Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s disdain for the Constitution she swore to support and defend

On August 10, 1993, as one of the requirements for becoming a United States Supreme Court justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg placed her hand on the Bible and spoke the following words:

I, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.  So help me God.

Apparently the aged Supreme Court justice needs a refresher course on her solemnly sworn oath.  How else to explain the fact that she went on Egyptian TV and spoke disparagingly of the United States Constitution as a passé document that is no longer good enough to protect human rights?

Ginsburg, who has been rendering stultifyingly unintelligible liberal opinions since 1993, clearly doesn’t understand that the best and only way to protect human rights is to rein in government.  Otherwise, the government giveth and the government taketh away.  With the stringent controls in the Bill of Rights, and the checks and balances in the remainder of the Constitution, there would be nothing to prevent the United States government from having gone Chicago long before Obama took the oath of office.  And even now, Obama is ever so slightly constrained by at least the appearance of Constitutional propriety, something that buys us time (assuming he’s out of office by January 2013).

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. SADIE says

    “I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law.”

    April 11, 2009
    NY Times     

  2. Oldflyer says

    Glad to see your post, Book.  My stomach did a flip when I saw her comments.
    There appears to be a growing number of American elites who not only do not respect the Constitution, but view it as an impediment to their goals.  Which is, of course, a very good argument for the document, as well as for strict adherence to it.
    As for Ginsburg, the woman must be unbalanced.  Her comments in Egypt rival  Hillary’s earlier comment about “Assad the Reformer” for sheer inanity.  There simply must be some limits on the terms of Federal Judges and Justices.  To allow them to serve deep into senility is destructive.  How about a Constitutional amendment?

    • says

      Honestly, Oldflyer, I don’t think she’s unbalanced or senile. I think she is now what she’s always been — a hardcore leftist who sees the Constitution as an impediment to her goals. I have to admit to a certain animus towards Ginsburg because, as a jurist, she’s so staggeringly dull. Reading her decisions has, periodically, destroyed my quality of life. They are poorly written and poorly reasoned. The bad writing is because she’s a bad writer. The bad reasoning is because she’s a leftist who is laboring to overcome Constitutional hurdles to achieve socialist goals.

  3. Oldflyer says

    Actually, I agree with you regarding  the real issue with Ginsburg.  She was a problem before senility became a potential issue.  There are many instances where senility clearly is an issue, however.  The attractive part of an age  limit is that it would provide a straightforward way to rid the country of her, and others like her.  At least they wouldn’t be allowed to exercise their harmful way in near perpetuity.

    • says

      Oldflyer: The thinking was that judges with lifetime appointments wouldn’t fall prey to the corruption that comes with constantly having to run for office. Of course, at the time the lifetime appointment rule went into effect, a man’s lifetime wasn’t quite so long. (Kind of like the social security problem, which has seen a system meant to serve a world with early-ish mortality attempt to stretch to a world with great longevity.)

Leave a Reply