PDA

View Full Version : Justice Ginsburg causes storm dissing the Constitution while abroad



txradioguy
02-06-2012, 11:31 AM
By Alex Pappas Published: 12:40 AM 02/06/2012

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has caused a storm of controversy by saying in a television interview that the people of Egypt should not look to the United States Constitution when drafting their own governing document because it’s too old and there are newer examples from which to draw inspiration.

“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in the interview, which aired on Jan. 30 on Al-Hayat TV.

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

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/06/justice-ginsburg-causes-storm-dissing-the-constitution-while-abroad/#ixzz1lcDbZcgw

txradioguy
02-06-2012, 11:32 AM
Color me shocked. Yet another Liberal showing their true colors.

And Libs wonder why we rightfully claim they hate America.

Novaheart
02-06-2012, 11:41 AM
Color me shocked. Yet another Liberal showing their true colors.

And Libs wonder why we rightfully claim they hate America.

The comment makes sense. The US Constitution may be the icon we think of as a complete thought "US liberty and government" but it isn't really. The Constitution plus the laborious and time consuming in creation body of law based in the Constitution is the actual whole.

There are newer Constitutions which are more specific about liberty. The South African Constitution for example, is much more clear on civil rights than our own. I think you could make a case that the SA constitution is based in our own Constitution to some degree, but it doesn't leave the gaping holes to be decided by courts. "Everyone" pretty much means everyone.

It isn't disrespectful to say that there are more concise laws out there to model. One would expect design to improve over time. If we were to craft a new constitution for the US, it wouldn't be the same as the one we have now. It would be more specific, it would incorporate the body of case law in which the courts have refined and defined the application of the principles in the face of self-serving idiots who demand that they be shown a specific reference in the Constitution when the principle is clearly applicable.

txradioguy
02-06-2012, 11:46 AM
The comment makes sense. The US Constitution may be the icon we think of as a complete thought "US liberty and government" but it isn't really. The Constitution plus the laborious and time consuming in creation body of law based in the Constitution is the actual whole.

There are newer Constitutions which are more specific about liberty. The South African Constitution for example, is much more clear on civil rights than our own. I think you could make a case that the SA constitution is based in our own Constitution to some degree, but it doesn't leave the gaping holes to be decided by courts. "Everyone" pretty much means everyone.

It isn't disrespectful to say that there are more concise laws out there to model. One would expect design to improve over time. If we were to craft a new constitution for the US, it wouldn't be the same as the one we have now. It would be more specific, it would incorporate the body of case law in which the courts have refined and defined the application of the principles in the face of self-serving idiots who demand that they be shown a specific reference in the Constitution when the principle is clearly applicable.


Our constitution is unique in the fact it assures individual liberties...not collectivist utopian promises of fairness.

It's the only one IIRC that also speaks specifically to individuals rights to own property.

No wonder Ginsburg and the rest of the Communist Left in America spend their entire adult life trying to change it.

And it dovetails nicely into why the man who swore an oath to defend and uphold said Constitution is quoted as calling it a "fundamentally flawed document".

AmPat
02-06-2012, 11:46 AM
I wish for her good health until at least November 2012.:Flag2:

Bailey
02-06-2012, 11:56 AM
I wish for her good health until at least November 2012.:Flag2:

Then I hope she has a heart attack the day after Romney is sworn in. I don't know anymore but is it still ok to wish someone has a heart attack? I don't want to be breaking any of the Magic negros commandments.

Novaheart
02-06-2012, 11:57 AM
“I might look at the constitution of South Africa,” Ginsburg said. “That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/06/justice-ginsburg-causes-storm-dissing-the-constitution-while-abroad/#ixzz1lcKDV6nn

There is nothing wrong with this statement. If we have idiots arguing that "shall not be infringed" means something other than shall not be infringed, can you imagine a bunch of screaming arabs standing around all day arguing about it? If nothing else, an Arab constitution has to be written in concrete and simple terms.

Look at how long it took for the courts and Congress to fix "all men" to mean "all people" and even now we still have to hash it out in court with people who want to restrict the meaning or exclude some men or some people.

Preamble

We, the people of South Africa,

Recognise the injustices of our past;

Honour those who suffered for justice and freedom in our land;

Respect those who have worked to build and develop our country; and

Believe that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, united in our diversity.

We therefore, through our freely elected representatives, adopt this Constitution as the supreme law of the Republic so as to *

Heal the divisions of the past and establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights;
Lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law;
Improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person; and
Build a united and democratic South Africa able to take its rightful place as a sovereign state in the family of nations.
May God protect our people.

Nkosi Sikelel' iAfrika. Morena boloka setjhaba sa heso.

God seën Suid-Afrika. God bless South Africa.

Mudzimu fhatutshedza Afurika. Hosi katekisa Afrika.

The bolded is a HUGE difference between the US Constitution and the South African Constitution.

txradioguy
02-06-2012, 11:58 AM
The bolded is a HUGE difference between the US Constitution and the South African Constitution.

You're honestly trying to convince us that the U.S. Constitution doesn't do what you bolded?

Seriously?

obx
02-06-2012, 11:59 AM
I wish for her good health until at least November 2012.:Flag2:

LOL and ditto.

Arroyo_Doble
02-06-2012, 12:08 PM
And it dovetails nicely into why the man who swore an oath to defend and uphold said Constitution is quoted as calling it a "fundamentally flawed document".

Obama was talking about slavery.

Others, including the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, have made similar statements.

Here's Dr Rice:


"In our first Constitution, my ancestors were three-fifths of a man. What does that say about American democracy at its outset? I've said it's a great birth defect. And we have had to overcome a birth defect. And, like any birth defect, it continues to have an impact on us. It's why we have such a hard time talking about race, and dealing with race."

~ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

Novaheart
02-06-2012, 12:12 PM
It's the only one IIRC that also speaks specifically to individuals rights to own property.
.

25. Property

No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.

Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application *
for a public purpose or in the public interest; and
subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.

The amount of the compensation and the time and manner of payment must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including *
the current use of the property;
the history of the acquisition and use of the property;
the market value of the property;
the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property; and
the purpose of the expropriation.

For the purposes of this section *
the public interest includes the nation's commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources; and
property is not limited to land.

The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis.

A person or community whose tenure of land is legally insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to tenure which is legally secure or to comparable redress.

A person or community dispossessed of property after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to restitution of that property or to equitable redress.

No provision of this section may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures to achieve land, water and related reform, in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination, provided that any departure from the provisions of this section is in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1).

Parliament must enact the legislation referred to in subsection (6).


South Africa, of course, has its own special circumstances but ones which might apply more to Egypt than to the US. In the US, we don't have large numbers of people living on communal land of uncertain ownership. We have Indian reservations, and I predict that they will eventually be divided up and deeded to the occupants so that they can keep or sell the property.

But you will note that while the SA Constitution property rights section provides for what we would call reparations and assisted access to land ownership, it falls under the same legal construct as our own eminent domain provisions, and unlike Zimbabwe the current land owners or their descendants cannot be dispossessed in the process of furthering a government goal, they must be compensated.

The South African constitution is rather cleverly written, with checks and balances. While the government can make an effort to right the wrongs of the past, it is forbidden from harming those in the present. Thus, they cannot effect a de facto deportation of all white people simply by buying them out and handing over their property to blacks. That would be discriminatory and racist. Unlike the US Constitution, the SA Constitution specifically forbids discrimination.

txradioguy
02-06-2012, 12:15 PM
Obama was talking about slavery.

No fan boy he was referring to the fact it didn't address the mythical "social justice".


Others, including the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, have made similar statements.

And I'm sure you can provide us with the quote from Justice Roberts right?


Here's Dr Rice:


"In our first Constitution, my ancestors were three-fifths of a man. What does that say about American democracy at its outset? I've said it's a great birth defect. And we have had to overcome a birth defect. And, like any birth defect, it continues to have an impact on us. It's why we have such a hard time talking about race, and dealing with race."

~ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice

What that shows is that Dr. Rice didn't understand why the 3/5ths rule was put into place.

And it shows that you don't either.

txradioguy
02-06-2012, 12:16 PM
25. Property

No one may be deprived of property except in terms of law of general application, and no law may permit arbitrary deprivation of property.

Property may be expropriated only in terms of law of general application *
for a public purpose or in the public interest; and
subject to compensation, the amount of which and the time and manner of payment of which have either been agreed to by those affected or decided or approved by a court.

The amount of the compensation and the time and manner of payment must be just and equitable, reflecting an equitable balance between the public interest and the interests of those affected, having regard to all relevant circumstances, including *
the current use of the property;
the history of the acquisition and use of the property;
the market value of the property;
the extent of direct state investment and subsidy in the acquisition and beneficial capital improvement of the property; and
the purpose of the expropriation.

For the purposes of this section *
the public interest includes the nation's commitment to land reform, and to reforms to bring about equitable access to all South Africa's natural resources; and
property is not limited to land.

The state must take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to foster conditions which enable citizens to gain access to land on an equitable basis.

A person or community whose tenure of land is legally insecure as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to tenure which is legally secure or to comparable redress.

A person or community dispossessed of property after 19 June 1913 as a result of past racially discriminatory laws or practices is entitled, to the extent provided by an Act of Parliament, either to restitution of that property or to equitable redress.

No provision of this section may impede the state from taking legislative and other measures to achieve land, water and related reform, in order to redress the results of past racial discrimination, provided that any departure from the provisions of this section is in accordance with the provisions of section 36(1).

Parliament must enact the legislation referred to in subsection (6).


South Africa, of course, has its own special circumstances but ones which might apply more to Egypt than to the US. In the US, we don't have large numbers of people living on communal land of uncertain ownership. We have Indian reservations, and I predict that they will eventually be divided up and deeded to the occupants so that they can keep or sell the property.

But you will note that while the SA Constitution property rights section provides for what we would call reparations and assisted access to land ownership, it falls under the same legal construct as our own eminent domain provisions, and unlike Zimbabwe the current land owners or their descendants cannot be dispossessed in the process of furthering a government goal, they must be compensated.

The South African constitution is rather cleverly written, with checks and balances. While the government can make an effort to right the wrongs of the past, it is forbidden from harming those in the present. Thus, they cannot effect a de facto deportation of all white people simply by buying them out and handing over their property to blacks. That would be discriminatory and racist. Unlike the US Constitution, the SA Constitution specifically forbids discrimination.


So move to Cape Town. I'm sure you'll fit in well there.

Novaheart
02-06-2012, 12:19 PM
You're honestly trying to convince us that the U.S. Constitution doesn't do what you bolded?

Seriously?

Clearly it doesn't. We have had three civil rights acts and 200 years of case law to bring about the degree to which discrimination in the law has been curtailed, and we aren't done yet.

Women didn't even the vote until my grandmother's time. The US military was race segregated until my mother's time. Gay rights have only come about in my time and they still aren't completely equal. Only one of those improvements is specifically written into the US Constitution, the rest is law and policy.

Novaheart
02-06-2012, 12:20 PM
So move to Cape Town. I'm sure you'll fit in well there.

Are you incapable of an adult conversation?

txradioguy
02-06-2012, 12:22 PM
By the way Libtard...I notice you're failing to put a link to where you're getting this "information" about the Constitution of South Africa.

txradioguy
02-06-2012, 12:25 PM
Are you incapable of an adult conversation?

Are you capable of talking about the OP or are just unable to control your urge to toss out straw men and light them on fire?

We're talking about a sitting judge on the United States Supreme Court trashing OUR constitution one that she took an oath to "faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

Yet here she goes...former counsel to the ACLU...and trashes that very Constitution she's supposed to abide by on an Islamic network.

Care to make any comment on that? Or are you going to continue to act like Annoyo and steer the conversation away from the original topic?

Talk about not being adult enough to carry on a conversation. :rolleyes:

Novaheart
02-06-2012, 12:30 PM
By the way Libtard...I notice you're failing to put a link to where you're getting this "information" about the Constitution of South Africa.

And that changes the fact that you are habitually wrong, chronically ignorant, persistently childish, poorly bred and relentlessly vulgar in what way?

txradioguy
02-06-2012, 12:35 PM
Clearly it doesn't. We have had three civil rights acts and 200 years of case law to bring about the degree to which discrimination in the law has been curtailed,

John Adams
"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God ... anarchy and tyranny commence. PROPERTY MUST BE SECURED OR LIBERTY CANNOT EXIST"



James Madison
"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort .... This being the end of government, that is NOT a just government,... nor is property secure under it, where the property which a man has ... is violated by arbitrary seizures of one class of citizens for the service of the rest."


and we aren't done yet.

Yeah because there are soooo many other imaginary "rights" your Libtard brethren are waiting to invent.


Women didn't even the vote until my grandmother's time. The US military was race segregated until my mother's time. Gay rights have only come about in my time and they still aren't completely equal. Only one of those improvements is specifically written into the US Constitution, the rest is law and policy.


http://winnowingfork.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/strawman-motivational.jpg?w=360&h=450

Novaheart
02-06-2012, 12:37 PM
We're talking about a sitting judge on the United States Supreme Court trashing OUR constitution .........

She didn't trash our constitution.

txradioguy
02-06-2012, 12:38 PM
And that changes the fact that you are habitually wrong, chronically ignorant, persistently childish, poorly bred and relentlessly vulgar in what way?

And if any of that were actually true...you'd be able to prove it and link to the evidence.

But you can't. And all you're left with is your violent pounding of your keyboard in an attempt to insult me and hurt my feelings.

How does it fail to be such a blatant failure?

fettpett
02-06-2012, 12:54 PM
Obama was talking about slavery.

Others, including the current Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, have made similar statements.

Here's Dr Rice:


"In our first Constitution, my ancestors were three-fifths of a man. What does that say about American democracy at its outset? I've said it's a great birth defect. And we have had to overcome a birth defect. And, like any birth defect, it continues to have an impact on us. It's why we have such a hard time talking about race, and dealing with race."

~ Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice


Yes, the Constitution does say that, but that was in there for a specific reason. It was anti-salvery. The South wanted them counted as population, but they didn't want to recognize them as citizens, they also wanted to count them as property. The Northern states on the other hand told them, fine then we'll start counting furniture and what not as well. It was a compromise, a shitty one, but one that was able to see this country founded. Nothing could be done about Slavery till 1808, when the slave trade was banned. Slavery was dying by then anyway.

If Eli Whitney didn't go to the south and invent the cotton gin, Slavery would have been gone within 10 years.

Arroyo_Doble
02-06-2012, 01:01 PM
Yes, the Constitution does say that, but that was in there for a specific reason. It was anti-salvery. The South wanted them counted as population, but they didn't want to recognize them as citizens, they also wanted to count them as property. The Northern states on the other hand told them, fine then we'll start counting furniture and what not as well. It was a compromise, a shitty one, but one that was able to see this country founded. Nothing could be done about Slavery till 1808, when the slave trade was banned. Slavery was dying by then anyway.

If Eli Whitney didn't go to the south and invent the cotton gin, Slavery would have been gone within 10 years.

OK.

The point was that it is not that unusual of a statement. I suppose you can argue over the merits of slavery but some people think it is bad.

txradioguy
02-06-2012, 01:05 PM
OK.

The point was that it is not that unusual of a statement. I suppose you can argue over the merits of slavery but some people think it is bad.

No one here has said it's good...despite your implication.

Southern Democrats wanted to count slaves so they could pack the House of Representative with slave friendly representatives.

The Northern states recognized this and came up with a compromise to blunt what the south was trying to do.

And had the Constitution been followed to the letter....slavery would have ended IIRC 12 years after the last of the original 13 colonies ratified the Constitution.


ETA: Now stop with the distraction into slavery and actualy and say something intelligent about the OP.

fettpett
02-06-2012, 01:09 PM
Clearly it doesn't. We have had three civil rights acts and 200 years of case law to bring about the degree to which discrimination in the law has been curtailed, and we aren't done yet.

Yes, things did change, for the better, that doesn't mean the frame work and the rights given in the Constitution wasn't for citizens, plus the Constitution was a frame work for rights granted by the Federal Government, this was a time when it was weak, on purpose, most of the power was in the hands of the States.


Women didn't even the vote until my grandmother's time.

Not many places (if any) had given women any kind of rights when the Constitution was written, the closest was the UK, yes we lagged behind but not by much, only about 18 years after Australia gave women full suffrage. http://womenshistory.about.com/od/suffrage/a/intl_timeline.htm


The US military was race segregated until my mother's time.

Segregation was not unconstitutional, nor has it ever been ruled as such, nor is it necessarily a bad thing (the military is a completely different animal than the general public with a much different dynamic so it can be a bad thing there), equal opportunity is what is guaranteed.


Gay rights have only come about in my time and they still aren't completely equal. Only one of those improvements is specifically written into the US Constitution, the rest is law and policy.

such a load of crap. You are an American citizen, given every right that is in the Constitution, what the gay community (just as much as any other "special interest group") wants is special privileges and special laws pertaining to just them. It's not about equality.

fettpett
02-06-2012, 01:12 PM
OK.

The point was that it is not that unusual of a statement. I suppose you can argue over the merits of slavery but some people think it is bad.

this statement is so full of shit, and you don't get my point or the reason why the 3/5th rule was put in place. txradioguy has it right. The South wanted to pack the House of Reps because they had a much larger population when the slaves were counted. The Northern states saw this and didn't want it to happen.

fettpett
02-06-2012, 01:14 PM
Southern Democrats wanted to count slaves so they could pack the House of Representative with slave friendly representatives.


well, they weren't Democrats as the party wasn't founded yet, they were for the most part just Southern landowners that wanted to maintain control and have a bigger power base in the House.

txradioguy
02-06-2012, 01:18 PM
well, they weren't Democrats as the party wasn't founded yet, they were for the most part just Southern landowners that wanted to maintain control and have a bigger power base in the House.

Well with Annoyo and Novatwit you have to put it into terms they understand. :p

Arroyo_Doble
02-06-2012, 01:23 PM
this statement is so full of shit, and you don't get my point or the reason why the 3/5th rule was put in place.

I know why it was put in place. It is simply not germane.

You can think slavery was a flaw (like many do) in our founding or you can think it wasn't. But it is not that outrageous a position to take.

txradioguy
02-06-2012, 01:26 PM
I know why it was put in place. It is simply not germane.

You can think slavery was a flaw (like many do) in our founding or you can think it wasn't. But it is not that outrageous a position to take.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a260/Datdude11/Internet%20messages/offtopic.jpg

fettpett
02-06-2012, 01:27 PM
Well with Annoyo and Novatwit you have to put it into terms they understand. :p

lol, they did form the backbone of Democrat-Republican party (later changed it's name to Democrat Party)

fettpett
02-06-2012, 01:29 PM
I know why it was put in place. It is simply not germane.

You can think slavery was a flaw (like many do) in our founding or you can think it wasn't. But it is not that outrageous a position to take.



http://messagesforfriends.com/upload/3812-5065/rejuvenating-thoughts.jpg

are you really that stupid? It's not a matter of the morality of slavery, but the why the 3/5ths was put in place.

Arroyo_Doble
02-06-2012, 01:41 PM
are you really that stupid? It's not a matter of the morality of slavery, but the why the 3/5ths was put in place.


I think we are not talking about the same thing.

Tx catapults some propaganda dutifully (and unquestioningly); in full hair-on-fire bed wetting style. He also throws in some Fox Limbaugh douchebaggery about our president. I mention that it isn't all that big of a deal and now you are posting funny pictures because of some tangent argument about House apportionment and the Founders.

I agree with your assessment. Completely. The northern states did not want slaves to count fully toward apportionment (a neat tangent would be the 5/5ths rule that is illegal immigrants ... but I digress). That is the birth of the 3/5ths rule. It also has nothing to do with Tx's bed wetting about the Kenyan born Marxist Commie out to take our guns and butter.

txradioguy
02-06-2012, 01:56 PM
I think we are not talking about the same thing.

We are? No one has ever been sure of what you're actually talking about Annoyo.


Tx catapults some propaganda dutifully (and unquestioningly); in full hair-on-fire bed wetting style.

Pot meet kettle. Not sure how you're even able to complete a sentence with so much DNC c*ck in your mouth.


He also throws in some Fox Limbaugh douchebaggery about our president.

No what I did was repeat what the PResident...your Lord and Master has said as a candidate about the U.S. Constitution.

And in typical Libtard fashion...you're unable to respond in anything that resembles coherent thought.


I mention that it isn't all that big of a deal and now you are posting funny pictures because of some tangent argument about House apportionment and the Founders.

No we do that because in your typical spineless style you steer the discussion away from the OP so you can do your little sidestep dance and avoid any critical thinking.

We're laughing at you.



It also has nothing to do with Tx's bed wetting about the Kenyan born Marxist Commie out to take our guns and butter.

I said that? Please show me where.

Rockntractor
02-06-2012, 02:12 PM
I think we are not talking about the same thing.


This seems to be the rule rather than the exception when you are posting.

Novaheart
02-06-2012, 10:50 PM
well, they weren't Democrats as the party wasn't founded yet, they were for the most part just Southern landowners that wanted to maintain control and have a bigger power base in the House.

I'm not sure what the major difference between then and now is. Back then the census counted women and slaves. Now the census counts illegal aliens.

NJCardFan
02-06-2012, 11:24 PM
Clearly it doesn't. We have had three civil rights acts and 200 years of case law to bring about the degree to which discrimination in the law has been curtailed, and we aren't done yet.

Women didn't even the vote until my grandmother's time. The US military was race segregated until my mother's time. Gay rights have only come about in my time and they still aren't completely equal. Only one of those improvements is specifically written into the US Constitution, the rest is law and policy.

Please list all the rights contained in the Constitution where gays are precluded. I'll wait.

NJCardFan
02-06-2012, 11:32 PM
Yes, the Constitution does say that, but that was in there for a specific reason. It was anti-salvery. The South wanted them counted as population, but they didn't want to recognize them as citizens, they also wanted to count them as property. The Northern states on the other hand told them, fine then we'll start counting furniture and what not as well. It was a compromise, a shitty one, but one that was able to see this country founded. Nothing could be done about Slavery till 1808, when the slave trade was banned. Slavery was dying by then anyway.

If Eli Whitney didn't go to the south and invent the cotton gin, Slavery would have been gone within 10 years.
If the 3/5ths wasn't put in the Constitution, Congress of the time would have heavily favored the South. Slavery would have continued a lot longer. Oh, since it's 100% certain that our liberal friends here don't know this piece of information, there were black congressmen in the early days of this republic. (the 3/5ths clause is explained in the first 10 minutes of this video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REl-99K-8tk

Arroyo_Doble
02-07-2012, 09:04 AM
I'm not sure what the major difference between then and now is. Back then the census counted women and slaves. Now the census counts illegal aliens.

Texas thanks the nation for its four additional members without worrying about the fact that many of those who were counted cannot vote.

fettpett
02-07-2012, 09:20 AM
I'm not sure what the major difference between then and now is. Back then the census counted women and slaves. Now the census counts illegal aliens.

here's the difference. Women and Slaves were here legally and were still part of the population.

Illegals are just that, people who came here ILLEGALLY. Yes they are part of the population, but they broke the law, plain and simple.

You can't put your 21st Century views and morals on those from a different era.

Arroyo_Doble
02-07-2012, 09:26 AM
You can't put your 21st Century views and morals on those from a different era.

Hopefully, that street goes both ways.

AmPat
02-07-2012, 09:32 AM
Hopefully, that street goes both ways.

Meaning you too wish to line up behind the Marxist POS in the WH for a turn at crapping on our Constitution?

fettpett
02-07-2012, 09:33 AM
Hopefully, that street goes both ways.

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

yes dumbass, I'm telling you that you HAVE to except slavery. moron:vomit: :smilie_wall:

Odysseus
02-07-2012, 09:57 AM
By Alex Pappas Published: 12:40 AM 02/06/2012

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has caused a storm of controversy by saying in a television interview that the people of Egypt should not look to the United States Constitution when drafting their own governing document because it’s too old and there are newer examples from which to draw inspiration.

“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012,” Ginsburg said in the interview, which aired on Jan. 30 on Al-Hayat TV.

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

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/06/justice-ginsburg-causes-storm-dissing-the-constitution-while-abroad/#ixzz1lcDbZcgw
Let's keep in mind that the people of Egypt, having elected the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist parties to overwhelming majorities in their parliament, have chosen Sharia law, which is much older than the US Constitution, and far more flawed in every possible way, and that a US Supreme Court Justice might want to think about the implications of what she is saying before a foreign audience before she opens her mouth to put down the law of our land. However, the big issue here is this: Does this statement indicate that Ginsburg's interpretation of case law in her official duties will not be bound by the Constitution? It certainly opens the door to review her decisions and determine if that has been the case, and if so, then congress has an oversight role to play. The House Judiciary Committee needs to have her explain exactly how her view of the Constitution colors her judgment. Justice Ginsburg's duty is to interpret cases under our Constitution. It's the law of the United States, and she is bound by it and her oath. If she considers the Constitution to be so flawed that she must supply her own fixes to it, then she needs to step down and run for congress, where she can propose amendments to her heart's content.

The comment makes sense. The US Constitution may be the icon we think of as a complete thought "US liberty and government" but it isn't really. The Constitution plus the laborious and time consuming in creation body of law based in the Constitution is the actual whole.

There are newer Constitutions which are more specific about liberty. The South African Constitution for example, is much more clear on civil rights than our own. I think you could make a case that the SA constitution is based in our own Constitution to some degree, but it doesn't leave the gaping holes to be decided by courts. "Everyone" pretty much means everyone.

It isn't disrespectful to say that there are more concise laws out there to model. One would expect design to improve over time. If we were to craft a new constitution for the US, it wouldn't be the same as the one we have now. It would be more specific, it would incorporate the body of case law in which the courts have refined and defined the application of the principles in the face of self-serving idiots who demand that they be shown a specific reference in the Constitution when the principle is clearly applicable.

But, as you said, the Constitution plus the body of law based in it is the whole, or most of it. There is also the separation of powers, both hoizontally (within the federal government) and vertically (the federal system, i.e., the powers held by the states and the people), and the civil society that the Constitution functions as a part of. While subsequent constitutions sound good on paper, ours has stood the test of time. It is old, but it is subject to amendment, and the most recent amendments were within most of our lifetimes. Most other constitutions draw inspiration from ours, but fail because the societies in which they are implemented have no history or experience of self-government. Thus, while the South African Constitution may be a lovely document, it is the law of a land in which violence is the norm, property is insecure and liberty is, at best, tenuous. If the people of Egypt want anarchy under the guise of constitutional law, then South Africa is a great example. Not that it matters. As I said, the Egyptians have chosen Sharia law.

fettpett
02-07-2012, 10:10 AM
Let's keep in mind that the people of Egypt, having elected the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafist parties to overwhelming majorities in their parliament, have chosen Sharia law, which is much older than the US Constitution, and far more flawed in every possible way, and that a US Supreme Court Justice might want to think about the implications of what she is saying before a foreign audience before she opens her mouth to put down the law of our land. However, the big issue here is this: Does this statement indicate that Ginsburg's interpretation of case law in her official duties will not be bound by the Constitution? It certainly opens the door to review her decisions and determine if that has been the case, and if so, then congress has an oversight role to play. The House Judiciary Committee needs to have her explain exactly how her view of the Constitution colors her judgment. Justice Ginsburg's duty is to interpret cases under our Constitution. It's the law of the United States, and she is bound by it and her oath. If she considers the Constitution to be so flawed that she must supply her own fixes to it, then she needs to step down and run for congress, where she can propose amendments to her heart's content.


Was it her or Anthony Kennedy that stated that they look to World law when trying to decide on their vote on issues?

Arroyo_Doble
02-07-2012, 10:19 AM
Was it her or Anthony Kennedy that stated that they look to World law when trying to decide on their vote on issues?

This case is exactly what I was thinking of when I said the street should go both ways:


The prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments,” like other expansive language in the Constitution, must be interpreted according to its text, by considering history, tradition, and precedent, and with due regard for its purpose and function in the constitutional design. To implement this framework we have established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual.]

.....


Respondent and his amici have submitted, and petitioner does not contest, that only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China. Since then each of these countries has either abolished capital punishment for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice. Brief for Respondent 49—50. In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty.


Roper v Simmons (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZO.html)



What was cruel in 1787 is not what is cruel in the 21st Century.

AmPat
02-07-2012, 10:25 AM
This case is exactly what I was thinking of when I said the street should go both ways:

What was cruel in 1787 is not what is cruel in the 21st Century.

I'd say murdering somebody or other heinous crimes committed, then getting a reservation to a Marriott-like "prison" is pretty cruel to the victims and their families.

As for other countries setting US legal precedence? Should not even be a consideration. Right and rights need to be determined by us, Americans.

fettpett
02-07-2012, 10:38 AM
This case is exactly what I was thinking of when I said the street should go both ways:


The prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments,” like other expansive language in the Constitution, must be interpreted according to its text, by considering history, tradition, and precedent, and with due regard for its purpose and function in the constitutional design. To implement this framework we have established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual.]

.....


Respondent and his amici have submitted, and petitioner does not contest, that only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China. Since then each of these countries has either abolished capital punishment for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice. Brief for Respondent 49—50. In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty.


Roper v Simmons (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZO.html)



What was cruel in 1787 is not what is cruel in the 21st Century.

One can argue that a 17 almost 18 year old is hardly a Juvenile, particularly since it was only a few months between the crime and the trial. Does one somehow magically become more mature or competent at 18? Simmons was not a Juvenile when he was caught and tried. He was deemed old enough to stand trial as an adult and was tried as such. Kennedy's argument was hollow at best. The US has not executed anyone under the age of 18 since 1973, of the 22 only 1 was under the age of 17 when the crime was committed
[http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/execution-juveniles-us-and-other-countries] and none of them where under the age of 24 when executed. So the whole notion of the US allowing "juvenile" executions is a fallacy.

And if you read that link I posted, you'll see that those other countries actually executed true Juveniles, some as young as 13.

Odysseus
02-07-2012, 11:01 AM
This case is exactly what I was thinking of when I said the street should go both ways:


The prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishments,” like other expansive language in the Constitution, must be interpreted according to its text, by considering history, tradition, and precedent, and with due regard for its purpose and function in the constitutional design. To implement this framework we have established the propriety and affirmed the necessity of referring to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual.]

.....


Respondent and his amici have submitted, and petitioner does not contest, that only seven countries other than the United States have executed juvenile offenders since 1990: Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and China. Since then each of these countries has either abolished capital punishment for juveniles or made public disavowal of the practice. Brief for Respondent 49—50. In sum, it is fair to say that the United States now stands alone in a world that has turned its face against the juvenile death penalty.

Roper v Simmons (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-633.ZO.html)

What was cruel in 1787 is not what is cruel in the 21st Century.
What the court failed to take into account was that the Constitution referred explicitly to capital crimes in other parts. The original intent of "cruel and unusual punishment" was to ban punishments which were out of proportion to the crime committed. It was a reaction to the British Crown's policy of imposing draconian punishments for minor infractions that otherwise offended the king. It was never meant to ban capital punishment. The “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society” is legalese for "the opinions of liberals will now be enshrined in law without legislative action, because that's what we want."

Was it her or Anthony Kennedy that stated that they look to World law when trying to decide on their vote on issues?

Yeah, although the source of that is Jeffrey Toobin, so consider the source. There have been 23 decisions where the court split 5-to-4, with 16 going along ideological lines. Kennedy voted with the conservatives 11 times vs 5 times with the liberals.

Novaheart
02-07-2012, 11:13 AM
Does this statement indicate that Ginsburg's interpretation of case law in her official duties will not be bound by the Constitution? It certainly opens the door to review her decisions and determine if that has been the case, and if so, then congress has an oversight role to play. The House Judiciary Committee needs to have her explain exactly how her view of the Constitution colors her judgment.

You really went for a mental ride on this one. Are you saying that if a Justice thinks that the Founding Fathers might have been a little less wordy and a little more direct then we wouldn't spend so much time in court over the Second Amendment that they "hate the constitution"? I doubt it. So why this monster leap from Ginsberg's personal opinion to her competency and loyalty?

I get it. You think that judges and justices rule from their personal ideology and politics rather than an objective constitutional approach to the law. Don't you?

AmPat
02-07-2012, 12:17 PM
You really went for a mental ride on this one. Are you saying that if a Justice thinks that the Founding Fathers might have been a little less wordy and a little more direct then we wouldn't spend so much time in court over the Second Amendment that they "hate the constitution"? I doubt it. So why this monster leap from Ginsberg's personal opinion to her competency and loyalty?

I get it. You think that judges and justices rule from their personal ideology and politics rather than an objective constitutional approach to the law. Don't you?

In the case of the inept liberals on the SC, yep, you betcha.

txradioguy
02-07-2012, 12:28 PM
Meaning you too wish to line up behind the Marxist POS in the WH for a turn at crapping on our Constitution?

Annoyo lines up for him...but it's in front not behind.

txradioguy
02-07-2012, 12:29 PM
Was it her or Anthony Kennedy that stated that they look to World law when trying to decide on their vote on issues?

Kennedy.

Odysseus
02-07-2012, 12:41 PM
You really went for a mental ride on this one. Are you saying that if a Justice thinks that the Founding Fathers might have been a little less wordy and a little more direct then we wouldn't spend so much time in court over the Second Amendment that they "hate the constitution"? I doubt it. So why this monster leap from Ginsberg's personal opinion to her competency and loyalty?

I get it. You think that judges and justices rule from their personal ideology and politics rather than an objective constitutional approach to the law. Don't you?

Well, yeah. Obviously. Some judges clearly put their personal ideology and politics over the law. Haven't you been paying attention?

Ginsburg's comments ought to be disturbing to you, too, if not because they indicate a lack of fealty to the Constitution that she is sworn to uphold and protect, then because of the outright stupidity and ignorance that she demonstrates:


I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I'm operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.
The Egyptian people are an ancient people, but the current national government only goes back to the coup that replaced the king with Nasser and the Egyptian Ba'athists. The monarchy before that only dated from the end of Ottoman control. She doesn't know her history.

And, the reason that you ought to look at the US Constitution first is precisely because it is the oldest Constitution still in effect today. What other Constitution has survived a civil war, multiple economic upheavals and the expansion from a small collection of colonies to a global power? Look at the turnover in types of governments over the period. South Africa went from a segregated republic to an anarchic state. Their constitution may be a lovely document, but look at daily life in South Africa to see how well it has worked in actuality. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms was drafted during the Reagan era, and hasn't had time to prove itself, and let's face it, if Canada didn't share North America with us, how prosperous and stable would they be? And, while we're at it, the nations of Europe that look down their noses at us for being an upstart nation tend to forget that their governments have the life expectancy of a celebrity marriage, and that while the vast majority of them were bowing and scraping to the semi-lucid products of centuries of inbreeding, we were governing ourselves and doing quite well at it. Since we adopted our Constitution, France has been a monarchy, a republic, an empire, a republic again, an empire again, a republic, another republic and is now a state in the EU. Germany has been a monarchy, a failed republic, a Nazi dictatorship, a pair of states and has once again unified, only to decide to cede sovereignty to the EU. Russia went from a monarchy to a totalitarian state (with a very nice Constitution, mind you) to a kleptocratic pseudo-democracy.

Egypt has never been a democracy at any level. The people have no experience with it, and our Constitution assumes a certain basic level of civic involvement and knowledge. That is the only reason why our Constitution might not be the best fit for Egypt, but Ginsburg didn't have the depth of knowledge or courage to address that. If Ginsberg had said anything remotely like that, this conversation wouldn't be happening. Instead, Ginsburg is promoting the theoretical over the practical, by citing new documents that have either never been tested in a crisis, or have been demonstrated failures. Her criticisms of the US Constitution are frivolous and shallow, and she is raising serious doubts as to her commitment to it.

Novaheart
02-07-2012, 12:46 PM
Kennedy.

When the Constitution made reference to cruel and unusual punishment, to what country and government's law and courts was it referring?

Standards evolve outside the country as well. In the community of First World nations, the standards of many things from corrections policy to death penalty are the context of which we are a part. There is nothing wrong with looking to the laws/rulings of sister nations for comparison purposes, as long as you are only ruling according to American law.


Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.

Novaheart
02-07-2012, 12:57 PM
Well, yeah. Obviously. Some judges clearly put their personal ideology and politics over the law. Haven't you been paying attention?

Ginsburg's comments ought to be disturbing to you, too, if not because they indicate a lack of fealty to the Constitution that she is sworn to uphold and protect, then because of the outright stupidity and ignorance that she demonstrates:


I can't speak about what the Egyptian experience should be, because I'm operating under a rather old constitution. The United States, in comparison to Egypt, is a very new nation, and yet we have the oldest written constitution still in force in the world.
The Egyptian people are an ancient people, but the current national government only goes back to the coup that replaced the king with Nasser and the Egyptian Ba'athists. The monarchy before that only dated from the end of Ottoman control. She doesn't know her history. .

Nation, country, and government are not interchangeable terms.

Egypt is an ancient nation. The change of governments and boundaries over time doesn't mean that it only dates to the most recent revolution or coup. That's like saying that China has only existed since 1949.

The nation state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit.[1] The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation state" implies that the two geographically coincide. Nation state formation took place at different times in different parts of the earth but has become the dominant form of state organization. - wiki

Ginsberg isn't wrong, you're merely listening to her professorial speech with your colloquial ears.

Novaheart
02-07-2012, 01:01 PM
And, the reason that you ought to look at the US Constitution first is precisely because it is the oldest Constitution still in effect today. What other Constitution has survived a civil war, multiple economic upheavals and the expansion from a small collection of colonies to a global power? .

There are a great many people in the US who don't believe that the Constitution survived the Civil War. Those of us whose families have lived under Northern occupation for the last 147 years.

Arroyo_Doble
02-07-2012, 01:02 PM
I get it. You think that judges and justices rule from their personal ideology and politics rather than an objective constitutional approach to the law. Don't you?

Well, reading Bush v Gore, I think there is a point to that.

Tipsycatlover
02-07-2012, 01:52 PM
When the Constitution made reference to cruel and unusual punishment, to what country and government's law and courts was it referring?

Standards evolve outside the country as well. In the community of First World nations, the standards of many things from corrections policy to death penalty are the context of which we are a part. There is nothing wrong with looking to the laws/rulings of sister nations for comparison purposes, as long as you are only ruling according to American law.


Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.

Foreign law has absolutely no place in our jurisprudence whatsoever because foreign judges are not applying the Constituion no matter how otherwise "wise" they are.

noonwitch
02-07-2012, 02:19 PM
I don't see where RBG has trashed the US constitution in her remarks. Should Egypt copy the US constitution, or should they look for a more modern model to use?


The US constitution is unique to this nation's history and was heavily influenced by both british law and by Enlightenment-era philosophy. To doubt that it would work in a muslim-dominated nation like Egypt is not trashing its use here. After all, this would be a much more peaceful world if the majority of Islam experienced an Enlightenment similar to the one Christianity experienced in the 18th century.

Not to mention the fact that under the original US constitution, I did not have the right to vote solely based on my gender. I would not wish to see a nation with a majority muslim population use that as an excuse to do the same in today's world.

AmPat
02-07-2012, 03:07 PM
I don't see where RBG has trashed the US constitution in her remarks. Should Egypt copy the US constitution, or should they look for a more modern model to use?


The US constitution is unique to this nation's history and was heavily influenced by both british law and by Enlightenment-era philosophy. To doubt that it would work in a muslim-dominated nation like Egypt is not trashing its use here. After all, this would be a much more peaceful world if the majority of Islam experienced an Enlightenment similar to the one Christianity experienced in the 18th century.

Not to mention the fact that under the original US constitution, I did not have the right to vote solely based on my gender. I would not wish to see a nation with a majority muslim population use that as an excuse to do the same in today's world.

This is precisely the beauty and strength of our now $*** stained Constitution. If you can read around O Blah Blah's skidmarks, you might find that our Constitution actually fixed that problem. The Moose Limbs still deny that to their Chattel. :rolleyes:

Odysseus
02-07-2012, 03:14 PM
When the Constitution made reference to cruel and unusual punishment, to what country and government's law and courts was it referring?
Ours, but it was in reaction to policies that had been imposed upon us by the Crown. Our government has never sought to quarter Soldiers in private homes, either, but the Third Amendment came about because of a policy imposed upon the colonies by Britain. The Fifth Amendment was driven by the Star Chamber courts.


Standards evolve outside the country as well. In the community of First World nations, the standards of many things from corrections policy to death penalty are the context of which we are a part. There is nothing wrong with looking to the laws/rulings of sister nations for comparison purposes, as long as you are only ruling according to American law.
You just contradicted yourself. Foreign law is not binding on the US, and therefore irrelevant, unless it is English Common Law or some other code that informed US law at the founding and therefore provides context for the original intent. What the South Africans do in their laws may or may not be applicable here, but that is for the legislatures, not the courts, to decide.


Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

“Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” she asked.
Because US law doesn't defer to the wisdom of judges, here or abroad, and because they have no standing here. US law is written by legislatures, signed and enforced by executives and applied by judges. Foreign judges may be wise, but if they wish to influence decisions by our courts, they can write amicus briefs or pass the bar in the states where the cases are filed and argue them.


Nation, country, and government are not interchangeable terms.

Egypt is an ancient nation. The change of governments and boundaries over time doesn't mean that it only dates to the most recent revolution or coup. That's like saying that China has only existed since 1949.
The People's Republic of China has only existed since 1949.


The nation state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit.[1] The state is a political and geopolitical entity; the nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. The term "nation state" implies that the two geographically coincide. Nation state formation took place at different times in different parts of the earth but has become the dominant form of state organization. - wiki
Yes, but Ginsburg was conflating the two. Egyptians are an ancient people, but modern Egypt is not ruled by Phareohs, Khedives or Kings. It is a new state, and one that has very limited experience with self-government. In fact, going back 5,000 years, one can find no examples of a democratic Egypt, hence my point about the risks of introducing democracy there without any safeguards.


Ginsberg isn't wrong, you're merely listening to her professorial speech with your colloquial ears.
Why is it that whenever someone who ought to know better says something completely blown-brain, someone is always ready to tell the rest of us that the problem is not what they said, but how we heard it? Ginsburg made a series of statements that got her in trouble, because she doesn't know much about history or other nations, and now she's looking for a way out, but the problem isn't my ears, it's what's between hers.


There are a great many people in the US who don't believe that the Constitution survived the Civil War. Those of us whose families have lived under Northern occupation for the last 147 years.
Yes, and there are a great many people who believe that Allah was so concerned with how men and women interacted that he micromanaged Mohammed's lovelife in order to allow him to take as many women as he wanted. Belief isn't reality. Reconstruction ended during the Hayes administration.

JB
02-07-2012, 08:12 PM
Is she entitled to her opinion? Yes. Do we afford her free speech protections? Yes.

But as a sitting member of the US Supreme Court she needs to shut the fuck up with a statement such as this in a foreign land. Or in public, in general, for that matter. Seriously, what the hell is the matter with her? Strictly from a common sense standpoint.

Rockntractor
02-07-2012, 08:16 PM
She took an oath to uphold the constitution, dissing it abroad it is not upholding it.
She should be impeached!

AmPat
02-07-2012, 08:29 PM
Is she entitled to her opinion? Yes. Do we afford her free speech protections? Yes.

But as a sitting member of the US Supreme Court she needs to shut the fuck up with a statement such as this in a foreign land. Or in public, in general, for that matter. Seriously, what the hell is the matter with her? Strictly from a common sense standpoint.

Two questions, one answer: She's liberal.

Novaheart
02-07-2012, 08:49 PM
You just contradicted yourself. Foreign law is not binding on the US, and therefore irrelevant,

To write this, you must have skipped completely over what Ginsberg actually said. So here it is again:


Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.



However, I feel certain that if the Egyptian constitution ever comes before the Supreme Court of the United States, then Ginsberg will recuse to avoid confusing you.

Now what will be really interesting will be if Prop 8 comes before the USSC while Scalia is still on the bench. He's on record as having said that the court would have to side with ending discrimination against gay couples in marriage law. Will he keep his word? Will he recuse? Will he look to Cuba , Russia, and mainland China for an excuse to continue discrimination?

Odysseus
02-07-2012, 11:39 PM
To write this, you must have skipped completely over what Ginsberg actually said. So here it is again:

Justice Ginsburg said the controversy was based on the misunderstanding that citing a foreign precedent means the court considers itself bound by foreign law as opposed to merely being influenced by such power as its reasoning holds.

However, I feel certain that if the Egyptian constitution ever comes before the Supreme Court of the United States, then Ginsberg will recuse to avoid confusing you.
You really don't understand what a precedent is, do you? Black's Law Dictionary defines "precedent" as a "rule of law established for the first time by a court for a particular type of case and thereafter referred to in deciding similar cases," i.e., "an already decided decision which furnishes the basis for later cases involving similar facts and issues." There are two types of precedents, binding and persuasive. A persuasive precedent, which is what Ginsburg is talking about, may come from a court that does not have authority over the court hearing the case in question, such as a lower court, an appellate court for a different region or a state court. Decisions by higher courts within the chain are binding precedents. Now, what makes the application of foreign law pernicious in the case of the "evolving standards of decency" doctrine is that it allows the court in question to overturn binding precedents by citing persuasive precedents from outside of our legal system, from courts which are not subject to US law and whose precedents are in no way similar to ours. The only times when citations of foreign precedents is acceptable is when the precedents are from legal systems that have informed ours, such as English Common Law. The laws created by a group of Brussels bureaucrats, South African revolutionaries or Sharia shysters have no bearing on US law, and their precedents have no standing here.


Now what will be really interesting will be if Prop 8 comes before the USSC while Scalia is still on the bench. He's on record as having said that the court would have to side with ending discrimination against gay couples in marriage law. Will he keep his word? Will he recuse? Will he look to Cuba , Russia, and mainland China for an excuse to continue discrimination?

Scalia said nothing of the sort. What he did say, in dissent, was this:


Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.

That's not an endorsement of gay marriage, but a recognition that the decision, as rendered, would lead to it. That doesn't mean that he agreed with it, as his written dissent demonstrates. You're deluding yourself.

AmPat
02-08-2012, 11:06 AM
Nova got:
http://i43.tinypic.com/20a7yuu.jpg

Novaheart
02-08-2012, 12:06 PM
Scalia said nothing of the sort. What he did say, in dissent, was this:


Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution"? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court.

That's not an endorsement of gay marriage, but a recognition that the decision, as rendered, would lead to it. That doesn't mean that he agreed with it, as his written dissent demonstrates. You're deluding yourself.

No, it's not an endorsement of gay marriage - it's his professional opinion that the Lawrence ruling had cleared the path for gay marriage, and that the court will by "principle and logic" need to rule on gay marriage governed by its ruling on Lawrence.

PS- it's the principle and logic you people object to most often when it comes to court cases. You simplemindedly demand to see specific wording in the constitution for circumstances which had yet to be presented or considered, but which due to the brilliance of the document when applied as principles with logic by judges leads to case law that is consistent in those principles and logic.

PPS- It just kills you when you think that because some judge is appointed by a Republican that he will rule from politics rather than objectivity in the law. It's delightful to see your disappointment when judges leave their politics at the door and act professionally. This is why we don't elect federal judges.

Novaheart
02-08-2012, 12:08 PM
.......

You remind me of that simpleminded little creature who laughs when Jabba The Hut laughs.

