Ruth
Bader Ginsburg wants to change the Constitution she is sworn to uphold.
One
member of the U.S. Supreme Court, whose members are sworn to uphold the
Constitution of the United States, says she would look elsewhere – Canada,
South Africa and Europe – should she be tasked with writing a constitution now.
The
stunning statements come from Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
She
was being interviewed by Al Hayat in Egypt, which is trying to develop a
government after citizens deposed longtime dictator President Hosni Mubarack
last year.
Egypt
is facing major obstacles to a democratic form of government as the Muslim
Brotherhood as a political party has been assembling a majority in the country.
Among its goals is a Muslim caliphate worldwide.
She
was asked: “Would your honor’s advice be to get a part of other countries’
constitutions as a model, or should we develop our own draft?
Her
response:
“You
should certainly be aided by all the constitution-writing that has gone on
since the end of World War II. I would not look to the U.S. constitution, if I
were drafting a constitution in the year 2012. I might look at the constitution
of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument
of government that embraced basic human rights, had an independent judiciary.
It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done.
“Much
more recent than the U.S. Constitution is Canada has a Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. It dates from 1982. You would almost certainly look at the European
Convention on Human Rights. Yes, why not take advantage of what there is
elsewhere in the world? I’m a very strong believer in listening and learning
from others.”
“For
a sitting U.S. Supreme Court justice to speak derisively about the Constitution
she is sworn to uphold is distressing, to say the least. Justice Ginsburg’s
comments about our Constitution undermine the Supreme Court as an institution
dedicated to the rule of law, as well as our founding document.”
According
to Liberty Counsel, “For a United States Supreme Court justice, entrusted with
the duty to interpret the Constitution, this type of statement is unacceptable.
Justice Ginsburg failed to respect the authority of the document that it is her
duty to protect. When given the opportunity to promote American liberty abroad,
Justice Ginsburg did just the opposite and pointed Egypt in the direction of
progressivism and the liberal agenda.”
Ginsburg also noted that among her favorite parts of the
Constitutions is the provision that judges’ salaries cannot be reduced, as well
as a guarantee of independence to judges.
She also said the U.S. Constitution is “rather old,” and
told Egyptians that a constitution will mean nothing unless the people it
serves and protects desire liberty and freedom.
“If the people don’t care, then the best constitution in the
world won’t make any difference,” she said.
In a commentary at Slate, David Weigel
said, “Ginsburg has disturbed the balance of the universe by giving an
interview to Egyptian television in which she does not recommend using the U.S.
Constitution as a model for post-Mubarak happiness.”
He continued, “If you want, here you go: Proof that a
Supreme Court justice … 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.”
At American Spectator, John Tabin said she
“gets one of nine votes on the functional meaning of the U.S. Constitution.
That she thinks the age of the Constitution she’s charged with interpreting
make[s] it deficient relative to newer constitutions is kind of shocking,
particularly in the context of her praise for the rights enshrined in the First
Amendment – rights that, in practice, are protected far less robustly in South
Africa or Canada or Europe than they are in the U.S.
