What's new
By:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

I haven't read it, but what exactly is the context? If they're discussing slavery, then she has a point.
 
TroutBum said:
I haven't read it, but what exactly is the context? If they're discussing slavery, then she has a point.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if it was an advisory position or if she was just giving a speech but it was in Egypt and when asked about writing a new constitution she suggested they not look to the US Constitution as it was outdated and geared towards god fearing people. Rather they should write something for people that look to their government for guidance.

In my eyes this means that when making decisions she is basically ignoring the US Constitution and bases her decisions on what she thinks the government should be doing. It should automatically get her a boot from the court.
 
TroutBum said:
I haven't read it, but what exactly is the context? If they're discussing slavery, then she has a point.
Click to expand...

OK. I read it. The context is the trendy current fashion for new states to avoid the pitfalls of liberty and individual freedom altogether, and advising that the true value of mankind must be measured by the incontestible and all-important needs of the State.

It has proven to be just inconvenient nonsense to babble about inate natural "rights" which need to be carefully measured between different individuals, different local governments, regional governments, nations and international alliances. Instead, it would be highly useful to just concentrate all the rights in a few very wise and privileged leaders, or, even better, judges who can successfully assert infinite power against all comers. That's the gist of what lies behind the philosophy of "Administrative Law", which not only Ginzberg but Sotomayor and many other enlightened managerial- and efficiency- minded judges are really, really all for.

She pointedly did not advise the Egyptians to avoid the opportunity to install a state religion, and was in effect advising that States have the perogative to define the limits of privilege for their citizens. . . . er. . . . slaves.

Yes, indeed, in a word. Ginsberg is subtly extolling the beauties and elegance of human slavery. Oh, no, not slavery on racial lines, but class lines. Infinite privilege for the gifted and enlightened elite inner circles, and zero privilege for you.
 
Last edited:
VinylOne's HuffPo take:

When asked by her interviewer how best to draft a constitution and protect it from contemporary political pressures (perhaps alluding to Islamic parties' dominance in the new parliament's lower house), Justice Ginsburg answered, "A constitution, as important as it is, will mean nothing unless the people are yearning for liberty and freedom."

"If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the world won’t make any difference," she said.

"The spirit of liberty," she continued, "has to be in the population."
Click to expand...

QFT.

The negative vs. positive liberties is the sticking point of our day. It's quite obvious the Founding Fathers disagree with Obama on that, and he's said as much. I would be less worried about those who believe in positive rights than those who believe international law should trump US sovereignty if the two weren't linked as two hips on the same people.
 
Bull ****. That's a recycled Sirkickyass quote from 7 years ago and 6 years ago and 5 years ago and 4 years ago and 3 years ago and 2 years ago and 1 year ago and 6 months ago and 3 months ago.
 
Are you talking about my quote, dick ranger?

I was actually expecting something solid from you on this. Please take the next two pages, before deleting the posts later on.
 
Duck Rodgers said:
Bull ****. That's a recycled Sirkickyass quote from 7 years ago and 6 years ago and 5 years ago and 4 years ago and 3 years ago and 2 years ago and 1 year ago and 6 months ago and 3 months ago.
Click to expand...

Since I don't see anything resembling a typical Kicky contribution above, I'm wondering what this was about. Franklin's comment on "positive" rights and the broad implications of the "change" we're dealing with today is nothing like Kicky.

Liberal grist for the mill they call "progress" always assumes governance is virtue, and that old is evil. "Positive" rights are newspeak for the "Government is Our God" State Religion, and that it should presume to define what quality of life should be, all according to the "best" insiders. The very fact that these sorts of "Liberals" are out on a strut in public should be alarming to anyone with a real brain. It's not "liberal" at all, it's the antithesis of respect for humans.
 
Fellas, the original Bader Ginsburg quote is kicky-esque, that's what I was referring to. It wasn't a slam, just a stupid joke. But I don't have faith in any part of government following or believing in the constitution, so maybe we should point out every time they do instead because there is an endless supply of people in high places that think it's absolutely worthless in modern times.
 
Duck Rodgers said:
Fellas, the original Bader Ginsburg quote is kicky-esque, that's what I was referring to. It wasn't a slam, just a stupid joke. But I don't have faith in any part of government following or believing in the constitution, so maybe we should point out every time they do instead because there is an endless supply of people in high places that think it's absolutely worthless in modern times.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.
 
Duck Rodgers said:
Fellas, the original Bader Ginsburg quote is kicky-esque, that's what I was referring to. It wasn't a slam, just a stupid joke. But I don't have faith in any part of government following or believing in the constitution, so maybe we should point out every time they do instead because there is an endless supply of people in high places that think it's absolutely worthless in modern times.
Click to expand...

Warmer but still pretty bland. Maybe after you're done with conference...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top