Odysseus
02-08-2012, 12:44 PM
No, it's not an endorsement of gay marriage - it's his professional opinion that the Lawrence ruling had cleared the path for gay marriage, and that the court will by "principle and logic" need to rule on gay marriage governed by its ruling on Lawrence.
No, it's his professional opinion that the decision was wrong, because its application would clear the way for gay marriage. That's why he wrote a dissent. The entire point of his dissent was that the decision has implications that go beyond the immediate claims of its proponents, who disingenuously claimed that it would not pave the way for gay marriage.


PS- it's the principle and logic you people object to most often when it comes to court cases. You simplemindedly demand to see specific wording in the constitution for circumstances which had yet to be presented or considered, but which due to the brilliance of the document when applied as principles with logic by judges leads to case law that is consistent in those principles and logic.
This is patently false. I demand principles and logic in court cases, but I also demand that the judges adhere to the law, not what they'd like the law to be. In the case of the Constitution, judges cannot simply pull new rights or obligations out of thin air or destroy centuries of jurisprudence to satisfy their own whims. In the case of the death penalty ban, it was specious nonsense for the court to claim that the Constitution banned capital punishment, when it explicitly stated that there are crimes which warrant capital punishment in the Fifth Amendment ("No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger;"), or to change the long-held meaning of the terms "cruel and unusual punishment" to fit their notions of criminal justice. And I get really tired of liberals telling me that the plain text of a document doesn't mean what it obviously says, or that their evolving standards trump the law of the land. If you don't like the Constitution, feel free to get the votes to amend it, but stop pretending that it says anything that you want it to say to suit your needs.


PPS- It just kills you when you think that because some judge is appointed by a Republican that he will rule from politics rather than objectivity in the law. It's delightful to see your disappointment when judges leave their politics at the door and act professionally. This is why we don't elect federal judges.
No, what kills me is seeing liberals argue that when a court goes against them, it's politics, but when it goes for them, it's objective legal reasoning, even if the law doesn't say what they claim it does, the decisions don't mean what they claim they mean, and the judges are contorting themselves into pretzels in order to justify their decisions, when there is no legal basis for them.

If you really believe that Scalia is going to vote for gay marriage, you're even more delusional than I thought you were.

linda22003
02-08-2012, 12:46 PM
Then I hope she has a heart attack the day after Romney is sworn in. I don't know anymore but is it still ok to wish someone has a heart attack?

Was it ever okay in the first place?

Odysseus
02-08-2012, 01:26 PM
Was it ever okay in the first place?

"I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease."

--NPR's Nina Totenberg, on Clarence Thomas.

Apparently it was, at least at NPR.

Novaheart
02-08-2012, 01:37 PM
If you really believe that Scalia is going to vote for gay marriage, you're even more delusional than I thought you were.

What I believe is that Scalia like all other justices wants to be remembered as a great legal mind. You simply can't do that from "conservatism", you need to break new legal ground. Scalia has written his dissent, he didn't say he wouldn't be bound by the precedent- he's a Supreme Court Justice and despite his deportment apparently a pretty intelligent man. We'll see.

Arroyo_Doble
02-08-2012, 01:40 PM
"I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease."

--NPR's Nina Totenberg, on Clarence Thomas.

Apparently it was, at least at NPR.

I think it was Julianne Malveaux who said that almost twenty years ago.

Novaheart
02-08-2012, 01:42 PM
And I get really tired of liberals telling me that the plain text of a document doesn't mean what it obviously says, or that their evolving standards trump the law of the land. .

The plain text of the 14th Amendment was not intended to allow illegal aliens to give birth to US citizens- it was intended to make American negroes citizens. It's a goof on the part of the occupation Congress and their toadies in the state legislatures, compounded by an idiotic court ruling in Kim Wong Ark.

Bailey
02-08-2012, 01:46 PM
"I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease."

--NPR's Nina Totenberg, on Clarence Thomas.

Apparently it was, at least at NPR.

Dont you know Ody that its ok for libs like Linda and her ilk to say stuff like that? :rolleyes:;)

Arroyo_Doble
02-08-2012, 01:48 PM
What I believe is that Scalia like all other justices wants to be remembered as a great legal mind. You simply can't do that from "conservatism", you need to break new legal ground. Scalia has written his dissent, he didn't say he wouldn't be bound by the precedent- he's a Supreme Court Justice and despite his deportment apparently a pretty intelligent man. We'll see.

He rationalizes his own bias quite often.

AmPat
02-08-2012, 01:48 PM
I think it was Julianne Malveaux who said that almost twenty years ago.
Hmmmm, not familiar, I would have guessed Robert Byrd (D) West Virginia.

linda22003
02-08-2012, 01:50 PM
"I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease."

--NPR's Nina Totenberg, on Clarence Thomas.

Apparently it was, at least at NPR.

I haven't heard that quote. IF it's true, I think it's in pretty bad taste.

Arroyo_Doble
02-08-2012, 01:53 PM
Hmmmm, not familiar, I would have guessed Robert Byrd (D) West Virginia.

Julianne Malveaux (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julianne_Malveaux)


Nina Totenberg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nina_Totenberg)

Arroyo_Doble
02-08-2012, 01:54 PM
I haven't heard that quote. IF it's true, I think it's in pretty bad taste.

It was from an interview on PBS in 1994. It caused a stir not just because it was in poor taste but because the person who said it was black.

linda22003
02-08-2012, 01:54 PM
Dont you know Ody that its ok for libs like Linda and her ilk to say stuff like that? :rolleyes:;)

When have you heard me say "stuff like that"?

linda22003
02-08-2012, 01:55 PM
It was from an interview on PBS in 1994. It caused a stir not just because it was in poor taste but because the person who said it was black.

Nina Totenberg isn't black. If it was someone else, I don't know who. I still think it's in poor taste.

Novaheart
02-08-2012, 01:57 PM
Nina Totenberg isn't black.

Maybe she's one of the Hattiesburg Totenbergs?

txradioguy
02-08-2012, 03:15 PM
Maybe she's one of the Hattiesburg Totenbergs?

She's not your type.

Arroyo_Doble
02-08-2012, 03:22 PM
Nina Totenberg isn't black.

Therefore .......


it was someone else

Outstanding!

Odysseus
02-08-2012, 03:50 PM
The plain text of the 14th Amendment was not intended to allow illegal aliens to give birth to US citizens- it was intended to make American negroes citizens. It's a goof on the part of the occupation Congress and their toadies in the state legislatures, compounded by an idiotic court ruling in Kim Wong Ark.
It wasn't a goof. It was the courts deciding that they didn't like the intent of the law, so they reinterpreted it to suit themselves.


Hmmmm, not familiar, I would have guessed Robert Byrd (D) West Virginia.
No, he would have used the "N"-word.

I haven't heard that quote. IF it's true, I think it's in pretty bad taste.
It is and it was.

I think it was Julianne Malveaux who said that almost twenty years ago.

I stand corrected. When I looked up the quote, the first site that had a video of it showed Nina Totenberg. It turns out that she had said, “[I]f there is retributive justice, [Senator Jesse Helms will] get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.”

Lots of love over there at NPR.