yogione Says:

Feb 8, 2012 - Where in the US constitution that a Supreme Court judge has to be impartial? Supreme Court judges are appointed not elected and their job is to review the decision of a lower court using both precedent and the language of the Constitution to uphold or reverse the cases brought before them. I would hope that a good judge might well be very partial, favoring justice over injustice.

yogione Says:

Feb 8, 2012 - After you, Bozo.

crunchy124816 Says:

Feb 8, 2012 - She advocates a progressive and radical new constitution. Afterwards, political think tanks can usurp that one as well, by making it up as they go along. When common sense is thrown out the window over subjective political whims, voiced as social progressive free thinking, then we have torn down our constitutional foundation of liberty for all and replaced it with justice for some.

blackstars56 Says:

Feb 8, 2012 - don't understand all the hate, you know shes telling the truth. you expect a piece of document to be relevant for eternity or something? if the US constitution was so perfect, why was it amended dozens of times? slavery still existed when it was written and women couldn't even vote! no one is saying US const is bad, but there def could be a better one. not like the document was written by God.

dolliefront Says:

Feb 8, 2012 - PART ONE: Thank you for posting the video. Justice Ginsberg like the mainstream media today overlooks an important factor. The only formal education which the people who wrote the US Constitution had at a time when the whole Western Hemisphere was still like an unexplored New World was Scriptural. For all these new settlers knew, the horrible beasts in, for example, the Book of Daniel and Revelation could have been hiding somewhere on the other side of the Rockies or any mountain range.

dolliefront Says:

Feb 8, 2012 - PART TWO: Whether the writers thus consciously knew it or not, to write a Seven Article Document with a Preamble and then to add the first Ten Amendments as our Bill of Rights was actually to create a Safety that tells the ilk of the seven headed ten horned Beasts that they better be able to read before they dare try walking here. And it worked. There is no end to the Truth and Justice even the land under our feet forces to the forefront when Courts and Police make horrible mistakes

dolliefront Says:

Feb 8, 2012 - PART THREE: The mainstream media generally hides rather than celebrates these sometimes immediate reckonings of Truth and Justice. For example, immediately after the December 2005 execution of Stanley Tookie Williams III, who could not have been convicted at retrial now that Jurors often put their feet up to know if Police are lying while testifying, only a few news agencies reported how Schwarzenegger had to undergo days of Rehab to remember California and even how to speak English

PopHorizonScanner Says:

Feb 9, 2012 - Those still in office in either the Senate or House of Representatives who voted to confirm Justice Ginsburg should be voted out of office by the People. These persons sent as representatives and swearing an oath to protect and defend the Constitution either didn't do their job in vetting Justice Ginsburg's low esteem for the Constitution or else they knew her views and confirmed her anyway. Inexcusable, either way. There is much "House cleaning" that should be done in Washington DC in 2012.

Sirafrican Says:

Feb 9, 2012 - Liberals scare me.

Skimbles2000 Says:

Feb 9, 2012 - How many times in the past few years you've said to yourself: "I never thought I'd see _____ in my country, the USA." We'll you're not alone. There are millions of us, we outnumber them (49.4% pay no income tax) for now. Let's get organized and vote these traitors out of office. Get involved, be heard and put a stake in the heart of progressivism this next election! Your country needs Patriots who'll stand for the Constitution, the rule of law and limited government.

Maximilian0011 Says:

Feb 10, 2012 - ohhh...how that is the a US Justice puts down OUR SAINT LAW...THE CONSTITUTION !!! who is that person??? "she" is a Marxist its a fact yet there is much more...! gosh the eyes and face filled with anger and unhappiness really is disturbing to look at to be frank... To put down Our Constitution is it not some kind of HIGH TREASON??

rborecki222 Says:

Feb 11, 2012 - She does have a point when she says that if people don't care, like most Americans don't, having the best constitution on the world won't make a difference, as once again, is the case in the US. But still, as a Supreme Court Judge, her words border treason, and she should at least be questioned in a Congressional hearing open to part of the public that still cares.

talonspoint Says:

Feb 13, 2012 - We are almost in agreement. Until the last 80ish years the "culture" was that of assimilation into Constitutional understanding and principles. Now it certainly is not. Yes the morals have changed as we have jettisoned both Constitutional principles and the Biblical source for those principles. Thanks for the reasoned exchange. All too often YouTubers use as much intellect as actual tubers when disagreeing.

scraype4111 Says:

Feb 22, 2012 - Good God! This "document" (as you describe the Constitution of the U.S.) is the backbone of the greatest country on this planet. Although it may not be perfect, for a Supreme Court Justice to denigrate it like that borders on treason. That hag Ginsburg is a far left-wing bedwetting liberal appointed by that degenerate creaton Clinton and she is a disgrace to America and should immediately resign! I'm so damned fed up to my eyeballs with "occupy" libs like you.

blackstars56 Says:

Feb 22, 2012 - she did not degenerate the US const. she was speaking the truth. you just admitted it wasn't perfect and there could be improvements. case closed.

scraype4111 Says:

Feb 22, 2012 - First of all, you should read the "words" in replies! I did not say "degenerate", I said denigrate you idiot liberal! And she did not "speak the truth". The truth is the U.S. Constitution is a far better document than that "mob rule" doc of S.Africa. She just spoke what you wanted to hear, not the "truth"! Liberals like you will always come to the defense of anyone who downplays American ideals such as free markets, independence and liberty. Go away!

scraype4111 Says:

Feb 22, 2012 - And one more thing...Ginsburg said "I would not look to the U.S. Constitution" and said that she look to the "constitution of S. Africa". Does the S. African constitution allow for free speech? NO. Right to Bear Arms? NO. Equal Protection? NO. But it does have vague and uninterpretable phrases about discrimination and "social justice" (a favorite lib term). Why didn't Ginsburg at least say "use the U.S. Constitution for a template? No, she just dismissed it. Hag

Cedarray Says:

Feb 27, 2012 - Hahahaha, spoken like a true Marxist.

11jcantor Says:

Mar 8, 2012 - She should be thrown the fuck off her bench and told to eat shit.

rocketcunt Says:

Mar 28, 2012 - senile old fuckin hag. She has absolutely NO notion of what liberty is and what made our United States the greatest land to live in for 150+ years until FDR came and finished it for all of us

capichemeesh Says:

Mar 28, 2012 - It is truly amazing how quickly and passionately some of you jump to conclusions and carelessly denounce people based on your own preconceived notions and your ill-guided faith in out-of-context propaganda like this video. Our Constitution was written when slavery was legal and women were not allowed to vote. 2012 is INSANELY different from 1787. So why exactly does Egypt's Constitution have to mirror ours? Oh right, because we're America. Fuck yeah.

rileyhmt Says:

Mar 30, 2012 - I think what she is trying to say is that our constitution may not fit with what a modern day Egypt might be. I don't think she is advising that our constitution is bad, but simply saying that it doesn't fit with the evolving culture of Egypt.

oJKBo Says:

May 10, 2012 - You're an idiot, she was rightly saying more modern constitutions would be better for the Egyptians to base their constitution on. Throughout the interview she praises the framers of the constitution. Have you even read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

oJKBo Says:

May 10, 2012 - They didn't get it right, that's why we've had to amend it you fucking idiot.

glassmuxxic Says:

May 26, 2012 - Surely anyone with any knowledge of comparative constitutional law would agree with her. In creating a constitution reflective of modern, inviolable democratic principles, why on earth would you look to a two century old constitution that has had to be amended numerous times? The US constitution was a masterpiece for its time, but the notions of "democracy" and "freedom" have fundamentally changed in both theory and practice over the last two centuries.