Ruth Bader Ginsberg and her lack of respect for our constitution

For those interested in a postscript to one of the most dangerous times of our Republic, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the Obama administration were prepared to sell out America to world government. Her view of our constitution should be a warning of what the coming election could bring us. More Supremes of her persuasion, and a government that has lost its respect for our constitution. From an earlier post:

Recall Justice Ginsburg has fired the latest salvo in the ongoing debate about the Court’s use of foreign and international law sources in constitutional adjudication.   On Friday, she gave a speech to the International Academy of Comparative Law at American University, entitled “A decent respect to the Opinions of [Human]kind”: The Value of a Comparative Perspective in Constitutional Adjudication.  Not surprisingly given her earlier opinions, Justice Ginsburg comes out strongly in favor of the Court’s use of foreign and international law materials to interpret U.S. law, including the Constitution.

She begins with an historical defense:

From the birth of the United States as a nation, foreign and international law influenced legal reasoning and judicial decision making.  Founding fathers, most notably, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, were familiar with leading international law treatises, the law merchant, and English constitutional law.  And they used that learning as advocates in legal contests . . . . The law of nations, Chief Justice Marshall famously said in 1815, is part of the law of our land.  Decisions of the courts of other countries, Marshall explained, show how the law of nations is understood elsewhere, and will be considered in determining the rule which is to prevail here.  Those decisions, he clarified, while not binding authority for U. S. courts, merit respectful attention for their potential persuasive value.

After quoting from Paquete Habana, Ginsburg turns her attention to the hostility to both foreign and international law on display in the U.S. Senate during Elena Kagan’s recent confirmation hearings (e.g., including the Senator who indicated he was “troubled” that Kagan “believes we can turn to foreign law to get good ideas”).  She contrasts these exchanges with The Federalist’s use of the law of nations and both positive and negative examples from abroad to defend the Constitution.

In terms of her own views, Justice Ginsberg did not mince words:

On judicial review for constitutionality, my own view is simply this:  If U.S. experience and decisions may be instructive to systems that have more recently instituted or invigorated judicial review for constitutionality, so too can we learn from others now engaged in measuring ordinary laws and executive actions against fundamental instruments of government and charters securing basic rights. . . . The U.S. judicial system will be the poorer, I have urged, if we do not both share our experience with, and learn from, legal systems with values and a commitment to democracy similar to our own.

And the rest of the speech continues in a similar vein, with Justice Ginsberg raising and then contesting the views of foreign/international law opponents (including Justice Scalia, Judge Richard Posner, and Professors Eric Posner and Adrian Vermeule) while citing a series of “examples” of recent cases where the Court reached a decision with the aid of foreign and international law sources (e.g., Atkins v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and, of course, Roper v. Simmons).

The most interesting part of the speech was Justice Ginsburg’s list of other sources besides foreign and international law that are appropriate for constitutional adjudication:

Judges in the United States, after all, are free to consult all manner of commentary — Restatements, Treatises, what law professors or even law students write copiously in law reviews, and, in the internet age, any number of legal blogs.  If we can consult those sources, why not the analysis of a question similar to the one we confront contained, for example, in an opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, the German Constitutional Court, or the European Court of Human Rights?

Read more

For more see an earlier post as well:

Washington Examiner:

Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

“If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states’ rights to regulate abortion,” she told the Washington Examiner.

Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.

That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.

“The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers,” Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.

“The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.

In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing “an absurd proposition” that “could be used as a backdoor way to undermine” Second Amendment rights, among other things.

Keep reading…

From an earlier post done in October, 2013

Ted Cruz: DOJ argues that International Treaties can trump Constitution

Other than that all is well in the swamp.

25 Responses to “Ruth Bader Ginsberg and her lack of respect for our constitution”

  1. peter3nj Says:

    One last thought: Who paid the hoards, most of whom probably had no idea who G Girl is, camping out on the Supreme Court steps. Were there Porta-Johns airlifted in for the candle lighting mourners? And who’s responsible for cleaning up the cards, flowers and teddy bears left behind?
    And why will she be lying in state for five days when Jews are to be buried the day after they expire? Inquiring minds want to know!

    Liked by 1 person

    • bunkerville Says:

      Good questions Peter…. yes , as I have said another moveable traveling casket show.. McCain 2:0. It is hard for me to believe there is/was such a bevy of those who wail and sob over her death. Is abortion and the murder of innocents mean that much? I don’t get it.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. Steve Dennis Says:

    Well, what was already going to be an interesting six weeks just got even more interesting!

    Liked by 2 people

  3. geeez2014 Says:

    WHY is this woman considered a SAINT? She advocated, which I find hideous for a SCOTUS justice…they say “she realized she did that and regretted it”…as if she’d done it ONCE 🙂 !!!???
    ALSO, who the heck cares what her last wishes were? They’re acting like her telling her granddaughter they should wait till the election to appoint a new justice is THE NEW RULE. WHY?
    And, apparently, the fact that she and Scalia and Thomas were friends makes HER a saint for what…for putting UP with conservatives?

    Liked by 4 people

  4. Mustang Says:

    What I find interesting is that there exists in our country today a general misunderstanding of our founding principles. Democracy is an ideology that suggests equality in the right to participate in the political system. As a form of government, however, democracies fail because they are controlled by majorities, leaving minorities without a voice —or a say— in how government should govern. We don’t live in a democracy. We live in a republic, which incorporates democratic ideology. The mechanism we use in our Republic is Representative Democracy. We choose our representatives, who govern on our behalf, within the framework of a Republic, which incorporates checks and balances in advocating one issue or another. Our founding fathers did an exceptional job working all this out in forming the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. Bill of Rights.

    Note: The Democratic Party favors democracy because ideologically, only their opinions matter. Conservatives are happy to allow the free exchange of ideas. One only has to note what is going on in this country today to see the truth in this. Of course, the communists will argue that requiring positive ID hinders voting, a good exemplar of their inability to think logically.

    Anyway, the U.S. Constitution is the framework under which our Republic operates. The U.S. Bill of Rights (also, the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) clarifies our rights as citizens, which the federal government may not take away —including one key provision that limits federal power to its enumerated provisions. This important founding principle limits the power of the federal government over the states and the people.

    But in terms of the body of law, American laws are an extension of English Common Law (including case law). When Justice Ginsburg claimed that our founding fathers visited “international law” in forming our republic, she was lying. What the founding fathers consulted were the known histories of the ancient world. What they knew about democracy they learned from ancient Greece; what they learned about republicanism they learned from ancient Rome; what they learned about codification they learned from Justinian’s Corpus Juris Civilis. Ginsburg was lying because English Common Law was not “foreign” or “international.” When Englishmen migrated to the New World, they took with them all they understood about law and its relationship to the governed … and it was this English Common Law that formed the basis of American law.

    Ginsburg, and people like her, are dangerous to our society because they are skilled advocates, which means that they are capable of talking a leopard out of its spots. She demonstrated this by introducing false narratives into a framework of reasonableness, which is how leftists operate in convincing millions of people that, for example, Communism is simply another point of view. It is much more than that.

    In America, we welcome a diverse range of opinions. Everyone can have their say. Most of us (here, anyway) do express our opinions, and most of us realize that although we do express opinions, no one else really gives a damn what we think. This is probably a good thing. Our opinions only matter, really, when we are in a position to influence others. Ginsburg had her opinions, and what made her dangerous to the American way of life, is that her opinions mattered —and we ought to wonder about that.

    I’ll cut to the chase. Ginsburg became a Supreme Court Justice because law professor Gerald Gunther (German-born jurist) blackmailed Judge Edmund Palmieri (US District Court for the Southern District of New York) into hiring her as a law clerk. Before that, no one would hire Ginsburg (Democrats now claiming, of course, that it was all because she was a woman). Were it not for Gunther, Ginsburg could never have been appointed by Clinton. Not to worry, though … there are dozens of other advocates just like her waiting their turn for a position where their opinions matter.

    Now my readers may understand why presidential elections are so important. Presidents nominate candidates to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not all candidates believe in America —as Ginsburg didn’t. Once these un-American sloths are on the court, they are there for life (unless they resign). So then, who do YOU trust to nominate candidates to the U.S. Supreme Court? Dopey Joe Biden? Hillary Rotten Clinton? The racist Kamala Harris? For gosh sakes, America … choose wisely in November.

    I go on too much.

    Liked by 3 people

    • bunkerville Says:

      Thanks for your well thought out comment. I appreciate the history of Ginsburg. One needs only look at what a revolution brings about when the “majority” have their way. The beauty of our system is as you point out, we are not a democracy. Thus the electoral college to insure that the rights of the minority states would be protected. That is how we were formed. But alas, all of this and the why of it has been lost to most. I fear time is running out and we have one last chance in November to stave off what certainly will be a disastrous outcome with a Biden election.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Mustang Says:

      How much “respectful attention,” do you think, US courts should give the Quran? Should US judges decide, for example, that it’s okay to stone women, or have three or four wives, or that every woman should dress in a berkha? Maybe there are some “other” legal systems that do not reflect enlightened ideas and do not reflect American values. Should we adopt them anyway just to be nice? I’m thinking, “hell no.”

      Who in their right man would vote for Dopey Joe? Surely we don’t have THAT many idiots living in America.

      Liked by 1 person

      • bunkerville Says:

        Well as Kagan was mentioned that we should look for “new ideas” in foreign governments so apparently there were two supremes that were up for it.. Yes, a wise Latina woman… we need more, many many more.


    • Ed Bonderenka Says:

      It needs to be said often and you say it well.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. Linda Says:

    Does anyone really believe she said this to her granddaughter? (her last so called dying wish-about not being replaced until after the election)—come on man, but then again, she was really stuck on the “living breathing thing called the Constitution.” Her words, not mine. As a Constitutional scholar, I can say, it is NOT a living breathing thing and can NOT be changed at will. Anyways, where was I? (see what happens when I get irked by things such as this)—glad she is dead. Sorry, but not sorry. She was no hero to me.

    Liked by 4 people

  6. markone1blog Says:

    Additionally, didn’t both she and Kagan make reference to foreign law in their dissentions?

    Liked by 2 people

  7. markone1blog Says:

    As I remember, Ginsburg said that election-year appointments were just fine for Obama.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. hocuspocus13 Says:

    I got 3 words for you Bunk…
    “Fill That Seat”
    …and PS I read the other day that Sotomayor has serious health issues not sure if that tid bit was true

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: