Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn't use U.S. Constitution as a model

Quote : As Egyptian officials prepare to send to trial 19 American democracy and rights workers, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg visited Cairo last week where she suggested Egyptian revolutionaries not use the U.S. Constitution as a model in the post-Arab Spring. "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television last Wednesday. "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, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2...z1ljQKuqfe

I think now we all see clearly where this judge is coming from. Go onto foreign soil where Americans are set to be tried on BS charges and say that the American Constitution is flawed… but yet we all know that she is fair and unbiased
It is time to end the lifetime appointments of the SC.

Quote from horskj : It is time to end the lifetime appointments of the SC.

Are you saying the Constitution is flawed

Quote from paperboy05 : Are you saying the Constitution is flawed

Then I will ask the question... is it time to end the lifetime appointments to that Court?

Quote from paperboy05 : Are you saying the Constitution is flawed

Zing.

Barring her idiotic statement, I doubt the Egyptians would be much interested in using our Constitution in any way but as the polar opposite of how they'd model theirs. That's assuming they ever actually get their "democracy" off the ground, which is highly doubtful.

The question should be, why did bashing the US Constitution even come up when she should have been doing everything possible to get the Americans extradited?

The Senate needs to take the time to make sure the jurists nominated by the President are actually interested in interpreting and upholding the Constitution as they are supposed to do. We don't need term limits, but application of the intent of our social contract by both the Senate and Court.

Quote from msummers80 : The Senate needs to take the time to make sure the jurists nominated by the President are actually interested in interpreting and upholding the Constitution as they are supposed to do. We don't need term limits, but application of the intent of our social contract by both the Senate and Court.

sadly, while that used to be the case, SC appointments have become politically charged, ever since FDR tried to add new SC positions and pack the court with his lackeys because he was unhappy with the court for actually doing their job and ruling that parts of his New Deal (read beginning of the transformation of the USA into a socialist hell hole) were unconstitutional.

It's sad that since then the appointment process became a political football, rather than making sure the nominee has a philosophy and history of actually upholding the constitution that they swear an oath to uphold...

so now we get manchurian candidates infiltrating the SC like this moron, along with others (maybe even herself) who say they will take foreign laws into account when ruling, that the constitution can be interpreted any way they wish regardless of what it actually says, create new 'rights' where non exist, etc etc.

Quote from horskj : Go onto foreign soil where Americans are set to be tried on BS charges

Are you claiming they did not violate Egyptian law and use foreign money for political purposes?

Cause from what I heard that's been common practice there for years while Mubarak looked the other way cause that foreign money supported him.

Quote from Radeck : sadly, while that used to be the case, SC appointments have become politically charged, ever since FDR tried to add new SC positions and pack the court with his lackeys because he was unhappy with the court for actually doing their job and ruling that parts of his New Deal (read beginning of the transformation of the USA into a socialist hell hole) were unconstitutional.

The first seated court was under attack from the moment it started. It's the nature of the three branches. That's just crazy talk.

Quote : It's sad that since then the appointment process became a political football, rather than making sure the nominee has a philosophy and history of actually upholding the constitution that they swear an oath to uphold...

D's and R's can't agree on the color of the sky. Pretending there will be some parting of the clouds and we'll all stand on principle and agree on something as huge as an SC nominee is... crazy talk.

Quote : so now we get manchurian candidates infiltrating the SC like this moron, along with others (maybe even herself) who say they will take foreign laws into account when ruling, that the constitution can be interpreted any way they wish regardless of what it actually says, create new 'rights' where non exist, etc etc.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

of course she is right. As if thinking hasn't evolved over the last 200 years.