Category Archives: Justice Ruth B. Ginsberg

Constitutional Crisis: A Main Issue This Election Year

I don’t know about your opinion, but it is no surprise to me that the New York Times ran a story putting down the Constitution of the United States. Go figure: a newspaper that has been around since the 19th century, whose motto has been “News worth printing” – and has, on more than one occasion, referenced the First Amendment to justify their methods of reporting (that record is not good) – and now they are disqualifying the Constitution and its amendments because it is terse and old and it guarantees relatively few rights. Huh? Their newspaper is nonobjective and “old” – yet, there still in operation.

In the Timesarticle, dated February 6th, 2012:

The Constitution has seen better days. Sure, it is the nation’s founding document and sacred text. And it is the oldest written national constitution still in force anywhere in the world. But its influence is waning.
It’s “influence is waning” because we have politicians, special interest advocates, and media entities like the New York Times trying to replace our republic with a statist-socialist state.
…Time magazine calculated that “of the 170 countries that exist today, more than 160 have written charters modeled directly or indirectly on the U.S. Version.”
I wonder if those countries believe that their “charters” modeled after our Constitution is outdated or irrelevant?
The article then quotes from a studyconducted by David S. Law, Washington University in St. Louis and Mila Versteegof the University of Virginia:

The U.S. Constitution appears to be losing its appeal as a model for constitutional drafters elsewhere.

The “abstract” reads:

The fact that the U.S. Constitution is not widely emulated raises the question of whether there is an alternative paradigm that constitutional drafters in other countries now employ as a model instead. One possibility is that their attention has shifted to some other prominent national constitution. To evaluate this possibility, we analyze the content of the world’s constitutions for telltale patterns of similarity to the constitutions of Canada, Germany, South Africa, and India, which have often been identified as especially influential. … Another possibility is that international and regional human rights instruments have become especially influential upon the manner in which national constitutions are written. We find little evidence to indicate that any of the leading human rights treaties now serves as a dominant model for constitutional drafters. Some noteworthy patterns of similarity between national constitutions and international legal instruments do exist: For example, the constitutions of undemocratic countries tend to exhibit greater similarity to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, while those of common law countries manifest the opposite tendency. It is difficult to infer from these patterns, however, that countries have actually emulated international or regional human rights instruments when writing their constitutions.

Obviously, those that wish to change or undermine the Constitution of the United States has ulterior motives – they wish to provide the opportunity to mold and shape it for their personal goals and to cement government’s power over the People. Trust me, you socialist-sociopaths who call yourselves American, are doing nothing new in human history that tyrants have tried and/or succeeded in acts of aggression toward any rights or liberties that contradicts the policies of a given government. Stalin said, in so many words, if he had taken freedom of speech away from the people, why in the Hell would he allow them to be armed?
Illustration: Damien Donck, Newsweek
The “modern” Constitution that Obama, New York Times, Justice Ginsberg, and others is a document that grants “rights” as entitlements, such as national health care, housing and employment – all the areas/issues that have been protected by the founders who wrote the Constitution for very good reasons, not for the benefit of the People, but for more control over them through social engineering programs and entitlements that makes the People dependent upon the government; much like America has been over-dependent upon crude oil from elsewhere. The articles and amendments that have worked so well since the beginning of the United States are deficiencies to them. It guarantees fundamental rights and protects citizens from a restrictive and controlling government – which has taken place slowly and unnoticed by too many, for over 50 years.
The Constitution was designed to be amended, if necessary, when changes in society or the needs of the People require it. Who could argue that the amendment that provides the freedom of anyone to vote, regardless of gender, race, or age – as long as they are citizens? Who could argue that one of the landmark amendments added after the first ten were in place, is the abolition of slavery; something that should have happened when the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, were written.
One would think, with this president’s ethnic background, that he would cherish and protect the Constitution. After all, if it were not for the Constitution and the abolition of slavery amendment – he would never have held office, much less be a president.
Just exactly, I frustratingly wonder, just what part of the Constitution wouldJustice Ginsberg, Barack H. Obama, and others in his mindset would be changed.
Mr. Obama, I am sure that the people that voted for you for hope for change, certainly didn’t have in mind to change the Constitution and show so much disrespect for the rule of law – applied only when it conforms to your agenda and those that agree with your sociopolitical ideology and agenda.
Professor Law and Versteeg declared:
Among the world’s democracies, constitutional similarity to the United States has clearly gone into free fall. Over the 1960s and 1970s, democratic constitutions as a whole became more similar to the U.S. Constitution, only to reverse course in the 1980s and 1990s. … The commitment of some members of the Supreme Court to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning in the 18thcentury may send the signal that it of little current use, to say, a new African nation. And the Constitution’s waning influence may be part of a general decline in American power and prestige.
Just like the political left and RINOs – blaming and pointing fingers anywhere to anyone, rather than the true root of the matter; most cases them self and those they endorse or pay special interest to.
The Constitution doesn’t need to “expire” – those that wish it to must. They lied to all American voters when they swore allegiance to and to protect the US Constitution when taking office. The document was meant to be amended, but that is not good enough for some politicians. So, instead, they go through the back door by nominating and appointing justices and judges like Ruth Ginsberg. She, like this administration, will go down in history in infamy; that is if history will be allowed to be written truthfully and objectively.
Save America – let’s diminish the power of these individuals and return the power to the People, not the sociocrat elite or the greed for power and money of special interest groups.
What should be said in response to the New York Timesagreement with Justice Ginsberg is that without support, without adherence, and without respect to the fine way our Constitution was created – to last – it is nothing more than a piece of paper.
Oddly, these people have the right, under First Amendment, to say or write such things by the very document they want to “change”. Just as the rules of law are only good enough if they are enforced – like our illegal immigration situation. Always an ulterior motive with these sociocrats and RINOs. Politicians want illegal immigrants to instantly have the right to vote, whether they deserve such privileges or not, so they can increase their voting base. And, as the number of those who believe their lies and accept their tokens of entitlements, so then does their power.
And – by the time these people figure it out, it will be too late. Once freedom is allowed to be shredded or dissolved, it is extremely difficult to get it back.
Some are in favor of another American Revolution, but they are barking up the wrong tree – it was a moment in time, a moment in human history, that could never be repeated in the same way; especially the good that turned out when our nation was created.
And these misguided and devious tyrants want to take it all away, or at least the parts that is important to the People. Government is their god, politics is their tool; deception and dishonor is their moral values, and hypocrisy is the norm.
Protecting Constitution – Ron Paul
If a change, an upgrade, is required of the US Constitution, then let the legislative body and the executive office draft an amendment that must be scrutinized by the Supreme Court. The founders didn’t create the rule that a two-thirds majority of Congress and ratification of the states be applied for nothing. 
The reason why some claim the Constitution’s relevance is that it takes too long for due process, and they are in a hurry to complete their goal of tyranny.  

