jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (27 posts)

Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg Condemns U.S. Constitution

  1. Reality Bytes profile image94
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    Appearing on Egyptian television before concluding a four-day trip in Egypt, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg extolled the virtues of the U.S. Constitution but urged Egyptians to look to other countries' newer constitutions for guidance as they craft their own in the coming months.

    The U.S. Embassy in Cairo's website noted in a Feb. 2 release that Ginsburg concluded her trip to Egypt "following four days of discussions and programs in both Cairo and Alexandria with judges and legal experts as well as law faculty and students." She had intended to "'listen and learn' with her Egyptian counterparts as they begin Egypt's constitutional transition to democracy," according to the embassy.

    Yet while Ginsburg's interview, posted on YouTube on Wednesday, lauded the Founding Fathers' "grand general ideas that become more effective over the course of ... more than two sometimes-turbulent centuries," she also said she "would not look to the United States Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," given its original exclusion of women, slaves and Native Americans.

    Since World War II several other models have emerged that offer more specific and contemporary guarantees of rights and liberties, she said, pointing to South Africa's constitution, which she called a "really great piece of work" for its embrace of basic human rights and guarantee of an independent judiciary. She also noted Canada's charter of rights and freedoms and the European Convention of Human Rights.

    "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.

    Among those currently sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court no other justice has publicly advised another country on the creation of a constitution

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/0 … ostpopular

    Is it not strange that a human being sworn under oath to uphold and obey the Constitution for the United States to give a speech in a foreign nation condemning the document she has sworn to uphold?

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Not at all. What she said makes perfect sense, especially since women's rights don't come first in Egypt. The Muslim brotherhood might latch onto the fact that under the U.S. Constitution, women weren't allowed to vote.

    2. ib radmasters profile image60
      ib radmastersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      She spoke the truth, the constitution avoided those problems.
      The real problem is that the constitution has been diluted over the last hundred years to be nothing like what it was created to be non withstanding the discrimination issues.

      Big and pervasive federal government was not the goal of the founders.

  2. Uninvited Writer profile image84
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    Spin away...

    1. Reality Bytes profile image94
      Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No spin, just curiosity. I understand the reasons behind her statements.  I just find it strange.

      1. couturepopcafe profile image61
        couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Reality - I don't see any condemnation at all. She's basically saying our Constitution works for us.

        She's also saying that today, it would be wise to 'look elsewhere' for modern versions of the same thing our founders intended. Should Egypt do as we did and exclude women and slaves? Think about it. She didn't condemn anything but tried to extoll as well as extend the virtues of freedom and human rights for all.

        1. Reality Bytes profile image94
          Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          She was in Egypt.  Egypt as of now has no Government.  The Country is still in turmoil.  The whole region is in turmoil. 

          In fact there are some in this region that already have a dislike for the United States.  Ginsburg must have felt like throwing a little gasoline on the scenario.

          1. couturepopcafe profile image61
            couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I see your point, especially from (some of) their perspective.

    2. kerryg profile image87
      kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Seriously. How is it a "condemnation" to point out that a document granting only white male property owners the right to vote might be slightly outdated to use as the sole inspiration for a 21st century country? Sounds like honesty to me.

      There's much about the US Constitution that is both timeless and universal, but it's not perfect, nor should it be treated as such. The Founders knew that, which is why they built in a system to allow it to be amended.

      1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
        Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you hate it, then change it.

        But change it properly.

        1. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Where did I say I hated it?

          1. Evan G Rogers profile image83
            Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Oh, I'm sorry. I guess I took "a document granting only white male property owners the right to vote might be slightly outdated" to mean that "it sucks"

            Gee, how could I have come to that conclusion?

      2. Reality Bytes profile image94
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It can and has been amended.  Are white males still the only ones with a vote?  Do women currently own property?

        Shouldn't a supreme court Justice who no longer believes in the viability of the constitution simply retire?  Perhaps to South Africa or Canada where her human rights would be so much more respected?

        1. kerryg profile image87
          kerrygposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          "It can and has been amended.  Are white males still the only ones with a vote?  Do women currently own property?"

          Precisely my point. And hers.

          I fail to see where she said it wasn't valid. All she said was that an 18th century document shouldn't be the sole influence on a 21st century one, which is entirely reasonable.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image94
            Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            3. The state may not unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds, including race, gender, sex, pregnancy, marital status, ethnic or social origin, colour, sexual orientation, age, disability, religion, conscience, belief, culture, language and birth.

            *1 No person may unfairly discriminate directly or indirectly against anyone on one or more grounds in terms of subsection (3). National legislation must be enacted to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination.

            Discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in subsection (3) is unfair unless it is established that>>>>> the discrimination is fair.<<<<<<

            http://www.info.gov.za/documents/consti … 6cons2.htm

            With a glance at the South African Constitution it seems that discrimination is fine as long as it is fair?  Who determines what is fair, the Government?

  3. maxoxam41 profile image80
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Not that strange since the constitution doesn't represent anymore the ideals of the Americans. More and more citizens are deprived of their freedom, how could we be seen to the eyes of the world as the epitome of freedom?

    1. Reality Bytes profile image94
      Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It is through a lack of following our Constitution that has been detrimental to the freedoms guaranteed to us by our birth.

      1. 0
        Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Absolutely.
        The Constitution isn't the problem.  It's the people who refuse to adhere to it, and especially those who try to twist it.

        It's very disappointing to hear a mature and supposedly-wise person like Ginsberg fail to recognize the difference.

        1. couturepopcafe profile image61
          couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I can agree that the Constitution isn't the problem. I think all Justices should have limited terms, too. About 10 years.

          1. Reality Bytes profile image94
            Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Agreed, that is one of the problems.  Although well in to her 40's Ginsburg was not allowed to attend the United States Constitutional Convention. lol

  4. Reality Bytes profile image94
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    FBI Chainsaw Mistake: Agents raid wrong Mass. apartment, cut down door
    By Crimesider Staff Topics Daily Blotter

    The home of Judy Sanchez and her daughter after FBI agents cut through their Fitchburg, Mass. apartment door with a chainsaw (Credit: CBS Boston) (CBS) FITCHBURG, Mass. - The FBI accidentally raided the wrong apartment last Thursday, cutting through the apartment door of a central Massachusetts woman and her three-year-old daughter with a chainsaw, in a botched effort to seize guns and drugs.
    Judy Sanchez lives in apartment 2R, but the suspect the FBI was after lives in 2F.

    Sanchez told CBS Boston that at 6:04am, she heard pounding outside her second floor apartment.

    "I just happened to glance over and saw this huge chainsaw ripping down the side of my door," she said. "And I was freaking out. I didn't know what was going on."

    Within moments, the chainsaw had cut through most of her door, and someone on the FBI's arrest team kicked the rest of it in.

    "That's when I heard the clicking of a gun and I heard 'FBI, get down!', so I laid right on down.

    And they said get your dog, so I got her and at the same time I am laying in her urine because she did pee on herself at the same time."

    Sanchez says the agents told her not to move, so, fearing she'd be shot if she did, she stayed put on the floor while her daughter screamed for her in the other room.

    Eventually the feds figured out they were in the wrong place and arrested the right suspect. The raid had been part of a two-year long investigation.

    "The looks on their faces when they knew they got the wrong door was priceless," she recalls. "They looked at each other dumbfounded."

    Sanchez says an agent came by later to apologize, but it didn't seem genuine.

    "For me it felt (like a) routine apology, it felt like just a regular, 'I'm sorry for the inconvenience. Here's the phone number for your landlord to get reimbursed for the door, have a good day.'

    And that's how I felt, like it was a smack in the face."

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162- … down-door/

    Blatant betrayal of the Peoples Rights!

  5. Reality Bytes profile image94
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    Cop Kills Dog During Raid on Wrong House

    A Philadelphia Police officer shot and killed a dog at a West Philadelphia residence he mistook for the target of a drug raid.

    The officer entered the wrong home on the 4200 block of Pennsgrove Street Wednesday night when a dog in the house bit the officer on the ankle, according to police. The officer shot his gun four times and killed the dog.

    The target house of the drug raid was next door, according to authorities.

    The officer who was bitten on the ankle was brought to the Presbyterian Hospital. His condition is not yet known.

    http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/loc … 89718.html

    Yet another betrayal of the Peoples rights!

    1. couturepopcafe profile image61
      couturepopcafeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I guess the drug dealers are getting to 'pursue their happiness" but no one else is. What a shame.

  6. Evan G Rogers profile image83
    Evan G Rogersposted 4 years ago

    There's no constitution left to condemn. The thing has been dead since Marshall.

  7. Jeff Berndt profile image92
    Jeff Berndtposted 4 years ago

    Antonin Scalia says the Soviet Biil of Rights was "...much better than ours. I mean it literally: it was much better." (Emphasis his.)

    Check it out.

    So is Justice Scalia an America-hating traitor like Ginsberg? Or is this whole topic just a bunch of foolishness?

    1. Reality Bytes profile image94
      Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Watched the video, identified the sarcasm in his statement.  smile

  8. dutchman1951 profile image60
    dutchman1951posted 4 years ago

    Liberal side has been saying for years that the Constitution is flawed and not usefull any more. I guess they finaly found a court structure, that can be swayed to destroy it!

    and as usual we will all let them!

 
working