moonbattery logo

Feb 03 2012

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “I Would Not Look to the US Constitution”

As a Supreme Court Justice, Clinton-appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg has the sacred duty of upholding the US Constitution. Obviously she would be expected to hold this document in the highest reverence, since all of us and all of our descendents are counting on her to protect it from erosion by the tyrannical impulses that motivate most bureaucrats. Yet here’s how she advises Egyptians on how to draft their own constitution (Al-Hayat TV, January 30, 2012):

“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.”

South Africa is not a free but a socialist country; Canada’s “Charter of Rights and Freedoms” does not protect even the most basic God-given freedoms enshrined in our Constitution, as Mark Steyn can tell you. The European Convention on Human Rights is a farce.

But Ginsburg might ask, why start off with a constitution that it will take statists over 200 years to erode to meaninglessness?

Barry Hussein has already subverted the court with two more leftist ideologues of Ginsburg’s ilk. Just one more tips the balance, given the moonbat fanaticism of the odious Stephen Breyer (see here, here, and here).

Once the flame goes out, we may never get it started again.

Ruth-Bader-Ginsburg
Not a fan of the US Constitution.

On a tip from J. Hat tip: Weasel Zippers.

Tweet about this on TwitterEmail this to someonePin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on StumbleUponShare on Facebook


  • AC

    The left will try to destroy our Constitution, for It protects individual autonomy and gun ownership, while containing no mention of “social justice.”

    They’re coming for our wealth, our guns, and our freedom. Count on it.

  • http://nobarack08.wordpress.com nobarack08

    The Federalist No. 78
    The Judiciary Department

    This independence of the judges is equally requisite to guard the Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects of those ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the influence of particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the people themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to better information, and more deliberate reflection, have a tendency, in the meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the government, and serious oppressions of the minor party in the community. Though I trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never concur with its enemies,3 in questioning that fundamental principle of republican government, which admits the right of the people to alter or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find it inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be inferred from this principle, that the representatives of the people, whenever a momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of their constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the existing Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a violation of those provisions; or that the courts would be under a greater obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than when they had proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body. Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon themselves collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge, of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a departure from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that it would require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do their duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where legislative invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of the community.

    Ruth Bader Ginsburg has admitted that she is not a faithful guardian of the United States Constitution, and is therefore derelict in duty and unqualified to hold the position that she currently holds. PERIOD!

  • StanInTexas

    Ginsberg has already advocated looking to foreign law to decide cases in American, now she is pissing on the Constitution?

    First order of business in a Republican asministration should be to get rid of this treasonous hdg.

  • KM

    Unfit to be a Supreme Court Justice… Probably unfit as a traffic court judge too.

  • StanInTexas

    I wonder if LaoZee or any of our other Liberals here will try to defend Ginsberg the way they are trying to defend Racist Democrat Jim Moran?

  • Jeff

    That bitch is admitting to treason. Our rights come from God, not the state. If she denies that, then she is evil.

  • Chris in N.Va.

    Perfectly consistent outworking of a typical leftist white liberal guilt, trash America always, moral relativistic worldview.

    Our (U.S. citizen) pastor and a number if friends of ours are from South African and each and every one of them is GLAD beyond belief to have escaped the corrupt government and cultural milieu there that tries to pass itself off as anything other than just another one of an endless string of Socialist social experiments that is already decaying from within.

    In their usual hubris, our Cultural Effete deem themselves superior and able to continue to do the same demonstrably self-destructive Socialist things that other nations have tried and somehow not produce yet another societal trash heap, but magically end up with unicorns and pixie dust rainbows for everyone.

  • Al

    What a stupid woman. What does she know about Africa?
    Lets turn this country into South Africa which has the highest crime rate in the world. South Africa used to be an industrialized country and has degenerated into a third world sink-hole. A great model to follow, and with a Kenyan as our goat herder, we are well down the road, I mean the mud-path…

    To the third world and beyond…

  • Dr. 9

    Hey, take a look at her. Tell me this crumpled, old communist Jew from Brooklyn, NY isn’t part rodent.

  • http://www.henrypbabcock.com Henry


    “I, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”

    Her comments don’t sound like “support and defend” to me…

  • Jimbo

    Liberals abhor personal liberty. Absolutely abhor it.

    The personal liberties I enjoy like living where I want, driving what I want, eating what I want, earning an independent living, worshiping the One True God, Saturday afternoon at the gun range… All of these things make liberals (like BlowJob Clinton’s appointee) want to puke.

  • http://alwaysonwatch3.blogspot.com/ Always On Watch

    Bit by bit, our Constitution is being eroded.

    Where will we be in another 25 years?

    Ginsburg is clearly violating her oath of office. SCOTUS justices are supposed to use the United States Constitution — not something from on the other side of the world!