Enuff said, for now.

Justice Ginsberg: Please Resign

Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a person who was nominated and approved to serve in the highest court in the land whose purpose is to safeguard the articles and amendments – who swore into office giving an oath to …
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and allegiance to the same.
Ginsberg has accept a position in our government that must not only know what is in the Constitution but know how to apply it. One would think she would have respect for the document – but she clearly does not, as can be seen in the interview on video at the article of Bob Beauprez.She states:
I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in 2012.

As Mr. Beauprez wrote:

Justice Ginsberg, if you are so dissatisfied with our Constitution, if you see it as so flawed, that you cannot bring yourself to bear true faith and allegiance to it then, please, just resign.

Yes, Ginsberg, if you gauge the worth of anything because of age – you are long past due to be put out to the farm. Resign, Justice Ginsberg — If not, she should be impeached, right along with her buddy in the White House. 
But that won’t happen with a RINO majority in Congress.
The issues/problems in our nation today is not because our Constitution is “too old” – but, in fact, because it has been desecrated and ignored by people in our government like Justice Ginsberg, Barack H. Obama, (who presently is attacking the core of Christianity) Eric Holder, and others like them.
Alex Pappasstates in his article:

Her comments have stunned writers across the conservative blogosphere, though many major media outlets have not given much attention to it.

Pappas is referring to mainstream media, because the Internet is flurried with articles and commentary about this outrageous statement/ideology coming from a Justice of the Supreme Court.
 

