I know. I know. The oath of office for Supreme Court Justice doesn’t stipulate that the officeholder ‘recommend’ the Constitution, but still. The latest left-wing outrage is that Justice Ruth Ginsburg does not recommend the US Constitution as a model for Egypt. Now that cool South African playbook – check that out! Says Ruth:
“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,” says Ginsburg, whom President Clinton nominated to the court in 1993. “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.”
Recent. Why, yes, the recenter the better, huh Judge? The broad gist of the Foreign Policy piece is that Ginsburg, being a liberal, trashes the original document (original is key here) because of her stances on racism, women’s rights and all the rest. We get that. But on a more basic level, to us it’s akin to a doctor saying “For anyone considering the practice of medicine, I do not recommend Hippocrates because he’s sooo yesterday.” Or a Christian saying “Well, yeah, I am one, but I don’t recommend it.”
Ginsburg talks about the S. African document being good because it discusses ‘basic human rights’. Now she is obviously a scholar, so we won’t presume to argue minutiae with her, but if she doesn’t feel that there are provisions covering human beings in the US Constitution, or if she thinks South Africans and Egyptians have and deserve better than what Americans are living under, it does strike one as a little odd, doesn’t it?
On the other hand, Ginsburg concedes that there is something of “genius” in the US Constitution that makes it at least an ‘okay’ piece of paper:
But, she added, ”The genius of the Constitution, I think, is that it has this notion of who composes ‘We the people’. It has expanded and expanded over the years so now it includes people who were left out in the beginning. Native Americans were left out, certainly people held in human bondage, women, and people that were new comers to our shores. “
See, that’s the thing about these Harvard and Columbia types. If they talk long enough, they contradict themselves and make everything they previously said rather, um, inoperative, don’t they? Yup , we’ve got us a flawed, archaic, genius, amendable document there, and we’re committed to supporting, upholding and defending it, but not recommending it.
You can’t make this stuff up, folks. The liberal mind is a tortured thing.