Patch Blog: Don't Like the Constitution, Ginsburg? Okay, Resign
Photos
I'm beginning today's post with a lengthy quote from a gentleman named Chris W. Cox (it is in bold) regarding a presentation Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburgh gave in Cairo, Egypt recently. I'm also Jewish and presentations like what is quoted below in BOLD make my blood boil because they show the utter contempt she has for the very freedoms and protection this country has provided to Jews.
Full disclosure: my mother's side of my family is Jewish which means biblically I'm Jewish, though I practice Christianity and I've never been to Hebrew school or Bar Mitzvah'd.
I say this because as I've reminded my wife and after studying the holocaust extensively in college and visited the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., if I'd been anywhere in Europe during the mid 30's until World War II ended, I would've most likely been murdered in a concentration camp along with my wife and child.
The Nazis did not make such delicate, religious distinctions.
"This November’s election isn’t about the direction of our country over the next four years – it’s about the very survival of our Constitution, our values, and our freedoms as we know them. If freedom-loving Americans needed any more evidence for this, U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently provided it.
In a visit to Cairo, Egypt, Justice Ginsburg told Al Hayat television, “I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”
Instead, she urged Egyptians to look elsewhere to more modern constitutions in South Africa, Canada, and even the European Convention on Human Rights.
Of course, not one of these governing documents comes close to adequately guaranteeing the fundamental human rights and liberties enshrined in our U.S. Constitution. It’s also worth pointing out that Ginsburg’s eagerness to diminish the sanctity of America’s supreme law is hardly shocking, as this isn’t the first time she’s gone out of her way to disparage the document she swore an oath to uphold.
But her comments should serve as a chilling reminder of everything that is at stake in this year’s presidential election."
Justice Ginsburg should immediately resign from the bench and I would dare her to not have any Secret Service protection or other security and become a normal Jew living anywhere in Egypt right now and see what happens.
The leftist Jew of which she is, makes me sick to my stomach because not only are they naive but they are dangerous to not only Jews but humanity in general. For another example of this, see the vile George Soros.
Where did Justice Ginsburg learn this type of behavior? Where did she take the teachings of the Torah, the bible and possibly her law school degree and throw them to the wind metaphorically speaking? Was it her time running the ACLU? I'd say yes and furthermore I blame President Bill Clinton. Again full disclosure: I voted for him twice and it is one of my deepest regrets of my life voting for him.
President Clinton should be made to defend his appointment of her and the other Senators who voted for her confirmation as well along with a majority of Republican Senators. All of them including President Clinton should go live in any Muslim dominated country such as Afghanistan, Egypt, Syria, Iran and the list could go on and spout your ridiculous nonsense and filth about how you hate said country you are living in the way someone such as Justice Ginsburg did in Cairo, Egypt recently.
Again I dare Justice Ginsburg, President Bill Clinton, the editorial boards of the New York Times and LA Times along with other committed leftists to walk into Egypt after the supposed "Arab spring" and just start talking openly and candidly. Let's see how long you last without the brave men and women of the United States Secret Service protecting you.
When will we grow up as an electorate and citizenry and ask the tough questions of our elected leaders? Whether I voted for President George W. Bush because "he's someone I'd have a beer with" or because I voted for President Barack Obama to believe in "hope and change," it's about how you as a voter "feel and what you think."
Now that I have a child I see the world differently. She has to grow up in a world that seemingly won't confront evil but has a Supreme Court Justice who hates the constitution or my favorite phrase women and men like her spout is "the constitution being a living, breathing document." Nowhere is that found anywhere in the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence or even the Federalists Papers. If I'm wrong then please someone correct me and I'll immediately write a retraction.
Since I'm so disgusted and saddened what truly makes my blood boil is supposed Christians who voted for people like the ones mentioned above. And to rebuke myself I was not following a biblical worldview when I voted for President Clinton but was a christian in name only who was not only stupid in how I lived life but had zero maturity during the time I voted for the man. If you are someone who goes around saying you are a believer in Jesus Christ and continue to knowingly vote for people who nominate and confirm someone like Justice Ginsburg to the highest, most influential court in our country please stop saying you are a christian which literally means, "little Christ." Because my fellow supposed believer you are not and I beg you to find a church and pastor(s) who believe in the inerancy of the bible and begin to be taught by them. I did and it changed my life in to many ways to recount right now.