BIOGRAPHY
Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg was born on March 15th, 1933 in Brooklyn, New York. The family belonged to the East Midwood Jewish Center, where she took her religious confirmation and at age thirteen, Ruth acted as the “camp rabbi” at a Jewish summer program at Camp Che-Na-Wah in Minerva, New York. 1Her mother took her to the library often and encouraged her education. She attended James Madison High School, whose law program later dedicated a courtroom in her honor. Her mother had cancer while she attended high school and died before her graduation. 2She graduated from Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, with a Bachelor of Arts degree in government in 1954, 3and that fall enrolled at Harvard Law School, where she was one of only nine women in a class of more than five hundred. When her husband took a job in New York City, she transferred to Columbia Law School and became the first woman to be on two major law reviews – the Harvard Law Review and the Columbia Law Review. In 1959, she earned her law degree at Columbia and tied for first in her class. 4In 2009 she was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Harvard University.
In 1960, Ginsburg began a clerkship for Judge Edmund L. Palmieri of the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. From 1961 to 1963 she was a research associate and then associate director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure, when she learned Swedish to co-author a book on judicial procedure in Sweden. She conducted extensive research for her book at the University of Lund in Sweden. 5She was a professor of law at Rutgers from 1963 to 1972, she co-founded the Women’s Rights Law Reporter, the first law journal in the US to focus exclusively on women’s rights. 6From 1972 to 1980, she taught at Columbia, where she became the first tenured woman and co-authored the first law school casebook on sex discrimination. She also taught in Tulane University Law School in its summer program. In 1977, she became a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford University.
In 1972, Ginsburg co-founded the Women’s Rights Project at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and, in 1973, she became the ACLU’s General Counsel. She briefed and argued several landmark cases in front of the Supreme Court, such as Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971), where the Court extended the protections of the Equal Protection Clause to women for the first time. She also argued Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) and Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975), which supported the development of the intermediate scrutiny Equal Protection standard of review for legal classifications based on sex. She has a reputation as a skilled oral advocate, and her work directly led to the end of gender discrimination in many areas of the law. 7
Her last case as a lawyer before the Supreme Court was in 1978 – Duren v. Missouri, which challenged laws and practices making jury duty voluntary for women in that state. Ginsburg viewed optional jury duty as a message that women’s service was unnecessary to important government functions. At the end of Ginsburg’s oral presentation, then-Associate Justice William Rehnquist asked Ginsburg – You won’t settle for putting Susan B. Anthony on the new dollar, then?Ginsburg was cautious and did not respond. 8
President Jimmy Carter appointed Ginsburg to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on April 14th, 1980. She served there for thirteen years, until she joined the Supreme Court as a justice. During her 13-year tenure at DC Circuit Court, Ginsburg made 57 hires for law clerk, intern, and secretary positions. At her Supreme Court confirmation hearing, it was revealed that none of those hired had been African-Americans, a fact for which Ginsburg was sharply criticized. 9
President Bill Clintonnominated her as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on June 14th, 1993. Ginsburg was recommended to Clinton by his US Attorney Janet “General” Reno. 10During her subsequent testimony before the US Senate Judiciary Committee as part of the confirmation hearings, she refused to answer questions regarding her personal views on most issues or how she would adjudicate certain hypothetical situations as a Supreme Court Justice. A number of Senators left the committee frustrated, especially questions about Ginsburg’s transition from an advocate for causes to a justice on the Supreme Court without being bias. She did, however, affirm her belief in a constitutional right to privacy. 11The US Senate confirmed anyway by a 96-to-3 vote. 12She took her judicial oathon August 10th, 1993; which she rescinded in 2012 when she was interviewed by a foreign television program station, where she stated she would not advise any country to adopt the US Constitution because it was outdated.
Yet, Ginsburg has imagined her career performance on the Supreme Court as a cautious approach to adjudication, and argued in a speech just before her nomination to the Supreme Court that –
measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication. Doctinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable. 13
Ginsburg consistently supported abortion rights and joined in the Supreme Court decisions and opinions striking down Nebraska’s partial-birth abortion law in Stenberg v. Carhart 530 U.S. 914 (2000) and yet she criticized the Court’s ruling in the historical case of Roe v. Wade 410 U.S. 113 (1973) in that it terminated a nascent, democratic movement to liberalize abortion laws which might have built a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights.
Ginsburg has also been an advocate for using foreign law and place it into US law in making judicial opinions. 14She has been in argumentative contrast with views of fellow justices such as John G. Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito– because of her liberal ideology and tendency to place political ideology in arguments, decisions, and rules of law. She advocates foreign law because she has no respect or comply with her oath as Supreme Court Justice – wanting to totally replace or insert foreign law into the US Constitution. Yet, Ginsburg considers Justice Scalia her closest colleague on the Supreme Court, and they often dine and attend opera together. 15
The following is an insert from Wikipedia:

In January 2012, Ginsburg went to Egypt for four days of discussions with judges, law school faculty, law school students, and legal experts. Part of the purpose of her visit was to “listen and learn” as Egypt began its constitutional transition to democracy. She also answered questionsabout the
American justice system and the American constitution. Ginsburg told students at Cairo University that she was “inspired” by the Egyptian revolution.[28][29]In an interview with Alhayat TV, she stated that the first requirement of a new constitution should be that it “safeguard basic fundamental human rights, like our First Amendment”. Asked if Egypt should model its new constitution on those of other nations, she she said Egypt should be “aided by all Constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II”, adding, “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.” She said the U.S. was fortunate to have a constitution authored by “very wise” men but pointed out that in the 1780s, no women were able to participate in the process and slavery still existed in the U.S.[30]

2Staff writer. Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Undated. Oyez.org. Accessed August 24, 2009.
5Bayer, Linda N. (2000). Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Women of Achievement). Philadelphia. Chelsea House. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-7910-5287-7
6 “About the Reporter”. Retrieved June 29, 2008.
7 Pullman, Sandra (March 7, 2006). “Tribute: The Legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and WRP Staff”. ACLU.org. Accessed November 18, 2010.
11 Bennard, Kristina Silja (August 2005), The Confirmation Hearings of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Answering Questions While Maintaining Judicial Impartiality, Washington, D.C.: American Constitution Society, archived from the original on January 14, 2006, retrieved May 11, 2010
12 The three negative votes came from conservative Republican Senators – Don Nickles (Oklahoma), Robert C. Smith (New Hampshire) and Jesse Helms (North Carolina), while Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (Democrat – Michigan) did not vote.
14 Scanlon, Jennifer (1999). Significant contemporary American feminists: a biographical sourcebook. Greenwood Press. p. 118. ISBN 978-0-313-30125-4. OCLC 237329773
The following video has been put together by Michael Savage, with an audio of her statement made in an Egyptian interview and his commentary about this situation and the assault upon OUR Constitution by Barack Hussein Obama and his cohorts today: