Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the right wing extremists here want to hold what RBG said to the Egyptians, then they must be held to the same standard with Scalia and his traitorous screed and be declared immediately unfit to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution.
Quote:
The bill of rights of the former evil empire, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, was much better than ours. I mean it literally. It was much better. We guarantee freedom of speech and of the press, big deal! They guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press of street demonstrations and anyone who is caught trying to suppress criticism of the government will be called to account.
If the right wing extremists here want to hold what RBG said to the Egyptians, then they must be held to the same standard with Scalia and his traitorous screed and be declared immediately unfit to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution.
Do you pukes even bother to read the entire articles or relevant video clips anymore? Scalia was obviously being facetious. You actually think he means to denigrate the Constitution?
What a pathetic attempt to bail your leftist pervert RBG out. This asinine misdirection ploy isn't going to work on those of us capable of critical thinking, and it SAS doesn't take away what RBG said.
If the right wing extremists here want to hold what RBG said to the Egyptians, then they must be held to the same standard with Scalia and his traitorous screed and be declared immediately unfit to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution.
Scalia praises the Soviet constitution, then takes that praise back within the same statement. Secondly, the entire quote is about paper promises and the constitution comment is for illustrative purposes only.
On the other hand...
RBG tells the interviewer not to look towards the US Constitution for inspiration. End of statement. No qualifiers. As the linked article states, she does praise our constitution in the interview. However, it is in response to other questions. It does not rescind the comment about South Africa's constitution the way Scalia's does. Secondly, RBG's quote is entirely serious. She went to another nation, got on TV, and publicly said do not use the US Constitution as inspiration for yours.
All that being said, I do not believe RBG meant any disrespect to our constitution whatsoever nor do I think she disqualified herself from being an effective justice due to her remarks. But that doesn't change the fact that your post, and the article you linked, are intellectually dishonest and disingenuous in that you make both false comparisons and deliberate misrepresentations of RBG's quotes.
If the right wing extremists here want to hold what RBG said to the Egyptians, then they must be held to the same standard with Scalia and his traitorous screed and be declared immediately unfit to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution.
Can you find that story someplace else? I would read it if it came from some place a bit less Soros financed. I guess you can't see that promising anything doesn't always mean that it will be enforced.
You just didn't like the old woman being showed for what she is, right?
It’s all a matter of judicial interpretation. For example: there is no express provision of the Constitution for a general right of privacy. Rather it is based on the decisions of the Supreme Court in interpreting the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments viewed through the prism of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in such cases as Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, Cruzon v. Missouri Dept. of Health, and more recently, Lawrence v. Texas. It is the product of an expansive reading of the Constitution rather than a literal interpretation of its provisions. I can remember Judge Robert Bork (renowned constitutional scholar and foremost exponent of "Originalism" in the interpretation of the Constitution) stating that there was no right to privacy, which did not go down well in the Senate confirmation hearings for his failed nomination to the Supreme Court; albeit today Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito, as well as Chief Justice Roberts, would be considered to have rather narrow views on the right of privacy; and whether a specific law violates an individual's right to privacy is a matter for independent judicial review. To say that the Constitution means what it says is only to beg the question of its interpretation, and that is a subject upon which, ultimately, the Supreme Court has the final word. In the final analysis, the Constitution says what the Supreme Court says it says.
Do you pukes even bother to read the entire articles or relevant video clips anymore? Scalia was obviously being facetious. You actually think he means to denigrate the Constitution?
What a pathetic attempt to bail your leftist pervert RBG out. This asinine misdirection ploy isn't going to work on those of us capable of critical thinking, and it SAS doesn't take away what RBG said.
Thanks you saved me from actually clicking on a thinkprogress link.
Scalia praises the Soviet constitution, then takes that praise back within the same statement. Secondly, the entire quote is about paper promises and the constitution comment is for illustrative purposes only.
On the other hand...
RBG tells the interviewer not to look towards the US Constitution for inspiration. End of statement. No qualifiers. As the linked article states, she does praise our constitution in the interview. However, it is in response to other questions. It does not rescind the comment about South Africa's constitution the way Scalia's does. Secondly, RBG's quote is entirely serious. She went to another nation, got on TV, and publicly said do not use the US Constitution as inspiration for yours.
All that being said, I do not believe RBG meant any disrespect to our constitution whatsoever nor do I think she disqualified herself from being an effective justice due to her remarks. But that doesn't change the fact that your post, and the article you linked, are intellectually dishonest and disingenuous in that you make both false comparisons and deliberate misrepresentations of RBG's quotes.
End of statement? You ARE crazy. There was plenty more she said, and a context. You are a HYPOCRITE if you insist that the context of Ginsburg's remarks should be ignored, but that the context of Scalia's remarks need to be considered.
End of statement? You ARE crazy. There was plenty more she said, and a context. You are a HYPOCRITE if you insist that the context of Ginsburg's remarks should be ignored, but that the context of Scalia's remarks need to be considered.
Given that the single largest portion of my post was an explanation of RBG's context, then obviously I didn't say RBG's context should be ignored.
In the future, please try reading for comprehension before calling someone names on such baseless grounds. Thanks.
Do you pukes even bother to read the entire articles or relevant video clips anymore? Scalia was obviously being facetious. You actually think he means to denigrate the Constitution?
What a pathetic attempt to bail your leftist pervert RBG out. This asinine misdirection ploy isn't going to work on those of us capable of critical thinking, and it SAS doesn't take away what RBG said.
Funny i would say the same thing to the people saying the same about Ruth .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