  • SickofCommies

    Why would a Russian Jewish communist leading member of the US Supreme Court honor the constitution? It a rag, like the US Flag, to be trampled underfoot.

  • GoY

    Wasn’t Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg President of the ACLU? I believe she was. I guess that reveals how much respect the ACLU really has for the Constitution.

  • wingmann

    It’s because of people like her is why I’m prepping.

  • Joe

    Can’t
    Understand
    Normal
    Thinking

    and an ugly pruneface too.

  • nobody

    @ Joe.

    Thanks. I’ll be using that elsewhere.

  • J

    10 years ago I openly stated that leftists would soon be calling to void the current U.S. Constitution.

    Liberals guffawed at me. Now we hear this kind of tripe daily.

    Of course liberals want to do away with the Constitution. It’s the primary thing that keeps them from seizing complete control over our lives, and they just can’t tolerate that.

  • IslandLifer

    It’s no surprise we have justices in SCOTUS that not only hate America but don’t even have the credentials for such a position. I hope after Obama gets thrown out this oversized rat takes a dive.

  • Hail The Amberlamps!

    It’s good the communist subversives that infest government feel comfortable openly stating their treasonous intentions. It’s a good thing the state-media feels comfortable reporting it.

    It means we might actually get on with the inevitable bloody civil war with these Bolshevik bastards while I’m still young enough to make a difference.

    Smiling and waiting for your next overt moves commies. Get on with it.

  • John Lewis

    But the US system of government isn’t working, is it? Not even in the US, and has proved to be non-exportable. The British system has worked (if we can use that word for any political system) in several countries – Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, South Africa somewhat, and some of the Caribbean islands.

    I first read through the US Constitution in my teens, and otherwise studied American government. My first impression was that it could never work (too much opportunity for deadlock, too much separation of power and responsibility etc.). And then I watched for 40 years as Americans made it work. Well, it isn’t working now.

  • http://parkwayreststop.com Jim – PRS

    Maybe she’d like the Constitution more if she actually read it. Dingbat.

  • AC

    Better deadlock than the all-inclusive coalition moonbattery which now grips formerly Great Britain.

  • AlphaMail

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a former lawyer and one-time general counsel for the shyster-riddled anti-American ACLU, not only advocates using foreign laws and norms in her judicial writings (hello Sharia), but she has perversely called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to persons who are “less than 12 years of age,” and, has gone so far as to tout eugenics – abortions of those who might inconveniently litter the landscape, i.e., persons of color, overweight fatties who’ve eaten too much toxic sugar, or conservatives with low IQ?

    Even the mere chance of replacing this soon-to-retire SCOTUS radical, is one worth taking. No conservative block in America would allow our nominee to make another SCOTUS appointment this dangerous. With this in mind, it’s ABO – so it’s a chance…but it’s the only chance we have.

    (1:24 clip) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrNqD8YkZvk&feature=related

  • Son of Taz

    If we are faced with a Morton’s fork this fall, I would choose to accept the communist for another term, provided American people elect a 75% non-Democrap majority to the Senate and the House. Chances are slim that would happen.

    There may be a communist in the White House, but with a super majority in the Congress, he’d be paralyzed and would find it impossible to pack the court with other communists or increase the size of government.

    I don’t look forward to that scenario.

  • TexasDoc

    That stroke really affected her reasoning badly.

  • Just Sayin’

    Don’t look to the US Constitution, I never did and look where it got me.

  • Chris

    RBG’s starting to look a bit like the Cryptkeeper.

    Just sayin

  • Zorro

    How do we quickly and lawfully remove this rodent from the Supreme Court?

  • Catherine Barry

    Zorro, pray and work toward getting some real leaders that understand the Constitution to get her OUT! I also pray some of the one’s in Congress may actually grow some testicular fortitude and do the right thing. Nobarack08 said it… by her own admission, she is derelict and unfit to serve as a Justice.

  • Stephan the Original

    It would be thoroughly absurd if it wasn’t so dangerous. As others have pointed out, this woman has declared herself unfit for service.

  • G. Fox

    Could one be more Anti-American, than this Constitutional Heretic?!
    Unfortunate that these ‘people’ are appointed for life! Statements of this nature, against our Constitution, should be grounds for Impeachment!!

  • Pingback: Bringing Congress and your congressman under control | Grumpy Opinions

  • Jay Dee

    The answer is term limits on Supreme Court Justices. When the Constitution was drafted, Supreme Court justices typically served little more than a decade before death or infirmity removed them. I suggest term limits are in order. A 9 year term would be entirely reasonable. 1 new justice would be appointed annually. There would be little benefit for appointing relatively young, half trained ideologues as is our current practice. They would be out in 9 years.

  • Pingback: The Morning Links (2/6/12 ) | From the Desk of Lady Liberty

  • Neil

    So a bit like the South African Constitution then which sets term limits of 12 years for their constitutional court judges…

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy