There seems to be a bit of an uproar in the conservative community about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's comments to an Egyptian television station.
Seems Justice Ginsburg did not extoll the value and virtue of the US Constitution to the middle eastern country who is seeking a new one. When asked what type of government Egypt should look to in when rebuilding their country, Ginsburg said "“I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012.”
As much as I hate to disagree with Rep. Bachmann (R-MN) - okay you can stop laughing - I will have to do so here, on this point.
In a "diary" article posted on Erik Erickson's RedState website, Rep. Bachmann states "I am deeply saddened and disappointed in Justice Ginsburg’s answer. As a Supreme Court Justice who daily delves into the U.S. Constitution looking for answers to the nation’s top cases, I would hope she would have developed a love for this crucial founding document. Yet instead, she implied its irrelevancy! Why would our Constitution not be just as good a foundation for a nation’s government today as it was in 1788?"
I must say, I think the U. S. Constitution is a beautiful document. It is a magnificent example of words being used in the finest light. And it has been a cornerstone and benchmark for America to be proud of. It was a document, unlike any at the time, which allowed for future tuning without losing its basic fundamentals.
And I must also say, for the record, that I think any country that truly looks to the Constitution as guidance can not be served any better for an example.
BUT - and I mean this with all the love and compassion for my fellow human beings around the world - these nitwits and twits and thick headed illiterates could never truly grasp the fundamental and founding concepts of the U. S. Constitution. Hell, there are tens of millions of Americans who fail to grasp it. Including, ESPECIALLY, most of our political leaders. And I would rather they not say they are framing their document based on ours because they will get all the essentials wrong, blame us for their failures and have even more weapons and ammunition (imagined, of course) to use in their campaigns of hate and violence.
Back to Ginsburg for a moment. While the right wing (and I use that here instead of conservative, because there is a difference) is upset, the left - like Media Matters - is "freaking" at what they say is the "freak out" by the right. But here is the thing. Ginsburg both misspoke and should not have even been in the conversation.
As a member of a body that is supposed to measure all US law through the prism of the US Constitution, she should phrase her comments through that prism as well. The US Constitution IS relevant - to the US. It is NOT relevant to those who do not understand it nor to those who, at their very core, despise it. But the question was one of what type of government, not what type of constitution they should have. She was right that they need to form one that reflects their country and their needs, just as our founding fathers did. She was wrong not to express the core foundation of the US Constitution, which would be relevant to any freedom loving people.
As always, you are free to agree or disagree with my assertions here. But don't form your views through what I say, through what Rep. Bachmann or RedState or Media Matters or ANYONE else for that matter. You need to stop listening to the SPIN of those who wish to control what and how you think. You need to STOP BEING SHEEP. And think for yourselves. But, whatever, this is just me Thinking Out Loud.
Have a great day.
Charles
No comments:
Post a Comment