This is my harshest blog and I promise if anyone is reading this I will lighten up in a future post and speak about the Lakers chances at the playoffs, good red wine and how after only a few weeks, how I love living in La Cañada Flintridge or something of that nature.
I welcome your thoughts and comments. Thank you to the Patch for giving me the opportunity to write this post.
Josh Epstein
8:20 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Please make this stop! I don't come to the local Patch to read rants by either the left or the right. I can always head to the Drudge Report if I want out of context quotes from uber-conservative web bloggers. I don't need to get it from my local news source. This whole diatribe is based on a pull-quote from the chief lobbyist from the NRA and it conveniently leaves out much of what Ginsburg said. The main point of Ginsburg's quote was that there are many more modern models of Constitutions on this planet and it would be foolish to look to just one. Here is a video of whole quote in case you are interested http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/02/03/ruth_bader_ginsburg_to_egypt_dont_use_us_constitution_as_a_model.html
No where does she say she hates the US or its Constitution. The only way to read it that way is to listen to a single quote that Chris Cox spoon feeds you.
A similar example would be if I wrote a Patch blog on the fact that Todd Royal says leftist Jews make me "sick to my stomach". Did you say it? Yes, you did. Did you mean it quite that way, I hope not.
Jack Schaedel
7:06 pm on Friday, March 2, 2012
I have just reviewed the link provided by Mr. Epstein. I think she is fairly quoted as saying she would recommend Egypt NOT look to the U.S. Constitution. It is not out of context. I agree, she does not say she hates the US or its Constitution, but saying, "I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," is the opposite of an endorsement of it. By the same token, if the best you can say for a U.S. Supreme Court Justice is that she doesn't hate the US or its Constitution, well, I think we can ask for more.
S. Morris
11:34 pm on Friday, March 2, 2012
So, Jack, I'm missing the outrage once again. Golly.
So Ginsburg doesn't think Egypt should look to our Constitution as a model. Why is that not correct? Is our Constitution so perfect? Is Egypt so like 1789 America? Does no other country possess a functional constitution of their own?
To quote an eye-rolling gum-smacking tween - big whoop.
Not once here has one of Royal's loyal parrots has even vaguely explained to me what's wrong with what Ginsburg said. The U.S. Constitution is the oldest continuous constitution in the world - congrats! But I think we can all agree that maybe - just maybe - someone somewhere in a planet of 7 billion people has improved upon it in the following two centuries of use.
Also, anywhere in that speech, does Ginsburg denounce the United States' use of our own constitution? She was speaking to Egyptians about Egypt. Can you provide a coherent exegesis on Egyptian modern history, politics and law to explain why our Constitution is the bestest model in the whole world for their new mode of governance?
I don't ask that a Supreme Court Justice love the U.S. Constitution so much that they want to marry it. I only ask that they know it well and uphold it.
I'd prefer a Supreme Court Justice that doesn't hob-nob with the Vice President while duck hunting, or have a deeply partisan wife, or use archaic dictionaries to determine their rulings today. Maybe that's me.
S. Morris
8:47 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
This entire post is risible. Was it even proofread, to begin with?
Secondly, it makes no point other than to vomit up some talking points that Ginsburg, Soros and Clinton are some sort of horribly bad. It's never explained why, for instance, George Soros is "vile" - we're meant to take that invective at face value, as if we all subscribe to Vile International Jewish Banker Billionaire Weekly.
And I see no condemnation of Ginsburg either than her assertion that the U.S. Constitution is not the best model for Egypt's new constitution. Which could very well be true, I don't know - the author makes no argument in favor or against other than the assumption that our constitution must, perforce, be the best in the world simply because it is ours.
I am not a constitutional scholar, as our President is, so I can't speak to its fitness as a model. And neither obviously can the author of this piece.
If you're gonna publish irrational screeds, keep them short and sweet - like "GET OFF MY LAWN."
Lavonna
9:26 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Soro's is an evil man. If you read the federalist papers it is crystal clear that Ginsburg and Soros are huge threat to our freedom.. They are exactly the type of people Hamilton, Madison and Jay were try to protect us from in our new republic. Todd,. I could not agree more with you. Thank you so much for speaking up and telling the truth!! God Bless and I know there are millions who will vote this November and try to save this country from those who want to desire to steal freedoms!
S. Morris
9:46 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Again, an unsubstantiated vaguely illiterate claim. Is there a club where you folks meet and mutter half-truths to each other?
And there are "those who want to desire to steal freedoms" - whew! Good thing they only want to want it and don't actually want it. How aspirational.
Jon Noyes
10:38 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
In light the two comments at the top it should be pointed out that Mr. Royal maintains an opinion blog here at The Patch. From his entry above, and others submitted by him, it should seem clear that he is not attempting to write news articles. Though I do understand that the distinction between news and opinion is somewhat blurred in today's culture; when it would seem that true reporting has given way to opinion in our major news sources, op-eds having replaced news articles in the headlines.
Mr. Royal pointed out something that should not go overlooked. For me the most impactful phrase in the opinion blog is that we live “in a world that seemingly won’t confront evil.” It is here, on this issue, I believe we have faltered most, and perhaps to our greatest detriment. We have traded what is good for that which is bad and the truth for a lie. And as such, Mr. Royal your concluding thoughts regarding what it means to be a follower of Christ is spot on and I hope, I pray, that this piece at minimum causes pause in those who read it.
S. Morris
11:06 am on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I am aware that this is an opinion blog - were it a news article, it would be even more ridiculous than it already is since it is devoid of fact and poorly written. Still, an opinion piece must also be backed up by some logic if it is to be persuasive. Simply stating that Ginsburg did not recommend the U.S. Constitution as a model for Egypt is not enough to provoke my condemnation. If Royal wants me to see this as something bad he should be providing reasons - and not somebody else's quote - as to why this is so bad. Surely his high school composition teacher should have instructed him thus.
But again, you're tacking the same rhetorical tack. Using words like evil, good, bad, truth, freedom without any context or argument utterly devalue them.
I still fail to see what Ginsburg did or said that was so abhorrent. I certainly don't know enough about Egyptian constitutional history, politics or laws to determine this adequately and I certainly ain't gonna get that info from Royal.
Lastly, Royal concludes with a plea for Christian voters to vote as Christians, and to believe in the "inerancy" [sic] of the Bible. Now, I may not be a Constitutional scholar, but I feel certain in saying that's the kind of logic and argument that would assuredly cause Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison to roll over in their graves.
Josh Epstein
12:51 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I'm glad that the Patch has an open submission policy, but I do question where the line is drawn. If you say things like, "The leftist Jew of which she is, makes me sick..." and you tell people that they can't be a true Christian if they vote for a Democrat, then at best you are using inflammatory language to make a questionable point and at worst you are spewing hate at anyone who thinks differently then you. Either way, it doesn't seem appropriate in any forum and especially a website designed around the local community.
Donna Evans
12:59 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
I see your points, and I can see how that language incites ire, but because Todd writes that he, too is Jewish, I didn't read it as Todd attacking Jewish people. Allow me to consult with my editor and I will get right back to everyone.
Patrick Lee
1:16 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Hey all: I'm Donna's editor. Thanks for all your comments. We're sensitive to the issues raised here and want to be responsive. Let us know what kinds of things you'd like to see on Patch and what you don't like, and I promise we'll take them into consideration. Also, if you feel strongly enough about this particular blog post to write a rebuttal or counterargument, I promise we'll give it equal measure of consideration. You can post here or you can post a blog post of your own. If you want to discuss this offline, you can write me at patrickl@patch.com or call me at 626 396 7042.
Jon Noyes
1:52 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Ms. Evans and Mr. Lee, I thought Mr. Royal has written a good piece with which people obviously disagree. However, he in no way is spewing hate or condemning anyone with a differing opinion. Unfortunately we are seeing in action almost exactly what Mr. Royal is commenting on here. A select few feel offended and stand in opposition to something and as a result, instead of inquiring about what was said or asking for clarification they call for it to be removed. Silencing any dissenting opinion.
So far you are handling this issue well. I like the idea of someone writing a rebuttal.
S. Morris
4:37 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Would that I could reply to Jon Noyes, but alas I cannot. Hence my response will appear below his. But Jon, this one's for you.
My perusal of the posts shows one person expressing shock that this blog is still up - none of the other detractors have called for its removal. I, for one, fully support its continued existence on the Internet for all to see, forever linking Todd Royal's name to his hateful and incoherent thoughts and his mangled prose style.
Indeed, the only person who seems to hate differing opinions is Todd Royal - he's the one pillorying Ginsburg for expressing the thought that the U.S. Constitution is not the best model for Egypt's new constitution. He doesn't seem to offer any reasons why, other than that she's a nefarious sort of "leftist Jew." Perhaps Ginsburg fears that were we to use the American constitution, the Jews would be returned to Pharaoh's land and counted as three-fifths of a person for census purposes? Or are those just the American slaves, as enshrined in our founding document?
My chief argument with this post is that it makes no sense. The editor has made it clear that Royal himself was responsible for its content, including misspellings, typos and incomplete sentences. I still am not at all certain what he is aggrieved about. But I do feel certain that being a leftist Jew is not a crime.
Patrick Lee
3:58 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
Thanks for your kind words, Jon, and for elevating the discourse!
T. Beach
4:53 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
S. Morris
You have yet to make any sort of rebuttal to this blog. But instead of educating, you are attacking the blogger. It is clear you have high level of intolerance to those who do not think like you. Justice Ginsburg is not a true friend of the US just at the Commander and Chief isn't. To help enlighten you please read this article http://townhall.com/columnists/chriswcox/2012/02/13/justice_ginsburg_reminds_us_what_is_at_stake_in_november.
Please explain what relevance your statement" including misspellings, typos and incomplete sentences" is supposed to have. Do you realize how many errors the President and Vice President make when they speak. So your statement really has no bearing.
S. Morris
5:05 pm on Thursday, February 16, 2012
T. Beach, I have made no ad hominem attacks - I have criticized Royal's writing and positions. I have not suggested anything untoward or personal. I snarked on his typos because he chose the written medium to express himself, and should thus be fluent and skilled in its use. Had he elected to condemn Justice Ginsburg through, I don't know, interpretive dance instead that would be different.
And I would gladly rebut his points were there any that I could readily discern other than thinking that the U.S. Constitution is the gosh darndest best in the world, and something about Jews.
I find it hilarious that you're again bringing up my supposed intolerance of differing views - I clearly tolerate them. Please, leave up Todd Royal's post and all these responses until the mountains crumble or Patch goes bankrupt. Tolerance, however, doesn't mean I gotta like 'em or agree with 'em.
I read the link - the original Cox quote in its original context - and all it clarifies is this: anyone thinking this article revelatory or relevant is clearly intolerant of differing opinions. Cox, it seems objects to Ginsburg saying that the U.S. Constitution is perhaps not the best model for Egypt - which could very well be true. Why should an 18th century legal document that did not allow women, poor men or blacks to vote be a model? Especially for those who maintain an originalist stance. Our Constitution is very fine indeed but it is not inviolable.
JB
1:27 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Todd Royal disingenuously uses a rhetorical fig leaf (he claims to be Jewish or "biblically" Jewish) to launch a thinly-veiled, anti-semitic rant against Justice Ginsburg and other "leftist Jews" who are "dangerous" to "humanity in general" and make him sick to his stomach.
Patch was leading the charge on the "Jew boy" teacher issue. So should we assume that publishing this semi-literate rubbish from Todd Royal is your attempt to be "fair and balanced" by giving equal time to the ramblings of the anti-semites among us?
If so, Patch is to be commended. I wouldn't want you in any way to censor or limit this guy's future columns. Let him let it rip, I assume that these will be the planks for his campaign for some office or other.
That's one of the great things about the First Amendment, it allows fools to speak loudly and for the rest of us to get to know who they are.
Todd Royal
2:08 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Hi JB. Thank you for your comment but I'm jewish. I'd please respectfully ask you to go read only the beginnings of my blog that Patch has allowed me to contribute. To say I'm anti-semitic is laughably wrong. If you knew more about my background you'd possibly agree or maybe your mind is made up about me either way the choice is entirely yours.
Think what you want but you are wrong about me being anti-semitic yet please continue following the La Canada Flintridge Patch. Donna Evans does a great job with the site and have a nice weekend, JB.
If you or others who disagree or agree with this article see me out in the community please do not hesitate to introduce yourself as I would enjoy meeting not only you, JB but the others who have commented as well.
Kindest Regards,
Todd Royal
S. Morris
5:10 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
So you're advocating FOR the Nuremberg Laws, Mr Royal? Duly noted.
I'd think that many things apart from your mother's heritage would actually signal that you're fairly definitively not Jewish - like not keeping Kosher, not being a bar mitzvah, accepting Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and calling yourself a Christian.
I was raised Catholic, so by the same token, I'm basically the Pope.
As JB says, you're using your heritage as a defense to say patently repellant things. Whether your mother is one of the chosen people or not does not mean you are immune from saying things that sure do sound anti-Semitic. Or does Justice Ginsburg's Judaism have anything at all to do with her politics, stance on constitutional law or Egyptian politics?
I would like you to explain, please, if you could, how Justice Ginsburg not advocating the U.S. Constitution as a model for Egypt is in any way denigrating ours, illegal, objectionable or even a sign that she doesn't "like" it. This is the entire thrust of your argument - the religious sanctimony and veiled insults are kinda the icing on the cake, as it were.
Also, you manage to contradict yourself and insult Egyptian democracy. Apparently Ginsburg WAS speaking her mind freely - which is why you're so full o' indignation - in Egypt. Yet you say she couldn't do such a thing. Hunh?
Ann V.
10:44 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
As a professional published writer-editor of many years, I found Todd Royal's piece to be excellently written with much intelligence and insight and forethought. I say let us have more young men in our country stand up and express the moral strength and maturity and convictions of Mr Royal! This is America where we are blessed to be able to speak our minds and be heard! Ann V.
S. Morris
10:56 pm on Friday, February 17, 2012
Really? This here phrase didn't pop out at you:
"The leftist Jew of which she is, "
No?
First, it's grammatically incorrect. Secondly, it's disparaging and inflammatory.Thirdly, it relates not at all to his point, which seems to be that unthinking worship of our Constitution as a model for all world Constitutions is required of Supreme Court Justices for some unexpressed reason. As a professional published writer-editor with experience, you'd think that maybe one of those would perhaps raise a red flag for you.
Furthermore, I'd still like to know just why it is the U.S. Constitution is the foremost model for Egypt. Is it our enshrinement of slavery? Our stunningly functional Electoral College? The time we went for alcohol prohibition and then thought better of it? Or the arduous process of amendment it took to guarantee our bill of rights, voting rights for minorities and women and young people, and even the line of succession?
But Ann V., I'm willing to hear your opinion. Please do cite any instances of intelligence, insight, foresight, moral strength or maturity that might be in Mr. Royal's piece because I surely don't see them. However - the conviction, I see. Pace W.B Yeats - that ain't necessarily a good thing.
ConservativeMom
7:43 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
Mr. Royal I enjoy your blog and look forward to meeting you on the streets of La Canada someday. In my line of work, we call the likes of Mr. Morris a bully. He follows the extreme leftist m.o. of yelling loudly and criticizing the delivery as he has no standing on the issue. To quote W.B. Yeats, "All empty souls tend toward extreme opinions."
S. Morris
8:06 pm on Saturday, February 18, 2012
ConservativeMom, what might be your line of work? Misnomers R Us? A bully is not someone who is merely combative, which I doubtless am. Dubbing me a "bully" suggests that I am, for one, intimidating, and that y'all are, perforce, weaker than I am.
Which may indeed be true, but your lunch money is yours to keep.
I think the phrase you were looking for was "someone who simply disagrees with my views." Horrors!
I find it hilarious that again I'm being accused of that which Royal's supporters are doing - blabbing incoherent unsubstantiated statements into the echo chamber.
I have no standing on the issue? Indeed? Apparently, I am surrounded here by Egyptian legal scholars of the highest order. For it seems you all know some secret reason you're not sharing with me why Justice Ginsburg was out of order in suggesting other newer constitutions as their model.
That is the original - and as of yet - unresolved issue.
I have asked repeatedly for some reason as to why this is such a source of indignation, leading to calls for her resignation - perhaps you can fill me in? Or am I right in that Royal's only point is that our constitution is the gosh darn diggity dog bestest ever? I don't deem jingoistic claptrap as proving anything.
I hate to disappoint, but I'm hardly extreme in my views. But I do dig you calling me Mr. Morris. Ha!
Deborah Weirick
10:22 am on Friday, March 2, 2012
S. Morris, I'd like to meet you on the mean streets of LCF one day and buy you a cup of coffee for taking the time to response with immense poise, intelligence and wit to those who support Mr. Royal's inane blog post.
S. Morris
11:35 pm on Friday, March 2, 2012
Thank you for the kind comments on my Sisyphean snarking. Let's meet for coffee, pastries and seditious whispering.
Jack Schaedel
11:10 am on Saturday, March 3, 2012
"S.", I'm not outraged, just disappointed that a sitting SCOTUS Justice could not offer a modicum of praise for her country's Constitution. While it certainly isn't perfect, our Constitution has endured through 220+ years of dramatic social and economic change. It preserves individual rights, minority rights, property rights, among others. It provides for limited centralized power through the Division of Powers, and allocates the lawmaking, law-enforcing and law-reviewing functions of the federal govt among three co-equal branches through the Separation of Powers. And it has a built-in self-tuning mechanism, by which it can be amended. (Can YOUR Constitution do THIS?) ;-) As for a coherent exegesis of something or other, yes, I can provide that, but not in a comment box and not for free. When you have your coffee date w DW, she can give you my contact info and I will get started on your exegesis when I receive your retainer. I kid, but after all I'm just a "loyal parrot," right? Keep the ad hominem coming!
S. Morris
1:39 pm on Saturday, March 3, 2012
Would you be less “disappointed” had Ginsburg said that the Constitution starts with "three wonderful words"? Or said that the framers of our Constitution were the "best minds" and "wise men" and that makes Americans "fortunate"? Does that meet your requirements for a modicum of praise?
Or does she have to wear a big foam finger and hoot “USA! USA!” to meet your measure of the word?
During the course of the 18 minute interview, she was specifically asked "Would Your Honor's advice be to get part or to use other countries' constitutions - maybe the U.S. or other countries - as a model or come up with our own methods?"
Now I don't know about you, but if I were to, say, start a car company tomorrow I would not look to the Model T as my template. Not that it wasn't fine and ground-breaking - but in the intervening decades it's very likely that someone has improved upon the flivver. Ginsburg specifically cites constitutions that came after World War II as models for Egypt presumably because they are ones that have learned from the mistakes and heartaches of previous eras. They’ve also learned the good lessons – especially from our Constitution.
For instance, South Africa provides for a President, a bicameral legislature, a process of amendment and a bill of rights. I wonder where they got that idea from?
S. Morris
1:40 pm on Saturday, March 3, 2012
PART 2
Our Constitution, which does do the many fine things you've noted from your 7th grade civics homework, also excluded women, protected slavery and did not include a bill of rights. Our Constitution didn’t even figure out the order of presidential succession adequately until the 1960s. It takes nothing away from our governing document to suggest that others have improved upon it in the two centuries since. Heck, even we’ve improved upon it.
Yet again, it is not an ad hominem attack to suggest you provide some basis for understanding why Ginsburg’s comments were out of line. An ad hominem attack would ignore your arguments in favor of suggesting you molest goats, instead.
S. Morris
1:41 pm on Saturday, March 3, 2012
PART 3
As far as I can tell, the Justice’s offense lies solely in suggesting our Constitution is not the only model for governance in the world. Which, I hate to break it to you, it isn’t. I believe Ginsburg specifically cites constitutions that guarantee certain rights, and embrace pluralism, which ours has done only in fits and starts. She’s a Jewish woman speaking on an evangelical Christian TV station in a largely Arab Muslim country. Zounds! That’s some pluralism for you right there.
See, I’m more disappointed when Supreme Court Justices don’t speak during oral arguments for years on end, or stare at the ceiling and appear irritated, or don’t declare their wife’s earnings from conservative think tanks, or get paid to speak at a Koch Brothers event in Palm Springs, or do other things that suggest partiality, prejudice and a disregard for their actual job duties.
Interviews on Egyptian TV speaking intelligently about legal issues? Meh, they don’t bother me so much.
Jack Schaedel
4:21 pm on Saturday, March 3, 2012
Straw man. I didn't find fault with the Justice for suggesting "our Constitution is not the only model for governance in the world." Had she suggested that, I'd agree whole-heartedly, for many of the reasons you cite. Nothing I've said remotely suggests I believe our Constitution is the only model for governance in the world." She said "I would not look to the US constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012." A modicum of praise would have been, "I would look to the US constitution as well as to other constitutions that have been drafted more recently than World War II." (As you note, some written since then have drawn upon ours, including South Africa's.) Since the Justice stated that she is looking at 2012, your criticism of the Constitution's erstwhile protection of slavery, exclusion of women, etc., is not relevant to the analysis. The Constitution as of 2012 is relevant, and she said, without exception or qualification, she "would not" look to it.
The ad hominem was the "loyal parrot" line.
We're not talking about other Justices, but you can start a thread on them if you like.
S. Morris
4:35 pm on Saturday, March 3, 2012
But why should Egypt look to our Constitution in 2012? You says it's relevant - but so are other documents and national examples. Why is America the sine qua non for Constitution-crafting? Just because she's an American jurist she's obligated to include it as a bright shining example?
Come on.
She says other positive things about the U.S. Constitution in the 18 minute interview as well as admitting some of its flaws, such of its inclusion of slavery and lack of rights for women at the outset. When other constitutions have learned from our example - and our mistakes - and have withstood the rigors of being drafted in the modern era - I don't see why the U.S. Constitution has to provide a model for Egypt.
Unless this has something to do with the pyramid on the dollar bill. Hmmm.
Also, being tagged one of "Royal's loyal parrots" qualifies as an ad hominem attack in your book? You're fairly thin-skinned for a goat molester, jeez.
Jack Schaedel
4:44 pm on Saturday, March 3, 2012
I think we can agree that it is *a* good model and also that it is not *the only* good model. I didn't see the entire video, only the portion that Mr. Epstein posted in her defense.
That our Const. has been a model, both for what works and for what can be improved upon, I think shows that it is certainly part of the "constitution bank" from which newly-"constituting" countries can draw.
As for the goats, they were all of consenting age, or at least they told me they were. And it happened in Vegas, so I don't see why you're bringing it up here!
S. Morris
5:04 pm on Saturday, March 3, 2012
At least our Constitution offers equal protection under the baaaaaaaah.
(Thanks for being a good sport.)
I would rather our nation's leaders, elected or appointed, actually care about the Constitution and what it means more so than pay it lip service. When you're sniping about wearing flag pins but passing the PATRIOT act, methinks you've got a nutty notion of what America means.
And really, I think our Constitution is part of all constitutions - sort of like, I dunno, high fructose corn syrup is in everything at 7-11.