Liberals can all agree on one thing: sharia law is much, much better than the American Constitution:
Ginsburg to Egyptians: I wouldn’t use U.S. Constitution as a model
Published February 06, 2012 | FoxNews
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.”
As Egypt prepares to write a new constitution, Ginsburg, who was traveling during the court’s break to speak with legislators and judges in Egypt as well as Tunisia, spoke to students at Cairo University, encouraging them to enjoy the opportunity to participate in the “exceptional transitional period to a real democratic state.”
In a long interview with a reporter who asked her to explain the foundation of the U.S. Constitution and how it would be applied in today’s Egypt, Ginsburg suggested with pride that “we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world, and it starts out with three words, ‘We, the people.’”
Ginsburg also extolled several aspects of the document, particularly the separation of powers, the concept of checks and balances and an independent judiciary that can’t have its salaries diminished if it rules a law enacted by Congress as unconstitutional.
But asked about models for the Egyptian people, Ginsburg said Egyptians “should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II.”
She then pointed not only to South Africa’s constitution, but to Canada’s 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights.
“Why not take advantage of what is else there in the world? I’m a very strong believer in listening and learning from others,” Ginsburg added.
Indeed, Ginsburg’s comments are not foreign to her overall philosophy. The justice has previously stated that she weighs foreign law as well as U.S. law when forming a legal opinion.
“The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification,” Ginsburg told an audience at the American Society of International Law in April 2005.
Ginsburg told the Egyptian interviewer that she can’t dispense advice for Egyptian society about how to set up its constitution, nor can she comment on a document that isn’t written or in force yet.
But she said looking at the Federalist Papers — essays written by the drafters to expound upon the articles before they were ratified by the states — it’s clear that a discussion must be held by all members of the country. She also suggested that a constitution is only as good as the people who live by it.
“If the people don’t care, the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference,” she warned.
For the record, when Ginsburg says she has relied on foreign law in her decisions instead of the Constitution, how exactly does that not disqualify someone who took an oath TO UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION???
In our case, “the best Constitution in the world” doesn’t make any difference because we have liberals like Ginsburg who despise it.
And note that Ginsburg uses very absolute language in making her statement: “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.” The only constitution she took an oath to uphold wouldn’t even be on her list of constitututions to look at. Ours is one that is outdated and basically irrelevant as far as this Democrat Supreme Court Justice is concerned.
But thankfully she can look to all the other constitutions except ours to base her illegal “legal” decisions upon.
I am appalled at the fascism of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. She likes the Canadian constitution that criminalizes free speech, does she???
I want you to understand something: liberals are un-American. It’s not by any accident; it’s very much by design. Liberals are people who embrace Marxism – a system which both Republicans and Democrats (before the Democrat Party became un-American) have rightly denounced as fundamentally opposed to American values.
Barack Obama and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are the current paradigms of liberalism gone morally and rationally insane.
Obama spoke to a racist Hispanic “rights” group called “La Raza” (“the race”) while they were asking him to unilaterally stop deportation proceedings against illegals. Obama said:
“The idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you, not just on immigration reform. But that’s not how our system works. That’s not how our democracy functions. That’s not how our Constitution is written.”
And then he did precisely what he himself had just called un-American, undemocratic and unconstitutional.
His chief signature policy – ObamaCare – has been ruled unconstitutional.
Then he did something that was every bit as much in violation to the Constitution and its separation of powers in fascistically making recess appointments when the Senate was not even in recess. Not only did Obama ignore his own legal advisors in performing this action, but we find that he didn’t even wait to hear his own DOJ’s opinion.
Is it any surprise that a fascist who has done so many blatantly unconstitutional things would have the same view of the Constitution that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has?
I think that we can say that the Constitution reflected the enormous blind spot in this culture that carries on until this day and that the framers had that same blind spot. I don’t think the two views are contradictory to say that it was a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now and to say that it also reflected the fundamental flaw of this country that continues to this day.
Let me tell you something: the people who elected this man to be our president were un-American.
And the American people themselves implicitly recognize that fact:
Shock Study: U.S. Flag Only Boosts GOP
By Paul Bedard
Posted: July 20, 2011
Just a brief exposure to an image of the American flag shifts voters, even Democrats, to Republican beliefs, attitudes and voting behavior even though most don’t believe it will impact their politics, according to a new two-year study just published in the scholarly Psychological Science.
What’s more, according to three authors from the University Chicago, Cornell University and Hebrew University, the impact had staying power.
“A single exposure to an American flag resulted in a significant increase in participants’ Republican voting intentions, voting behavior, political beliefs, and implicit and explicit attitudes, with some effects lasting 8 months,” the study found. “These results constitute the first evidence that nonconscious priming effects from exposure to a national flag can bias the citizenry toward one political party and can have considerable durability.”
Theirs is the first study to look at the political impact on Americans who have seen an American flag, and it seems to back up another recent Harvard University professor’s study that found that kids who attended a July 4th parade ended up leaning Republican when they grew up.
It’s also sure to prompt GOP presidential candidates to add more U.S. flags at their events and speeches.
For this study, the scholars asked mostly Democratic-leaning voters to join in the survey conducted just before the 2008 election of President Obama over Sen. John McCain. All were given a survey to fill out. Half of those surveys included a small picture of an American flag in the top left corner.
Some 90 percent said that they believed their voting behavior wouldn’t be influenced by the presence of a flag.
But after asking how the participants voted, the study concluded:
“In contrast to the beliefs of the participants in the pilot study, the results from the experiments reported here show that exposure to the American flag introduces a bias toward the Republican Party over the Democratic Party. In one experiment, we tested whether subtle exposure to the American flag shifted people’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors toward the Republican end of the political continuum. We found that a single exposure to a small American flag during deliberation about voting intentions prior to a general election led to significant and robust changes in participants’ voting intentions, voting behavior, and political attitudes, all in the politically conservative direction.”
And apparently politics didn’t have anything to do with how those shown the flag changed their voting.
“It is important to note that political ideology and party affiliation did not moderate these effects. That is, both liberal and conservative participants were influenced by the flag prime, and in the same (conservative) direction,” said the study.
Eight months after the election eve survey, the group was then asked about Obama’s performance and remarkably those in the group shown the American flag on the initial survey “felt less positively about Obama’s job performance.”
To prove the shocking results, the scholars in the spring of 2010 conducted another test, this time to see if exposure to an American flag produces a bias toward Republicanism, rather than the party that controls the White House. For this, they showed some pictures of buildings that included a flag, and others photos with the flag digitally erased.
That result: “Subtle exposure to the American flag significantly shifted both Democratic and Republican participants’ beliefs, attitudes, and voting behavior toward Republicanism.”
Liberals and Democrats have naked contempt for the Constitution, to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which both stand.
And that is simply a fact.