on it. I think she should either retire or be impeached.

A person working for one large company surely wouldn't go onto the world and proclaim how inferior their company was to others, AND STILL HAVE HIS JOB.

 

[007]

John Adams said that the Constitution was written for a moral and religous people. It is wholly inadequate for any other. As we become amoral and non-religious, the Constitution is less and less adquate for our needs.

The Constitution is inapplicable to a people who wish to be governed by a dictator.

Then leave. Move to one of these other countries with a LESS moral constitution, so you can peddle your immoral, heathen crap there.

 

[Truthmatters]

why do you hate the spread of democracy?

 

[Katzndogz]

John Adams said that the Constitution was written for a moral and religous people. It is wholly inadequate for any other. As we become amoral and non-religious, the Constitution is less and less adquate for our needs.

The Constitution is inapplicable to a people who wish to be governed by a dictator.

Then leave. Move to one of these other countries with a LESS moral constitution, so you can peddle your immoral, heathen crap there.

The Constitution is perfectly fine the way it is. It just doesn't apply to what liberals want to make of this country. We have a significant percentage of individuals who would rather be governed by a democrat dicatator and one party rule. The Constitution can't govern a people with those kinds of aspirations.

 

[Mr. H.]

By now I assume you recognize me as a fairly conservative minded person, but even I can't fault Ruthy for her comment. She didn't use the term "inferior", the author did.

She does offer this: "a constitution will mean nothing unless the people it serves and protects desire liberty and freedom.

“If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference..."

I won't defend the title, I didn't write it. But my problem with her is it's her job to uphold OUR constitution, so if she thinks it's not as good as other constitutions, which I would term "inferior," then she has no business as a Supreme Court Justice sworn to uphold it. I think it clearly indicates that she has problems with it, which in turn would influence her decision making by way of bias when she rules on it. I think she should either retire or be impeached.

A person working for one large company surely wouldn't go onto the world and proclaim how inferior their company was to others, AND STILL HAVE HIS JOB.

She's being pragmatic. There are 8 other Justices and I don't think her comments, as they pertain to the question, threaten our Constitution. Nor does it diminish her ability to uphold it.

You can run with this how you like, I just don't think it's a damning proclamation of her abilities to do her job.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

By now I assume you recognize me as a fairly conservative minded person, but even I can't fault Ruthy for her comment. She didn't use the term "inferior", the author did.

She does offer this: "a constitution will mean nothing unless the people it serves and protects desire liberty and freedom.

“If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference..."

I won't defend the title, I didn't write it. But my problem with her is it's her job to uphold OUR constitution, so if she thinks it's not as good as other constitutions, which I would term "inferior," then she has no business as a Supreme Court Justice sworn to uphold it. I think it clearly indicates that she has problems with it, which in turn would influence her decision making by way of bias when she rules on it. I think she should either retire or be impeached.

A person working for one large company surely wouldn't go onto the world and proclaim how inferior their company was to others, AND STILL HAVE HIS JOB.

She's being pragmatic. There are 8 other Justices and I don't think her comments, as they pertain to the question, threaten our Constitution. Nor does it diminish her ability to uphold it.

You can run with this how you like, I just don't think it's a damning proclamation of her abilities to do her job.

I do. She is expressing an opinion that she believes our Constitution is not applicable to the modern world, a Constitution she is sworn to uphold. She should be impeached.

 

[Mr. H.]

Either I'm missing something or you folks are reading too much into this.
I think it's a little of both.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Is every rightwing nitwit on this board going to take his turn exhibiting his ignorance on this subject?

To wit:

I do. She is expressing an opinion that she believes our Constitution is not applicable to the modern world, a Constitution she is sworn to uphold. She should be impeached.

Either I'm missing something or you folks are reading too much into this.
I think it's a little of both.

No, you’re not missing anything – you’re dealing with blind partisans who are going to contrive this however they see fit, regardless the facts.

 

[Mr. H.]

Well, I'm certainly no fan of Ginsberg. I just think the story is a bit more inconsequential than it's being made out to be. Libs bark just the same w/re: to conservatives.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Well, I'm certainly no fan of Ginsberg. I just think the story is a bit more inconsequential than it's being made out to be. Libs bark just the same w/re: to conservatives.

She has stated for the record she finds a Document that she is SWORN to uphold in ALL cases as being incapable of applying to the current age. She has for all intents and purposes said she does not believe the Constitution is useable nor applicable in today's age. How exactly can she then vote to uphold its articles and its clauses?

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. Yeah that bitch should be impeached!
2. When we as a people have judges who neither support or even recommend our Constitution, then this Nation is is some serious trouble.
3. When our judges are dumb as dirt, we have huge problems folks.
4. Its sad and a shame.



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Big Fitz]

This FILTHY, SLIMY, POS LIBERAL BITCH should be IMPEACHED....


Supreme Court justice: U.S. Constitution inferior


One member of the U.S. Supreme Court, whose members are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, says she would look elsewhere – Canada, South Africa and Europe – should she be tasked with writing a constitution now.

The stunning statements come from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

She was being interviewed by Al Hayat in Egypt, which is trying to develop a government after citizens deposed longtime dictator President Hosni Mubarack last year.

Egypt is facing major obstacles to a democratic form of government as the Muslim Brotherhood as a political party has been assembling a majority in the country. Among its goals is a Muslim caliphate worldwide.

She was asked: “Would your honor’s advice be to get a part or other countries’ constitutions as a model, or should we develop our own draft?

Her response:

“You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.

Supreme Court justice: U.S. Constitution inferior

good example on why there needs to be limits on being a SCOTUS justice.

 

[Luissa]

"I'm a very strong believer in listening and learning from others."
The last sentence from what she said, I would also like to point out that these countries have used the US Constitution when drafting their own. Which I am sure Ginsberg knows, as she is an expert on these sort of things.
Stop being a partisan idiot, and actually listen to what she says.

 

[Luissa]

This FILTHY, SLIMY, POS LIBERAL BITCH should be IMPEACHED....


Supreme Court justice: U.S. Constitution inferior


One member of the U.S. Supreme Court, whose members are sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, says she would look elsewhere – Canada, South Africa and Europe – should she be tasked with writing a constitution now.

The stunning statements come from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

She was being interviewed by Al Hayat in Egypt, which is trying to develop a government after citizens deposed longtime dictator President Hosni Mubarack last year.

Egypt is facing major obstacles to a democratic form of government as the Muslim Brotherhood as a political party has been assembling a majority in the country. Among its goals is a Muslim caliphate worldwide.

She was asked: “Would your honor’s advice be to get a part or other countries’ constitutions as a model, or should we develop our own draft?

Her response:

“You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.

Supreme Court justice: U.S. Constitution inferior

good example on why there needs to be limits on being a SCOTUS justice.

You do realize you kind of proved her point.

 

[Luissa]

I won't defend the title, I didn't write it. But my problem with her is it's her job to uphold OUR constitution, so if she thinks it's not as good as other constitutions, which I would term "inferior," then she has no business as a Supreme Court Justice sworn to uphold it. I think it clearly indicates that she has problems with it, which in turn would influence her decision making by way of bias when she rules on it. I think she should either retire or be impeached.

A person working for one large company surely wouldn't go onto the world and proclaim how inferior their company was to others, AND STILL HAVE HIS JOB.

She's being pragmatic. There are 8 other Justices and I don't think her comments, as they pertain to the question, threaten our Constitution. Nor does it diminish her ability to uphold it.

You can run with this how you like, I just don't think it's a damning proclamation of her abilities to do her job.

I do. She is expressing an opinion that she believes our Constitution is not applicable to the modern world, a Constitution she is sworn to uphold. She should be impeached.

You might want to look into the Impeachment of Samuel Chase.
She would never be impeached for what she said, just like Clarence Thomas not being able to be impeached for his wife supporting the Tea party.
They are not allowed to endorse political parties, they are allowed to have independent opinions.

 

[Article 15]

She has stated for the record she finds a Document that she is SWORN to uphold in ALL cases as being incapable of applying to the current age. She has for all intents and purposes said she does not believe the Constitution is useable nor applicable in today's age. How exactly can she then vote to uphold its articles and its clauses?

I do. She is expressing an opinion that she believes our Constitution is not applicable to the modern world, a Constitution she is sworn to uphold. She should be impeached.

She was asked: “Would your honor’s advice be to get a part of other countries’ constitutions as a model, or should we develop our own draft?

Her response:

“You should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. 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 U.S. Constitution is 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? I’m a very strong believer in listening and learning from others.”

She said nothing of the sort.

You're a fuggin' loon.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You might want to look into the Impeachment of Samuel Chase.
She would never be impeached for what she said, just like Clarence Thomas not being able to be impeached for his wife supporting the Tea party.
They are not allowed to endorse political parties, they are allowed to have independent opinions.

True.

And if one wishes to be upset by something truly stupid said by a Supreme Court Justice, consider Justices Scalia’s ignorant and incorrect statement that the 14th Amendment doesn’t apply to gender or sexual orientation, when the Court clearly said it does in cases such as Romer and Lawrence.

Scalia: Women Don't Have Constitutional Protection Against Discrimination