Thursday, February 09, 2012

Justice Ginsburg's Teachable Moment

It seems that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg isn't all that enamored of our Constitution. She recently visited Egypt as part of a State Department trip to offer legal advice to the fledgling democratic movement there (which will not survive rule either by the military or the Islamists, but that's another issue).

Her advice on whether to use the US Constitution as a model: Don't.

Apparently, the US Constitution is too parsimonious with "rights", so the JUSTICE OF THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT suggested following the Constitution of South Africa, or the European Union Declaration of Human Rights, or the Canadian Charter of Rights instead. Really?

The significant difference between our Constitution and those others is the fundamental limitations on government embodied in our Constitution. Apparently, that's not such a great idea to Justice Ginsburg. Ugh.

Moreover, any "right" to material goodies that requires coercion of others to get it for you is a farce. When you hear the Leftists screaming that "Education (or other such benefit) is a RIGHT, not a Privilege!", lock and load.

Making the simple argument that the state taxing us all in order to provide education to the poorest citizens at no or minimal cost to them may be a good deal for society is one thing, but demanding that such a benefit is a "right" is something altogether different.

However, it does reveal the mentality of those who believe the government has the unbridled power to do whatever it wants. It's not hard to see why so many liberal Demunists today take one look at the vast gatherings of decent, middle-class Americans known as tea parties and instantly think "fascists!" Never mind that fascists, properly understood, don't usually demand less government intervention.

What we have here is a fundamental conflict of visions, to borrow a phrase from Thomas Sowell. One side believes that people are born into their station in life and it is the government's job to make their miserable lives a little better. Indeed, it is the natural order of things for the government to provide jobs, health care, homes to the people. If you object to this concept of government, it must be because you want to "punish" the downtrodden and discriminated. You must be animated by racism, sexism, greed, "fascism!"

The other side says that our rights come from God or from Natural Law, not from government. That while the government has an obligation to promote the general welfare, it doesn't have a holy writ to design the nation as it sees fit. The Constitution is not a coupon insert in your local paper, brimming with all sorts of giveaways and two-for-one deals. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights delineate what the government cannot do, not what it can. What was so fantastic and revolutionary about that is that for the first time in history, a nation was founded on the proposition that the government should mind its own business. Believing that doesn't make you a fascist, it makes you a patriot.

But leave it to a weenie at Slate to try to cover for "Justice" Ginsburg:
If you want, here you go: Proof that a Supreme Court Justice believes looks to other countries for advice on an evolving Constitution! Of course, we've known this about Ginsburg for years, because she's said so repeatedly. It's proof that a SCOTUS justice wouldn't use the American Constitution as a model for a new country -- but, well, neither does anyone who advises new republics about this stuff.
‎"An evolving Constitution", my ass. That, like "living breathing document", is an excuse for judicial tyrants to read anything they want into the Constitution, and read anything they *don't* want out. Constitutions are amended, not evolving. If a rule of law is one length one day and another the next, it is no longer a rule of law.

Why on earth is a Justice of the *United States* Supreme Court 'looking to other countries for advice' on our Constitution? Before you say "English Common Law" - such law is specifically incorporated by statute in California (and, presumably all other) state laws and was explicitly understood as the basis for our own civil laws. Sorry, but "Justice" Ginsburg's comment demonstrates a deep disrespect for the Constitution that she has sworn to uphold. This is pretty outrageous.

However, it is, to borrow a term from the Leftist scum, a "teachable moment". The "Progressive" Left (Newest Left?) are uniquely infuriating in their contempt for Americana. Compared to Ruth Ginsburg, Earl Warren was a regular flag waver in terms of his attitudes toward America, Western Civilization, etc. The New Deal / Great Society Left may have been wrong, but they were still patriots. The Left now has a whole new attitude that is openly contemptuous of this nation, and we the people. I don't just call them "Demunists" or "Commiecrats" for rhetorical pizazz.

And Ground Zero for this new attitude was arguably right here in the NorCal area, although Bostonians might beg to differ. I used to laugh the leftists off as minor figures in the picture, who got all the attention in The Land Of Fruits And Nuts, but were not the actual movers and shakers. But then the Cold War ended, the actual defense / hardware workers and producers packed up and left the state, and the Leftists became the "Creative Class Elites" (Destructive Class would be more like it).

Many leaders of the modern Left have open hatred and contempt for the traditional American ideals that made our country great. Limited and humble government, overseeing a responsible, individualistic, and strong citizenry who really were at liberty to arrange their own affairs largely as they saw fit. Instead, the modern Left wishes for all-powerful government that rules a citizenry that is dependent upon their largess.

The Leftist Government and Media Elites ceaseless orgasming over Barack Obama makes much more sense in light of "Justice" Ginsburg's remarks. President Obama was raised in a foreign country, under a very foreign culture, and was exposed to the most leftist politics as a child. He is what we would have called in the 30s and 40s a "red diaper baby." It is clear to me that he certainly does not love America, and I doubt he even likes America just a little bit. He spent 20 years attending church with a pastor who explicitly hates America. He was close pals in Chicago with Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, actual, unrepentant, domestic terrorists who avowedly hate the American system and *killed people* to try to change it. His own wife proclaimed that the first time she was ever proud to be an American was when her husband was nominated to be President. One of his biggest campaign speeches during the last campaign was in Germany - to a largely foreign audience. He displays little or no overt patriotism (and, yeah, that matters a lot when we're talking about the President of the United States). He repeatedly bows to emperors and kings of foreign counties - an utterly unique and weak affectation among American Presidents. He clearly holds much of the American citizenry in total contempt, and thinks of us as "bitter clingers".

No comments: