February 8, 2012

According to "Yale Judicial Review" Associate Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the most "Hegelian jurist ever to sit on the High Court." In 2008, according to then-Presidential candidate Barack Obama, Ruth Bader Ginsburg possesses the most "Hegelian mind on the federal bench."

At Rick Warren's Presidential debate at his California Saddleback Church, the pastor asked Obama what type of person he would appoint to the federal courts and the first thing out of his mouth was "I would nominate people with the mind, legal scholarship and interpretative view of our laws that Ruth Bader Ginsburg has. She possesses the greatest legal minds of anyone I know who sits on the Supreme Court."

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the ultimate Hegelian, the greatest interpreter of the Constitution ever to grace the Supreme Court. Wow!

In case you are wondering what a "Hegelian" is, suffice it to say that Mr. Obama meant that she is the epitome of the ideology and scholarship of one Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, German philosopher, and a major proponent of German idealism (the inspiration of such notable people like Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler). He is also the founder of the Hegelian school of modern dialectic.

Simply put Dialectic is a method of argument for resolving disagreement that has been central to Indic and European philosophy since the time of Socrates. Hegelian dialectic is understood in a threefold manner comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis, which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. Even though Hegel never used this specific formulation the model is named after him.

Hegel may never have used the Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis modus, he did use terms that Ruth Bader Ginsburg voices in making her interpretations of law, viz. Abstract-Negative and Concrete.

To explain Ginsburg means one must know Hegel and to know Hegel is to understand why Ginsburg has utter contempt for the U. S. Constitution.

Ginsburg sees our founding document as the Thesis - giving rise to reaction. The reactions come in the form of lawsuits which challenge a mandate's "legality." The theory of Evolution (in its full extent) is the Antithesis. In other words, customs, society, cultures and the continuum of progressive history forces the Constitution to "change" its meaning. It "evolves!" The synthesis, then, is the Supreme Court's final decision.

Ginsburg sees our Constitution as outdated, impractically flawed, and in dire need of judicial re-interpretation to suit the times, otherwise known as "judicial activism." If the Constitution is irrelevant, then the Court must be the final arbiter of what the Constitution says as if it were written, say, last month.

To add insult to the injuries inflicted on the 224 year old document, using a more modern Constitution from another country like South Africa, or Botswana, or maybe even the People's Republic of China, is just as equally authoritative as our one useless Constitution. Why even Sharia law could be used to re-interpret the Constitution if the culture, society, and the general times demands it. To a Hegelian, it's perfectly legitimate.

Well President Obama's role model for Federal Court judgeships showed just how much contempt she has for our Constitution. While on a recent visit to Egypt, Justice Ginsburg advised the people who are writing Egypt's new constitution to not use ours as a model. It was a curious statement for an American jurist to make.

Ginsburg, whose job on the Supreme Court is to uphold the U.S. Constitution, has a widespread disdain for that document. A recent New York Times article suggested the American Constitution is losing its allure around the world. The main reason is it does not guarantee the right to, among other things, food, health care and education.

In other words, Ginsberg and others on the left feel the Constitution is slanted too much toward preventing the government from doing things -- like putting people in jail without due process -- and not toward requiring the government to do things -- like providing people with a whole array of social services that liberals believe it should.

Of course the right to food, health care and education has to be paid for, meaning people will be deprived of their property for that purpose.

Back in 2001, Barack Obama, in an infamous radio interview, suggested the Constitution is "deeply flawed." According to an article in the Daily Caller, Obama has taken a casual view where it comes to adhering to the Constitution. Obama has violated the Constitution in a number of cases, from requiring an individual mandate under health care reform to defying the federal courts in imposing a deep water drilling ban in the Gulf of Mexico.

Liberals complain the U.S. Constitution is hard the amend, which is why they like to rely on creative interpretations of a document they regard as "living." When they say this, they mean it changes from day-to-day.  Well, we know it doesn't change, but liberals of the ilk of Ruth Bader Ginsburg change its meaning as the times and situations at hand dictate.

Look no further than the interview Matt Lauer had with the President before the Super Bowl. Expressing his contempt for the Constitution, Obama bemoaned his trouble getting Congress to act on his ideas. ‘Our founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like,’ he said. ‘What I'm going to just keep on doing is plodding away, very persistent. And you know what? One of the things about being president is you get better as time goes on."

Is that a threat, Mr. President?

We know that at least eight times on the campaign trial and while pushing his "jobs" bill last fall, he had threatened to go around Congress. And, while the Senate was in a non-recess, he made a few "recess" appointments to work around the Constitution's mandate for "Advise and Consent."

That sad, outdated, useless Constitution of ours, written by racist, sexist, slaveholding, non-progressive idiots! It serves as no model for anyone. It is only the "thesis" in a world of political progressive antithesis. Ginsburg and Obama will write or dictate the synthesis. Great Hegelian minds think alike.

We believe that the Constitution of the United States speaks for itself. There is no need to rewrite, change or reinterpret it to suit the fancies of special interest groups or protected classes.