You need to simply invent your own language, and start using that, because it's obvious you aren't capable of following the rules of English.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg tells it like it is
- Thread starter mjvcaj
- Start date
It appears he's incapable of simply manning up and saying "perhaps I didn't phrase that well". Never being wrong can be all-consuming.
Exactly the problem with politics in this country. Advertising should be banned and decisions should be made solely on stances and political debates IMO.
CO. Hoosier is Humpty Dumpty:
'I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. 'Of course you don't — till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'
'But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'
Right, and I said Scalia and RBG were best friends deliberately. QED. (Unless you're opining that Scalia and RBG were both dimmer bulbs on the tree.)
Last edited:
Is there a lack of clarity here?
I've explained twice that I said RBG is not the brightest light on SCOTUS. Others have inferred I said she is stupid and won't accept my explanation. I can't control what they believe. I don't believe she's stupid and wouldn't say that. What exactly is the problem?
Twisting in the wind. Just own it. It's easier that way.
I feel like Trump is starting to wear off on the masses. Doesn't seem anyone wants to own a mistake.
I'm sorry.
Own that fact that you said she was stupid and you're now trying to walk it back by playing stupid.
Is that better clarity for you?
Says the three-way bulb who only has the 50 watt portion working.
However you spin it, you are flat out wrong about Justice Ginsburg. In fact, you could not be more wrong, regardless of what species of tree you are talking about.
Oh man . . . . .
I thought this was this subject was dead and buried. But I do give you credit for actually bringing up the merits of my point rather than quibbling about whether I said RBG is stupid.
I can dig into her some of her opinions to illustrate my point. There are some real beauts there. But because of time and lack of continuing interest I'll cite one different example. Remember when RBG said to Egyptian students that she wouldn't use the US Constitution as a model for a new constitution? Instead she noted some more modern constitutions as being better, like the one for post apartheid South Africa. I looked at the SA constitution's description of human rights when she said that. Our constitution is the people's grant of authority to the federal government. Our BOR is also limitation on congressional authority. Here, human rights exist apart from the constitution. In SA, the human rights appear to be first described and then granted by the government. If the right isn't listed there, it arguably doesn't exist. If she overlooked this important distinction, she is not the brightest bulb. If she didn't overlook it, and instead believes the SA constitution's approach to human rights is preferable, she is also not the brightest bulb.
Last edited:
If this Human Rights Watch website is anywhere near right the human rights listed in South Africa's constitution aren't being upheld. I suspect, unlike the U.S., S.A. citizens have difficulty going to the courts when their constitutional rights are violated.
CoH, interested in your take on this.
Two things come to mind
First is that any society needs a robust and independent judiciary and a stable of good lawyers to maintain freedoms. I have written about this here often. SA has a ways to go. Incidentally, I just looked again at the list of rights the SA constitution provides for its citizens. The list is really weak about access to courts and doesn't include a right to a trial by jury. That is a big mistake. Lawyers and jury trials are under constant attack here too, mostly from the right, that also is a big mistake.
Second, rights are largely a cultural thing. Documents are really almost irrelevant if the folks in charge of dealing with what the documents say don't care.
South Africa is a unitary republic. The United States is a federal republic. For this particular issue, a better comparison would be SA to a state constitution, which, outside of the authority it voluntarily cedes by being a member of the union, does have the legal authority to recognize or not recognize whatever rights it wants, through the general police power.
You're really reaching for some reason to criticize RBG here.[/QUOTE]
Last edited:
This is critical. Ultimately, any written constitution is just a piece of paper. The unwritten constitution is of far more importance.
Now you tell us! All along we're told this is a discussion board. Now we I find out its an English Composition class?>,{&
When do the English grades come out?
And if Ginsberg believes a Constitution which grants rights to citizens is superior to the US Constitution - which she seems to cite as the reason SA's is superior - then she is really off base - or intentionally attempting to change what the Constitution was created and ratified to accomplish and the Framers have said.
Actually, she didn't say that SA's constitution is superior, nor did she cite any reason for a belief she didn't extol.
That's an interesting observation
Meaningless in this context but interesting. If your point has any validity, it might be important to the subjects the sovereign may legislate and control.
In the context of human rights, your point merely . . . . well . . . .begs the very question I am discussing.
Here is what the SA constitution says about freedom of expression:
- Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, which includes
a. freedom of the press and other media;
b. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
c. freedom of artistic creativity; and
d. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
Here is what the Colorado constitution says about freedom of expression:b. freedom to receive or impart information or ideas;
c. freedom of artistic creativity; and
d. academic freedom and freedom of scientific research.
No law shall be passed impairing the freedom of speech; every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject, being responsible for all abuse of that liberty;
In SA, the sovereign grants freedom of expression to the people.
In the US, the people reserve freedom of expression as it confers authority on the sovereign.
I think you are really reaching for some reason to criticize me.
Why? The two documents organize and phrase the issue differently, and use different language, but I see no reason to interpret one as a "grant" of a right, and the other as a "reservation" of one.
Besides, what's the difference, really? If the US and the several states duly amended their constitutions so that the freedom of speech was no longer guaranteed, could the states not then restrict it as they see fit? Of course they could. One of the things about rights that is often overlooked is there are only two ways to enforce them: through the courts, or through revolution. Whether such a change to our Constitution(s) would represent a reversal of a grant or simply a failure to recognize is irrelevant. Without the text, the freedom would no longer be enforceable by the courts.
The distinction makes a huge difference
And I don't have time to go into all of it now.
Briefly, look at the 9th Amendment. I agree that many SCOTUS opinions don't give the 9th its due, and instead use the alternative "penumbra of rights" theory to find Constitutional protection of various rights in other language. For me, that is all unnecessary with a proper consideration of the 9th.
Perhaps, although this would again run into my point about federalism, as the 9th hasn't been incorporated. Although if SCOTUS ever decided to use the 9th as justification for enforcing certain unlisted rights, I suspect incorporation would eventually follow.
Similar threads
