Of the four entities that I've mentioned here, the courts have always been the most difficult for me to understand. One might assume certain things about the people who swear an oath to our Constitution and sit in judgment of our adherence to it. We assume that they put forth an honest effort and try to be impartial and so forth. One thing that we shouldn't assume is that these people have any particular reverence for the document that forms the basis of our nation. Not all of them do.
Conservatives have long portrayed progressives as people who hate the Constitution because it's old and outdated. While I have always acknowledged a kernel of truth to this portrayal, I've viewed it mainly as a form of satire. It would be idiotic to think that the definition of human liberty depends on the date on your calendar, right? Surely our progressive neighbors couldn't be completely oblivious to the fundamental Truths that this enduring document, along with the Declaration, have established for free people around the world. Surely they couldn't really think that it was only a suitable document for rich white guys in the 18th century. Surely they know that our (sometimes messy) transition away from feudal aristocracy and toward an individual right to property was a quantum leap forward for all mankind.
And yes - I'm quite familiar with the Magna Carta and such. I took history classes too, believe it or not. Those kids in Egypt are wearing Nikes and Great Britain still has a queen. The quantum leap took place in 1776. It wasn't just about those in the United States either. What those rich white guys achieved so many years ago was to sow the seeds of discontent among those who are denied their basic human freedom - even to this very moment in places all over the world.
I'm not terribly shocked to hear Ms. Ginsburg's recommendation for Egypt to avoid using the American Constitution as a guide. She's just... I don't know... one of those. You know the type that I'm talking about. America would be really groovy if we would just let the government do whatever it wants... like... ummm... Norway... or whatever. I was, however, saddened to hear Ms. Ginsburg airing what sounded to me like slightly anti-American views in front of a foreign audience. That's just a bummer. If our Constitution is not a worthwhile foundation for a free society, then perhaps Ms. Ginsburg would be better served by stepping down from her lofty position and working instead as an advocate for another form of government. You know - fox guarding the henhouse and so forth.
The reason that ours is the longest-standing written constitution is the simple fact that it exists to limit the power of the state. Nothing more, nothing less. All humans are endowed by their Creator with certain rights. We chose to put those rights on paper and defend them against all enemies - even when the enemies have been ourselves or our government at times. Whether this happened a hundred years ago or a thousand years ago, our country would be better off if its Supreme Court justices all understood the concept. Much as is the case for the rest of our country though, some people get it and some don't.
Joe
ReplyDeleteAnother post that I find to be spot on again.
When you look at the fact that most of the population can't see beyond their own noses, only listen to the liberal media without thinking about what they are saying, and want something for nothing you can see why we are in the situation that we are in.
With age comes wisdom or at least that is the old saying. I think with our supreme court it just produces arrogance.
Thanks for post Joe.....Keep that milk line going...
Jerry
Could not agree more!
ReplyDeleteOf the nine people that we've chosen to defend our foundational law, I believe at least four of them view that law with utter contempt.
ReplyDeleteGiven the age and health of some of these people, it almost is enough to convince me to vote for one of the Republican dipshits seeking the nomination. Won't fix much, but 4/9 is close to a tipping point.
Wish I'd have read this blog post when it was fresh. So much to like yet so much to disagree with at the same time, all in one blog! I'm glad you left your "I believe at least four of them view that law with utter contempt" comment out of the original post. I would have missed all your wonderful insights when I clicked out.
ReplyDeleteI take the most recent comment to mean that you would have disregarded the post if the quoted comment had been included.
ReplyDeleteFirst things first - welcome aboard. I think there are only a handful of people who view and/or comment on this blog, so I welcome any new perspective.
Second things second - that viewpoint wasn't part of the original post because it wasn't germane to the point of the original post. This post was more of a - "Holy shit, did she really say that?" - sort of deal. I don't watch television so, when I saw that clip, I wasn't sure if anyone else had seen it. I suspected that it didn't make the evening news, for reasons of my own, but I couldn't know for sure.
Third things third - In response to a couple of people who appear to see things similarly to how I see them, I made the remark in question.
So...
Supreme Court cases tend to be fairly nuanced, but I find that Second Amendment cases seem to draw bright lines. Either the words say what they say or they don't. 'Infringed' is not a word that requires interpretation. It means what it means. It means the same thing today as it meant in 1791. Yet... well, you can see where I'm going with this one. Some people wish it said something else, and their legal opinions consistently reflect this wish.
And, to extrapolate on the reason that I said "at least four"...
The 'swing vote' has been dead wrong regarding property rights cases like Kelo vs. New London. Dead fucking wrong, in case I haven't made my view clear here. This shit is absolutely critical when it comes to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
And the conservatives have a spotty record when it comes to the federal government's power to enforce various morality-related constructs.
Either we're free or we're not. The Constitution says we are. The courts say we are... you know, until we're not. The legislature tells us to go stick our freedom up our collective ass... and the courts usually take a pass on deciding otherwise.
But hey, I'm just a local milk man who writes an occasional blog post on the internet. I don't pretend to be anything more than I am. Thanks for checking in and rest assured that, whatever your disagreements may be, they won't offend me in the least. I'm content to think that I'll be the one who gets it while 99.9% of people whistle past the graveyard.
Maybe I'm right or maybe everyone else is right. Hopefully I'll be gone before we find out, but you never know. Click away if you must but read on if it pleases you. That's how we roll around here.
Thank you for the welcome, Joe. I've been reading your stuff both here and back with CFI/Conway for some time now. Knowing that fact now, and given the fact I've rarely commented on your blogs, it should be fairly obvious that I don't come here to enlighten you, I come to be enlightened. You know, the whole what's in it for me mentality :-)
ReplyDeleteOk, now back to the topic of your post. I've got to say, I just don't see what you saw in the video.
I saw a very accomplished lady providing very measured responses to an Egyptian reporter. Exactly what I would expect from someone in her position with her knowledge of the subject matter. In fact, I detected a bit of bragging at one point of how we have the oldest democratic constitution still in effect today.
That said, I won't pretend to know what she's really like or whether she views our constitution with contempt. All I can say is I don't see any indication of that in this video.
You are exactly correct about my original comment. That was my smartass way of saying please don't ruin a perfectly reasonable argument with a personal attack on the subject (unless you know them personally of course in which case go right ahead and spill the beans). That's not me trying to enlighten you, that's me trying to increase your readership. I said please, afterall :-)